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.”
Hi Jeff,
Looks like you had a busy weekend.
See You’re still at the Veterans Home in Rifle CO.
I’m still here at Camp Williams/UDC, Bluffdale, UT.
Gotta keep an eye on things & you, we never sleep.
Yours Truly,
The Ghost in the Machine
The amount of money “The Big Guy” is getting just doesn’t matter. Corruption is about power exchanged for any nebulous benefit, and a wealthy son is just as good as money in one’s own pocket. A good argument can be made that, for an 80 year old, it is better.
It is not necessary for Joe to get paid in order for these arrangements to be corrupt.
I just want to say that I believe Hunter Biden. When he said that his father made Him give him half of his income I believe him. On occasion even bad men tell the truth. I’m having an “I Believe Hunter” hat and t- shirt made up. I think I’ll sell them at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. It will be interesting to see where I sell the most swag. I guess thats not such a good idea. At one of the conventions my belly would be damaged by uproarious laughter and at the other I would experience serious bodily harm to all the parts of my body. Oh what the hell I think ill just take the flyer because “I Believe Hunter”.
It was not just “ten percent for the big guy”…
The big guy was getting his 50 percent cut since the early days of the Biden family shakedown operation.
Biden is one of the most filthy, disgusting, greedy, lying politicians we have ever had stinking up the Swamp. He is a disgusting person.
I would not buy a shirt that says I Believe Hunter.
I would buy a shirt that says Joe Biden is a Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier.
I would buy a shirt that says 10 Percent to the Big Guy
I would buy a shirt that says You’re a Damn Liar, Joe Biden.
I would buy a shirt that says 81 Million Votes, My A$$
I would buy a shirt that says Trump Was Right About Everything
Yeah, Trump was right about everything, like when he said in March of 2020 about Covid that “We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” “It’s going to go away. It’s going to go away.” “it is going away, and it will go away. And we’re going to have a great victory.” “Anybody that wants a test [for the coronavirus] can get a test.” And then in April of 2020, “It did go — it will go away.” And in May of 2020 “with or without a vaccine, it’s going to pass, and we’re going to be back to normal.” “This is going to go away without a vaccine. It’s going to go away.” Then there’s his Big Lie about having won the 202 election. At least he was telling the truth when he said “I don’t take responsibility at all.”
Trump was right about *just about* everything.
No, he wasn’t. He lies with abandon whenever it feeds his ego.
Sorry, but no. You could not be more wrong.
Can you provide those significant lies he made while President? We are all waiting to hear. He has made a few errors, but corrected them, so get to the lies in context.
Don’t you feel foolish when you can’t provide in context data?
But it has gone away. He was right.
No, it hasn’t gone away. Almost 1 million Americans have died from Covid, and just this week, the daily average deaths is over 500, the daily average new hospital admissions is over 1000, over 8000 people are currently in the hospital with Covid, and the number of new cases daily is over 20,000:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
In no way is “it has gone away” a truthful statement.
Anonymous – in the same time period over 15million people died. PEOPLE die. Just this month the CDC has started rescinding some of the Covid numbers which were manipulated and perverted by financial incentives and Dems desire to lie to get power. And we all know Biden is the Covid killer. Most of the people who have died from Covid died BECAUSE of Biden. Biden’s killing people every day now (just like you say) so he’s actually the biggest killer EVEN THOUGH he had a vax provided by Trump. Biden is a COVID machine and is killing everybody!!!! RIght!!
Thanks for agreeing that “No, it hasn’t gone away” is false!
ATS, are you playing games with time and context again? You are demonstrating how thin your knowledge sabot Covid at the beginning. Trump closed the borders to the Chinese while the Dems were all calling him names for doing so while having close contact parties. Trump wasn’t perfect with the unknown, but he was one of the best. The Dems have been hypocrites to the disadvantage of Americans.
He made it possible, in record time, to create a vaccine where the Dems laughed. Then when the vaccine and anti-virals were available, we saw the death rate rise under Biden. Should we blame Biden? That blame game is what you consider the facts. I think that type of fact is pure ignorance.
Saddled with a failed, depressing, and divisive leftist political ideology, the one thing that unites progressive Democrats is their fear and hatred of Donald Trump. Trump soundly defeated Crooked Hilary in 2016. Doddering Joe Biden barely squeaked through in 2020 in an election that many Americans view as questionable at best and illegitimate at worst.
With the abject failure of the Biden administration, Democrats are rightly terrified that Americans could unite beyond Donald Trump to defeat them in the 2022 midterms and again in the 2024 presidential election. In the worst political scandal in American history, Democrats have tried and failed for six long years to destroy Donald Trump. The Democrats will continue to use all the levers at their disposal in a futile attempt to maintain their death grip on power. Their answer? Destroy Donald Trump, along with anyone else that could pose a threat to their hegemony.
The good news is that Americans see the truth. They recognize the Democrats’ failed ideology for what it is. The Democrats know it. Americans know it. Americans are on the verge of taking their country back.
Epstein says:
“With the abject failure of the Biden administration, Democrats are rightly terrified that Americans could unite beyond Donald Trump to defeat them in the 2022 midterms and again in the 2024 presidential election.”
Turley shares that fear as well. By his own admission, he did not vote for Trump twice.
An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that Joseph Robinette Biden is a failed president, and that Kamala ‘the most qualified progressive black female candidate’ Harris is even worse. Who do the Democrats have waiting in the wings as their next generation of leader? Crooked Hillary? Sandi ‘Westchester’s finest’ Cortez? Bobby ‘squint hard enough and I can pass for Hispanic’ O’Rourque? Andrew Cuomo? Talk about a disaster waiting to happen, especially after being repudiated in Loudon County over their woke education policies. Then pile on Biden’s humiliation in Afghanistan, the debacle in Ukraine, inflation, leftist progressive prosecutors and unlivable cities, and their failed politics of division. Oh, and the rampant corruption endemic to the Biden crime family.
Destroying their political enemies like Donald Trump is just another page out of their faded, worn, and morally bankrupt playbook. They’ve even spent the last thirty years in a failed attempt to discredit Clarence Thomas. His crime? Being a exemplary person, an outstanding jurist, and a conservative black who doesn’t carry water for the progressive Democrat cause.
Americans can see the results for themselves. No amount of deflection, denial, or obfuscation will change that basic fact. Americans have rejected the depressing negativity of the Democrats woke ideology and are embracing a positive vision of the future that brings together Americans of all races and nationalities to work together to build a strong, unified America. The tide is turning.
The tide may or may not be turning, but one thing doesn’t- Epstein killed himself.
Can you live with that?
JeffSiberman, this is what the Democrats want to teach to our children. https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/
I don’t believe Turley has yet weighed-in on the bill that just passed in Florida. I’ll await his commentary before I give my opinion. While researching for this post, however, I hit upon this post by Turley:
“Fox regular and radio host Mark Steyn is under fire for outrageous remarks made while substituting for Rush Limbaugh on his program. In discussing the San Francisco’s “shelter-in-place” order due to the coronavirus, Steyn referred to the city as a “big gay town” and the order as an effort to prevent “all the gays dropping dead.” While Steyn (who is a regular and substitute host on Tucker Carlson’s show) is known for controversial statements but this is clearly beyond the pale of acceptable commentary.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/03/19/they-dont-want-all-the-gays-dropping-dead-fox-regular-under-fire-for-remarks-on-san-fran-shelter-order/
I *believe* this actual criticism of a Fox employee was rendered BEFORE Turley himself became employed by Fox (I invite Darren to correct me if I am mistaken)
Turley went on to say:
“The commentary was inexcusable even if meant in jest. No one is suggesting that he does not have a free speech right to express himself but that does not mean Steyn should not be criticized for offensive comments. There has to be some level of decency left in commentary, particularly when referring to a pandemic that has left millions in isolate and thousands facing serious and potentially lethal illnesses.”
Can it be denied that castigating Steyn openly and shaming him publicly will chill his freedom to speak? It therefore would seem that Turley is decidedly in favor of chilling “inexcusable” speech. Sadly there are those who are *self-described* gay bigots:
“I can’t stand gay men and think they are a horrible group of people, and I would not mind a bit if somebody did say something bad about them. But try as I might, I can not find anything controversial in the least about what Steyn said. It was simply the TRUTH.
San Francisco is full of queers, 60,000 gay men IIRC, and around 25% of them are HIV positive. The Chinese Flu could wreak Hell with them. Not to mention all the Sodomites who are drug addicts, or have STDs out the wazoo.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Where is Squeeky Fromm these days?
Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself,
The Democrats embracing progressive wokeism is driving minorities to the GOP.
Without a solid candidate to get behind in 2024, I think many Democrats and Independents will just stay home. There is no energy in holding one’s nose and voting.
However, even as an Independent, I have to agree with Bill Barr and vote GOP to stop this wokeness insanity. You know it is bad when long time Democrat Bill Maher is calling the insanity out.
Spot on Upstate. The one thing that binds the Democrats together is their hatred for Trump. They don’t have any positive candidates or policies to advance, just a rehash of their failed politics of division and resentment. And you’re absolutely right about minorities. Once the Democrats figure out Hispanics vote Republican, they’ll make sure that the Mexican border is hermetically sealed. With a wall higher than Trump’s.
Jonathan, here’s a flagrant compelled speech violation we hope you will write about. U of Illinois just imposed mandatory DEI activism and personal report for all faculty: https://wirepoints.org/woke-ideology-and-conduct-now-mandatory-for-university-of-illinois-faculty-wirepoints-quickpoint/
The 2020 elections were rigged by Democrats. They use voters and nonvoters as pieces of machinery to grease their corrupt goals, just like Bill and Hillary, Joe Biden and the usual suspects
Tenth person charged with Florida voter fraud investigation over jailhouse registrations
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/513605-tenth-person-charged-with-florida-voter-fraud-investigation-over-jailhouse-registrations/
Daniel Dion Roberts, 48, of Hawthorne said someone visited him in jail identifying themselves as a voting official. He said he did exactly what the official told him to do and even helped him fill out the registration form.
“I had officers come and speak with me about something about them investigating the man that came to the jail,” he wrote from prison. “I haven’t heard about charges. Now I’m worried I don’t have a lawyer and can’t afford one. I’m in prison for three more years at least.”
John Rivers, 44, of Alachua, reached by phone Thursday morning, recounted a similar encounter with investigators last year.
“I was contacted by the Federal Department of Law Enforcement last year, [they said] they were investigating the supervisor of elections, not the people that actually voted,” he said.
Rivers said a man — who identified himself as a Supervisor of Elections office employee — visited the Alachua County jail and made several announcements encouraging felons to register to vote.
“They actually helped us fill out the voter rights registration forms. They came in and recruited us to vote, and then you know, told us that we could vote and now they’re charging us for voting,” Rivers said.
Merrick Garland may, at one time, have been a decent legal professional, and a judge whose rulings were well-thought out, legally-supportable, and fair.
THAT person, that Merrick Garland, is NOT the human being who now is in the position of US Attorney General.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Garland residence when he speaks his mind about what Joe Biden is pressuring him to do, and how he truly feels about it.
According to you, what has Garland done as AG that is not “well-thought out, legally-supportable, and fair”?
Involve the Dept of Justice in elections.
Spy on parents that attend school board meetings
This fool campaigns on being the great uniter (“turn down the temperature!”) then floats the idea of doing the most divisive thing possible: indict Trump for political purposes. Does the idiot have any idea how enraged this will make half the country? There could be riots worse than BLM’s. How this idiot Biden got installed into the White House is beyond me. He’s a menace to society.
Trump should not be indicted “for political purposes” (emphasis added). However, if the DOJ has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any President has committed a crime, I want that President indicted. Not for political purposes, but because no one should be above the law.
I really don’t understand what crime Trump is thought to have committed.
Nothing he said at his rally on January 6 advocated for the demonstrators to do anything unlawful or violent. No evidence of private communications by Trump to any demonstrators has shown that he was urging this secretly. In his speech he said they should march to the Capitol and make their views heard peacefully.
He said publicly and no doubt privately as well that the election was stolen and that Pence should return the votes of some states to the state legislatures. He had received a legal opinion from his counsel that Pence had the constitutional authority to do that. He took no steps to force Pence to do so, for example by calling on the armed forces, security services or other armed men. Nor did he order any of these forces to disperse Congress or delay the proceedings.
Pence also took legal advice and concluded he did not have the authority to do what Trump wanted. So he didn’t.
Where is the crime?
he truth”
Whether or not the attribution to the Nazi Goebbels is correct doesn’t matter. Associating that comment and name with Democrats is enough to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, for that is what Democrats relief on. Lies. That is what Anonymous the Stupid purveys. Lies. Very little said in argument by ATS is true. He is constantly playing word games, trying to confuse the gullible.
You are Meyer the Troll Liar, and in your anonymous incarnation, you are also the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.
ATS, I apologize, part of my comment was cut off. Thank you for your assistance so I could post it in full.
Daniel, you are 100% correct, but the left and ATS have learned from the best.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Whether or not the attribution to the Nazi Goebbels is correct doesn’t matter. Associating that comment and name with Democrats is enough to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, for that is what Democrats relief on. Lies. That is what Anonymous the Stupid purveys. Lies. Very little said in argument by ATS is true. He is constantly playing word games, trying to confuse the gullible.
You remain Meyer the Troll Liar and the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.
You didn’t respond to what was written so I will repeat it.
ATS, I apologize, part of my comment was cut off. Thank you for your assistance so I could post it in full.
Daniel, you are 100% correct, but the left and ATS have learned from the best.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Whether or not the attribution to the Nazi Goebbels is correct doesn’t matter. Associating that comment and name with Democrats is enough to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, for that is what Democrats relief on. Lies. That is what Anonymous the Stupid purveys. Lies. Very little said in argument by ATS is true. He is constantly playing word games, trying to confuse the gullible.
I said “IF the DOJ has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any President has committed a crime, [THEN] I want that President indicted.” That’s a conditional statement.
I’m not sure whether Trump committed a crime in connection with Jan. 6, but to be clear: my comment was not restricted to the crime of incitement. For example, Judge Carter stated:
The Select Committee alleges that the crime-fraud exception applies based on three offenses:
(1) President Trump attempted to obstruct “Congress’s proceeding to count the electoral votes on January 6,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2);
(2) “President Trump, Plaintiff [Dr. Eastman], and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and
(3) “President [Trump] and members of his Campaign engaged in common law fraud in connection with their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.”
Carter then analyzed these and concluded that for the purposes of a crime-fraud exception, which requires only a preponderance of evidence, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” Did you read the text of these laws and Carter’s analysis? If so, is there some part of his analysis that you disagree with?
Presumably, the DOJ will only try to indict Trump for corruptly attempting to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress if they’ve concluded that they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume that they are still in the midst of gathering evidence, since there are active cooperation agreements. As Judge Carter’s partial analysis makes clear, the relevant evidence isn’t limited to what occurred in public on Jan. 6. Carter wasn’t looking at all of the evidence that is potentially relevant to whether Trump committed a crime, only at the evidence relevant to the case before him. For example, Joshua James has already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and is cooperating, and he was in contact with Roger Stone, and there’s a question of whether Stone was part of the conspiracy, and if so, whether he was in touch with Trump about it, and none of that entered into the case before Carter. I’m not saying that the charged conspiracy definitely extends to Stone and Trump; I’m only noting that these are things that the DOJ might be investigating.
Also, in terms of “what crime Trump is thought to have committed,” the possible crimes aren’t limited to those connected to the certification of the Electoral College vote. For example, I think there’s good evidence that Trump conspired with Michael Cohen to commit felony campaign finance fraud. Cohen was convicted of 2016 campaign finance law violations that included paying $130K hush money to Stormy Daniels, an illegal campaign loan for which Cohen was repaid — plus a huge bonus — over the course of 2017, including via checks signed by Trump himself. Cohen said he did this at Trump’s direction, and Trump’s lawyer Giuliani admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for Cohen’s illegal campaign loan. Trump’s failure to report the loan (from Cohen to the campaign) and failure to report the loan repayments are themselves campaign finance violations. Trump also lied about his liability to Cohen by omitting the required declaration of liability from Trump’s 2017 financial disclosure form (OGE form 278e) and then after being caught in that illegal omission, Trump made a false declaration on his 2018 financial disclosure form about the total amount of the liability, in both cases certifying that the forms were accurate when they were not. Knowingly and willfully omitting or falsifying information that’s required to be reported on form 278 is also illegal.
Yes, I disagree. There was nothing “corrupt” about what Trump did. Nor did he seek to interfere with a lawful proceeding. Nor did he attempt to commit any kind of fraud.
He believed and said publicly and repeatedly that the election was stolen (many analysts and investigators, as well as a large proportion of the electorate, both Democrat and Republican, agree that this is a possibility), he had received a legal opinion that Pence had a particular power under the Constitution to return votes to the state legislatures, and he urged Pence to exercise that power. He was thus asking Pence to conduct the proceeding in a way he had been advised was lawful. Pence also took legal advice and concluded he did not have that power, and he declined to do what Trump wanted. Trump did not interfere with Pence or anyone else on January 6 and did not ask or order anyone else to do so.
Daniel,
You say “I disagree [with Carter’s analysis],” but your comment doesn’t attempt to engage with what Carter said in his analysis to show where he made a mistake.
You say “Nor did [Trump] attempt to commit any kind of fraud,” but your comment doesn’t attempt to engage with the evidence of Trump’s having conspired with Michael Cohen to commit felony campaign finance fraud, or the evidence that he illegally omitted his liability on OGE form 278e in 2017.
I’m open to changing my mind in response to a well-reasoned evidence-based argument. You haven’t presented one. Maybe you’re not trying to get me to change my mind.
“he had received a legal opinion that Pence had a particular power under the Constitution”
AND he had also received legal opinions that what he was asking Pence to do was unconstitutional! He ignored those. You do as well. Seriously: if you’ve taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and you get conflicting legal advice, and some of the advice tells you that what you desire is **unconstitutional**, would you simply go ahead and do what you want to do as long as one lawyer says it’s OK, or would you say to yourself, “I’m getting conflicting advice about whether this is constitutional, so I shouldn’t do it without a court confirming that it’s OK”?
As Judge Carter pointed out, “Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.” Trump made no attempt to challenge the Electoral Count Act in any Court.
You and Carter talk about Trump’s disruption. He disrupted nothing. He urged Pence to take what he considered to be a lawful course of action. Pence did not agree that he had the right to do so and didn’t. Trump made no effort to compel him to do so or to terminate or delay the proceedings, for example by deploying military force. Nor did Trump encourage any of the demonstrators to act unlawfully, as is clear from what he said in his speech.
While Turley considered the speech reckless and an example of poor judgment, he did not view it as criminal.
I am only focusing on January 6, which is the matter that triggered the article and was the subject of Carter’s opinion.
Daniel,
You say “You and Carter talk about Trump’s disruption,” but I haven’t used that word, and I don’t know what comment of mine you’re referring to. Carter did refer to disruption several times, including “President Trump likely knew that the plan to disrupt the electoral count was wrongful,” and Carter is very clearly describing something that Trump planned but was unable to carry out, so responding that “He disrupted nothing” is a deflection from Trump’s **attempt** to get Pence to disrupt the electoral vote count. 18 USC 1512 explicitly refers to “corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so,” “corruptly … influences … or attempts to do so,” not just successful actions. Focus on Trump’s **attempts** to convince Pence.
In one of Eastman’s memos that he made public, Eastman wrote “The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.” If you don’t consider that pushing a corrupt attempt to disrupt the count, then you and I have very different opinions about that.
You say “He urged Pence to take what he considered to be a lawful course of action.” He wanted to believe it was lawful, so he ignored all evidence to the contrary. Ignoring all legal advice to the contrary is not the behavior of someone who is trying to uphold their oath to the Constitution. As Carter noted in his discussion, “The Ninth Circuit has not defined “corruptly” for purposes of this statute. However, the court has made clear that the threshold for acting “corruptly” is lower than “consciousness of wrongdoing,” meaning a person does not need to know their actions are wrong to break the law.”
If you’re going to disagree with Carter’s ruling, deal with it seriously. If you have evidence that Carter is legally wrong about how to interpret “corruptly,” present it. Otherwise, accept that Trump was well aware that many people had stated that what he wanted Pence to do as unconstitutional, so Trump’s continuing to push it despite that knowledge makes Trump’s attempts legally corrupt.
“I am only focusing on January 6, which is the matter that triggered the article and was the subject of Carter’s opinion.”
OK, but MY original statement — “If the DOJ has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that any President has committed a crime, [then] I want that President indicted” — was about ALL Presidents and ANY crimes they’ve committed.
We disagree about January 6. Trump made legal arguments to Pence that Pence had the right to return the vote to state legislatures. Pence disagreed. Trump did nothing further. I do not believe that is a corrupt attempt to disrupt a Congressional proceeding. Nor do I believe it is any kind of fraud. That’s all there was to it.
If there is probable cause to think a president has committed a crime he could be indicted after leaving office. To do so, the DOJ or D.C. prosecutor would have to believe he could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So far that has not happened.
There is also the question whether, as a matter of policy, it would be a good thing for the country for a former president to be indicted for anything other than a very clear offence. The risk of tit for tat political vendettas would have to be considered.
Daniel,
The central point isn’t that you disagree with me, but that you disagree with Judge Carter. Yet you haven’t ever shown any of his legal reasoning to be wrong — not his reasoning about the laws at the heart of the ruling, not his reasoning about relevant precedent, nothing. You can convince me that he’s wrong with evidence, but to do that, you actually have to engage with what he wrote, including the meaning of the laws and precedent he’s referring to.
As for “Trump did nothing further,” I disagree. We know that Trump tried publicly pressuring Pence in more than one of his rallies. I’ll focus here on his Jan. 6 rally.
He gathered people in DC on Jan. 6, timed to coincide with the official proceeding of Congress on the Electoral Count Act. That’s legal, as he got a Jan. 6 rally permit: nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/21-0278-Women-for-America-First-Ellispse-permit_REDACTED.pdf
Note that it explicitly states “This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.” This is where it starts shifting to not-totally-abiding-by-the-law. In DC, you need a permit for a march if you’re carrying it out legally, and you apply to the DC Metropolitan Police for the permit, specifying things such as the route and an estimate of the crowd size (see “March permits” listed under the DC MPD: mpdc.dc.gov/page/special-events-permits-issued-agency ), and you have to pay for security during the march. The March for Our Lives had a march permit. The Women’s March had a march permit. But Trump never did get a permit for his rally-goers to march down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol. He nonetheless told them to march, and he lied that he’d march with them: “Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down,” and they did march to the Capitol, without a permit.
He told the crowd “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. … All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people. … [States] want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.” (The crowd chants “Send it back.”) So he was trying to convince his crowd that Pence could act as Trump wished. He continued, “You will have an illegitimate president. That’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen. … Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories.”
He told the crowd “I think I’m going to use the term, the weak Republicans. You’ve got a lot of them. And you got a lot of great ones. But you got a lot of weak ones. … we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Pence is one of the “weak Republicans” he’s presumably talking about, because he says “I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.”
Trump did say that they should make their voices heard “peacefully,” but he also continued riling up the crowd: “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” And again at the end of the speech, he sent them to the Capitol in a march that had no permit, telling the crowd that they need to put pressure on the “weak” Republicans to “take back our country”: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give. The Democrats are hopeless; they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
So “further” things Trump did were riling up his crowd and sending them to the Capitol to further pressure Pence and Republicans in Congress. Did he do anything more than that behind the scenes? I don’t know. Time will tell.
Dustin Thompson’s trial starts next week for misdemeanor theft and trespass and felony obstruction of the joint session of Congress, and Thompson’s lawyers are apparently going to present an argument about the effect of Trump’s public statements on Thompson’s intent (I’m saying this based on the defense lawyers’ efforts to get Trump and other rally speakers to testify about whether there were behind-the-scenes efforts to also get the rally-goers to act — an effort that the judge nixed, ruling that Thompson will have to rely on public statements: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.228116/gov.uscourts.dcd.228116.69.0.pdf ) It will be interesting to hear the arguments and testimony in court. A number of other people who chose to plead guilty have said that they committed crimes that day because they believed that Trump wanted them to, based on his public statements.
“If there is probable cause to think a president has committed a crime he could be indicted after leaving office. …. So far that has not happened.”
I agree, so far it hasn’t happened. There’s no way for us to know if the DOJ is building a case for indicting Trump or for indicting Biden. We’ll only know if they actually indict.
FWIW, I believe that Congress should make it clear that a President can be indicted while in office, but not tried until he or she is out of office. Either that, or they should pass a law that criminal statutes toll while a President is in office.
“There is also the question whether, as a matter of policy, it would be a good thing for the country for a former president to be indicted for anything other than a very clear offence.”
That’s a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it’s important for citizens to believe that no one is above the law. I think Trump should have been indicted for his campaign finance fraud and for lying on government forms while certifying that he’s not lying.
“The central point isn’t that you disagree with me, but that you disagree with Judge Carter. ”
ATS, you are admitting that you failed to make your points. Instead, you tried to bolster those points by relying almost entirely on Judge Carter’s decision. That is pure foolishness as the decision is what the discussion is about.
In summary, Daniel added another dimension to the discussion that you couldn’t handle. You added nothing.
You say that Trump had a well-known rally planned and permitted. Though you try to involve Trump in a march from the Ellipse [“This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse.”] Trump never marched from the Ellipse. Once again, you rely on deception and word games rather than the truth. Then you add a lot of fluff to the discussion pretending you have something to say when you don’t.
Of course, as part of your deception, you leave out the word peacefully when talking about walking. That type of distortion can only be thought of as a lie. Daniel clearly explained Pence’s involvement, for which you have no rebuttal. Without anything to say, you load the response with more fluff that is meaningless.
ATS goes on and on, believing that the size of his response is quality. It isn’t. It represents failure and the fact that Daniel added another dimension to the discussion that you couldn’t handle. You added nothing.
“You say “I disagree [with Carter’s analysis],” but your comment doesn’t attempt to engage with what Carter said in his analysis to show where he made a mistake.”
ATS, you say the sun doesn’t rise even though it is clear that the sun rises and sets and has done so while you state otherwise. There is nothing one can say that would change your mind because the issue is not the sun rising and setting. The problem is your faith in your ideology that permits you to manipulate the truth and blatantly lie.
Take note of how you can’t defend Carter’s analysis without meaningless word games. Even though you constantly say that you have an open mind and tell the truth, it is evident to almost every intelligent person on this blog that you have a closed mind and lie.
As the evidence mounts, we begin to see the desperation in all your replies where many are non-responsive and demonstrate the high level of frustration that your deceit is no longer hidden.
Daniel answered you directly, so I need not do the same. Rather than the facts, you will persevere in repetition, changing the subject, mind-reading, questions already responded to, ‘what ifs’ and other things that never happened. Frustrated, you insult the other person, “If you’re going to disagree with Carter’s ruling, deal with it seriously. ” That is your last resort.
In the past, you probably got away with this type of false rhetoric so much that you no longer rely on facts and logic. Instead, you rely on deceit and lies.
Anonymous says:
“I’m not sure whether Trump committed a crime in connection with Jan. 6, but to be clear: my comment was not restricted to the crime of incitement.”
(I have to go to the chore of quoting something you wrote in order to identify which anonymous person I am responding!)
I just want to say that the facts you have correctly recounted go in one ear of a Trumpist and out the other.
Jeff,
Meyer is beyond reach. I consider him a troll, due to his endless insults and dishonesty. He couldn’t even bring himself to honestly answer the question “how many formulations do they explicitly refer to for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?” after reading a quote from the FDA explicitly referring to “the two EUA authorized formulations of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” because giving an honest answer would have contradicted his mistaken argument (https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/)
I don’t agree with Daniel, but I don’t consider him a troll like Meyer. So far, he has been civil, and he is sometimes willing to dig in on relevant details.
You are giving Meyer too much credit. A troll deliberately tries to start an argument with someone- just for the sake of having an argument. Meyer, on the other hand, is not trying to prevaricate; he actually believes his nonsense.
The only way to expose the lies of a Trumpist is to cross-examine them on a witness stand for hours on end. Perhaps you are familiar with the classic movie, “Inherit the Wind,” in which Clarence Darrow portrayed by Spencer Tracy broke down the delusions of William Jennings Bryan as portrayed by Fredric March.
Jeff,
Yes, sometimes Meyer believes his nonsense, but other times I think he recognizes he’s wrong and is simply too childish to admit it. He is not a good faith discussant: he’ll cherrypick, lie, deflect, move goalposts, … whatever he needs to do to feed his preferred narrative. His mind is closed to evidence that counters what he wants to believe.
Meyer also gets off on denigrating commenters whose politics he dislikes. He’s admitted “Now I will go back to insulting Anonymous the Stupid. That is a legitimate way to demonstrate Alinsky type warfare against the enemy.” He regularly projects his own faults onto others in his insults.
He’s more than once stated that his goal when he responds anonymously is to encourage *other* people to ignore all anonymous comments. For example, he told Svelaz: “To make things clear. When I post to normal people, I use my name, S. Meyer. I FREQUENTLY USE ANONYMOUS when I post to you because your posts are stupid or repetitive. Why should I waste anyone’s time that is not interested? I am upfront. All anonymous emails should be deleted [without reading], including my own.” “I post anonymously to relieve the burden on those upset with petty and stupid postings and the responses. That makes it easier for those not to read trash anonymous postings.”
There was also a period of time after the 2020 election, when Meyer stopped posting under the name “Allan” (his original name here) but before he settled on “S. Meyer,” when he was sockpuppeting, using a variety of names, including Mark N and Kayla. Perhaps he still sometimes does that, I don’t know.
I consider those behaviors to be trolling. But it’s fine for us to have different opinions about it.
“Yes, sometimes Meyer believes his nonsense”
Yes, Anonymous the Stupid, I believe what I say and base it on facts. Unfortunately, that is something you cannot argue, so you twist the facts and make your opinion into fact and then get frustrated when people recognize that you aren’t being truthful.
Most of my non-repetitive facts are under my distinct name and icon. You haven’t done a good job of disputing them. What you do is use links and out-of-context quotes to prove your case. You hate it when your links are destroyed or your quotes are shown to be useless. That is no one else’s fault but your own.
Yes, my alias is Allan S. Meyer, and I sign it that way sometimes. When I made the switch due to WordPress problems, I continued to use both sets of icons and names to help me work out the issue. Any intelligent person could figure out Allan S. Meyer if they were so focused on the blog as you are. I would even make sure that some knew it, so I didn’t hide my alias except, perhaps, from those that couldn’t see past their noses. I don’t want to overload the blog with my alias. Instead, mainly when dealing with you, I use the anonymous icon. Why should I do otherwise? You are the one who insists on confusing the blog with your generic name, pretend friends and the use of alternative icons and names.
After seeing how leftists can destroy a blog, you, in particular. I think Every name should have a verifiable address and specific icon attached. That would stop a sick individual, like you, from causing such confusion.
In the meantime, anyone who wishes to save time should throw out all anonymous postings, including mine. They aren’t worth the time.
“The only way to expose the lies of a Trumpist is to cross-examine them on a witness stand for hours on end.”
Jeff, let’s play straight. You accused Trump of lying. When I first asked you to provide the significant lies he made as President, you couldn’t do so on several different occasions and still haven’t. Instead, you used insult just as you do almost every day when using the slur ‘Trumpist’ and libel Professor Turley.
No one needs to prove me correct. You confirm that almost daily.
“He couldn’t even bring himself to honestly answer the question “how many formulations do they explicitly refer to for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?”
ATS, I quoted directly from government resources and explained I was hesitant to expand what they said because I didn’t feel those resources were fully transparent. Which resources were transparent and which were not, I could only guess.
You were not happy with the quotations from government resources, so you wanted to add transparency by adding points you wished to believe that did not necessarily represent what the government was saying..
That is where we differ. You travel beyond the proven facts by utilizing hyperbole and deceit. I like to deal only with established facts believing the rest is opinion.
As far as insults, you insult everyone by using your anonymous aliases, pretend friends and alternative icons. You also insult directly. Look at your last response to a very civil and thoughtful commenter Daniel, who you admit is civil and serious. Nonetheless, his perfect logic compelled you to say, “If you’re going to disagree with Carter’s ruling, deal with it seriously.” That was tame. It would help if you looked at what you have said to many others which is insulting.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In your case, it permits your mind to spin out of control. Daniel already answered, so that I will ask one question.
What does the following mean?
“I’m not sure whether Trump committed a crime in connection with Jan 6,”
It means nothing.
I am not sure you didn’t rape that girl on Jan 6, rob that bakery on Jan 7 or crash your car on Jan 8.
You are full of empty proclamations.
Daniel wonders:
“In his speech he said they should march to the Capitol and make their views heard peacefully.”
I guess you must suppose that Turley is suffering from TDS then. Because how else can you account for the fact that he criticized Trump’s speech as “reckless” AND called upon Congress to censure him.
Could it be that Turley is a closeted NeverTrumper?
Calling a speech reckless and favouring censure (in contrast to impeachment) is different from saying it was criminal.
Daniel,
Yes, we’ll have to wait and see whether the DOJ ultimately argues that a combination of actions taken by Trump — perhaps including his Jan. 6 speech — are criminal.
Judge Carter referred to the speech as one of several “Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.” But again, Carter wasn’t claiming that Trump did commit a crime using a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Carter was only assessing whether it was more likely than not that a memo — written by someone who wasn’t a Trump lawyer and forwarded to Eastman — was covered as privileged work product or was instead subject to the crime-fraud exception, and as part of his analysis, he concluded that “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” using a preponderance of evidence standard. Also, Carter’s analysis did not focus solely or even primarily on Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, and if the DOJ does eventually charge Trump, I doubt that they’ll focus solely or even primarily on Trump’s Jan. 6 speech either.
Anonymous says:
“we’ll have to wait and see whether the DOJ ultimately argues that a combination of actions taken by Trump — perhaps including his Jan. 6 speech — are criminal.”
I doubt the DOJ will prosecute unless they have “smoking gun” evidence. Even that will not convince most of the Trumpists. By “smoking gun,” I am suggesting something like a recording of Trump admitting how he prefers to sexually assault women. Did that convince Trumpists that the man was unsuitable to be the chief law enforcement officer in the country? Not much.
The fact is that Trumpists simply cannot accept that the man in whom they have poured all their hopes and dreams is a criminal. If he goes down, they go with him. And the last thing on earth they want is to lose face before their mortal enemies, Liberals and Leftists, who they believe are evil incarnate and destroying this great country. That’s what the believe we are doing. Ask them.
“Yes, we’ll have to wait and see whether the DOJ ultimately argues that a combination of actions taken by Trump — perhaps including his Jan. 6 speech — are criminal.”
We don’t have to wait. There was absolutely no criminality.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,”
Judge Carter should be removed from the bench. When the Republicans take control and have similar hearings, they can subpoena records like the Democrats and another foolish judge, Judge Carter 2, will say the same thing. This is wrong because personal opinions based on ideological biases replace the rule of law, causing great harm to the nation. That is the purpose of the left and ATS.
I can’t expect more from ATS, a hypocrite and a liar.
Daniel,
You are quite correct that Turley has not called Trump’s conduct on 1/6 criminal, but Trumpists don’t believe that Trump’s speech was reckless nor do they think that Trump should have been censured in the least. What explains the fact that Turley is diametrically opposed to the views of the vast majority of his followers?
Could it be that Turley is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome?
LOL. Yeah, Biden’s got the evidence. We can count on him.
The evidence is on Hunter’s laptop.
GEB says:
“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.”
Another Trumpist who is losing his faith. I saw on the news that Trump’s latest rally was poorly attended. It would seem that the spell Trump cast is finally wearing off. Pretty soon they may start believing what Turley recognized years ago that Trump is nothing more than an “absurd television reality star.”
I am sorry to see that quote by the Professor. He might have at least given the devil his due by saying an “absurb successful television reality star.” But I’ll not condemn the Professor for the omission.
As I work my way through Bill Barr’s “One damn thing after another,” I’m struck by the close relationships that exist in D.C. Like Jimmy Carter, Mr. Trump cracked that fraternity-like existence. An outsider will forever be an outsider. He or she didn’t go the “right” schools, belong to the “right” fraternity or soroity, belong to the “right” clubs. When an outsider rises above his or her station, they must be slapped down by any means, legal or not. It reminds me of the TV wrestlers of ages past who smashed each other for the entertainment of the crowd and then, after a shower, dined together over huge steaks. The Washington establishment exists for itself. It has convinced itself it knows what is best for you and me, and what we want matters not at all. Yeah, I’m cynical. Both parties are sorely lacking in virtue. Since FDR, the Dems have been deeper in the hole but the GOP was nothing to write home about either. In the meantime, Let’s try to make the best of things and hope we can come out of this with a smile.
Bernard,
I’d like your opinion of Barr’s statement about the Trumpist Big Lie. I don’t have the book, but I did read Bret Baier’s interview of Barr in which he had this to say about Trump:
“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 has NOT voiced his disapproval or his disagreement with Barr’s insistence that the election conspiracy theories were all “bullsh*t.” Under the law, silence is tantamount to consent or agreement.
I haven’t reached that point in Mr. Barr’s book. I did watch his interview with Baier and I’m torn. The book is well-reasoned; the interview tried to cram too much into 5 minutes more or less.
In my humble opiinion, the Dems outsmarted the GOP in the 2020 election. I’m persuaded that they came up with novel ideas about collecting mail-in ballots. At first impression, few of the things Mr. Trump complained about seemed to violate the law and thus SCUSA and Mr. Barr gave Mr. Trump the cold shoulder. As a result of deeper digging, there have been a few things uncovered that bear further looking but the Republic could not stand waiting for deeper digging (one is reminded of the “hanging chad” fiasco). We have to rely on the presumed inate honesty of both parties in running an election and declaring a winner, even though we know there will always be some shenanigans human nature being what it is. I hate to reduce electioneering to an old saying but it is true the early bird gets the worm. Let us hope that the GOP might have learned some tricks of their own.
I do not presume to know the mind of Mr. Trump or any other President. One has to be cut from a unique cloth to even consider running for the office. It is a wonder that none have committed suicide.
I think the media has elevated itself to the position of the national conscience — and shame on all of us for believing so much of what is said under the banner of News.
Bernard,
There was a pandemic if you remember. You honestly believe that Democrats asked courts to approve mail-in voting as a dirty trick as opposed to keeping people safe from being exposed to COVID? The SC followed the law. Turley who is an expert never criticized courts for throwing out unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. In fact, some of the election fraud claims were made in such bad faith that a couple of judges sanctioned Trump lawyers for violating their ethical obligation not to bring frivolous lawsuits. They may be disciplined by their Bar Associations!
I would agree that one must watch both sides of the news- MSNBC and FOX- which I do in order to get a complete and full picture though I trust MSNBC by and large and distrust FOX almost entirely.
Did I say “dirty trick?” If I did, that would be wrong and I would appologize. In my opinion, the most important action of a political party is “get out the vote.” I think I used the word “novel” in referrence to some of the actions of the Dems. Novel does not equal dirty trick. One can into great difficulty by misstating what another says and then condemning the misstatement. Indeed, I do give great credit for the Democratic get out the vote activities.
I do believe that if the virus was a sentiate thing, it would complain mightily for all the actions and inactions that have been heaped on it.
Judges approved the changes in the laws to protect voters from getting exposed to COVID unnecessarily. Bottom line: there has been no evidence of massive voter fraud.
That might be an excuse, but it was more than protecting voters from Covid. Even rules for not voting in person were broken. That made ballots insecure. Since some of the votes did not meet legal standards, they needed to be thrown out.
No judge seems to have agreed. Turley has been silent as well.
“No judge seems to have agreed.”
You better look again. The numbers are mounting. People are being charged and some are being convicted.
Prove it
Are you telling us you are totally ignorant of any cases involving election irregularities?
Get back to me when you can demonstrate MASSIVE election irregularities!
What do you mean by massive? Perhaps you want to define what you are looking for. Significant evidence has been posted on the subject in states like Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, but you didn’t notice. Slim margins led to victory in some states, so perhaps you can expand on what you know or don’t know while being specific, I can be on the lookout and post the information for your comments.
Remember, the tip of the iceberg is only 10%. The same occurs with the disclosure of election irregularities. That is why you need to be specific.
Massive- enough to change the outcome
What do you mean by massive enough to change the outcome? The outcome will not change no matter what is found, so that doesn’t provide an answer. What things do you believe would demonstrate significant irregularities in the 2020 election that you think disquieting? Alternatively, are you saying nothing would be disquieting as long as Trump didn’t win?
I’m not going to quibble with you.
Jeff, it is not a matter of quibbling. Instead, it is a method of focusing on what you are looking for. You have not been very clear, and since there are loads of different types of evidence, one responding to you needs to know what evidence is meaningful to you. Maybe there is no evidence, or perhaps you have something in your mind that trumps any evidence, so the search for evidence can never be successful.
I consider the source of the evidence. When Turley claims there was massive voter fraud as opposed to incidental, I’ll consider it. Until then, it’s all “Bullsh*t” as Barr proclaimed and Turley did not gainsay.
In other words, Jeff, Turley makes decisions for you except when he agrees with Trump or opines for Fox News. If Turley said there was massive fraud, you would call him a liar who is being paid to say that. In order to change a mind, one needs to be dealing with another that possesses a mind.
You are one of those that stakes his conclusions on superficialities and then converts those conclusions into facts.
All that means is what you say is worthless. My guess is most learned all this before I said it.
Hi Jeff,
Not sure if you saw this news from a Fox affiliate, but I thought it might interest you:
“Ukrainian Americans held a silent protest outside Awaken Church in San Diego County as it hosted a controversial guest speaker Saturday, Fox News Host Tucker Carlson. Critics have accused Carlson of being sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin and he has seemed to clash with reporters on his own network over war coverage. But he also has widespread fans, hosting a top-ranked, primetime show for Fox. Saturday’s protesters claimed Carlson spreads pro-Russia propaganda. They arranged strollers, car seats and baby shoes to represent the more than 150 children killed by the war in Ukraine. …”
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/politics/tucker-carlson-visit-to-local-church-draws-protesters/
Like you, I doubt that Turley will comment about Carlson’s offensive views.
Thanks Anonymous for this link.
Not only won’t Turley criticize Carlson, he will blithely appear on his show as if Carlson is not the least bit controversial. In so doing, he will legitimate Carlson as an honest broadcaster!
Why would Turley ABSOLUTELY refuse to appear with, say, Alex Jones? Because he would not wish to legitimate him and implicitly associate himself with his odious views.
Is Carlson as despicable as Jones? No. But he is bad enough that 3 long-standing Fox employees abandoned Fox largely on his account. Did Turley comment on their defection?
Nope…..
I’d take this seriously, this is the same DOJ that delivered “seditious conspiracy” charges after Democrats complained conservatives were ridiculing the whole Jan. 6th “insurrection” narrative by pointing out the lack of such charges.
That said, the timing of this seems awfully convenient with the recent spate of articles detailing Hunter Biden’s dirty dealings.
You focus on the timing while ignoring the evidence cited in the indictment. One of the people who was indicted, a Veteran, has already pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the investigation.
When #real President Donald J. Trump was in office, the AG and DOJ were inviolable and autonomous, and President Trump’s proposed request became grounds for impeachment in the imaginations of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America.
When the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) hold office, the General Secretary and Dear Leader, Joke Biden, has the full power to order investigations and prosecutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George W. Bush
______________
That’s how far it’s gone.
And, to be sure, it is gone…long gone.
______________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Skilled politicians, adept at feeling the pulse of the people, lose their sharpness through their indulgences. As their corruption increases, competence decreases. Managing the many pretenses that hide its ill-gotten benefits takes up more and more time and energy. Lies need more lies to hide them and so the story keeps getting more and more complicated and less and less plausible. Leaks spring in the dike that quickly become controllable. The collapse can come very quickly.
Boss Tweed comes to mind
Boss Tweed ran New York City politics after the Civil War. He found ways to please enough people by whatever means to keep him and his ring in power. He used that power to extract off-the-book deals with all city contractors. Anyone doing business with the city would pump up his bill, collect that inflated bill from the city, and then give back that pumped-up portion of the bill to Tweed and his ring. Public account books showed only the normal fee; Tweed’s crooked auditor kept a second, secret book that detailed the real cost to the city.
Tweed built up a grand fortune and his friends in his ring feasted from the crumbs. But then Tweed stumbled.
The occasion was a happy one, a wedding. Tweed felt, as many do, the need to have a fabulous blowout of an affair, and to make it as grand as he could afford — which was grand indeed. All the newspapers attended and reported on the magnificence of the fabulous party he threw, of the incredibly expensive gifts, and of the magnificent, bejeweled attire of the hordes of the rich and powerful who attended.
Perhaps the moment came with the New York Times‘ backhanded acknowledgment that the Hunter Biden laptop poses some extremely troubling questions about the integrity of the Bidens. This was stunning, as readers of The American Spectator know all too well how the New York Times and all the court media did a very successful job of effectively censoring this story, which would have been deadly to Joe Biden’s campaign had it been believed.
Has some moment of realization come? A pattern begins to become dominant. Maybe it is the simple question that McCullough wrote of — how did a person who has spent his entire life in public service amass such a family fortune?
Many things start to connect and interlink: the organized suppression of the truth about the laptop and its compromising evidence; the incompetence of the humiliating rout in Afghanistan, the chaos at the southern border; the tossing away of American energy independence, the return to begging oil of despots who hate us, and the flat-footed non-response to Putin’s poorly disguised threat to Ukraine.
There is a stench of corruption and rot. This is not just a question of a different approach of competent people to a lively democracy. It is the presence of decay, of a cancer that is sucking the life force from the body politic.
We are reaching the point where the pretenses behind which corruption hides have become transparent. They hide the ugly truth from fewer and fewer people. This has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. It is about whether our democracy will regain its health and thrive again. We should have common cause with a vast majority of our fellow citizens.
Let’s make this our top priority. Reagan showed us how to do this. Our ideological nuances come later. We need the republic to survive for those nuances to mean anything much.
Help the truth emerge from its prison. With it free, we can rid ourselves of the rot and devote all our energy to healing.
https://spectator.org/the-corruption-of-the-biden-administration-is-now-in-plain-sight/
Trump Derangement Syndrome: The Omicron Variant, Part II
Coming soon to a Democrat fever swamp near you!
DOJ is 100% corrupt!
Department of Jacklegs
it has been clear that since Obama…the DOJ is 100% Corrupt!
remove anyone RINO like in a position of authority!
When the GOP wins in a landslide…they need to cut 50% of DC federal Government…and move 40% to the Heartland!
Then a 5% TAX on all financial transactions Stocks, bonds, commodities, options, deriviatives, business sales, moving money offshore…make INVESTING ABOUT INVESTING…and REMOVE wall street’s POWER!
Fire the top 1000 DOJ, CIA, FBI, NSA….Executing….rebuild with an HONEST Government
Scorched Earth!
Democrats have been fighting CIVIL War 2.0 since Obama’s Election! GOP needs to banish the Democrats party forever this TIME!
He gave Birth to Hunter Biden[.]
Nuff Said!
A WOMAN MUST HAVE GIVEN BIRTH TO HUNTER BIDEN
This is precisely the type of extreme confusion that gave birth to the “injurious” 19th Amendment.
“He gave birth” is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
“He” cannot give birth.
__________________
“Can you provide a definition for the word ’woman’?”
– Senator Marsha Blackburn
______________________
The definition of the word woman is “an adult female person.”
The definition of female is “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”
Ergo, a woman is a female who gives birth to and nurtures nascent human beings.
Or not!
The citizens of a nation are produced by the nation’s “woman”/females.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral”; more Americans die than are born.
If women do not produce a population sufficient to defend and grow a nation, that nation dies.
If a nation does not experience sufficient births by women as females, counterintuitive, contraindicated, xenogeneic, illegal alien foreign invaders begin to constitute the population.
Americans are being diluted out of existence because American women have been incoherently allowed to assume the roles of men and have failed to carry out their natural duty.
American women got the vote; America got a death sentence.
The “injurious” 19th Amendment fundamentally transformed America into a “dead man walking.”
I wonder if the woman who gave birth to you regrets having such a misogynist for a son.
Thank you so much.
I think you’re the only one who reads me.
I appreciate your support.
Oh, and did you have an opposing position you would care to articulate?
How about total, oppresive, hysterical and incoherent Feminazi domination?
You like that don’t you, domination, am I right, I’m right aren’t I?
Your daily word vomits are so repetitive that only a masochist would do more than skim them.
Thanks…again…and again.
George,
The common denominator of all those people is that they are all self-loathing, American Hating Pedophiles or Pedophiles supporting Freaks like those supporting Disney World or the Black Boobs gal that would be a US Supreme Justice that apologizes to Child Rapist.
To Hell with all those Child Raping Sodomite supporting Freaks. When they vote coming up they are all exposed!!!
Typo:
The common denominator of all those people is that it seems they are all self-loathing, American Hating Pedophiles or Pedophiles supporting Freaks like those supporting Disney World or the Black Boobs gal that would be a US Supreme Justice that apologizes to Child Rapist.
Oky, your grasp of the facts is tenuous.
The defendant wasn’t charged with rape of any kind. KBJ didn’t apologize. She did express some mix of pity and lament for an 18 y.o. who’d done serious harm, and for his family.
I am sorry for you that you cannot tell the difference between pity and an apology (and like KBJ, when I say I am sorry for you, that is pity and lament, not an apology).
Pity all you people see/read is propaganda BS.
And then in the end it will forever be known to everyone the Only Reason She (Jackson the Loser) Was The Chosen, not because she was the Best Qualified, but because she had Black Boobs & Hated our USA Govt & Loved Child Rapist!
Your positions have already failed yet you fail to see it.
And I’d say that you’re the one who only sees/reads propaganda and conspiracy BS.
Oky1,
If ever I get an opportunity to meet Turley- perhaps on his forthcoming book tour- I’m going to ask him whether he considers Q-Anon followers a part of his “blog family.”
Jeff, grandson of a Arab Bedouin women from the Gaza Strip,
FYI, Q-Anon has proven itself most likely from some rouge Anti-American US intel outfit.
Go ask digressed Victoria Nuland, Pelosi,Schumer,McConnell, McCarthy, digressed Boltin-Fauci, etc., & their 40 plus illegally US Funded Bio-oooo-lo-ooo-gicaal/Chem/Nuke (Gain-oooof Fu-uuu-nction Labit-ttt-ories) in & around Ukraine , no doubt they’ll have been paying most all of the American Hatin outfits.
Hell, just ask Vild, he seems to have been very forth coming to the people of the world.
Oky1,
I hope our paths never cross in this lifetime or in the hereafter.
In all seriousness Jeff, Why/What is it that made you Hate the USA so much???
I’d really like to know.
Is it you can’t grasp the concept of what America & most of it’s people are about?
Oky1,
I don’t hate you. I don’t want to know you. I actually pity you. And I want to stay away from you as far as possible. I am on the West coast. Please tell me you live on the East Coast.
Jeff,
I’m not lying, look to your left, right, behind & straight ahead next time your out, my relatives are here & everywhere in the world.
And it’s easy, just don’t be an American “Concept” Hatin Prick & you’ll likely pass them all just fine.
Oky1,
My concept of America and your concept are irreconcilable and ALWAYS will be. We don’t believe in the same facts, and we don’t share the same values. The only question is whether this country is big enough to contain both the Trumpists and the NeverTrumpers without driving each other crazy or coming to blows.
Oops, I forgot to add Sean Hannity with the rest of those Evil Aholes above.
“That would raise concerns over the Justice Department pursuing a political rather than a legal agenda….”
That ship sailed years ago. Democrats like Obama, Hillary, Ron Klain, Susan Rice, Jake Sullivan, Jen Psaki, and the Church of WOKE in Hollywood, higher ed and grade schools (e.g. Will Smith at the Oscars; canceling faculty / conservative speakers; mandating masks for kids and teaching CRT in grade schools) show us daily that ignoring the rule of law is de rigueur. Americans know this. Democrats are pissing on the US Constitution and on Americans but they want us to believe it is rain due to “climate change”.
This is why the Second Amendment is so important. There is a reason why Democrats despise it.
Biden said that he would not pressure his Attorney General. He declared, with out proof, that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. If you don’t think that that was a suggestion to prosecute through a smear of an American citizen by the President of The United States then you do not understand the influence of a man who holds the highest office in the land. The power of The President is considered throughout the Globe. People don’t take what he says as just a suggestion. When he speaks the Attorney General listens.
“If you don’t think that that was a suggestion to prosecute… When he speaks the Attorney General listens.”
The DOJ didn’t prosecute Rittenhouse.
Speaking of prosecution by the DOJ, the DOJ should prosecute and Congress should impeach Ketanji Brown “Affirmative Action” Jackson for facilitation of and complicity in crimes of child abuse.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“July 2020, Jackson gave the bare minimum sentence to a defendant convicted of distributing images and videos of infants being sexually abused, and who had boasted of molesting his 13-year-old cousin, even though she knew the defendant refused ‘to take full responsibility’ for his crimes, a transcript reveals.
“In 2018, Christopher Michael Downs was busted trading child porn in a private online chat room, ‘Pedos Only,’ including images of adult males raping ‘a prepubescent female child,’ according to court records.
“He posted 33 graphic photos, including an image of a naked female child as young as 2 years old. Downs, then 30, told the group, ‘I once fooled around with my 13-year-old cousin.’
“He also uploaded a 10-second video of ‘a prepubescent female lying in a bathtub and with an adult male inserting his penis into her mouth.'”
– New York Post
The dangerous difference between Trump and Biden is Trump had a real AG in Barr…..Biden has a sleaze bag with Garland as his AG.
Then you throw in the usual Leftist Bovine Fecal Matter they love to throw around and it generates great camouflage for a purely partisan political prosecution.
Leopards do not change their spots folks…..there is no Rule of Law in a Democrat Regime.
This shall lead to the destruction of the Nation.
When the Left sabotages Elections, Legal Prosecution, and ignoring inconvenient laws that hinder their agenda…..nothing good ever comes of that.
The danger is when the majority of the common people become completely fed up with the situation and decide to put an end to it.
This Administration named for its puppet leader but run by Leftist Zealots are inflicting what could easily be mortal danger to this Republic and the Citizens living in it.
Hopefully we see a reversal of that agenda come this election and then the next….so we can turn this wagon around before it goes over the cliff horses and all.
Ralph says:
“The dangerous difference between Trump and Biden is Trump had a real AG in Barr…..”
Well, then, listen to what this “real” AG had to say about Trump in an interview with Bret Baier:
“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 certainly believes Barr. Do you?
You won’t answer….