Smith initially requested a gag order on May 24 after Trump criticized the FBI being authorized to use “deadly force” during the August 8, 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago, which the FBI said was “standard protocol.” Turley said that the request was part of a pattern of pushing “outside the navigational beacon.”

WATCH:

Jonathan Turley Rips Jack Smith For 'Serious Problem Of Restraint' On Trump Gag Order Request pic.twitter.com/6oDNpye43G

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 25, 2024

“This is the problem I personally believe that Jack Smith has grappled with his whole career and that is he has a serious problem of restraint and, you know, he follows Oscar Wilde’s rule that nothing succeeds like excess,” Turley told “Fox and Friends” host Lawrence Jones. “And he goes to the limit, he was reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously in one case and this is another example.”

“He’s asking to gag the leading presidential candidate in an election year from criticizing his own department,” Turley continued. “Now, that is so far afield from what the purpose of a gag order is, it’s so outside the navigational beacons, it’s really disturbing and I don’t blame Smith, I blame Attorney General Garland.”

United States District Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida denied Smith’s original request on May 28, but the special counsel made a second request for a gag order May 31, CNN reported. Turley said that Garland could address Smith’s prosecutorial conduct with a phone call.

“This is when you pick up the phone and say, ‘Listen, Jack, that we don’t do that, we don’t gag people to keep them from criticizing us,” Turley said. “That’s not the point here.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

On Friday, he was “swatted.” Law enforcement was called to his home to respond to false reports of violent actions in  progress.

“Yes, I was swatted this evening. It is regrettably a manifestation of our age of rage,” the George Washington University law professor said in a statement on Friday. “However, we are grateful to the Fairfax police officers who were highly professional and supportive in responding to this harassment,”

According to NY Post:

Law enforcement responded to Turley’s Fairfax County home after an individual placed the bogus emergency call.

The Fairfax County Police Department confirmed that the caller falsely said somebody was shot at Turley’s address.

The incident comes one day after Turley spoke out against “swatting” during an interview with Fox News Digital.

This trend has been escalating in recent weeks as lawmakers and conservative figures have been victimized. While some on the left categorize it as a “prank,” there have been multiple instances of property damage, physical harm, and even death when law enforcement comes in hot to respond to reports of danger.

The Post continued, highlighting recent swatting events:

Cops were called to Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) home on Christmas Day after an individual phoned a suicide hotline claiming to have shot his girlfriend at the far-right politician’s home and threatening to kill himself, according to police. 

Republican Georgia state Sens. John Albers, Kay Kirkpatrick and Clint Dixon, as well as Democrat Kim Jackson, were also “swatted” on Christmas Day, according to Fox 5 Atlanta. 

Republican Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones said on Thursday that his home was “swatted” and a “bomb threat was called” into his district office. 

Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) had his upstate New York home “swatted” on Christmas Day just hours after Greene’s home was also visited by local law enforcement.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) became the third GOP member of Congress to be “swatted” during this week’s holiday recess when police responded to his home in Naples, Fla., on Wednesday.

Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu, a Democrat, was “swatted” two weeks after she hosted a controversial holiday party for the non-white city council members.

Police also responded to Republican Ohio state Rep. Kevin D. Miller’s the day after Christmas after fake reports of a shooting, according to local authorities.

Swatting is among the most cowardly and dangerous crimes one can commit. It’s not wonder the radical left has adopted it as a preferred attack against conservatives.

“The question is whether Joe Biden knew about the influence peddling of his brothers and his son. If so, he actively assisted his family in acquiring millions to influence him on public policy or legislation. His family was effectively marketing time shares in a senator, a vice president and now a president,” he wrote.

“Whether or not Biden delivered, the family business corrupted the functions of government by converting offices into types of commodities. That is the case regardless of whether or not they delivered. It is akin to an extortionist taking money without any intent to follow through on threats of disclosure or use of damaging material. Even in today’s willfully blind politics, every voter should be able to agree on two simple facts.

“First, influence peddling is corruption long opposed by the government and denounced by both parties.

“Second, if the president knew that his son and uncles were using him for influence peddling, Joe Biden is also corrupt.”

Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, noted the “Biden family legal problems continue to mount.”

He cited reports Joe Biden’s brother James was caught on an FBI audiotape in a corruption investigation, while Ashley Biden, the president’s daughter, is now also facing demands for unpaid taxes.

He noted James Biden is expected soon to testify before the House investigators looking into Biden family corruption, and that occasion may “solidify a new line of defense for the Bidens: that they are harmless grifters.”

“After years of denying influence peddling with the help of an obligating media, even some Democrats are now admitting that Hunter and his uncles have been selling influence. Biden associates confirmed that Joe Biden was the brand that they were peddling to foreign clients, who paid millions to the family,” he explained.

The James Biden affair illustrates the operations, he explained.

It happened during an investigation into lawyer Richard Scruggs, who later went to prison.

“Scruggs forked over $100,000 to James Biden when he was seeking to reinforce support for the massive tobacco legislation and Joe Biden was viewed as skeptical on what some viewed as a windfall for trial lawyers,” Turley explained.

In fact, Scruggs admitted James Biden was “hired” because he was Joe Biden’s brother.

When the tape was revealed, the Bidens immediately produced a “new defense. James Biden took the money but allegedly did nothing to land his brother.”

In fact, Biden defenders now say the Bidens took money, but their help was “illusory.”

“In other words, these corrupt figures wanted to buy influence and access, but they were just chumps fleeced by the Bidens,” he wrote. “It is a curious defense that we are not corrupt because we just ripped off dupes who were corrupt people.”

He said, however, the bottom line is that “influence peddling is a form of corruption.”

He said the case will come down to “what the president knew about his family’s influence peddling and when he knew it.”

“It is highly implausible that the president did not know about the influence peddling,” he explained.

And he pointed out Joe Biden likely already likely has lost the fight, as “roughly 70 percent of voters (including 40 percent of Democrats) believes that President Biden acted illegally or unethically, or both.”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Hunter Biden was indicted by a federal grand jury in Delaware on charges of illegally possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs and for making false statements. Turley said that should Joe Biden choose to pardon his son, it could carry a significant cost for the president’s re-election.

“If the president was not intending to run for re-election, he could pardon his son and admit that this was an abuse of the power, and say his penalty will to be a one-term president,” Turley told Fox News host John Roberts. “The pardon power has been abused historically by presidents to assist friends and family members. That included Bill Clinton, who pardoned his half brother. So there’s nothing inviolate about the presidential pardon power. It has often been honored in the breach by presidents in the use to benefit themself personally or politically.”

“I think that what you’ve seen with people like Clinton is they waited until they were literally leaving office to use that power for personal purposes, and I would not expect that the president could pardon his son and stand for re-election,” Turley later added.

Hunter Biden pled not guilty in July to all charges after United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected both the initial plea deal and a more limited revision over two misdemeanor tax charges.

Turley also noted that there could still be other charges stemming from Hunter Biden’s business dealings. Devon Archer, another former business partner of Hunter Biden, told the House Oversight Committee on July 31 that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke with his son “more than 20 times about their business deals,” according to Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

“There are still torpedoes in the water for Hunter Biden. The most obvious is an FARA violation, and you know, that’s being an unregistered foreign agent,” Turley said. “Many of us have been mystified at how the Department of Justice has been rationalize not bringing charges against Hunter, when they brought the charge rather liberally against Trump associates like Paul Manafort, there are also tax issues here that could be potentially litigated, although the statute of limitations was allowed to run on the most serious counts.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].