Below is my column in The Hill on the subpoena war raging in Washington as the Jan. 6th Committee prepares for its first public hearings this week. This weekend, the Justice Department announced that it would not be prosecuting former chief of staff Mark Meadows and social media director Dan Scavino. As noted below, they took a wiser course of limited cooperation. The refusal to prosecute triggered a backlash from Rep. Adam Schiff who wanted to see more criminal charges out of the Biden Administration.
Here is the column:
In an initial court appearance following his arrest on Friday for contempt of Congress, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro stood before an obviously concerned federal magistrate. “Every time that you’re speaking,” Judge Zia Faruqui tried to explain, “it could mean potentially putting yourself at risk.”
It was entirely sensible advice about self-protection — and it was promptly ignored. Navarro, 72, went directly outside and blasted the charge against him, the Democrats, and the FBI.
Judge Faruqui’s concern was almost charmingly naive. We live in an age of the sensational, not the sensible. The Navarro case is just one skirmish in a subpoena war engulfing Washington. No one seems to be thinking much beyond the next election.
In the buildup to next week’s start of public hearings by the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 investigative committee, Democrats have subpoenaed Republican colleagues and held former Trump officials in contempt. Then, instead of simply arranging for Navarro to voluntarily surrender, the Justice Department made a dramatic public arrest of him at an airport and dragged him off to jail in handcuffs.
These subpoena fights seem to be unfolding with little consideration given to the potential costs, either for Washington institutions or the individuals involved.
Democrats circle the firing squad
A variety of polls show, according to the political site FiveThirtyEight, that “Americans are moving on from Jan. 6th — even if Congress hasn’t.” With waning interest in the investigation, congressional Democrats and some in the media have pushed “blockbuster” new disclosures. However, many of their disclosures simply confirm what is already known: Then-President Trump and close associates wanted to challenge Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election and, instead, force Congress to select the next president. I wrote about that likely strategy just a couple weeks after the election, but that fruitless effort turned into a full-fledged riot in the Capitol.
The House hearings are likely to add details that damn Trump for fueling the riot and failing to immediately call on the rioters to pull back. Yet many of us reached the condemnation stage years ago; I reached that point while Trump was still speaking on Jan. 6, 2020, and opposed his efforts to challenge the certification.
The problem is not that the committee will move forward with hearings or a report. Despite its partisan composition and agenda, there is always a value to greater transparency about what occurred on that tragic day. The problem is the effort to ratchet up interest through conflict. The committee has taken the rare step of subpoenaing GOP colleagues, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and threatening to hold them in contempt like Navarro and other former Trump officials.
Despite years of bitter political divisions, the two parties have long avoided using subpoenas against each other. It was viewed as a step toward mutually assured destruction if House members unleashed inherent investigatory powers on each other. House Democratic leaders, however, shattered that long tradition of restraint despite the fact that they may gain little from the effort. What they will lose is a long-standing detente on the use of subpoenas against colleagues — and they are creating a new precedent for such internal subpoenas just months before they could find themselves in the minority. Today’s hunters then could become the hunted, if Republicans claim the same license after November’s elections.
The House already is a dysfunctional body that allows for little compromise or dialogue between parties. The targeting of fellow members now will remove one of the few remaining restraints on unbridled partisan rage.
Justice delayed or justice denied?
Attorney General Merrick Garland is well on his way to setting a record for the prosecution of congressional contempt. The Justice Department has consistently refused to submit congressional contempt cases to grand juries, including a flagrant act of contempt by Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder. There is ample basis for this charge as well. It is not the substance but the selectivity and speed of the charges that is notable. Navarro was only held in contempt in April and is now being prosecuted by a department long known as the place where contempt sanctions go to die. Yet, the Navarro case could quickly take a wild turn.
Navarro claims he offered to compromise with the committee but that he was asserting his right to remain silent. Putting aside such mitigating circumstances, the problem for the Justice Department could be the calendar: Despite moving at an uncharacteristically fast pace, the Navarro case likely will extend beyond November’s midterms. If Republicans retake the House, they could seek to retroactively rescind the House’s contempt vote on Navarro.
Technically, the Justice Department could insist that the act of contempt and the referral vote occurred under the prior Congress. Given the issuance of an indictment, the Biden administration could insist on pursuing the prosecution even if the alleged victim is no longer claiming to be harmed. And some Democrats likely would file to support his continued prosecution, even if a new majority of the House filed to seek dismissal of the case.
This prosecution and any appeal is likely to extend beyond the duration of the House committee. Last November, the Justice Department indicted former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on the same grounds; his trial will not occur until July. That will be the first such prosecution since 1982, when Rita Lavelle, a former Reagan-era EPA official, was indicted for failing to answer congressional questions. (Lavelle was acquitted of that but then later convicted of lying to Congress.)
The Biden administration did not have to act on this before the November elections. The statute of limitations for contempt of Congress is five years. If it hoped to get a quick plea and cooperation from Navarro, his defiant courthouse colloquy makes that less likely. The question is whether it will pursue these two misdemeanors — which could result in as little as 30 days and no more than a year in jail — if the next House seeks to rescind the contempt referral.
Self-defense or self-immolation?
That brings us back to Navarro. Judge Faruqui encouraged Navarro to consider the basis of his self-defense when Navarro seemed intent on self-immolation. In addition to announcing that he would represent himself, Navarro made an extended statement on the steps of the courthouse in his defense. He then incongruously said he could not discuss “legal matters” before plunging again into his legal defense points.
Navarro is known as someone who tends toward the path of greatest resistance. In a city known for highly managed criminal defendants with legions of lawyers and PR advisers, Navarro was a captivating figure as he held forth outside the courthouse. Yet for all that he has in terms of personal guts, he lacks legal authority. The problem is that even as he claimed executive privilege to avoid answering any of the House committee’s questions, he was publishing a book and giving interviews on the very subject matter of the subpoenas. It was an ill-considered course that may make him an icon on the right but could also make him a convicted defendant. As he repeatedly pitched his book outside the court, it seemed clear that his priority was not acquittal.
Navarro at one point asked, “Who are these people?” I have found myself asking the same question about all of the players in this subpoena war. Institutions and individuals alike seem to be in a crazed fit with little concern for how their actions may play out beyond the next election. But the greatest costs will be borne by the public, if our legal proceedings become as performative and shallow as our politics.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
OT
“FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland must be impeached and convicted for the bizarre, militarized, Soviet-style arrest of the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy under President Donald J. Trump, Peter Navarro, 72, who was handcuffed and put in leg irons at the Nashville airport, respecting one simple contempt charge pertaining to an individual with no prior arrests.
– Joe DiGenova, US Attorney for the District of Columbia
Did the American Founders bridle themselves interminably, and endure the blatant, palpable, abject corruption and tyranny of the monarchy as dictatorship, before their epiphany?
Joe, weren’t you and Victoria involved in the plotting to overthrow the 2020 election result, and installing Trump for a 2nd term?
Since you feel comfy commenting here, we’d like your side of the story. After the final post-election court challenges ended around early Dec., explain honestly to us what were the various plans being entertained that would lead to blocking Pres. Biden’s Inauguration? If you think you were in the right, why hold back explaining what was being done?
You do know you are replying to a quote, right?
And they let this —- vote. Go figure.
Turnout in 1788 was 11.6%, by design.
General vote criteria in 1788 were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
Immigrants were “…free white person(s)…” per the Naturalization Act of 1790
____________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
The “plan” was to follwo the constitutional historical pattern of the 1876 Tilden/harris election and have congress delay certification while requiring a meaninful audit.
That was an unlikely hail mary – but it was perfectly constitutional.
I would note that the courts NEVER ruled on the evidence.
Those of you on the left keep using the phrase “overturn the 2020 election”
No one is seeking to do that. All anyone wants is an honest count of the vote free from fraud.
Inarguably the election was conducted lawlessly – 38 states including 5 of the 6 swing states constitutionally require secret ballots.
That means mailin voting in those states is unconstitutional.
If we can not trust to courts to follow the US and state constitutions – we are lawless, the rule of law is dead, and anarchy or totalitarianism will follow.
Most of these states had other constitutional provisions that were not followed.
PA Act 77 – the PA election law required voter ID for all ballots. Act 77 unconstitutionally permitted mailin voting – with a long list of antifraud measures that were completely ignored. Act 77 required that mailin ballots were either hand delivered or mailed to the County election board – not drop boxes. There were myriads of other requiremnts of Act 77 – all of which were just ignored.
PA still has 275,000 more ballots in Phila and pittsburgh than people who voted.
Fulton County GA has 354,000 ballots that no one knows where they came from.
Nearly all the claims by republicans regarding the 2020 election have never been investigated.
But the 2000 mules evidence is incredibly damning.
It is not merely an allegation of election fraud. It is an allegation of a large organized conspiracy to defraud the electorate.
A conspriacy that involves all the same players in the collusion delusion hoax.
We have not seen evidence of anything on this scale since the 19th century.
It is this kind and scale of fraud that resulted in states passing constitutional secret ballot amendments.
Regardless, elections are important, and they are very high stakes.
Only a twit thinks that if the oportunity for fraud exists with little fear of getting caught, that fraud will not occur.
If you build and insecure election – fraudsters will come.
Even banana republics conduct elections better than the US did in 2020
Have you seen 2000 Mules? That can be considered an actual overthrow of a government through election fraud. The persons quoted did nothing illegal, yet you make believe they did. Democrats did something illegal and the evidence has become to great to avoid, but you will manage to avoid it. Let’s hear from you after you see 2000 Mules.
Anonymous,
I’ll go see that propaganda IF AND ONLY IF Turley recommends it. Because he has said nothing about, it proves that it is bunk and substantiates my contention that Turley is a NeverTrumper.
While there might be some merit in seeing it.
The Gist is quite simple.
TTV bought geofencing information from places like Google, Apple, ….
They bought 16T individual points of cell phone location data in 6 major cities that were critical to the election.
Aside fromt he scale – this is stuff that big businesses do all the time. They use this type of data to try to market to people based on geotracking information that suggests what they would be intrested.
This geotracking information is accurate to approximately 1M – 3ft.
They then identified the location of ballot drope boxes in thise 6 regions.
And they identified the location of several 501C3’s that were tied to the election.
The sifted through all the data they had and found all the cell pones that were occasionall arround those locations – the 501C3 and drop box locations BEFORE the start of the election – and they elimianted ALL of those cell phones.
They siften throught the rest of the data looking for cell phones that were within 1M of atleast 10 drop boxes and 1M of atleast 5 501C3’s in one night during the election (or the GA senate runnoff).
Having identified approximately 2000 cell phones that met those criteria, they then Plotted all the location data for those cell phones, demonstrating that each of those 2000 cell phones – went to 501C3’s and then traveled to one crop box after another, then returned to the same or a different 501C3, and repeated the pattern over and over, and often night after night.
Then they acquired of government surveilance video that most states required for unattended drop boxes.
They had major problems with this because most places failed to follow their own laws and record the drop boxes or destroyed the video which violates federal and often state law.
Regardless they were able to get 4million minutes of surveillance video and they were able using the date and time information from the cell phone data to find the video of previously identified mules at some of the previously identified dropboxes.
That video shows them typically depositing 5 or more ballots into each drop box.
The laws in these 6 states are not identical – but in every one of these states ballot harvesting is illegal.
If you have video of hundred of people placing 5 or more ballots into a dropbox – it is possible that a tiny percent of those are NOT fraud in some states. I would note that in some of these states you can not deliver the ballot of another person unless you are a spouse, or have notarized permission in writing. In others you can do so for immediate family.
No one has 50 or more immediate family members.
Further there is no legitimate reason to travel to multiple ballot boxes on the same night.
There are many things that 2000 mules does not prove – that would require the power of law enforcement to demand records.
TTV has gone as far as can be done with public records or data that can be bought.
We know that the ballots delivered by these mules were handled illegally – state laws would require those ballots to be discarded and the harvestors to be prosecuted – and we have seen cases of prosecution of ballot harvestors in the past – both republicans and democrats.
But we have never seen evidence of a ballot harvesting operation this large.
The Consrvative estimate is that there were 380,000 illegally harvested ballots counted in these 6 regions – the more likely estimate is closer to 1M.
We do not know anythng about the ballots themselves – except that they were delivered fraudulently.
Ballot harvesting is illegal – not because we care wh drops off ballots, but because ballot harvesting enables other forms of ballot fraud.
It enables coercing of inducing people to vote as you wish.
It also enables sweatshops filling out ballots for people unlikely to vote.
A meaningful inquiry into the already established crime of ballot harvesting will allow us to find out more about the ballots themselves.
Were they being manufactured by more serfs in sweatshops, or were they collected from real voters.
If they were collected – were they collected legally ?
Were voters brow beaten intimidated, coerced, or where they induced, paid ?
Were the 501C3’s paid to collect and deliver ballots ?
200 mules does not prove lots of things, those require further investigation.
But it proves very large scalle ballot harvesting which alone is Election Fraud.
I would futher note that of those who saw 2000 mules – regardles of political affiliation. before and ater polling found a more than 10% increase in the beleif in election fraud – with the majority of each of republicans, independents and democrats accepting that there was large scale election fraud after viewing the movie.
Personally the movie did nothing except gather information I was already well aware of into a convient single place.
I doubt Turley is going to watch this, nor comment on it.
Though D’Souza has more than paid for the production of the film and overall done quite well despite having to found distribution channels that could not be quashed by big tech, this is still not “Top Gun”.
It is doing far better than Democrats hearings. But it is suffering from many of the same problems.
People have lost interest. Most people have already decided what the beleive about J6 or about 2020 Fraud.
They are not only not going to change their mind, they are not seeking further information.
Neither the MSM nore Fox wants to address 2000 mules. An enormous percent of republicans and democrats have moved on from the 2020 they beleive there was fraud or they do not, regardless they do not see much in dwelling further.
Additionally – even those for whom election fraud is important know that right now pushing that story is no help.
The media will not cover them. DA’s are being threatened with disbarrment if they further investigate 2020 election fraud.
While J6 prosecutions continue – almost no one is paying attention.
Overall Democrats have a greater problem – because – even if they can get media coverage – both they and the media has lost the trust of an enormous portion of people.
But those like D’Souza face more active supression from the media and big tech, and the fact that too many leading republicans have moved on.
We saw a version of the same thing with the Sussman Trial.
In one sense the Jury forewoman is correct – it is 6 years later – who cares ?
We should care – alot. but most of us have already made up our mind and we have no interest in changing it.
The credibility of democrats and the media have been heavily damaged by this – but not nearly so much as they deserve.
Of course D’Souza spins the story – just as MSNBC does.
That does not make the movie propoganda.
Without spin there are plenty of Facts that prove both large scale fraud and a conspiracy.
The spin presumes the beneficiary of the fraud – though that is not much of a reach.
If you want to beleive D’Souza has uncovered a widespread Republican conspiracy – go ahead.
Regardless there is more than enough to require investigation by law enforcement to get from the identity data provided to private geotracking to the specific phone identification provided to polce. After that there are interviews warrants for the 501C3 interviews of actual voters – if there were any an prosecutions.
All this should happen REGARDLESS of who is exposed as the criminals.
I would note than none of the fact checkers note that this could be Large scale Trump fraud.
Everyone assumes this is Biden and democrats.
None of the evidence proves that. But Everyone knows where this leads – including the the fact checkers – who want to quible over whether traveling sequentially to within 1m of up to 20 ballot drop boxes is proof of ballot harvesting. but are not addressing the fact the neither TTV nor D’Souza prove it was democrat Ballot harvesting.
Because just like with the geotracking data – the probability it was Trump is infinetessimal.
Why yes, I’ll believe anything Adam Schiff has to say and this “select” committee. I can’t remember when Schiff ever lied to Americans, can you?
The split-screen of a smug and triumphant Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann walking free from D.C. federal court, and a harried and bewildered former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro being hauled before it, following his account of a harrowing arrest and detainment, ought to be ingrained indelibly in the American mind.
It sends an unmistakable message: We can get you anytime, anywhere, on any grounds we choose. You can’t touch even a single one of ours.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/06/justice-for-me-but-not-for-thee-why-sussmann-walked-but-navarro-was-shackled/
Those on the left do not seem to grasp that lawlessness breeds lawlessness.
The aquital of Sussman and the prossecution of Navarro speek volumes to ordinary americans.
And the message is the process is not working.
That is a very dangerous conclusion that you never want ordinary people to reach.
It is a precursor to violence and revolution.
Leftists shoul dread the declaration of independence.
When government no longer follows the rule of law – revolution is justified.
John,
I believe those on the Left do grasp that and they use that as their primary weapon. Those not actively engaged in the Leftist tactics, but supportive of them for what it is accomplishing for political ends, are the one’s oblivious to where this all leads. The founders weren’t idiots. The DoI is not supposed to be viewed as a mere snapshot of history. The self-evident truths weren’t documented only to justify an 18th century revolution, but how to measure the legitimacy of all future revolutions. My guess is we have about 75% of the country that desires traditional, constitutional order and 50% that believe their favored political party has their best interests in mind. That leaves the middle 50% as a moving target and right now their choice is to join the Leftists in the Democratic party, or the Republicans, If the polling is to be believed, there is no way the midterms won’t be the first action of a peaceful revolution.
The portion of the country that is driving modern politics is not even close to 50%
The norm in a stable democracy is that government does very little that is the least controversial,
and most people ignore government and go about their lives.
While a small number – either extreme activists or those seeking to leverage government power for personal profit manipulate government at the margins.
What is wrong today is not the existance of corruption, but the scale. It is not the existance of left activists, but the scale of their success.
Revolution – like the US revolution occurs – not when there is fringe corruption or radicals gaining small success at the extremes,
But when the scale of corruption and the success of the radical extremists gets too large revolution is likely.
Oddly both the left and right are celebrating high voter turnout – when that is a symptom of FAILURE.
The fact that myriads of people who have not traditionally voted are angry enough to vote is a giant red flag that we are headed towards revolution.
The portion of the country that is driving modern politics is not even close to 50%
<Of the 50% that believe their favored political party has their best interests in mind, 25% are on either end of the political spectrum. The Left 25% however is dominating the narrative.
The fact that myriads of people who have not traditionally voted are angry enough to vote is a giant red flag that we are headed towards revolution.
That’s the middle 50% I was talking about.
Not disagreeing just making a related point.
The portion of th e country actually driving the bat$hit crazy left wing nut politics that is somehow in power right now is small.
What is really disturbing is that so much of this is so greatly at odds with so much of the country, and yet these nut jobs still manage to get elected, or lose narrowly.
Agreed John.
You are likely right.
One alternative is that 2022 election is as corrupt and lawless as 2020 – and that increases the likelyhood of a violent revolution.
I do not think that 2020 can easily be repeated. We are learning enough about how it was pulled off that much though not all the 2020 fraud will be either thwarted or caught.
That said, congress – and many state governments in 2023 will be constructed of people who have been mistreatted and abused and will be looking for revenge.
Turley is incorrect – we are not looking at mutually assured destruction – the long run loser is the left.
The left has abused the power of govenrment to chase snipes.
Republicans will inherit a more powerful congress and seek to hunt down those who actually abused the power of government.
And they will have more power to do so.
Olly,
Navarro is such an elitist who thinks he is too good to be treated like the so-called forgotten men in fly-over county! Obviously, he thinks that he should be treated better than the great unwashed.
Do you know I am? I’m Peter Navarro! How dare you treat me like a common criminal!
Bizzare argument.
It is Susman who got treatment that ordinary people would not.
Navarro is getting the treatment the left reserves for all who stand up to them – elite or unwashed.
Jeff, it is the height of ignorance to think that the FBI typically arrests non-violent people by chaining both their hands and their legs. They don’t. That is showmanship typical of political despots.
What did Peter Navarro do? He objected to being called in front of the Jan6 committee on the basis of executive privilege and that the Jan6 committee was abusing their power. He already filed against that subpoena in court. He was not at the Capitol on Jan6 and had nothing to do with what happened.
Your ignorance never ceases to astound.
“That fruitless effort turned into a full-fledged riot in the Capitol…” (It was not a “riot” — at least of Trump rallygoers, and certainly not by the left’s “peaceful demonstration” standards set during a half-year or BLM and Antifa lootings, burnings, vandalism, and assaults. It’s specious to use this characterization while omitting mention of the FBI/fed instigations that commenced even before Trump even had finished speaking and are well-documented at this point.)
“The House hearings are likely to add details that damn Trump for fueling the riot…” (Same criticism, and were there such details, the media would be blasting them by now.)
“The problem is not that the committee will move forward with hearings…” (Of course that is the problem. Congress is not a law-enforcement agency; its investigations are supposed to be for a legislative purpose, not political fodder and to harass political opponents.)
It would be good if you based your opinions on the facts.
The violence – both by protestors and by the capital police who murdered two protestors, something that did not occur at BLM riots or at the federal court in portland or the riots in DC and in front of the whitehouse – is to be condemenmed.
But there was very little of that. We need the security video from the capital and from the capital police body cameras to know whether those who “assautled police” were acting in defense of others as they claim.
Those who damaged or stole property should be charged.
At the same time those responsible for locking down the capital should face consequences. The capital is the prime location for protesting and petitioning government.
It can not constitutionally be locked down while in session.
There are plenty of other measures that can be taken to insure the security of congress. What they are NOT entitled to is to be issolated from protest or petition – while at the capital. They are entitled to privacy in their homes, and on the streets, but not while in congress.
If they can not cope with dissent – they should not run for office.
Regardless, the violence at the capital was tepid in comparison to what went on throughout the country in 2020.
We also need to see the email communications that went back and forth between Speaker Pelosi and the Sergeants at Arms prior to January 6. What evidence do we have that those responsible for security at the Capitol adequately discharged their obligations? A big picture approach to perceived transgressions is needed.
“A path to mutually assured destruction” of both parties and their ensconced bureaucrats? How is that a bad thing?
I used to have sympathy for Merrick Garland as a victim of the partisan war over SCOTUS. His conduct as a partisan hack and abuser of his office, has turned me around.
My only regret it that he was not given a hearing and subjected to the slander and calumny that were heaped on Brett Kavanaugh.
Eric Holder has been dethroned as the worst AG since John Mitchell.
AG Garland has proven why Judge Garland never should have become Justice Garland.
Regardless, whether it is republicans or democrats – there is no right to be a supreme court justice.
The president nominates and the senate confirms. Historically that has been highly political whenever the presidency and he senate have been in different parties throughout US history.
This circular firing squad of the Dims is okay by me. I have no problem watching them squirm later.
Yep!
Mespo, to “circle back” a bit, Article 1, Section 8, enumerated Congress no power to regulate private property, private enterprise, operations, wages, labor, hiring, compensation, firing, or any other facet or aspect of corporations, industries, endeavor or the “pursuit of happiness.”
If Congress regulates private property, that property becomes public property.
Congress cannot establish a court or tribunal to circumvent the Constitution and provide itself the power to regulate private property enterprise and to define the elements of its contracts with hired employees, who may reject any proffer.
Congress cannot favor one side over another with courts, tribunals and laws – Congress cannot compel any aspect of private property enterprise, understating that enterprises may be sued into insolvency if they cause bodily injury or property damage, etc.
The sole arbiter of the entirety of private property enterprise, lest it become public property, is the private property owner, understanding that individuals are free to accept or reject the employment proffer by private property owners, with all of its terms and conditions.
No matter the means or method, Congress has no power to regulate private property or the relations its hired employees, and creating the NLRB to regulate private property, private endeavor, private enterprise, corporations, industries of the “pursuit of happiness” is manifestly unconstitutional.
The NLRB is unconstitutional and must have been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Laws by Congress to compel free enterprise to favor labor in any fashion or form must have been struck down by the Supreme Court.
No?
___
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
______________
“It’s a slippery slope but Article I, Sec. 8 courts are established by Congress as inferior tribunals to Art. III courts and their judges don’t have lifetime tenure or salary protections. They handle administrative cases based on federal legislation rather than the Article III courts which sit nisi prius (or as triers of general issues of fact with a jury).”
– Mespo
Turley says:
“The House hearings are likely to add details that damn Trump for fueling the riot”
Is there any doubt that Turley is a NeverTrumper?
I will let Turley speak for himself.
As to his observation – it is absoltuely true that those who already beleive that Rrump is evil and who already beleive that opposing them politically is sedition or doubting the legitmacy of their lawless and fraudulent election is criminal conspiracy – will find further evidence that Trump beleived the election was rigged and was willing to do everything within the law and constitution to overcome that.
As to what I expect – exactly the same as all the other idiotic hearings that democrats have conducted.
Lots of spin and insinutation. Possibly some evidence that humans are human, and that every choices was not made absolutely perfectly.
But ZERO evidence of actual crimes.
From the day Trump came down the escallator, democrats have found nothing of as much substance as the Biden family influence peddling syndicate or pick any egregious act of Hillary.
In fact they have found no actual crimes at all.
They have found nothing beyond mostly successful opposition to their politics.
I would further note that while Trump brilliantly tapped into the shifting political winds in the country, he did not create those winds.
If there was no Donald Trump someone else would have come along.
I expect that if he wants – Trump will be the GOP candidate in 2024.
If he does not it will be DeSantis, and if not, Hawley or Cruz or some other republican speaking to almost the same segment of the electorate.
Those on the left operate under the delusion that Trump enthral’s people, hyponotizes them, makes them into his drones.
Did Obama do that ? Clinton ? Sanders ?
That specific politicians mirror specific groups of people is not the consequence of brain washing.
It is because those politicians either appeal to the like minded or change themselves to suit that group – not the other way arround.
You rant constantly about Trump – Trump may die tomorow – the political winds will continue to blow in the same direction.
Trump could have never existed – and democrats were losing in 2016. Just as they will lose in 2024, and they would have lost in 2020 but for covid, fraud, and lawlessness.
When Trump’s approval was almost as low as Biden’s that was because a relentlessly abusive press that no other president has faced was constantly LYING
Biden has an abysmal approval rate because he is a FAILED PRESIDENT.
Republicans did not do that to him. He did it to himself. Democrats can not even get enough democrats to vote for their own stupid ideas.
They should be thankful that Sienema and Manchin saved them from themsleves.
Think how much worse inflation could be ?
Regardless, Biden was elected with the wind at his back and the sun in his face – that is what he inherited from Trump.
He has in short order turned that into running into a gale of his own making.
Nor is anything going to get better anytime soon – even if he makes much better choices.
The politics of the left FAIL, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Go ahead run J6 however you please. You are unlikely to move the needle.
But November is comming, and but for unlikely miracles, the investigations will be of democrats, not Trump.
and those will be fruitful and damning.
Sussman may not have been convicted – but the malfeasance of the democratic party and of the FBI and DOJ was fully exposed.
In November the problems for Republicans will be an embarrassment of riches of directions to investigate.
“Today’s hunters then could become the hunted, if Republicans claim the same license after November’s elections.” …WON’T HAPPEN WITH THE WUSSIES WE HAVE IN OFFICE NOW. They will cave and go along to get along and end up doing whatever the Progressives want….as usual.
Although I perfectly understand Navarro’s desire to defy these totalitarian thugs, why not use the Lois Lerner approach?. He could just state over and over again that either he does not remember or take the 5th. These thugs must be thwarted in all ways possible. And if the Republicans become the majority they should spend a huge amount of resources going after every leftist thug and corrupt official in the Biden Administration. Yes it perpetuates a dysfunctional Congress but otherwise it is asymmetrical warfare.
I think we are way past conspiracy theories and well into Molotov cocktails. Of course, as a previous column suggested, only certain groups get to throw Molotov cocktails and get away with it. It seems that too many people in congress and the senate have been there too long and old wounds and slights seem newly remembered and now lead to venom and subpoenas. Sometimes this leads, hopefully, to a broad broom, sweeping all the rascals out. We could only pray for such. There is certainly a need for a cleansing. Hopefully it will be broad based and electoral and not violent.
I don’t blame Mr. Navarro for his decision to go so public even if not wise. Previously you could air so much in court but the performance in Federal Courts at the District level in D.C. seems more like an attempt to muzzle discoveries and justice for one side and protect the long term denizens in DC that rake in millions while not doing their jobs. The recent trial by Special Counsel Durham seems to drive that home.
It is disconcerting that so many of the levels of power on both sides are in such old and decrepit hands. They have become ossified in their positions and vision and lost perspective and flexibility. When Octogenarians or close to it hold all power in the Legislature and White House, We have a problem. Joe Biden 80 this year. Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn all well past 80. Schumer is young at 72, Whereas McCarthy and Scalise are in their 50’s. Trump 76 this month. McConnell 80. Wisdom can come with age but it certainly can also fix you to a past time.
Jon maybe you haven’t figured out…opposing media are going to be arrested by the Democrat DOJ/FBI
You best be careful what you write!
Trump did NOTHING WRONG…and Democrats are committing crime after crime with conspiring DOJ, FBI, etc!
Democrats are at war with the Country! They plan to Destroy America for THIS ELECTION!
Their plan!
Full Fascism where they will attempt to ban and destroy the GOP…elections will be all mail in…and professionals will fill in 100% of ballots!
Basic commodities Food, energy, oil, gas, electricity are going up 1000%
Democrats cancel pipelines, ban drilling, goes to WAR with Russia, Harasses Saudi Arabia then act surprised when the PRICE goes up!
total open border for the world’s criminals
Rule of Law is destroy…you are seeing it in Democrat area already…where DA ASSIST criminal to commit CRIMES!
Democrats openly use the DOJ, FBI, foreigners, media to throw elections and arrest political opponents!
DOJ, FBI are 100% Corrupt for Democrats!
if you vote Democrat you Hate America
Democrat Party HATES America
Democrats wish to make the USA into Camden NJ…as Failed City!
Democrats CAUSED US Civil War 1.0 and now are pushing to 2.0!
Democrats commenced the incremental implementation of the Communist Manifesto and abrogation of the U.S. Constitution in 1860 when Lincoln denied fully constitutional secession and started an illegal war (slavery must have been brought to a close through other, legal means such as advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.).
In his letter of 1864, Karl Marx congratulated and commended Lincoln for his efforts toward “…the Reconstruction of a social world…,” the very essence of the antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
No wonder the American people have lost confidence in congress, senate and the the barnacles we call bureaucrats. The rank and file citizens are struggling. Filling up the car’s tank or grocery shopping is now a frightening experience. This misery is a direct result of the insane decisions made in Washington. It rests squarely on their shoulders, especially the befuddled and bewildered President.
The January 6th Commission is nothing more than pure politics. It is another waste of time. The investigation should be in the domain of the FBI, yet now the top floor FBI suits have stained the bureau’s reputation.
The poor citizens are bracing for the other shoe to drop before Election Day.
Those who are drunk on power do not easily relinquish power.
The Democratic “strategy” for winning in November seems to be: terrify their base over abortion and gun control; and stir up all the anti-Trump and anti-Russia hate they can muster. That’s it — they’ve got nothing else. As for the Mitch McConnell wing of the Republican party, well, they’re no better. So in retrospect, maybe “mutually assured destruction” isn’t such a bad thing.
It is actually funny that the Democrats are so stupid that they are institutionalizing these attacks a few months before they become the minority party. They almost lost the filibuster just before potentially losing the Senate too. Dumb people play checkers, smart people play chess.
It is alarming how vindictive everyone in DC is. All the “institutions” must be completely dismantled. Congress quit doing their job many years ago with the growth of the bureaucracy. Now they need to take their Constitutional function back. Oversight should be true oversight. They old-guard swamp has to go; no matter the party.
JG:
The great irony is that in destroying our institutions, the Dims are paving the way for more traditional, conservative replacements of them. It’s already started but our donkey-headed brothers have their usual blinders on. No matter. They’ll find out soon enough. Notice their newfound silence on Ukraine. Another slap of reality in their moronically idealistic faces.
“…if our legal proceedings become as performative and shallow as our politics.”
Too late. The only thing our courts do is determine which litigant has more money and then decide in that party’s favor. In criminal cases, that’s usually the prosecution.
Professor Turley steps out from the trees (politics) to see the forest (institutions). We are witnessing a flame thrower being put to the carefully constructed structures that protected us from nature’s extremes.
If D’Souza’s claims are true (and they sure seem to be), then Trump and all had every right to question the election and insist on real investigations.
I did not vote for any of these people and will never vote for a Republican or Democrat again. But, I too, see that something very wrong took place in that election.
BMan,
Why is Turley not convinced by D’Souza’s film? He must know about it, and yet he has said not one word! Turley has an open mind. Fortunately, not so open to conspiracy theories as are Trumpists….
jeffsilberman,
You should ask Professor Turley that question.
But I will ask you: what sort of moron does it take to see that video evidence and still paint the viewer as a conspiracy theorist? It doesn’t. It takes a shill with an agenda.
BMan,
I’ll stick with Turley. He likely didn’t watch nor will I.
There are lots of things Turley has not watched – does that mean you shouldn’t ?
Regardless as I noted – you do not need to watch – unless you are a doubting thomas and need to stick your fingers in the wounds.
The movie merely presents evidnce and eximines it in a bit more detail than is done elsewhere.
But the actual evidence is available without the movie. In fact there is much more evidence than in the movie.
If you do not want to watch the movie don’t.
But you have no leggs to challenge the evidence of large scale voter fraud – if you do not know anything about that evidence – except what some left wing nut told you.
I am not watching the J6 hearings – few are. I do not expect any bombshells.
But if there are REAL revelations of consequence – I will find clips and check them out.
I do not expect to have to do that.
But I am not going to pontificate on a subject without knowing what was actually testified.
As you should not pontificate on Voter Fraud in 2020 – if you are unfamiliar with the actual evidence.
2000 Mules does not prove conclusively WHO committed election Fraud.
They do prove conclusively that a large scale illegal ballot harvesting conspiracy effecting atleast 380K and more likely 1M ballots – in 6 specific regions occured.
Going from – here is real evidence of a crime to here are the specific criminals – is what we have law enforcement for.
I’ve been a registered Republican for more than 57 years. I knocked on doors for Barry Goldwater in 1964.
For anyone to assert that Trump won the 2020 POTUS election is proof-positive that such an individual has completely lost touch with reality. For starters, he lost the popular vote by 7 million. The Electoral College tally of 306-232 was identical to the tally in 2016. . .except that, in 2020, it went AGAINST Trump instead of FOR him the way it did in 2016. Anyone who believes otherwise is stark-raving nuts.
Warren Miller:
Watch the video “2000 Mules” and then get back to us. Oh and not considering evidence and still reaching pronouncements are proof of laziness.
Mespo,
Why is Turley not convinced by D’Souza’s film? He must know about it, and yet he has said not one word! Turley has an open mind. Fortunately, not so open to conspiracy theories as Trumpists….
You know the professor. Has he seen the film?
Warren, the movie doesn’t show that Trump won. It shows that Biden lost if illegal ballots were removed from the states in question. The numbers are real especially since those going to less than 9 polling places in a night were excluded from the count. I think you can see how that makes their numbers very believable. If you are considering legal ballot harvesting, it wasn’t. It was ballot trafficking because once the ballots were not delivered, as groups, directly to the boxes it became illegal ballot trafficking because custody was lots. The intermediate places were NGO drop off 501 C 3 organizations. (not pertaining to the number of ballots that were trafficking , the 501’s broke the law.). The documentary shows pictures of drop offs, gloves being used and the Mules taking pictures of the drop box so they could be paid.
There is so much data there that you have to see it for yourself. The data was obtained from the same sources the CIA, FBI and police departments used. I am sure you now wish to view the documentary and then comment.
See 2000 Mules.
There were not enough “illegal” ballots to overturn the election in Trump’s favor.
Trump lost. 2000 mules is a farce.
2000 mules CONSERVATIVE Estimate is 380,000 illegal ballots in 6 states,
The only Swing state that would not have flipped was Michigan.
The more likely number is Over a million.
In GA alone a group independent of TTV has found 354,000 balots from Fulton county that are illegal – they have no provenance,
They were counted, but we have no idea where they came from. No election official or witness singed off on them.
Hillary lost to Trump by 172,000 votes – that was a close election. That is what it would have taken to flip the electoral college.
We should have had legitimate inquiry into elections in 2017 – but Democrats thwarted that.
In 2020 the number of voted needed to flip the electoral college is 42,000 votes, a 100,000 fraudulent votes would flip the house and the senate too.
In AZ alone the audit found 48K duplicate ballots from 17K people – that alone would have flipped AZ.
But it is worse than that. We do not know that these multiple votes were actually individuals chosing to vote multiple times.
Much more likely these are people who voted AND someone else voted for them. We saw signs of that in the CA recall – but Newsome avoided recal by large enough numbers that whatever fraud there was did not tip the balance.
There is plenty of evidence of Fraud. There are even instance of Republicans being caught ballot harvesting.
If that somehow helps you.
I would further note that while we now KNOW that the 2020 election was not dirupted by hacking. We also know that the election systemes are incredibly vulnerable to hacking.
For those who actually pay attention alot has been learned both about 2020, and about election securtity in general.
Several republican claims regarding 2020 are either demonstrably false or unlikely.
Foreign actiors did not hack the election – though they could have.
DVS did not flip the election in AZ – and probably did not elsewhere. But DVS and other election systems are laughably insecure.
The AZ audit revealed that just about every single election integrity process was abrogated with impunity.
If AZ election intergity laws were followed – more than half the ballots would have to be tossed.
Then you should not be even slightly concerned about investigations by law enforcement.
Lets have law enforcement subpeona the cell phone companies for the identities of all those who were frequenting multiple ballot boxes and 501C3’s and lets get them to testify.
Lets subpena the finances of the 501C3’s and see if they were paying people to traffic in ballots ?
If you do not beleive that 200 mules found sufficient evidence to flip the election – then you need not worry about an investigation.
Svelaz, you are permitted to make an A$$ of yourself anytime you wish. You don’t disappoint. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to show 2000 Mules doesn’t make sense. But we have discussed all this before, and nothing sank in.
This is what we see on every issue. Today there was a lot of talk about Twitter and how the stock price will most likely dramatically fall if Musk doesn’t end up buying it. It reminded me of a previous argument with you, where you felt Twitter’s price was in no danger of losing its value.. I explained to you Twitter’s price would be in trouble if Musk didnt buy.
As I have offered many times, if you disagree with what I am saying above, tell me what you think the discussion said, and I will link you to it. You are always so certain about what you say and always so wrong.
SM
Your need to iterate your Republican bona fides is revealing.
The only thing that can be said with certainty is that Trump lost under our current system, and it behooves us all to accept the result.
The rest is just virtue signaling nonsense.
Mr. Miller, your profile indicates you are a business valuation professional. Clearly you have a keen analytical mind that it would lend more legitimacy if your opinion resulted from analyzing the evidence in “2000 Mules”, rather than merely stating you’re a registered Republican. I doubt your clients would be satisfied on a valuation if you merely concluded their restaurant is worth $X because you’re a lifelong lover of sushi.