By Curtis Houck | May 17, 2017 | 4:58 PM EDT

On Tuesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN senior political commentator and former presidential adviser David Gergen warned that “we are in impeachment territory for the first time” in light of The New York Times report about the Jim Comey memo in which President Trump allegedly asked him to end the Mike Flynn investigation.

By Kyle Drennen | May 15, 2017 | 1:32 PM EDT

On Monday’s Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos was all set to convict President Trump of a crime and move on to impeachment proceedings as he cited left-wing Harvard Law professor and Barack Obama mentor Laurence Tribe, who called for just that in a screed for Saturday’s Washington Post.

By Tom Blumer | May 14, 2017 | 7:17 PM EDT

In a Saturday op-ed in the Washington Post, Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe wrote that "The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice." Tribe says it should happen now, because "To wait for the results of the multiple investigations underway is to risk tying our nation’s fate to the whims of an authoritarian leader." (Conviction first, trial later.) To make his case, Tribe distorted both past history and current reality, while the Post failed to disclose key matters about the professor's entanglement which readers deserve to know.

By Brad Wilmouth | January 12, 2016 | 7:26 PM EST

On Monday's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, host O'Donnell and Frank Rich of New York magazine talked up the possibility that GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz is not really a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to serve as President.

Rich, a former New York Times columnist, praised GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump as "brilliant" for pushing the issue, and the two at one point laughed it up together when Rich cracked that a wall should have been built to keep the Cruz family from crossing from Canada into the U.S. Rich: "The problem could have been solved if we had built a wall on the Canadian border and Canada paid for it. Then, the Cruzes never would have entered and we wouldn't have this problem."

By Tom Johnson | October 3, 2015 | 11:17 AM EDT

In recent years, some advocates of increased gun control have called for repeal or revision of the Second Amendment, but Adam Gopnik believes that either would be superfluous.

In a Friday article, Gopnik asserted that “the only amendment necessary for gun legislation…is the Second Amendment itself, properly understood, as it was for two hundred years in its plain original sense. This sense can be summed up in a sentence: if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase ‘well regulated’ in the amendment.”

By Ken Shepherd | April 2, 2015 | 6:51 PM EDT

Liberal constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe may be one of the men who inspired President Obama politically, but he strongly disagrees with his power grab regarding EPA regulation now, and so all bets are off as far as the Daily Beast's Eleanor Clift is concerned.

By Brad Wilmouth | July 21, 2012 | 3:47 PM EDT

CNN anchor Piers Morgan devoted a considerable portion of his Friday program to pushing for more gun control, breaking with those who have advised delaying such talk until after a period of mourning for shooting victims in Aurora, Colorado.

Morgan not only began Piers Morgan Tonight with a "Piers' Special Commentary" calling for more gun laws, but, later in the program, he included three guests who argued in favor of more gun control, with only one to argue against, with whom the CNN host ended up becoming agitated as Denver University Professor David Kopel scolded Morgan for not waiting longer before launching into a divisive political debate.

Shortly after beginning the show, Morgan played a clip of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg advising the presidential candidates to talk about the gun control issue, and then began his commentary:

By Ken Shepherd | July 28, 2011 | 10:58 AM EDT

Update: According to the Library of Congress website, July 28, 1868 was the day when Secretary of State William Seward "issued a proclamation certifying without reservation that the Fourteenth Amendment was a part of the United States Constitution." Todd told his viewers that July 28, 1868 was the day the amendment "officially became part of the U.S. Constitution" although Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that amendments "shall be valid to all intents and purposes...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths" of the states, which in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment would be July 9, 1868.

Wanted: Better fact checkers for MSNBC.

For today's "Flashback" feature on the "Daily Rundown," anchor Chuck Todd misinformed viewers by noting that on July 28, 1868, the 14th Amendment went into effect.

In fact the amendment went into effect when South Carolina ratified it on July 9, 1868.

But not only was Todd off by 19 days, he selectively quoted a passage of the 14th Amendment that has some relevance to the debt ceiling debate:

 

By Tom Blumer | July 27, 2011 | 10:18 PM EDT

Gosh, isn't it convenient that Associated Press reporter Jim Abrams, in a Wednesday evening dispatch ("Democrats say Obama should invoke 14th Amendment"), was able to find "some legal scholars" who believe that President Obama can invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to ignore the nation's current debt ceiling and have the government go out and borrow more money, but "somehow" didn't name any? Not only that, he didn't even tell readers why 14th Amendment power creationists might be wrong, let alone find "some other" dissenting legal scholar to explain why. Instead, he instead went to White House spokesman Jay Carney, who only said that the president doesn't have such authority.

I suspect that Abrams' "oversight" occurred because the only "legal scholars" he could have cited would have been uncomfortable Democrats in Congress who don't want to be on record voting against any and every effort to control spending which might be attached to whatever bill or bills House Republicans might attempt to pass -- a matter of fierce internal GOP debate as of late Thursday evening.

By Matthew Sheffield | October 28, 2010 | 3:44 PM EDT

One wonders how Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center managed to get a hold of a private letter sent to President Obama by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe advising him against nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, but be that as it may, its contents are quite interesting and show just how nakedly political Tribe’s view of a justice really is and also how little he thinks of Sotomayor.

In the May 2009 letter (PDF link here), Tribe advises Obama to refrain from choosing Sotomayor because “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is” and also that she is a “bully” who would would be unable to try to persuade frequent SCOTUS swing vote Anthony Kennedy to a “pragmatically progressive direction,” something that Tribe believes former justice David Souter had managed to do on occasion.

By Mark Finkelstein | July 3, 2008 | 7:49 AM EDT

I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right. -- Barack Obama, June 26, 2008

In some ways, the Supreme Court term that just ended seems muddled: disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting rights and gun control . . . In another sharp break with its traditions, the court struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for personal use. The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence. -- NYT editorial, A Supreme Court on the Brink, July 3, 2008 [emphasis added]

How far left is the editorial board of the New York Times?  Far enough that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, Barack Obama would seemingly qualify as "highly conservative" in its eyes.  

The gist of the Grey Lady's editorial of today is to warn voters that the Supreme Court is just a vote away from a conservative majority. The paper instructs voters to keep that grim prospect "firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November."  In the course of its scare-mongering, the editorial liberally sprinkles terms sure to send a shiver down lefty spines: "highly conservative," "a far-right majority," "cold-hearted," "dedicated members of the conservative movement," "the conservative bloc," "far-right bloc," 'one more conservative appointment would . .  push [the Court] even further in a dangerous direction."

By Ken Shepherd | February 15, 2008 | 6:01 PM EST

Noting Sen. Barack Obama's recent statement that he considers the Second Amendment an individual right -- setting aside for a moment his pro-gun control record and defense of the D.C. handgun ban -- ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg dismissed private gun ownership as constitutionally protected, holding instead that the "orthodox" view defends only a state's right.

Here's the relevant portion from a February 15 entry at Greenburg's Legalities blog (emphasis mine):