Turley debate report

[mspart]

Hi all, 

I find this instructive.  Jonathan Turley had a debate at Colgate with Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School.   The topic was on “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?”      Klarman took the affirmative view and Turley the opposing view.     Turley gave a report on the debate here:   https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/23/the-turley-klarman-debate-a-video-and-a-response/

The  first statement is really interesting.   It goes like this:

Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.

So Klarman did not even address the actual topic of the debate but went to other places.   Not much of a debate if you can't stay on topic from the very get go.   

Klarman also said, “I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.”   Not only is this a quote from the article linked above, it is a direct quote of Klarmans.   

Interestingly, one of the first things he said was factually wrong.   Turley, because of the topic of debate, did not get into all of the issues Klarman brought up because they were not on topic.   But the below is one thing he did address at the time and he has a list of others he did not address at the time but addressed in this article.   However Turley says that: 

I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman later claimed "that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”"    And made the following statement:

“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”

As we all know, no police officers died as a result of Jan 6.   Only one person died as a result of Jan 6 and that was Ashli Babbit who was shot by Capitol Police.   Officers did die of natural causes after Jan 6 and of suicide later on.   So did protesters.  Turley discussed this fairly thoroughly, saying:

As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot.

So Klarman decided to air his quarrels rather than debate the topic.   Which I find is a tactic used by the left mostly and some on the right.   They make a statement off topic and pound on it and then change the topic to something else which is what Klarman did as you can see if you read the article.   A video of the debate is included in the article so you can see it and not trust what Turely is saying.   

I think this experience is very emblematic of people having a debate not knowing the rules of a debate which is to stay on topic.   This guy is a chair in the Harvard law school and can't even stay on topic.  How did he ever get his law degree is a wonder and how he is at Harvard, the premier law school in the country is another wonder.   Or maybe not. 

mspart

 

 

[El Luchador]

11 hours ago, mspart said:

Hi all, 

I find this instructive.  Jonathan Turley had a debate at Colgate with Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School.   The topic was on “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?”      Klarman took the affirmative view and Turley the opposing view.     Turley gave a report on the debate here:   https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/23/the-turley-klarman-debate-a-video-and-a-response/

The  first statement is really interesting.   It goes like this:

Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.

So Klarman did not even address the actual topic of the debate but went to other places.   Not much of a debate if you can't stay on topic from the very get go.   

Klarman also said, “I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.”   Not only is this a quote from the article linked above, it is a direct quote of Klarmans.   

Interestingly, one of the first things he said was factually wrong.   Turley, because of the topic of debate, did not get into all of the issues Klarman brought up because they were not on topic.   But the below is one thing he did address at the time and he has a list of others he did not address at the time but addressed in this article.   However Turley says that: 

I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman later claimed "that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”"    And made the following statement:

“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”

As we all know, no police officers died as a result of Jan 6.   Only one person died as a result of Jan 6 and that was Ashli Babbit who was shot by Capitol Police.   Officers did die of natural causes after Jan 6 and of suicide later on.   So did protesters.  Turley discussed this fairly thoroughly, saying:

As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot.

So Klarman decided to air his quarrels rather than debate the topic.   Which I find is a tactic used by the left mostly and some on the right.   They make a statement off topic and pound on it and then change the topic to something else which is what Klarman did as you can see if you read the article.   A video of the debate is included in the article so you can see it and not trust what Turely is saying.   

I think this experience is very emblematic of people having a debate not knowing the rules of a debate which is to stay on topic.   This guy is a chair in the Harvard law school and can't even stay on topic.  How did he ever get his law degree is a wonder and how he is at Harvard, the premier law school in the country is another wonder.   Or maybe not. 

mspart

 

 

He knows what he did. If he played the game he agreed to he would have used to mop up the floor. These debates are what resurrected the right. Liberalism dies without lots of anger and with very little analysis.

[Offthemat]

There were other deaths that day, but all of them were Trump supporters.  Kevin Greeson; Benjamin Phillips, who both died of heart attacks in the area where the Capitol Police were deploying flash bangs and tear gas canisters, and Roseanne Boyland, who was smothered and beaten, notwithstanding a dishonest coroner’s report. 

[Doublehalf]

You do know Turley is as partisan as they come right? Constant Fox News contributor, govt legal expert called to defend Brett kavanuagh... can't honestly take anything he says seriously due to any and all lack of objectivity.

[JimmySpeaks]

Wokesters have nothing but anger and yelling. No leadership. No real policies. No facts.  Losing people.  Makes me smile. 

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Wokesters have nothing but anger and yelling. No leadership. No real policies. No facts.  Losing people.  Makes me smile. 

Well, they're winning elections lately. That's what matters to me. 

[JimmySpeaks]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Well, they're winning elections lately. That's what matters to me. 

Shocking that not having policies of any value would be something you’re ok with.  

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Doublehalf said:

You do know Turley is as partisan as they come right?

Absolutely not.  He has made plenty of evaluations of cases where he opposed the conservative view and been wrong on how the Supreme Court would decide cases.  He is as nonpartisan as they come.  I would put his nonpartisanship up against Klarman or you, any day. 

[Doublehalf]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Absolutely not.  He has made plenty of evaluations of cases where he opposed the conservative view and been wrong on how the Supreme Court would decide cases.  He is as nonpartisan as they come.  I would put his nonpartisanship up against Klarman or you, any day. 

Agree to 100% disagree. Your opinion is worth the same as mine I suppose... 

[mspart]

4 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

Agree to 100% disagree. Your opinion is worth the same as mine I suppose... 

Are you saying Klarman is less partisan than Turley?   I don't think so based on his performance in this debate calling Trump a fascist etc etc.    

Turley is/was a Democrat.   But I think he is quite moderate and is disquieted by the extreme leftists policies now coming out in the name of the Democratic Party.   Read the article and see if you agree or disagree with his position.   Read his article and see who spoke more by fact than not.   

The fact Klarman said he was speaking from facts that anyone could fact check and then said that violent insurrectionists on Jan 6 resulted in the deaths of officers was as much a fabrication as anything.   He lost his position of fact and truth teller with that first position.   I find Turely as well reasoned when he is discussing legal or constitutional matters.   You can disagree but only after you read what he writes.   I gave the link.   He has various articles there everyday.   Each day brings a new one or two.   You can read and decide.  

mspart