What happens when you lose [Insert Name]?
When a go-to "nonpartisan" defender breaks rank does that change your opinion?
Throughout the Trump years, whenever a new legal problem for the then-President came up, his allies and supporters on the interwebz would invariably turn to iconoclastic lawyer Jonathon Turely. And there was good reason for that. Turley has impressive legal credentials, including his holding the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He’s also a difficult individual to pin down politically.* Turley has argued that GWB administration officials should be prosecuted for war crimes, against special treatment for religious institutions and the death penalty. He also defended the Second Amendment, argued for the Clinton Impeachment and against the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. In recent years, he’s best known for being a fierce defender of former President Trump, in particular during his first Impeachment.
During the investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and the subsequent impeachment procedures, Turley was a regular figure on Fox News arguing against impeachment. In fact, while he declined an offer to be part of the Trump Impeachment Legal Team, he was the sole witness called by the Republicans in the House Hearings. Throughout this time, Turley repeatedly took the position that while he was not a Trump supporter, it was his responsibility to represent the facts as he saw them. As a results, in comment threads here on Outside the Beltway and other sites, it was comment to see Trump supporters citing Turley as proof of Democratic Party over reach (example 1 and ex 2**). Often you’d see constructions like “Even Jonathon Turley…” or “Legal expert Jonathon Turley, who isn’t even a Trump supporter…” used to prove their case.
This is totally understandable behavior. It’s great to have a credible expert on your side, especially one who doesn’t publicly identify as being “on your side.”
But what happens when said credible expert takes a position counter to an accepted viewpoint? When Former President Trump announced his indictment on Thursday, Fox News again turned to Turley expecting that he’d most likely defend Trump against excessive prosecution. And they had good reason to as Turely had already expressed skepticism about this entire investigation (example 1 and example 2). And some of that skepticism was present when he appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Thursday night:
“Turley told Hannity he was waiting to see what the indictment held, but said “if this indictment is basically a bunch of close calls, I think there’s going to be a great deal of recriminations.”
Turley even suggested Trump could use the trial as a boost for his campaign, selling his mugshot to whip up his supporters and vowing to self-pardon himself if he’s re-elected.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-legal-commentator-jonathan-turley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6
However, after reviewing the indictment, Turely’s position changed significantly by his next appearances on Friday:
“It is an extremely damning indictment,” Turley, a conservative jurist and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, said.
Turley said the indictment detailed specific instances of Trump’s alleged misconduct.
“The special counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the DOJ acted in a biased or politically motivated way. This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions,” Turley said. “It’s overwhelming in details.”
The Fox News commentator noted that the indictment included direct quotations from Trump passed along by cooperating witnesses testifying under oath.
“The Trump team should not fool itself,” Turley said. “These are hits below the water line.”
He noted in a separate segment on Fox News that a photo showed classified documents stacked in a bathroom at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate in Florida.
“It’s really breathtaking,” Turley said. “Obviously, this is mishandling. Putting classified documents into ballrooms and bathrooms … borders on the bizarre.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-legal-commentator-jonathan-turley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6
Unlike in the past, I don’t think there is any way to interpret Turley’s comments in a way that is particularly favorable to Donald Trump. The question is, does that matter? Does Turley’s analysis of the indictment have any impact on the thinking of same the Trump supporters who regularly quoted him as a credible expert in the past?
If you are reading this and think Turley’s wrong here, what led you to that position? And, also if you think he is wrong now, why did you previously think he was right on other issues? To what degree does one’s support of a heterodox thinker*** have more to do with where they land on certain issues than the reasoning that got them to said positions?
* – Based on my understanding of his positions, I think Turley is best classified as a classic libertarian, with a strong belief in individual and also civil rights.
** – In searching through the archive, I discovered that a number of examples of people relying on Turley have been pulled because the folks advancing those arguements were disinvited to OTB (see for example Drew and Keef) and many of their posts were removed.
*** – For the record, I have pretty mixed feelings on Turley. He is without a keen legal mind and I appreciate his principle stand on many issues around the criminal legal system, in particular his advocacy against the death penalty. That said, he’s not someone I would go to immediately as a legal expert. I also want to be clear that my writing this is not intended to play the same game (i.e. “Even Jonathon Turley says Trump is in trouble and was irresponsible in handling the documents”). He just happens to provide a really timely example of having someone who has been held up as credible expert by folks on a given side of partisan issues who is now expressing an opinion that isn’t as supportive to said side. Note a similiar arguement could be made around Bill Barr.
I know you dint want to call it a cult, but it acts like a cult. Turley not supporting Trump now wont change minds, or very, very few. This will be used to show how you cant really trust someone who is not a true Trump believer. If you just remember that Trump is always right and always innocent then the reasoning follows and logic and evidence dont really matter.
Steve
What @steve said. Of course this will have zero effect.
When did David Koresh’s followers realize he was wrong? MAGA is a cult, rather like Scientology, and Trump is Tom Cruise. This is all most of those people have by way of ‘specialness.’ Without Trump they’re nobodies. With Trump they’re part of a secret in-crowd of unacknowledged cool kids. He makes them special, and like every cult leader he’s utterly indifferent to his followers and sees them clearly as the sheep they are. They’ll patiently wait to be fleeced and some will happily be butchered. That’s how cults work.
And much like Scientology they threaten anyone who opposes them with every manner of subterfuge, including violence. The non-cult GOP are cowards cringing in the face of the cult’s threats. So, in effect, also culties.
My take-away from all this has been deepened cynicism about people. They’re weaker, dumber and crueler than I once thought, and I was never pollyanna. A true basket of deploribles.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….. You owe me a new keyboard Matt.
ETA: As I said the violent rhetoric post, “they will become persona non grata.” I guarantee you he just moved up to #1 on their hit list. Traitors always are.
This won’t change the minds of the Red Hats, but any R that hasn’t drunk the cool aid and had become trump skeptical, Turley’s arguments could provide a rational for abandoning trump.
There have been a couple of articles to day noting that the Senate leadership has not stepped forward to advocate for trump and only Cruz, Vance, Tuberville, Lee and Hawley have been vocal in support. Even in the house, outside the crazy caucus and the leadership, most congress critters have been quiet.
Whatever his true beliefs, Turkey’s business model for several years has depended on, “Even the liberal Jonathan Turkey …” But like so many now anti-Trump conservatives, there’s some line he can’t cross without fatally damaging his brand.
I see elsewhere Billy Barr told FOX the indictment is near ironclad. Of course Barr has his own rehab tour going.
Whatever his true beliefs, Turkey’s business model for several years has depended on, “Even the liberal Jonathan Turkey …” But like so many now anti-Trump conservatives, there’s some line he can’t cross without fatally damaging his brand.
I see elsewhere Billy Barr told FOX the indictment is near ironclad. Of course Barr has his own rehab tour going.
Whatever his true beliefs, Turkey’s business model for several years has depended on, “Even the liberal Jonathan Turkey …” But like so many now anti-Trump conservatives, there’s some line he can’t cross without fatally damaging his brand.
I see elsewhere Billy Barr told FOX the indictment is near ironclad. Of course Barr has his own rehab tour going.
Turley seems to think that in three months, the anti-Trump train will be the dominant one, and is hitching a ride on that early.
I think he underestimates the cult of personality that Trump has fostered. Dear Leader cannot fail, he can only be failed, etc.
Even if it were discovered that he was selling state secrets to the Saudis and the Russians, can you even commit treason against an illegitimate government run by a senile old man who doesn’t know where he is but somehow stole an election from his basement? Opinions differ, but only the Marxist Biden collaborators have the wrong opinion.
For truly decent people, it was over when the Orange Menace mocked that disabled reporter.
Nearly eight (!) years later, with Trump’s still disgraces piling up exponentially, I see no reason to expect any sudden moral clarity from the ethically-compromised who have remained in his support column. (The exceptions being self-interested parties like Turley, McConnell, Barr, Christie, and Ron DeFascist — who are looking either to repair soiled reputations and tattered legacies or to ursurp Trump’s power for personal gain.)
@Gustopher:
Good question. Captures the mindset well. In fact, I’ve actually talked to people who think (?) like this.
Late to the thread, but FWIW I think it only matters insofar as it gives a fig leaf for people who have already decided the Trump Train is about to jump the tracks and want to jump off. There is no intelligent and intellectually honest person that supports Trump for anything other than venal reasons. They already know Trump is corrupt and didn’t need Turley to tell them that, but support Trump nonetheless. And the rest of the Trump supporters, the ones who believe the nonsense he spouts daily? Of course this won’t make a difference, as it is no different than a thousand such “evens” that have happened I’ve the past 7 years.
And the Trumpsters’ unanimous condemnation of Barr as a sellout weasel RINO tells you all you need to know about the way they’ll respond to the latest Turley opinion. They are completely selective about which opinions and narratives to adopt, with no regard for their consistency or otherwise with others which they have adopted on other occasions in different circumstances.
Example: they routinely dismiss practically everything Joe Biden says as a pack of lies, with the singular exception of his colorful story of getting Viktor Shokin dismissed by threatening to withhold a billion dollar loan guarantee to Ukraine. They accept that as gospel truth, because it “proves” that Biden was bribed to stop the prosecutor supposedly investigating Burisma. In truth, Shokin’s dismissal bore no resemblance whatsoever to Joe’s little bit of fabulism for the cameras, so instead of their usual practice of dismissing truth as lies, Trump Republicans have adopted lies as the truth. Whatever helps the predetermined narrative.
It would be interesting to discover how much Turley is paid for his Fox News appearances. (To be fair, I would be interested in how much MSNBC pays Andrew Weissmann to be on every show, every day.) Turley lends some legal legitimacy to Trump’s otherwise partisan smoke defenses. Fox needed Turley after it became apparent that Alan Dershowitz, a one-time well respected legal mind, had made himself a laughing stock. I think Turley’s bona fides meant more to Fox’s suits than it ever did to the MAGA cult.
@OzarkHillbilly:
My apologies to your keyboard. Clearly my fingers decided to reject my minds intent.
BTW, I’ll order you a new keyboard as soon as I get my residuals check from James.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Unless he’s a retained staff analyst, he’s appearing on these shows for free.
HA! You are off the hook. (as is James) My all things computer literate wife fixed it all. 🙂 Still, thanx for the laugh. 🙂 🙂
Turley was in favor of the Clinton impeachment,
and against Trump’s impeachments.
That says a lot.