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

[Doublehalf]

22 hours ago, mspart said:

re 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.  

Something something something "the guy hand picked by trump to be the main legal defense of Brett Kavanuagh during his hearing just happens to be the guy that aligns with my political leanings... oh and he used to be democrat! (So was Trump- not the I gotcha you think it is)

Site and give whatever opinion you want- the guy is a right wing hack. Thats not to say Klarman isn't a left wing hack- I don't know him or his positions well enough but that's not the point I'm making. Turley has been a mouthpiece on Fox News for this admin for the past 10 years. It's great you think he's great, no one cares.

Edited 3 hours ago by Doublehalf

[mspart]

Please show where Turley showed conservative idealism in his report that I cited.   Then I'll take your critique more seriously. 

I find his legal explanations are none partisan.   They are straightforward and professorial in my opinion.   I'll give you some examples:

1. “[Undocumented persons are being] deported without due process. Kavanaugh has said go for it, not constitutional problem.”

I am not sure what Professor Klarman was referencing here.  However, in cases like A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Justice Kavanaugh joined his colleagues in halting deportations to protect the due process rights of these undocumented persons. It was Justices Alito and Thomas who dissented to allow removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The majority stated that the Administration “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating:

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”

In 2025, he did vote with the majority in a 5-4 decision on Venezuelan immigrants. It allowed for deportations to continue in ruling that the challengers erred in not bringing their challenges as habeas corpus claims. However, it also ruled that the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest the deportation. Kavanaugh voted in favor of that position. I may be missing what Professor Klarman is referencing but Kavanaugh has repeatedly voted in favor of due process rights, even if it may not be as robust as Professor Klarman might have wanted. There are cases under this and prior administrations allowing for immediate deportations near the border that occur within a certain period of time. I cannot see any decision where he has effectively “said go for it” and deny any due process.

2. “Washington Post fired a journalist who simply reposted words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” and “[Bezos] just fired a journalist for basically saying something that is true.”

Professor Klarman made repeated claims about this controversy. It appears to be a reference to the termination of former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah. However, it is not true that she was fired for “simply reposting words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” but for making racially inflammatory comments in direct contravention of both Washington Post policies and prior warnings from her editors.

Soon after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attiah went on to Bluesky to post an attack on him with reference to his race. In one, she declared: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.” In a second posting, she wrote, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”

Those were the comments cited by the Washington Post for its actions. The Post stated  “Your postings on Bluesky (which clearly identifies you as a Post Columnist) about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy.” The Post prohibits postings that disparage people based on their race, gender, or other protected characteristics.

Sources told the media that Attiah had been confronted multiple times by the paper’s management over her inflammatory social media posts. This includes one in 2020 where she ended up apologizing on social media for erroneously saying that a new French law targeted Muslim children. It is simply not true that the Post fired her for quoting Kirk.

Please let us know how this is rooted in politics.   In my opinion he is quite factual in his explanations.   You may not think so and that would be interesting to hear.   There are more examples in his report that you can look at.  

mspart

[Bigbrog]

54 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

Something something something "the guy hand picked by trump to be the main legal defense of Brett Kavanuagh during his hearing just happens to be the guy that aligns with my political leanings... oh and he used to be democrat! (So was Trump- not the I gotcha you think it is)

Site and give whatever opinion you want- the guy is a right wing hack. Thats not to say Klarman isn't a left wing hack- I don't know him or his positions well enough but that's not the point I'm making. Turley has been a mouthpiece on Fox News for this admin for the past 10 years. It's great you think he's great, no one cares.

Well apparently you do....