——

For better or for worse (heh), we have a lot of lawyers here in America. Along with that, there are no shortages of legal experts who are willing to appear on television in order to give their unique analysis of whatever hot button issue they’re asked to weigh in on.

As in any other profession, there are varying opinions on legal matters, such as the role of law enforcement in keeping the peace during “peaceful protests” while at the same time respecting the First Amendment, whether or not a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President can survive court challenges, etc.

For the many of us out there who aren’t lawyers, we sometimes tune into various cable news programs, radio shows, and/or websites to watch/hear/read the various legal analyses being given on the types of issues like the ones mentioned above, as well as on cases that have gotten national attention, like George Floyd’s and Kyle Rittenhouse’s.

Unfortunately, when you tune into networks like CNN, however, the “legal analysis” is anything but the objective analysis one might expect, and often boils down to “Trump/Republicans/police bad, Biden/Democrats/BLM good” – and that framing colors every aspect of the analysis to the point that many just simply decide to tune it out in disgust.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified before Congress on many occasions and who frequently shares his thoughts on the various pressing issues of the day, broke down the sad state of affairs in what passes for “legal analysis” in the media on Thursday, inspired by an unhinged tweet from CNN legal analyst Asha Rangappa:

Yale Professor and CNN legal analyst Asha Rangappa tweeted that President Trump is a “biological terrorist in the White House” and then added that she meant that "literally." That is literally why legal analysis has become little more than sensational insults or allegations.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 15, 2020

…As legal analysts we have a duty to at least try to be accurate in discussing the literal meaning of our laws and terminology. This type of attack is an appeal to the lowest common denominator in our public debate. It may drive ratings but it does harm to national dialogue.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 15, 2020

Like a poodle nipping at someone’s heels, Rangappa responded minutes later, immediately proving Turley’s point:

“Because coronavirus appears to meet the statutory definition of a ‘biological agent’ under federal law, [the purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19] potentially could implicate the Nation’s terrorism-related statutes.” — Deputy AG Jeffrey A. Rosen, DOJ https://t.co/levdyC1RuH

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) October 15, 2020

I’ve gotten to the point that I tune out most “legal experts” these days except for the ones who appear to have a level head on their shoulders and who aren’t prone to basing their “analysis” of the issues on the opinions of the supposedly objective news anchors who are interviewing them.

The same goes for “medical experts” as well. As we’ve documented on numerous occasions here at RedState, the so-called medical experts frequently interviewed by cable news outlets like MSNBC and CNN usually analyze from a left-wing perspective. Without fail, Dr. Sanjay Gupta will always find fault with Trump and his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, always nodding right along with whatever Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and other anchors have to say.

And other “medical experts” who appear on these networks can usually be found displaying their full-blown TDS on their Twitter and/or Facebook feeds at any given moment, giving the game away and proving their “analysis” suspect.

I know I’m not the only one out there who simply wants the straight skinny on legal and medical matters without the taint of bias from one side or the other. Unfortunately, we appear to be in the minority. And that does not bode well for the future state of American discourse and informed discussion. Not at all.

(Hat tip: Twitchy)