Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics

What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?

This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots. However, I have long maintained that there was no evidence to support a criminal charge against Trump for incitement. Yet, a year ago, various legal experts declared that Trump should be charged based on his speech and his delay in calling for protesters to leave Capitol Hill. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging him with incitement.  So, a year later, what ever happened to the prosecution of Donald Trump?

Racine and others were not restrained by Republicans in Congress and clearly were eager to make the “clear” case for prosecution. The fact is that they were restrained by the Constitution and the media attention over their dubious claims quietly faded away like so many other “slam dunk” charges highlighted on cable news programs.

Democratic politicians and commentators are still demanding that Trump be criminally charged. Former Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, now an MSNBC analyst, recently declared that Attorney General Merrick Garland would “go down in infamy as one of the worst attorney generals in this country’s history” if former President Trump is not charged. Garland seemed to respond to the pressure this week by pledging that his department would charge any responsible “at any level.”

Those three words revived the hopes of many on CNN and MSNBC, which spent four years trafficking in often unfounded theories of criminality against Trump and his family. Indeed, many of the same legal experts reappeared to offer assurances that Trump can still be frog marched to the hoosegow.

It is all too familiar. Just a year ago, cable networks were riding high on ratings by offering a steady diet of blockbuster stories establishing clear criminal conduct by Trump or his family. Former House counsel Norman Eisen was assuring viewers that Trump was “colluding in plain sight” and the criminal case against Trump for obstruction of justice was overwhelming. Professor Richard Painter was explaining the clear case of treason against Trump. Professor Laurence Tribe declared the dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering. Tribe further claimed strong cases for obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, and extortion by Trump or his family.  Others explained that Trump could be charged with negligent homicide over the Covid-19 crisis.

The same figures were back on Jan. 6th to declare the Trump speech to be sufficient for prosecution. Legal analyst Elie Honig said he would “gladly show a jury” his inflammatory remarks and “argue they cross the line to criminality.” Professor Richard Ashby Wilson said, “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. Trump should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.” Laurence 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.”

So what happened?  Even if you assume that Trump was protected by his own Justice Department, it was only a matter of days before the Biden Administration was in place and ready for new prosecutions. Moreover, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that week that he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge. He was heralded in the media with global coverage. Then nothing happened.

The reason is that the speech itself was not a crime. Indeed, it was protected free speech. They knew that a court would throw out such an indictment and, even if they could find a willing judge, any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.

The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.

Notably, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg referred to a planned march on Congress after declaring that “revengeance” could be taken for the betrayal of the president and Congress. The Supreme Court nevertheless overturned his conviction. Likewise, in Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets, holding that “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one official declared, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.

That is why Racine did not arrest Trump, even after he left office shortly after the riot.

The House is still trying to generate new evidence not found by the Justice Department. Despite arresting hundreds and investigating thousands, the Justice Department never found an “insurrection” or “rebellion” to be charged. Instead, most people were charged with crimes like trespass or unlawful entry. A few faced more serious charges of assaulting officers.  This remains a protest that became a riot due to the reckless rhetoric of the rally and the lack of preparation by the Capitol.

None of that belittles the responsibility of those who rioted or excuses their conduct. These individuals are being rightfully prosecuted and have been given severe sentences given these charges.

Moreover, the House could still find that “smoking gun” evidence that supports a criminal charge against Trump. Yet, the media is hyping “bombshell” disclosures that do little to move that needle. For example, Vice Chair Rep. Lynne Cheney recently announced that they had proof that Ivanka Trump asked her father to issue a statement to encourage protesters to leave the Hill but President Trump still delayed in making such a statement. That is not a crime. Being callous or slow in making public statements may make you a bad person or bad president but it does not make you an actual criminal. This is not some form of nonfeasance in failing to take an action required by law. Such a prosecution would allow the prosecution of politicians for a wide array of statements not made in times of political discord. It would gut the First Amendment.

Such analysis is hardly popular with images of rioters smashing windows in the Capitol being replayed on cable networks. In an age of rage, one must be unequivocal and amplified in your outrage to avoid suspicion. I recently told the Washington Post that a viable case against Trump would need to show that he took concrete steps in enabling, anticipating, or coordinating the riot. In response, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin (who has called for burning down the Republican party and expulsion of Republican members) declared “I have no idea what Turley is talking about. You don’t need to prove Trump intended the riot. He intended to obstruct Congress. This is what @RepLizCheney was explaining last week.”

That reference is to the crime of “corruptly obstructing an official proceeding,” a charge against some rioters. However, Trump was not among them. Swapping out “incitement” or “insurrection” for obstruction does little to address the fundamental constitutional barrier. It would still criminalize free speech and run counter to controlling case law. Democrats have in the past challenged electoral votes and have participated in protests over certification. In January 2005, Boxer joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. Boxer argued that Republicans had engaged in voter suppression. Many who are condemning the challenge today heaped praise on Boxer in 2004. That is not itself an obstruction of Congress. For Trump to call for the same opposition, it is not itself obstruction.

Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop.  What the Committee would need is evidence that Trump actively withheld resources or obstructed efforts to quell the riot. Thus far, the record shows that refusal of a large national guard deployment was refused on Capitol Hill and not at the White House.

From the D.C. Attorney General to the current U.S. Attorney General, there has been no paucity of time or lack of investigation over the last year. They certainly know where to find Trump who is hiding in plain view at Mar-o-Lago. Indeed, Rubin (who praised Garland’s nomination, as did I) recently declared him to be a mistake for failing to arrest Trump. The other possibility is that there was a will but not a crime.

172 thoughts on “What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?”

  1. “MOVE FORWARD.”

    “Get to the front line dammit!”

    – Covert operator with earpiece and megaphone.

  3. There was a report out earlier I heard that AG Garland, the DOJ, FBI & DC Military Intel groups are said to be investigating reports that thousands of Armed DOJ,FBI, Military Intel groups were at the US capital J6 before & as a localized riot broke out.

    Nothing found so far but plenty of rumors of online photos destroyed of select people & some more allegations of swinger clubs & more wife beatings.

    Mean while Commie/Nazis azzholes over run the nation.

    And please, don’t forget to give the kids all the booster vaccines.

    1. Marjorie Taylor Greene And Matt Gaetz Hold Press Conference On January 6th Lies

      989 views

      ·

      Jan 6, 2022
      3
      Share
      Download
      War Room With Owen Shroyer
      War Room With Owen Shroyer

      Marjorie Taylor Greene And Matt Gaetz appear to be the only Republicans willing to take a stand for what’s right as they give comments about January 6th.

      https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61d797fae9268a5d7bec1224

  4. Professor Turley said, “None of that belittles the responsibility of those who rioted or excuses their conduct. These individuals are being rightfully prosecuted and have been given severe sentences given these charges.”

    I agree with fairly prosecuting people for crimes.

    I do not agree with keeping people for 9 months in solitary confinement while awaiting trial for trespassing and illegally parading.

    I do not agree with overly severe sentences that do not fit the crime.

    I do agree that trespassing into the Capitol and interrupting Congress was inexcusable and self destructive.

    1. Karen says:

      “I do not agree with overly severe sentences that do not fit the crime.”

      That’s a matter of opinion. You Trumpists are soft on crime. Never Trumpers want the rioters prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We are for law and order. Trump was correct that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes and presumably would be not be held criminally liable.

      1. jeffsilberman: Trumpists are soft on crime? You are for law and order? I think what we’ve seen in Seattle, Portland, SF and LA with leftist prosecutors refusing to prosecute, and skyrocketing violent crime as a result — puts the lie to your silly statement.

        1. Giocon1 says:

          “I think what we’ve seen in Seattle, Portland, SF and LA with leftist prosecutors refusing to prosecute, and skyrocketing violent crime as a result —“

          Lies, all lies.

            1. You won’t ever come to visit San Francisco will you or points up north? I think we need to get drunk and then we might better understand each other. I’ve never met a Trumpist first hand. I don’t have a Bible, so bring yours.

              1. No offense, but never coming to SF or any other city. They hold nothing I want to see. I confine my visits to natural wonders. As I am an atheist it would be superfluous for me to carry a Bible. The only reason I even own one is for educational purposes, Know Thy Enemy, and all that.

    2. Karen, are you equally concerned about the thousands of people in jail pending trial nationally? Do you support the movement to do away with cash bail?

      1. Anonymous:

        Crime has been rampant since social activist DAs made jail a revolving door. There have been scandals in CA where people get out immediately from jail on the no bail policy, offend again, get arrested, get out, offend again…

        Tragically, there have been cases where that person showed up on the door of the person who turned them in and killed them.

        While I think that people make a point that those of means can get out on cash bail while those without cannot, putting up something of value means you have something of your own to lose if you don’t show up to court. If you keep reoffending, and need to put up cash each time, at least 10% if you use a bondsman, then each time, no matter what the outcome of the trail, you stand to personally lose something of your own. Simply removing cash bail did not replace it with some similar means to make defendants personally invested in not reoffending, and showing up.

        You asked how I felt about people in jail pending trial. That’s a pretty diverse group of the delinquent, wrongfully accused, and the entire gambit.

        People in general waiting for trail cannot be compared with someone thrown into solitary confinement for 9 months awaiting trial for trespassing. You probably are well aware of this, so I can’t tell if you’re being facetious.

        Trespassing isn’t even prosecuted in major counties in CA anymore. Nearly a year of solitary confinement before trial is excessive. The punishment fitting the crime is certainly subjective, but doesn’t 9 months in solitary and 4 years prison seem a bit much for trespassing and illegally parading? So many left wing protestors wouldn’t see the light of day for a while. Luckily for them, the law does not seem to apply to most of them.

        1. No, Karen, I’m not being facetious. You keep talking about “someone thrown into solitary confinement for 9 months awaiting trial for trespassing,” but you haven’t named anyone for whom that’s true. Name the person(s) you believe it to be true of, and let’s check the actual charges against them and whether/why they’re in solitary. The vast majority of the people charged so far have not been in jail pending trial, and I’m unaware of anyone in jail solely for trespassing.

          1. Quick search, though I have seen specific evidence of what Karen says along with names. I will not bother to search for ATS, who lies and is now using his banned address INTENTIONALLY so that other people’s comments are removed, and his comments cannot be traced. He also uses several different icons and names now and in the past. He is not the type of individual that is embarrassed about his actions. He is more of a Stalinist that will lie and cheat to get his way. No remorse exists.

            “Solitary confinement for Jan. 6 riot participants draws criticism from Democratic senators and ACLU.”

          2. I refuse to respond to the troll S. Meyer, but will note that my query was about “someone thrown into solitary confinement for 9 months awaiting trial for trespassing. I know of Jan. 6 defendants who were in solitary, but all on more serious charges and generally charged with multiple crimes. Either Karen can name someone who’s been in jail pending trial only for trespassing or she can’t. If there’s anyone who actually meets her description, I’d like to learn who it is. If no one meets that description, she should stop suggesting that there is.

            1. “I know of Jan 6 defendants who were in solitary, but all on more serious charges and generally charged with multiple crimes.”

              Let us start there, Anonymous the Stupid. There were only a few that were arrested for more serious activity. According to you, it is not usual for criminals, even murderers, to be placed in solitary confinement, yet there were Jan 6 defendants in solitary confinement. I will add that some were placed in solitary for an unusual time. What did they do to merit solitary confinement? We know the answer. They were supportive (in a wrongful way) of freedom and individuality. Other criminals far more violent weren’t placed in solitary confinement like they were, which shows the rule of law doesn’t exist in your world.

              Additionally, you rebut arguments focusing on the very few violent offenders who caused physical harm. Most of those on the other side of the aisle have already agreed that they should be prosecuted, but to you, the summer riots where people were KILLED were peaceful riots.

              You talk about not responding to me, which is fine, but you respond all the time under an anonymous icon, frequently using an address that causes your postings to be deleted. Under the same address, your pretend friends post the same BS. Those postings are in addition to the generic anonymous not deleted and other icons and names. You have slipped up too often and keep revealing yourself when you post like a wildman.

              To summarize, you are a liar who was happy to see an unarmed Ashley Babbitt killed. That makes you something of a ‘murderer’ because though you have not proven to participate in such activities, you support them just like the beatings and solitary confinement of the Jan 6 people who disagree with your politics. You would have made a perfect Nazi.

            2. Anonymous the Stupid, I note you used your banned address liberally. You needed to be patted on the back so you had a bunch of your pretend friends do so, but their posts were deleted.

              What type of guy resorts to such intrigue on a blog? One who is emotionally deprived, which can also lead to one that thinks the innocent unarmed Ashley Babbitt deserved to be murdered.

    1. We have been witnessing incitement for decades now, and Biden is Trump on steroids in inciting fear, stating lies and dividing Americans. The difference in histrionics between Trump and Biden: Trump with faux hair, Biden with faux brain

      “Be concerned about Omicron, but don’t be alarmed. But if you’re unvaccinated, you have some reason to be alarmed. Many of you will — you know, you’ll experience severe illness, in many cases, if you get COVID-19 if you’re not vaccinated. Some will die — needlessly die. The unvaccinated are taking up hospital beds and crowding emergency rooms and intensive care units. That’s a place that other people will need access to those hospitals.”
      – Joseph Biden: Divider-in-Chief

      Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
      In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts…needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.

      Eur J Epidemiol 36, 1237–1240 (2021)
      doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

  6. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Lavrentiy Beria, chief of Stalin’s secret police during his reign of terror.

    1. The person who has gotten the longest sentence so far violently attacked law enforcement. Do you accept that fact?

      1. Anonymous:

        I looked at the list of charges long ago for Jan 6. I do not currently have a list for sentencing, especially not for 500 people. I can’t comment on who got the longest sentence so far because I don’t know.

        Violent crime should have a longer sentence. But was this the guy who moved a police barricade, and was charged with a vague sounding law that combined assaulting a police officer with interfering with his duties?

        Do you think spending 9 months in solitary while awaiting trial for trespassing, denied bail, seems excessive? Why do you think so many criminals get out of getting prosecuted for left wing protesting, arson, looting, and assault, while the yahoos who broke into the Capitol and took selfies, for the most part, were thrown into an oubliette?

        I think politics should never factor into the justice system.

        1. I was talking about Robert Palmer, who attacked law enforcement with a fire extinguisher and a wood plank.

          I haven’t heard of anyone “spending 9 months in solitary while awaiting trial for trespassing.” Name them. Let’s look at the actual charges.

          Your second question is a loaded question based on a false assumption. I loathe loaded questions. I encourage you to never ask them.

  8. Jonathan: There is an ongoing attempt by the GOP to portray Jan. 6, 2021 as just a “riot” not an “insurrection” and Trump cannot be held criminally responsible. You have joined that crowd in two columns. I side on “insurrection” or an “attempted coup”. A “riot” is usually a spontaneous irruption of violence. An “insurrection” is a planned violent attempt to overturn or control government. In the case of Jan. 6 an attempt to overturn a legitimate election to keep Trump in power. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “insurrection” as “a rebellion or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government…intended to be manifested by acts of violence”. That’s good enough for me.

    Trump incited the violence on Jan. 6 by his incendiary rhetoric. That was prefaced by the incendiary speech by GOP Rep. Mo Brooks who told the crowd: “Today is the day American patriots start taking names and kicking ass”. Rudy Giuliani told them to engage in “trial by combat”. Did Trump object to such fighting words? Nope. He relished the attention. A lot of people could be charged for planning the Jan. 6 insurrection–especially Mark Meadows, Trump’s close advisor, and Peter Navarro who has laid out the conspiratorial plot on MSNBC. Navarro called the plot the “Green Bay Sweep”. Trump was aware of all the planning for Jan. 6 and endorsed it. Stephanie Grisham, former WH press secretary, says she saw Trump watching the insurrection and violence outside and inside the Capitol: “…he was in the dining room, gleefully watching on his TV as he often did, ‘look at all the people fighting for me’, hitting rewind, watching it again–that’s what I know”.

    Under pressure from many who want Trump and the planners of the insurrection prosecuted AG Garland issued a public statement yesterday saying the planners for Jan. 6 “at any level” will be investigated. Time will tell whether Garland will make good on his promise.to hold the plotters of Jan. 6 will actually be prosecuted. On this one year anniversary of the storming of the Capitol the House held a special session to honor those who lost their lives. There was a moment of silence followed by brief remarks by Speaker Pelosi. Present were Rep. Liz Cheney and her father Dick Cheney. The rest of the GOP delegation was conspicuous by its absence. For the most part most of the GOP still believes the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump. A sad commentary on the sad state of our Democracy and the threat by the GOP and you who are still perpetuating the Big Lie!

    1. Dennis McIntyre: You should share your evidence of a “planned violent attempt to overturn or control government” with the FBI, because their investigation turned up no evidence of any organizing or planning. If it had been a planned attempt to overthrow the most powerful government in the world, maybe they should have brought more than shaman guy and their cell phones. “Selfies” do not make very good weapons. As for those 700+ rioters who have been charged, as Turley stated — none have been convicted of “insurrection.” And not for want of trying by the corrupt Democrats. If you can’t see gaslighting when it’s right under your nose, more’s the pity.

  9. Merrick Garland is not of notable mention after learning his SIL making money from the BS Crt junk in schools. why no mention of A Babbitt. why no mention of the rage people felt that the election was stolen in obvious fraudulent ways by political and democratic operatives. esp regarding ballots missing, copied, boxes transferred in the middle of the night and delivered, hiding, etc. the 2020 election was BS. Biden and his family are 100 times worse than Trump and his family.

  10. There is not much else that can be said, as the corners are hardened with little space between them.

    Mao Tse-Tung: “All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful.”

    J.K. Galbraith: “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
    ”
    A.J. Ayer: “No moral system can rest solely on authority.”

    Martin Luther King: “Nothing in this world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

  11. This blog post could only come from the Fox Professor of Law at GW University, to borrow a moniker used by another poster here. You have the polemicists on the left foolishly screaming for the indictment of Trump without the evidence needed to support a conviction. Then you have the polemicists on the right willfully refusing to acknowledge the true nature of the events leading up to and including January 6, and refusing to acknowledge that Trump might have criminal culpability.

    Turley whines about the polemicists on the left without acknowledging the very real possibility that, at the end of the day, there will sufficient evidence to indict and convict Trump for one or more crimes relating to the events leading up to and including the attack one year ago by the Proud Boys and others aligned with them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Turley was encouraged to write this post by polemicist Billy Barr, who bailed out in December, possibly because he didn’t want to be around when things hit the fan.

    Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel has a number of excellent recent blog posts. Well worth a read.

    1. Turley’s Tools for Trump,

      You are right on. It is going to hit the fan soon enough, and that is when Turley will have to stop straddling the fence. His readers will demand that he condemn the conviction, if any, of Trump, his Organization or his closest aides. But Turley won’t do it. As a law professor, he can’t turn his back on the rule of law.

      Turley should bail out of Fox now on the heels of the few who just left out of principle. Perhaps, Turley has burned his bridges with the MSM, and he has no future in broadcasting once he departs Fox. Who knows. But it’s going to get ugly if Trump is ever put on trial. Then, there will be no wiggle room for Turley!

  12. The FBI and other agencies knew all about the Saudi 9/11 conspiracy and all about its conspirators well before the event.

    The FBI did nothing.

    The FBI and other agencies knew all about the false flag Jan. 6 conspiracy and all about its covert operator conspirators well before the event.

    The FBI did nothing.

    1. George says:

      “The FBI and other agencies knew all about the false flag Jan. 6 conspiracy and all about its covert operator conspirators well before the event.”

      I don’t recall reading where Turley said any such thing! I know that Tucker Carlson put forward such nonsense in his “Patriot Purge” false flag conspiracy. True, Turley will happily appear with this liar on his Fox show, but Turley has never endorsed this crap to my knowledge.

      On the other hand, Turley has failed to practice what he so often preaches- to counter bad speech with good speech because he has said NOTHING about Tucker’s lies.

    2. Picking up on a comment from former Trump adviser Roger Stone, long caught in the wandering FBI Russia probe, the pollster found that likely voters, by a 46%-38% margin, believe “there is a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI who are using the FBI … as Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo.”

      In discussing the Jan. 6 probe and the FBI’s investigation of whistleblower Project Veritas, Stone used that phrase.

      Republicans especially feel negative about the FBI, with 64% feeling it is the president’s “Gestapo.” And 30% of Democrats agreed.

      The word Gestapo generally refers to the henchmen led by Nazi Hermann Goring against Adolf Hitler’s enemies.

      For sure, the view hasn’t helped the image of FBI Director Christopher Wray. Said Rasmussen’s analysis, “Fifty percent of voters now believe the FBI director is influenced by the president in his decision-making, while only 26% believe Wray is truly independent of the administration, and another 25% are not sure. That’s a near-complete reversal from May 2017, when 53% believed the FBI director was truly independent and 26% thought he was influenced by the president.”

      And overall, the public is divided on the FBI, with 46% having a favorable impression and 47% an unfavorable view.

      Rasmussen addressed the politics of the agency and said, “President Biden’s strongest supporters have the most favorable impression of the FBI. Among voters who ‘Strongly Approve’ of Biden’s job performance as president, 86% view the FBI favorably. By comparison, among voters who ‘Strongly Disapprove’ of Biden’s performance, only 19% have a favorable impression of the FBI.”
      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/fbi-brass-seen-as-bidens-personal-gestapo-poll

  13. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    – President Donald J. Trump

  14. Eb,

    I wish we knew the backstory between Elias and Turley because you are correct that Turley bears a grudge.

    Whatever Elias has done or said to discredit himself, one thing cannot be said of him, that is, he works for Fox News. You and I know that 99% of the readers here do not hold Turley’s employment by Fox against him. But to the people that MATTER to Turley, his liberal friends in D.C., his progressive GW colleagues, and the vast majority of the legal academy, Fox is anathema. He knows it all too well which accounts for his repeating at every opportunity that he is not a Trumpist because he condemned Trump’s 1/6 speech and stood alone calling for his censure.

    On the anniversary of 1/6, the Trumpists here should be reminded what Never Trumper Turley said on 1/11/21:

    “Many of us have denounced Trump’s speech as reckless and wrong. Indeed, I was tweeting my objections to the speech as it was being given. Moreover, I opposed the congressional challenges to the electoral votes from the outset, rejected Trump’s claim that the electoral votes could be “sent back,” and praised Vice President Pence for defying Trump. Yet, none of this is license for Congress to rampage through the Constitution with the same abandon as last week’s rioters did in the Capitol.

    “I testified against the first Trump impeachment — and I stand by that testimony today. I believe, however, that he warrants congressional condemnation, and that a censure resolution could help repair some of the damage that he has caused in this national tragedy.

    “Such a joint statement of condemnation by the two houses could be based on three grounds.

    First, Trump — as well as his son, Donald Jr., and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani — whipped the Jan. 6 crowd into a frenzy before the rioting in the Capitol. While Trump’s speech would not constitute criminal incitement, it was inciteful and unpresidential. Before that, on Twitter, he called thousands to the city for a “wild time,” and then worked some into a frothing mob.

    “Second, Trump repeated clearly false statements about the constitutional process and made the unconscionable demand that Pence should usurp that process by “sending back” electoral votes. As many of us said repeatedly for weeks, Pence had no such authority and could not unilaterally act as Trump demanded. Yet, Trump continued to tell his followers that such authority existed — leading many of them to launch a hashtag campaign to “#hangmikepence.”

    “Third, Trump was conspicuously silent as this riot engulfed the Congress. It was not until the next day that he clearly denounced all of the violence and called for the prosecution of those responsible. On the day in question, he gave a widely ridiculed statement thanking his supporters and saying he understood their anger. It may not have been criminal incitement — but it was an outrageous failure to denounce the violence, immediately and unequivocally.

    “Censure is not a substitute for impeachment. It is not even mentioned in the Constitution. However, it would serve a greater purpose in this instance: It would allow both parties to speak as one in condemnation of the actions — and the omissions — of the president. It would be a unifying act that allows us to state our expectations of a president, a statement made all the more important with the approaching inauguration of a new president.”

    Turley left out one little factoid- Trump’s Big Lie and Fox’s hand in promoting it. But for Turley’s Fox News, 1/6 never would have happened…..

      1. Oh! That reminds me! I’m due for my next round. Thanks! I knew I could count on you, buddy!

  15. The reason is that the speech itself was not a crime. Indeed, it was protected free speech. They knew that a court would throw out such an indictment and, even if they could find a willing judge, any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.

    We haven’t seen this much attention focused on one guy since the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. As a matter of fact, Democrats have treated Trump and his supporters also as an enemies of the state. The truly bizarre thing is the actual threat to our safety, security, economy is not coming from Trump, his supporters or the Republican party. At this point, none of our foreign adversaries need lift a finger to do harm to this country. Because the Democratic party said hold my beer. They own every negative that is happening in this country today.

    1. Olly says:

      “We haven’t seen this much attention focused on one guy since the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. As a matter of fact, Democrats have treated Trump and his supporters also as an enemies of the state.”

      Trump is a bigger threat. Bin Laden could blow up only buildings; Trump would blow up institutions like the Presidency. I don’t consider Trumpists my enemy because I know their bark is louder than their bite. You are all very good! Yes you are!

      1. Trump is a bigger threat. Bin Laden could blow up only buildings; Trump would blow up institutions like the Presidency.

        Would, huh? He had 4 years to do just that and the only thing he managed to blow up was the now former Democratic party. The Socialist wing of that party is now calling the shots. And they are actually doing to this country what you fear Trump would do.

        Trump is a threat to that Socialist institution, formerly known as the Democratic party. And nothing is off the table for them to be in power.

      2. jeffsilberman: What? Nothing from you about the Democrats trying to blow up the Supreme Court and the Congress? LOL.

        1. It is just as wrong to blow up the SC by the Democrats as it is for Trump to blow up the Presidency.

          Look! We agree!

  16. The only thing disgraceful is the Aunt Pittypat level of hysterics by Democrats as they feign their love of democracy.

  17. In response, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin… declared “I have no idea what Turley is talking about. You don’t need to prove Trump intended the riot. He intended to obstruct Congress. This is what @RepLizCheney was explaining last week.”

    There you have it. Professor Turley is overruled by Rubin’s “reliable source”, a Cheney. The Cheneys were loathed beyond compare just a few years ago, and now they are cited to correct liberal, Democrat US Constitutional academic scholar Jonathan Turley. What a world!

    People with whom I interact on a daily basis are anxious, depressed & fearful about the US economy, inflation, skyrocketing costs of meats, dairy products, fresh produce, gasoline prices, increasing financial debt, escalating violent crime rates, collapse of our nation, the mental health of their children, police walking off their jobs, teachers not reporting to work, toxic divisions in our country and more. No one mentions the concerns of Washington DC elitists.

    Americans will punish Democrats this November for being the elitists and detached wealthy politicians they have become.

    Poll: Joe Biden’s Job Approval Crashes to 35 Percent

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president?
    56% Disapprove
    35% Approve
    9% Neither approve nor disapprove

    Registered Voters
    January 20, 2021 — January 4, 2022
    147,731 Responses

    https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_biden

    Civiqs is an online opinion polling and data analytics company founded by Daily Kos (Wiki)
    Daily Kos is a far left news organization
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-kos/

      1. They now love Dicky too. He was holding Liz’s hand whilst she was going down in flames.

      2. I’m a Democrat. I don’t love Liz Cheney. I don’t know a single Democrat who does. You’re imagining things.

        I’m glad that she isn’t a Trumpist, but that’s not love.

      3. Independent Bob–

        The Democrats’ criteria:
        1) She has breasts.
        2) They can control her.

    2. Estovir disparages:

      “No one mentions the concerns of Washington DC elitists.”

      You owe Professor Turley an apology.

      1. I am sorry Professor Turley that the 70+ year old single curmudgeon of Marin County trolls your blog acting like the Donald 25/8. Maybe if you hook him up with an eligible single mature womyn like that wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, she can beat the snot out of him and thereby decrease the carbon emissions coming from his blow hard keyboard

        1. I was born a Jew. As such, I am one of the Chosen People. Remember that next time you lay a curse on me. And you call yourself a Christian….

          1. In every batch of Chosen People there has to be one idiot to act as a control. You are the chosen one.

  18. The correct framing of 1/6 is the collapse of a 5-week-plot by Trump and his lawyers. Pence tried to quash the plot 1/5 by announcing his decision after consulting the Constitution. Thick-headed Trump, who believes in his “reality distortion field” powers as much as Steve Jobs once did, refused to accept defeat of the plot. So, on the 6th, chaos ensued for hours while nobody, not even family members, could convince Trump to forget it and move on.

  19. You have to hand it to the Dems, their popularity and the direction they’ve taken and wish to take the nation is being rejected by the majority of Americans. They ignore the months of rioting, burning, looting, smash and grabs, BLM/ANTIFA’s part in the mayhem, lies about Russia Russia, the Ukraine, Impeachment attempts, manipulation of an election, price of fuel, Afghanistan, the President’s state of mind and more. So what do they do? They attack, attack, attack. If Republicans had the nards as big as the Dems with the Dems as weak as the Dems are in polling they could guarantee not a big win but a gigantic monstrous win. So as much as I don’t like the Dems I take my hat off to them for their tenacity. Thank God for the one old school Dem who, for the time being is holding them in check.

    1. Ps: Consider the Dems have been in total power for a year now, they don’t talk about their accomplishments (because there are none) but constantly put all their energy to talk about their Boogie Man.

  20. “From the D.C. Attorney General to the current U.S. Attorney General, there has been no paucity of time or lack of investigation over the last year. … The other possibility is that there was a will but not a crime.”

    Yet another possibility, which Turley assiduously avoids, is that many complex investigations last more than a year, and Trump will be charged in time. Consider the Durham investigation, barely anyone was charged during the first year. The DOJ is actually moving pretty quickly in charging hundreds of Jan. 6 criminals, and the investigations are ongoing.

    1. Wishful thinking dominates the minds of the crazies.

      One has to take note that Democrats have been putting arrested violent criminals out on the street leading to more violence and criminality while many from the Jan 6 group remained in jail.

      1. People who are in jail are there because judges — including Trump-appointed judges– are keeping them there pending trial or have sentenced them to time in jail. Some violently attacked law enforcement, so you should call them violent criminals too.

        1. There is no problem with detaining violent criminals in jail. That is not the question.We are seeing violent criminals being arrested and let out on the street. Some have been rearrested and again immediately let out to perform more violent acts.

          Many of the Jan 6 were not violent yet kept in jail under horrible conditions. Most are now out. Many accepted a guilty plea that were likely not guilty or guilty of a minor misdemeanor during the protest.

          You know all that but you prefer to lie to confuse the issues that are being questioned.

            1. You are pretending you didn’t lie. You can keep doing that because it demonstrates that you cannot deal with the truth. Lies and deception are all you know. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

              1. You’ve just confirmed that you can’t cite any lie and instead you post insults.

                1. Quite the contrary. You can look at your list, and you will find at least one person who had to be let go when the videos were revealed. Many people couldn’t afford to fight that plead guilty but weren’t.

                  I can’t help it if you think I am insulting, Anonymous the Stupid. I am calling you a trickster and a liar because it is true.

    2. Yet another possibility, which Turley assiduously avoids, is that many complex investigations last more than a year, and Trump will be charged in time
      Complex is what way? There are element to the specific crime. Name those elements that must be met.
      Turley is only avoiding give a 5 hour lecture to blog trolls that have exhibited zero interest in learning about the process.
      The only process they’re simple minds can grasp is ‘get Trump’
      The charge is “incitement” What are the elements? No this is NOT complex.

      1. It’s clearly a complex investigation. Hundreds of people have already been charged, and there are pending court cases about some of the evidence-gathering, such as Trump’s request to SCOTUS that they block the request for NARA to release relevant presidential records. You’re the one limiting the issue to incitement, when there are clearly other possible crimes, such as obstruction of Congress and conspiracy to pressure Pence into acting unconstitutionally.

        If you can’t accept that it’s a complex investigation, that’s on you.

          1. Yet of the hundreds who’ve been prosecuted so far, you can’t even bring yourself to name one who you consider framed, much less present evidence of that.

        2. Things are only complex because Democrats are having a lot of difficulty matching their talking points to the truth and justifying the use of the term insurgency especially when no one has been charged with insurgency.

          Stupid people will continue to make up their stories to defend what they wish to believe rather than what is true.

Comments are closed.