Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) went on CNN’s “Don Lemon Tonight” to tout the work of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th riot. In that interview, Schiff declared that the Committee has enough evidence showing former President Donald Trump “engaged in likely multiple criminal acts.” While vague on the specific crimes, Schiff emphasized that the Justice Department did not have to wait any further to launch a criminal investigation based on what has already been disclosed. While the Committee has disclosed new evidence in the form of videotapes and testimony, it has not presented new material evidence of criminal acts in my view. That could still come but the first two hearings largely focused on a “conspiracy” to challenge the election certification and allegations that Trump knew that there was no compelling evidence of widespread election fraud.
If there is evidence of criminal conduct by former president Trump or others, most of us would support the calls for prosecution. It is also possible that the Justice Department is investigating such crimes or has undisclosed evidence. The hearings, however, have not established such a foundation. That can still come but these crimes have elements that have not been addressed in hearings that have lacked any opposing views or adversarial elements.
The decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to abandon the long tradition of bipartisan members on such selection committee has robbed the investigation of credibility and legitimacy for many Americans.
Indeed, Schiff’s reference to evidence held by the Committee is likely to bring up memories of his highly controversial public statements that the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, had direct evidence of Russian collusion despite the countervailing findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He never produced the evidence and later it was revealed that Justice officials and FBI agents had told his Committee that they did not find such evidence.
Now, Schiff is maintaining that:
“I certainly believe there’s enough evidence for them to open an investigation of several people, and so did Judge David Carter of California believes the former president and others were engaged in likely multiple criminal acts. So if the Justice Department concurs with Judge Carter, let alone my own view or others, they should be pursuing that. So, yes, I think there is sufficient evidence to open an investigation. It would be of you up to the Justice Department ultimately to decide does that evidence rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt such that they’re comfortable indicting someone. But there’s certainly, in my view, enough evidence to open up investigations.”
The reference to the Carter opinion has become a mainstay on cable news. I was critical of Judge Carter’s opinion when it was released. Much of the Jan. 6th hearings seem to be structured along the same lines as the Carter decision which was, in my view, strikingly conclusory and unsupported in critical parts of the analysis.
Judge Carter simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen and thus “the illegality of the plan was obvious.” Putting aside the court’s assumption of what Trump secretly concluded on the election, a sizable number of Americans still do not view Biden as legitimately elected. The court is not simply saying that they are wrong in that view but, because they are wrong, legislative challenges amounted to criminal obstruction of Congress.
In 2005, it was Democrats who alleged that a presidential election was stolen and challenged the certification in Congress of the votes in Ohio. The claim was equally frivolous but Democratic leadership praised the effort, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi who praised Sen. Barbara Boxer’s challenge and insisted that “this debate is fundamental to our democracy.”
The Democrats did not, however, demand that Vice President Dick Cheney refuse to certify, an important distinction to be sure. Jan. 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process and one of the most disgraceful days in our history.
However, the lack of factual foundation for the challenge (cited repeatedly by Judge Carter in the Trump challenge) did not make this a criminal or fraudulent effort.
Some attorneys believed (and still believe) that it was possible for Pence to refuse to certify. Holding such a legal view is not a crime and sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy. Indeed, Eastman and others were publicly stating essentially the same thing. That is what triggered the debate with many of us challenging their interpretation.
Yet, Carter is conclusory and dismissive on this critical point in declaring “President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud — but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.” Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite. The question is why arguing that point with Pence and others amounted to a criminal act. In the end, wiser minds prevailed and the theory was not used by Pence.
There were crimes that day, of course. Some of those at the rally rioted and were charged largely with trespass and unlawful entry. A handful have been charged with seditious conspiracy. The court does not cite any evidence that Trump directly advocated violence while noting that Trump told the crowd to peacefully go to the Hill.
Consider the implications of Carter’s opinion. There was rioting when President Trump was elected while various Democratic leaders continued to claim that he was not the legitimately elected president, a view echoed by Hillary Clinton. While they did not riot in Congress, they committed other crimes.
Under Carter’s theory, the baseless claims that Trump was not legitimately elected could have been used by the Trump Administration to seize confidential legal material given to the 2005 leaders. After all, there was not a solid factual basis for these claims and they knew it. They further fueled the mob by making these claims in public.
The January 6th Committee spent much of the first two days hammering away at how many people, including Attorney General Bill Barr, told Trump that the fraud allegations were unfounded. That is important evidence to made part of the public record. However, we knew that such statements were made to President Trump, who continues to refuse to accept the overwhelming judgment of lawyers inside and outside of the White House.
That evidence amplifies the view that there was not a basis for these allegations. However, most of us reached that conclusion two years ago. The question is whether there is new evidence of criminal acts. After the riot, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution?
The failure of Racine to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court.
The reason is that the speech itself was not a crime. Indeed, it was protected free speech. They knew that a court would throw out such an indictment and, even if they could find a willing judge, any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Schiff is suggesting that, if the Committee can prove that Trump really, really, really knew the election was lost, his reckless push against election certification would somehow become a crime. That is not, in my view, correct. We need to see direct evidence that Trump coordinated, facilitated, or materially supported the violence of Jan. 6th. Yet, on the opening day, the Democrats were again playing the same clip of Trump telling the Proud Boys to stand down in the presidential debate. That type of implied encouragement would fail as evidence in a criminal case.
Schiff also told Lemon:
“Our mission is to expose the facts to the public light about a plot to overturn a presidential election, the first non-peaceful transfer of power we’ve had in our history, and prescribe remedies, legislative remedies to protect our country going forward. The principal mission of the Justice Department is to bring people to justice who break the law. We can make a referral, but of course, the Justice Department doesn’t sit around waiting for referrals from us, at least, they haven’t in the past. I hope they’re not simply waiting for us now. It’s their duty to follow the evidence and, if there are credible allegations of crime, to pursue them against anyone, including former presidents.”
The question (not asked) is what new material evidence has been raised. Much of the new evidence reinforced the same (and widely accepted) claim that Trump was ignoring the advice of his own counsel and refusing to accept the weight of the evidence on the election fraud claims.
The Democrats have also suggested that there may have been fraud in collecting millions in contributions to challenge the election. Yet, in making the fraud allegation, the Democrats did not quote the specific language used by various groups in raising money. These pitches often come with reservations or conditional language from legal counsel that allow a broad use of such funds. Indeed, Democratic members have been accused of using such funds for personal benefits. This is a common issue with members of both parties, but their counsel often cited the general language used with donors in seeking contributions. None of those provisions were quoted by the House Committee despite the fact that the Democrats were aggregating multiple charities with different pitches to donors.
If there was fraud, it should be prosecuted. However, again, the Committee needs to do more than throw out the allegation of fraud without addressing the specific elements needed for the crime, including what language was specifically used by these different groups in collecting funds.
Schiff’s pitch on CNN for prosecution is reminiscent of the nightly claims made by legal experts of clear evidence of criminal collusion or other crimes that would soon be used to frog march Trump and his family to prison. There were breathless accounts of crimes ranging from treason to bribery to obstruction to espionage. It is easy to make such claims on a cable show. However, if Schiff believes that the Committee has evidence of “likely multiple” federal crimes, he should be able to lay out the evidence in these hearings. The hearings will resume on Thursday and that case is still be made.
How many of Turley’s readers are old enough to remember Ohio’s electors being challenged, Hillary screaming that the election was stolen and that she really won and Stacey Abrams claiming that her FIFTY THOUSAND vote loss was a stolen election? All of a sudden claiming an election fraudulent is the end of democracy.
Anonymous, in a comment above, cites Schiff and Natacha in making his point. Schiff and Natacha being quoted by Anonymous…sounds like an open and shut case.
hullbobby A circular firing squad!
Thanks for the excellent example of ad hom.
Thanks for making it so easy.
LOL. Do you ever have difficulty with ad hom? Not that I’ve seen.
ATS, how is the truth an ad him?
Turley says it LOUD AND CLEAR so that every Trumpist knows exactly where he stands:
“Jan. 6th was a desecration of our constitutional process and one of the most disgraceful days in our history.”
Would any Trumpist dare say this?
Turley is a NeverTrumper. Period.
False dichotomy. Red herring. Don’t even need to look at the name, it’s Jeff.
“Trumpist” — someone who believes the election was stolen.
“NeverTrumper” — someone who doesn’t.
These definitions are unique to Jeff but will help other readers decipher his drivel.
Macroman says:
“Trumpist” — someone who believes the election was stolen.”
“NeverTrumper” — someone who doesn’t.”
You got it baby! Thanks for paying attention.
Turley also said; “Much of the Jan. 6th hearings seem to be structured along the same lines as the Carter decision which was, in my view, *strikingly conclusory and unsupported in critical parts of the analysis*.”
This is in line with Turley’s statement that the J6 committee has a “partisan makeup and *agenda*” and that they lack “transparency”. (Emphasis added)
We need more “nevertrumpers” like Turley!
There isn’t a national politician today that is “beyond reproach” (your words). Turley doesn’t believe everything Trump says is beyond reproach, but he has defended Trump both legally and in his writing. When it comes to the people you prefer Turley has given written evidence that they have gone far beyond reproach.
Jeff likes to use the term Never Trumper because he wants to stir the pot, but Jeff is burned by that term because it demonstrates a person who is so ignorant he doesn’t even know what the term Never Trumper means.
Turley says:
“Indeed, Schiff’s reference to evidence held by the Committee is likely to bring up memories of his highly controversial public statements that the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, had direct evidence of Russian collusion despite the countervailing findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He never produced the evidence and later it was revealed that Justice officials and FBI agents had told his Committee that they did not find such evidence.”
Turley’s statement is utterly disingenuous. Schiff was proven correct that there was Russian collusion. Read it here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22039718-051322_-_team_m_-_response
Turley has never seen fit to report, much less analyze, this report because it utterly destroys Fox’s false narrative of “no collusion.”
jeffsilberman wrote, “Schiff was proven correct that there was Russian collusion.”
You made a claim, prove your claim.
You have not properly supported your claim. You must quote the actual section in the 37 page document you linked to where you think it proves there was Russian collusion.
As Mueller pointed out, there is no crime called “collusion.” But in its everyday sense, it occurred. For example, Roger Stone colluded with Russian agent Guccifer 2 in the timing of the release of the hacked DNC material. Trump publicly called for Russia to commit crimes to benefit him.
The DNC emails were never hacked. According the CEO of Crowd Strike. “we never saw the emails exfiltrated from the servers” “but we believe they were”
The FBI never offered any evidence to the contrary.
I’m not sure what you’re quoting from, as you don’t link to it.
Here’s some of what Shawn Henry said in testimony to Congress:
“we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated. … the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left. … to be clear, on the document dump, as you’ve referred to it, there was data that we know was taken off of the DCCC. … let me also state that if somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email. And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. you could take screenshots”
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf
Sort out all the mumbo jumbo. and this is the statement that has no qualifiers. All the rest is guesses and wish casting
The FBI never issued a report.
But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left. …
The DNI issued a report.
And you clearly don’t understand that exfiltration is not the only way to steal data, even when you’re presented with a quote that explains that exfiltration is not the only way to steal data.
let me also state that if somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email. And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. you could take screenshots”
Notice. None of this is a claim made by Crowd Strike. This in nothing but wild guessing.
That’s literally a statement under oath from Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike. It’s what he said under oath. Crowdstrike itself is a business, not a person, and so cannot be questioned under oath.
You quoted Henry earlier (“According the CEO of Crowd Strike”), so you clearly don’t have a problem with quotes from him. At least not when you think they serve you.
No one is offering any evidence of “other ways to steal data” are they??? Nobody is offering evidence.
Also, Crowd Strike clearly states they have no evidence the emails were exfiltrated. The FBI offers no report to quote from
In the end. A core bit of the entire Mueller theater. The DNC hacked emails, never happened….according to Crowd Strike and the evidence they have. (don’t have)
“The DNC hacked emails, never happened….according to Crowd Strike”
You’re a liar. They did not say that. In fact, they said the opposite: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left. …
I already quoted the relevent bit of testimony that clearly states. ‘don’t have the evidence that says it actually left’
That is what you rest your entire premise on
Testimony from the CEO that is under contract with Democrats to provide services, to the tune on $millions. And the FBI that never wrote a report.
Anonymous, a Hillary supporter, is worried about Russian collusion??? The lady that hired people to use Russians to attack her opponent…that Hillary?
hullbobby, I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary, not Clinton. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary. I did vote for Clinton in the 2016 general, but only because Trump was so horrendous (and he proved worse than I feared — a true malignant narcissist, tempered only by his incompetence in his desired autogolpe / putsch). I have never considered myself a “Hillary supporter.” I did not campaign for her, did not ever donate to her, … She was simply the lesser of two evils compared to Trump.
Yes, I worry about Russia trying to harm the US using both Clinton’s and Trump’s campaigns. Unlike Trump’s campaign, though, AFAIK Clinton’s campaign didn’t knowingly collude with Russian agents.
Like a fool I followed your link
Now you are quoting a crowd strike blog and ignoring testimony in front of Congress.?
The rest is circular agreement.
The only people that had access to the DNC servers was Crowd Strike. That conclusion was, NO evidence of exfiltration.
ATS is unable to be credible. I guess we have to put up with his errors, deception and lies.
“Turley’s statement is utterly disingenuous. Schiff was proven correct that there was Russian collusion. Read it here:”
There may have been Russian collusion and even Chinese collusion, but it wasn’t based on what Trump did. Check out Biden and you will likely find the collusion you are looking for.
When researching do a better job. Didn’t they teach you that at Dartmouth?
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) made similar claims about the deeds of the bad man President Trump damn near since Trump was inaugurated. Schiff is a political hack and a bald-faced liar, yes a liar. Schiff has openly lied to the American people about things related to President Trump for years and I don’t believe any narrative that comes out of his mouth if it’s related to Donald Trump.
That said; if the Democrats actually have real evidence that President Trump engaged in criminal activity then they should throw the damn book at Donald Trump instead of engaging in this ridiculous Trump Derangement Syndrome dog and pony show trial because it’s viewed as pure “boy who cried wolf” propaganda aimed directly at the ignorant court of public opinion.
Congress doesn’t charge people with crimes. That’s a decision to be made by the DOJ.
throw the damn book at Donald Trump instead of engaging in this ridiculous Trump Derangement Syndrome dog and pony show trial
Exactly like the phony Mueller show, the non-stop leaking of salicous bits to smear President Trump, Republicans, and voters. We have the lie from witnesses that were never cross examined, that Rudy was drunk on election night. Rudy has rebutted that, saying he was drinking Diet Pepsi all nite.
The lie Republican Congress men were leading reconiscene tours of the Capitol. Disputed by the head of Capitol Police, that has looked at all film, and it never happened.
Mueller knew in the first hour on duty, there was no evidence of any crimes by Trump, or anyone connected to Trump. This after more than a year of the FBI planting evidence.
But the Mueller show had nothing to do with Trump. But rather a way to keep any other entity from investigating all the spying done by the govt against President Trump
It’s interesting to me that a Congressional Committee ostensibly formed for a legislative purpose is now morphing into a forum for identifying possible criminal activity. Clever or outrageous?
Catherine, it was never anything but electioneering. Attempting to smear all republicans to save a few seats in the mid terms. At has always been about the mid terms.
If they wanted examine Jan 6, why dont we know why Pelosi refused the National Guard Troops president Trump offered 4 days before? If Republicans were allowed to be on the committee, they would have asked every witness surrounding the refusal. But that what you get with a partisan committee. One sided questions.
I have refuted the claim that Nancy Pelosi “refused” National Guard troops so many times it is making me dizzy. You just can’t absorb facts. Nancy Pelosi does not control either the National Guard or the Capitol Police, nor does she have any say in whether they are deployed. If the fat slob you adore thought that the National Guard was necessary, why did he collude with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to invade the Capitol to try to stop Biden’s victory from being certified? The fat one could have deployed the National Guard, but why would he when his fans were there to try to force Congress to let him stay in power.
There are TWO REPUBLICANS on the Committee–they aren’t delusional disciples of the fat liar, so I guess they don’t count. McCarthy named 5 Republicans, two of whom were refused because of their involvement in Jan 6th–Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, so McCarthy withdrew the other three. THESE ARE FACTS. A select committee doesn’t have to be bipartisan, just like the Republicans weren’t when they attacked Hillary Clinton over Benghazi via a select committee, but there are 2 Republicans on this committee. There are not “two sides” involved in the facts here. Ivanka Trump, and all of the Trump insiders except a drunken Giuliani all told Trump he lost on Election night. This includes Bill Barr, who told Trump his lies about a stolen election were bullsh(t.. He KNEW he lost but lied anyway.
You just can’t absorb facts. Nancy Pelosi does not control either the National Guard or the Capitol Police,
The National Guard is under control of State Governors, for in state use. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of all Military. The President cannot call out the National Guard, the State must make a request. President Trump wanted to send the Guard into cities under assault in 2020, but governors and mayors said no. The President cannot over rule the locals.
Capital security is under control of the Capitol Architect , The Sergent at Arms, and the Capitol Police. ALL of them answer to CONGRESS.
On a rotating basis. the Speaker of House, and the Leader of the Senate. Until Jan 2023 that would be Nancy Pelosi. No matter what any of the others want. Pelosi would have final say about the National Guard deployed in the Capitol.
To make the claim, all the underlings in the chain of command could call for the National Guard, with out getting approval from Pelosi, is delusional.
Trump is a much bigger liar. Schiff wasn’t wrong about a lot things. Trump’s own staff has been telling him his voter fraud claims are BS.
This investigation is far more intrusive into the Trump administration’s workings on the election and it’s bound to be different. Even Barr knew his claims and attempts at overturning the election went too far.
“Trump is a much bigger liar. “
Prove it. So far you provide zero proof and a lot of evidence telling us you don’t know what you are talking about.
When proving it, make sure you have your dictionary available. People who continuously misuse the same words look like morons.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Prove it. So far you provide zero proof and a lot of evidence telling us you don’t know what you are talking about.”
It’s a waste of time giving you proof. No matter how much proof you’re given. You’re going to make a ton of excuses and engage in insults and deflections.
Trump is a massive liar. His own AG literally said his claims of voter fraud are BS. He’s lost countless court cases. Hand counts have proven him a liar. Even cyber ninjas has proven him to be a liar.
Proof from a person who won’t use a dictionary.
Trump is a massive liar. His own AG literally said his claims of voter fraud are BS.
That statement proves nothing. It was made shortly after the election.
He’s lost countless court cases.
They didn’t hear the evidence and he won cases, but you make believe differently. Right now cases are before the justices in several states and people have been convicted
Hand counts have proven him a liar.
Pure stupidity, but what can we expect. We are listening to Svelaz. Counting illegal ballots a second time will lead to the same results. If you don’t understand that then you are hopeless. You probably are.
Even cyber ninjas has proven him to be a liar.
What cyber nunjas are you talking about? Earlier you didn’t understand what geo-spatial tracking was. Did you read the NYTimes article? Did you understand it? Do you require smaller words? Get a dictionary.
Steve, no response is needed. I know you dislike Trump. Would you prefer Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, or the present occupant of the White House, Joe Biden?
Liking is not the purpose of voting. One votes to get the best possible government for the people of the US. Presently America is hurting badly under Biden’s leadership and Americans were doing pretty well under Trump. I’ll vote for good results over bad.
I love how the left uses the word “widespread” when referring to the election fraud. Who said it was widespread? Not me or anyone else on the right. What we do know is that there was selective fraud, a narrow band of fraud in the few states that the Dems had to steal to “win”.
Unless it’s sufficiently widespread to change who won a state’s electors, then it cannot change the outcome of the election.
2000 Mules shows how the election could have been changed based on fraudulent ballots. In fact Mules 2000 proves likely that Biden won through fraud.
See 2000 Mules. If you do you will see how Barr manipulated his testimony by not dealing with what 2000 Mules actually said, but by inserting his own words to make 2000 Mules less attractive. Put in the right words and numbers, and one realizes that Biden lost the election. Barr’s misstatement of fact demonstrates that he too recognized 2000 Mules was on the right track.
“ Who said it was widespread? ”
Trump did. His entire administration did.
Watching the interview is a waste of my time. Just using the bits Our good Host has provided, not a hint of this committee doing any work that would inform congress in their stated Constitutional power of crafting legislation.
Just another data point that this committee is illegitimate.
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, I see nowhere is that met. If you compare the data from 6 prior elections to 2020 you will find a very high likelihood of something very wrong. But, Once the electors vote that makes it legitimate. Is there an effort to suppress the drip drip of more and more election fraud being confirmed?
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” applies for a criminal conviction, and not an indictment.
The DOJ will not indict unless they believe that they have sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quite the contrary, the DOJ will use indictment or the threat of indictment to intimidate anyone that disagrees. Why is this anonymous so blind to the facts. Is he ATS? Of course.
Sorry JT in all due respect to you I didn’t read much of the article I stopped at the point “Schiff had evidence”. The article should have said, “Schiff says the Jan6 Kangaroo Court has evidence for criminal charges and I will bring the evidence to you after I bring the Russia Russia Russia evidence I said I had”.
Turley says:
“The decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to abandon the long tradition of bipartisan members on such selection committee has robbed the investigation of credibility and legitimacy for many Americans.”
You will notice that Turley is not stating that *he* agrees with those Americans who believe the investigation is not credible or legitimate. He is lamenting Pelosi’s decision. As an institutionalist, Turley wants Congressional investigations to be above reproach.
As in the Sussmann trial, Turley noted the doubts which would be raised by evidence of some partiality on the part of a few jurors. However, Turley accepted the acquittal, and, unlike Trumpists, he NEVER asserted that there was jury nullification.
Despite his misgivings in this committee’s constitution, Turley does NOT rule out the possibility that it may be able to present sufficient evidence to back up its claims. Unlike a Trumpist, Turley maintains an open mind….
Turley is not stating that *he* agrees
Stop putting words in the honorable Professors mouth.
Retard
“Retard”: Jeff didn’t put words in Turley’s mouth.
Jeff simply noted the fact that Turley has not stated that “*he* agrees with those Americans who believe the investigation is not credible or legitimate.” We know this by looking at what Turley did say, and seeing that nowhere did he say what Jeff noted.
Thanks Anonymous, but it’s no use. If and only if Trump is ever convicted of a crime, and Turley stands by the verdict, perhaps then it will dawn upon them at long last that they have misjudged Turley.
I would have thought that Turley’s unequivocal support of Barr as he wrecks Trump’s credibility as the committee’s star witness would suffice!
“I would have thought that Turley’s unequivocal support of Barr as he wrecks Trump’s credibility as the committee’s star witness would suffice!”
I guess as an admitted “retard” you don’t understand the difference between supporting the man and supporting the man’s opinion. Why don’t you join Svelaz and buy a dictionary together? You seem to be posting on that low level seen in Svelaz’s postings, despite your apparent education. Did something fry your brain?
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
You obviously can’t rebut an argument. You resort to insults and personal attacks when you can’t argue on the facts. Then you project your own shortcomings onto others. No amount of evidence or reasoning will convince you or even bring you to acknowledge your ignorance. Your mind is so rotten with conspiracy theories and it’s accompanying garbage that it is a lost cause. AG Barr recognized the dangerous consequences of entertaining those ideas for too long.
Even if Trump were to go to jail you would still deem him innocent and cry foul over his “unfair” treatment.
Svelaz, what did I say that was wrong?
1) Jeff admits being a ‘retard’. I agreed with him.
2) Based on what he said, he doesn’t know the difference between supporting a person and supporting an opinion.
3) Jeff needs to learn what the word opinion means. So do you.
4) I provided a way for you and Jeff to save money. Buy a dictionary together. You both need one.
5) Jeff is smarter than you but it seems he wants to compete with you for the stupid award. He says he has an education that appears high end. Is your education based on the graffiti posted on bathroom walls?
Pitch in and help the retard, its the kind thing to do i suppose. I think it is kinder to let the retard know he is somewhere his intellect prevents him from contributing to the conversation.
BTW, “retard,” this is an example of proving a negative — Turley did not say XYZ: you look at what he did say, and you note that XYZ is not among what he did say.
“You will notice that Turley is not stating that *he* agrees with those Americans who believe the investigation is not credible or legitimate. He is lamenting Pelosi’s decision. As an institutionalist,”
That is correct. Nancy Pelosi is not managing things in the right fashion. She isn’t criminal in these actions even though she causes great harm. Her words and deeds are mostly protected, even though they are anti-American.
“Turley wants Congressional investigations to be above reproach.”
Right here Jeff provides the answer as to why Turley criticizes Trump, yet defends him. Turley wants Trump’s language to be beyond reproach. That will never happen because Trump has to defend himself against the most despicable people. Turley wants perfection, but he won’t get it. However, Turley recognizes that despite the fact that Trump sometimes acts impolitely, Trump is correct along with most of his policies.
Good words Jeff, “beyond reproach”. Remember them and remember not being so doesn’t mean criminality or maliciousness. It is something that cannot be achieved in our political world.
Spin Jeffey, spin!!
Jeff,
“You will notice that Turley is not stating that *he* agrees with those Americans who believe the investigation is not credible or legitimate.”
Are you talking about the same Turley that wrote “Many of us support the effort to release more information and evidence on what occurred on that day. However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to forego even the pretense of a bipartisan and full inquiry”??
Ray,
Despite his reservations, Turley clearly remains open to the prospect that this committee can provide sufficient evidence to prove its claims. A Trumpist’s mind is closed to any evidence against Trump.
Turley BELIEVES Barr’s testimony; a Trumpist thinks he is part of the “Deep State.” See the difference?
Jeff,
“Turley BELIEVES…”
It has been demonstrated again and again that you have no more idea of what Turley believes than the man on the moon.
Turley has written hundreds of articles expressing what he believes. I would suggest you pay closer attention. You are not a very good student of Turley’s.
“The decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to abandon the long tradition of bipartisan members on such selection committee has robbed the investigation of credibility and legitimacy for many Americans.”
Again: the committee IS bipartisan. No matter how much people wish to pretend otherwise, Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.
Moreover, Pelosi was willing to seat 3 of McCarthy’s choices — Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls — and they’re not on the committee because McCarthy pulled their nominations. That’s McCarthy’s doing, not Pelosi’s.
And as Natacha noted yesterday, “Remember that the reason there isn’t an independent commission – like the one that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks – is because Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell killed it after it had passed the House with 35 GOP votes.” That Commission would have had 5 members chosen by the Democrats in both chambers and 5 members chosen by the Republicans in both chambers, with neither party having any veto over the members chosen by the other party.
Blame McCarthy and McConnell for the committee membership not being more bipartisan than it is.
“Judge Carter simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen”
We’ve already seen testimony under oath that Trump was told by multiple people in his administration, including AG Barr, that the election was not stolen.
“The Democrats did not, however, demand that Vice President Dick Cheney refuse to certify, an important distinction to be sure.”
Another important distinction is that there was no effort in 2005 to present fraudulent slates of electors, which is also being investigated right now.
“sharing that view with the White House is not a conspiracy.”
But it becomes a conspiracy when it moves from talk to action: there’s evidence that Eastman, Trump and others conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6 and to defraud the US by acting, and Turley would serve his readers better by seriously discussing it.
“Trump is still insisting that he believes the opposite”
Trump is a pathological liar, and his claims about it are worthless unless made under penalty of perjury.
“The court does not cite any evidence that Trump directly advocated violence while noting that Trump told the crowd to peacefully go to the Hill.”
That’s because Carter’s ruling wasn’t about the riot. It was about the Chesebro memo — forwarded to Eastman by Giuliani — being subject to the crime-fraud exception, where the relevant crimes were conspiracy to obstruct Congress and defraud the US.
“Schiff is suggesting that, if the Committee can prove that Trump really, really, really knew the election was lost, his reckless push against election certification would somehow become a crime. That is not, in my view, correct. We need to see direct evidence that Trump coordinated, facilitated, or materially supported the violence of Jan. 6th.”
No, yet again, you are pretending that Schiff is talking about incitement, when it’s much more likely that he’s talking about Trump conspiring to obstruct Congress and defraud the US by pressuring Pence to act unconstitutionally. As Carter said: “Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process” via the actions outlined in the Eastman memo (developed from the Chesebro memo). FFS, Turley, act like a law prof. and deal honestly with the real legal issues, honestly the judge’s actual ruling, …
“If there was fraud, it should be prosecuted.”
Glad we can agree on something.
Again: the committee IS bipartisan. No matter how much people wish to pretend otherwise, Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.
All the Committee is hand picked by Pelosi.
Not a single witness has been cross examined. A bit of Mondays hearing I caught on the radio, the questioner was asking the question, listening to the witness, then leading the witness with what to say next to get the right emotive language into the record.
Nobody believes any of this committee. Pelosi was told what would happen, but she banked on the media fixing her screw up. But it is so over the top, not even the media lying about it changes the public’s perception.
“All the Committee is hand picked by Pelosi.”
For the umpteenth time: Pelosi was willing to seat 3 of McCarthy’s choices — Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls — and they’re not on the committee because McCarthy pulled their nominations. That’s McCarthy’s doing, not Pelosi’s. The fact remains: Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans, and the committee is bipartisan.
“Nobody believes any of this committee.”
You’re a liar. YOU and some of your fellow Trumpists don’t believe it. Other people do believe it, even though you choose to lie about their beliefs.
And again: the House passed legislation forming an independent national commission (analogous to the 9/11 Commission), but the Senate Republicans filibustered it. That Commission would have had 5 members chosen by the Democrats in both chambers and 5 members chosen by the Republicans in both chambers, with neither party having any veto over the members chosen by the other party. The only reason the House Select Committee exists is because the Senate Republicans filibustered the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.
We’ve already seen testimony under oath that Trump was told by multiple people in his administration, including AG Barr, that the election was not stolen.
Like the experts that said, no way the govt spied on the Trump campaign.
Like the experts that said the Hunter lap top was likely Russian disinformation
Like the experts that said Covid 19 never came from a lab.
Like the experts that said pumping $trillions into the economy would not cause inflation
Experts dont have a stellar record.
Despite the fact, ignoring “experts” is not a crime. There are elements required to bring a crime to court. Ignoring “experts” is not an element in any of them.
“Again: the committee IS bipartisan. No matter how much people wish to pretend otherwise, Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.”
ATS doesn’t seem to get the picture. The entire hearing is about Trump. The Democrats hate Trump and they added the two biggest haters of Trump in the Republican Party.
How does that make the committee balanced. What it demonstrates is that ATS is a hypocrite. I won’t bother to discuss the rest of the mess ATS made in his comment. He is not credible.
“ We need to see direct evidence that Trump coordinated, facilitated, or materially supported the violence of Jan. 6th. Yet, on the opening day, the Democrats were again playing the same clip of Trump telling the Proud Boys to stand down in the presidential debate.”
There’s still plenty of time. Eastman’s emails are still being reviewed. The committee does not have the same constraints and restrictions the GOP imposed on mueller’s investigation. This is why there’s a more forceful resistance from GOP lawmakers. They know they are vulnerable to criminal investigation for participating in Trump’s attempted coup.
Anyone even trying to impersonate a journalist would have pointed out to Schiff that he has made similar assertions in the past and failed to back it up.
There’s still plenty of time.
Keep digging in the pile of horse manure, you’ll find that pony! Aunt Pelosi promises
“ Judge Carter simply declares that Trump knew that the election was not stolen and thus “the illegality of the plan was obvious.”
Obviously the last j6 hearing proved that to be correct. Even Turley’s dear friend former AG Barr stated under oath that the voter fraud claims were lies. This was further corroborated by Trump’s own lawyers with the exception of Eastman and drunk Giuliani.
“Barr stated under oath that the voter fraud claims were lies. “
Not true. Take your dictionary and learn the difference between a lie and the truth.
Using your criteria Barr lied, but he didn’t. He spun the truth by inaccurately playing with the numbers Mules 2000 provided. He realized if he used the right numbers he would sound foolish.
“ Indeed, Schiff’s reference to evidence held by the Committee is likely to bring up memories of his highly controversial public statements that the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, had direct evidence of Russian collusion despite the countervailing findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He never produced the evidence and later it was revealed that Justice officials and FBI agents had told his Committee that they did not find such evidence.”
Turley leaves out an important pertinent fact. Republicans severely limited the scope of Mueller’s investigation AND AG Barr pre-empted any serious evidence by “summarizing” the report before it officially came out.
Based on the Sussman case it is evident there was enough evidence to investigate much further than that.
How did Republicans severely limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation? The terms of reference were very wide and Mueller himself stated that DOJ imposed no limitations on him.
“ Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein privately narrowed the focus of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s effort to get President Trump elected in 2016, according to a New York Times report that cites former Justice Department and FBI officials, leaving open questions around the president’s links to Russia as the country again attempts to swing an election in his favor.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/08/30/report-justice-department-quietly-limited-robert-muellers-russia-investigation/amp/
Mueller’s investigation was not allowed to go thru the financial links Trump had with Russia which were significant.
according to a New York Times report that cites former Justice Department and FBI officials,
You are basing your evidence on the NYT that never names a source?
Rosentien testified under oath to Congress that what ever the Special Counsel wanted, he gave them. EVERYTHING.
Unless you come up with something on the record to prove your claim. There was never any restrictions.
Turley concedes:
“If there is evidence of criminal conduct by former president Trump or others, most of us would support the calls for prosecution. The hearings, however, have not established such a foundation. That can still come but these crimes have elements that have not been addressed in hearings that have lacked any opposing views or adversarial elements.”
No Trumpist in Turley’s “blog family” will concede that Trump did anything wrong. A real Trumpist will refuse to believe that there is ANY possibility that he is guilty of a crime. They will insist that a DOJ investigation is a “witch-hunt” and any trial is “rigged” against him. Trump said it- he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. It’s true. It is simply anathema to every Trumpist that Trump could be convicted of any crime.
Only a NeverTrumper like Turley could possibly countenance the prospect of a fair trial and a just conviction.
A prosecution requires evidence rather than whining and citations to comments you dislike. You’re just casting shade on “Trumpists” to make yourself feel moral and relevant, you have said nothing about an actual crime committed that rendered actual evidence. Just like Schiff. Trump’s phone call to Zelensky was not a crime. Trunp’s Jan. 6 speech was not a crime. Get over it.
The Biden/Nuland coup in Ukraine was a crime. For some reason, I don’t see you bloviating daily about that.
Obama’s murder of Abdulrahman Al Awalki was the worst crime a President can commit, executing an American citizen, a minor, without charge or trial. Robert Gibbs (Obama’s press sec) said “He should have had a more responsible father.” Not a mumbling word from the faux moralistic Silbermans of the world.
W. was the worst war criminal in modern U.S. history.
That makes Trump the only President this century that WASN’T a criminal. And you hate him. What does that say about you, Jeff? (Rhetorical question, I know exactly what it says about you.)
Macroman,
I was born with TDS. It can’t be treated. It’s terminal. Pray for me…
You have the worst of STDs and it has infected your brain
Nobody is born with TDS. It must be cultivated with a strict diet of Maddow and the steadfast avoidance of reading books and listening to people who know something.
Carry on. (And no I won’t pray for you. As you might surmise from my earlier comment, I’m not interested in fairytales.)
“No Trumpist in Turley’s “blog family” will concede that Trump did anything wrong.”
Of course not. For someone to agree a crime was committed, someone else has to show that it has and provide evidence. You know that. You are supposedly a lawyer, so I don’t understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.
You know that Democrats committed crimes, but you don’t want to blame them. You want to excuse them, so you blame others instead of yourself. You are a hypocrite.
Just listen to Schiff who said he had direct evidence of Russian Collusion. He lied knowing that PEOPLE LIKE YOU Are too blind to notice. Let’s hear your evidence that Nancy Pelosi doesn’t hold a lot of blame over Jan6. Why weren’t troops there? Why was security information held and not relayed to the appropriate persons before the problems occurred? Why were the Capitol doors left open? Why haven’t the video tapes been reviewed?
Turley recognizes that Trump is not criminally responsible for Jan6. Why doesn’t Jeff?
If Adam “Full of” Schiff says it, you can rest assured it isn’t true.
This is a good analysis and seems to cover all the bases. After Schiff’s statements regarding Trump’s crimes in collusion with Russia and his memorandum in support of the Carter Page FISA application, not to mention his role in the impeachments, his allegations are worthless without evidence.
SCHIFF HOPES/DREAMS how many times has he said the same things over and over and actually was not honest with his comments and supposedly some of it was fiction or hope or dreams of evidence in the impeachment trials of Trump. Schiff has stated the same things on CNN back during impeachment and they were never came about? So now here we go again. Does any reasonable person believe ADAM?????Story Time???We will find out Real? Hope?
Hahaha. Yep it’s right there with his “incontrovertible proof” of Trump’s “collusion” with Russia. This guy is the Rodney Dangerfield of politics. He can’t get no respect! You’d have to really try to be as wrong on everything his as this clown. 0 for 2 on impeachments, wrong about Russia, wrong about guns, wrong about it all. He’s priceless – as in worthless. But in an amusing sorta way.
Mespo,
Who said that he had been impressed by Schiff, whom he called an “able opposing counsel” then, and a “skilled prosecutor” today.”
Any guesses? Would you believe Turley? Believe it.
“Senate got its man in last impeachment trial
The case of Thomas Porteous Jr. is a far cry from today’s hyperpartisan melee”
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/01/13/senate-got-its-man-in-last-impeachment-trial/
“Once upon a time, there was a Senate impeachment trial, where Rep. Adam Schiff was the lead House impeachment manager, courtly law professor Jonathan Turley made an impassioned argument against impeachment, multiple Senate witnesses testified, and the verdict was not only bipartisan, it was a unanimous decision.”
“Back in 2010, Turley acted as Porteous’ lead defense counsel for the Senate trial after the House voted unanimously to impeach him. Turley faced off against Schiff, who led the prosecution for the House impeachment managers.”
Schiff beat Turley. It was UNANIMOUS….
“In the end, the Senate’s standard was not whether or not the judge had committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It was whether he had “misdemeaned” himself and made it impossible to remain in his federal position of trust and authority. Like the House, the Senate voted unanimously against Porteous and removed him from office. **But you can hardly blame Turley’s Senate defense for that**.
“Even in a real trial,” he said, “no lawyer can transcend the facts of a case. You cannot make a sow’s ear into a silk purse. The most you can do is make a sow’s ear into keepsake for a jury.””
JS:
“Once upon a time, there was a Senate impeachment trial, where Rep. Adam Schiff was the lead House impeachment manager, courtly law professor Jonathan Turley made an impassioned argument against impeachment, multiple Senate witnesses testified, and the verdict was not only bipartisan, it was a unanimous decision.”
***************************
Turley got beat so bad, the House hired him on that standing issue in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. which he won and then the Obama guys quickly settled! It’s best to complement and shake hands with your opponent after a win or a loss. You never know when you might need the clown.
Mespo,
Turley respects Schiff as a lawyer. That is what he said in his 2020 interview. I don’t know if Schiff is on the record commenting about Turley. I trust Schiff; he has been heroic in fighting Trumpism. He will be vindicated in the end. Sadly, Turley will be remembered for his hypocrisy in denouncing our “age of rage” while earning a living from Fox which fuels it every night in prime time.
We will see how Turley defends his ignoring the rage provocateurs at Fox when he is finally questioned about it. So far, he is unwilling to be held accountable.
Schiff has a reputation as a liar. Only dyed-in-the-wool Democrats believe anything he says.