During the last Administration, the media was (rightfully) critical of President Donald Trump’s repeated public calls for action from the Justice Department or attacking the handling of pending investigations. Legal experts lined up to denounce the damage to the independence of the Justice Department. The media and experts, however, have been largely silent as President Joe Biden has declared the guilt of individuals or promised punishment before even the commencement of investigations. The latest such example is the leaking of Biden’s desire to have Attorney General Merrick Garland prosecute Trump.
Notably, Trump often publicly made such calls for indictments or action from the Justice Department. Some of the Trump controversies came from statements that he made to subordinates in the White House to pressure his Attorneys General to act — pressure that they uniformly resisted.
Biden is now being widely reported as wanting Garland to prosecute Trump. His close associates made sure that the media reported that the President wants “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.”
This leak was made after a district court judge declared that Trump likely committed a crime, an opinion that I recently criticized over its sweeping language and spotty analysis. Various Democrats are demanding that Garland prosecute Trump, telling Garland to “step up or step out.”
Two years ago, 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 is that there is not clear evidence of a crime.
The leaking of the President’s demand puts Garland in an even more difficult position. The clear intent of the leak is to let Garland know what the President expects from him. Yet, Garland has already been criticized by some of us for refusing to appoint a special counsel in the Hunter Biden scandal.
What is most striking, however, is the absence of any concern from the same legal experts who denounced such statements from Trump. These are statements made to aides that were then leaked to the media to get to Garland. That allows the media to say that Biden never said it directly to Garland, but the message was delivered by the media.
For Garland to yield to such pressure would constitute a troubling departure from his predecessor, Bill Barr, who refused to do so on investigations ranging from the Mueller investigation to the election investigation to the Hunter Biden investigation.
Absent new evidence of direct culpability, such a prosecution would likely result in either acquittal or an appellate reversal. That would raise concerns over the Justice Department pursuing a political rather than a legal agenda — the very danger that Garland pledged to avoid when he stressed “I am not the president’s lawyer. I am the United States’ lawyer.”
I think there is a vast difference between a President asking the AG why not prosecute and a President telling an AG not to prosecute.
As for those who would prosecute a former President, there is a huge problem: the President of the United States in not just head of government but that person is head of state. That puts a President on a far loftier perch than a Prime Minister for instance. But just suppose we did try a former President, and convict that person, then what? Think of the incongruity of providing Secret Service protection for a prisoner in a Federal Penetentiary. To take a former President’s Secret Service protection away would be tantamont to condemning that person to death as every kook in the jail would like to have the noteriety of knocking off one so high. Besides, as Madam Nancy found out, simply being a President of an opposition party is not treason or a high crime or misdemeanor.
Mr. Trump inspires great emotions: great love and great hate. Neither is a defense or prosecution for impeachment.
I think Nixon should have been prosecuted for his crimes.
If Garland eventually has evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed crimes, I want Garland to prosecute, and if Trump is convicted, he should go to prison. No one should be above the law. If imprisoning a former President means that there has to be extra security in jail, fine by me.
Will you agree that no one should be above the law?
If Durham Indicts Hillary, Elias, Sullivan, Come, McCabe, and a couple of dozen of others…..shall you demand they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law?
That is a simple Yes or No question…..either you support what you say no matter whose Ox is getting gored….or you are a hypocrite.
I know Professor Turley holds to the “Honest Man” concept when he makes a statement such as yours…..as he always says it matters not who is the subject of the prosecution as it is the crime itself that is being punished and he can exchange one name for another when he makes those calls.
Do you?
Ralph, yes, if they’re indicted, they should be prosecuted like anyone else, and just as I said “if Trump is convicted, he should go to prison,” I say that if anyone you listed is convicted, they should go to prison too.
Now you answer my question: Will you agree that no one should be above the law?
Thats like asking Act Blue trolls to be civil, not use sock puppets and address the points by our host, as opposed to what you usually do, change the subject, engage in sophistry and commandeer the forum
So, nah, we wont abide by rules, laws and traditions because your ilk pissed those down the drain decades ago
Carry on. Regards to George Soros
“…Hillary, Elias, Sullivan, Come, McCabe, and a couple of dozen of others…”
– Ralph Chappell
______________
Are you out of your ——- mind?
Those are merely hors d’oeuvres.
__________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain, dec.,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.
Anonymous, if Hunter Biden actually was required to give half of his income to his father as he stated in an email, should Joe Biden be considered above the law? Lets look at it on a scale. Trump said go and peacefully protest and Biden took cash money from the Ukrainians and the Chinese. I leave it to others to see which way the scale tilts. In every instance you have said that Hunter has been telling the truth. How, then can you not believe him when he says it was required that he give half his income to Papa Joe? Do you believe him now?
Yes, I agree no one should be above the law.
That said, consider today’s Gospel passage from John 8:1-11 about the woman accused of adultery. Even for an un or non believer, the message still resonates as all the accusers left one by one when the one who was sinless was invited to throw the first stone.
As for Nixon, perhaps. But Andrew Johnson got away and a lot of effort was expended to prevent ill-thinking towards Grant.
I’m not Christian, and in our constitutional democratic republic, religious beliefs don’t determine whether people are prosecuted. We aren’t talking about casting stones but about indicting people and sending them to jail if convicted of serious crimes.
If you truly believe that that’s equivalent to casting stones and that only the sinless should cast stones, then you’d have to conclude that no one should be jailed.
“… religious beliefs don’t determine whether people are prosecuted.….”
The Church of WOKE to which your paid handlers support do just that. Try again?
No. For the sake of good order, the imperfect have to act in the best interest of all.
Our problem, even on this blog, is that many of us seem prone to the Trump illness of exageration. We wish to say what we think another is thinking and then damn the other for thinking thusly. We have also conflated exageration to lying but Webster will tell us that is incorrect.
I would agree with the notion that religious beliefs don’t lead to prosecution but where would we be without the 10 commandments?
I am living under my 15th President. Politics has always been rough and tumble. There have been some choice comments made by candidates of different parties but the bitterness that entered into the discussion after Mr. Carter lost has unfortunately not gone away. Too often the debate now degenerates to the sort of name calling that was in vogue in kids’ games. We don’t communicate; instead we shout at each other. But I am rewarded from time to time for wading through all this by some pearls. They are worth it.
Professor Turley is simply pointing out the hypocrisy in politics.
If your memory serves you well
you’ll remember that your the one
who called on me
to call on them
to have your bidding done.
On this subject I give no support to Trump nor do I offer support for Biden. However, wouldn’t it be refreshing if just once Biden would say “I will not pressure my Attorney General in one direction or the other and due to his extensive knowledge of the law I will trust his judgement in the matter.” There is no question that in many areas Trump was not well informed of the law. Biden however is a licensed lawyer and has been involved with the making of the law for almost fifty years. How then can Joe Biden try to twist the law that he knows so well to have his bidding done?
“wouldn’t it be refreshing if just once Biden would say “I will not pressure my Attorney General in one direction or the other and due to his extensive knowledge of the law I will trust his judgement in the matter.””
He already did. Biden, in public as President-elect: “Our Justice Department is going to operate independently … I’m not going to be telling them what they have to do and don’t have to do. I’m not going to be saying, go prosecute A, B, or C. I’m not going to be telling them. That’s not the role — it’s not my Justice Department. It’s the people’s Justice Department. So, the person or persons I pick to run that department are going to be people who are going to have the independent capacity to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t.” Biden, in public, after taking office: “I did not, have not and will not pick up the phone and call the attorney general and tell him what he should or should not do in terms of who he should prosecute.”
If you get pregnant I will marry you, used to be the worlds biggest lie. Tara cried, biden lied. Not interfering with the AG, is now number 1.
Anonymous, Biden is the top sheriff in the land. When he declares that the border guards are guilty of strapping illegal immigrants without the benefit of a trial he sent a message to his second sheriff in command known as his Attorney General to make sure to begin the proceedings. He can say that he will never pressure his Attorney General but words are only words. His actions are what we should evaluate in order to understand his intentions. He thought he had a big talking point with the strapping story but it fell flat on its face. He could have said “lets look at the tape first” before he spit out the first thing to leak from his brain. If you think that his Attorney General was not listening to his request (pressure) than you have very little understanding how it works. He said that he would not pressure his Attorney General. Ha ha ha.
In other words, you wrote “wouldn’t it be refreshing if just once Biden would say …,” and then when you were given evidence that Biden has already said that, you respond “words are only words.”
**Your** words show you to be a bad faith discussant.
“He could have said “lets look at the tape first”…” Yep. I already said that he was wrong, and I think he should admit that he was wrong. But your claim that Biden “sent a message to his second sheriff in command known as his Attorney General to make sure to begin the proceedings” is just more of your bullsh*t. The Border Patrol agents haven’t been charged by the DOJ. There’s no evidence that the DOJ is even investigating them.
Anonymous, you say there was no proof of an investigation of border patrol agents . https://www.npr.org/2021/11/06/1052786254/border-patrol-agents-horseback-investigation-haitian-immigrants. The initial investigation that did exist has been dropped but they are still under investigation by the Border Patrol and the could lose their jobs for not strapping illegal immigrants. https://nypost.com/2022/03/29/border-agents-whipping-investigation-still-open-months-after-quick-probe-promised/. You tell us thats there’s no proof of an investigation of the Border Patrol guards. I have provided proof from a left leaning and a right leaning news source. The only entity that has no proof for her statements is you. Everyone here should remember that you said there was no proof that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. You try so hard to hit the ball but you swing and miss every time. When someone asks, “did you hit the ball today” you lie and say yes.
“Anonymous, you say there was no proof of an investigation of border patrol agents”
Ti T, you lie once again. I said “your claim that Biden “sent a message to his second sheriff in command known as his Attorney General to make sure to begin the proceedings” is just more of your bullsh*t. The Border Patrol agents haven’t been charged by the DOJ. There’s no evidence that the DOJ is even investigating them.” Your articles are not about a DOJ investigation, idiot. Garland is not involved in the DHS investigation.
Do your arms get tired from moving all those goalposts?
TiT claims absurdly:
“There is no question that in many areas Trump was not well informed of the law.”
It’s a pity that there was no such person as a White House counsel upon whom Trump could have relied to give him legal advice.
Correct me if I am wrong, but now that I think about it, there was such a guy- Mcgahn right?
Maybe he was not “well-informed of the law” too…..
Almost everything that Trump said is true:
– The Obama administration spied on Trump campaign – FISA courts were lied to and the Obama Admin spied on the Trump campaign, president elect and the administration.
– HRC and DNC colluded with foreign nationals to spread lies about Trump – and HRC/DNC are paying FEC fines for violating campaign finance law and lying about the Steele Disinformation Sheet. They are paying fines bc they are AFRAID to go to court as it would reveal their ignominy.
– Hunter Biden laptop is real and shows the Biden family is grafting money from foreign nationals – The supposed 50 “security professionals”, Leslie Stahl, Schumer, Pelosi, Swallwell, Schifft-y, Brennan, Nadler, Biden ALL lied about the laptop because they are agents of Russian disinformation.
– Covid information was falsified by various health groups and therapeutics were needed NOT SHUTDOWNS – CDC reduced the death tallies in all age-groups, including children – just the beginning of an actual analysis – and now everyone acknowledges that the shutdowners were wrong and have irrevocably harmed our children.
– There were MANY electoral irregularities in the 2020 election – and Dem governors perverted our Democracy by disobeying their state constitutions, sending out ballots, etc and in many swing states Biden vote tallies are unlikely to be correct and more likely to be fraud of some kind – https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/28/joe-biden-got-255000-excess-votes-fraud-tainted-sw/
Trump didn’t cause January 6th. Individuals entered the Capitol (albeit inappropriately), almost all of the unarmed, possibly some infiltrated by Anti-fa or the FBI, and no one was killed except an unarmed woman. They should be punished to the same extent as anyone (ie 2 years of BLM) who destroys federal property – not with these ridiculous inflated charges and punishments.
PS – Biden has no concept of reality beyond that of about an 8 year old. Those who elected a person they knew had significant mental incapacity should be ashamed – especially Jill for even letting him embarrass himself this way.
Hunter Biden has been operating as an unregistered foriegn agent, earning income he didn’t report to the IRS. This is in addition to the many, many pictures that were available on his laptop, shall we say they were “interesting?” There is no rule of law in America and there is no point in pretending so.
The most important revelation on the Hunter laptop was his complaint to his girlfriend that his father was taking half of his income. Why would Hunter say such a thing? Maybe he was over embellishing the amount. Maybe his father Joe Biden was only taking one forth of his income. Never the less, there is no question that the money was coming from Ukrainian and Chinese interests. It seems that the “Big Guy” was doing alright for himself. The “Big Guy” made a critical error. He didn’t make sure that the “Little Guy” was paying his taxes. If your going to be the “Big Guy” you have to make sure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. You will only get in trouble if you become lazy. Joe’s street name is sleepin Joe.
Joe Santos – “interesting” is not the term I would use for the photos. “Potentially criminal” might fit better.
This is going to be fun to watch. Barr would not be pressured by Trump. It remains to be seen whether Garland will succumb to the pressure by Biden. I can remember when Eric Holder said that he was Obama’s wingman. Is Garland working on his pilot license. Will Garland hear the Biden siren song to wake up and fly right. Knowing what you know can you guess the movies’ final scene.
TiT says:
“I can remember when Eric Holder said that he was Obama’s wingman.”
Undoubtedly, you don’t want to be reminded what Barr says about Trump:
In an interview with Bret Baier, Barr had this to say:
“Barr added that another “unsettling” occasion was when he went to hand in his resignation soon after he revealed that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”
“He started talking about how he had actually won the election, about how the machines were rigged and how he was actually going to be there for another term and he was very confident of that,” Barr said.”
“I just felt this showed a detachment from reality that was stunning to me. He was willing to accept anything, no matter how fanciful, as long as it didn’t make him a loser in the election.”
“When asked by Baier what he would say to Trump supporters who are angry at him for turning on the former president over his false voter fraud claims, Barr replied: “The truth is important. And the truth is he lost the election.”
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-barr-interview-trump-fox-2020-election-1686305
Turley believes Barr. Do you?
Well? Do you?
The left will use whatever means available with no regard for the constitution or rule of law to achieve their ultimate agenda. With this observed rogue approach to power they should never be allowed within reach of any public office nor afforded any notion of public trust. While we can acknowledge with any brief scan of history this very human proclivity, what horrifies me is the vast number of ignorant citizens who are not protecting this fragile experiment in liberty that was given to us at great expense. For this I blame the average citizen who allowed our education/media industries to corrupt our culture through a combination of apathy based on misplaced blind trust.
“What is most striking, however, is the absence of any concern from the same legal experts who denounced such statements from Trump.” (JT)
Their “absence” is perfectly consistent with their philosophy (the ends justifies the means). Their Trump denunciations satisfied a desire — to get Trump. And, now, their silence satisfies another desire — to protect Biden and get Trump.
And here, again, we see the stark difference between a *principled* scholar and a man of integrity (JT), and shills posing as “experts.”
If you try to shoot the king you better not miss. When Trump’s back in office with large republican majorities the dems will have hell to pay on an epic scale
Sam says:
“And here, again, we see the stark difference between a *principled* scholar and a man of integrity (JT)”
Agreed. Turley is a principled scholar who has never referred to the Mueller investigation as a “hoax,” who called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his conduct on 1/6, and does not disparage the 1/6 investigation as a “witch-hunt.”
All because he is not a lying Trumpist.
I cannot believe I am writing this. Trump has become one of the most slandered public figures in recent history. Whenever a story appears negative about a Democrat or the Democratic party Trump is attacked. This week it was Hillary and Democrats being fined for lying. With Trump it is scary for America. Our country has t President Biden, the FBI some liberal judges, Congress and the liberal media and Democratics all to happy to spy, smear, lie and make up stories to destroy Trump.
(Visit r/InsaneProtestors on reddt for the best collection of videos of left- and right-wing protestors fighting each other or doing stupid things.)
It’s too late for the Democrats to blame Trump for the mostly peaceful occupied-protest of January Sixth. This is because the Democrat-controlled DOJ has already credibly accused an unemployed Texan oil worker as the ring-leader and as the cause of the mob causing a ruckus at the US Capitol.
His name is Guy Wesley Reffitt, the only protestor with a gun during all those shenanigans.
a) Reffitt is not the only person charged with illegally carrying a firearm that day. If you search on “firearm,” you’ll see the others charged with that: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
b) The DOJ did not claim that Reffitt was “the ring-leader and … the cause of the mob.” Reffitt was indicted on two counts of civil disorder, and one count each of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a firearm, and obstruction of justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1473241/download
Reffitt was tried and found guilty of all five counts.
Reffitt was tried and found guilty of all five counts.
Strange. Don’t see insurection in those charges.
C La Duca says:
“Congress and the liberal media and Democratics all to happy to spy, smear, lie and make up stories to destroy Trump.”
You mean like making up the story that the married Trump was a Sugar Daddy to a Playboy bunny and a pornstar? Or the one that he bragged about how he prefers to sexually assault women?
Which one is made up?
I would like to make one addition to the issue at hand: PRESIDENT Biden also said that the border patrol agents that whipped ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS will pay for their felonious (not a word that Biden could ever spit out) actions. I paraphrase because Biden would have gone through his usual word salad saying what I just wrote.
In Trumps defense, something I am loathe to do, he at least isn’t a lawyer and so when he said things in public about having Barr do this or that it was not excusable, but not as egregious as Biden, a self-proclaimed legal genius, doing the same thing.
Trump’s the one who refers to himself as a “genius,” not Biden.
So your strong defense of Biden is that Trump called himself a genius? Biden calls himself a deep foreign policy expert, a top finisher in his law school, a noted “tough guy”, see Corn Pop and fights behind the school etc etc. He also was a “coal miner” a “truck driver” a “civil rights arrestee” and a liaison for Golda Meir in tense Mideast negotiations. All things that Biden has claimed ON TAPE and multiple times. But hey, Trump said he was a genius so I guess Biden is fine.
I’m not trying to present a “strong defense of Biden,” only calling you out on your false claim that Biden is “a self-proclaimed legal genius.”
I’ve already condemned Biden for his statement about the Border Patrol agents. He was wrong, and he should admit it. I’m not a fan of Biden’s. I voted for someone else in the Democratic presidential primary. However, I remain extremely happy that Trump lost the election, as I consider Trump an extreme danger to our democracy.
Hey Anonymous, what do you call it when you say that you finished AT THE TOP of your law class…when you didn’t?
What do you call it when you say that you earned TWO MAJORS…when you didn’t? What do you call it when you say you have more foreign policy experience than anyone who ever ran for president? The last one wasn’t his words, just the words of his supporters and the media. But hey, you do you…partisan hack!
Do you have strong arms from moving all those goalposts?
Anonymous,
If only we could get Turley to react to the statements we make versus the statements Trumpists make in order to pin him down on whose statements more reflect his attitude. Like a politician- not wishing to alienate his followers- Turley declines correcting obvious misunderstandings of his positions. I believe my interpretation of where he stands on Trumpism is correct. I understand that he criticizes Biden, as well he should, but by likening Biden’s conduct to Trump’s (as in this article), Turley is not implying that Trump’s conduct was not that bad but, rather, Biden’s is not much better.
Jeffy, you think yourself important, but you aren’t. Why would a man of Turley’s stature waste his time with a sycophant who intermittently praises and scorns? He doesn’t even know you exist. If he did, he would be horrified having to listen to the dim-witted guy you are.
Go play with your friend Anonymous the Stupid. You two are meant to be together.
No mention of Trump supported Hershel Walker lying about his academic performances? Lying seems to be a very common trait among politicians of any political stripe!
I think Mr. Garland has more sense than Mr. Biden. 1st the rage through half the population would be overwhelming and they would never be convinced that this was anything more than a political action. 2nd-the left would likely face an even more formidable opponent who is even tougher than Trump and is polished and message driven without making stupid comments that undermine his position. There is this governor in Florida who could fit this bill. I would fear him more than Trump. Trump is as likely to shoot himself in the head or foot and ruin his message but Desantis would be a nitemare for the democrats. Young, attractive family, has an incredible command of facts and can speak well off the cuff better than any other republican or democrat. And he governs a state that is bursting in growth as the democrat bases in NY, California, and Illinois teeter on the brink.
Opinion? Perhaps so. But when that opinion is understood to influence investigations, then he risks tainting everything that follows. Plus, it’s a ridiculous opinion from a supposed lawyer.
“1st the rage through half the population would be overwhelming and they would never be convinced that this was anything more than a political action.”
Everyone should be willing to be convinced by evidence. People who will “never be convinced” have closed minds. Admittedly, closed-minded people exist: some people believe the Earth is flat, some deny evolution, …, but hopefully it’s not half the population.
Attractive: please define!
The dems are terrified of Trump running in ’24. They will use any and all means to keep him out. They know they can’t beat him legally so lets do a ‘Jan 6 ‘committee and pressure the DOJ and Garland to persecute (not misspelled). And I don’t even like Trump but its fun to watch the dems.
Ole Man says:
“And I don’t even like Trump but its fun to watch the dems.”
More and more, I’m beginning to read Trumpists distancing themselves from Trump. Perhaps, many of them are finally realizing that the Emperor has no clothes.
The Democrats and the never Trumpist are going do whatever to prevent Trump from running in 2024. If they work hard enough they’ll place him in Dealey Plaza in a book depository.
I’ll bet they start promoting Mayor Pete for 2024, their bench is thin and popularity non existent except for the msm.
Is Biden not allowed to have an opinion? Also there is no indication that Biden told the AG to do anything, while Trump directly made his desires to the AG.
Hey Sammy, you lying partisan hack, did you think that Trump should have had an opinion when he tried to pressure Barr? Of course not because consistency is not something lefty morons ever have.
Troll.
Troll is always the best answer that Anonymous can come up with. Such an amazing presentation of words and ideas are not to be found in any tomes available for our enlightenment. So much wit. So much ingenuity. Such great command of the language. “Troll” she says. We bow in awe.
Is Biden not allowed to have an opinion?
Is President Trump not allowed to have an opinion? Jugde Carter says President Trump’s opinion “is likely” a crime.
But lets make something clear. The President of the United States has plenary power to order the Attorney General to do his job. Prosecute crimes. The President of the United States can even insist who should be indicted, and then, prosecuted.
No, Carter didn’t say that “Trump’s opinion “is likely” a crime.”
Carter said “the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
I bet you’re capable of distinguishing between actions and opinions. You just don’t want to.
“more likely than not”
It is ‘more likely than not’ that almost everyone or everyone on this blog has committed multiple offenses. That means all should be questioned and forced to release their private information. That also means anyone associated with them should also be forced to release their private information.
It is obvious. Anonymous the Stupid is as stupid as they come. The statement of Judge Carter is a mistake and leads to a miscarriage of justice whether or not someone is found guilty.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.
I guess, Anonymous the Stupid that you don’t understand the following that is perfectly clear.
It is ‘more likely than not’ that almost everyone or everyone on this blog has committed multiple offenses. That means all should be questioned and forced to release their private information. That also means anyone associated with them should also be forced to release their private information.
It is obvious. Anonymous the Stupid is as stupid as they come. The statement of Judge Carter is a mistake and leads to a miscarriage of justice whether or not someone is found guilty.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, Meyer the Troll Liar.
I guess, Anonymous the Stupid that you don’t understand the following that is perfectly clear.
It is ‘more likely than not’ that almost everyone or everyone on this blog has committed multiple offenses. That means all should be questioned and forced to release their private information. That also means anyone associated with them should also be forced to release their private information.
It is obvious. Anonymous the Stupid is as stupid as they come. The statement of Judge Carter is a mistake and leads to a miscarriage of justice whether or not someone is found guilty.
President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct
Obstructing Congress, NOT a crime.
Yes, ““the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” and that a conclusion that it is more likely than not that Trump committed a crime. If you bothered to read the ruling, you’d even know what crime it is: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).
Once again, your claim that “Obstructing Congress, NOT a crime” is either willfully ignorant or a lie.
From your early answer to a comment.
” Reffitt was indicted on two counts of civil disorder, and one count each of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a firearm, and obstruction of justice:
To be clear, the ‘official procceeding” had nothing to do with congress. It was NOT obstruction of Congress
“To be clear, the ‘official procceeding” had nothing to do with congress. It was NOT obstruction of Congress”
You are either willfully ignorant or a liar. And as always, when presented with evidence that you’ve made a false claim, I expect you’ll deflect instead of acting like a truthful person and admitting you were wrong.
Read the obstruction count that Reffitt was found guilty of:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1473241/download
Reffitt “attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote as set out in the Twelfth Amendment of the United States and 3 U.S.C. §§ 15-18.”
Go ahead and equivocate, I’m just playing along with your penantry
“I bet you’re capable of distinguishing between actions and opinions. You just don’t want to.”f
The issue is Carter claiming Tumps words are a crime. His thoughts. His ideas. as Trumps ACTIONS incited nothing. IN FACT President Trump said in his speech that the crowd would go peacefully.
You and Carter cant have it both ways. That’s what this is all about. Carter, and Biden telling Garland to prosecute persons thoughts. No. Things the GOVERNMENT, believes others may have thought.
You made the false claim that “To be clear, the ‘official procceeding” [that Reffitt was convicted of obstructing] had nothing to do with congress. It was NOT obstruction of Congress,” I gave you evidence that your claim was false, and as I predicted, you are unable to admit that you were wrong.
Grow up. Learn to admit your mistakes.
“The issue is Carter claiming Tumps words are a crime. His thoughts. His ideas. ”
The issue is you lying about what Carter wrote instead of dealing honestly with Carter’s actual statements.
“Trumps ACTIONS incited nothing”
Carter made no reference to incitement, idiot. Pay attention to what he actually said instead of playing with straw men like a child.
You can’t keep your snark straight and you are immune to sarcasm.
I said Carter claimed President Trumps ideas were crimes.
You snarked back I cant tell the difference between ideas and actions.
What actions did Trump take to “likely” commit the crime of Obstructing Congress?
“I said Carter claimed President Trumps ideas were crimes. ”
But that’s not what Carter claimed, so your claim is either ignorant or dishonest.
“What actions did Trump take to “likely” commit the crime of Obstructing Congress?”
Have you considered reading the section of the ruling titled “Obstruction of an official proceeding”? If you read it but didn’t understand it, what confuses you?
Judge Carter claimed President Trump’s ideas were crimes
“Judge Carter claimed President Trump’s ideas were crimes”
No, he didn’t.
Which is why you make a claim about Carter but don’t quote what Carter actually wrote.
Dumb.
The AG wears two Hats….one as the Senior Federal Law Enforcement Officer serving the President…..AND……as the Legal Advisor to the President
Clients routinely argue with their Lawyers….and Trump was no different.
Barr stood up to Trump….as a Man of Principle should do……is Garland made of the same stuff as Barr?
Will Garland stand up to the Leftist Radicals in control of Biden?
It is time that all these innuendos of conspiracy, criminal conduct and the like, be brought to the courts. These politicians need to stop making allegations, put their case together, and bring it to the court so Trump has his opportunity to truly defend himself. Years of Russia false collusion allegations did nothing but tarnish his presidency.. He needs to be given the opportunity to defend himself against fully defined charges.
If it weren’t for double standards, progressives would have no standards.
Dear ANONYMOUS, REPUBLICANS HAVE WON THE HYPOCRISY and the Double Standards competition. …..
Hey Holmes, thanks for all the examples you gave…oh wait.
I FEEL THAT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS ENOUGH “STUFF” ON HIS HANDS WITH THE ILLEGAL MIGRATION FROM OUR SOUTHERN BORDER TO HIS SON’S (AND POSSIBLY HIS) ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES TO HIS INEPT HANDLING OF THE DAU TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES.
“In October, Biden urged the Justice Department to prosecute anyone who defied subpoenas from Capitol riot investigators.
“I do, yes,” Biden said to reporters when asked if the DOJ should prosecute anyone who resisted subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 select committee. “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally,” the president said.”
Reviewing the information Turley provided, this is the most condemning thing attributed to Biden, that people who defy subpoenas should be prosecuted. No quotes about Trump, no charges of crimes; this compared to a mad who led public chants of, “Lock her up!”
Turley has become reduced to a rumor monger. Is he that desperate?
Enigma
Understand that Turley disappoints you and fully understand that you will leave the blog.
Bye
I understand why you don’t want me around. You want your little bubble to be excised of any information that doesn’t conform. If you can’t contradict my statements, condemn the messenger.
Don’t feed the “trolls and juvenile posters”. Ignore them per Turley’s request.
Major says to ignore “trolls and juvenile posters.”
Like the juvenile Trumpists who troll me as “Jeffy”?
I didn’t think so.
Jeffy – what is wrong with Jeffy? It is a term of endearment. 🙂
Keep it up, Paul. You just discredit yourself.
Paul, be careful. Jeffy might come after you. He’ll be coming after you with his toxic masculinity (LOL).
jeffy – I have nothing against you personally, just some of your ideas.
Paul,
I will not treat you disrespectfully by mocking your name in spite of the fact that you won’t treat me with the same respect. I understand you will not now cease doing so because it would be an admission of guilt.
Being accorded simple decency is something all of us should expect and accept nothing less.
His “rumor mongering” comes from the NY Times. Prof. Turley is a commentator, where as the NYT only provides “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/us/politics/merrick-garland-biden-trump.html?auth=login-email&login=email
Every rumor comes from somewhere, Turley heightens is without a hint of documentation of his primary claim. If you’re going to say Biden wants Trump prosecuted and pass it along to his millions of loyal followers, document it. His link to the Washington Examiner didn’t say that.
ru·mor·mon·ger
/ˈro͞omərˌmäNGɡər/
noun
1.
a person who spreads rumors.
derogatory
The Examiner links to the Times article. I imagine that Prof. Turley is under the impression that people who read this blog do not have to be led around by their noses and can do a little basic research on their own.
My research says he is spreading rumors to please his base without documentation. He’s better at headlines than facts.
So you believe that the NY Times cannot be used as a source?
First, Turley didn’t cite the New York Times, he cited the Washington Examiner that didn’t say what Turley said. If he had documented Biden saying Trump should go to jail, I would have said nothing and thought to myself Biden may have gotten ahead of himself. While there is plenty of evidence that Trump at least is guilty of fraud, as President he should let it be proven.
I didn’t say that Prof. Turley cited the Times. I said that the Examiner article that he cites links to the Times. Again, that means the original source of the “rumor” is the Times. So you believe that The NY Times are “rumor mongers”?
I don’t know exactly what the Times said or how it was sourced. I know what Turley said that wasn’t backed up by the source he cited. Turley often tells those who will listen what they want to hear. without proof or documentation. The very definition of someone who spreads information from a source that they got from another source is a rumor monger. When he changes the information from what they said, that makes him a liar.
Yes, and sometimes that ‘somewhere’ is completely out if thin air, just like rumors in elementary school. You cannot possibly be that naive, Enigma.
The ones that believe him without checking are naive.
James says:
“Yes, and sometimes that ‘somewhere’ is completely out if thin air”
As when Trump repeatedly claimed that “people are saying….” to back up his bogus claims.
Please.
enigmainblack, the Democrats have been hollering “ Lock Him Up” for six years. Even now they are continuing to holler “Lock Him Up.” This is one little phrase that you should eliminate from your future diatribes in order to bolster your fading respectability. It’s impairing your vision.
You must never have watched a Trump Rally? If you think Democrats have done this more, you really are in a bubble.
enigmainblack, you are one of the commenters on this blog that I want to stay around. People need to see you as the existential cheerleader of the left. I am glad that you display for all of us to see the thinking of leftist. I am glad that you are here for all of us to see. Please oh please keep on posting.
People tend to attribute things to me that aren’t true. I think some of it is projection. Those that actually talk and listen find we share some of the same backgrounds and views. I do share quite a lot of history that many here don’t know or can’t place into context. If you think of me as a “leftist.” You either don’t know me or don’t know what a leftist is.
Enigma, you are on the right of your leftist friends, but that still makes you a leftist. It’s your opinions that categorize what you are. With time your voice has turned, and today is far more awkward than it used to be.
“Yet, neither Racine nor the Biden Administration have charged Trump. Why? The reason is that there is not clear evidence of a crime.”
That’s one possibility, but it’s not the only one, and it should not be presented as a fact.
Here’s another possibility: it’s a complex case and the DOJ is continuing to gather evidence, and they will indict when they’re ready, not when pundits want it. We already know that the DOJ is still investigating, as several people who’ve pleaded guilty to J6 crimes have cooperation agreements and their cooperation is ongoing (see the status reports).
Hi Anonymous….For three long years you and your friends were in a lather about Trump being a Russian agent. Now that that lunatic fantasy has collapsed, you and your friends are in a lather about the January 6 protest about the election being stolen.
Why don’t you go for a walk or something to calm yourself down?
mikegre2014,
I’m calm. I never claimed that Trump was a “Russian agent,” and you should avoid pretending that people believe things they don’t believe. Thanks for your concern though.
I notice that you have no response to the fact that that the DOJ is still investigating, and we know this because several people who’ve pleaded guilty to J6 crimes have cooperation agreements and their cooperation is ongoing (they will be sentenced when their cooperation is complete, so that the Judge can consider the amount of cooperation at sentencing).
Over 800 people have been indicted for their crimes on Jan. 6, a number have already pleaded guilty, and others are now going to trial. So far, one trial is over, and it resulted in a guilty verdict. Any patriotic American should be concerned about people who committed crimes on J6 in the Capitol Complex and/or engaged in illegal conspiracy in the lead up (Enrique Tarrio, for example, is charged for crimes in the lead up).
Anyone who believes that the election was stolen is the one with a “lunatic fantasy.” Trump lost. Despite the effort to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, it occurred, and Biden — duly elected — was inaugurated on Jan. 20 and is our President. I’m not happy with Biden, but I remain happy that he won instead of Trump.
No, what you are is, assuming you are not in an institution, someone who is privileged enough to have time to post here all day, every day. Literally every day. If you aren’t paid, that is quite a feat for an ‘average’ citizen.
I could be wrong, but my guess: if you are indeed just an individual, you are a white liberal that had either a trust fund or inheritance or a family business, and who has never really experienced much of anything at all firsthand (funny how non-dems of ANY non-dem party seem to not be getting the memos for a species so apparently imperiled). Your insularity has led you to believe you are something akin to special, possibly even American royalty, and you really do, deep down, think your class is superior.
Funny how, poorer, non-white dems almost universally fail to experience white supremacy, white fragility, gender dysphoria, uncommon weather that is actually on record being cyclical and doesn’t break recorded records, and of course – smugness in the face of personal terror at your bubble popping. That would be the bubble of wealth, privilege, ‘superiority’, and relevance, BTW.
The behavior of the American left is what people do when panicked and desperate, not when things are running smoothly and functionally. They control all three branches and most media and corporate life – there is no one to blame but themselves, and finally having being culpable for something is literally driving them mad.
“I could be wrong, but my guess …”
Indeed you are wrong about everything you guessed except that I’m “an individual” “white liberal.”
“I’m calm. I never claimed that Trump was a “Russian agent,”
Yes, you did, Anonymous the Stupid. It is proven in the archives. You will state that many people use the anonymous name, but only you continuously lie and act deceitfully. You said it, and you could have prevented people from misinterpreting it at the time. You didn’t. You are lying again.
Of course, I believe you never used the term ‘Russian agent’ in its limited meaning. Instead, you were trying to be deceitful in your argument against mikegre. What you did again was to show yourself to be dishonest and a liar.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, also known as S. Meyer the Troll Liar.
Yes, you did claim Trump to be a ‘Russian agent”, Anonymous the Stupid. It is proven in the archives. You will state that many people use the anonymous name, but only you continuously lie and act deceitfully. You said it, and you could have prevented people from misinterpreting it at the time. You didn’t. You are lying again.
Of course, I believe you never used the term ‘Russian agent’ in its limited meaning. Instead, you were trying to be deceitful in your argument against mikegre. What you did again was to show yourself to be dishonest and a liar.
The DOJ is investigating those who committed crimes related to the riot at the Capitol. The January 6th Pelosi Appointed Committee is comprised of politicians who are carrying out a partisan fishing expedition.
“The DOJ is investigating those who committed crimes related to the riot at the Capitol.”
Yes, and that investigation clearly isn’t limited to the people at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
For example, Enrique Tarrio was not there on J6, having been arrested a couple of days earlier, but he’s charged in the Proud Boy conspiracy and can be held legally responsible for crimes committed by others in that conspiracy who were at the Capitol on J6: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1480986/download
“The January 6th Pelosi Appointed Committee is comprised of politicians who are carrying out a partisan fishing expedition.”
That sounds like a partisan take on it. You may not like the Republicans on the Committee, you may be frustrated that Kevin McCarthy failed in his effort to place people like Jim Jordan on the Committee, you may wish that there were an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (as would have been the case if the Senate Republicans had agreed to the National Commission that was approved by the House), but Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans. You think they’re “carrying out a partisan fishing expedition.” I don’t.
“For example, Enrique Tarrio….” And that’s why I stated “related to the riot”.
“That sounds like a partisan take on it.” Not one of the members was selected by the minority leader and everyone knows about the friction between Cheney, Kinzinger, and Trump, the RNC and local Republican Parties. Pelosi intentionally excluded Republicans who posed legitimate questions about the security breakdown at the Capitol that day but was happy to welcome two Republicans that voted to impeach Trump. It is a partisan fishing expedition.
“….you may wish that there were an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (as would have been the case if…” There was never going to be an equal number. That’s typically the case with all committees.
“SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
(a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.”
“….but Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.” That doesn’t mean anything.
Sergeant Major,
“that’s why I stated “related to the riot””
Tarrio’s indictment — https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1480986/download — IS “related to the riot.” Have you read it?
“Not one of the members was selected by the minority leader”
Agreed. But that’s at least as much the fault of Senate Republicans and McCarthy as Pelosi.
First, the House voted in favor of the creation of a National Commission (HR 3233) with membership as follows:
Members.—The Commission shall be composed of ten members, of whom—
(1) one member shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate to serve as Chairperson of the Commission;
(2) one member shall be appointed jointly by the minority leader of the House of Representatives and the minority leader of the Senate to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Commission;
(3) two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
(5) two members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate; and
(6) two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate.
But the Senate Republicans filibustered it, and that National Commission was never created. Instead, Pelosi created a Select Committee (within her power as Speaker), and according the preexisting House rules, membership was up to her (“House committees are of three distinct types: (1) standing committees, whose members are elected by the House, (2) select committees (also called special committees), whose members are appointed by the Speaker, and (3) joint committees, whose members are chosen according to the provisions of the statute or concurrent resolution creating them”). She offered to let McCarthy propose 5 members, he proposed people like Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, who’d already publicly denigrated the Select Committee’s focus, and she rejected them.
If Senate Republicans hadn’t filibustered HR 3233, the Republicans could have chosen any 5 people they’d wanted — Jim Jordan, Trump, anyone. You claim “There was never going to be an equal number,” while ignoring that the National Commission that the House agreed to would have had 10 members, half of whom would have been determined solely by Republicans. So you’re just factually wrong about that.
As for “The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader,” “consultation with” does not mean that anyone McCarthy wanted would definitely be on the Committee; it meant that he could propose members and Pelosi would consider McCarthy’s proposals, but it was still up to Pelosi to actually appoint people. Pelosi did consult with McCarthy. He proposed Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong, and Troy Nehls. She rejected Banks and Jordan, both of whom refused to certify that Biden was President, but she accepted the other 3 Republicans McCarthy had proposed. Then McCarthy said “Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” and he withdrew the other 3 Republicans. It was only then that Pelosi added Cheney and Kinzinger, who agreed to participate despite McCarthy’s assertion that Republicans wouldn’t participate on the Committee. McCarthy is the one who chose not to allow the other 3, so you can blame him for the Committee only having 2 Republicans instead of 5.
You think “It is a partisan fishing expedition,” and I don’t.
Major says:
“The January 6th Pelosi Appointed Committee is comprised of politicians who are carrying out a partisan fishing expedition.”
Turley does not believe that. He has stated that he approves of the Committee investigating what he called a “desecration” of our Capitol. Indeed, several Trumpists here are complaining about Turley’s attitude. I sense their feeling betrayed by Turley. Little do they know that Turley has never shared their faith in Trump. He saw through Trump years before when he called him “an absurd television reality star.”
I think the stated purpose of the Jan. 6 Committee is nobel but the proceedings do not smell nobel.
Can you be a little more specific?
Nobel purpose? Well, an event happened on the grounds of the Capitol. Property damage was done. Some people died. Therefore, it seemed to be a nobel idea to seek out data about what happned.
The nobel purpose has begun to have an odor simply from the make-up of the Committee.
I suppose I should express my skepticism that any Committee of either house of Congress could reach a widely supported report and recommended action.
Turley disagrees with you. He is in favor of the 1/6 committee. He has more faith in the system than you. I agree with him.
[For anyone reading this exchange, don’t let my silence in correcting the misspelling of the word “nobel” be interpreted that I don’t know it is. I just don’t want to be criticized for doing so]
You are very kind in not pointing out my spelling error. I have never been a very good speller to the great disappointment of my father.
Of course, we’ll have to defer to the Professor as how he would evaluate the Jan. 6 Committee now. Someone pointed out the Committee has only had one formal hearing — that surprised me as that group hasn’t been especially quiet. It is the leaking to which I was referring when I commented on the odor.
I agree that leaking should be criminally enforced. In fact, I don’t believe a reporter should be allowed to rely upon anonymous sources. Unless a source is willing to be identified by name, I would ignore them. Unfounded rumors by anonymous sources are a scourge. I wish none of these controversies were litigated in the court of public opinion where people are privileged to lie. I trust only courts of law where witnesses can be cross-examined to expose their falsehoods and held accountable for lying.
And there, dear Jeff, is where the Professor would say tsk tsk. A great deal of cow manure has to be endured to properly honor the First Amendment. About the best we can hope for, when people are shoveling cow manure in huge shovels, is that a strong wind will come up and blow it back in their faces.
Bernard,
I agree. My argument is that good people should provide the wind to blow the smell back at those shoveling the crap. Free speech is not free of *social* consequences because *governmental* consequences are prohibited except in rare cases thankfully. We should all think twice before opening our mouths. Some bad speech should be chilled. Mind you, an individual may still speak as he likes provided he accepts the social consequences.
AFAIK, they’ve only had one public hearing so far. What did you object to in that hearing or any of their other actions?
I do not know what AFAIK means so any reply I would make would be like shooting an arrow into the sky and pretending it might hit something.
One hearing? I suppose you mean one formal hearing. The members certainly have not been exactly closed-mouthed.
Bernard,
AFAIK = As Far As I Know
If you’re ever uncertain what an acronym means, there’s an online acronym dictionary that can help, though sometimes it lists a bunch of possible meanings, and you still have to figure out which is the likeliest meaning for the given use:
https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/
“I suppose you mean one formal hearing”
No, I said/meant only one **public** hearing. They’ve had lots of private formal hearings, interviewing all sorts of people under oath to gather information. They’ve also formally released information, both on the Committee’s site (https://january6th.house.gov/) and in lawsuits (for example, in their legal battle to obtain documents from John Eastman), and they’ve had a few formal meetings that I wouldn’t characterize as hearings, such as the business meetings to vote on whether to recommend that someone be referred to the DOJ for criminal contempt (the Committee votes to send that to the entire House, and the referral is only made if the entire House approves it).
The Committee is planning to have more public hearings starting in May, I think.
If you haven’t watched any of the public hearing with the law enforcement officers (embedded in my earlier comment), it’s worth watching.
They have been trying to indict Trump for decades. Some of the prosecutors who were part of some of these indictments might have been charged. Who knows, some might even be in jail. Some should be.
Well, that’s what illegitimate dictators do. They throw their political opponents in jail on trumped up charges. No surprises here. This country is only going to turn around when the left has had the opportunity to fully experience that which they thought they wanted. By the way, how’s everybody enjoying 5 dollar gas?
It’s amazing how TRUMP supporter project. Trump has said more than once that certain Democratic Leaders should be jailed because of their opposition to him.
Example?
Republican pearl-clutching is really adorable given the four-year-long sh*tstain that was the Orange Dumbbell’s self-serving stint in office.
All Biden has to say about this is fake news, presidential harassment, and so sad that the media hates our country. And Mexico will pay for that wall.
Biden can’t complete a coherent sentence. If it’s WWIII you wanted, send your kid!
Unlike the ousted president President Biden has had a child in our active military.
Hey Timmy and Holmes, Biden is sleepwalking us into WWIII, has given us an open border and is ruining lives with inflation and yet you still want to talk about Trump. I am not a giant Trump fan, but I did like a closed border, peace in the Mideast and the world, pressure on NATO to spend more on defense (a move that looks prescient now), pressure on the EU to get off of Russian energy (another prescient move), energy independence for America a recovering economy and NO DAMN INFLATION. But Holmes is glad that Biden had a son in the military…even if his other son was shaking down FOREIGN governments and kicking money back to the VP. Joe Biden as Vice President makes Spiro Agnew look like a clean politician. Agnew took envelopes with cash and was forced to resign, as he should have been forced to do (a Republican) and Biden took millions from COMMUNIST CHINA, RUSSIA and the UKRAINE and he is called a clean politician (Democrat). Hey Holmes, Anonymous, Timmy and Jeffy, do you think Biden is clean?
Of course biden and his clan are dirty but you will find no swamp dweller willing to call them on it as we know just how intertwined this corruption goes. History will tell the tales of both biden and Trump and all the swamp dwellers – our mission is only to preserve the constitution and rule of law – something the dems seem hellbent on destroying for their convenience.
Hullbobby asks:
“Jeffy, do you think Biden is clean?”
Why do you insist upon making fun of my name? How old are you? Are you a teenager?
I am on the record stating that no one is above the law including the Bidens. Appoint a special prosecutor already!
You say that you are “not a giant Trump fan,” but you will never accept a jury’s guilty verdict of him should it ever come to that. You will swallow Trump’s lie that the trial was rigged because you are a Trumpist all the same.
Jeffy – your TDS is showing. They do have doctor’s for that.
Paul,
TDS is spreading to more people. Turley has had it ever since he called Trump a “carnival snake charmer.” In fact, Turley might be said to be patient zero since he evidenced his utter contempt for this “absurd reality television star” as he labeled him long before Trump ran for president.
And, as I have noted, there are those here who are now distancing themselves from Trump, the man, though approving of his policies. Liz Cheney also approved of Trump’s policies- the little good it did her, for she was castigated as a RINO. With the dead-enders, no criticism of Trump is tolerated. Absolute loyalty is paramount.
You are on the record as a hard-core Trumpist. Your fate is tied to his. If and when, Trump goes down, you go with him. Good luck with that.
Active Duty in name only doesn’t count. His son sat behind a desk.
Our Armed Services disagree with you that active duty in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps is “Active Duty in name only.”
Tim
I keep saying that lefties are ugly people.
Thank you for confirming.