President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban

We previously discussed how President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified. However, he also repeated another dubious claim this weekend. The comments have received considerable coverage after the President seemed to target 9mm guns for possible legislative bans, stating that “high-caliber weapons” like the 9mm handgun should not be needed and told the public that “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.” Critics pushed back on that claim, but such statements can be written off as part of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding gun rights and gun control. Yet, he made a separate factual claim about the record of the earlier assault weapons ban that is more questionable.

In addition to repeating (for the second time in two days) a false claim that certain weapons were banned at the ratification of the Second Amendment, Biden made the claim that “the assault weapons ban in the 1990s had “significantly cut down mass murders.” He previously made this statement in favor of gun bans.

Others have raised the earlier ban to show that such legislation has previously passed in Congress and can be passed again. The President is referring to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law banned the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms as well as some large capacity ammunition magazines. That ten-year ban was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 but expired on September 13, 2004.

That was before the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The Act was not challenged under the Second Amendment in any major litigation.

Putting aside the constitutional challenges, the President’s factual claim is far from established. Indeed, there is no evidence that the ban had any appreciable impact on gun violence and most studies questioned the impact even on mass shootings. There does appear to have been a decrease during this period and an increase after the period. However, the cause-and-effect claim has never been well-established.

Support for this claim could be based on a  2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004”. However, the authors said that this reduction was merely “observational” and that the Act was not clearly the cause of the reduction in shootings and deaths.

A Rand study found such claims “inconclusive” while the National Institute of Justice noted:

“A number of factors—including the fact that the banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murders in this country, the limited availability of data on the weapons, other components of the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State and local initiatives implemented at the same time—posed challenges in discerning the effects of the ban.”

Even the Washington Post noted that “Part of the problem is that the assault weapons ban existed for only 10 years, and there are relatively few mass shootings per year, making it difficult to fully assess its impact.” The Post would only say that some studies show the law was “effective.”

A 2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that “bans on assault weapons had no clear effects on either the incidence of mass shootings or on the incidence of victim fatalities from mass shootings.” This study noted that “most mass shootings do not involve assault rifles, but many involve the use of [large caliber magazines].”

A 2004 Justice Department study found little support for this cause-and-effect claims.

The obvious problem with this claim is that mass shootings are statistically rare. It is very hard to associate a decrease to the law, particularly with the abundance of existing weapons and the fact that many shootings do not involve the AR-15 or similar models.

While difficult to discuss, it is also arguable that the same number of fatalities would likely have occurred with the use of semi-automatic handguns in Uvalde, Texas.

That does not mean that we should not have this debate. However, we need to work from a factual foundation in establishing the policy and constitutional basis for reforms.

194 thoughts on “President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. I have been a forensic scientist for over fifty years. I have studied forensic pathology texts such as Spitz&Fisher and DiMaio. I have never heard of any 9mm round blowing a lung (or any other organ) out of a body. A 9mm round is equivalent to .34cal. We have had .45cal and .38cal weapons since the 19th Century. .75cal and .50cal are what I would consider ‘high caliber’ rounds. Politicians commonly confuse caliber with velocity. President Biden’s puppeteers seem to be in a competition to see who can make him utter the most ridiculous factoid.

    1. You need to touch base with our resident geizer math pro David Benson who believes one half of mass times velocity squared determines lethality of sling shots, spit balls, catapults and bullchips especially since his chips have lots of mass to them

      💩

    2. Walter Rowe – the puppeteers don’t seem to be in competition, they are in competition. I am just worried about what first prize is.

  2. Jonathan: It’s all sour grapes by you and your ardent supporters. A “rigged jury” filled with left-wing Clinton supporters. Our “justice system is absolutely broken”. Durham was set up to “fail”. All sorts of nonsense. And you bizarrely claim the jury is still out because “there is a mountain of evidence that Durham has”. What evidence? Are you privy to Durham’s inner sanctum? Durham lost because he was empty handed. Now you have claimed Michael Flynn was railroaded–the subject of “prosecutorial overreach”. That description fits the bill in describing the Durham investigation. You say Durham should issue a report. Fine. I suspect Durham will say: “I got duped by Trump and Barr into an investigation I knew had no legs. I am embarrassed. That will be my sad legacy”.

    1. Have you heard of the Cult called Blue Anon?

      You are in it. Whether you know it or not.

        1. Well of course. And certainly given the fact the FBI maintains a “workspace” at the Perkins Coie Law Firm. Nothing to see here, move along.

    2. Turley’s insistence that the judge greatly limited the evidence Durham could present omits the fact that the evidence Durham wanted to put on record was not evidence, but a conspiracy theory of his own making. Durham couldn’t use that evidence because he wasn’t charging Sussman with conspiracy. He was forced to charge him for making a false statement because the statute of limitations was running out and he had nothing to charge anyone with anything after that.

      Sussman’s charge was just a desperate attempt at salvaging a pointless investigation that has gone for too long. Durham is under pressure to produce something and he’s come up empty.

      Turley surely knows this, but he is just parroting the current Fox News narrative of blaming the jury and the judge for the lack of expected results.

  3. Jonathan: You say we need a “factual foundation” before we can begin to discuss gun control measures. Fine, but you call Pres. Biden’s statements “hyperbolic rhetoric”. The real off the wall rhetoric is coming from GOP politicians like Paul Gosar who falsely claims Salvadore Ramos was a “transsexual leftist illegal alien”. This rhetoric is also coming from Fox’s Tucker Carlson who falsely claims Covid “lockdowns dramatically increase the incidence of mental illness among young people” that he says explains the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. Carlson doesn’t require a “factual foundation” for his rantings. You apparently don’t require one either. You say Biden made a “false claim that certain weapons were banned at the ratification of the Second Amendment”. True or false? There is an interesting article in the May 14, 2019 Atlantic Monthly by former Justice John Stevens who was one of the four dissenters in the Heller decision. He points out there were a number firearm regulations during the colonial period: “Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of these regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5-4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia announced in Heller…” It appears you need to establish more of a “factual foundation” before you make any further unsubstantiated claims.

    When it comes to the 10 year ban on semi-automatic weapons during the Clinton presidency you say the decrease in mass shootings during this period does not show a “cause-and effect” relationship. And I suppose there is no “cause-and-effect” when no mass shootings have occurred in Australia and New Zealand since they banned AR-15 style weapons? Of course, mass shootings don’t occur every day. But the available evidence indicates people are much safer when there are sensible gun regulations. And no one has proved a “cause and effect” relationship when an unlicensed or uninsured driver injures or kills someone in a traffic accident. Then why do we require every driver to pass a drivers test, provide proof of insurance and have their car inspected periodically inspected? That’s because the data show unlicensed and uninsured drivers pose a greater threat to public safety. Do we really want to allow an immature and impulsive 18 year old to drive the public roads without a license or insurance? Can’t we apply the same standard to impulsive youth, who might be influenced by the “Great Replacement Theory”, who wants to carry around an AR-15 and slaughter 19 children and two teachers?

    Which brings me to a personal anecdote. My wife and I recently went to have lunch at a restaurant in a nearby town. After we were seated another couple took a table across from us. The man was carrying a Glock on his hip. Our state has an open carry law. As I was looking at the menu I kept thinking: “Is this a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?” Is this the country we really want to live in?

    1. You lived through your dinner – obviously he was a good guy.

      Bad Guys with Guns either hide them or brandish them in your face.

      Either way – you know pretty fast.

      When you see a police officer with a gun – do you ask yourself – good guy or bad guy ?

      How is it that you know that any person you see with a gun – is not a police officer ?

    2. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who wish to infringe on our rights, or liberties.

      If those defending the right to arms says stupid things on occasion – so be it. Lots of people say stupid things.
      The stupidity of those who oppose you is NOT an argument in favor of FORCING them and others to surrender their rights.

      The use of force against others must be justified.
      If the diner with the Glock pulled it and shot another patron – they had damn well better have been an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the gun owner or another patron – or the gun owner has made themselves a criminal.

      The same is true when you use the FORCE of government to constrain the right to arms of another.

      You must justify that infringement.

      We do not lose our right to free speech – because a few (or many) people say stupid things.
      To infringe on a right by force you must prove the certainty of immediate actual harm – not hurt feelings, not anxiety or fear.

    3. Of course if you ban guns and confiscate them all and you can do this perfectly – you will have no more gun crime.

      But are you so stupid that your goal is to prevent the use of guns in crimes ? Something that is already illegal.

      Or are we trying to reduce crimes – violent crimes and deaths.

      In AU when they banned guns – Arsons spiked and we had mass killings by arson.

      Until NZ recently banned guns – AU and NZ could be directly compared and there was no difference in the rates of violent crimes and deaths in AU than NZ.

      The AU law prevented gun crimes. It did not prevent violent crimes or reduce the number of violent criminal deaths.

      But even if there had been a beneficial effect of AU’s gun laws – that alone is not sufficient.

      The ends do not justify the means.

      You may not reduce the rights of ordinary people – because a small percent of people abuse those rights.

      People are stabbed all the time – the Murder by Stabbing rate in Scottland is much much higher than the US.
      Do we ban knives ?

      People have been convicted of “assault with a deadly weapon” for attacking someone with a slipper, or an egg.
      I am not joking – and the courts upheld the convictions.

      Can we ban slippers ? or Eggs ?

  4. Svelaz,

    Here is Turley’s tweet:

    “Sussmann was found not guilty. Many of us viewed the evidence as overwhelming. Yet, the jury either believed he did not lie or that the lie was not material. The judge imposed limitations on the scope of evidence and examinations in the case. Those orders prevent prosecutors from showing more about the development of this false claim and the role of the campaign. The Durham team was hit with limiting court orders and a jury that was hardly ideal. The limitations on this trial only reinforces the need for a Special Counsel report.”
    ———-

    He disagrees with the jury, but Turley did not state that the jury COULD NOT HONESTLY believe otherwise. Turley often reminds people that the majority of Trumpists STILL believe that the election was stolen, and he does not call them dishonest either!

    Turley criticizes the judge’s decision, but he does not charge that the judge acted in bad faith; he does not believe that the trial was rigged from the get-go as Trumpists here will charge. The bottom line is that he has yet to claim “jury nullification” despite all the liars who will.

    I will watch Fox primetime to view whether the hosts will refer to Turley’s remarks and how so. Perhaps, Turley will make an appearance on one of the shows.

    1. Turley’s claims about the judge limiting Durham’s evidence are disingenuous. Notice that he never mentions what that evidence is.

      Marcy Wheeler fully explained and used actual filings and evidence to show why it was necessary to limit that evidence. The jury? What would have been an ideal jury? Durham didn’t object to the jurors.

      1. I have not read Wheeler. Perhaps, I should! But as Turley often says: reasonable people can disagree. I’m not aware Turley has alleged any bad faith on the part of the judge or jury.

          1. I’ll call it “Twelve Angry Mules.”

            Well played.

            Durham is not done yet, not that the legacy media will cover it. The WSJ reports:

            Mr. Durham isn’t finished, and later this year he will bring a separate case that will tell us more about another side of the collusion tale—the Christopher Steele dossier. He has indicted Igor Danchenko, the alleged source of Mr. Steele’s information in the dossier, on five counts of lying to the FBI. Mr. Danchenko has pleaded not guilty. Evidence at that trial should reveal more details about the origins of the dossier smear and the role of the Clinton campaign and the media in spreading it. Special counsel Robert Mueller was supposed to have investigated all of this long ago, but he ducked the role of the Clinton campaign

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-michael-sussmann-verdict-jury-acquittal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-john-durham-russia-2016-11654035223

            The Democrats, the Left and the MSM are dancing on their grave. The FBI and DOJ are so bludgeoned in the eyes of Americans, that J. Edgar Hoover looks like an amateur. But they dance oblivious to the optics.

            Professor Turley brought to our attention years ago that Hillary was the most hated person in America as to politicians. Biden’s poll numbers are sinking faster than a concrete block thrown into a body of water. In spite of relentless favorable coverage by the legacy media of team DNC, Americans are worried sick. They express pessimism, fear, anxiety, depression, observe violent crime statistics mushroom, as well as inflation, gasoline prices and the deep politicization of all things in America. The COVID lockdowns, masking and terrible messaging by the CDC on vaccines have bitten them in their behinds. Yet the CDC this week mandated masking while indoors in public locales. The government health leaders pontificate from ivory towers.

            Nancy Pelosi’s 82 year old white, wealthy husband was just arrested for blowing through a stop sign drunk, in his brand new Porsche and wrecking Jesus V. Lopez, a 48-year-old man driving a 2014 Jeep. The disparity could not be richer.

            The elite laugh, cavort and sneer. Marie Antoinette did too.

        1. You really should read her columns on the case. They are based on the actual filings and evidence including transcripts of all discussions on what evidence would be allowed and why.

          It gives the whole case an entirely new perspective. Here’s a link to het site if you’re interested.

          https://www.emptywheel.net/

          1. Svelaz,

            Here is Turley’s reaction to the Sussmann verdict. Again, he concedes that the “red flags” don’t preclude a jury rising to the occasion of rendering impartial justice. As far as the Judge is concerned, he limited his critique to the “optics.”

            It’s obvious that Turley does not agree with the jury’s verdict, but that is par for the course. All we can expect is that he does not claim jury nullification, that is, acquitting a defendant that a jury believes to be guilty. Refusing to delegitimize a jury’s verdict IS the difference between a NeverTrumper and a Trumpist.

            https://www.foxnews.com/media/turley-sussmann-verdict-durham-evidence-trial

  5. One of the problems with Biden’s claim is that the AWB didn’t actually ban the manufacture and civilian sale of AR-15 patterned rifles. It merely banned a configuration of the AR-15 with two or more of a list of certain features like a bayonet lug, collapsing stock, flash hider, pistol grip, etc. most of which were superficial. You could walk out of a gun store with a fully-functional AR-15 patterned rifle at any time between 1994 and 2004.

    Additionally, you could easily get “grandfathered” full capacity magazines. They were just more expensive than newly made limited magazines. Thirty round AR-15 magazines went for between $45-$60 over this period, whereas new (limited to 10 cartridge) magazines would be $15-$20.

    People learned from the AWB, so they’ve been stockpiling AR-15 lower receivers (the “gun” according to ATF) which can later be configured however, as well as full capacity magazines for rifles and handguns. I know plenty of people who have literally hundreds of 30 round AR-15 magazines stockpiled as a hedge against a future ban. There are likely many, many more AR-15 patterned rifles and full capacity magazines in circulation than there were in 1993.

    One of the other things the AWB did was to motivate manufacturers to design and make micro-compact, ultra-concealable handguns due to the 10 round limit.

  6. Why is Mespostopheles so protective of Russia? Is Putin his sugar daddy? Does he know which side of his bread lays claim to the butter?

    1. “Why is Mespostopheles so protective of Russia?’
      **************************************
      Rick [Humphrey Bogart]: My interest in whether ̶V̶i̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶L̶a̶z̶l̶o̶ Vlad Putin stays or goes is purely a sporting one.

      Strasser [German Major]: In this case, you have no sympathy for the fox, huh?

      Rick: Not particularly. I understand the point of view of the hound, too.

  7. Are we really supposed to take the word of the same yahoo who said something to the effect of, “Just shoot a shot gun in the air,” as an authority on anything firearms related?
    Does he even know where he is? What year it is?
    Been reading about WH sources who claim he is upset that he says something dumb, and then gets upset when his staff has to walk his comments back, like defending Taiwan against China.

    What did Elon Musk say? Who controls the telepromter controls the presidency.
    We need the 25th A NOW!

    1. Biden has repeatedly given firearms and self-defense advice to the public which, if followed, would likely result in charges for criminally reckless conduct. No, you cannot lawfully “blast” two barrels from a double barrel shotgun into the dark of night because you heard a disturbance.

  8. Ok, I checked the masses of bullets and muzzle speeds. At close range an AR14 delivers about 4 times the energy to the target of a Model 1911 pistol. Recall that the Model 1911 was supposed to stop a charging Zulu.

    1. Oh dear. AR-14?

      Also, the Zulus were a British colonial problem, not an American colonial problem, so, funny old thing, the driver for the Colt Model 11 was stopping power against the Moros tribesmen in the Philippines… Not that any sane serviceman would be relying on any sort of pistol as his primary weapon if expecting combat.

    2. AR-14? Oh dear.

      Also, the Zulus were a British colonial problem, not an American one. So, funny old thing, the Colt Model 11 was designed with the experience of the US conflict with the Moros tribesmen in the Philippines.

      But thank you for your expert opinion, Mr Benson.

      1. Benson, IIRC, is a former math professor. It is difficult to comprehend someone with an earned PhD in math would be so clumsy as to state the kinetic energy of a projectile, like a bullet, depends on its mass. Maybe a few lightyears away from our planet, but on Earth, we have to deal with objective, measurable facts. Conservation of momentum, drag, gravity, objects traveling with x and y directional components, trigonometric functions due to angle of flight, power that pushes the projectile due to combustion, length of distance traveled, Newtonian forces acting upon object prior to discharge, in flight, and upon impact of target, material of object, and diameter of bullet/object, to name a few. I once chided Benson 2-3 years ago that he needed to start using electronic calculators and abandon his abacus. Maybe he is using his fingers and toes, much like the Durham / Sussmann jurors, blind, deaf and dumb to reality

        😉

          1. Clearly they do not use bullets in your galaxy, or perhaps you are unaware of gravity, parabolas, resistance, and the like.

            https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/external-ballistics

            External Ballistics

            A trajectory is a description of the flight path of a projectile relative to some known and fixed points. Trajectories for BBs, field artillery projectiles, naval gun shells, mortar rounds, and small arms bullets are all parabolic in shape. In a barrel or mortar, the motion of a projectile is both directed and entirely determined by the pressures of the gasses behind it. But once the projectile leaves a barrel, two other forces begin to influence its flight. The first is air resistance. The second is gravity. Whatever its angle of departure and whatever its muzzle velocity, a shell or bullet will lose velocity from air resistance and lose height because of gravity. The parabolic shape of a trajectory is the result.

            The above does not even address internal ballistics.

            Stay in your galaxy Benson. It is much more challenging to assimilate Newtonian physics where Earthlings live.

            1. Estovir, at close range, say 1–2 meters, that doesn’t matter enough for warm spit. Some of us know hows to approximate. Those with no intuition re forced into laboreous measurements and calculaions.

              More briefly, don’t be a fool. Stick to your specialty where you might actually have something to contribute.

      1. El Cid, I didn’t leave that part out. The mass of the 0.45 slug is about 4 times that of a lightweight AR15 bullet.
        The AR-15 muzzle speed is about 4 times that of the Model 1911.

        Ergo.

        1. Not to be pedantic, but a 1oz slug out of a shotgun is approximately 7.9X heavier than the common 55gr 5.56 NATO round.
          A current slug offered by Federal has a muzzle velocity of 2000 ft/s and carries 1793 ft/lbs of energy at 100 yards. Conversely, a typical 5.56 NATO, or .223, cartridge has a muzzle velocity around 3306 ft/s and imparts approximately 786 ft/lbs of energy on to the target at 100 yards.
          I understand that many common rifles look scary to some, but grandad’s shotgun puts a much bigger hole in things than the scary black rifle.

  9. News alert! John Durham has egg on his face. A federal jury just found Michael Sussmann not guilty of lying to the FBI. The verdict is a major blow to Durham, your buddy Bill Barr and you. In a number of columns you pushed the theory that the Clinton campaign and Sussmann colluded to gin up an FBI investigation into Trump’s ties to a Russian bank. The plot by the Clinton campaign was allegedly to provide an “October surprise” that would damage Trump in the 2016 campaign. In your column (5/23) you supported the prosecution of Sussmann because Hilary Clinton headed “one of the most successful disinformation campaigns in American politics”. You also complained that Judge Cooper allowed “three Clinton donors to sit as jurors” and “a juror who is a supporter and donor to liberal firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”. You added: “it must seem like the only juror missing is Chelsea Clinton”. Apparently Durham didn’t get you memo because he didn’t challenge the sitting of those four jurors. After the not guilty verdict Durham simply said: “While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision”.

    And what does Durham have for his over 3 year’s investigation? A sole guilty plea from Kevin Clinesmith for doctoring an email–and he was sentenced to only 1 year of probation. This “bombshell” investigation that was to expose a plot by the Clinton campaign turned out to be a big dud! I said in several comments that the Trump inspired investigation was a false theory in search of a crime. I won’t brag about my vindication. But I will relish knowing you also have egg on your face. Now I suspect you will complain about Judge Cooper’s rulings and the “tainted” jury. If Durham doesn’t appeal that will be the answer to your extraneous and irrelevant claims.

    1. Turley may choose to do an article on Jury Nullification: When the Jury Ignores the Law.

    2. Sorry, but the charge of lying to the FBI was proved. What happened here is called Jury Nullification. It proves that the Rule of Law does not exist in Washington DC.

      1. Anonymous,

        “ Sorry, but the charge of lying to the FBI was proved. ”

        No, it wasn’t. He was acquitted because they did not prove Sussman’s claim was materially false. Durham’s case was so weak that he was relying on evidence that did not pertain to the charge of lying during the September 19 meeting.

      2. Someone says:

        “Sorry, but the charge of lying to the FBI was proved. What happened here is called Jury Nullification. It proves that the Rule of Law does not exist in Washington DC.”

        Liar. Durham himself says the opposite:

        “While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Durham said in a statement.”

        https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/sussmann-verdict/index.html

  10. Andrew McCarthy has it right. And that’s why Durham’s case against Sussman was not so much about Sussman, but about getting the FBI malfeasance on the record for subsequent indictments.

    Sussmann’s counsel were thus able to argue to the jury that the FBI agents who tried to investigate the Alfa Bank lead were misled by their own bosses in Washington, not by a well-known Democratic lawyer.

    It is ironic that prosecutors could convincingly prove a defendant made a false statement to the FBI and yet lose a case because of the FBI’s own machinations. But that is what happened.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael-sussman-not-guilty-verdict

    1. To me, it never was about Sussman, but to expose the degree of corruption and collusion between the FBI and the Clinton campaign.
      Durham does not have egg on his face. He played it exactly as he should have.
      The fact of the actions of the judge and the make up of the jury only further exposes the degree of corruption.
      This trial highlights how the USA has become a banana republic.

      And the reason why as an Independent, I have to vote for the GOP in the mid-terms and in 2024.

      1. I fully agree, Farmer. If it was just about Sussman, the prosecution would have simply presented the evidence proving the lie and then rested. Instead, they went well beyond that to get on the record testimony proving the depth of corruption at the highest levels of the FBI and the conspiracy that took place to undermine the Trump campaign and his presidency. No one with two brain cells to rub together can deny all of that to be true. In reference to your banana republic comment, the other major revelation for anyone not already aware, is that our justice system is absolutely broken.

    2. “ It is ironic that prosecutors could convincingly prove a defendant made a false statement to the FBI and yet lose a case because of the FBI’s own machinations.”

      The prosecution did not convincingly prove thr defendant made a false statement. They didn’t prove that the defendant made a MATERIAL false statement.

      Durham wanted to use the case to shove his conspiracy theory as the real issue instead of the flimsy charges. Durham had a weak case from the beginning

      1. They didn’t prove that the defendant made a MATERIAL false statement.

        Oh, so they proved he made a false statement, however they didn’t prove it was material. Alrighty then. So you’re good with lying to the FBI, just as long as it’s not material to a crime? Remind me again what was material about General Flynn’s “lie” to the FBI?

          1. Thanks Paul. Even JT acknowledges Durham likely has a lot of evidence that will prove material to crimes in the broader investigation.

            JONATHAN TURLEY: I think that Durham understood that he was in fairly adverse settings for this trial. But, you know, the people of good faith could question elements like materiality on this type of charge. But there is this striking contrast between how this trial was handled and prior trials under the Mueller investigation. One thing that came out of this that I did raise recently is the importance that John Durham produced a report.

            You know, many Democrats came out and insisted that Mueller be allowed to not only produce a report, but release it unredacted. It’s very important for John Durham to do the same thing, because the limitations on this trial, it really did indicate that there is a mountain of evidence that Durham has.

            1. That’s good Olly.

              I haven’t keeping up because of the DC location I knew it’d be an Ph’d up a verdict. And Estovir found a piece that shows that’s the case. Jury Foreman: The Facts & the Law don’t Matter….Trump made Mean Tweets on Tweeter & my kids need to get into a Great School, Ph’k American/Americans, she & the other juriers (sic) are ready to live in a 3rd World Banana Republic Sh8It Hole as long as they & their kids get ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            2. Mueller’s investigation was also limited by congress. Turley leaves out that important distinction including the fact t that AG Barr preempted the mueller report by issuing his own summary of the results without releasing the entire Mueller report. Turley is being disingenuous as usual.

        1. Olly,

          In order for Sussman to me criminally liable a false statement would have had to be material to the investigation. Durham did not prove that Sussman’s statement was criminal under the law’s requirement for it to be a criminal offense.

          General Flynn’s was material to the investigation because it was directly involved AND there was evidence to support materiality. That’s why Flynn plead guilty to the charge. Sussman never pled guilty because he knew his statement was not relevant to the investigation.

          1. General Flynn’s was material to the investigation because it was directly involved AND there was evidence to support materiality. That’s why Flynn plead guilty to the charge.

            The irony is lost on you. General Flynn pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI, not because they were material to a legitimate investigation, but because they had bled him dry financially and were threatening his family. But let’s back up a moment.

            Do you even realize that there would have likely been no Mueller investigation, no FBI questioning of General Flynn over a call he had with Kislyak, the contents of which the FBI already knew, without the criminal conspiracy which included Sussman lying to the FBI? That’s right. Sussman’s lie was directly connected to the Russia collusion hoax and the bogus Mueller investigation. Flynn’s lie may have been material to the Mueller investigation, but it never was material to a crime, at least not a crime the investigation was seeking to find. Sussman’s lie however was absolutely material to multiple crimes, but just not crimes you are looking for.

            After 6+ years, it’s obvious that Sussman’s lie was material to crimes that snared Flynn in a lie that proved to be immaterial and certainly not connected to any crimes.

    3. Olly,

      Trumpists insist that the Mueller Report’s failure to find sufficient evidence to indict anyone in a *criminal conspiracy* proves that there was “no Russian collusion whatsoever.” Trumpists, therefore, will have no moral standing to complain when some NeverTrumpers insist that Sussman’s exoneration proves that the Durham investigation is a “hoax.”

      Trumpists will have their false narratives thrown back at them deservedly.

  11. In medicine we at least have to see the patient, be objective in taking the history, run diagnostic tests, rule out pathologies and then hopefully make the right diagnosis. When I went to medical school, I asked a close friend of mine, who is a Circuit Judge, his thoughts on my earning a joint MD-JD degree. He did not flinch in his reply: “I hate lawyers. They are the worst!” Since I am a non-lawyer, I am not sure what prevents Durham from appealing the decision, considering the jury pool was rigged.

    Making matters worse, the Sussmann judge wrongly allowed for a woman to remain on the jury, despite the fact that her daughter and Sussmann’s are on the same high school crew team….After the verdict was announced, the jury’s forewoman held court before the media and expressed her displeasure that the Special Counsel prosecute a false statement case: “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” This juror was never impartial – despite her assurance to the judge.”

    1. I’d like hear Prof Turley tell those the story about his kids music teacher & fear.

      I can understand why far to many people hesitate about different subjects.

      but, but, but, my babies are speical, they just deserve to go to Harvard of Yale, Pk Americans!!!!!!

      The Bill is coming Past Due for Dead Beats.

      The War Room With Owen Schoyer just did his Vets end of the month call-in show for Memorial Day & they pretty much said they’re What For.

      DC isn’t covering up Crap.

  12. Bobby Kennedy shot and killed by radical Palestinian,Sirhan Sirhan, with a .22 cal pistol. Also, President Reagan was nearly killed with a pistol of that caliber. And his ridiculous lament that the 2nd Amendment prohibited the possession of canons? Couldn’t be more wrong, Xiden….I know people that not only currently possess them but have even fabricated them! ‘Lunchbox’ Joe is virtually wrong about everything.The poor, wretched soul….as Gino the Pizza Man says,” Joe’s brain-be-a-broke….his mind-not-be-a-workin’-too-gooda!”

  13. ‘General Milley, Defense Sec Austin, and President Biden just spoke at Arlington Cemetery for the Memorial Day ceremony. None of them specifically mentioned The Thirteen killed in Afghanistan since last Memorial Day, but Biden did speak of his son Beau (who died of brain cancer).’

    FJB. It cannot be said enough times.

  14. John Durham knew well that he was deliberately appointed to lose in D.C.

    Robert Mueller’s handlers knew well that he was deliberately appointed to harass President Donald J. Trump and then lose his case.

    Durham should have refused the appointment to Special Counsel by William “Mr. Deep Deep State of the Swamp” Barr.

    John Durham says, “The Deep Deep State ben very, very goood to me!”

    This is like watching the Deep Deep State assassination of John F. Kennedy in real time.

    What next “Fresh Hell” awaits?

  15. “A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS”
    ________________________________________

    The American Founders would like to say a few words on this extraordinary day for justice, or injustice, as the case may be.

    Gentlemen.

    Go ahead, Gentlemen.

    Ahem!

    “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

Leave a Reply