“The illegality of the plan was obvious.” Those words of Judge David O. Carter in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California this week have electrified commentators across the networks and the Internet. Judge Carter was praised for his “simple clarity” in declaring that “it is more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” The declarations by the court have led to a frenzy in the media and renewed calls for the prosecution of the former president. However, there are elements to the decision that are deeply concerning on issues ranging from free speech to attorney-client privilege.
The Washington Post was quick to breathlessly declare that the time had finally come . . . again. Given the Posts long record of running professed slam dunk criminal charges against Trump that amounted to nothing, that is hardly a surprise. However, Carter’s opinion was immediately portrayed as ending all speculation. It seems now like little more than an administrative matter before Trump is marched off to the slammer.
Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared “Carter has issued a clear invitation — almost a plea — for the Justice Department to pursue charges against both Eastman and Trump . . . [Attorney General Merrick] Garland will have an exceptionally hard time justifying a decision not to prosecute.”
If you read such columns, it is difficult to see why Trump has not been charged after two years. After all, the media heralded the statements of D.C. Attorney General Racine that he was pursuing possible charges. Yet, neither Racine nor the Biden Administration have charged Trump. Why?
The reason that hasn’t happened is that Judge Carter’s “invitation” is strikingly short of clear evidence of such criminal conduct.
Judge Carter was ruling on the disclosure of material claimed as privileged by Eastman, who advised Trump after he spoke at the Jan. 6, 2021, rally near the White House. Eastman believed Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify the election and send the electoral votes back to the states. Carter ruled that such legal advice failed under the “crime/fraud exception” because the president knew there was no basis for such a challenge.
As legal experts celebrate Carter’s decision as a great victory against Trump, it is important to consider the implications for both free speech and attorney-client privilege. That is not because I agree with Eastman’s claims; to the contrary, I criticized Trump’s speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him. I also supported Vice President Pence’s interpretation of federal law and disagreed with Eastman’s interpretation.
Moreover, as I have repeatedly stated, Congress has a legitimate interest in getting a full record of what occurred on Jan. 6th. However, none of that should blind us to the dangerous elements of this decision.
Judge Carter notes that Eastman still believes that the statute is unconstitutional as written. The court simply brushes that aside and states the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it.”
More importantly, the court simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen and thus “the illegality of the plan was obvious.” Putting aside the court’s assumption of what Trump secretly concluded on the election, a sizable number of Americans still do not view Biden as legitimately elected. The court is not simply saying that they are wrong in that view but, because they are wrong, legislative challenges amounted to criminal obstruction of Congress.
In 2005, it was Democrats who alleged that a presidential election was stolen and challenged the certification in Congress of the votes in Ohio. The claim was equally frivolous but Democratic leadership praised the effort, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi who praised Sen. Barbara Boxer’s challenge and insisted that “this debate is fundamental to our democracy.”
The Democrats did not, however, demand that Vice President Dick Cheney refuse to certify, an important distinction to be sure. Jan. 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process and one of the most disgraceful days in our history.
However, the lack of factual foundation for the challenge (cited repeatedly by Judge Carter in the Trump challenge) did not make this a criminal or fraudulent effort.
Some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify. Holding such a legal view is not a crime and sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy. Indeed, Eastman and others were publicly stating essentially the same thing. That is what triggered the debate with many of us challenging their interpretation.
Yet, Carter is conclusory and dismissive on this critical point in declaring “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud — but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.” Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite. The question is why arguing that point with Pence and others amounted to a criminal act. In the end, wiser minds prevailed and the theory was not used by Pence.
There were crimes that day, of course. Some of those at the rally rioted and were charged largely with trespass and unlawful entry. A handful have been charged with seditious conspiracy. The court does not cite any evidence that Trump directly advocated violence while noting that Trump told the crowd to peacefully go to the Hill.
Consider the implications of Carter’s opinion. There was rioting when President Trump was elected while various Democratic leaders continued to claim that he was not the legitimately elected president, a view echoed by Hillary Clinton. While they did not riot in Congress, they committed other crimes.
Under Carter’s theory, the baseless claims that Trump was not legitimately elected could have been used by the Trump Administration to seize confidential legal material given to the 2005 leaders. After all, there was not a solid factual basis for these claims and they knew it. They further fueled the mob by making these claims in public.
What is particularly concerning is that none of this was necessary. The Congress has every right, indeed it has a duty, to investigate if there was a criminal conspiracy. Yet, it already knows the legal advice given by Eastman and other witnesses have testified as to what he said in critical meetings.
In the Post column, Rubin reminds readers “this is a federal court, not a pundit or politician.” Yet, at points it was hard to tell the difference. Judge Carter seemed intent on rendering judgment on what he described as a “coup” rather than a riot: “Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election . . . Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
That last comment was particularly interesting because it suggests that Eastman, who was dean and on the faculty of Chapman Law School, could have made the same articles as a professor. However, when he took his academic views and applied them as counsel, it somehow became part of a criminal conspiracy and attempted coup.
That is what is so disturbing about Carter’s opinion. While I agree with many aspects of Judge Carter’s decision, there is no clear limiting principle of when a legal opinion becomes a criminal conspiracy beyond the court’s predisposition of the meaning of these facts.
Turley says, “ Yet, Carter is conclusory and dismissive on this critical point in declaring “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud — but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.” Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite. The question is why arguing that point with Pence and others amounted to a criminal act. In the end, wiser minds prevailed and the theory was not used by Pence.”
What he should have said is, “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with now-debunked allegations of election fraud.”
Trump was intent on a coup using Eastman’s hugely flawed theory and using it to deliver replacement electors chosen by trump friendly state legislatures from states where he lost. Judge Carter wasn’t wrong in his opinion. All he did was say the obvious part out loud.
“All he did was say the obvious part out loud.”
The crystal meth you did last night at the bath house did you no favors. Go home, take a few valiums, and sleep for 48 hours.
Troll.
Election Fraud…..you mean like Russia…Russia….Russia?
You mean the criminal effort by Hillary Clinton and her cronies, Elias and his law firm, Fusion GPS, Steele, the FBI and DOJ, the Intelligence Community Leadership, and the Media…..working in concert to subvert the Election and then illegally surveil President Trump and his Administration……not to forget two failed Impeachments……that kind of Coup?
Let’s get real People….Trump may have been wrong headed….but all those other folks acted in a manner that was the real Coup….the one that failed….but did immeasurable harm to this Nation.
It is they that are under an actual criminal investigation as we speak….do not forget that and the difference…..those being investigated are demanding the investigation of their Victim.
Ralph claims:
“Trump may have been wrong headed”
Wow! No kidding? Wait ‘til Trump gets wind of your disloyalty! He ain’t gonna like it. Get ready to be accused of TDS! You are either with him or against him. Remember that.
Are we beginning to see cracks in Trumpist allegiance?
“President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with now-debunked allegations of election fraud.”
Debunked like Hunters laptop was debunked?
Debunked like the Feds bugging Trump?
Debunked like the Chinese lab leak of covid?
Lots of debunked stuff has turned out to be true. Always because the lefts narrative is the only thing needed to declare something debunked.
If you read the special investigative report on Wisconsin you would know that not all allegations of fraud have been debunked; quite the contrary. And John Lott’s recent analysis also raises continuing questions about the election in a number of swing states.
This isn’t the first time Carter has made sweeping, attention grabbing statements or taken legally unsupportable positions. Fashioning himself as “L.A.’s Homeless Czar,” he issued dictatorial mandates enforced by outrageous fines against the city of Los Angeles, only to have all of his edicts reversed and renedered null by the Ninth Circuit. He’s an egotistical attention seeker.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. If your a Republican and you say that an election was not legitimate you will soon be convicted of the crime of heresy. Do not be afraid. Do not be very afraid if your a Democrat and you say that an election is not legitimate because you will not be convicted of a crime but instead will be showered with accolades. For instance, take Hillary Clinton saying that Trump stole (Big Stealed) the election from her. Instead of being considered a criminal for questioning the election she was handed an umbrella to protect her from the dripping drool of her many ardent followers. When it comes to Trump committing a crime for questioning the legitimacy of an election the common phrases used are, might have, most likely did, and maybe he did. You can hear these phrases stated again and again by the droolers of the left. They cry again and again that this new crime is the crime thats going to finally get him. No one believed Peter any longer when he cried WOLF!!
“ When it comes to Trump committing a crime for questioning the legitimacy of an election the common phrases used are, might have, most likely did, and maybe he did. You can hear these phrases stated again and again by the droolers of the left.”
He wasn’t just questioning the election. He was also trying to overturn it using by pressuring the vice president to illegally and unconstitutionally “return the votes”. When VP Pence rejected the idea Trump incited the mob to match to the Capitol and stop the count. He WANTED it to stop so he could push professor Eastman’s theory and remain in power.
It’s already been proven that Trump’s allegations of voter fraud were demonstrated to be counterfeit.
Turley says, Trump still thinks the election was stolen. No, Trump is still a pathological liar who can’t admit the truth. He does what every pathological liar does and keeps doubling down on lying more and more.
I always enjoy it when people of the left like Svelaz always leave out the part where Trump said to go the Capitol and peacefully protest how the election was conducted. They always sooner or later expose how they always leave out the actual words of their political rival. Somehow they think that the reader will not pick up on their subterfuge because they are oh so much smarter than us plebs. Beware the plebs of November Svelaz.
Svelaz says:
“Turley says, Trump still thinks the election was stolen. No, Trump is still a pathological liar who can’t admit the truth. He does what every pathological liar does and keeps doubling down on lying more and more.”
On several occasions, Turley has been very skeptical of Trump’s veracity and has stated that many of his assertions have proven false, but I don’t believe that Turley has ever outright called him a “liar” much less a pathological one.
I have suggested that Turley’s refusal to concede that the claims of massive voter fraud were deliberate lies is due to the fact that his company, Fox, is being sued for defamation. As a legal matter, Turley/Fox must contend that the belief the election was rigged was made in good faith; otherwise, Fox will vitiate its defensive claim that it had no reason to believe that it was made with corrupt intent by Trump and his lawyers when they were broadcast and in so doing defamed Smartmatic and Dominion.
If Turley ever acknowledges that massive voter fraud was a known or knowable lie, his Fox would have acted with malice.
Where’s Will Smith when you need him? That judge needs a slap down!
Liberal Trump-hating activist judges gonna do what liberal Trump-hating activist judges do…..
I agree with Turley about this. I do not see how the crime/fraud exception applies here. As I understand it, Eastman argued in his legal opinion that Pence had the constitutional power to return electoral votes to state legislatures if he believed the election results were fraudulent, regardless of their certification. I don’t think this is correct, and Pence and his lawyers didn’t either. But that does not convert a good faith legal opinion, even if considered to be wrong, into furtherance of a crime or fraud. If it did, only legal opinions judged after the fact to be correct would be privileged.
Good faith is irrelevant if the legal argument is still bonkers. A lawyer could be nuts and say that they had good faith when they advised their client to murder someone, But their communications would still not be protected.
A legal opinion would not advise a client to murder someone. It would advise a client whether a course of conduct violated law or not.
But if a lawyer did recommend to kill someone then that communication would not be privileged. That is what happened here, the lawyer recommended to do something illegal.
Daniel,
You should read the judge’s ruling.
The single document to which the crime-fraud exception applied was not written by Eastman. It was “a chain forwarding to Dr. Eastman a draft memo written [by a third party] for President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani,” and Eastman claimed it was privileged work product. I’ve read guesses that the author is Flynn associate Ivan Raiklin, who was pushing this in public in December.
Eastman admitted in an email exchange with Pence’s attorney that what he was suggesting was a “violation” of the law, so I’m not sure how you conclude that his was “a good faith legal opinion.”
As Judge Carter noted, “The crime-fraud exception applies when the “communications for which production is sought are ‘sufficiently related to’ and were made ‘in furtherance of [the] intended, or present, continuing illegality.’” In a civil case, the burden of proof for the party seeking disclosure under the crime-fraud exception is preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. “[T]he crime-fraud exception does not require a completed crime or fraud but only that the client have consulted the attorney in an effort to complete one.” The exception applies even if the attorney does not participate in the criminal activity, and “and even [if] the communication turns out not to help (and perhaps even to hinder) the client’s completion of a crime.”
He continues: “The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it to be disclosed.”
To assess whether the memo is subject to the crime-fraud exception, you have to look at the contents of the memo. Not at Eastman’s beliefs. That memo has not yet been made public.
This judge’s statements are a desecration of his office. He made them in an attempt to defame and libel not in an attempt or with respect to understanding the truth. His misunderstanding of correlation and causation also suggests he is unintelligent. It should scare us when judges are intemperate in an attempt to assuage their political leanings.
Highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman says:
“It should scare us when judges are intemperate in an attempt to assuage their political leanings.”
Turley absolutely rejects your attempt to malign a judge’s ruling by insinuating that he is being political. Don’t you recall his condemnation of Trump for doing what you are now doing?
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/02/28/judge-once-maligned-by-trump-as-a-hater-rules-in-favor-of-border-wall/
“Trump made repeated disparaging comments about Judge Curiel. He told Fox News that Curiel had been “extremely hostile” toward him due to his position on immigration: “I think it has to do with, perhaps, the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border — very, very strong on the border,. He has been extremely hostile to me. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe.” He then repeated those comments on CNN in noting that “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” Then at a political rally in San Diego where Curiel sits, Trump said “I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing.” He added that Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.” At the time of Trump’s comments, I was one of many voicing strong objections to the personal attack.” ———————-
Be more like Turley, lady, and don’t attack Judge Carter personally!
The Professor seems to have forgotten midterms are right around the corner, and that is all this is about: dems playing dirty. They know this will result in nothing, it’s just fuel to throw on their fabricated fire. They know perfectly well. At this point, we can just expect the DNC and its associates to disregard the law and work it out later when they are in power.
I say again, generational liberals have been indoctrinated like no one in our country’s history. There are no longer exceptions, but perhaps the Professor himself and a smattering of others, none of which hold office.
*whom
“They know this will result in nothing”
That’s false. The result of the ruling is that 101 documents that Eastman wanted to prevent the J6 Committee from reviewing must be turned over to the Committee. Eastman has already stated that he will abide by the ruling and won’t appeal.
James says:
“The Professor seems to have forgotten midterms are right around the corner, and that is all this is about: dems playing dirty. They know this will result in nothing, it’s just fuel to throw on their fabricated fire.”
Turley has stated:
“Moreover, as I have repeatedly stated, Congress has a legitimate interest in getting a full record of what occurred on Jan. 6th.”
I’m siding with Turley- let’s get to the bottom of what instigated the “desecration” on Jan. 6th. His word, “desecration,” not mine.
I don’t like Trump, but I believe Turley, plus If we start calling legal advice which is wrong but based on plausible grounds, even remote ones & call it a criminal conspiracy, we look like Russia, North Korea, or a 3d world country. Especially if advice was given after the Speech. We are heading toward an authoritarian style govt where political opponents are charged as criminals, not just political opponents. Where the winning side gets rid of their opponents and have its Justice Department prosecute, arrest and jails them so they can’t challenge the winning candidate again.
As far as desecration – Absolutely NOT. No, the capitol building is not a shrine nor a church. It is an office where the business of our government takes places. It is not a place dedicated to God and deserving of veneration. Respect, yes, blind faith – no. Once again, Mr. Turley, you are guilty of “awfulizing” when it comes to President Trump. You may not like him, but please do not add to the Democrat and leftist hysteria concerning his actions and his thought processes. President Trump relied on legal advice to contest the election. He did not want a riot and spoke out against it. I find it sad that you seem to allow for the words and actions of so many Democrats throughout the Trump presidency which either looked the other way, tried to justify, or encouraged violence, yet somehow felt President Trump’s claims of fraud be so anathema. It was also clear to many citizens (most media excepted of course) that several states allowed for unconstitutional changes to voting laws to be carried out, and it is also clear, although “unproven,” that poorly thought-out mail in voting processes allowed for many opportunities of fraud to take place. There are many such confirmed examples in other elections in our country. You also fail to take into account the politically motivated FBI actions which certainly gave even more credence to the belief that although unproven, something was very wrong with the presidential election when all the normal indicators pointed to a Trump victory. Lastly, Judge Carter, and perhaps you?, seem to believe that people are incapable of making their own decisions when it comes to the actions they take when in a crowd. As I understand it a large majority of the people present at the capitol that day did not riot, did not enter the capitol, did not attack law enforcement officers. This fact certainly seems to prove false the claim that President Trump somehow caused the riot. His words certainly did not. Perhaps you should review what Al Gore said when he was losing the presidential election in Florida and see if that somehow meets the same standard that you would like to apply to President Trump.
When dim californicaters talk, I ignore them. Opinions are like Aholes. Carter’s stinks. Jumping to a conclusion about what someone else knew and was thinking, should be left to palm readers at the circus. IMO.
The Democrats have nothing and I mean nothing positive to point to in the past 6 years that they’ve done for Americans. The “let’s get Trump”is for the stupid rabid leftist who hate the nation and suck from it’s lifeblood. Twice they trumped up charges on a decent President and failed, each time Americans saw what they were about. Keep digging the hole for Democrat party that they’ll never come out from.
The rumor is Jen Psaki leaving for msnbc. Maybe the Dems need a louder cheerleader for 1/6 committee lie’s?
Margot asks:
“Maybe the Dems need a louder cheerleader for 1/6 committee lie’s?”
Turley has stated:
“Moreover, as I have repeatedly stated, Congress has a legitimate interest in getting a full record of what occurred on Jan. 6th.”
Conclusion: Turley is a NeverTrumper.
Face it: the country is a mess, the chasm between the Left and the Right is massive. Who do we have to thank for this? Career politicians to start with. Obama the Divider who hates America. Clinton and his AG who burned down the Branch Davidians in Waco and killed Weaver’s wife and son in Idaho. Pelosi, Schumer, Bush, Liz Cheney, the people who want mail-in voting, the list could go on forever. Treacherous types.
Randy P says:
“Obama the Divider who hates America. Clinton and his AG who burned down the Branch Davidians in Waco and killed Weaver’s wife and son in Idaho.”
Randy P is a perfect example of the Trumpist of whom Turley would not be thrilled to voice his hate on this blog despite his freedom to do so. Dozens of Randy P’s renders this blog all the worse despite their growing numbers.
The President of the US ordered his VP to illegally overturn an election that they lost. Trump and his collaborators attempted a coup. Coups are illegal. According the federal law and the Constitution Pence had zero ability to do anything with the EC votes other then count them. That there are people so out of it to believe that Pence could have done anything, or that Biden was not legally elected does not make all actions based on that belief acceptable. The idea that what Trump did was legitimate politics is insane.
No one on the right discusses what would have happened if Pence did what Trump wanted. It would have thrown the entire transition into chaos. Had Trump used the chaos to remain in office past Jan 20 he would have pulled off a real coup. Do Republicans think the Democrats would have just sat by and accepted this? Biden would of course held an inauguration. What would the military do if given orders from two presidents? I hate Pence, but he did stand up to what little principles he had left and saved the country from what would have been the end of our Constitution and democracy. And shame on JT for trying to normalize any of this.
Your last paragraph about the right not discussing things you ponder of “what if” is bc the “what if” didn’t happen. Discussion of things that didn’t happen is a waste of time.
No one on the right discusses what would have happened if Pence did what Trump wanted. It would have thrown the entire transition into chaos.
No chaos at all. Just a constitutionally directed outcome
The President cannot order the VP to do anything.
“The President of the US ordered his VP to illegally overturn an election….”
Trump did not order Pence to do anything. As to whether Pence could refuse to certify the results Turley states “Some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify.” Have you ever heard of legal interpretation? Turley goes on to say “Holding such a legal view is not a crime and sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy.”
Aside from several stupid comments by ATS that likely have been addressed as wrong, by others, one should focus a second on this comment.
“According the federal law and the Constitution Pence had zero ability to do anything with the EC votes other then count them.”
Historically, there have been problems in counting the EC votes. There is no mechanism in the Constitution for rectifying every conceivable situation that might exist. That, however, doesn’t stop those problems from being resolved. Trump provided a solution I didn’t agree with, and neither did Pence, but providing potential solutions is not illegal.
Though I believe Pence did the right thing, questions exist as to what to do when fraudulent or inappropriate EC votes are cast. That is not resolved in the Constitution, so ATS’s claim that the VP doesn’t have any other power demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how the nation functions when the Constitution is unclear. Let’s make-believe the VP saw a switch of one EC vote with a phony EC vote. Should the VP count the fake EC vote? No. How to manage the problem is what needs to be thought about. Should lawyers who have different opinions than the one finally accepted be guilty of a crime and lose their rights? Of course not, despite the alternative ignorant arguments. That is what happened in this case. The problem worked itself out until Judge Carter decided to expand his powers to mind read and call another a criminal because of a thought crime.
Let me bring this discussion to a real case. Many years ago, an elector was disqualified because he was a government employee. Did the Constitution discuss such a disqualification? No. Maybe Judge Carter wants to go back in time and convict those that didn’t support the prevailing solution.
Judge Carter might have been right about what Pence should do, but he was dead wrong in his decision that abridges all American citizens’ rights.
Facts on the record tell us the left is lying. The DC attorney general wont make a fool of himself by filing charges that must be examined by our adversarial form of justice.
“I have repeated stated, Congress has a legitimate interest in getting a full record of what occurred on Jan. 6th.”…
Please!! As if the demon-rats and the likes of the rhino’s on the committee are after a bit of truth…
Impossible!!
The only thing that can save us is a Faux-chinese vaccine vs the contempt & hatred for the rule of law that the ciamfbi/doj, etc so hate…
This black robe has no more legitimacy than the Steele pee tapes…
Don’t give us this bull that somehow congress is interested in the truth!
JmjUSA says:
“Please!! As if the demon-rats and the likes of the rhino’s on the committee are after a bit of truth… Impossible!! The only thing that can save us is a Faux-chinese vaccine vs the contempt & hatred for the rule of law that the ciamfbi/doj, etc so hate…”
JmjUSA is a perfect example of the Trumpist of whom Turley would not be thrilled to voice his hate on this blog despite his freedom to do so. Dozens of JmjUSA’s renders this blog all the worse despite their growing numbers.
I explained this in one of the profs previous posts.
A commenter was intent on using Carters political rant, untethered from his ruling on the enforcement of the warrants, as proof of an entirely different matter.
Judges ruling from the bench does not reach beyond the stated matter before them. That is simple civics stuff, and a little paying attention in high school.
What would have happened if Pence did not count the EC votes from Arizona, Georgia,and Pennsylvania? No candidate having enough votes to claim victory.
I know, but nobody else must. Hint…it is very constitutional.
The “news”:
All tv channels throw itShay at Biden 24 hours a day
CNN sland MSNBC both like to pretend that they are anti Trumpers but they slide off that and pick at Biden
Oh H*ll, we know the dems are running scared and are pulling out all the stops, especially the crazy ones who are totally ignorant of the law and/or the constitution. This is going to be one of the ugliest campaign seasons and watch out for all the garbage being thrown. What a disgusting mess the left has made of our electoral/judicial/representative/bureaucratic systems. Yet all the while nary a mention of our compromised/corrupt white house occupier and his crack-head son and leeching brother – do tell?
I wholeheartedly agree. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. They will stoop to lows that make Kavanaugh look like snack time in kindergarten, count on it.
It appears that the “judge” has engaged in the same type of hateful rhetoric that he is criticizing. He deserves at least a slap on the wrist for his foray into partisan politics.