“Just Do It”: Democrats Continue to Struggle to Find a Crime to fit the Offense

Below is my column in The Hill on claims of Democratic members that they have established the case for a criminal conspiracy by former President Donald Trump. The search of the home of former justice official Jeffrey Clark shows a serious escalation of the investigation by the Justice Department. Probable cause of a federal crime had to be alleged as part of the Clark warrant. Yesterday’s hearing exposed Clark’s efforts to challenge the election, including a letter that was wildly inappropriate that he drafted for the top Justice officials to sign. His effort was very disturbing and was rightfully rejected by these officials. However, the claims of an established crime by Trump remain rather fluid and undefined. Making such a case is far more challenging than making the claim on national television. While castigating Trump counsel John Eastman for telling legislators to “just do it,” the same message seems to be coming from members and legal experts on some cable programs.

Here is the column:

“SECVNDINVS CACOR.” When those words were found recently on an ancient stone in Northumberland, England, there was great excitement about what might be revealed about Roman life in the 3rd Century. As it turned out, the painstakingly chiseled words (which were accompanied by the image of a giant phallus) simply said that a guy named Secundinus was … well … human fecal matter.

The stone was an impressive effort just to establish for all posterity that Secundinus was a jerk.

The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot is an equally impressive effort to painstakingly debunk election fraud claims and to show how former President Donald Trump refused to accept his electoral defeat. If the purpose were to proclaim “TRUMPUS CACOR,” it would likely get little argument, given the testimony about elected officials and election workers hiding out in their homes after being called out by name by the then-president.

The hearings have created a lasting, damning record leading up to Jan. 6. Yet, some members of the select committee have claimed they have established clear evidence of criminal acts by Trump. It has to be more than Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) insistence that the evidence would show Trump was not “an honorable man” on Jan. 6 — an assertion that even some Trump supporters might endorse.

That claim is important to avoid confirmation of what was widely reported before the hearings. According to The New York Times, the hearings were framed with the intent to use the select committee largely to “recast the midterm message” and “give [Democrats] a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.” In other words, chiseling out “Trumpus Cacor” before the November election.

The fact is that this evidence is important for Americans to hear and see. Yet, the claims of established crimes this week seemed to run from the visceral to the recreational.

On CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe declared that Trump can now be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Mike Pence “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” In addition to declaring that he is certain Attorney General Merrick Garland will now charge Trump, Tribe said: “There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”

Obviously, it is nonsensical to claim that Trump could be charged with attempted murder. However, the evidence presented does undermine Trump’s claim that he truly believed that the election was stolen when he pressured state and federal officials to block certification of the election.

Hearing an account of Trump lawyer John Eastman tell the Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to “just do it” in scrapping the state’s slate of electors was cringeworthy. However, many seem to be making the same demand of Attorney General Garland about bringing criminal charges. As shown below, “just do it” is far better in selling running shoes than winning legal cases.

Crimes have elements, and the committee cannot seem to agree on even the crime, let alone the elemental evidence. Indeed, reports indicate that the committee is divided on even making a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

Here are the three most commonly cited crimes this week and their respective challenges for prosecutors:

Conspiracy to obstruct Congress

The committee has established that Trump was told by his attorney general, White House counsel, and a host of Justice Department and White House lawyers that there was no good-faith legal basis to challenge the election’s certification or a factual basis to support the alleged widespread electoral fraud.

However, to prove this case, the Justice Department would need to show an intent by Trump to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress. That cannot be based simply on the fact that he and his supporters in Congress planned to challenge the certification of the vote. Challenges to certification have been made by Democrats, including Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016.

An obstruction charge would have to show that Trump was planning for violence or actively supported the violence as it unfolded. However, it now appears that National Guard personnel were offered by the Trump Defense Department — but declined — four days before the riot. Trump’s delay in calling for supporters to go home was denounced by many that day; some of us objected to Trump’s speech as he was giving it and later criticized his recklessness. Making a case for condemnation is easier than making a case for criminalization of speech.

Conspiracy to defraud

Conspiracy to defraud the government is equally challenging. It would require the government to prove that “at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government, by deceitful or dishonest means.” However, this ignores the fact that, as the committee has repeatedly stressed, there were two teams of Trump lawyers: the “Team Normal” and “Team Crazy.”

Trump may have been delusional or dishonest in siding with one team over the other. The committee has portrayed “Team Crazy” as a clown parade — but a clown parade does not make a criminal conspiracy. For a strong federal case, the charge would have to be based on proof that Trump believed these legal and factual claims were meritless. Not probably meritless but entirely, knowingly meritless. (A Georgia grand jury is looking into the separate possibility of state election fraud violations.)

Trump has long used litigation as a business and political cudgel, often advancing weak legal claims. He has been criticized for treating the law as endlessly malleable. The Democrats themselves have supplied Trump with this best defense. They have often portrayed him as a megalomaniac who could not accept that he lost the election. They offered pseudo-scientific accounts of the “shared psychosis” of Trump and his supporters in refusing to admit defeat. To bring a charge over such a challenge could criminalize future challenges when one party claims that the other lacked a good-faith basis.

Seditious conspiracy

After the riot, there were widespread calls for criminal charges over insurrection or incitement. Indeed, to the thrill of many in the media, 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 (R-Ala.) for incitement. Then nothing happened. The reason was not any misguided affection for Trump; the problem was that Racine could not make the case.

The case has still not been made.

After promising new evidence of a criminal conspiracy with groups like the Proud Boys, the committee showed new tapes that simply amplified rather than added to what was already known. Indeed, in its opening hearing, the committee tellingly showed the same tape from a presidential debate when Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” That much criticized statement does not make for a conspiracy carried out on national television. The committee has yet to show a direct link between these groups and Trump in carrying out a plan of insurrection.

The select committee may still have the smoking-gun evidence of a criminal conspiracy. However, if the committee hopes to do more than declare Trump a modern-day Secundinus, it still has to prove that he is a criminal.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

227 thoughts on ““Just Do It”: Democrats Continue to Struggle to Find a Crime to fit the Offense”

  1. Anonymous says:

    “The real issues will arise with the prospect of how to jail/penalize him. Turley is just going to play the old hits here, claiming that what trump did doesn’t rise to the level of a crime. It’s what he’s paid to do.”

    They’ll never jail him. He’ll get house arrest. It’s in Turley’s nature as a defense lawyer to defend liars and jerks like Trump. However, Turley serves and defends the American justice system. For this reason, I have predicted that he will not denounce or suggest that a final and unappealable conviction of Trump is a miscarriage of Justice unlike every lying Trumpist here who WILL.

    That will tear it between Turley and his Trumpist followers.

  2. Alito Notes Lack Of Public Support.

    But Enjoys Thumbing Nose

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s new majority boldly signaled with twin rulings this week that public opinion would not interfere with conservative plans to shift the nation’s legal landscape.

    The court rejected Roe v. Wade, a 49-year-old legal precedent that guaranteed the right to an abortion, after a string of national polls showed a clear majority of Americans wanted the opposite result. A similar court majority invalidated a 108-year-old New York state law restricting who can carry concealed guns that is supported by nearly 8 in 10 New Yorkers, according to a recent poll by Siena College.

    Rather than ignore the dissonance, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the abortion decision, attacked the notion that the court should consider the public will. He quoted late chief justice William H. Rehnquist from a previous ruling: “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights.”

    Edited From:


    1. It’s a court not a legislature, duh. Public opinion changes on a whim. The law doesn’t. Do you have to be dumb to write for the Post?

        1. “Mespo, a court that continually ignores public sentiment is heading for oblivion” ***************
          Too bad you’re historically wrong. See, Warren, Earl – and buy a history book. The problem with the Left isn’t that they’re stupid. They’re just ignorant of anything that happened before today.

          1. Mespo, if no one respects the court, or if it’s seen as highly partisan, that’s it! The court is done as an esteemed institution.

        2. Anomaly,

          Your comment epitomizes what is wrong with the left. The courts do not exist to judge public opinion, they exist to judge the law.

    2. You could quote from the opinion that shows all of WAPO article to be emotional fluff, unsupported by constitutional direction.

    1. Certainly this opinion will further polarize the country. It may even segregate the states along abortion lines. The anti-abortionists may rue the day that the SC overruled Roe. The majority of women may be motivated to elect representatives to vote for a constitutional amendment in various state constitutions or overturn laws in other states. Who knows.

      1. Jeff, this ruling, and yesterday’s ruling limiting gun restrictions, will choke the courts with litigation for years to come as every conceivable plaintiff brings some kind of test case.

        1. Yes, that is true. Where are the “sensitive areas” which states can legally prohibit citizens to carry their guns? Hospitals, any place alcohol is served, and educational institution, public office buildings, airports, sporting events? Suppose they want to enter a sensitive building, will these places have keyed lockers for them to stash their weapons at the door?

          Gun carriers will be treated like smokers.

          1. Yes, if you wish to tell people they can not carry a gun somewhere even with a permit, you are going to have to specify where.

            That should be a no brainer.

            The objective when making law is NOT to infringe liberty as much as possible and make knowing what is lawful and what is not as difficult as possible. It is to infringe on liberty as LITTLE as possible and require the law to be as clear as possible.

            That is not a unique requirement for gun carry permits – it is not even a unique requirement for rights from the bill of rights.

            The NY law could have been found unconstitutionally broad without ever referencing the 2nd or 14th amendments.

            1. Watching the average citizen reveal their concealed weapon is something like watching a multi car pile up in fog on an interstate.

            2. Hopefully, cops who see a suspicious bulge on a pedestrian will ask him to see his papers not knowing if he is licensed. Don’t be surprised if you start seeing signs in which customers are not allowed to enter without a shirt or with a gun. Sensitive public areas will subject you to a fine for carrying a gun, but a private business can make everyone pass through a metal detector.

              You may find you only have the right to carry a gun from your house to your car and to walk around outside on the sidewalk.

        2. The ruling on guns effects 3 states, and fundimentally is dirt simple. States can not arbitrarily say no to carry permits.
          That is all.

          That is not only how gun permits should be, that is how ALL restrictions on liberty MUST be.

      2. The majority of women may be motivated to elect representatives to vote for a constitutional amendment

        As is proper.

        What retards don’t understand. If the govt uses its power to give you something, they can use that exact same power to take it away.

        1. Like the Bill of Rights, you idiot? Oh, I forgot, the Bill of Rights were not granted by men; they were handed down to us by god almighty like the Ten Commandments. And what She gives cannot be taken away by mere mortals. Do I have that right?

  3. Merrick Garland is disgusting. No American is safe with him as Attorney General

    It’s understandable to be deeply disappointed and even sad when your side loses an important case, What is not unacceptable is for the attorney general of the United States to forget his duty to enforce the law and instead to express publicly his contempt for it. The Supreme Court has ruled today and Merrick Garland has issued a press release in opposition to the ruling as if he is a political candidate running a campaign against the justices. In a release from the Department of Justice Mr. Garland states:

    “Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution. “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law. “The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.”


    1. He has the same speech rights as you do.

      If he acts contrary to his oath, that’s a different issue, but his statement is not contrary to his oath.

  4. A black Catholic woman responds to Roe v Wade being overturned.


    Gloria Purvis
    When have Black women ever not struggled with pregnancy and parenting in the history of this country? Never! And yet we still gave birth and reared children in the most dire circumstances.

    Maybe now with #Roe gone we can actually focus on supporting Black women. 1/
    1:50 PM · Jun 24, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

  5. Perspective is key. This is one talking point Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden’s cue cards, and Democrats will not convey.


    A statement on the Dobbs decision by the Catholic Bishops of New York State

    ‘We Give Thanks to God’

    Love, charity and reverence for human life from the moment of conception through natural death – these will build and sustain a culture of life.

    Millions of Americans have worked tirelessly for almost 50 years towards this outcome. We thank them with every fiber of our being. Their vital work continues, and we commit ourselves to it.

    Timothy Cardinal Dolan

    Archbishop of New York

    Most Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger

    Bishop of Albany

    Most Rev. Robert J. Brennan

    Bishop of Brooklyn

    Most Rev. Michael W. Fisher

    Bishop of Buffalo

    Most Rev. Terry R. LaValley

    Bishop of Ogdensburg

    Most Rev. Salvatore R. Matano

    Bishop of Rochester

    Most Rev. John O. Barres

    Bishop of Rockville Centre

    Most Rev. Douglas J. Lucia

    Bishop of Syracuse

    And the Auxiliary and Emeritus Bishops of NYS

      1. Mespo,

        Why won’t Turley let you write a guest editorial on the “Democratic death cult”? Have you submitted a précis for his review?

    1. “Millions of Americans have worked tirelessly for almost 50 years towards this outcome.

      Timothy Cardinal Dolan” — Etc., ad nauseam.

      Yes, thank you all — for decreeing that a woman is a farm animal with a womb.

      1. “for decreeing that a woman is a farm animal with a womb.”

        Better than thinking of young humans as fertilizer.

        Hyperbole can always be answered with hyperbole.

  6. Jonathan: When John Eastman told AZ House Speaker Rusty Bowers to “Just do it!”, his demand was more then “cringeworthy”. It is simply an attempt by you to trivialize what Eastman wanted. Eastman was demanding that Bowers set aside the election results, to cancel the certification and violate his oath of office. That was something Bowers refused to do. I doubt whether any incriminating evidence revealed by the Jan. 6 Committee will ever convince you Trump committed any federal crimes. Even if the Committee were to produce a literal “smoking gun” you would probably argue the “Alec Baldwin” defense—“I didn’t know the gun was loaded with real bullets!”. So you echo the Fox talking point that the investigation is a “witch hunt” and only for the purpose of making Trump look bad before the midterms. Nevertheless, we learned some more yesterday things about what Trump wanted.

    We heard from former acting AG Jeff Rosen, Rick Donoghue and Steve Engel about how Trump tried to weaponize the DOJ to get it to overturn the 2020 election. Trump demanded several things: (1) to get Rosen to appoint a “special counsel” (Trump wanted Sidney Powell) to investigate his false claims of “voter fraud”; (2) to have the DOJ file a last minute appeal to the SC, and (3) to replace Rosen with his crony Jeffrey Clark who wanted to send a DOJ letter to Georgia officials saying they could replace Biden electors ( that had already been certified) with Trump electors. In the heated Oval Office meeting on Jan. 3 Rosen and the other AGs explained that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud and no legal basis to challenge the election. Pat Cipollone, WH counsel , who also was present at the Jan. 3 meeting, agreed with each point the three raised with Trump. The three told Trump that if he replaced Rosen with Clark, who they said was unqualified for the position, there would be mass resignations at the DOJ, including AGs around the country. The DOJ would be an empty shell. Trump recognized what he wanted to do would cause a grave constitutional crisis and would interfere with his plans Jan. 6. So he reluctantly backed off.

    We also learned from yesterday’s hearing that GOP Reps Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz and Scott Perry ( who was behind the effort to replace Rosen with Clark) requested pardons–along with blanket pardons for 147 GOP members who either were involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection or who backed attempts to replace the Biden electors. For a guy who demands loyalty from his supporters Trump showed little sympathy or loyalty to those who backed him. For him loyalty is a one way street. Trump was also probably told a pardon is an admission of guilt and to grant blanket pardons would be an admission he was part of the criminal conspiracy. That’s probably the main reason he did not act on the pardon requests.

    Whether Trump is eventually charged with crimes is kind of beside the point. The Jan. 6 Committee has already demonstrated that Trump was the most corrupt president in American history–notwithstanding Richard Nixon–and probably this will be the conclusion of historians and the American people. That’s good enough for me.

    1. Of course you are not going to convince anyone with a brain Trump or Eastman committed a crime.

      There is very little disagreement over what actions were actually taken, and slightly more about words.

      Regardless, none of these constitute a crime.
      They do not even constitute something that never occured before.

      Challenges to presidential elections happen all the time.

      Clinton and the media created great debate over trying to encourage electors to vote differently from their state.
      Yet, no one was ranting treason or violation of federal law.
      Because it wasn’t.

      Anoying ans stupid perhaps. But neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

      In 1876 Congress had competing slates of electors and chose to kick the problem to a committee.
      The committee recommended an outcome different from the state certified results and the popular vote based on credible allegations of voter fraud.

      No one doubts you could get a DC jury to convict – they would not even need a crime, they will convict people of being republicans and subject them to capital punishment given the chance. Nor would DC courts be much better.

      But the fact that you can get nut jobs – unfortunately in our institutions to rant stupid things does not make them less stupid.

    2. This is a trivial problem to solve.

      Conduct elections that people can trust.

      In the few states that do not – as well as the 8 states that do – run secret ballot elections. That means no mail in voting.
      There are other effective means to deal with expanding voting access – presuming that you beleive that really is needed.

      Require voter ID.

      Do not allow ballots outside of precincts.

      Do not allow voting selfies that show filled in ballots.

      Lets just get rid of voter registration entirely. You do not need it if you have voter ID.
      And lets make political parties entirely responsible for ow they run primaries.
      It is not the states business.

      Lets get rid of the damn machines. Count votes like they mostly do in france – after the election by hand.
      And count them within a few hours with all precints reporting at the same time. and those that don’t – toss.

      You will never get local election officials to comply with election laws until there are consequences for failure.

      And no more of this ballot harvesting and local government conducted GOTV nonsense.

      1. John Say;

        I would be happy with a simple start. The total number of votes cast within an hour of polls closing.

        1. There are many many things that can contribute to fraud prevention and detection.

          The problem is that to prevent fraud we must do MOST of them.

          In GA Raffensburger killed the random post election audits that were supposed to provide a major check.

          After much hounding he conducted a signature verification audit in Cobb county – which was the democratic county LEAST likely to have mailin voting fraud. Still an audit of 5000 randomly selected ballots found that 6% did not meet GA’s signature matching requirements and should have been rejected, while 0.6% showed strong evidence of Fraud.

          This result was painted as proof there was no consequential fraud – but Trump lost GA by 0.25% of the vote – less than the Fraud discovered in the Cobb County Random Audit. and an order of magnitude less than the number of mailin ballots that should have been rejected.

          You can not secure a mailin election – it is not possible. Once Ballots leave the control of election officials – the number of oportunities for fraud increases exponentially. Further this enables other unrelated forms of Fraud because it makes them harder to detect.

          Costco runs as a buyers club – not a retail store. That allows them to check customers purchases as the leave.
          An intentional side effect is that it nearly eliminates employee theft – because losses can not be blamed on shop lifting.

          When you foreclose on form of Fraud you often reduce the possibility of others – because they become harder to hide and easier to catch.
          Mailin voting makes detecting and catching voter fraud by election officials nearly impossible.

          It takes hard work and serious thought to eliminate election fraud, but it is doable. But the most important thing is making the process transparent. It is not enough to eliminate Fraud – you have to eliminate even the appearance of the possibility of fraud.

          People must be able to trust elections.

          2020 has so many problems – it is far moe than that the election was conducted lawlessly and likely large scale fraud.

          The constant harping by the left, the media that nothing bad happened the active efforts to bury any inquiry further destroy trust in the election.

          And that is a very very bad thing.

          Elections where results are not trusted lead to ACTUAL insurrections.

          We are already hearing about efforts to sabotage 2022.

          Sen Warren wants to make private purchase of geotracking information illegal – though I am not sure that matters.
          In 2022 Ballot harvestors KNOW what TTV did to track them in 2020. All they have to do to beat Geotracking is to disable location tracking for smart phone applications. I am sure those running the harvesting operations in 2020 will verify that smartpholnes can not be tracked in 2022.

          Again – you can not secure a mailin election.

  7. I usually do not do OT, but I think this prudent:

    Just read AOC and Maxine Waters are out front of the Supreme Court.
    When asked if she would condemn violence as pro-abortion groups are calling for (re: Jane’s Revenge flyers calling for riots), AOC would not give an answer.
    She also lead in chanting that the decision was “illegitimate,” and calls for people to get “into the streets.”

    DCPD reportedly getting issued riot gear.
    My question is, why has the NG not been called on at this point in time?
    Could we see rioting at a level that makes the Jan6 riot look like a picnic? Over multi-days in multi-cities?
    And if so, who will be to blame then?
    DHS has issued a warning to Catholic churches of possible attacks on their places of worship.

    1. The very personification of hysteria and incoherence with reference to America, the American Founders, the American thesis, US Code, State law, legal Acts, fundamental law, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, aka, traitors and direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution and the United States of America.

    2. No need for the national guard. The Capitol police is enough to keep tabs on the crowd.

    3. This is great! The Democratic party and their Leftist useful idiots are now providing an operational definition of insurrection and incitement to violence in real time. Their actions today will make President Trump’s alleged crimes seem like a Mother Teresa prayer vigil.

      1. Their actions today will make President Trump’s alleged crimes seem like a Mother Teresa prayer vigil.

        You had to go there, huh? SMH


      2. Mother Teresa prayed for decades for an end to abortion.

        At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, on February 5, 1994, Mother Teresa stood before President and Mrs. Bill Clinton, and Vice President and Mrs. Al Gore, along with 4,000 others in attendance, and called abortion “murder.”

        Here is what she said:

        “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts….”

      3. It is wonderfully ironic that they incite to burn their own corrupt cities! It’s like watching Sodom and Gammorah from the neighboring town.

    4. “Could we see rioting at a level that makes the Jan6 riot look like a picnic?”

      We saw that everyday for eight months back in 2020.

    5. I plan to join the protest in DC tomorrow.

      I have always protested peacefully, and tomorrow will be no exception.

      “Could we see rioting at a level that makes the Jan6 riot look like a picnic?”

      The J6 rioters broke into the Capitol when it was closed to the public because of Covid and then they obstructed Congress by causing the members of Congress to evacuate from the Senate and House floors. Protesting outside is hardly comparable.

      1. You can protest that Roe was finally overturned with Biden-Harris in the White House and Dems controlling both Senate and House. This happened because RBG did not know when to say when – although she possibly would have voted with the majority on this decision.

        1. Mespo says:

          “We love liberal tears”


          President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.


          “Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.”


          1. Sure, I love the suffering of my enemies which are in turn the enemies of the Constitution. We take an oath, you know. I enjoy watching those enemies hit the wall? Why wouldn’t I? Emerson called it the “triumph of principle” – it makes you happy. Triumphs always do. Not being in Emerson’s league, I just call it justice.

            1. I’m glad Turley does not express your views. It goes without saying I would never waste my time contributing to a blog whose owner gets off being cruel.

              1. “It goes without saying I would never waste my time contributing to a blog whose owner gets off being cruel.”
                “Contributing” is such an optimistic word. You’re a one trick pony whose commentary is drolly predictable.You offer nothing; you research nothing and I only reply because it gives me a forum to rebut the Left’s manufactured talking points which you supply in pathetic abundance. You want nice, buy a dog.

                But of course you are paid for the drivel we get here so let’s call it a financially opportunistic word for you.

                1. FU. I’m not being paid unlike Turley. I’m here to pushback the filth that emanates from your soul.

  8. “Just Do It”: Democrats Continue to Struggle to Find a Crime to fit the Offense”

    “Probable cause of a federal crime had to be alleged as part of the Clark warrant. Yesterday’s hearing exposed Clark’s efforts to challenge the election, including a letter that was wildly inappropriate that he drafted for the top Justice officials to sign. His effort was very disturbing and was rightfully rejected by these officials.”

    – Professor Turley




    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    – Barack Obama, Ineligible Candidate – Non-Natural Born Citizen – Spawn of Radical Extremist Foreign Citizen With Foreign Allegiances Imprisoned by Great Britain Killed in Drunk-Driving “Car Crash”

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    America needs to “fundamentally transform” Obama and his minions into prison, nay, exile (subsequent to the payment of inordinately massive reparations to American taxpayers).

  9. Justice Antonin Scalia would be proud of Justice Clarence Thomas. They were both correct when they argued that previous SCOTUS abortions decisions were fabricated, as they had no support in the Founding Fathers documents, particularly the US Constitution. Scalia was more foreceful in denouncing the Court’s invention of “substantive due process”, used in Roe v Wade, going so far as calling it a “lie”. Now that Thomas and colleagues (5 scholastically trained Catholic thinkers) have gotten the ball rolling, it would be good if SCOTUS overturned the many other egregious rulings also lacking any Constituional support, and put them to the democratic process.

    America has collapsed. We need to get back to our roots, which President George Washington articulated all too well in his farewell address. All those on the Left made a promise: they would flee to Canada if…… well that if has come and gone. This is America. Love it or leave it.

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure—reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    19 September 1796

    1. Washington talked of religion and morality. There are those that believe in national conservatism. I think the triad is the economy, religion and nationalism.

      Up to recently we managed the economy part pretty well, but have lost out on religion and nationalism. Today the religion of the left is socialism, and nationalism has succumbed to open borders.

    2. Actually there is support in the constitution for the right to privacy. It’s not in the 14th amendment tho. It’s in the 4th amendment.

      “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      Sure the word “privacy” is not in the constitution. However “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Is the enumerated right to privacy the constitution gives to everyone.

      How can one be “secure in their persons” absent a presumptive right to privacy?

      Obviously the originalists and textualists ignored that important right that indeed enumerated “privacy”.

    3. “Scalia was more foreceful in denouncing the Court’s invention of “substantive due process””

      That’s part of what supports the ruling in Loving v Virginia. Will Justice Thomas vote to overturn his own right to marry Ginni, a woman of a different race, on the basis of “substantive due process” being an “invention”?

    4. Roe was always a farce and any honest lawyer would tell you so. Read the dissents today. They sound like middle schoolers disappointed that someone actually made them think rather than emote.

      1. Mespo says:

        “Roe was always a farce”

        “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot.”

        1. JS:
          Spoken by the cowardly, cruel and selfish Mr Bumble who made certain his wife wasn’t around when he said it out of palpable fear of her wrath. A fitting mascot for the Left.

          1. Behind every successful Trumpist, there is a woman to be sure. And behind her is his wife.

            Take Trump for example.

  10. Trump gets indicted and most likely convicted. It’s not even close. Take your pick…, obstruction, the illegal elector scheme, intimidation of witnesses in Georgia, wire fraud, etc….

    The real issues will arise with the prospect of how to jail/penalize him.

    Turley is just going to play the old hits here, claiming that what trump did doesn’t rise to the level of a crime. It’s what he’s paid to do.

        1. Promises made. Promises kept. For all his flaws, the man delivers. Roe overturned, as promised. His rally Sat. is gonna be on fire!

        1. Florida welcomes all political refugees. Until it gets so full that it may tip over and capsize.

    1. Turley never says Trump didn’t commit any crimes because he knows better. He’s paid to criticize Democrats and mislead the disciples, which is all this piece did, but using just enough language to say that what Clark did was wrong, so that when Trump and maybe Clark get indicted and prosecuted–i.e., he’ll claim: “I said what Clark did was wrong.”. Does Turley even comment about the significance of an acting AG sending out a letter containing lies about an election and just how close America came to destruction of our democracy? No, and he tries to skate a fine line by claiming that Clark was “challenging the election”, and the letter he would have signed if the fat one had appointed him acting AG was “wildly inappropriate”….but…then he criticizes Democrats, claiming they haven’t proven a crime. The purpose of a Select Committee isn’t to lay the foundation for criminal prosecution, and Turley knows this, too. Clark wasn’t “challenging” anything other that the right of American citizens to choose their president. Clark, Trump and his entire entourage KNEW he lost, they knew that their claims of a “rigged” election were false, that there was no proof to substantiate the claims of a “stolen landslide victory”, and yet Clark was willing to send out a letter on DOJ letterhead saying that election results were the product of wrongdoing and that the election should be decertified. Notice that Turley doesn’t even quote the contents of the letter Clark was willing to sign? There’s a reason for that. Turley is just another Tucker wannabe, and my guess is he’s posturing for a full-time gig at the Hate Network.

      1. “Hate Network”

        Sure, and that’s why it is the most watched cable news network.

        And that’s why storefronts in downtown Washington DC and cities across the country are boarding up their windows in anticipation of “peaceful” weekend riots by Democrats. The “hate” comes from the Left, darling.

        1. Storefronts don’t board up with plywood when Republicans are unhappy. That only comes when Dems and leftist loonies are peacefully “rioting.” The HATE comes from the Left. The violence comes from the Left. The terrorism comes from the Left.


      What is Special Counsel John Dudham doing now?

      The Deep Deep State Swamp “FIXED” the Sussmann “trial.”

      John Dudham must change the venue of the next Obama Coup D’etat in America trial to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

      Understanding that any bias is unfair by definition, the defendant absolutely will not get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., the “Swamp,” as all trials in that venue will be unfair and biased in the defendant’s favor.

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

      “We will stop him.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

      “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page

      “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

      – Bill Priestap

      “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

      – Barack Obama


    How and why was Roe hysterically, incoherently and wrongly implemented?

    Answer: The 19th Amendment.

    Now you know why the American Founders and Framers did not allow women to vote.

    From whence discipline, nay, anarchy comes?

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in the deliberate nullification of the Constitution, sins against the Ten Commandments and egregious violations of basic human rationality and decency.

    – There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

    – Abortion must be legislated to be legal or illegal by Congress and/or State Legislatures.

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in sins against the Ten Commandments.

    – Thou Shalt Not Kill

    – Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

    Hysteria and incoherence resulted in a vanishing nation.

    – The American Founders understood that women become pregnant, give birth to children, make Americans and populate the country.

    – The American population is declining; it is down to 61.6% of the people in the United States.

    – Foreigners breach its borders and occupy America.

    Women have “choice”: The choice to stay home and safe, the choice to employ prophylactics, and the choice to not engage in sexual intercourse.

    Women don’t like the choices that God or nature gave them, so they lash out hysterically and incoherently against their own existence and raison d’etre.

    1. Contraceptives fail all of the time. Girls and women get raped all of the time, and oftentimes become pregnant as a result. Girls and women are the victims of incest and become pregnant as a result. Deformed children with no chance of life get conceived all of the time. Women with heart and other physical problems for which pregnancy would be dangerous get pregnant despite contraception and sometimes despite tubal ligation. You, sir, are a misogynistic ignoramus.

      1. We all know that NUTCHACHACHA is a discreet reader, and only consumes, comprehensively, the utmost in accurate truth, while rejecting that which enjoys no basis in fact.

        Thank you so much for reading my comments, NUTCHACHACHA.

        It is my greatest honor and eminent pleasure to count you in my audience.

        My fullest and most sincere appreciation is yours.

        No, seriously!

        1. Well, Natacha called you Sir, so there is that to consider

          Natacha is Peter Hill / Seth Warner / Svelaz / Sammy / bitter, insulting leftwing Anonymous et al. Same messages, same stupidity, incessant attacking of JT, same goal of commandeering the blog to their assigned DNC talking points, same discredited news media sources. It is all recycled day after day, hour after hour, indicating they are paid to comment. They add nothing of value to the site, aside from entertainment

          The following reads exactly like Svelaz shtick. Same adolescent vocabulary, same sophomoric thinking. Natural selection has failed us!!


          Natacha says: June 24, 2022 at 3:33 PM
          Yeah, you say the warrant is “invalid”, and you haven’t even seen it or the probable cause affidavit that was the grounds for issuing the warrant. The biggest thing is that you don’t understand that you are just a dumb disciple of alt right media.

          1. Where do I apply to get paid to comment? I can use the cash. Need to replace the garage roof and trim some trees. Could use some new tires on the Yukon, too.

      2. Are there any warrantys on those failed contraceptives? I mean if they fail all the time, they must be about as good as the Covid vaccines.

      3. “Girls and women are the victims of incest and become pregnant as a result. Deformed children with no chance of life get conceived all of the time.”
        Who were those fine folks who killed imperfect people or people they deemed unwanted ? Rhymed with “Ossie” methinks.

  12. Was a *specific crime* identified that the Garland DOJ claims probable cause in order to obtain its early morning “forced to stand outside without your pants while agents search your home for 3 hours” search warrant of Clark’s home? Or nah? Just another un-American, lawless, banana republic Biden DOJ overreach?

      1. Because if what they have is an overly broad, flimsy “Jeff Clark attempted to lawlessly overturn an American election”….or as Turley put it, the claims of a specific crime “remain rather fluid and undefined,” then yes, I think the judge signed an invalid warrant.

        1. Yeah, you say the warrant is “invalid”, and you haven’t even seen it or the probable cause affidavit that was the grounds for issuing the warrant. The biggest thing is that you don’t understand that you are just a dumb disciple of alt right media.

  13. Justice Thomas makes clear in his concurrence that he also wants to overturn the court’s rulings on same sex marriage, homosexual sex, and birth control:
    “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [birth control], Lawrence [sex between people of the same sex], and Obergefell [same-sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous” … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.”


    1. “The last time Democrats were this mad is when Republicans took their slaves away.”

    2. Thomas has been opposed to substantive due process for a very long time. He is also more willing than others to overturn precedent he considers wrong. Nothing new in either point, and nothing disgusting about it.

      1. Yeah, he just likes substantive due process when it supports his right to marry Ginni, despite her being white. You did notice that he didn’t include Loving in his list, right?

        He’s a hypocrite.

        And we clearly have different opinions about what’s disgusting.

        1. Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) was a disfavored doctrine long before the nation’s founding.

        2. The matter of miscegenation didn’t even occur to me, but you are correct: he didn’t mention Loving v. Virginia in his list. It would serve him right if whatever state he lives in declares inter-racial marriage illegal once again.

          1. Thomas might accept Loving based on an equal protection analysis. For his substantive due process argument, I noticed he continually cited his own concurring and dissenting opinions as authority, which is not particularly persuasive to the reader.

      2. Says one who has obviously never read the Constitution, or one who is hell bent for leather to “fundamentally transform” the Constitution into the Communist Manifesto.

        Wait, that’s usurpation, subversion, insurrection, rebellion, treason et al.

        Roll out the guillotines, nay, the Drawing and Quartering parades!

      3. Thomas may disagree with process, but not necessarily outcomes. For example, he correctly considers that political congruence (“=”) is a politically and socially corrupt construct. If people support equal rights, then they should have supported civil unions for couples, couplets, and other consenting adults of disparate diversity [dogma] blocs (e.g. color). He is also correct when he dismisses the performance of human rites a.k.a. planned parent/hood a.k.a. elective abortion for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice that under the nominally “secular” Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities, which is a forward-looking forcing of dysfunction and collateral damage.

        That said, did Ruth have an epiphany that motivated her to bitterly cling to viability in order to deny Barack “burden” Obama his choice?

        Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse. Republicans’ resolution… to overturn the Twilight Amendment and diverse acts of mischief over the many trimesters.

    3. Civil unions for all consenting adults. Incest, too? Political congruence (“=”) is affirmative discrimination.

    4. Notice that justice Thomas left out the loving case making interracial marriages legal. It too relies on the doctrine he thinks should be abandoned. His own marriage would be illegal as well. Pretty convenient for him to omit that too.

    5. Marry – derived from Mother Mary – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

      Marriage – derived from Mother Mary – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

      Matrimony – derived from Latin for Mother, Mater – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

      Homosexuals cannot replicate and are self-terminating, having nothing to do with an institution of motherhood and childbearing – there is no future in homosexuality.

      Homosexuals cannot marry.

      They can dupe, fool and manipulate good people.

      1. Homosexuals cannot replicate….

        Alas Heterosexuals make them, so that is on heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Its not like homosexuals fall from the sky, ya know? If heterosexuals are that opposed to homosexuals, then heterosexuals need to stop producing them. See how easy that was?

        Go for a walk, George, and take a benzodiazepine. It will calm your neuronal pathways and allow your dopamine stores to replenish

      2. Marry – derived from Mother Mary – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

        Marriage – derived from Mother Mary – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

        Matrimony – derived from Latin for Mother, Mater – an institution of motherhood and childbearing.

        Homosexuals cannot replicate and are self-terminating, having nothing to do with an institution of motherhood and childbearing – there is no future in homosexuality.

        Homosexuals cannot marry.

        They can dupe, fool and manipulate good people.

      3. No doubt you also believe that post-menopausal women shouldn’t be able to marry because they cannot “replicate.” Maybe your post-menopausal wife should divorce you.

  14. Svelaz, the leftist spent four years trying to subvert the election of Donald Trump. They even concocted stories saying that Donald Trump was a Russian spy. Now all after all their lies have been exposed by CNN, The New York Times and Politico Magazine. You seem to have no recognition of their attempt to gain control of the federal government by any means necessary. The plan of the leftist was conceived and well organized by the Democrats and the press. Conceived and well planned is a hall mark of historical attempts to take over a government. The Jan 6 riot was not well conceived or planned but the Democratic coup attempt was well planned out by the press and the justice department even to the point of thinking about wearing a wire in a meeting with President Trump. One must come to the conclusion that your fears of an insurrection are placed against the wrong conspirators.

    1. Thinkitthrough,

      “ Svelaz, the leftist spent four years trying to subvert the election of Donald Trump. They even concocted stories saying that Donald Trump was a Russian spy.”

      I never said that. Resorting to lying?

      Trump’s own election was questionable and suspect. Challenging the notion that trump may have been elected thru questionable means and assistance from foreigners is just as legitimate as Trump questioning Biden’s election.

      There is already evidence that Trump’s claims of voter fraud have always been a lie. His own officials have been admitting it on the record. Even Giuliani openly stated that they had no evidence at all.

        1. Ivan says:

          “You should watch “2000 Mules.”

          I intend to when Turley recommends it, and Bill Barr stops laughing outloud about it.

          Fair enough?

          1. Since you don’t want to watch 2000 Mules, how about:

            https://rumble.com/v17h6qx-the-truth-of-january-6th.html Killing of Rosanne Boyle 10:30

            You can view the west tunnel and part of the killing of Rosanne Boyle. You can hear a Jan6 prisoner who has spent a lot of time in solitary who is credited to have saved 2 lives at the west tunnel while the police were herding people on top of one-another and perhaps beating them with batons.

            How about that Jeff, who sits on his couch in Marin County. Do you want to watch the slaughter?

  15. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show. They’re trying to destroy Donald Trump. These people fear Trump. If he has 4 more years, they know he has a long memory.

          1. Strange that you don’t understand that the SC — it’s entirety — is not that many people. They know who did it.

  16. Government sponsored persecution for political offense.
    We’ve seen this movie but somehow we can’t seem to stop it in our own country.
    We have a very long list of authoritarian regime show trials to draw from, did we think that we’re immune to show me the man I’ll show you the crime Sovietism?

    1. Recall in 2011 when Obama made fun of private citizen Donald Trump at the WH Correspondents Dinner. Obama later mocked Trump on a late show skit saying “Well Donald, at least I will go down as a President.”

      Then Trump beat 16 other Republicans to win the primary, beat Hillary in the general, and he became 45th President of the United States against all odds.

      Trump was mocked again when he predicted Roe would be over turned.

      Today, Roe was overruled.

      Trump was right again.

      Teflon Don, indeed.

      1. Trump in 2016:

        Roe will get overturned “automatically in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.”

        Right again.

      2. The Twilight Amendment, not limited to counseling and sanctioning elective abortion, reproductive rites, the wicked solution for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, has been the quasi-legal basis to socially justify diverse acts of incivility, inhumanity, and corruption.

        Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse. Republicans’ resolution…

      3. Funfact:

        Obama was as invalid and illegitimate as Roe v Wade, Obama was as falsely imposed as was Roe v Wade, and Obama will NEVER be a “natural born citizen.”

        Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

        Obama did not have “parents” (plural) who were citizens at the time of his birth – Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.

        – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

        – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

        – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

        – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political
        economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.” – Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

        – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

        – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

        – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases, such as “natural born citizen,” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.

        – The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”


        Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

        Book 1, Ch. 19

        § 212. Citizens and natives.

        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


        Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

        “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”


        To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

        From John Jay

        New York 25 July 1787

        Dear Sir

        I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

        Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

        Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

        which sailed Yesterday.

        Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

        provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

        administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

        of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

        Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

        Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

        I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

        John Jay

  17. “ However, to prove this case, the Justice Department would need to show an intent by Trump to obstruct an official proceeding of Congress. That cannot be based simply on the fact that he and his supporters in Congress planned to challenge the certification of the vote.”

    This was not just a simple “challenge”. It was a full blown attempt at subverting the election. The intent has already been shown. Eastman himself has provided all of the intent necessary along with the scheme of the fake electors and just recently in Wisconsin the “special” investigator has been implicated in deleting documents while investigating fraud allegations for Trump. Giuliani admitting there is no evidence of fraud and multiple Trump administration officials telling Trump directly that his claims are BS and Trump still going with the claims proves intent.

    Turley seems to be doing his damnest to pivot away from the obvious. That’s not surprising.

    1. Svelaz,

      It is utterly disingenuous of Turley to liken Trump’s effort to overturn the election to Raskin’s or Boxer’s symbolic objection to the certification of the electoral account in years past. These were not intended to overturn an election, and Turley knows it, but he can’t be held accountable because he is incommunicado.

Leave a Reply