“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.
201 thoughts on ““The Illegality…Was Obvious”: An Analysis of the Carter Opinion on Jan. 6th”
‘As some polls start showing Trump would beat Biden in 2024, Biden starts pressing the DOJ to indict Trump. Who’s the authoritarian again?’
That would be Biden.
Biden hasn’t been pressing the DOJ to indict Trump. Whoever you’re quoting is wrong.
ANON – EGRESS FROM UNDER NEATH THE ROCK AND LOOK AROUND AND ASCERTAIN. Although, Biden is now with his dementia (and Willis Aphasis) is now puppetiered by the puppet handlers.
How about the New York Times?
“Garland faces growing pressure…”
“A new report claims President Joe Biden has told people he wants former President Donald Trump to be prosecuted.
The leak was published in the New York Times on Saturday as Democrats mount increasing pressure on the Justice Department to take action against Trump and people within his orbit in relation to the Capitol riot. At focus are Attorney General Merrick Garland and his “deliberative approach,” as the report put it, which is causing frustration.
“As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments,” the report read. “And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.”
And we all know…..this is NOT about January 6. This is about 2022 and 2024.
Mary Smith warns:
“Patriots are locked and loaded, and itching to pull our triggers.”
Let’s see if Darren deems this threat of violence a violation of the civility code.
Like I say, Turley would be aghast if he read the majority of hateful comments on his blog. Mary Smith and her ilk are to be shamed and her numbers on this blog not boasted of.
You’re planning on killing someone if Trump is indicted?
Trump is not “the real President of the USA.” Trump is the former President. He lost the election, no matter how many times he repeats his Big Lie.
“Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom”
Your own source says “the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland,” ergo the claim “Biden starts pressing the DOJ to indict Trump” is false to date.
the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland,”
Biden in the quintessential, DC swamp dweller. Having spent 8 years as Vice President, and now sitting in the oval office. All he would need to do is mumble his concern about Garland, aloud in the Oval Office dinning room while eating breakfast alone, and the message would be in Garlands ear within an hour. The very fiber of DC runs on back channels. Those of some power, merely communicate through aides. The President uses the most loyal of tight connected persons, that would end up dead if they were a source for any media source.
The common problem besetting President Trump, is his doing his own wet work. Not being a DC swamp rat, he did not have an already established network of back channels. Besides the fact, he was a man that did important business face to face, and his word was his honor.
“his word was his honor.”
That made me laugh. Anyone who believe that is deluding themselves.
Donald Trump’s word was and is his honor If that makes you laugh, then you’ve probably
never known honor.
You have NEVER, dealt with a person of power. Highly connected.
People like that, trade on information. Money is just a trapping of power. Power traffics in information. Giving and transmitting information that is impeccably sourced, precise, unambiguous.
The media only survives by lying to people like you that have no clue about how the world works.
Like the latest 7+hour phone log gap. “scandal” that wasn’t.
Like the non event of publishing open source photographs.
It wasn’t for the .1% of the people that dug deeper, It was for the 99.9 % of the people that only read the headline, and first paragraph
But you take the bait…..because it validates your prejudice.
Still can’t get over your wild belief that “his word was his honor.” The man tells more falsehoods than anyone I’ve ever encountered, many of them motivated by his malignant narcissism.
Compare the campaign pledges of Trump and Biden. Trump fulfilled or tried to fulfill almost all of his campaign pledges. Biden lied and continues to lie as he destroys the economy, involves us in foreign wars and leaves the southern border open.
Any time you wish to compare the policy of both Presidents, we can do so without rancor or insult, but that is something you have refused to do from the beginning.
So the New York Times is lying???
“The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6. – “https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/us/politics/merrick-garland-biden-trump.html
After their coverage of “Russian Collusion” and non-coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop, why would anyone believe the NY Times?
To the Anonymous who posted Biden hasn’t been pressing the DOJ to indict Trump. Whoever you’re quoting is wrong. Are you saying that you are in fact Joe Biden or just another fool
Getting legal advice he doesn’t agree with is now criminal?
Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.
“Getting legal advice he doesn’t agree with is now criminal?”
Nor did Judge Carter suggest that.
Which you might know if you read the ruling. Strangely, although Turley links to a bunch of things in his column, he never links to the ruling. Here you go: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf
Thanks for the link.
“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.”
Please do not assume that I did not look up the source.
Reread what you just quoted, Karen: “Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it [i.e., the memo] is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the Court ORDERS it [i.e., the memo] to be disclosed.”
The memo wasn’t written by Eastman or any other Trump lawyer.
So again, the answer to your question, “Getting legal advice he doesn’t agree with is now criminal?” is No.
The ruling is the judge’s opinion and opinions are like rectums, we all have one and they all stink. The bottom line is Democrats stole the 2020 election and continue to cover it up. No amount of baloney from Leftists will change that reality. Those of you still ignorant to the truth are delusional.
Trump lost. Those who believe his Big Lie are the ones who are “still ignorant to the truth” and “delusional.”
The judge’s opinion has a legal impact. Eastman’s lawyers have already released a statement that “He intends to comply with the court’s order.”
The Big Lie is that the election wasn’t riddled with irregularities, so at this point, we don’t know how many invalid votes there were or how much of Zuckerberg’s $400 million was used contrary to election laws. Some of the stuff Zuckerberg’s money was spent on may have been illegally spent, which could make a lot of votes suddenly become invalid.
The Big Lie comes out of the mouths of small-time liars like Anonymous the Stupid.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.
The Big Lie is that the election wasn’t riddled with irregularities, so at this point, we don’t know how many invalid votes there were or how much of Zuckerberg’s $400 million was used contrary to election laws. Some of the stuff Zuckerberg’s money was spent on may have been illegally spent, which could make a lot of votes suddenly become invalid.
The Big Lie comes out of the mouths of small-time liars like Anonymous the Stupid.
Once again, Turley presents a weak and sometimes misleading analysis.
JT says “If you read such columns, it is difficult to see why Trump has not been charged after two years,” but he could just point out that Judge Carter was ruling on a civil case where the standard is “more likely than not,” whereas if Garland were to indict Trump, Garland would have to meet the higher criminal “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, and people like Rubin shouldn’t assume that Garland currently has such evidence. Turley could also note that the DOJ is clearly continuing to gather evidence (e.g., through ongoing cooperation agreements), and it’s common to build a complex case from the bottom up, and we’ll just have to wait and see whether additional people are charged.
JT says “Judge Carter’s “invitation” is strikingly short of clear evidence of such criminal conduct,” while again failing to note that Carter wasn’t ruling on criminal case or exploring evidence for such a case, only assessing whether the crime-fraud exception applied to any of the documents.
JT says “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.” Carter was ruling on a small subset of the material that the J6 Committee has subpoenaed and that Eastman is in the midst of analyzing for privilege. The Committee served a subpoena on Chapman University seeking “all documents…attributable to Dr. John Eastman, that are related in any way to the 2020 election or the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress…during the time period November 3, 2020 to January 20, 2021.” This particular ruling addressed 111 Jan. 4-7 documents that Eastman claimed privilege over. Carter ruled that none were subject to attorney-client privilege, 10 were privileged work product, 98 were not privileged, 2 had already been made public by Eastman, and 1 was subject to the crime-fraud exception.
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.” I’ve read guesses that the author is Flynn associate Ivan Raiklin, who was pushing this in public in December.
JT says “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,” but as best I can tell, Eastman never claimed that this memo was a matter of attorney-client privilege, only that it was privileged work product. Again: Eastman didn’t write it, and the person who wrote it was not one of Trump’s attorneys. It’s not covered by attorney-client privilege. JT either hasn’t carefully read the ruling, or he understands this but wants to misportray it to his readers. Neither is a good look.
Carter explained: “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.”
JT says “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,’” while ignoring that Carter noted that Eastman admitted that the action he was pushing on Jan. 6 was a “violation” of the law, and that if Trump believed the Electoral Count Act to be unconstitutional, “Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
And who knows what JT meant by “the baseless claims that Trump was not legitimately elected have been used by the Trump Administration to seize confidential legal material given to the 2005 leaders“? Turley claims to have someone helping him copy edit, but neither are doing a good enough job.
“And who knows what JT meant by “the baseless claims that Trump was not legitimately elected have been used by the Trump Administration to seize confidential legal material given to the 2005 leaders“?
Yes, I was wondering that myself. I would be grateful if you tell me what you think of my theories:
Jeff, I don’t understand how either of those comments is related to Turley’s claim about Trump’s election in 2016.
I’m wondering who Turley meant by “the 2005 leaders” and what “confidential legal material” he’s saying was seized.
I can’t tell if you are the same anonymous to whom I asked my question! This is the problem of being anonymous!
On this page, I posted comments at 4:23 PM, 4:48 PM, 4:54 PM, 4:57 PM, 5:00 PM, 6:14 PM, 6:26 PM, 6:48 PM, 8:26 PM, 8:42 PM, and 8:45 PM.
I do understand that it’s harder to deal with anonymous comments. Sorry.
Believe it or not, my WordPress does not indicate time stamps. All I see is an indication of how long ago a comment was made in minutes and hours. I confess that I am a Luddite. Weren’t you the anonymous who said that he/she was going to pick an avatat to identify which anonymous you were?
“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.”
If you are new to this neck of the woods, you should know that Turley is a NeverTrumper. He self-identified as such many years ago when he disparaged Trump as a “carnival snake charmer,” in other words, a conman. Please don’t accuse Turley of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as Trumpists are wont to do. Turley is prone to give Trump the benefit of the doubt where Leftists will not, but he will NOT lie on his behalf as will a Trumpist.
Didn’t JT say that way before Trump started running for President? If so, is that still relevant to JT’s current views on Trump?
It’s true that Turley called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” many years ago, but has he ever praised or even complimented Trump’s character since?
In a word, no.
In the 13 minute span between 10:52 and 11:05 am, these 7 puppets all posted very similar opinions; one right after the other. Comments have been edited for space consideration. Still the parroting comes through; a rapid series of righteous ‘commenters’ bellowing with outrage.
highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman says:April 2, 2022 at 11:05 AM
This judge’s statements are a desecration of his office. He made them in an attempt to defame and libel.
James says:April 2, 2022 at 11:00 AM
The Professor seems to have forgotten midterms are right around the corner, and that is all this is about: dems playing dirty.
kunstlersghost says:April 2, 2022 at 10:58 AM
If we start calling legal advice which is wrong but based on plausible grounds a criminal conspiracy, we look like Russia, North Korea or a 3d world country.
johannakirwin says:April 2, 2022 at 10:55 AM
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.
Rick Emmertson says:April 2, 2022 at 10:53 AM
When dim californicaters talk, I ignore them. Opinions are like Aholes. Carter’s stinks.
Margot Ballhere says:April 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM
The “let’s get Trump”is for the stupid rabid leftist who hate the nation and suck from it’s lifeblood.
Randy P says:April 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM
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
No, just a regular citizen that sees the madness. You don’t fool anyone. Your handlers should probably demand a refund. If you aren’t paid, then my, what a sad, sad life you lead. Going to get back to my real and fulfilling one. The fact that you have time to post here 100 times a day tells me that is a foreign concept to you.
At least Dave Chappelle portrays crack addicts in a humorous fashion. The nonstop whiny beatchy troll of a thousand sock puppets…not so much
Anonymous – You are just wrong. These comments are not related or in conjunction with each other. However your hatred might be.
Ketanji Brown Jackson would be an Injustice of the Supreme Court.
Ketanji Brown Jackson should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, she should be thrown in prison for complicity.
Ketanji Brown Jackson needs three names to facilitate her self identity, she has no ability to assemble a few words and engender a definition of a woman, and she lacks the compassion and cognitive mastery to distinguish the reprehensible and heinous nature of child abuse and the torture of innocent children, she is absolutely wrong on a basic human level.
Kentanji Brown Jackson constitutes the deleterious unintended consequences of invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional affirmative action.
Jackson even apologized to one child pornographer as she sentenced him, saying:
“This is a truly difficult situation. I appreciate that your family is in the audience. I feel so sorry for them and for you and for the anguish that this has caused all of you.”
This was a habit: to another, she said:
“I also feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction,” adding that “sex offenders are truly shunned in our society, but I have no control over the collateral consequences.”
– Robert Spencer, PJ Media
Call your Senators today and light up their switchboard telling them you do NOT support Judge Jackson’s nomination to the SC.
She’s a monster. She is okay with BABIES getting sexually abused and apologizes to the RAPISTS. What a joke she is. But she’s BLACCCCCKKKKKK??? Is abusing babies okay with black people?? I think not. https://redstate.com/beccalower/2022/04/02/newly-released-transcripts-of-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-child-porn-cases-show-why-she-must-not-be-seated-on-scotus-n544681
JT – while our free speech rights are fundamental to a free society, we’re experiencing an era of fact-free “opinion infowarfare”. Everyone can see the dangers of expanding the definition of “opinion” to embrace govt. protecting professionally-run, deceptive, corrupt false-flag ops and their associated propaganda machines. We can now easily foresee a Presidential election where each campaign and their voters “deeply believe” they won, and will brand any countervaling evidence as support for the larger fraud. On Jan 20th following that fateful standoff, the Supreme Court might intervene to declare the winner, but be summarily ignored as corrupt-biased-imperious by those unwilling to bend to the decision.
Then, we have 2 candidates claiming to be the rightful President on Jan 20th. The Secret Service and military fragment into 2 warring camps, each seeing the other as traitorous usurpers.
JT – I worry that your expansive notion of the 1st Amendment allows such a Civil-War precondition to brew. There have to be some red lines implied by the Constitution where fabricated lies cannot be allowed to flourish to the point of fomenting Constitutional overthrow and disorder. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a license to deceive en-masse as an avenue to obtaining/maintaining political power. The power resides in a free people, meaning a people anchored to truth-seeking in forming their collective decisions.
If you relativize “truth” to the point where all deeply held conflicting opinions are afforded equal weight, and there is no pressure toward a process for sorting out the discrepancies peacefully, then all that can be looked forward to is infowarfare escalating in violence, and partisans seeking dominance-submission outcomes. The possibility of forging “win-win” compromise will evaporate.
So tell me pbinca who gets to decide what the truth is. The Democrats said that the truth was that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. People have said that Big Foot actually exists. It doesn’t mean that we believe them. I have a suspicion that if pbinca had his way he would be the head of The Ministry of Truth. pbinka, you seem to be an intelligent thinker so how is it that you can’t see where this particular line of thinking leads to. At one time people said that the sun rotated around the earth and the keepers of the truth actually jailed anyone who said otherwise. The most prominent was Galileo. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy. I’m sure that this is not the direction that you want to go. If it is the direction that you want to go you are just another progressive whose totalitarian nature is just waiting to get out.
pbinca is either one of the usual trolls using a different handle, or a new one. They wouldn’t be here if they didn’t consider our conversation a threat, and that is a fact. So let us continue to converse. It drives them mad, and driving them mad is kinda funny.
Yes, clearly anyone who has different opinions than you is a troll, and the comments section of this blog should be a conservative safe-space.
You are so right. Turley is arguing not unlike George Constanza:
It’s not a lie …. if Trumpists believe it.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious.”
– Judge David O. Carter
The illegality of Will Smith’s plan to commit criminal battery and slap Chris Rock before the entire world was obvious.
In the land of freedom of speech, Mr. Smith must have countered with speech.
The damages to Mr. Rock must approach $100 million.
Will “O.J. Simpson” Smith pursued a “Smash and Grab” Oscar with a vengeance.
It must come with an onerous burden.
Two points seem not to be mentioned:
1. Judge David O. Carter was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton.
2. What sort of a legal standard is “more likely than not?” I know what “beyond a shaddow of doubt” and “a preponderance of the evidence” mean but what is a judge saying when he uses a wishy-washy statement? I think it means he would like to see Mr. Trump tried and convicted but he can’t find a way to get to that.
“What sort of a legal standard is “more likely than not?””
You know, you could look up the answer to your question. It’s the standard used to assess whether there’s a “preponderance of the evidence.” Carter’s statement was totally standard for a civil suit, not “wishy-washy.”
“PEACEFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY”
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
– Henry David Thoreau
Judge David O. Carter must be sued for defamation, prosecuted for stalking and harassment, and impeached and convicted for abuse of power, usurpation of power, negligence and dereliction of duty et al.
With reference to approaching the Capitol, #real President Donald J. Trump said,
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Look at the election of 1876 if you really want to see a mess of fraud, competing electoral vote counts and then a deal to fix it..
Wonder how much legal advice was given or listened to in that one. Eventually resolved with a commission that awarded all electoral votes to the Republican candidate with the less popular vote. All contested votes were settled by an 8-7 margin and given to Hayes with him winning 185-184.
They were “given to Hayes” as a result of a compromise that gave the losing Party more than they could have achieved had they won the Presidency without full control of Congress (Republicans still controlled the Senate). The losers saw federal troops removed from the South, got Posse Comitatus a year later to ensure they couldn’t return, and implemented Jim Crow which lasted almost 90 years. To your point, listening and considering legal advice isn’t a crime, acting to overthrow an election… yeah!
COMPASSIONATE REPATRIATION – 1863
Infinitely you repeat your complaints and supplications.
Not to put too fine a point on it, you are a walking talking violation of the law.
Here are the Acts, the legislation and the definitive law that were in full force and effect in 1863, and which precluded and concluded the situation you referenced legally, exhaustively, comprehensively and conclusively.
Which part of the law do you not understand?
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
We cann agree George on what America originally intended for non-white people. The Founders didn’t extend rights to women either. Are you saying America was permanently locked into it’s initial biases and prejudices and had no right to change in the future? (Not that the change is significant or complete). Arte the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments meaningless? Do the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 1960s count for anything? Or do you approve of the Supreme Court that has weakened or thrown out every Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act ever passed in this country because at heart they have always protected the rights of rich, white men.
FWIW, Enigma, George has also claimed elsewhere that women never should have been granted the right to vote, and he periodically complains that women aren’t bearing enough children. He’s a misogynist as well as a racist.
You have to be amazed at the Democrats. Russia Russia Russia. Trump in an orang jump suit. Trump in an orange jump suit. Trump in an orange jump suit. They always seem to be thrice times stupid. After the midterm elections they should beware the Ides of March.
Confused about how a judge can get overturned unanimously and all is cool, But the President of the United States risks criminal prosecution for considering the legal opinion of a lawyer.
Gaslighting is intended to confuse. We’re fighting narcissists, Iowan. Sanctimonious humbug one minute and treachery the next.
I don’t believe anyone will be prosecuted for considering a legal opinion no matter how bad, it’s the resulting actions that may be prosecuted, though unlikely in Trump’s case. Not because he’s guilty of nothing, but because the Justice Department seems afraid to prosecute any former President no matter the Party.
If they’re going to prosecute Trump, they need to gather evidence to present a strong case. There are inklings that they’re in the midst of doing that.
Enigma, prosecute Trump for what?
The greatest likelikood is that the Justice Department will never prosecute him for anything. The state of New York will likely convict him of Civil fraud charges, the Manhattan D.A. seems to be unwilling to pursue criminal charges of fraud despite the evidence. The state of Georgia has impaneled a grand jury regarding the election tampering he did, having heard one tape I have no doubt he committed a crime, whether a jury in Georgia would find him guilty I don’t know.
Trump doesn’t “risk criminal prosecution for considering the legal opinion of a lawyer.” He risks criminal prosecution for acting on a legal opinion in a way that’s contrary to law.
As Judge Carter noted: “Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
Trump didn’t disrupt anything. The process wasn’t even interrupted.
You’re deluded if you believe that Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6 — per the Electoral Count Act — “wasn’t even interrupted.”
Trump didn’t disrupt the count.
On the other hand, Democrats disrupted the election and caused many things that didn’t follow the law. That being the case, those ballots should all be thrown out. That would place the election in question.
I am not looking to overturn the election, but I would like to see the fool act more honestly and honorably.
I had a wonderful dream last night. The Republicans had won both the House and the Senate. They were conducting an impeachment of Joe Biden and their first witness was Hunter Biden. The first question was, were you paid millions of dollars by businesses in Ukraine and China? His answer was, I do not recall. The second question was, what did you mean in your email when you said that your father takes half of your income? Hunters answer, I can not answer on the grounds that my answer my tend to incriminate me and my father. Then he took a swig from the fifth. What a wonderful wonderful dream. I woke up with a smile on my face knowing it could happen.
“I had a wonderful dream last night. The Republicans had won both the House and the Senate. They were conducting an impeachment of Joe Biden and their first witness was Hunter Biden.”
Strangely, I had the same dream. Get out of my head! I welcome such a scenario. However, I would not call the investigation of Biden a “witch-hunt” as did lying Trumpists when Trump was impeached. Instead, I want to know if Joe is corrupt as Trumpists allege. If he is, so be it. BUT if he is not convicted by the Senate, then I reserve the right to rip a page from the Trumpist playbook and conclude that all the allegations as well as the entire investigation into the Bidens was a “HOAX.”
Jeff it is not just Trumpists who think that Joe is corrupt. And at least the Republicans did not call for Joe’s impeachment before he even took office like Jayapal did.
I my book what Joe is doing or rather what he is not doing ( enforcing the law) on the Southern border is significant to impeach him.
Either that or the 25th Amendment. But on second thought the alternative ( Kamala ) is worse. As much as I enjoy dining on word salad.
And I quote ” Talking about the passage of significance of the passage of time right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is a great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do. There is such a great significance to the passage of time.”
Thinking is one thing- proving is another. We shall see where the facts fall. At least, I don’t declare the DOJ’s investigation into Hunter (and by extension Joe) a “witch-hunt” now do I?
Refer me to Jayapal’s impeachment claim since you brought it up. I want to see precisely what she said and in what context.
I’ll wager that Trump has made far more word salads than Harris. Wanna bet?
Jeff, You are correct about proof.
On Jayapal claim I made a mistake. I apologize, It was not pre inauguration. And I mistook one idiot for another. I was referring to when Tlaib in an ever subtle way, on Jan 3rd 2019 said ” We’re going in and impeach the mother f**cker”.
I was having a bad day yesterday, my Raynaud’s syndrome kicked in. We had a mini – blizzard. It cost me $92 to fill up my car ( If only I could afford an electric vehicle) and I was fighting with my wife. Didn’t do my due diligence.
On the word salads, that would require a ” link war” which I am not going to get into. Also like the Trump vs. Biden veracity of lies debate, we would never agree. Exercise in futility.
I said that Biden would not run. Something that has happened only 9 times previously. By that I mean a sitting President not running when a second term is available. And two of those times they were unable to run because they were assassinated. And the logical candidate in that case would be the V.P. I say Kamala is unelectable. She will not be the candidate. Wanna bet? You should really lay me odds because the likelihood of an incumbent President not running AND the V.P not being the candidate are huge. That is a very unlikely parlay. Especially after the ticket got the most votes in history. But I will take it as a ” straight bet”.
We all make mistakes. No problem. I don’t bet on politics. That’s a sucker bet. They are rigged! Haven’t you heard?
Jeff, I really appreciate your sarcasm.
Always a pleasure.
Have a great day.
Carter’s decision reminds me of the witch trials, based on what people thought the witch was thinking and doing.
Democrats have brought back segregation and racism. Now they are bringing back witch trials.
I was on jury duty on a case involving a man who elbowed a policeman in the mouth. His family testified that he was always watching marshal arts. They brought the Grandmother in from 250 miles away to testify. The defense asked the Grandmother if the cops had beaten the man like a dog. She answered, “They roughed him up a little bit.” The jury found the man guilty. After the trial the Judge spoke to the jury. He said that he was surprised at our verdict and informed us that the man would be sent back to Mexico. The crime was committed at a party that had been moved from the back yard to the front yard and the neighbors had called the police because of the noise. The time was about one a.m. it was more important to the judge that the man who physically attacked a police officer be set free rather than for justice to prevail. I tell this story to illustrate that judges can have biases that effect their judgement. The statement by judge Carter obviously exposes his bias. To automatically assume that a man is fair just because he is a judge is naive at best. Just find the right judge and you can get the result you want. New day old trick.
For the reasons outlined by Mr. Turley and this point in particular: “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,” Judge Carter should vacate his decision with an apology to all of us and be remanded to take a refresher course in a certified law school.
Turley seems not to have read the ruling in its entirety, since he ignores key elements of the discussion.
“To automatically assume that a man is fair just because he is a judge is naive at best. Just find the right judge and you can get the result you want.”
Thankfully, Turley does not believe as you do.
Carter, Carter, bobartsr….
Banana fanna foe garter…
Fee for Moe morter!
When the first three Stooges are ever the same…
You mock them first and say their names…
Like Moe! Curley…
The Democrats and their judge shopping. They found a yet another flack who would do anything for fifteen minutes of fame.
The other Democrat tactic underway is “court unpacking.” The Democrats are trying to weaponize recusal to force Justice Thomas off of Jan 6 cases.
The claim is that he has no agency and that his activist wife unduly influences his court decisions. Democrats claim further that his wife is being investigated for Jan 6 and that he must recuse himself from such cases.
The obvious problem here is that the Democrats love their kangaroo courts and a lot of people are being investigated for a lot of things. How convenient that conservative judges might have to recuse themselves because the Democrats are investigating friends or family members.
If it works on Justice Thomas, Democrats will be trawling Fakebook and Twitter to force other recusals all over the country. But don’t expect Kagan or Sotomayor to ever recuse themselves for anything. It doesn’t work like that in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Court packing didn’t fly with the public, so now unpacking. It never ends for the party of mass formation hypnosis.
Democrats claim further that his wife is being investigated for Jan 6 and that he must recuse himself from such cases.
While the Jan 6 commision is interviewing her, that in itself is meaningless. NOT a criminal investigation.
“The Democrats and their judge shopping.”
The suit was filed by Eastman, and he chose the district in which to file it. But don’t let facts get in the way of your preferred false belief.
Turley says, “ 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.”
His “support” of VP Pence’s interpretation of federal law was just a tweet. It was not a full analysis. His disagreement with Eastman’s assumption is equally lacking a thorough analysis as to why. Turley sure dives deep into analyzing anti-trump critics but just “disagrees” or “previously criticized” Trump supporters. He is heavily biased with the pretense of being objective.
I don’t see why Turley has to do a deep analysis on every point. The point was that he didn’t agree with Eastman and did agree with Pence. His article addressed the Judge’s overreach.
Yes I find JT’criticism of Trump and Eastman here and the electoral certification challenges led by Hawley and Cruz elsewhere to be too little, too late, and without explanation whereas JT spends an enormous amount of his columns and blogs being overly critical of people who are taking these issues far more seriously and timely than he is.
Judge Carter’s “analysis” has the “classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” to borrow from “50 former senior intelligence officials”
Democrats undermined Trump’s Presidency from Day 1, influenced the elections and misled voters that makes Russia look like an amateur, Joe Biden lied about his son’s involvement with Ukraine, China, the laptop, etc, 50 intelligence officials lied with their death spiral “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” and not to mention State elections were rigged by State Executive elected leaders by circumventing State Legislatures and ruling by Executive Order.
The 2020 election was rigged but not for the reasons Trump believes. Send Judge Carter to Russia considering he was nominated by Clinton Inc.
Hanky Panky says:
“Send Judge Carter to Russia considering he was nominated by Clinton Inc.”
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 just what you are doing?
“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, Hanky, and don’t attack Judge Carter’s bona fides.
“Turley absolutely rejects your attempt to….”
Most men at your age would have had a wife, children, grandchildren and extended relatives to keep him busy with fruitful and memorable activities. You, OTOH, are just a sad sack. We take it you consume our time, albeit remotely, because no one in the San Francisco Bay area give or take 300 miles would come near you. Lucky us.
“Most men at your age would have had a wife, children, grandchildren and extended relatives to keep him busy with fruitful and memorable activities.”
What’s your excuse for being here?
“You, OTOH, are just a sad sack.”
When you are right, you’re right!
Comments are closed.