As some of us predicted earlier, the Supreme Court rejected the executive privilege claims of former President Donald Trump in his effort to block the release of his administration’s records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot in the Capitol. The decision was, in my view, the correct one and garnered a near unanimous vote from the Court. Despite the steady attack on the Court as partisan and hopelessly divided, the Court once again spoke through its decisions. As in prior decisions, the three Trump appointees voted against his arguments in support the right of Congress to gain access to the records.
In the order below, the Court declared:
“The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns…
As noted earlier, I believe that the outcome was manifestly obvious under the controlling law and precedent. However, there is a notable reservation by the Court that limited the impact of the unsigned order:
Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.
I have long been a critic of the Court making such major decisions while limiting its use as authority. It is the fluid realm of dicta where the Court makes major decisions but then cautions that it may not reach the same result in the next case. The most notable case was the reservation in Bush v. Gore. In that case, the Court expressly limited the use of the precedent.
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
Only Justice Thomas voted against allowing such access.
The other interesting element was the appended statement by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who wanted to throw down a marker on one issue for future consideration. The D.C. Circuit maintained that former presidents cannot invoke executive privilege. The appellate judges stressed that “we have one president at a time.”
Kavanaugh wanted to make clear that the order does not adopt that view:
“The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.
…A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.
…To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome.”
Here is the ruling: Trump v. Thompson
199 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Effort to Block Access of Congress to Records”
In this deleted post, Anonymous the Stupid claimed he was a Constitutional law expert. That its laughable. No wonder he wants his responses deleted. Loads of others along with other postings using a different alias.
Anonymous the Stupid is lying about what Mueller investigated. ATS created facts where none were available.
That is known as lying. That deleted post was one of many lies of his that were deleted today. It’s amazing how only his are being regularly deleted and he complains.
Anonymous the Stupid wrote that no compromise on executive privilege could be made. His statement was deleted. The statement was stupidly worded and of course had nothing to say. At least it wasn’t a blatant lie like so many other replies (1-2 dozen) that were deleted.
So Turley’s blog is practicing censorship.
Svalez, I guess you are unable to read what Turley has written. This blog does censor, but rarely. This blog also bans people and removes their posts after they are banned. i don’t know how many times you have been told these things, but you still don’t know it. Not smart.
(oops, my first sentence should have read “in camera review,” not “in chamber.” Sorry.
In private litigation, a party may request “in chamber” review of material he is compelled to release under an upheld discovery request. In this context, “in-camera” means private, in-chamber review by a judge of private,sensitive, or confidential material and renders a determination as to whether it is relevant, probative, and not prejudicial. I would have liked to have seen a coarable negotiation by House Republicans to appoint a bipartisan, independent entity to do the same. I fear that House Democrats will eventually expose to media any non-relevant, non-probativr private information/communications to the media,in an effort to taint or harm Trump and rile up anti-Trump sentiment (and any Republican defending his privacy) out of fear of Republicans taking over in 2022 and 2024.Does anyone know if similar mechanisms are in place within Congressional hearings/investigations? I dunno, no time to research?
There is nothing that Trump did while he occupied the Oval Office that is, by law, private or confidential, OTHER THAN deliberative discussions regarding things like treaty negotiations, policy deliberations, and anything that could reveal classified information, including things like planning for placement of miliary personnel, weapon development, and similar things. Documents showing plans spearheaded by Giuliani with the input of others for the purpose of preventing Biden from taking office and illegitimately trying to keep Trump in office despite losing the election are NOT confidential or privileged, nor should they be. These things were not done in an official capacity as POTUS, and are proof of criminal activity, which is never privileged (other than maybe under the Fifth Amendment). The POTUS is a public servant, and his telephone calls are recorded and transcribed, emails and memos are captured and saved, and all letters and other communications to and from the Oval Office are maintained in the National Archives for historical purposes. The National Archives would release such information years from now as a matter of course EXCEPT for the deliberative and classified information. The request from the Jan 6th Commission just moved up the timetable. Given what happened on Jan 6th, it is perfectly approriate for them to explore the involvement of Trump and those around him in this incident.
Now, how could such information “taint Trump” anyway? The National Archives is non-partisan. There’s no doubt that these records will prove that Trump has lied, that he conspired with others in a desperate effort to try to illegally stay in office, despite knowing that he lost, that he was involved in the advance planning for his fans to storm the Capitol for the purpose of either forcing Pence to do an unlawful act (i.e., refuse to accept the certified election results) or prevent Biden’s victory from being certified, so that a slate of fake Trump electors from certain swing states could falsely claim that Trump really won, on the basis that Biden’s votes should be discarded because they were fraudulent. This plot was intended to set the stage for the Senate to declare Trump the winner, despite absolutely no proof of widespread fraud. There are fake documents signed by “Trump electors” from 5 swing states that were submitted and which ended up at the National Archives. The Archives rejected them as forgeries. The National Archives has referred the matter for criminal prosecution. It is illegal to use the official seal of a state on falsified documents. Those people in swing states that put their signatures on the fake Trump “certified results” will likely be charged with felonies, as they should be.
The information we already have is more than enough to “rile up anti-Trump sentiment”. Any US citizen out there who doesn’t find the information we already have offensive and disqualifying for Trump to ever serve in public office needs to have her head examined.
Natacha: rather than lifting information from Wikipedia and other online sources, please go back and reread what I wrote and asked. Then, reconsider your response. Thanks
“. . . it is perfectly approriate for them to explore the involvement of Trump and those around him in this incident.”
Wake me when they subpoena Pelosi, Bowser, and the House Sergeant at Arms.
Drink the water, play a little ninepins and wake up in twenty years —- And find Pelosi, Bowser, and the House Sergeant at Arms were never subpoenaed!
Was this a good outcome, I tend to think yes as it could pour more disinfectant on secrecy of one branch of government? This could allow the Durham investigation to state there are documents he needs for his investigation. Say the republicans gain control of Congress in the upcoming election, they could pursue and investigation of the Russian hoax, cash payment to Iran, Libya and numerous other Obama documents. They could pursue Ukraine issues about Biden and many more issues with presidents Clinton and Bush.
This issue raised by the democrats in the House could have a similar effect as Majority Leader Reid’s desire to amend the Filibuster rules. As the old saying goes “Careful what you wish for”
Additionally what underlying facts were not disclosed during the investigation of the Rayburn Building shootings 2004, and the present day shooting and cover up of Ms. Ashli McEntree Babbit by United States Capital Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd, and what did the current administration do in that regard.
I will quote from a letter sent April 14, 2022 from Assistant U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips to Metro PD Assistant Chief Wilfredo Manlapaz: “This office has considered the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged use of excessive force in the above-captioned case [United States Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd}]. We have decided to decline criminal prosecution of the above-listed officer as a result of this incident. Accordingly, this matter is referred to you for whatever administrative action you deem appropriate.”
Did the Biden Administration or President Biden have anything to do with the refusal to pursue charges against Officer Byrd?
Forgot to include source of above mention letter, FOI document obtained from Judicial Watch
“Barack Obama’s Presidential Library Is Making a Mockery of Transparency” –just as his Presidential Portrait made a mockery of that tradition. It’s how communists do things.
“Further contributing to the Obamas’ woes has been the awful, piecemeal, and still-incomplete rollout of the plan by the foundation and the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency charged with preserving and making available presidential records, to handle Obama’s records. Under the plan, the Obamas will not build and donate to the government what would have been the 14th presidential archival facility, and the National Archives will not make the Obama paper records available for public review. Instead, the foundation will select and pay a private vendor to digitize the records—helping to decide the order in which those records are scanned—and NARA will make them available online. Such a decision has alienated many, most prominently the professionals who have been presidential libraries’ most vocal supporters and patrons: journalists, historians, and archivists….”
Trump needs to build his own presidential “library” — better, bigger, and completed before Barack Hussein Obama finishes his monstrosity built to glorify himself.
“…in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege,…”
There’s an entirely apolitical, objective and juridical rationale for nullifying executive privilege and, apparently, a citizen’s right “…to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…[understanding that] no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Of course, Biden has no political motive for waving executive privilege.
If President Donald J. Trump no longer holds office, is he not a private U.S. citizen under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Biden and the SCOTUS act politically; they exhibit behavior which is appropriate for the former, and treacherous and high criminal for the latter.
Someone please disabuse this layman of these notions and reveal the error of my ways.
The decision to block the corporate vaccine mandate had three dissenters who all voted for limitless executive power while a Dem was in the white house. Are the three leftist justices, functionally, 100% political?
Justice Thomas was right….the other Justices were wrong.
Firstly, the current President has no standing re. Executive Privilege of his predecessors in that Office.
Secondly, the eight Justices have made a muddle of this issue by voting as they did.
Thirdly, now that they have ruled as they did….but left it all muddied up and did not in any way make a clear definitive judgement re Executive Privilege…..as to when a President has that privilege….they created a proper mess for later Presidents.
Example……hypothetically speaking….lets assume the worst case scenario occurs (meaning the person with the most vested interest in unraveling a preceding President’s Decisions) that being Donald J. Trump is elected in 2024, there is a Republican Majority in the Congress…..and Joe Biden is investigated by Congress. Under this current Ruling…Congress demands documents….Biden claims Executive Privilege….Trump denies him that Privilege….and the precedent is set….does Biden have to produce those documents?
The privilege goes with the Office and the Man……as we have One Sitting President at a time….but we have a lot of former Presidents.
Are they now open targets for the withdrawal of their claims for Executive Privilege or is this decision only applicable to a single person in this Country….Donald Trump?
Under this decision….Trump as the new Sitting President could legally deny Biden any claim to Executive Privilege…..or in the real future….prior Presidents have scant access to Executive Privilege.
I see this as a very bad decision. and not just for Trump but for every President including Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter. and any who attain that Office in the future.
Your hypothetical would require that there is a valid reason to investigate Biden. One that would be for something similar to what Trump did which is making baseless claims and incite a crowd to illegally disrupt an official government function. Other than that if the reasons behind any investigation are weak or obviously just allegations then Biden would have the ability to invoke executive privilege.
The court’s opinion doesn’t not mean any reason would be sufficient for congress to seek documentation. Claiming executive privilege requires a valid reason. Trump’s only reason was claiming he had an absolute right to executive privilege. He didn’t.
Please explain how the crowd was ‘incited’.
I don’t think this decision says anything one way or the other about whether a former president can invoke executive privilege when a sitting president decides to waive it. Instead it accepts the lower court’s holding that these documents are not privileged in the first place. If the documents are not privileged, the question of who decides to invoke or waive the privilege does not arise. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh pointed this out but went on to explain why a former president should also have the right to invoke the privilege where it exists.
“I see this as a very bad decision. and not just for Trump but for every President including Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter. and any who attain that Office in the future.”
I see this as a bad decision but see the opposite as a bad decision as well. This is what makes our type of democratic constitutional Republic so fragile. There are other ways to compromise, but the Democrats play hardball politics that can damage the Republic. Many on the Democrat side don’t find damaging the Republic undesirable. That is where the problem arises. Too much power is concentrated around a few that would like to see our Republic fall.
Another takeaway is that Biden’s records will no longer be protected by executive privilege when the next president takes office. I’m looking forward to getting more information on what’s been going on behind closed doors.
Biden often says he can’t take questions or he’ll “get in trouble.” Will it be revealed who he views as his superior(s)? Is this a repeat of First Lady Edith Wilson?
As for SCOTUS, I don’t know the law, but such a near unanimous decision gives the impression that the law must be pretty clear on the matter.
“ Another takeaway is that Biden’s records will no longer be protected by executive privilege when the next president takes office. “
No, they would be protected under executive privilege because the criteria for seeking such documentation is a valid investigation by congress. There would have to be an event similar to what hall on Jan 6 for Biden’s records to be available to congress. But if it’s just an obvious witch-hunt type investigation Biden would be able to claim executive privilege.
There would have to be an event similar to what hall on Jan 6 for Biden’s records to be available to congress.
Wrong! But you have exposed the Pelosi lie of thJan 6 committee.
Congress’ power to investigate ONLY applies to its Article One powers to draft legislation and make rules. Pelosi is not running the investigation to draft legislation, its to invent some crime to dirty him up and make him unpalatable to voters. Not a guess on my part but the statements comming out of the committee.
But back to seeking of documents. Like President Trumps taxes, all congress has to do is make the assertion of rule making. No grand event required.
To his credit, Turley covered this story here, but oddly enough, Carlson, Hannity or Ingraham did not mention this devastating loss in their prime time slots. Turley was not called upon to explain to their audiences why Trump lost his Executive Privilege claim.
How long do you suppose Fox can shield its prime time audience and keep it in the dark? Indeed, I seriously doubt Fox will broadcast live the 1/6 committee witness testimonies, and thus Turley will have very little air time to lend his expertise to comment upon the damning revelations in the hearings. Hopefully, he will provide us his reaction to these developments if he is sidelined at Fox.
We are told the Jan. 6 committee is committed in a bipartisan way to uncover all the facts. I support full transparency as it relates to this event. So if SCOTUS has ruled executive privilege cannot be invoked to block access to communications from the former President, then I see no obstacle for the committee to require communications from the Speaker of the House as well, especially concerning her decision-making process involving not bringing in additional security and the national guard. And of course for full transparency, all video needs to be released and a deep dive into individuals like Ray Epps needs to be conducted. In the interest of uncovering all the facts.
The American people would like nothing more than for corrupt politicians to be prosecuted. What they won’t tolerate is for corrupt politicians to prosecute only their political opponents.
Olly, the problem with all the fact finding is that the members of the committee are already biased in one fashion and compromised. That is the problem with a kangaroo court. Some of its members have altered documents and reported their alterations to the public in a deceptive way.
I have no doubt that 30% of the American people will never change their minds that Trump, Republicans and Conservatives are evil. Another 30% are firmly convinced that Biden, Democrats and Liberals are evil. The middle 40% however are more objective. They already have shifted to the right after the 1st year of this administration and they won’t likely be moved to the left by a committee that shields Democrats and attacks Republicans. One more thing, that middle 40% will likely be weighing the “facts and evidence” of two major investigations leading up to the midterms; this one and John Durham’s. Interestingly, while the former is going after Trump, the latter will include some of the people on the Jan. 6 committee itself.
Time to stock up on popcorn.
Olly, you are looking at people as static when they are not and change what they believe over time. The opinions of all parties will change to some degree over time. The problem we face is that the far left has been very active while the rest of the country was complacent. Thus children are brainwashed in school and later from the media and Hollywood. Entitlements likewise purchase their loyalties. If one-hundred percent of the population received their checks from the government, far more would favor the government because they will always be afraid of losing their entitlements.
Shifts arise when people learn from personal experience, but as dependent as we are today, entropy will determine a leftward move. We have been divided as a block, and the Republican Party did little while most civil rights activists did nothing. Those Democrats that would never believe in what is being espoused by the Democrat Party of today don’t agree but are silent, protecting themselves.
We talk about big victories from the right, but what is that victory? 2 steps left and one step to the right. Where does that lead? Unless we become less complacent and are willing to fight to keep our rights, what we saw one or two decades ago will be gone.
Politeness is not a virtue when one is dealing with threats to one’s freedom.
you are looking at people as static when they are not and change what they believe over time.
Read better. While I do believe the outer 60% or so are fairly fixed, the middle 40% are not.
Politeness is not a virtue when one is dealing with threats to one’s freedom.
Well, that’s one opinion. If you believe impoliteness is a virtue under those circumstances, then be proud to not do it anonymously.
Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in private; presently, or at some other time in what terms to do it and in reproving show no sign of choler but do it
with all sweetness and mildness. George Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior
Olly, I think many people’s views change a lot more than we expect. You apparently agree when you use the word “fairly”. I was not referring to a change in political parties. I don’t believe that impoliteness is a virtue, but one sometimes must be less than polite. The Republican Party was and still is too polite and quiet. That is why we had such a mess for four years. We can debate the level of politeness, but that is not the issue. The issue is in changing the direction the country is moving.
“George Washington’s Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior” We all should take note of all of his rules, but not all of us are trained well enough to follow them while still being effective. If one cannot follow such rules and a lack of politeness follows, so be it. It is better to deviate with a lack of politeness than permit one’s freedoms to evaporate.
I think you would find Richard Brookhiser’s book, George Washington on Leadership, excellent. He deals a lot with Washington’s rules. When I read it years ago, I thought it would be an excellent book for public school students to read.
I will check it out. Thank you
“ Some of its members have altered documents and reported their alterations to the public in a deceptive way.”
What documents were altered? What’s your evidence for this claim?
“What documents were altered?”
Since you have yet to recognize that the documents from the FDA and NYS proved you wrong, what good does it do to provide more proof to you?
Where do you get your information from. Graffiti on the bathroom walls? Come back after you read what the FDA said. Otherwise you are a time-waster.
“ Since you have yet to recognize that the documents from the FDA and NYS proved you wrong, what good does it do to provide more proof to you?”
They didn’t prove me wrong. They proved YOU wrong.
You made a claim that some committee members altered documents. What’s your proof? It seems you’re back to making stuff up again. You shouldn’t have any problem providing the proof of this document altering. Everyone should view your evidence.
My statement was: ““ Since you have yet to recognize that the documents from the FDA and NYS proved you wrong, what good does it do to provide more proof to you?”
You couldn’t even read that correctly.
Svelaz, I posted one sentence from the FDA that proves your entire thesis wrong. I’m waiting for you to deal with it. Do not expect me to answer any questions you ask until you deal with your stupidity on vaccine approvals and NY race related guidelines for antivirals. Both documents proved you wrong and you have been provided addresses and snippets from NY and the FDA. You are making things up and stonewalling. That is what stupid people do even when the proof is 100% against them.
The Trumpists will do just that if and when they take over the Congress. But unlike lying Trumpists, I will not call their investigation of Ray Epps or Pelosi a “witch-hunt.” Though I am a Never Trumper like Turley (who called Trump a “carnival snake charmer”), we believe in the rule of law and holding Democrats to account for their actions.
Not sure that I can believe that (in my best Ron Burgundy voice)
Which part don’t you believe?
They only want to believe what they want to believe.
If Trump is found guilty of tax fraud, it will be amusing to watch those Trumpists who will turn their backs on Trump while being castigated as traitors by the dead-enders.
For example, Ann Coulter has spoken the truth in a recent Tweet:
“EXCLUSIVE: Trump is demanding to know Ron DeSantis’s booster status, and I can now reveal it. He was a loyal booster when Trump ran in 2016, but then he learned our president was a liar and con man whose grift was permanent. I hope that clears things up.”
There will be a lot of infighting if and when Trump is convicted of a felony. And we can sit back and enjoy the food fight.
And does FishWings believe only what they want to believe but thinks it is The Truth?
(pardon me for assuming your preferred pronoun is ‘they’)
To date, you haven’t learned what a Never Trumper is. Why should anything you say be trusted?
😏 yeah, I got it. You and Turley are cut from the same cloth, rule of law and all that. 🤣
Tell me, Olly, you are sticking with Trump no matter what, right? Regardless of what he *may be* found guilty, you aren’t buying it. You are a loyal Trumpist to the bitter end. You’ll never vote for DeSantis over Trump, correct?
I’m registered Independent for a reason. Don’t forget that I am an Oathkeeper as well. Draw your own conclusions.
DeSantis in 2024. Say no more.
Olly told you he was an independent for those reasons. Are you now going to apologize to Olly for your devious error? Probably not. When people believe you are not insulting, they are wrong, very wrong. You insult everyone more than once on a daily basis with your broad brush.
Have you written your Rep?
then I see no obstacle for the committee to require communications from the Speaker of the House as well, especially concerning her decision-making process involving not bringing in additional security and the national guard
We get that in 12 months.
Pelosi declared the scope if the committees investigation was unlimited….EXCEPT for the Office of the Speaker being out of bounds.
Understand that JAN. 6, 2021, security of the Capital was under the control of the Speaker of the House. The Speaker had final approval of any requests made my the Capital Architect, and the Sargent at Arms.
Pelosi declared the scope if the committees investigation was unlimited….EXCEPT for the Office of the Speaker being out of bounds.
That should be great news for the rioters that went into her office. 😉 In all seriousness, I have no doubt the conclusions were made before the committee formed. All they are doing now is going through the motions in time to release their “findings” before the midterms.
I can’t say whether the courts decision is correct or incorrect, I can’t say that I agree or disagree agree with their decision. I depend that the court follows the law and obey the US Constitution. Will the 1/6 “select” committee (and it is “select”) question everyone, release all video or is this just continuing the attack on Trump. Can anyone trust what comes from a committee that Adam Schiff sits on?
The hearings will be televised soon and you can judge for yourself.
Enigma, as an integral part of Jan 6, will Nancy Pelosi be called to testify? Will that be open to the press? Will Byrd be called to testify, and will that testimony be available to the public as well? What we are seeing is a kangaroo court.
The republicans were given a chance to be on the January 6th committee, they turned it down. Look it up.
Fiwigs – Pelosi said, “With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan.”
Pelosi wanted to hand pick Republicans.
She rejected those with no interest in seeking the truth but covering it up. Jordan has been given the opportunity to provide input on his personal knowledge but is refusing. I hope he gets subpoenaed, of course that will mean nothing to him.
Oh please. No one believes Pelosi and The Party are using this committee to “seek the truth.” Don’t be stupid.
I have no doubt you’ll ignore or avoid the truth. Are you paying any attention to the details about Trump’s fraud in New York. His own accountant has testified to a grand jury he overvalued one of his properties by “give or take $200 million dollars.” There’s a lot more but OI bet you don’t care.
Likewise, I bet you don’t care about the very real Biden family corruption/grift that is being utterly ignored, yet actually affects our national security and foreign policies.
Trump and every member of his family and his inner circle are being politcally targeted for persecution. Very different from legit prosecution.
A reminder that President Donald Trump took no taxpayer paid salary for his endless work on behalf of the American people.
He watched television, tweeted, and played golf. Didn’t pay attention to his briefings and held political rallies for four years, What did I miss?
I forgot, he also tried to get at least seven states to submit a false set of electors and steal an election. He, Rudy, Meadows, and others spent a lot of time on that. What if a Democrat did that? What would be your reaction?
We know that Democrats cheated. Every week more information comes in, and the numbers don’t match. In the meantime, Democrats have dumped ballots and tapes so one can’t examine the cheating. All the cheating was located in several crucial, highly populated Democrat cities. It seems nursing home patients and Alzheimer’s patients voted along with many others. Plenty of evidence is out there of Democrat cheating. The only question is whether or not the cheating was in high enough numbers to change the election. Every week it seems more likely that Biden only won because of fraudulent votes.
“. Every week more information comes in, and the numbers don’t match. In the meantime, Democrats have dumped ballots and tapes so one can’t examine the cheating. All the cheating was located in several crucial, highly populated Democrat cities. It seems nursing home patients and Alzheimer’s patients voted along with many others. Plenty of evidence is out there of Democrat cheating. ”
You do understand that saying something happened and documenting it is two different things. Please document what you’re saying.
I note you completely ignored the coordinated effort to substitute electors in at least seven states. The White House coordinated meetings in statehouses to provide substitute electors, then submitted those names and begged Pence to use them instead. If Obama had done that, you would know what to make of that attempted fraud.
“You do understand that saying something happened and documenting it is two different things. Please document what you’re saying.”
Enigma, on many occasions documentation was provided to the blog. I can’t help that you refused to look at it and comment at the time. You can quickly look it up on the net, so at this time I won’t satisfy your demand.
Like Svelaz, you won’t listen anyway. If you overlooked that fiasco of a debate for Svelaz, he was proven grossly ignorant or a liar. His contention was proven wrong by the FDA and NY documents provided at the time. He couldn’t deal with it even when sentences were copied from those documents. Instead, Svelaz chose the path of lying and ignorance. I hope you don’t do the same.
You still have not addressed the coordinated effort to change the electors in seven states. You did say, “No” you weren’t ignoring it while you promptly went on to ignore it and attack Democrats. What is your opinion of the coordinated attempt to overturn the election? New documents are coming out every day.
Nothing happened and nothing illegal was done. The election was riddled with lawlessness. You are right, things are coming out every day, but what they are showing is a lawless election.
There was no coordinated illegal effort to overturn the election. You are making things up again.
I will post what I posted to Tony and refused to post to you because you walk away from evidence.
“Judge rules absentee ballot drop boxes illegal in Wisconsin, regulators must retract guidance
This is the second court decision that has deemed the Wisconsin Election Commission’s 2020 election behavior
In case you don’t hear about these things on InfoWars. Feel free to get this information from dozens of other news sources should you not believe this one.
“In case you don’t hear about these things on InfoWars”
I don’t bother with InfoWars, but isn’t it amazing that InfoWars was correct more often on the central issues of the Trump years than CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, and WaPo? That is your problem. The sources of news you rely on are worse than InfoWars that you recognize to be a poor source.
Go to the source and see what is happening in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and a few others. Listen to the reports and use logic.
I could do this for all the states you say there were no audits.
I’m limited by blog rules as to the number of links I can post, not by availability.
I saw the above comment was picked up by the spam filter. The reason the system did this was the comment had more than two hyperlinks. I edited the last link so that it would post. If you would like the readership to review more than two hyperlinks this may be accomplished by multiple comments of two or fewer links each.
Thank you Darren. Appreciated!
Enigma, anytime you think or wish to say this blog is unduly prejudiced against one political view, remember Darren’s effort to get your response posted and explained to you why it didn’t. Don’t ever complain about the political fairness of this site like some other stupid people do.
What you are complaining about is not illegal. Both parties have done it, but if you wish to look at the court cases and see the ones Trump has won and why many cases didn’t deal with the fraud, see below. I bet you didn’t read about all these cases and what they meant.
Take careful note: Trump and or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 18 out of 25 cases decided on the merits
It was last done in 1876, which led to the Compromise of 1877, which led to Democrats ceding an election they probably won (those were the racist KKK Democrats) to allow Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to win (that was the end of Lincoln era Republicans that cared about equality and ushered in the look the other way Republicans that removed Federal troops from the South and ended Reconstruction). If you have any other instance of “both sides” trying to overthrow an election, I’d be glad to listen.
“It was last done”
You better carefully define what you are talking about. You didn’t do it earlier and you were unclear. Now it appears you had something very specific in mind but I don’t see that reflected in your earlier statement.
I din’t have anything in m ind when you said, “Both sides did it” when nothing like Trump attempted had been done before. In 1876, there were three states where the winner was disputed, Florida, South Carolina, and I think Mississippi but I’m not positive and don’t want to look it up. Both parties submitted delegates and the Compromise of 1977 worked it out. Im 2021, there were no states with undeclared winners. There were official audits done in multiple states and every one produced the same result. Most of them took place in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. Having lost, Trump organized a cam[paign to declare himself the winner and submit substitute electors. That has never been done by “both sides.” You would know what to think of it if Democrats did it. Now you say, “nothing happened” and “both sides did it” when clearly it was an attempt to steal an election.
“I din’t have anything in m ind when you said, “Both sides did it” ”
Then, it was a moot discussion. Thanks for the history lesson that strayed from where we were. Lots of crazy things happen that are created by all sides. When our country can protect itself, we relegate those things to history. The question becomes, what was done that was illegal? All this banter about legal things being done is useless. If you don’t like them, work to change the law.
Nothing Trump did during the time period, I think this discussion involves, was illegal. People who have problems making their case against Trump choose to deal with meaningless things because they have failed in their objective to get Trump. Nonetheless, some are willing to destroy the nation and living human beings just to get back at Trump. That type of attitude is amazingly dumb and counterproductive.
I think Trump does get blamed for things that aren’t prosecutable and I don’t waste much time on them. The plans to have the military confiscate all the voting machines in the country sound horrible but he didn’t sign off on them so it only means some idiot had a terrible idea that somebody had the sense to reject.
You making light of the coordinated effort to send alternate electors to replace those certified by the Governors of each state is something never done before (despite what you thought) and is at minimum fraud and likely much more that is illegal. Time will tell as multiple states have referred these efforts to the Justice Department. Bill Barr isn’t their to simply dismiss all the claims though I don’t have faith it Garland’s willpower.
If you are following his cases in New York, Trump (and the whole family) have most certainly engaged in bank, insurance, and tax fraud. Some of the New York cases are civil but criminal referrals can be made.
In Georgia, a special grand jury has been called to investigate his attempts to “find” the votes needed for him to win. You may well think he made a “perfect call” when pressuring Georgia officials but the law may disagree with you.
There may be some merit to your feelings that Trump is facing a degree of political prosecution because he is disliked/hated by so many. He may have brought some of it on himself by saying he could choot someone omn 5th Avenue and get away with it. Two things can and likely are true at the same time. He’s being harrassed because he’s an a-h and he’s also guilty as hell.
Donald Jr. and Ivanka got off on fraud charges in a condo scheme years ago when Cyrus Vance suddenly dropped the charges for no public reason. Trump has repeatedly lied in depositions with no recourse. His real estate fraud is clear to anyone with an open mind but he has always had someone willing to look the other way. (Pam Biondi in Florida to ignore the Trump University fraud) Trump is a hero to some but still a crook. He’s facing legal issues on multiple fronts and deserves all of them.
I can document anything you like, just ask,
“I can document anything you like, just ask,”
Let us deal with one limited item. ” His real estate fraud is clear to anyone with an open mind”
What law did he break and what proof do you have?
Trump overvalued various properties to commit bank fraud in obtaining loans, insurance fraud, and tax fraud when he undervalued the same properties. The New York Attorney General has outlined much of this in filings which had already been documented by the press.
“Trump overvalued various properties”
The value of a property is somewhere between what the seller is willing to sell it for and what the buyer is willing to pay.
“to commit bank fraud in obtaining loans,”
Banks have their own people to assess the value. They don’t care about market price. They care about risk where the market price is a factor in determining both. It is not the responsibility of the seller to set the value of a property when the bank is assessing risk.
” insurance fraud, and tax fraud when he undervalued the same properties. ”
Where is the insurance fraud if Trump is charged more for overassessing the value of his property? Like banks, insurers do their own valuations.
One doesn’t set assessment values for property taxes.
“The New York Attorney General has outlined much of this in filings which had already been documented by the press”
So far, neither your research of the attorney general nor the press has revealed anything Trump did that was illegal.
The cases are proceeding. An open mind would consider the known facts but he’s still innocent until proven guilty. Donald, Ivanka, and Don Jr now have to respond to their subpoenas. This time the Court has his taxes, financial information, and testimony from his CFO and top accountants. You may rightly believe he’s innocent until proven otherwise.
It is fraud if you lie to the bank about your assets while applying for a loan. It’s insurance fraud when you make it look like you are less of a risk to get a lower rate. The tax fraud comes from two sets of books, high values when applying for a loan and low values for tax purposes.
When he loses, I can’t wait to hear why he wasn’t really guilty or cry about Hunter Biden who has done far less than the Trump kids.
“The cases are proceeding. ”
Yet they still haven’t charged him, and I think I heard they weren’t going to do so, but who knows. They are more politicians than those that one hope are seeking the truth.
“Donald, Ivanka, and Don Jr now have to respond to their subpoenas”
Politics and abuse of position. No one should be proud of that.
“It is fraud if you lie to the bank about your assets while applying for a loan. ”
But he didn’t lie. He told them only his opinion of what the property was worth.
“It’s insurance fraud when you make it look like you are less of a risk to get a lower rate.”
How did he do that? If he did that to pay a higher rate, would that also be insurance fraud? 🙂 What you are saying makes no sense.
“The tax fraud comes from two sets of books, high values when applying for a loan and low values for tax purposes.”
There are multiple accounting procedures. Trump has a right to get every tax benefit he can, and the government has a right to fine him if he makes a mistake.
As an aside, do you know how many different books hospitals keep? Lots. Those different sets of books are to generate higher income from the government, higher income from patients and higher incomes from various insurers. Based on what you say, all the CEOs of hospitals should be in jail.
“But he didn’t lie. He told them only his opinion of what the property was worth.”
He has appraisals showing the value s to be hundreds of millions of dollars less in a couple of cases. If you know different and lie, that’s fraud.
One of the reasons Trump made a lot of money was that he could appraise what properties are worth. If you check out the price he paid for Mar a Lago, which no one else was willing to purchase, you can see that his property valuation was more accurate than the many that passed on buying such a valuable piece of property. You need to see it on location. It’s magnificent.
I’ve passed by Mar-a-Lago, looks nice. I’ve been to Doral which has become stale. He really had an eye for the property he sold to a Russian oligarch. He made quite a bit of money on a property not worth that much to anyone else. Smart or something else?
You cannot get a good view of Mar a Lago from the outside. You have to go in, walk the grounds and then the building. Then you have to look at the Intracoastal waterway. I don’t know many beautiful places that sold for so little money.
As far as the Russian buyer, you have to stop letting your imagination take you over. Many people don’t like to be known as the owners of homes. You should know that Florida has a cap on property tax if a property is homesteaded, and that cap can save one huge amounts of money over time. Yet, many will use a fictitious name, giving up that benefit. I think somewhere you said, you were a real estate agent. Do you blab all over who bought the home you sold or where the person was from if they don’t want it known? Imagination is great, but not when one is establishing fact.
I live in Florida and am a Realtor, there is no cap on homesteaded property. You can get a reduction on taxes based on living there and additional amounts for certain disabilities, or age. The homestead availability normally runs from 25,000 to 50,000 annually but there is absolutely no cap on taxes. There is a cap on how much a property tax can increase annually. The property bought by the Russian was never lived in by the owner, therefore homestead exemptions would not apply.
As far as Mar-a-Lago, Trump can’t claim homestead exemption because it’s a club. He’s broken his agreement with Palm Beach County by residing there longer than agreed. He’s also taking advantage of a questionable tax break he didn’t want in writing. Trump claims it’s “brilliant” and you probably agree. No Trump deal stands up to any scrutiny.
“I live in Florida and am a Realtor, there is no cap on homesteaded property. ”
Then you should know that THERE IS A 3% CAP on how much taxes can go up per year if the house is homesteaded. With homes that have doubled and tripled in prices recently, that cap means big bucks. The cap would not apply to the Russian, but I pointed out the cap so that you realize not everyone wants others to know who occupies the property. Anyone with a license should learn to keep their mouths closed when speaking about people they are working with. If you don’t, that is your problem. Your claim was Trump didn’t mention the person was Russian because your imagination goes wild when Trump’s name is involved.
“He’s broken his agreement with Palm Beach County by residing there longer than agreed.”
I think it was with Palm Beach, not the county, and one cannot be sure of the legalities involved. These things need to be spelled out carefully. What constitutes residence? The answer is based on written law and regulations, not what the Mayor or the newspaper says. As a realtor, you have to know these things when dealing with certain types of property. Too many people on this blog do not understand the law.
“He’s also taking advantage of a questionable tax break.”
Trump is doing what the law says. That law has existed for half a century. He had nothing to do with the law’s passage. You are blaming him for things promoted by Democrats. You forget that Trump passed laws that cost people like him a lot of money in taxes. He and the rich can only deduct $10,000 when they formerly could deduct hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who wants to bring back that millionaire tax deduction? Democrats.
“Trump claims it’s “brilliant” and you probably agree. No Trump deal stands up to any scrutiny.”
When the tax law is in doubt or litigation, take the deduction while preparing to pay it back if the law turns against you. That is the nature of our tax system. If one makes a mistake, they pay a fine which is not a criminal offense. A criminal offense would involve fraud, but there is no fraud when one is following the law.
Why are you even mentioning the homestead exemption which doesn’t apply to either Trump at Mar-a-Lago or the Russian that basically gave Trump millions for reasons undisclosed as of yet?
Fortunately, multiple courts and not you the all-forgiving will decide on issues of fraud and criminality. Trump fought hard for nobody to see what he was doing and now the records have been turned over.
“Why are you even mentioning the homestead exemption which doesn’t apply to either Trump at Mar-a-Lago or the Russian that basically gave Trump millions for reasons undisclosed as of yet?”
I already told you. It’s impolite to blabber about clients. You made a big thing about Trump not identifying who he sold his expensive property to. I pointed out that some people don’t want their identities known, and then I provided proof of that. The proof was that some would give up the cap on taxes, so their identities are not known. ( previously stated: “but I pointed out the cap so that you realize not everyone wants others to know who occupies the property.”) The homestead exemption permits the individual to prevent taxes from increasing more than 3% per year. You should understand that homesteading and the cap come hand in hand, so I don’t know why you focused on the homestead exemption. I responded to your foolishness of attacking Trump because he withheld identifying the Russian.
“Fortunately, multiple courts and not you the all-forgiving will decide on issues of fraud and criminality. Trump fought hard for nobody to see what he was doing and now the records have been turned over.”
That seems like an abridgment of Trump’s civil liberties as they didn’t have a charge that would hold. They could have asked for specific releases having to do with specific charges, but they didn’t. This is an appalling political investigation because Democrats pi-s in their pants when they hear Trump’s name.
“You making light of the coordinated effort to send alternate electors to replace those certified by the Governors of each state is something never done before (despite what you thought) ”
All sorts of aberrancies occur. Historically, they are not recalled until an expert in his research notices the forgotten pieces of history. Additionally, you have defined the scope of the topic as an afterthought along with tangential points and later applied them to the discussion.
You should also note that the 1876 history you described was more than you said. There were two sets of electors sent to Congress. That is something you didn’t mention. That would mean what I said was correct and proven.
Since you are not an historian and do not carefully define your arguments, one cannot accept what you say as fact. It can only be taken as your opinion that can change at any moment when further history is revealed.
The 1876 date proves my point correct even if interpreted narrowly, which was not how I meant it. All sides do a lot of bad things. I try to deal with those things in the present but not so much in the past unless they significantly alter history.
I listen to what you say, but I find a lot of it riddled with inaccuracy and hypocrisy. I wouldn’t have made this preceding comment, though true, except for the fact that you commented gratuitously in an attempt to climb the ladder by trying to show another wrong. The statement was (despite what you thought)” which can be searched above for context. Despite the nature of that comment, my view turns out to be accurate, based in part on your own words.
The 1876 date has some similarities. The Trump o[eratives sent their delegates to the President of the Senate and the National Archives just as the real ones were. Of course the President of the then Republican Senate said nothing but they were sent to Congress. Trump and others pressured Pence to use the fake Trump electors to declare Trump President. You can insist this was nothing. You didn’t address the specific question, what of a Democrat had done it to try to stay in power? You would no what it was then.
I certainly didn’t mean to leave anything out of my 1876-77 summary. It was only so not to bore you with excess. Here’s a little more info if you like. Please note I blame both Republicans and Democrats though the parties then are almost the reverse of what they are now.
What would you think is any Democrat drafted this?
What idea is it that you want comment on and why?
The coordinated efforts to get Pence to substitute the certified electors in multiple states with Trump electors, even after all the audits were completed and Biden declared the winner.
Why? To see if you would find any of this justifiable if Democrats had done the same thing.
#Note: The 1876 efforts were not coordinated by the White House.
“Why? To see if you would find any of this justifiable if Democrats had done the same thing.”
What was the most important point or two in particular that you wanted to discuss?
I had previously thanked Darren for correcting and allowing my post. I don’t believe I’ve complained about the political fairness of this site. I think this site and Turley have a political view, I have noted times (many times) Turley is misleading but that’s different than being fair.
There were many court battles about procedure both before and after the election. Many of them had no merit and or there was no standing of the people that brought the suits. While I disagree with some of the outcomes as I’m sure you do, I don’t see the levels of fraud you feel exist and certainly nothing that would have affected the outcome which almost nobody is saying without a political stake.
Enigma says: “He watched television, tweeted, and played golf. Didn’t pay attention to his briefings and held political rallies for four years, What did I miss?”
And the truth.
Care to show us how hard Joe Biden worked to campaign for the job from his basement? Or for the past year in office?
Biden is AWOL most of the time, shuttled off to hide away in Delaware or Camp David every weekend, and then shows up back in Washington DC for a 2 or 3 day work week — taking a full salary, of course.
There is no comparison of the work ethics of the two men. Biden is as lazy and entitled as it gets — which comes from never having worked at a real job in his entire adult life — outside of “professional politician” — his entire lifestyle (and his corrupt family of grifters) all paid for by taxpayer dollars.
The “truth” is that Pelosi is using her committee to hide the truth — which is why she is hiding her communications about preventing deploying National Guard….which is why they deceptively lie to include in their talking points the death of Officer Billy Alexander who had a black man, a follower of Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, ram his car into officer Evans and killing him — in April — months AFTER the Jan 6 riot.
Pelosi’s deception with this committee is off the charts and entirely politically self serving — not at all about seeking “the truth.”
*Officer Billy Evans died in the attack by Noah Green, Nation of Islam follower.
Enigma — I’ll ask my question of you again. Would you like to know more about the very real Biden family corruption and President Joe’s dealings with his family’s highly concerning “business” deals — that actually affect our national security and foreign policies?
I’d like to know more true information about any elected official including Buden and Hunter. You are ignoring an attempt to literally overthrow the election. Several states have now asked the Justice Departmant to investigate and at least one (Michigan) said it will pursue it on their own if the Feds don’t. The problem with Democratic administrations is an unwillingness to seem partisan while Republicans “lock her up” have no such reservations.
Enigma say what??
“The problem with Democratic administrations is an unwillingness to seem partisan while Republicans “lock her up” have no such reservations.”
Is that a joke?? Because it’s pretty dam funny. “unwillingness to seem partisan”??? hahahahahaha Yeah, no, that is NOT the problem with Democrat administrations! Not ever has this been a problem with Democrat politicians!
hey Enigma, remember when President Joe told Black undecided voters that “you ain’t Black if you don’t vote Democrat”??
Or remember when VP Biden said Romney was gonna “put y’all back in chains”?
Or how about when …. oh nevermind….I don’t think you can HEAR me anyway, so….just go back to listening to the lies you are being told on MSNBC and CNN.
I don’t mean politicians, Dems can be almost as bad as Trey Gowdy and Jim (GYM) Jordan, I’m talking about the Administration, particularly the Department of Justice that isn’t pursuing crimes because of how they will look. Bill Barr didn’t care how he looked.
Enigma — look around….the frighteningly politicized Biden DOJ is going after parents at school board meetings and labeling them domestic terrorists. The Biden FBI is targeting political opponents and conducting battering ram raids on journalists and even suburban mom’s with excessive force meant to send a chilling message. The Biden FBI even paid a visit to Democrat Cuellar in Texas after he criticized the Biden open border fiasco. The Biden DOJ is highly policized under Garland.
Enigma say “You are ignoring an attempt to literally overthrow the election.”
No, Dems and the media are ignoring all legal attempts to AUDIT the election results so we can have TRANSPARENCY in order to restore election integrity where there is clear evidence of fraud. But they won’t allow it and are making up lies about it.
You still haven’t addressed the attempts to switch electors. How many times was Arizona audited, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, all by groups with no experience handpicked by Republican state legislators, What did they find? That Biden won by a few more votes than reported, Cyber Ninjas anyone?
I give up, Enigma. As long as you listen to leftwing cable fake news, you will never understand what’s really going on.
You have a total lack of critical thinking skills, along with an inability to read things that do not agree with what you think. You are always so sure of yourself, but you don’t have the required facts to go along with such confidence.
FishWings — As Howard Stern’s dad says, “don’t be stupid ya moron.”
FishWings — do you know what Pelosi’s committee is full of?
Pelosi’s committee is full of Lying Dog-Faced Pony Soldiers.
On January 3, comradette Pelosi rejected 20K troops recommended and offered by President Donald J. Trump.
That is now clear. Pelosi is the proximate cause of the problems faced on Jan 6. I believe she encouraged a lot of the violence through other parties or benign neglect. Nothing can be done now because we have a government closer to an oligarchy than a constitutional republic.
This is clearly a bipartisan ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on this topic and President Trump needs to immediately comply.
Trump doesn’t have to do anything. The records are in the possession of the National Archives, and they’re already turning them over, per the ruling.
President Obama did his own run around so that HIS presidential documents will be locked away in his personal monument being built to honor himself (not a presidential library) and is not being done as part of the National Archives system.
“But the fact that there will be no public facility to house and serve the Obama presidential records; that a private political organization is controlling the digitization of official presidential records; that NARA’s attempts to build a large-scale Electronic Records Archives, at more than half a billion dollars, have failed; and that the agency that can’t create a stable, working process will be the one to review and release these records is all very bad indeed….”
“In a few years, the Obamas will host an enormous celebration to open their presidential center: one without presidential records, federal archivists, or by that point, online access to even a fraction of the digitized and born-digital records that document his presidency….”
“This lost opportunity is the saddest part of the story. Along with the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the short-of-the mark policies, the hesitancy to act decisively, the waste of government resources in pursuit of personal acclaim, and the abandonment of some of the very groups who supported him the most.”
Barack Obama’s Presidential Library Is Making a Mockery of Transparency
The leader of the “most transparent administration in history” has been anything but transparent when it comes to plans for his presidential center.
“But the fact that there will be no public facility to house and serve the Obama presidential records; that a private political organization is controlling the digitization of official presidential records;”
A private political organization is controlling Obama’s “presidential documents”
Important to mention that Joe Biden’s senatorial documents/records have been locked away in Joe Biden’s personal vault at the University of Delaware.
Trump’s problems with the law are just beginning. From NY AG finding evidence of fraud to the Jan 6. Committee’s free access to hundreds of pages of documentation of the Jan 6. Riots.
He’s in serious trouble.
Been hearing that for five years….”It’s just around the corner.” Yawn.
We shall see who gets the last laugh….
That is what you have said since the day he stepped down the elevator. So far, the number of times you have been wrong is in at least triple didgets. Not a good record. Not someone whose comments are of significance.
The DoJ has been going through Trumps taxes since the day he announced his candidacy. Reexamined by Mueller. There is nothing there. Charges will be filed around the time of primary voting, and more after Labor Day. They will slowly be dismisses after the 1st of the year. They may get one low 6 figure win, that will be immediately appealed
Notice the last filing is civil, not criminal. No criminal prosecutor want’s the stink of this on their resume.
You are quite off topic, but Mueller never looked at Trumps taxes. Nor did the DoJ (which was controlled by Trump).
How would you know the DoJ never went through his taxes? The DoJ was part of the cabal that spied on his campaign. You are nieve to the workings of Democrats in govt. They violate your rights, and if the find something, reverse engineer an investigation to to generate the warrants to get the evidence they already found. So yes. Trumps taxes have already been gone over.
The New York investigations are the only possible source of a legitimate criminal charge against Trump, and those investigations are unconstitutional, meaning that any conviction would be overturned as fruit of the poisonous tree. There’s nothing you can get him on.
I can’t figure out the specific illegalities they are suggesting occurred.
“January 6th is a unique and terrible event in our history. Biden can certainly justify his position on that basis.”
“The interest of both branches would be best served with a compromise rather than litigation.”
You seem to like conflict for its own sake, not because it is needed.
Biden’s statement yesterday that the 2022 elections would be illegitimate if his party’s voting rules were not adopted also strikes me as being unique and terrible.
People are saying- I mean a lot of people- that the 2022 midterms are being rigged by Trumpists. Everyone knows that the ONLY way the Republicans win back the Congress is if they steal it. STOP THE STEAL!
And what are the specific mechanisms of this alleged rigging?
You didn’t realize I was being facetious? You didn’t see that I was mocking Trump’s Big Lie? Can’t you understand that I am ridiculing all lying Trumpists?
Jeff is always short with the facts. He is very flippant, and when he errs too obviously, it is due to him being facetious. In that fashion, he can act correctly no matter which way the argument turns. It is deceitful but necessary for Jeff as he admits over and over again, he doesn’t know much of anything.
Maybe you didn’t get a chance to watch Biden’s most recent press conference. At which, he stated that the 2022 elections may be illegitimate and that their legitimacy hinges upon the, now failed, “voting rights bill”.
I understood your humor in your above comment, but don’t you think that it’s odd that the man who received the most presidential votes in American history would be making these claims ahead of the upcoming elections? Are you going to denounce his rhetoric the same as you do the Republican’s?
Yes, but the fact remains that Trumpists are lying through their teeth that the 2020 election was stolen as Turley finally acknowledges in theHill.com
The opinion that there was substantial cheating in the 2020 election by Democrats is not without basis. Whether or not it was enough to turn the election will be difficult to prove. I don’t think many, whether Trump supporters or not, believe that even if widespread cheating occurred, Trump would replace Biden as President.
What Turley actually said in The Hill is unknown, as your words spin to such a degree that one cannot trust your comments about what anyone else thinks or says. Turley has been slow to catch on since he has been left of center for so long. Your link doesn’t provide the link to the specific article. Maybe that was on purpose because you recognize your spin is so frequently dishonest. I don’t think Turley ever indicated that those thinking Trump won were all “lying through their teeth.”
Obtaining the determinative votes by fraud — i.e., by lying to voters — constitutes stealing the election. Moreover, of course, we know there were INARGUABLE illegalities in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania that almost surely flipped those states. Those illegalities in Wisconsin and PA are a matter of public record and in Georgia they are on video. Time for you to stop lying.
I stand with Turley who does not recognize ANYTHING you are claiming. Prove me wrong.
Yes, I knew you were being facetious, but claiming that Trump told a “Big Lie” is a gargantuan whopper in its own right.
Now you are being facetious!
As I understand the decision, the Court accepted the lower court’s reasoning that Trump would not have been entitled to invoke executive privilege with respect to these papers even if he had been the incumbent. So it did not have to decide whether a former president can invoke the privilege in circumstances where the current president waives it. Kavanaugh wrote separately to highlight this point and to set out his reasons for thinking that a former president should be able to invoke the privilege in these circumstances.
So I do not see this as a case where the Court made a decision that should not stand as a precedent. Rather, it accepted that no privilege existed here and simply did not need to decide on the right of a former president to assert the privilege when an incumbent president decides to waive it.
One news show nitwit on CNN remarked that the one paragraph decision was not a court ruling. Summary Judgment you nitwit.
This decision will not set well. As already demonstrated, politics will interfere. There was no decision possible that could not be used politically as a weapon. This political game by the Democrats regarding Jan 6 is destructive.
S. Meyer, game? This is no different than the countless committees created to investigate the Clintons. Republicans ran endless investigations. Trump is fair game if democrats have the same authority to investigate his dealings and actions as president.
This is akin to the 9/11 commission minus the bipartisanship. Trump is out of options.
Svelaz wrote, “S. Meyer, game?”
Yes it’s a fair assessment to say that this is a political game, of sorts.
The January 6th narrative being pushed by the political left is just like all their other narratives pushed for the past 6+ years, propaganda reigns supreme and the critical thinking, truth, facts and logic be damned.
For the 21st century political left, there are four tenants of “truth”…
…that’s the dead end of the 21st century political left’s critical thinking and that’s what their leadership across the USA is projecting to the public.
The political left has shown us since mid year 2016 that they are snake oil salesmen selling their anti-Trump propaganda to the masses and they’re damn good salesmen. When related to Donald Trump, anything that comes from the mouths of the political left and their lapdog media propaganda machine bust be questioned and people must apply multiple levels of critical thinking to cut through the BS otherwise one becomes a parrot of false propaganda and that is a slippery slope. The political left has shown it’s pattern of propaganda lies in their narratives so many times over the last 6+ years that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively pushes?
Many if not all of the arguments that I’ve seen and heard about President Trump’s actions leading up to the riot on January 6, 2020 come down to one thing, pure consequentialism. The political left and anti-Trumpers want the public to unquestioningly swallow the anti-Trump propaganda that consequentialism is how we should judge President Trump’s actions leading up to the riot on January 6th. Consequentialism is the doctrine that the morality [in this case legality] of an action is to be judged solely by its [perceived] consequences; this is not how the constitution or the law works; however politics is different, politics more what the snake oil salesmen can sell to the court of public opinion. If you ask yourself how I can come to the conclusion about consequentialism you need go no further than to ask yourself this one question; would President Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6th riot be considered illegal (etc) if the protest had not turned into a riot? If your answer to that question is no or maybe, then consequentialism is the unethical rationalization that’s being applied, period, end of discussion.
The political left has put forth their false consequentialism narrative about January 6th and now they are desperately trying to find anything to rationalize their narrative – it’s a political witch hunt and that IS a political game.
Witherspoon, that’s one heck of a straw man argument. The Jan 6 committee is no different than any of the multitudes of investigative committee’s republicans held during the Obama administration. Endlessly investigating Hillary Clinton after one committee didn’t find anything significant or criminal another was created to investigate another allegation. In the end no charges or criminal wrongdoing was found. All of those investigations were demanded because she was supposedly doing something wrong or there were allegations. Trump is facing the same fate and as anyone recalls republicans had no problem with such endeavors. But now it’s a “game” because poor ol trump incited a riot on Jan 6.
It’s not just the events of Jan 6. It’s the months of rhetoric and inflammatory speeches claiming the election was stolen too. Soon the evidence from the documents sought by the Jan 6 committee will shed more context into Trump’s actions that led to that day.
Svelaz wrote, “Witherspoon, that’s one heck of a straw man argument.”
You may not like my argument or be able to effectively contradict anything I wrote but that doesn’t make it a strawman.
Straw Man: noun, is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.
You asked about the use of the word “game “ as in “political game” that S. Meyer wrote and I addressed that usage plus I related that usage back to the current event of the January 6th narrative that this blog topic is related to.
Straw man, nope, you’re wrong again – as usual.
When are you going to learn that “it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”.
“ The political left and anti-Trumpers want the public to unquestioningly swallow the anti-Trump propaganda that consequentialism is how we should judge President Trump’s actions leading up to the riot on January 6th.“
When you begin an argument with a false premise you’re setting up the rest of your argument for a straw man argument.
“ You asked about the use of the word “game “ as in “political game” that S. Meyer wrote…”. It was a rhetorical question Witherspoon.
All you did was post a partisan rant about propaganda and the left that has no basis in reality.
Svelaz wrote, “When you begin an argument with a false premise you’re setting up the rest of your argument for a straw man argument.”
1. What you quoted was NOT the beginning of my arguments, what you did was to cherry pick a sentence.
2. If you think there is a false premise in that sentence then PROVE IT!.
What you did with this part of your reply was to pick a sentence that you particularly didn’t like and then apply magical thinking to come up with absurd conclusions.
Svelaz wrote, “It was a rhetorical question Witherspoon.”
So what, you asked I answered. If you don’t like it, that’s just tough.
Svelaz wrote, “All you did was post a partisan rant about propaganda and the left that has no basis in reality.”
Call it a rant if you like, I don’t really care but “no basis in reality”, exactly what reality are you talking about, the ridiculous bubble in your head or the real reality out here that we all have to face day to day? False propaganda is the core that the political left is using in their political game these days.
Again, it would have been better for you to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak/write again and remove all doubt, again!
Endlessly investigating Hillary Clinton after one committee didn’t find anything significant or criminal another was created to investigate another allegation.
I think about 6 congressional investigation, until it was revealed the Sec Clintion was using an illegal private e mail server to conduct State Dept Business. Then Comey said it was a crime, but no prosecutor would prosecute the crime
“ I think about 6 congressional investigation, until it was revealed the Sec Clintion was using an illegal private e mail server to conduct State Dept Business. Then Comey said it was a crime, but no prosecutor would prosecute the crime”
It wasn’t an illegal private email server. Comey never said it was a crime. No prosecutor could file charges because they had to prove intent.
It was a policy violation, not a violation of criminal statute.
No charges were ever filed and no crime was committed.
Wrong again, Svelaz.
Svelaz, why would one want to listen to the opinion of a person who has been proven wrong on most of his debated facts? How can an opinion be worthwhile from a person ignorant of facts and events? Below Steve provided an excellent response. I will let you respond to Steve, though I think his question is far above your ability to understand. His excellent question follows. “…ask yourself this one question; would President Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6th riot be considered illegal (etc) if the protest had not turned into a riot?”
“ Svelaz, why would one want to listen to the opinion of a person who has been proven wrong on most of his debated facts? How can an opinion be worthwhile from a person ignorant of facts and events? ”
Well for starters you haven’t proven me wrong. You didn’t debate facts. You just go on a ranting ad hominems and personal attacks. What we have been able to establish is that you have difficulty grasping the concept of context and how it works. Then you start projecting.
As for Steve’s question, “ would President Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6th riot be considered illegal (etc) if the protest had not turned into a riot?”
That’s a false dichotomy. The riot did happen. His speech preceded the riot and he did tell the crowd to March to the Capitol.
Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan 6 riot COULD be considered illegal if proof that he was deliberately inciting the crowd surfaces as a result of the investigation.
With access to these documents there is an increasing likelihood that damning evidence will be discovered. There’s still. Questioning Trump staff if they change their minds on testifying.
Trump was not at the Capitol.
A co-conspirator doesn’t have to have been at the Capitol, as you should know from recent indictments.
He was accused of inciting.
Incitement requires that the incitees were hearing the inciting words at the time the violence actually started.
Hard gor the Capitol rioters to hear him if he was not there.
Have you ever used a radio?
Svelaz wrote, “That’s a false dichotomy. “
Nope, wrong again.
My question was a theoretical posed that was based on the simple FACT that President Trump’s speech was constitutionally protected free speech and anyone that claims otherwise is a political hack or an idiot.
Svelaz wrote, “The riot did happen. His speech preceded the riot and he did tell the crowd to March to the Capitol.”
That’s the pure consequentialism I wrote about earlier. Special note; I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t say that President Trump told the crown to riot, that’s a significant fact.
In the previous days, Trump pressured Pence to act unconstitutionally during the certification, and then he riled up a crowd and sent them to further pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally during the certification process. We know some of the details from Eastman’s memo and some from Navarro’s discussion of his Green Bay Sweep strategy, which Navarro claims Trump was on board with and that Trump referenced in his Jan. 6 speech, though without using that name.
Do you accept that Trump was trying to pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally?
“Do you accept that Trump was trying to pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally?”
Anonymous the stupid, do you object to Obama’s actual use of the IRS, DOJ and FBI to go after their rivals. That was done. Trump made an open statement heard even by you, which carried no weight of the law. Nothing Trump said was acted on by Pence, and nothing Trump did was illegal. You are a hypocrite and a liar.
Will this posting be deleted? I don’t know. All I know is I am dealing with a person who has no regard for the truth or others.
Some ignorant person wrote, “Trump pressured Pence to act unconstitutionally during the certification”, “pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally during the certification process” and then the same ignorant person asked this question, “Do you accept that Trump was trying to pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally?”
You’re parroting anti-Trump talking points.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this particular debate but what is completely clear is that whether what President Trump asked Vice-President Pence to do is constitutional or unconstitutional has yet to be legally determined and those that still retain some level of critical thinking skills actually know this to be true.
The following blog post by Jonathan Turley might help people understand the constitutional conflicts on both sides of the argument if they were to actually read it without allowing their bias to make them stupid.
We Must Talk About Constitutional Issues In The Election Certification
So to answer your question, “Do you accept that Trump was trying to pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally?”, no I don’t accept that it was unconstitutional; however, based on the constitutionality of the actual act not being completely known, I completely agree with Vice-President Pence in his decision NOT to do what President Trump asked him to do.
My opinion puts me on a solid foundation of truth, logic and the law, where your ignorant opinion puts you on an unstable foundation of pure propaganda.
No, Steve, I’m not “parroting” anything. I’ve read several discussions of it, and I said what I did for good reason. You apparently prefer to just assume that I was “parroting” and reject out of hand that one can conclude what I did on the basis of evidence. You didn’t even bother to ask the basis for my claim before assuming without any evidence that I was simply parroting something I heard. In the future, I encourage you not to jump to unwarranted conclusions about others, especially negative ones.
In the Turley column you link to, he said “What is clear in my view is that Vice President Michael Pence does not have the unilateral authority claimed by President Donald Trump to simply “send back” electoral votes for particular states. Nothing in the Constitution suggests such authority and the Electoral Count Act expressly contradicts such claimed authority.” Nowhere in his article does he argue that what Trump asked Pence to do was constitutional. Rather, he spends the bulk of the article discussing a different issue (the Electoral Count Act itself, rather than what Trump asked Pence to do). Perhaps you didn’t read the article carefully enough. How can you read “Nothing in the Constitution suggests such authority” for what Trump asked Pence to do and conclude that he’s arguing that what Trump asked Pence to do may be constitutional? Should I invoke your insult here about what biased reading sometimes does?
Moreover, that column was written before Eastman’s memo was made public. Turley has chosen not to address that memo in any of his columns subsequent to its becoming public.
According to you, what *would* settle the question of the constitutionality of what Trump asked Pence to do?
And since you recommended reading for me, I’ll recommend some for you:
Also, since you claim that “There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this particular debate,” please present one. It’s clear that Turley”s column is NOT arguing that what Trump asked Pence to do might be constitutional.
Your last line is nothing but more insult based on your unwarranted assumptions about me and your sloppy reading of Turley’s column. You could choose not to repeatedly toss out counterproductive insults, and I encourage you to refrain in the future.
Arrgh!!! I didn’t notice that the commenter I replied to was one of the multiple “Anonymous” commenters because my WordPress comment notification portal identified the author of the comment “Someone” not “Anonymous” like it does on the normal website. I just started using the WordPress comment notification portal a couple of days ago, I won’t make that mistake again.
Since I initially replied I’ll end my part in this discussion with these statements…
FACT: It has not been legally determined in a court of law whether the action President Trump asked Vice-President Pence to do is constitutional or unconstitutional.
FACT: The action President Trump asked Vice-President Pence to do is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being prohibited, period!
OPINION Presenting statements that the action President Trump asked Vice-President Pence to do was unconstitutional as if those statements are unquestionable facts is parroting unproven anti-Trump talking points, period!
End of discussion.
Well, Steve, it’s too bad that you are unwilling to (a) retract your insults and false statements and (b) continue the discussion beyond your brief reply.
You refer to a determination in a court of law, but are silent about who you believe has standing to file a suit that would lead to such a ruling or why you believe that’s the only way to determine the constitutionality.
Many things that are unconstitutional are not specifically prohibited. The Executive only has enumerated powers and powers granted via legislation. What Trump tried to get Pence to do is neither, and actively contrary to law, which is why Turley concluded “What is clear in my view is that Vice President Michael Pence does not have the unilateral authority claimed by President Donald Trump to simply “send back” electoral votes for particular states. Nothing in the Constitution suggests such authority and the Electoral Count Act expressly contradicts such claimed authority.” Since Article II does not grant Pence that authority, and no law grants it, he was being pressured to do something neither the Constitution nor legislation gives him authority to do — pressured to do something illegal and unconstitutional.
The Constitution requires the President to”take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and he was urging Pence to act contrary to law. If you believe that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, the thing to do is challenge it in court, not tell Pence to act contrary to law.
As for your final opinion, now you are lying about what I did. Not only did I *not* present it “as if those statements are unquestionable facts,” I explicitly asked you if you agreed, making clear that you could question my claim.
“Well for starters you haven’t proven me wrong. ”
Svelaz, I provided you with the FDA statement that proved you wrong. I provided you with the words of the NYS document that proved you wrong. You still haven’t responded to them.
“That’s a false dichotomy. ”
Once again, you have proven you need a dictionary and a remedial course in reading. The more you speak, the more I realize one cannot communicate with a low-intelligent person whose mind is locked tight.
Trump was not trying to incite the crowd to violence. The actions started before he finished his speech. He wasn’t next to the Capitol.
Someone else called you a bubblehead. I think that person was being overly generous.
Because the Democrats have no other message. Inflation will decide the midterms.
Todd, though I don’t know how successful diversion would be, we are moving towards a conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and China over Taiwan, while Iran is going nuclear.
Inflation is due to a good economy, low unemployment, and high consumer spending. The Rs are well qualified to kill that. The other factor is the weak global supply chain that the US had little control over.
Economics is not your strong point no matter who you call yourself.
WHAT drugs are you on, because I would love to take something that makes me see things that aren’t there.
“Inflation is due to” the democrat’s profligate spending, the Fed flooding the market with fiat money, and the Biden administration’s anti-business regulations. (You want inflation to skyrocket? Hobble the energy and transportation industries, just as Biden is doing).
Sam: you are correct. Then, there’s the fact that factories cut back production due to lower consumer demand, especially for non-essentials (due to unemployment) and factories cutting shifts due to COVID outbreaks and worker illness. You can’t turn around a decimated economy on a dime, and when consumer demand suddenly ramped up as vaccination rates improved and serious COVID cases declined, that created a lag between supply and demand, and hence, inflation because goods were relatively scarce compared to demand. This situation will correct itself, and is a direct result of the pandemic, and is a world-wide phenomenon. However, in the US it is worse than it had to be because Trump allowed the pandemic to spiral out of control by lying about it and intentionally downplaying the seriousness. Those who push anti-vaccinationism also bear responsibility for prolonging the pandemic. This is why it is so unfair to blame Biden for inflation, but Rs will do so as long as they think it benefits them politically.
“. . . serious COVID cases declined . . .”
Huh? There were more Covid deaths in 2021 than there were in 2020.
The rest of your explanation flies in the face of basic economics. Inflation is caused by government spending (including the Fed) and government regulations. The first floods the market with fiat money. The second restricts supply.
You mean the political game to not let the Rs whitewash and minimize the attempted coup?
A coup? Oh come now, who told you that. Or did you mean coupe?
There was no attempted coup. Your idea is ridiculous. No matter what Trump wanted, the cards were already played, and the law was going to rule. You don’t have the knowledge or the ability to make a better argument, so you make the only one you can find, old predigested garbage. Every time you speak, your words are laden with spin that is detached from reality.
The fact is, the election was lawless. The Democrat attempts to impeach or otherwise destroy four years when good things were being done, though not lawless, meant the Democrats weren’t representing the nation. They were expressing their ideology. If they get their way, we need to prepare for totalitarian rule.
ABC news called it a peaceful demonstration that intensified.
Comments are closed.