Below is my column in The Hill on the news that Donald Trump will not be charged with campaign finance violations linked to payments made to Stormy Daniels. The report (and the start of the Senate trial) raise another question as to why Trump has not been interviewed, let alone charged, with the crime of incitement. Various members and legal experts have claimed that the case for prosecution is clear on its face. The crime occurred in public over a month ago, but there is no indication of a move to prosecute. Why? It is presumably not because prosecutors feel it would be too easy.
Here is the column:
Donald Trump may be the most convicted man never charged in America. According to media reports, the Justice Department has decided not to charge Trump with campaign finance violations related to hush money paid to former stripper Stormy Daniels. What was touted by many experts as a slam-dunk criminal charge has now joined a long list of alleged crimes that once were nightly cable-news sensations.
The disconnect between legal analysis and legal reality matters little in today’s media. Many of the same experts now trumpet the charge of criminal incitement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. In their minds — unsurprisingly — it is another open-and-shut case. For four years, they have supplied a stream of allegations, all described as conclusive, to feed readers’ and viewers’ insatiable appetites. The campaign finance charge actually was one of the more credible claims, since former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to it. However, such crimes are notoriously difficult to litigate, as shown by the failed 2012 prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards.
Many of these alleged criminal acts were presented as reassuringly simple and straightforward. Former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason insisted Trump committed bribery in the Ukraine scandal since “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.” It did not matter that the Supreme Court has roundly rejected such sweeping interpretations of bribery, extortion and related political corruption. Others claimed Trump committed “felony bribery” by fundraising for Republican senators when he was about to be impeached.
Former CNN legal analyst and former House impeachment counsel Norm Eisen claimed that, by not responding to Russian aggression, Trump was “colluding in plain sight” and the criminal case against him for obstruction of justice was “devastating.” That was in 2018.
Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman said Donald Trump Jr.’s emails about meeting with Russians at Trump Tower were “almost a smoking cannon,” adding that “there’s almost no question this is treason.” Professor Richard Painter claimed a clear case for treason. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe declared Trump’s dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering; Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and poss
Now, experts claim Trump’s Jan. 6 speech clearly was criminal incitement. Said CNN legal analyst Elie Honig: “As a prosecutor I’d gladly show a jury Trump’s own inflammatory statements and argue they cross the line to criminality.” Richard Ashby Wilson, associate law school dean at the University of Connecticut, said “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. He should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.”
Many were quick to repeat their certainty of yet another criminal act. Tribe declared: “This guy was inciting not just imminent lawless action, but the violent decapitation of a coordinate branch of the government, preventing this peaceful transition of power and putting a violent mob into the Capitol while he cheered them on.” Bolstering such claims, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine said he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge.
What’s strange is that there’s no word of an interview, let alone a charge, on a purportedly clear crime committed more than a month ago. One possible reason is that it would collapse in court. It is much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-TV charges. I do not fault experts for speculating about such a case — but many are claiming, again, that prosecution would be relatively easy. That simply is not true.
The problem is free speech. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court said even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. He later — and too belatedly — repeated that after violence erupted, telling his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.
Racine showed how disconnected these theories are from case law. He noted that Trump failed to “calm them down or at least emphasize the peaceful nature of what protests need to be.” Setting aside that Trump did tell them to protest peacefully, his failure to calm down a crowd is not criminal incitement by omission.
Trump does face ongoing liability — largely the same threats that existed before he became president, in the form of bank, tax and business investigations. But the litany of crimes breathlessly suggested over the last four years passed without charges. Nevertheless, experts have lined up to argue now that there are no free-speech or legal barriers to prosecuting Trump for incitement.
There is now a difference, however: There’s no longer an excuse that Trump cannot be indicted in office (which I do not believe is true), or that he would just pardon himself (which he didn’t do despite predictions he would). What was conveniently hypothetical can be an actual prosecution today. If criminal incitement is such a strong case, make it — charge him. Of course, such prosecutions could come at a cost. Unless there is evidence of direct intent, Trump is likely to prevail at trial or on appeal. He then could claim not just vindication on a federal charge but also on his second impeachment.
There is no crime of incitement for legal analysts who exaggerate or oversimplify criminal provisions; the public can be whipped into a frenzy with claims of easy prosecutions or slam-dunk charges. Many people are addicted to rage and these claims, even if illusory, feed that addiction. It is all entertainment until someone actually tries to bring a prosecution — and that is when reality sets in.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial. You can find him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Perhaps a more interesting question is why the Democrats now in charge of the House and the Senate have stonewalled all inquiries into the adequacy of security at the Capitol Building in advance of the January 6 event. And, yes, the current Senate minority leader should be forthcoming as well. Their roles in failing to act call for an investigation of ALL aspects of the breach. Were these leaders on “inquiry notice” of the need for additional security?
What’s your evidence that ” the Democrats now in charge of the House and the Senate have stonewalled all inquiries into the adequacy of security at the Capitol Building in advance of the January 6 event”?
Asking anyone of them for evidence or facts as you know will not go anywhere. But thanks for trying.
Tell us what they have reported.
I watched an interview of Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) yesterday. He detailed the efforts that he had taken to obtain information and said that, as of 02-07-21, he had not received any response to his inquiries. Feel free to check his website for a synopsis. Senators Johnson and Graham have called for an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened. I also saw a clip yesterday in which Nancy Pelosi was asked a similar question. Her reply was curt and dismissive: “Your question is a waste of time.”
Johnson’s synopsis says “I’ve sent four letters, to the two former sergeants at arms of the House and Senate, and now the acting sergeants at arms of the House and the Senate. I have gotten absolutely no response.”
How on earth do you conclude from that that “the Democrats now in charge of the House and the Senate have stonewalled all inquiries into the adequacy of security at the Capitol Building in advance of the January 6 event.” The sergeants at arms are not “in charge of the House and the Senate,” and I don’t see why you assume they’re Democrats.
Just a reminder that “high crimes and misdemeanors” need not be statutory crimes.
Just a reminder: words have meanings and not just what Congress says they mean.
Duh.
Not are they just what you or I say they mean.
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'”
None of us is Humpty Dumpty.
Ironic.
Yes, your comments often are.
I think so, Humpty! Yours run from juvenile to hateful.
Look at that: another ironic comment from you.
“The problem is free speech. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court said even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. He later — and too belatedly — repeated that after violence erupted, telling his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.”
*****************************
That’s not the problem with this mad “prosecution.” That’s the solution — as you imply. The problem is radical ideologues occupying the levers of power in this country and no one standing up to them.
Mespo, “ The problem is free speech. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court said even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. He later — and too belatedly — repeated that after violence erupted, telling his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.”
The incitement was not from a single speech. It was a series of speeches made over months. That culminated in the Jan 6 insurrection.
One does not need to directly call for the use of force. Simply implying it meets the criteria. Trump built up his supporter’s ire with constant inflammatory rhetoric for weeks. His own supporters have admitted to authorities that they took his speech as a call to go to the Capitol and disrupt the process. In any court of law the supporters own statements prove the intent of the president’s goal. This is further supported by the fact that Trump made no effort to dissuade the mob from assaulting the Capitol. He tweeted in the middle of the attack complaining about pence not “sending back the votes” rather than call for his supporters to stop. Trump had to be pressured into saying it was wrong long after it was well underway.
Sevvy:
Oh so we look at all Trump’s speeches. Cherry pick what you like and ignore “patriotic” and “peaceful” in the real speech. You’d make a patsy prosecutor. He’s a tip: you can call for insurrection anytime just not imminent violence. Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, Mad Maxine and others do it all the time against this regime or another and they’re still on the street spewing their special brand of stupid.
It’s constitutionally protected free speech. Here let’s try it and I’ll go first: “I call for the fiery end of the Chinese government.”
See? I ‘m still alive and free. lol Now you try it. I’ll give odds on the government you sub in there.
Mespo, “ It’s constitutionally protected free speech. Here let’s try it and I’ll go first: “I call for the fiery end of the Chinese government.”
That’s cute. Why don’t you call for a fiery end to our own government for a few weeks. Get a loyal following going first. Then do a public speech implying to the crowd that this is the time to fight for their beliefs. When they March over to storm a government building. You are in the same boat as Trump. That’s inciting a crowd. It doesn’t have to be a single speech. It involves a process of constant inflammatory rhetoric to put the idea in people’s heads. After that, like Trump, all it takes is a gentle push or suggestion to get the crowd to do what you implied for weeks.
You can deny it because you didn’t “directly” call for the violence. But when your loyal followers start getting arrested and admitting to the authorities that they believed YOU were telling them to do what they did, YOU are accountable for it.
That’s not constitutionally protected. Especially when it comes to impeachment.
Sevvy:
I hope you prosecute me.
What a clown. The defender of the party whose leader tried tp overturn and election, including disrupting required Congressional verification of the EC, and who’s congressional members include QANON idiots and advocates for executing past presidents and the current Speaker of the House, accuses Democrats of harboring “radicals”. No wonder his predictions are so f…ed.
Gainesville Friday:
But, buit, but … Trump is bad ’cause I say so and 74 million people must be wrong. and Hillary never ….. I think you’ve got the big feet and red nose. You are funny.
Hillary had more votes in 2016, Biden had more votes in 2020. So but your way of thinking the horse in second place should be declared the winner, and the people that bet on the first place winner loses. I wish I could say you are funny, you are not, just delusional.
Fishhead:
Electoral college don’t care about no stinkin’ popular vote. It’s the system you see.
It’s past time to eliminate the EC via amendment.
Mespo, “ Electoral college don’t care about no stinkin’ popular vote. It’s the system you see.”
Actually the electoral college relies on the outcome of the popular vote. Voters may not directly choose the president, but the popular vote does determine how electors vote. Because each state has a disproportionate number of electors a popular vote doesn’t always guarantee a president wins. This time it did.
When you look at trust ratings for Congress and the media, the witch hunts have taken a toll, and yet the Democrats got control of Washington.
Joe McCarthy wishes he had their secret sauce.
The secret sauce is that although the Democrats are bad, the Republicans are worse.
The secret sauce is too many frauds who claim to be Americans while trying to make a joke out of due process.
Alternatively, the secret sauce could be ballot box stuffing and ballot harvesting. Time will tell.
Where’s the Outrage? BLM, Antifa Protesters Threaten to ‘Burn’ DC Down If They Don’t Get What They Want…BLM now runs the s*&tshow in DC and therefore the USA…what a great country…NOT!!!
Imagine that, random people say outrageous things.
BLM isn’t even an organization, and you’re nuts if you think it runs the country.
Nope, just useful idiots
Look up the term useful idiots, you will see red hats, and people that don’t believe in reality.
Anon, BLM is not an organization? Somehow they use the internet to talk about (organize) their protest. After the event is talked about (organized) they show up in large numbers to mostly peacefully loot stores and burn down the police station. I know, they just magically all get the same inspiration and magically show up at the same location. No talking (organizing) required. They get millions of dollars to only talk about (organize) their plans. We must magically accept your explanation that there was no planning (organization) involved. Anon has some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.
You’re a troll, TiT. One of your forms of trolling is to make up claims about what someone did or believes and then argue as if you’re made-up claim is true.
You’re here talking to me. Do you think that makes us an organization too?
“You’re a troll, TiT. ”
Anonymous, once again you are insulting. They use RICO against people that do not belong in the “same organization” but act in conjunction with others. You owe TiT and apology.
We shouldn’t stereotype all Trump supporters as disloyal insurrectionists, for the actions of a few bad apples. Likewise we shouldn’t stereotype all BLM supporters, most are peaceful and lawful, for the actions of a few bad apples. If you are a constitutional-conservative, you don’t practice “guilt-by-association” of any group, since it’s fundamentally contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
It’s just my opinion…free speech which is being taken away by the progressives…BLM is definitely a movement nationwide…I consider them to be the KKK of today…still just my opinion…free speech…now that would be censored on FB and my account would be closed and on Twitter too…the document the founding fathers left us no longer exists in my opinion…I believe everybody in power in government is corrupt and can be bought…that will never change…term limits…never happen…3rd party…never happen…pack the court…YES…electoral college gone…YES…filibuster gone…YES…socialism…YES…take all guns away…YES…it’s not the same country I was born into…the top 1% by WEALTH rule the bottom 99%…all men created equal is no longer valid…the dream of America…gone bye bye…in my opinion…why come to a socialist country from another socialist country?…makes no sense…the nanny state is here to stay…let’s hope the nanny is good and not bad and abuses or kills the children they are paid to take care of…again my opinion.
Ashcroft, they wear BLM and Antifa on their shirts. Guilt by association prominently displayed for us all to see. If your there with them looting and burning your part of the crowd. You either support their activity or you don’t. I see, you are a member of BLM or Antifa but you don’t support what they do. Your a member of the KKK but you don’t support what they do and that makes you not guilty by association. Having trouble putting your two and two together there my friend.
Who are the leaders of Antifu/BLM commie-fascist? Who’s the leader of the Q people?
Evidence is looking like one or more US intel outfits like FBI, CIA & the Dem/Rino leadership.
Why did the capital police open the capital up to the public & invite the public in even before Trump was done speaking about a 1 mile away on 1/6? Who ordered that? Nancy?
I’m sure the US Senators will all want to hear wsll those people/groups above testify today/soon.
“One of Washington’s leading conservative constitutional lawyers publicly broke on Sunday with the main Republican argument against convicting former President Donald J. Trump in his impeachment trial, asserting that an ex-president can indeed be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.
In an opinion piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismissed as illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. ….
He argued that because the Constitution allows the Senate to bar officials convicted of impeachable offenses from holding public office again in the future, “it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.”
Mr. Cooper’s decision to take on the argument was particularly significant because of his standing in conservative legal circles. He was a close confidant and adviser to Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz of Texas when he ran for president, and represented House Republicans — including the minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California — in a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is also the lawyer for conservative stalwarts like John R. Bolton and Jeff Sessions, and over his career defended California’s same-sex marriage ban and had been a top outside lawyer for the National Rifle Association.
But Mr. Cooper, who is said to be dismayed by the unwillingness of House and Senate Republicans to hold Mr. Trump accountable, took on the main claim made by his own confidants and clients, offering a series of scholarly and technical arguments for why the Constitution allows for a former president to stand trial…..”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/charles-cooper-trump-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Some of Cooper’s op-ed, since it’s paywalled at the WSJ:
The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.
But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law.
If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”
Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.
Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the chief justice was asked and declined.) Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”
This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because she would accede to the office if he were convicted. No such consideration applies to Kamala Harris. It appears that Ms. Harris has also declined to preside, so the role will be filled by President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy. But she could unilaterally reclaim that prerogative at any time, including to cast tie-breaking votes on procedural motions or the decision to disqualify Mr. Trump.
The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on the merits.
Anon, Let me get this straight. First you try him. Second you find him guilty. The first punishment is removing him from office and having removed him from office you add on not holding office again. So you remove him from a position he no longer holds. In doing so you find that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refuses to preside. Perhaps the Chief Justice doesn’t see it your way. Pretty simple. Then we have your exhaustingly overwordy bit of Lawyereeze. I’m staying with the more simplified version. I know. The next thing you will tell us 140 Democratic lawyers and members of academia signed a letter written by some other Democratic lawyers and members of academia. What a circular bit of confirmation. I threw this last part in as a preemptive volley.
TiT, let me get this straight. You don’t understand Cooper’s op-ed, but you can’t bring yourself to discuss it.
Anon, I then have two opinions on the matter to weigh. Cooper’s op-ed and Chief Justice Robert’s refusal to preside. I am weighing it very very heavily. Sorry Anon, I’ve just got to go with the Chief Justice when it comes to legal interpretation. Somehow, one weight seems to be much heavier than the other.
There is no conflict between the op-ed and Robert’s choice. Cooper explained that, but maybe your English background is too weak to understand his comment about “the definite article.”
“background is too weak to understand ”
Anonymous, you insulted TiT again, Now you owe TiT two apologies.
Turley describes himself thusly:
“Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial.”
While he acknowledges that he is engaged by Senate Republicans, isn’t it rather telling that he does not disclose the fact that he is a paid consultant for Trump TV? Presumably he believes that being an adviser to Senators is a feather in his cap, but his employment by Fox News is apparently something of which he is not proud. Who would be especially now that Fox has been sued for defamation for broadcasting the Big Lie.
Turley has yet to publicly react to the 2.7 billion lawsuit against his colleagues. If he believes that he must recuse himself in commenting on this case on account of his conflict of interest, it would be decent of him to say so.
If you believe that you should stop responding to arguments with ad hominem attacks, it would be decent of you to say so.
I wonder what the upshot of his trump surrogacy amounts to…, getting to defend the next character afterwards who is even worse and more blatant? Seems like a law of diminishing returns proposition there — but maybe the Fox paycheck is worth it for him this time around?
Elvis Bug
Is Turley supposed to include every topic YOU want him to? While some of that may have to do with the topics he chooses, does any of that have to do with the validity of the words he writes?
Agenda driven creeps, demonstrated by your reply, try to demean the writers instead of criticizing what’s written. It’s called boomerang reasoning because it’s all about the critic, their agenda and impotent agenda.
Malcolm X… ” The white liberal is the most dangerous enemy to America”. Boy did he nail it!!!
I love this Turley statement, “Donald Trump may be the most convicted man never charged in America. “
This alone tells almost the complete story of the left’s malfeasance over a 4 year period. Accusations flew all over the place but when proof was requested none could be provided. Instead the opposite was found and the left was almost never convicted or adequately charged with crimes clearly committed.
Anonymous, the proof was waiting in the wings of the 1st Trump Senate trial for impeachment in the form of a 1st person witness and the GOP majority chose to hear not hear him. Of course they were just saving us all the time as they were never going to vote to impeach no matter what. That would take balls, and Trump had them in his top drawer.
Turley falsely reports that the DOJ has decided to not prosecute Trump for payments to Stormy Daniels (they have made no such announcement and that is an expectation based on activity), then uses this misstatement of fact as a bludgeon on his perceived enemies by declaring Trump thus cleared of everything he has ever been accused of. Since Turley indeed has defended Trump on everything he has been accused of, one understands his premature excitement, while taking if for what it is: A victory dance starting with spiking the ball on the 50 yard line.
Time will tell Jonathan, but control your emotions at imagining your guy may only be judged as a sleaze ball a..hole – you can’t deny that – who skirted the law with help from such as yourself. That’s the best of it for you and let’s hope it gets worse.
+10
Elvis Bug
Elv:
Time to re-eval your score. See supra.
Make that infra.
Okay…., +100
Elvis Bug
Is Turley being stupid today? Saying,”Trump may be the most convicted person without ever being charged”? Hello?! That distinction belongs to Hillary Clinton. Accusation after accusation, investigations after investigations and not a single charge or conviction.
Turley is a law professor. He seems to continue to be confused by what an impeachment actually is. He keeps comparing this to a court in the judicial branch. This is NOT the judicial branch. The senate trial has its own rules and terminology that differ from a court. Turley should be acutely aware of this distinction.
He complains that there is no charge for incitement, no interview. Is he serious or just being ignorant? An impeachment IS a charge. Being impeached IS the congressional equivalent of being charged. The TRIAL held in the senate AFTER being impeached by the house is where they CONVICT or ACQUIT. That’s where they are supposed to “interview” Trump. Trump could have chosen to go to the senate to defend himself, but chose not to. It was HIS choice.
150 of his fellow scholars penned a letter stating that the free speech arguments he is pushing do not apply to Trump’s encitement.
Turkey’s off his game on this column.
The difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is there was and remains sufficient proof of her Crimes but reman unprosecuted.
Trump on the other hand has been tried once and acquitted by the Senate and cleared of wrong doing by years of other investigations and a Special Counsel.
A full and impartial analysis of both Clinton and Trump would indict the Criminal Justice System and the USDOJ along with the Obama Administration.
Trump wasn’t cleared by the Special Counsel. The Mueller report said that they could not establish conspiracy and identified multiple acts of obstruction. The Special Counsel did not indict Trump because of the OLC memo.
“Trump wasn’t cleared by the Special Counsel. ”
That wasn’t his job. He found nothing.
Anyone who actually read the Mueller report knows that’s not true, Allan.
Not True, one needs to be able to comprehend that report and the law to know you are wrong.
SM
Like I said: Allan needs to read the report. How about you fetch the section on avenues to investigate obstruction and we can talk…
“Like I said: Allan needs to read the report. ”
Anonymous the Stupid, I read the report. You obviously know little about Mueller’s job. His political job was somewhat different from his job as special prosecutor.
If you bothered to read the report and the responsibilities of the Special Prosecutor you would know better, but you lack critical thinking skills and are ignorant.
And again you dodge, most likely because you haven’t read the report. Like I said, let’s discuss the section on proposed avenues for obstruction listed in the second section. Tell me why you disagree with the report on specific instances, or even the ten instances as a group. Short of that you’re just drinking piss warm beer and thumbing your butt.
Anonymous the Stupid, take your head out of the leftist toilet bowl. Anyone can say or infer anything. Unfortunately you are so ignorant you can’t put the facts together. In the end the Mueller Report which neglected the negligence or criminality of the left found nothing despite the goal of pinning anything they could on the President.
This has been discussed over and over and you still don’t get it. You are too Stupid for words.
Noted: Allan dodges (yet again),
Anonymous the Stupid, your legal interpretation of the Mueller Report along with the political interpretation of it have been discussed over and over. Until you get your head out of the toilet you will never learn anything. Your quick inadequate response only demonstrates that instead of just being Stupid you are both Stupid and a liar.
Noted (x2): Allan dodges yet again.
It isn’t Trump who is crooked as a switchback snake! Doing next to nothing for 40+ years and cozying up to the Chinese where you solidify an income stream to your family from the coffers of Russia, China and Ukraine—playing BOTH SIDES of the Russia/Ukraine relationship—we watched the U.S. switch sides too… it is Obama who is the protected one. He is the decision-maker who has SMOOTHED OVER the world. Amazing play of power and control of info these forces have shown!
Ralph Chappell, “ The difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is there was and remains sufficient proof of her Crimes but reman unprosecuted.”
Incorrect, no proof was ever presented of a crime being committed by Hillary Clinton. She was constantly ACCUSED of crimes, but never charged of a single crime. If there was “sufficient” proof from a republican controlled congress there would have been actual charges.
Multiple investigations were conducted in search of a crime that she could be charged with. None produced the crimes they sought to charge her with.
Trump on the other hand had actual charges applied, but because he was president he couldn’t be charged according to the DOJ.
Investigations on trump are not over. There’s still the issue on his taxes. DOJ has possession of his tax returns now.
Multiple investigations still ongoing of Trump. Of those, the sheer rolling in the mud pit reality of stealing $50 million from his inauguration fund just may be the most entertaining to me because it’s literally his first act as president.
Elvis Bug
“150 of his fellow scholars penned a letter stating that the free speech arguments he is pushing do not apply to Trump’s encitement (sic).”
I realize that this is not going to faze you. You’ve grossly mischaracterized that letter.
Sam,
“ The First Amendment is no bar to the Senate convicting former president Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office,” the letter reads, before explaining that the authors have numerous legal and political differences but are nonetheless united in their understanding of the law on this point. “The First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for president Trump.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nearly-150-constitutional-scholars-reject-trumps-legal-defense-the-first-amendment-does-not-apply-in-impeachment-proceedings/ar-BB1dr5wu
Where’s the mischaracterization you speak of?
“Where’s the mischaracterization you speak of?”
That you conveniently ignored the numerous instances of the word “many.”
FridayinGainesville:
“Turley falsely reports that the DOJ has decided to not prosecute Trump for payments to Stormy Daniels (they have made no such announcement and that is an expectation based on activity)”
**************************************
Ah Gainesville: you’re always wrong, just never in doubt:
Justice Department ends inquiry of hush-money payments in final months of Donald Trump’s campaign, judge says
“WASHINGTON – Federal prosecutors in New York concluded their investigation of hush-money payments Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer orchestrated to quiet potential sex scandals in the final months of his presidential campaign, a judge said Wednesday.
The notice, contained in a brief order issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge William Pauley, was an unceremonious end to an inquiry that implicated the president.
Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said he engineered payments to two women who claimed to have had extramarital affairs with Trump to silence them before the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors in New York said those payments violated federal campaign finance laws, and they and Cohen said Trump directed his lawyer to arrange the payments.”
(…)
“We are pleased that the investigations surrounding these ridiculous campaign finance allegations is now closed,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday. “We have maintained from the outset that the president never engaged in any campaign finance violation.”
(…)
Cohen and federal prosecutors said he arranged payments to two women in the final months of Trump’s 2016 campaign: Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal and pornographic actress Stormy Daniels.”
Oh and that was in 2019. Florida newspapers blackout I guess.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/17/doj-ends-investigation-hush-payments-involving-donald-trump-michael-cohen/1755046001/
joe said: ” declaring Trump thus cleared of everything he has ever been accused of”
this is a gross misstatement of Turley’s comments. you are unjust to Turley
Sal
According to the Media/Dem’s, Never Trumpers, Political Elite Trump is Guilty because he is not an insider and he wants to change things around and take away the Elites Money Train and Power. The Nut Case Professors and so called Nut Case Legal Dem/anti Trump Legal experts should all be fired. Trump lives in their heads and they are afraid of him, even though he is out of office. Trump has 80 million supporters and that is real Power and that is why they are afraid of him.
Not time to call the final score after just the first quarter, Turley. Trump is a master at generating just barely enough plausible deniability and, true, many of his criminal ventures place him perhaps a little more in mondo a&*hole territory than blatant, no nuance, criminal code…, but the day is young. Let’s see what happens post impeachment trial.
Either way, know that you’ve done yeoman work in defending him through social influencing.
Elvis Bug
Leftists, Never Trumpers, the Media, and Democrats have never done well when it comes to reality.
The reality is Trump still lives rent free in their collective minds despite his having left Office.
Every Executive Order put in front of the White House Auto-Signer is designed to und-do all things Trump….no matter the cost to the Republic and the America People.
Reality as always shall be the Left’s un-doing…..and sadly the Democrat version will also un-do the Nation.
Ralph, Biden EOs mostly overturn Trump EOs and most of his early ones were undoing Obama’s. Did you complain then, or like the deficit, are these only issues when your party is out of office? Since Trump had very few legislative achievements – the perfunctory GOP tax cut being one – his legacy is mostly easily undone
Joe….as usual you ignore reality….an affliction you share with many.
Get your calculator out and do some math when it comes to Executive Orders issued by every President over the course of American History and get back with us.
That is just a pure “numbers of” then do a comparison to see which EO’s help and which ones harm the American People….then get back with us.
Let’s use exactly one for an example….that being the Keystone Pipeline….a pipeline that the Obama Administrative approved….that Trump approved….and now Biden killed with all of the harm that shall cause beginning with killing jobs, adversely affecting the price of oil, and causing us to lose our independence from imported oil from the Middle East.
Did your homework for you Ralph:
President Term Total Orders Avg/Year Yrs in Office
W Bush 291 36 8
Obama 276 35 8
Trump 220 55 4
Biden 29
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders
You’re wrong again. Looks like the Mango Mussolini wins hands down.
Ralph, …” Let’s use exactly one for an example….that being the Keystone Pipeline….a pipeline that the Obama Administrative approved….that Trump approved…”
That’s a bad example. The Obama administration never approved the keystone pipeline. Congressional republicans passed a bill approving the pipeline which Obama successfully vetoed. It wasn’t until Trump got into office that it was finally approved.
Here’s a timeline,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/keystone-xl-pipeline-approval-timeline-obama-trump
Trump’s impeachment trial starts tomorrow. But you think it’s not newsworthy, and discussing it is only an indication of him living rent-free in people’s minds?
The impeachment itself proves that Trump lives rent free in Dems minds displacing any positive thoughts to help the American family. So far the left is causing them pain.
The impeachment itself proves Trump incited a riot. Republican senate has vowed, apparently, to not remove and/or bar trump from being able to seek office again. He’s not worth any consideration past that other than legal fights he’ll be embroiled in the rest of his life.
Elvis Bug
“The impeachment itself proves Trump incited a riot.”
No need to read any further. He proves his own ignorance.
SM
So you read further. Good.
Yes I read further and told others there was no need to do so. Further on the author proved his own ignorance.
SM
Allan anything you deem as ignorant needs to be taken in an exactly opposite light because…, well, you’re such a moron.
“Allan…”
Anonymous the Stupid, do you know how you got your name? By being Stupid and acting in an insulting fashion.
Allan, as you noted elsewhere, an “opinion is not a fact.” That holds for your opinions too.
Anonymous the Stupid are you too Stupid to recognize that the statement made was an opinion?
You still don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Love that Allan signed in here as Anonymous and the first three words of his post are “Anonymous the Stupid…”
Gotta learn to pick your spots, bud. Sometimes I’m just embarrassed for you.
Anonymous the Stupid, you still don’t get it. Opinion is not fact even though you have pretended it is for years. I use your real name, Anonymous the Stupid, because it differentiates you from others and you deserve it. Take note that the first three words of this response are Anonymous the Stupid because I am talking to you. I am glad you recognize your name.
A lot of our friends kept telling us how much better the Europe was doing than the US, but they have been silent. Here is one report and comparison.
—-
1) Trump’s Stellar Economic Record During the Pandemic
We have noted many times on these pages, nearly all of Trump’s antagonists were expecting Great Depression-type economic numbers for 2020 in the wake of the pandemic. Many of the experts thought the economy would contract by 6 to 10% – in reality, it fell 3.5% – and that the unemployment rate as expected to be at or above 10% for the year – it finished at 6.4. The anti-Trumpers were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Even more remarkable, the U.S. economic recovery under Trump in 2020 far outpaced the recovery in Europe on virtually every economic barometer – unemployment, GDP growth, stock market performance, and others.
The figure below provides the comparisons between the U.S. and the EU. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Europe’s extensive Covid-19 restrictions” that Trump smartly repelled (except in Blue States) and the EU’s “painfully slow vaccine rollout” explain the diverging path of these two economies.
Article at https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/trumps-stellar-economic-record-during-the-pandemic/
I don’t care what goes through your rat mind when you type “Anonymous the stupid” because i’m wondering whether you groaned or not when unmitigated idiocy bent you over the dining room table and had its way with you.
Anonymous the Stupid, I get it. You know you are a dummy so you have no problem mistaking opinion with fact.
Says the guy who posts newsletters as if they’re absolute truth.
“Says the guy who posts newsletters as if they’re absolute truth.”
Anonymous the Stupid, I believe many of these opinions are correct but I post them as opinion not fact. You cannot separate fact from opinion and that is proven by your remark above.
“A lot of our friends kept telling us how much better the Europe was doing than the US, but they have been silent. Here is one report and comparison.”
Notice your use of the word “report” (and not the word opinion)? It proves what you just said is a lie. Best to check your previous posts when posting again and changing your story.
“Notice your use of the word “report” (and not the word opinion)? ”
A report can be opinion, fact, observation and a whole host of other things. Calling another a liar based on your ignorance isn’t smart. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
+100
Actually, no. A report is a report. You can have an opinion about the information contained within said report, but that’s an unrelated response. Can a report omit some information, thereby shaping the information it does report? Yes, but opinion doesn’t overtly enter at that point…, it’s an incomplete report.
You’re quite confused, Allan. Right wing media, and maggots, have gotten to your brain.
There are many different types of reports. Your brain is unable to deal with complex issues so you think that a report cannot be anything but fact and discard the rest. That is Stupid to do but that is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
Use a dictionary.
This case may differ from previous incitement cases, since the alleged incitement to violence was made “under color of law” – not a regular citizen on a street corner but in his official capacity as Commander-In-Chief combined with the militia-clause of the 2nd Amendment.
The militia-clause of the 2nd Amendment legally means governors and presidents are the Commander of well-regulated militias (National Guard, etc). It doesn’t govern a bunch of anarchists proposing constitutionally-subversive actions.
Previous GOP leaders, acting under color of law, like Dick Cheney, supported a constitutionally-subversive “Unitary Executive Theory” – a theory that voters essentially elect a dictator every election. That dictator can adopt torture techniques from the Spanish Inquisition (a felony under US law) or adopt warrantless domestic spying techniques from East Germany during the Cold War – in other words presidents have no limits on power – none. Public schools do a terrible job at teaching American Civics education. Many, maybe most, American school children and many adults can’t name the three branches of government or tell you the function of each branch.
On January 6, militia groups, likely believing the GOP’s “Unitary Executive Theory”, heard their Commander-In-Chief essentially claiming the election was stolen and activating the militia to action. This is a very unique incitement case, unlike all others.
Does it matter if the domestic spying without a warrant (as alleged by AZ) or done used Warrants illegally obtained by false affidavits to the FISA Court as done by the Obama Administration?
Warrants meeting the letter & spirit of the 4th Amendment (“constitutionality” as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court – the court’s top duty) and it applies to both parties. The FISA Court, as it has been used in the 21st Century, subverts the constitutional rule of law, and should either be totally abolished or heavily regulated.
FISA was created as the “exclusive legal path” (one & only path) for presidents to follow, created after Watergate and the Frank Church Committee to RESTRAIN presidential authority. In the 21st Century it was largely used for the opposite reason, so it does more harm than good, especially for Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics used against innocent Americans.
Yes it applies to both parties!
Do the Pinkos ever get tired of being lied to?
Their experts, their legal paladins, have been shown over and over to be liars looking for clickbait.
And the lefties fall for it every time (hint guys, did you every watch Charley Brown and Lucy?).
I appreciate the lefty passion, but they are being played for chumps.
Do the Trump supporters ever get tired of being lied to?
He’s been shown over and over to be a liar looking to feed his ego.
And the Trump supporters fall for it every time (hint guys, did you every watch Charley Brown and Lucy?).
I appreciate the Trump supporters’ passion, but they are being played for chumps.
“He’s been shown over and over to be a liar”
Yes, incompetents stated Trump was a liar over and over again, but have been unable to list with evidence the significant lies he made as President.
The Washington post, as well as CNN, both kept ongoing tallies of his lies in office, Allan. Just because you don’t like those sources personally in no way discounts what they cited.
I went through some of those supposed lies and the Washington Post was lying. You couldn’t manage it at the time. Stop providing links when you don’t know what they are talking about.
SM
Oh okay. I totally trust you because, obviously, I’m a sucker for people who talk out of their ass.
Donald J.Trump is an exceptional man and has done great things for our Country as President. Those who resort to personal attacks on Constituents, Patriots and supporters of Trump are the ones who have no basis in fact or evidence for their claims.
Anyone wondering still wondering if we have two justice systems? One for the rich, one for the poor? Look no further.
Various members and legal experts have claimed that the case for prosecution is clear on its face.
Well, they were lying.