On Monday’s New Day, CNN guest and liberal George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley calmly dismantled the media’s hysteria over President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, toeing the line between concern for what happened and suggesting the “rhetorical spin” be toned down.
Turley appeared opposite pompous co-host Chris Cuomo and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, whose meltdowns over the past week were documented here, here, and here.
Cuomo and Toobin first batted around the credibility of the country being in a constitutional crisis with Toobin reupping his belief that Comey’s axing was “a grave abuse of Presidential power” and the comparisons to Watergate being valid.
Cuomo tried to nudge Turley to agree, but he wasn’t having it, informing the duo that “it’s certainly cathartic to call something a constitutional crisis” but “[i]t’s just not accurate” while the term “political crisis” is more appropriate.
Turley conceded that the President’s action are “very disturbing,” but pointed out that “[i]f you separate his rhetoric from his record, he actually complies with the law” and followed the proper legal channels when challenged in courts.
“So, it’s not a constitutional crisis. We don't have to add that rhetorical spin. That doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that should be investigated. Where I disagree with my friend Jeff is I don't think you can make the assumption that the President fired him because this investigation was getting too close to him,” Turley added.
The mic-drop came when Turley calmly asserted why the links to Nixon and Watergate remain dubious (for the time being): “The problem with the Nixon analogy is that the Nixon scandal began with a crime. I'm still not sure what the crime is here. This may be the first cover-up in history in the absence of a crime.”
Toobin responded by arguing that Trump could be guilty of “obstruction of justice” concerning Comey’s ouster amidst the Russia investigation. Turley fired back, warning panicked individuals like Toobin to not fall ill of “buck fever” [emphasis mine]:
I would be surprised if you could make out obstruction charge based on a president using his constitutional authority in this way, particularly with an FBI Director who has spent many months with people suggesting he should be fired for good reason. Regardless of what Rosenstein did and when, it’s clear from his memo that he felt that Comey should be terminated. So, I don't think you can make out an obstruction case out of this. I think we have to be careful not to have buck fever. You know, to fire at everything the minute we see it and say this must be obstruction....What I look at is what do we know objectively and what we know is there were some people in the administration that felt he should be fired. It does not appear that President Trump really based his own decision on that, but that makes this is a pretty muddy and rather murky case.
Showing no daylight between himself and Toobin, Cuomo proceeded to tussle with Turley about Trump’s intent and the notion that he implicated himself to any future crimes with his NBC News interview.
Using common sense, Turley circled back to the importance of only dealing what’s known:
I think that when you look at things legally, you have to define the actual fact and not. Yeah, you can put together parts of the interview and certainly reach that conclusion. But I don't think you can say that he fired him because this was getting too close or he’s afraid of what will come out of the investigation. There was certainly a lot of bad blood.
Toobin closed out the segment by hilariously proving how he’s not so much a legal expert on TV but a partisan hack [emphasis mine]:
I’m not suggesting that there is, at this moment, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump committed a crime. I am saying that, as a political matter, this is a constitution and political crisis of the first order and it’s an abuse of power by the President. How do you deal with that? Will that be dealt in the courts? Will it be dealt with in that political system? I don't know. That is my point, not that there is a specific criminal offense that’s taken place here.
Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from CNN’s New Day on May 15:
CNN’s New Day
May 15, 2017
6:53 a.m. Eastern
CHRIS CUOMO: Jeffrey Toobin, what would qualify as a constitutional crisis in your opinion and does that meet your definition?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: It is a grave abuse of Presidential power. It is quite clear that the President has the power to remove the FBI Director, but I think Congress, the public and everyone has the right to evaluate whether he did it for a good reason and I think he did it for a reason that was very similar to the Watergate cover up in 1972 and ‘73 which is that he wanted to stop an FBI investigation. That's an obstruction of justice as far as I'm concerned. I think it is a very serious problem.
CUOMO: The powerful proof on that, professor, is what the President said. He all but admitted that in the interview with NBC. This is basically a canard of this stuff about the AG’s assessment of Comey, but constitutional crisis? So, a loose reckoning would be one branch of government is not acting constitutionally. Do you believe that what the President did here rises to that level of scrutiny?
JONATHAN TURLEY: No, I think it’s certainly cathartic to call something a constitutional crisis. It’s just not accurate. It’s sort of like the term judicial activism. People use it to mean that they disagree with what’s going on. We certainly have a political crisis. What the President did is very disturbing. There is an interesting thing, though, about this President. If you separate his rhetoric from his record, he actually complies was the law. When the courts rule against him on immigration, he yielded. When they ruled against him on sanctuary cities, he yielded. What he did with Comey was within his authority to do. Comey himself noted that. So, it’s not a constitutional crisis. We don't have to add that rhetorical spin. That doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that should be investigated. Where I disagree with my friend Jeff is I don't think you can make the assumption that the President fired him because this investigation was getting too close to him. The problem with the Nixon analogy is that the Nixon scandal began with a crime. I'm still not sure what the crime is here. This may be the first cover-up in history in the absence of a crime.
TOOBIN: That doesn't make it not obstruction of justice. If you are trying to stop the FBI from doing an investigation, even if ultimately, there would not be a successful investigation or an investigation leading to a prosecution, it’s still obstruction of justice. So, I agree with you in the sense that I don't know of the collusion, but trying to obstruct the investigation is still obstruction of justice.
TURLEY: I would be surprised if you could make out obstruction charge based on a president using his constitutional authority in this way, particularly with an FBI Director who has spent many months with people suggesting he should be fired for good reason. Regardless of what Rosenstein did and when, it’s clear from his memo that he felt that Comey should be terminated. So, I don't think you can make out an obstruction case out of this. I think we have to be careful not to have buck fever. You know, to fire at everything the minute we see it and say this must be obstruction. I can't get into President Trump mind and I don't want to be there. What I look at is what do we know objectively and what we know is there were some people in the administration that felt he should be fired. It does not appear that President Trump really based his own decision on that, but that makes this is a pretty muddy and rather murky case.
CUOMO: Professor, hold on, just to redirect it, but you’re ignoring the timing here, aren’t you? This isn’t about his authority or ability to do something. It is about why he did it. I'm not saying that qualifies for the label constitutional crisis or for any particular felony or even a misdemeanor. But what I’m saying is that’s the issue, right? It is not right or wrong because Comey was good or bad at his job. It’s about when he did it and circumstances surrounding that issue, no?
TURLEY: Chris, that is a valid point and Jeff made the same valid point that a lot of this goes to intent, but we can’t make assumptions on that fact that he’s —
CUOMO: Why do you have to assume when he admitted in the interview?
TOOBIN: Right, yeah.
TURLEY: No. What I heard him admit to is he wanted to fire Comey, that he wanted to do that before —
(....)
TURLEY: No. I understand that, but I think that when you look at things legally, you have to define the actual fact and not. Yeah, you can put together parts of the interview and certainly reach that conclusion. But I don't think you can say that he fired him because this was getting too close or he’s afraid of what will come out of the investigation. There was certainly a lot of bad blood. He certainly want him fired before he read the Rosenstein memo, but to start saying that this is a case of obstruction or is —
(....)
TOOBIN: Right. I’m not suggesting that there is, at this moment, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump committed a crime. I am saying that, as a political matter, this is a constitution and political crisis of the first order and it’s an abuse of power by the President. How do you deal with that? Will that be dealt in the courts? Will it be dealt with in that political system? I don't know. That is my point, not that there is a specific criminal offense that’s taken place here.
