Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the growing pressure on prosecutors during the lame duck period to move forward in their investigations into the Russian investigation or Hunter Biden. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff again strongly suggested that such investigations should end with the entry of a Biden Justice Department. Schiff told MSNBC that investigations of a president-elect constitute “tearing down our democracy” and a way to “delegitimize” a president. This is precisely what I raised in my column on the expected effort by some to scuttle the Biden related investigations. The statement was only the latest indication that Democrats are likely to push to end any investigations touching on the Bidens, including statements from individuals known to be under consideration for Attorney General. In doing so, they will likely have the support of many members of the media who would be embarrassed by any findings of wrongdoing after insisting that there was nothing to cover and refusing to ask Biden specific questions on the campaign trail on these allegations.
Here is the column:
With the election’s conclusion, Washington has entered that precarious period known as the “lame duck.” Unlike real wounded waterfowl, lame-duck presidents tend to be more active in the waning days of their terms. From John Adams’ “midnight judge appointments” to Barack Obama’s last-minute executive orders, presidents often move to cement policies or personnel before the chiming of the constitutional clock. This year, however, it may be prosecutors who feel the greatest fight-or-flight pressure.
Months before the election, many Democrats and analysts demanded that the Justice Department refrain from bringing additional indictments or releasing new information connected to either the Russia investigation or the Hunter Biden scandal. Andrew Weissmann, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, called on prosecutors not to assist the Justice Department before the election, to prevent damaging disclosures for then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden. Despite pressure from President Trump, the Justice Department under Attorney General Bill Barr did appear to hold the line before the election under a long-standing policy.
Months before the election, many Democrats and analysts demanded that the Justice Department refrain from bringing additional indictments or releasing new information connected to either the Russia investigation or the Hunter Biden scandal. Andrew Weissmann, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, called on prosecutors not to assist the Justice Department before the election, to prevent damaging disclosures for then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden. Despite pressure from President Trump, the Justice Department under Attorney General Bill Barr did appear to hold the line before the election under a long-standing policy.
Prosecutors in the Russia and Hunter Biden investigations may now face the opposite pressure — to move more quickly in the Trump administration’s final two months. The obvious concern is that a Biden administration might scuttle or shut down pending investigations. Indeed, Democrats have denounced the investigation into the discredited Russia collusion case as a political “hit job” and could justify terminating it as a promised “reform.”
In October, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in asking the FBI to resist pressure to investigate Hunter Biden. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) denounced the ongoing Russia investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham as “tainted” and “political.” On the campaign trail, Biden dismissed the “investigation of the investigators.”
In a Senate hearing this week on the Russia investigation, Democratic senators — including Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., considered a short-lister to be the next attorney general — denounced the continued investigations before the arrival of the incoming Biden Justice Department.
If prosecutors are concerned about such an intervention, they may have to act in the next two months.
Russia investigation
Before going dark in October, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation made headlines with the criminal plea of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in order to continue surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser. There have been rumors for months that Durham found material not disclosed by special counsel Mueller or the Justice Department’s inspector general in their prior investigations. He also is known to have been working with a grand jury as part of his investigation.
There is ample reason why a Biden administration would want to see Durham’s investigation closed. Earlier this year, disclosures contradicted Biden’s denials that he knew of or was involved in the investigation of figures like Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn; the disclosures indicated Biden may have sought to “unmask” Flynn in surveillance reports. There also are accounts from the Oval Office that Biden was briefed on the Flynn investigation, including the fact that the FBI thought his discussions with Russian diplomats were “legit.” Earlier, FBI investigators sought to end the Flynn investigation for lack of evidence of any crime; according to one report, Biden raised the possibility of prosecuting Flynn under the Logan Act, a federal law widely viewed as unconstitutional.
The Durham investigation may not result in new indictments but could result in the release of new evidence. Indeed, the greatest risk of intervention by the Biden administration would be the withholding of any report or the use of classification rules to bar parts of its release. That report could shed light on how the Russia investigation began and was sustained, despite early intelligence refuting the collusion allegations. This includes recently released information that President Obama was briefed on intelligence suggesting that Hillary Clinton was working to falsely paint Trump as colluding with Russians. Such findings could be highly embarrassing not only to Obama administration officials but a number of congressional Democrats — including Rep. Schiff, who assured the public that, after contrary findings by the special counsel and the inspector general, his House committee had clear evidence of collusion. Schiff never produced that evidence.
Hunter Biden investigation
It may be easier for the Biden Justice Department to shut down an investigation of Hunter Biden. Although most of the media imposed a blackout on coverage, the alleged Hunter Biden laptop contains disturbing evidence of a global influence-peddling scheme by Hunter and his uncle, James Biden. The laptop’s emails, which the Biden family has not denied are authentic, directly contradict statements by Joe Biden. Moreover, Hunter Biden‘
The FBI reportedly subpoenaed the laptop as part of a money-laundering investigation that included Hunter Biden in 2019. If true, that investigation could directly implicate the president-elect.
The danger for prosecutors is greater because the Biden administration can rely on a supportive media. The only people more embarrassed by allegations of criminal conduct in the Hunter Biden investigation would be media members who have repeatedly assured the public that there is nothing to investigate.
If these investigations move forward with possible criminal charges related to Biden or his family, there may even be a question of whether the current or next attorney general should establish a special counsel.
Consider again the Hunter Biden investigation: Hunter previously contradicted his father, who denied discussing his son’s foreign business deals. Now Hunter’s business partner has recounted meeting with Joe Biden and raising concerns with James Biden about the legal implications of those deals. When Trump came into office, many Democrats demanded a special counsel appointment on much less evidence, even before the firing of FBI Director James Comey. It turned out there was no proof of collusion. There is comparatively more evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement, including statements made under threat of prosecution.
That is why developments in the next few weeks will be so interesting. These prosecutors could set their investigations into the amber of the lame-duck period as insurance against Biden administration interference. That could force a question over the need for a special counsel, if criminal conduct is further revealed by indictments or reports.
Prosecutors in the lame-duck often are like Shakespeare’s Richard II, who lamented: “I wasted time then, and now time wastes me.” If there is evidence of criminal conduct in these investigations, time waits for no prosecutor.
There’s far too much evidence known to the public for Durham’s criminal investigation to simply disappear. And President Trump is not going to fold a royal flush and walk away.
Knowing that some very corrupt people will want to get revenge on Trump, his family and supporters, he might just hold those cards as his own insurance policy.
Olly, just to remind you, you have repeatedly assured us the following would happen:
– McCabe would be indicted
– Durham would ruin liberals hopes for the future – or something equally dire.
– Trump would be reelected
Without an explanation from you acknowledging you were wrong on those things, why you were wrong, and a promise to not again guarantee things you don’t actually know, why would anyone listen to your predictions again?
Dude, nothing you tried to beat on us the head with – always a weak method for trying to win an argument anyway- has come true, and are now exposed as just false. Time to take account if you have any self respect.
friuday You ne
joe friday You need to get over that anal-cranial inversion and see reality. There is enough releasing of emails and data very indicative of the influence peddling by the Bidens.
joe friday You need to get over that anal-cranial inversion and see reality. There has been enough releases of emails and other to indicate that the Bidens were selling influence and probably corruptly so.
I have no problem admitting my predictions haven’t materialized, but that does not in any way diminish the soundness of them when considering the facts and evidence.
It is impressive how you and your fellow domestic enemies will arrogantly believe you have the high road because your political snakes haven’t been punished for their crimes. The reality is the facts/evidence will always prove you to be an enabler to this country’s enemies.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong Olly.
You’ve never been very good with reading comprehension or facts. Your Schiff-like imagination is what fills in the gaps. Pretty pathetic.
Here’s something for Joe Friday to chew on:
Trump WAS reelected on Election Day. Durham is coming. McCabe will be indicted.
There is no doubt of that.
More in the lame duck world. Some ducks aren’t as lame as other ducks. Senate right now is 48 to 50. Two Georgia senate voting districts are 1.5 percent apart . Dems lead one Reps lead the other. Either one goes to Republicans they control the Senate . 51 – 49. Important item #1.
Important item #2 Representatives 219 to 203 some still being counted. BUT the Dems are no longer untouchables Three reasons, socialism, pelosi, and votes needed. 218 is the amount to control so are they in control? Not even close. Take the GOP representatives and move just two of the Independent Democrats over to a Constitutionalist Representatives Coalition and Pelosi is minority party. Not enough for that group of Independent Dems to help engineer or more likely lead a kick her out of the House vote takes 75% but enough to ensure she will be encouraged to leave. They only need two 422 of the spaces are filled in of 435 only thirteen available which means the minority party is at most 15 behind.
Pelosi might pass a budget but not a veto. It’s enough to encourage Biden to dump Warren and Sanders if he wants anything passed coupled with the Senate and it looks like it’s going to be a,,,,,,,
Third is the marxist leninist socialists Mights well call them what they are. Can any of them take the oath of office without committing a crime or even refuse to take it which means they are not legal? They aren’t going to have Comrade Pelosi around to protect them…..
Put Trumpster in a dumpster.
Of wit not so, you never had an atom
Nearly a quarter million Americans dead, and Trump has almost totally abdicated his coronavirus responsibilities.
Washington Post: https://t.co/GXLGZ3Kk6D“
What good are the days to end of term for President Trump. Pardons as was mentioned. Maybe make a last minute deal with Pelosi to free up the stimulus money Pelosi needs fast to try and retrieve her lost party members. Anything she can’t get through such as partial bailouts for the rubber check cities and states will still get passed but will be 100% blamed on the Democrat Regressive Liberal Socialists. She has about fifty days to get the stink out before that aerosol germicide spray is gone for four more years.
Turley did not get the memo from his Republican colleagues. These are fake investigations. They never were designed to find anything. They never expected to find anything. They were so Barr and Durham could go on FoxNews and say “we are dining serious things, just you wait” and Trump to tweet about it but never designed to bring an actual indictment they would have to prove.
You may recall Trump trying to bribe the President of the Ukraine to announce a similar investigation – just announce the investigation; that is all Trump needs.
Lunkhead, It was Biden who was involved in a bribe protecting Burisma and Hunter from investigation.
We, meaning the Constitutional Centrist Coalition had three goals going into 2016 and then two goals for the next four years. 100% in all of them and all on a zero budget.
The following proves we were correct
Schiff told MSNBC that investigations of a president-elect constitute “tearing down our democracy” and a way to “delegitimize” a president. pas
1 we do not have a democracy to tear down we have a Constitutional Republic. True it did borrow from the democratic systems the few parts worth having such as voting at all levels and power from the ground up. But the founders wisely refused to use the word in any of it’s forms and openly rejected it nine times before polishing and passing 100% our Constitution. The founders guaranteed a Republic form of governments to the Nation States now 50 States and levels down to the citizens. Shhhh Schiff doesn’t know that which says much for his lack of education. I bet Schiff doesn’t know the results of that were self governing independent citizens who were titled “The well spring of ALL power.” or that in our Constitutional Republic system he is considered quite near the bottom.
2. The President he referred to delegitimized himself sorry Obama but is applicable to this one as well who so far since becoming presumptive has chosen a hundred percent party line out of the Manifesto of Marx and Engels.
What were our goals back then. Defeat Clinton and destroy her as a serious candidate for anything. Destroy the then DNC and dump the RINOS. Three in a row. Smashed, Splintered and became ineffectual.
This mission we gave the CURRENT President was expose and destroy as much as possible the false cover of the Socialist Regressive Liberals. Batting 500 between the two the mission part was easy. They did it to themselves.
Clinton however will no doubt get a pardon the Comrades stick together. Pelosi …sure thing. Comey and Company? Maybe. Except for one thing they all got convicted in the Court of the Citizens. The source of all power in our Constitutional Republic.
Now it’s just sit back and watch them prove it as they are already doing.
You’re not a centrist, Michael.
Turley is claiming that there is a Hunter Biden investigation at the FBI? I don’t remember the FBI saying that there was one. They have a laptop, sure, but that may mean they are investigating the people involved in stealing/planting the laptop, whether it is Guiliani or Putin or whomever.
Sure, Republican Senators had a Hunter Biden investigation but that was entirely political and they found nothing and concluded.
DOJ, FBI, have the capacity to force any nation’s bank to release the individual data of money transfers.. Remember when everyone figured his/her secret Swiss account was just that? Yep. I would wager big that the US Gov’t, DOJ, FBI et al know what monies were transferred through foreign shell corporations and finally into an American Bk A/C and who received it. Barr may think he is saving “The system”, by not releasing full investigation, but he is not saving by not releasing it. It will at the minimum drip out piece-meal. They hide behind the ruse of. “National Security” always. Nero is fiddling.
…let’s see about this: the Hunter laptop shows clearly he signed for the work order, and then failed to pick it up before the
90 day window ended per Delaware law. The laptop then became the property of the service provider, who did what any law-abiding citizen would do
and reported SA to the FBI. People like you who continue to live in your self-induced paranoid schizophrenia should be sent to the corner for the rest of class…
Not sure exactly what crime Turley is saying the FBI needs to be looking at on Hunter’s laptop. I mean, an alleged global influence peddling scheme sounds nefarious, but isn’t that what pretty much every Trump hanger-on does every day? Hunter is not a member of our government and never has been.
Here is a good explanation for you….have a listen.
Hunter Will Be Happy
If Joe Biden (aka Caligula’s horse) doe become president, his kleptomaniac, cokehead son will be pleased. He’ll no longer have to slum it on Air Force Two. He’ll get to ride in style on Air Force One.
If you can’t smell the corruption…you either have no nose or love the smell of sh*t. Dominion software..it’s ceo types down to it’s creators emerge from a leftist bath of filth. And presently their total internet , twitter , facebook and related histories have been wiped in the past week…methodically. There is blood in the water…they know it…they know they have been exposed and are trying to melt into the shadows. Game on.
Turley says “Andrew Weissmann, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top prosecutors, called on prosecutors not to assist the Justice Department before the election, to prevent damaging disclosures for then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden.”
This is a lie.
It’s unsurprising that Turley doesn’t link to what Weissmann actually wrote, so that people can see what Weissmann and Ryan Goodman (law prof. at NYU, who coauthored the op-ed with Weissmann) actually wrote instead of relying on Turley’s misrepresentation. Here’s their column: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/opinion/bill-barr-trump-biden-2020.html
I commented on Turley having misrepresented it when he wrote about it in August: jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-2/#comment-1990585
After Prof. Goodman tweeted a thread about Turley’s misrepresentation (https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1295373224474226688), Turley updated that column so that the quote was less out of context. But now he’s repeating his misrepresentation, even though he knows better.
Shame on him.
Unfortunately, this isn’t surprising. He often misrepresents what others have said.
He also badly needs a copy editor. He repeats an entire paragraph in the column.
Hey Commit: I suppose this quote is meaningless – “Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.” Weissmann is openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about his own decisions.
Weissmann openly suggested that insubordination, on a rather large scale, be done, risking the jobs of these attorneys. Clearly Weissmann cares more about his cover than the jobs of hard working attorneys at the DOJ. WoW, what an ethic.
No, Weissmann and Goodman were not “openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about [Weissmann’s] own decisions.”
They said nothing about “publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures” after the election, only before.
Your claim that “Weissmann openly suggested that insubordination, on a rather large scale, be done” is also false. They were quite clear that were talking about “improper requests” (emphasis added).
It’s sad that you quote them but then read all sorts of things into the quote that aren’t there.
Well, I don’t believe you.
“No, Weissmann and Goodman were not…”
Why do you assume you know everything Weissmann has ever said or written? You don’t. You are promoting your opinion as fact and then accuse others of an information deficit. You are unbelievably arrogant.
1984:
It would be better for you not to ask loaded questions. I don’t “assume [I] know everything Weissmann has ever said or written,” nor did I say or imply otherwise.
I do know what he and Goodman wrote in the op-ed that Turley is referring to, because I read that op-ed when Turley wrote his earlier column about it.
If you think I wrote something false, just quote it and provide evidence that it’s false. Your insults say more about you than they do about me.
I am not here to correct your work for you though I do comment when there is a lack of satisfactory performance. You criticize Turley and assume things you have no way of knowing. Your ego must have difficulty fitting into your head.
Your assumptions are quite clear to anyone that reads what you say. You stretch points so that they break before you draw your conclusions.
“Your insults say more about you than they do about me.”
I think your critiques of Turley are very arrogant, and though my words are accurate, they are far less insulting than your words towards Turley, which quite frequently are inaccurate.
Commited. When Weissmann said that no investigations should continue 90 days before an election who do you think he was directing his statement towards, your Grandmother? Maybe it was your Grandmother if she was an investigator in the Justice Department. His intended audience was not the general population, but the investigators. The source you use provides his exact words. There was a Congressional election in 2018 that was subject to the influence of an investigation of the leader of the Republican party. Did he pause his investigation so that the election of House and Senate members would not be affected. You twist Weissmann’s words to fit your narritive. Another comment from the pretzel factory. One pill makes you smaller and one pill makes you tall through the magic looking glass hanging on your wall.
Thinkitthrough, Weissmann and Goodman didn’t say “that no investigations should continue 90 days before an election.”
Maybe you should (re)read their entire column so that you’re clear on what they actually said.
Commit is an internationally known mind reader among the pigmy tribes in Africa. As he travels around the world his ego grows and now he thinks he can read the mind of anyone.
He can’t. He makes things up.
“This is a lie. It’s unsurprising that Turley doesn’t link to what Weissmann actually wrote…”
Where does Turley say that his information came from an article written by Weissmann? He doesn’t. What Andrew Weissman writes is likely self-serving and need not be truthful. Any previous error or lack of clarity, if either occurred, doesn’t make Turley’s present statement false.
One has to take note that in the short time I have been exposed to what you write, I have found your analysis to be based on bias and not truthful. Therefore, there is no need for me to go further.
However, I will say that your hate shines through when another commenter listens to what you say about a fellow Democrat. Turley is an old school liberal Democrat who understands the Constitution and has not adopted the authoritarian position recently promoted by the Democrat Party.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/whats_kraken.html
November 15, 2020
What’s Kraken?
By Clarice Feldman
“A couple of nights ago on Lou Dobbs’s show, President Trump’s (and General Michael Flynn’s) lawyer Sidney Powell suggested there was massive fraud in the presidential election vote tabulations. She said she was about to “release the Kraken.” Lin Wood, the other most prominent Trump election counsel, suggested much the same explosion of evidence establishing the presidential vote tabulations were manipulated.
There was a bizarre switch on election eve. As vote counting suddenly and oddly was halted in several key states, the tallies, which had shown that a substantial victory was in the offing for the President, suddenly — and statistically impossibly — ran up huge numbers for Biden and away from Trump. This certainly creates an impression that the shift was the result of theft.
Other indications besides the statements of these lawyers (the analyses by statisticians, the hundreds of sworn affidavits by poll watchers) who certainly would not risk their reputations on baseless charges of such significance, suggest that the counting was seriously flawed and likely tampered with….”
‘Since I delivered these remarks on November 6, I have seen overwhelming evidence that massive fraud was in the computer voting system in addition to mail ballots.
They will not get away with it.” @LLinWood
Powell and Wood are lying. It’s legal for them to lie to the public. But it’s not legal to lie to a judge, which is probably why they haven’t presented these claims to a judge.
Ask yourself: if they actually had evidence of massive fraud, why haven’t they already presented their evidence in court in the multiple suits the Trump Campaign has filed in several states?
Only a gullible person would think that they have evidence but haven’t presented it in court.
..you need a brain transplant…
If I said something false, quote it and provide evidence that it’s false.
Your insult is only evidence about you.
…you have demonstrated such a low IQ, what I have archived is beyond your ability to understand…maybe read our Constitution.
“It’s legal for them to lie to the public. But it’s not legal to lie to a judge, which is probably why they haven’t presented these claims to a judge.”
Same exact thing can be said about Chair of the Intelligence Committee, they lying, dishonorable, Adam Schiff.
Precisely why we see ‘the liars’ are all paid analysts on BSNBC and CNN. Because it’s legal for them to lie to the public.
It seems this pinhead calls everyone a liar, yet this Committ fellow lies all the time.
“Ask yourself: if they actually had evidence of massive fraud, why haven’t they already presented their evidence in court in the multiple suits the Trump Campaign has filed in several states?”
Evidence has to be gathered. It has been presented to the courts and other evidence will be presented on a continuous basis as it comes in. Expect a lot of the judges to be party hacks so there will be judgements against Trump early on. Later it will go to the Supreme Court. It’s very hard to prove fraud so Trump has a big burden. Sometimes in federal fraud cases it takes years to get a case to court so the scales of justice are set against Trump.
We will all have to wait and see. The election isn’t over. It isn’t over until the electors vote or the candidates agree. The candidates don’t agree so Biden shouldn’t even be called President elect for that is a misnomer.
A major case involves a judge who rewrote the legislature of a state’s constitutional rules for voting. That is unconstitutional. It will be one of the cases in front of the Supreme Court. An unlikely scenario, though possible, is that no winner will found and therefore the decision will go to the House. If that occurred the decision of the House would likely provide the President with a second term.
Congress should pass a law making clear that a sitting President can be indicted for crimes, overruling the OLC memo. (Whether the President can be tried by the DOJ while in office is a separate question, and I’m inclined to say no.)
The new AG and the DOJ should be free to investigate crimes by both Biden AND Trump without political interference.
CTHD. Re: indictment: Isn’t that what Impeachment is for? As for AG/DOJ freely investigating Biden and Trump without political interference? Fat chance of that happening in your lifetime.
No, that’s not what impeachment is for. Impeachment can only result in a president being removed from office, and it’s entirely possible for a president to be guilty of a crime but not removed by Congress (as happened with Clinton’s perjury and also happened with Trump, who didn’t even face articles of impeachment for all of his crimes). Impeachment itself doesn’t result in a criminal prosecution. In addition, there is no law that allows the statute of limitations to toll while a president is in office, so it’s possible for someone who serves two terms to avoid being indicted after leaving office, if the statute of limitations has expired.
If a president has committed a crime, the DOJ should be able to indict him while in office (it’s the timing of the indictment that matters with respect to the statute of limitations).
Talk, talk, talk, Committ. What crime in office can Trump be convicted of?
Among his crimes are obstruction of justice, breaking campaign finance laws, and omitting required info on his financial disclosure form and then certifying it as “true, correct and complete.” The SSCI Report indicates that he’s also guilty of perjury.
Indications (SSCI) are not fact. He did not obstruct justice. That is in your mind. There is no proof he broke campaign finance law unless you want to use potential testimony of a convicted liar. You are loaded with zero.
Take your best case for criminal prosecution and set out the proof. You can’t do it. All you can do is talk, talk, and talk.
I know you ment to say hung and then tried.
Because we have a corrupt press that runs a cover-up operation for Democrats like Schiff, Obama, Biden, et al, instead of uncovering crimes and corruption, Joe Biden has never been asked these questions. Not about the January 5 Oval Office meeting where he suggested using the Logan Act against Flynn, not about his name appearing as an ‘unmasker,’ and not a single question about Hunter’s laptop, Bobulinski or “10% for the Big Guy.” Are you the “Big Guy” Joe?
It’s difficult to believe that a man as corrupt as Joe Biden, and as senile as Joe Biden, will be elevated to the White House. My guess is that he won’t make it to the inauguration. This election is not over.
Appoint a Special Cousel now.
Once again, Turley’s priorities are on full display. This morning, Trump claimed Biden won “because the Election was Rigged. NO VOTE WATCHERS OR OBSERVERS allowed, vote tabulated by a Radical Left privately owned company, Dominion, with a bad reputation & bum equipment that couldn’t even qualify for Texas (which I won by a lot!), the Fake & Silent Media, & more!” So while Trump systematically tries to undermine the integrity of the bedrock of our democracy, a free & fair election, Turley takes aim at Schiff.
Turley keeps saying the Trump campaign has yet to produce any credible evidence of massive voter fraud, yet he remains stone cold silent as Trump continually makes wildly unsubstantiated claims. Turley presumably believes the best example of tearing down democracy is whether or not there will be a full investigation into Hunter Biden’s purported laptop.
+10 Race. Turley regrettably is a campaign tool and not a serious commentator.That has been obvious for many months and not what I expected when I first came here. This column is rife with falsehoods and unproven accusations presented as data.He knows better.
“rife with falsehoods”? Do some Fake Fact Checking for us.
Investigations of Russian collusion – it wasn’t of collusion, but of criminal conspiracy – are not discredited. See GOP led Senate Intel Comm report made public 3 months ago which like the Mueller Report documents numerous incidents of the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents and Putin cronies. The Durham announcement on Clinesmith did not big headlines because the Horowitz Report of last December telegraphed it. “Media” has no more reason to be embarrassed about Hunter Biden than it did for not writing about the Steele Dossier before the 2016 election. Fusion showed it to all of them in Sept 2016 and they passed on it for being unproven and inflammatory just before an election. Unlike Turley, they have standards and are not part of a campaign.
And so on
“unlike Turley, they have standards…”
You actually believe that “Big media” has standards? And they are *not “part of a campaign” for Joe Biden? While asserting that Turley doesn’t have standards? Holy Orwellian cow, man.
Yes, the “Big Media” have standards because their business model demands it. They sell information and are paid by subscribers, not the DNC. There is a reason why the better of them – NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, Bloomberg, etc – are on the desks and screens of world leaders in business and government, and it’s not because of the editorials.
Those who get their news from Youtube and FB are typically ignorant as f..k, but they have strong opinions. This board is proof of that.
“their business model demands it.”
Care to explain that? Are they really in it to make a profit or get clicks? Who is the big money behind these ‘news’ organizations? What is their agenda? Because it is not to deliver unbiased “news.”
You do realize that corruption in the media includes the intentional suppression of stories and information? It is just as much, probably more, about what they do not report as it is about what they do report.
Suppression and Censorship by the ‘free’ press and big tech is a real thing.
It is impossible to take anyone that comes here for the purpose of critiquing the Professor himself rather than the issues at hand seriously. If you aren’t trolls, then why do you keep coming here?
So you think Turley should be able to make false claims and/or use faulty reasoning without criticism?
Do some Fake Fact Checking for us.
James,
They come here because JT is a well-respected legal mind and they cannot allow his objective analysis to go unsullied. Interestingly, the greater their efforts, the more obvious it is that JT is over the target.
Good question.
Joe:
“This column is rife with falsehoods and unproven accusations presented as data.”
Then go away.
Only an idiot or a masochist stays on a blog when he believes what you said.
Either you are a liar, or you have some unhealthy personal traits.
And we won’t miss you when you (finally) leave.
Monument, I first came here expecting intelligent commentary from Turley and intelligent comments by posters. That was a while back, and my disillusionment with Turley is now complete and only rarely am I impressed with the posters here. I stay because I like to argue and I hope to convince lurkers – the regulars here, no way. I would expect those I disagree with would welcome the chance to convince others or further cement their own opinions.
I stay around because I hope to impress you, Joe Friday. Seriously. As I write, my mind goes, “Ooh ooh, I hope Joe Friday likes my post, I hope he like it. I hope that Joe Friday is impressed.” Oh how we all long for your approval, Joe.
bahahahahahaaaaha.
Check out the Dominion voting machines that were changing Trump votes into Biden votes.
If Ron Reagan can get away with a reign of murder in Central America and GW Bush can get away with invading the wrong country, Joe Biden can get away with refusing to suspect his son is dishonest and unethical. That is, in the long course of the bumpy road of American history,this is much ado about nothing. In a perfect world Reagan would be a pariah and Bush would be in a European jail, Biden would be driven to lose weight and his sanity defending himself in vaious courts. Alas we live in a very imperfect world.
Long past expecting anything from Durham.
Never has so much been expected and so little delivered.
Typical of the public sector, where a person can spend years drawing a nice salary, getting public acclaim, and deliver nothing. Then Durham will retire and write a book on the investigation.
Agreed. Unfortunately, in spite of high hopes, I feel the same about Barr. There really is a deep state and it is very deep.
Un-witting self parody on steroids.
Yeah, these guys are ruthless and everywhere. I think your spouse may be in on it, because it couldn’t be you’ve bought a load of crap from somebody who profits from the sale.
Pathetic.
Pathetic
Durham is far from finished..he’ll deliver the goods!
Durham has had a very fruitful career of public service.
Adam Schiff. How many times did this low life emerge from his intelligence committee hearings and facing the cameras say he had “positive” proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia? Sciffty I’m still waiting….
Give us your opinion on this, Jonathan:
On the other hand, the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument, or perjured evidence, or for any matter which was actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. Mr. Wells, in his very useful work on Res Adjudicata, says, sect. 499: ” Fraud vitiates every thing, and a judgment equally with a contract; that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud.” . . . “Likewise, there are few exceptions to the rule that equity will not go behind the judgment to interpose in the cause itself, but only when there was some hindrance besides the negligence of the defendant, in presenting the defence in the legal action. There is an old case in South Carolina to the effect that fraud in obtaining a bill of sale would justify equitable interference as to the judgment obtained thereon. But I judge it stands almost or quite alone, and has no weight as a precedent.” . The case he refers to is Crauford v. Crauford, 4 Desau. (S. C.)
Mr. Wells, in his very useful work on Res Adjudicata, says, sect. 499: ” Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a contract; that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, and not merely a judgment founded on a fraudulent instrument; for, in general, the court will not go again into the merits of an action for the purpose of detecting and annulling the fraud.”
U.S. Supreme Court Cases Mandate That the Order Voiding and Annulling All Orders and Judgments be Entered Based Upon Fraud Upon the Court .
The U.S. Supreme Court, which the Superior Court is bound to follow, stated in U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878):
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
The Court continued at page 66: Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a contract . . .(citing Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499).
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court [JUDGES AREOFFICERS OF THE COURT)] so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kennerv. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice,2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.
The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” THE JUDGMENT IS VOID!
The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920): Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void!
Gobbledegook.
…your level of ignorance is on display…