Last-Chance Hearing: Jan. 6 Committee Has Yet To Establish A Criminal Case Against Trump

C-Span Screengrad

Below is my column in the Hill on today’s final scheduled hearing of the J6 Committee. While the Committee can continue to schedule new hearings, the eighth hearing highlights the fact a compelling criminal case against President Donald Trump has still not been made. Despite the prior promises of the members, the hearings have largely amplified what was previously known rather than introduce new “smoking gun” evidence. Even in the absence of a single dissenting member, the Committee has not been able to make the long-promised criminal case.

Here is the column:

The eighth and final scheduled hearing of the House Jan. 6 select committee is scheduled for Thursday, and its members reportedly will present a time line of events on that day, particularly the 187 minutes between the end of then-President Trump’s speech on the Ellipse and his call for supporters to leave the Capitol.

It will again replay moments from the horrific to the heroic. What it has not shown thus far, however, is what was promised at the outset: a clear criminal case against Trump.

At the start of the hearings, committee members promised they had the long-sought smoking-gun evidence — new material that would close the circle on Trump. Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) indicated he thought there was now “credible evidence” to support a variety of criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021.

No sooner had the hearings begun when many in the media declared that the criminal case had been conclusively proven — even though most of what was being presented was already generally known.

It often sounded more like a prayer than proof.

Former Nixon counsel John Dean said an indictment would be forthcoming because “I don’t see how the line prosecutors at the Department of Justice can’t take a lot of this evidence and use it. … Trump is in trouble. Trump is in trouble.”

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said the question was only what would be charged first, since Trump’s felonies were shown “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” That included an allegedly clear case of attempted murder of former Vice President Pence.

Yet, on the eve of the primetime hearing this week, committee members sound strikingly less prosecutorial. Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) told CNN that “I look at it as a dereliction of duty. He didn’t act. He did not take action to stop the violence.”

It is difficult to make a criminal case over what an official failed to do. Yet the last hearing seemed to focus on a number of things that did not occur, from a draft tweet that was not sent to an executive order that was never signed. There were discussions of appointing Trump attorney Sidney Powell as a special counselseizing voting machines or replacing the Justice Department’s leadership. As unnerving as these proposals were, they also were not carried out.

It is the type of evidence used to show mens rea — “guilty mind.” However, crimes generally require both guilty minds and guilty acts. Building a criminal case on the failure to act to stop the violence is a notoriously difficult case to make. It has been raised in various contexts without success even when officials had direct law enforcement duties, as in Seattle with the CHOP zone in the summer of 2020. It is even more difficult when the House committee has blocked any serious investigation into the potentially contributing failure of Congress to take better precautions before the riot, another costly act of omission.

The committee has built a powerful case that no compelling evidence of widespread voter fraud existed in the 2020 presidential election, and that Trump knew (or should have known) he was asserting baseless allegations. White House strategy sessions became increasingly heated between Trump’s two teams of lawyers, including a breathtaking Dec. 18, 2020, meeting when two lawyers seemed close to a physical altercation. Clearly, Trump only heard what he wanted to hear — but that does not prove he knew the election was valid.

The committee has portrayed Trump’s reliance on a private legal team as knowingly dishonest by calling it “Team Crazy.” However, the committee also portrayed Trump as a raving egomaniac who could not accept that he lost the election to Joe Biden.

But, again, it is a difficult criminal case to make, based on a layperson believing one set of lawyers over another. Former prosecutor and former senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said of the hearings that “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.”

It is not even clear, after seven hearings, what crime we are discussing.

The conspiracy to insurrection claim of the second Trump impeachment has turned into accusations of obstruction of Congress, seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud, or the dereliction of duty suggested by committee members like Rep. Luria.

Attorney General Merrick Garland clearly is looking for evidence of criminal conduct and could seek an indictment. If based on the committee’s evidence, however, it is a criminal case that would be ripe for reversal even if a conviction could be secured from a favorable District of Columbia jury.

Looking objectively at the evidence, the committee never supplied “credible” proof of crimes. That is not to say the evidence is not shocking; indeed, it is like a series of “jump scares” involving Trump and others raising unfounded or unconstitutional courses of conduct.

However, the most damning evidence concerns what Trump failed to do in those 187 minutes.

Trump has stressed that he told his supporters to go to the Capitol “peacefully” to support Republicans challenging the election. At 1:11 p.m., Trump concluded his speech. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his statement to stop — roughly an hour and a half later.

Many have denounced that delay, and some of us were critical of Trump’s speech as he was giving it or soon after it ended. His was a failure of leadership — but that does not mean it was a violation of the criminal code.

It is the type of evidence that should have been gathered before the second impeachment, to make a case for conviction in the Senate. Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and others opted for a “snap impeachment,” holding a single hearing. Today, they seem to be building the case I recommended in 2021 — just 19 months too late.

Trump still could face charges in Georgia over efforts to force a recount there and pressuring state officials to “find” the needed votes. However, the committee spent much of its time with Georgia witnesses in showing how they were hounded by Trump supporters and publicly mistreated by Trump. That again is outrageous and reckless, but not necessarily criminal. A Georgia case could also bog down on the question of Trump’s intent and knowledge in pushing election fraud claims.

The Jan. 6 committee has made a case against Trump personally and politically. It has not done so criminally. This final scheduled hearing would be an excellent time for that promised case to be finally made.

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

321 thoughts on “Last-Chance Hearing: Jan. 6 Committee Has Yet To Establish A Criminal Case Against Trump”

  1. They established that #hearsay is admissible in a #KangarooCourt. They established they are in contempt of the honest citizens. Mission accomplished.

  2. Turley admits:

    “However, the most damning evidence concerns what Trump failed to do in those 187 minutes.”

    “Trump has stressed that he told his supporters to go to the Capitol “peacefully” to support Republicans challenging the election. At 1:11 p.m., Trump concluded his speech. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his statement to stop — roughly an hour and a half later.”

    “Many have denounced that delay, and some of us were critical of Trump’s speech as he was giving it or soon after it ended. His was a failure of leadership — but that does not mean it was a violation of the criminal code.”

    Had Trump truly wanted a peaceful protest, why was it up to Pence to call out the National Guard? Why did Trump sit on his hands despite EVERYONE imploring him to call off his mob? Because everything was happening just as Trump wanted- the mob was supposed to stop the certification.

    That there is no innocent explanation for Trump’s determined inaction is evidence of his corrupt intent.

    1. Had Trump truly wanted a peaceful protest, why was it up to Pence to call out the National Guard?

      Hey retard, Trump lacks the constitutional authority to “call out” the guard. I know the liar Lizzy has planted the notion in you little noggin. But the Guard can ONLY be requested to show up. President Trump was lectured to about that during the summer of love in 2020. He wanted to “call in” the Guard, but he got lectured about his lack of power in that dept. ONLY Bowse can ask for the Guard.

      1. Iowan2,

        If you expect my reply, stop your childish name-calling. Grow up

        1. . Grow up

          You’re the baby. Simple question. Can the President send in the Guard with out a request? I’ll help. NO. Next Question. Why is Cheney lying? Or do you truly have no clue that she is lying?

    2. Like everything else, you get the following statement WROMG! You know almost nothing and most of the nothing is WRONG

      “Had Trump truly wanted a peaceful protest, why was it up to Pence to call out the National Guard?”

      Trump gave order to ‘make sure’ Jan. 6 rally was ‘safe event,’ Pentagon memo shows

      Gen. Milley’s recollection undercuts months-long effort by Democrats to suggest Trump wanted to incite violence: many key questions left unanswered.

      the Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to the Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days before the event. The police turned down the offer but then began to have second thoughts. The Capitol Police then asked their political minders — the House sergeant at arms chief among them — for permission to accept the troops on Jan. 4 but were turned down”

      Blame Pelosi. Blame Bowser. Your ignorance earlier might have just revealed a person without smarts, but after being told repetitively your ignorance suggests more. Perhaps the name Jeff Simpleton is more apt than the one who created the name might have thought.

      DODIG-2022-039 V2 508.pdf

      “Legal scholars are very troubled by the way these hearings are being conducted,” Sullivan said. “There is no due process. For people who don’t have an agenda to promote, these [hearings] are Stalinist. And I hate using that term.”

    3. Apparently you’re clueless to the simple fact that Trump can’t call out the National Guard – that’s by law. It has to be formally requested by either the D.C. Mayor, or the proper official with the Capitol Police. You’re also apparently clueless of the fact that Trump offered 10,000 to 20,000 national guard to them DAYS before Jan. 6th, and they refused.

      What’s more, Trump sent a tweet telling people to go home, be peaceful, etc., at 1:17. Twitter deleted it. Replace the “DOT” with a period and see: nypost”DOT”com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telling-supporters-in-dc-to-go-home/ and: web.archive”DOT”org/web/20210106211739/ .

      What’s more, Trump also ordered the Pentagon, in advance, to ensure that the Jan 6th protest was a peaceful event for all. See: justthenews”DOT”com/government/congress/trump-gave-explicit-order-about-jan-6-rally-make-sure-it-was-safe-event-dod .

      It’s utterly judicious and totally contrary to all facts to sit there claiming that Trump in any way showed “corrupt intent” as you are.

      Seriously, wake up and join reality already, or stop lying, as the case may be.

      1. Rational Db8,

        John Solomon is a disgraced journalist. He has been banished by even Fox News.

        1. Oh please. I just luv how the left immediately claims anyone they don’t like is supposedly “disgraced” or an “extremist” and so on. Yet they’re pretty much never able to actually support such claims with facts and evidence. You don’t even say how and why Solomon was supposedly “disgraced.” All the while the left calls people to testify to congress who are Furries and witches (literally, member of a witch coven – for the latest abortion hearings), laud thugs and people with long criminal records as heroes and innocent victims when they’re anything but, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention you’re using the logical fallacy (which means by definition you already lost the argument) by going for an ad hominem attack rather than actually debating the issues at hand. I gave you an actual tweet by Trump himself, and an actual memo from Trump to the Pentagon ordering them to ensure the Jan 6th event was safe for all… what’s your reply? “gee, I don’t like the author who presented these real facts.” How pathetic.

          1. These people did not receive a decent education.
            They have no clue how to think critically.

            They do not understand that insults are not arguments,
            that accusations are not evidence much less proof.

            1. Sadly all too true, John B. They also seem to often think that feelings are all that matters – except only their side’s feelings count, and no one else’s do.

              1. I have linked an intercept article on the self destruction that is occuring at left dominated institutions as they drown themselves in internal conflict, hate and self loathing.

                Organizations like the ACLU have gone from the classical liberal virtue of defending the rights of the most hated people on earth – recognizing that the least rights we allow those we hate are the most rights we have ourselves, to internal civil war with the radical left wing nut leaders being attacked as racists by their own staff.

                Those on the left see racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia everywhere – see it in those in front of themselves everyday. Their peers or their leaders.

                The left today echos the cultural revolution – except without a sacrosanct Mao at the top.
                They are children – attacking the parents, their culture, their own leaders more so than those they claim are actual enemies.

                As censorious as those of the left are with respect to the leading lights on the right – the are worse in their treatment of their own.

                The institutions of the left are thoroughly dysfunctional.

                That is one of several major flaws to modern progresivism that will save the rest of us.

                They will self destruct. As they are.

                1. “They will self destruct. As they are.”

                  Unfortunately, the American people are in close proximity to the self-destruction and will feel immense amounts of pain trying to rectify what the left created if they can. Let’s not be overjoyed that the one holding the grenade is going to be blown to smithereens when we are nearby.

                  1. Yes, he destruction of the left is causing great pain for the country.

                    Either we get things right and never allow these people to attain power.
                    Or we suffer the costs of their having it.

                    That is unfortunately how we learn.

                    One of the guides I used as a parent was something called “love and logic”.
                    The gist of which was you are obligated to protect your children from things, choices that will destroy their lives.
                    You are wrong to protect your children from bad choices that will not ruin their lives, but will result in learning,
                    and a better future.

                    We are in the midst of that now.

                    Leftism ALWAYS goes badly everywhere.
                    Better the mess we have now than actual stalinism or Maoism which is where these idiots are headed.
                    Fortunately there are a large number of reasons that we can not and will not get to those.
                    Unfortunately, that does not mean there will not be alot of pain.

        2. Typical left wing nut smears.

          Solomon is “disgraced” – because you or someone else says so.

          Not because his reporting is inaccurate.

          Whether you like it or not Solomon is an old school journalist EVERYTHING he reports is backed up by documents, or multiple credible sources.

          Most every rebutal I am providing you with comes from DOCUMENTS that Solomon obtained – either from the Ukrainian prosecutors office, from public testimony or proceedings, From FOIA requests of the US state department.

          Solomon solidly established a strong basis for investigating the Biden’s long BEFORE the Biden laptop’s.

        3. Jeff Simpleton, John Solomon has other contracts. I don’t think Fox is interested at this time in what Solomon is investigating. That doesn’t mean he is disgraced, except perhaps to a Simpleton. He is a regular on News Max, started his online news organization, has video broadcasts, etc. I think he has more influence today than ever before.

          Early in the game, when trying to teach Simple people logic, one major point drummed into their heads is that correlation is not causation. You haven’t even reached that stage.

          1. Newsmax? Has Turley ever acknowledged anything Newsmax or Solomon have stated? Next, you’ll be singing the praises of Infowars!

            1. Jeff Simpleton, Newsmax was right on the most important issues while the Washington Post was wrong, yet you sing the praises of the Washington Post. Only non-thinking people would trust the site that was wrong on almost everything while not trusting the site that was right.

            2. The test of credibility is not whether Turley openly praises them.
              It is when your claims prove correct.

              Turley has often repeated infomation that originated with Solomon, Much of the Biden corruption story originates with Solomon.
              Some of the earliest reporting on the Collusion Delussion orriginates with Solomon.

              In fact Turley has made arguments or reference facts that source originally to infowars.

              Alex Jones is usually full of crap. He is not always full of crap.

              I am hard pressed to think of any instances where Solomon has been incorrect.

              Regardless, unusual for reporting today Solomon’s reporting is ALWAYS well sourced.
              Usually by primary source documents rather than insider gossip.

          2. Those on the left have no experience with critical thinking.

            There arguments are appeals to emotion, add hominem.

            This is a reflection of their muddy thinking.

            Just look at the posts of the leading leftists here.

            Merely opposing them is in their mid a crime.

            They make no effort to hide that they do not give a crap about the “shoe on the other foot” test.

  3. Chris says:

    “President Trump will be reelected (again), this time with a huge majority in both houses of Congress.”

    If Trump wins, the election was rigged. That’s the ONLY way the Democrats can lose.

    Sound familiar?

  4. On account of his refusal to criticize his colleagues at Fox News, Turley does not point out what Andrew McCarthy thinks:

    “The significance of White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony is that it shows Trump knew, in the moments before he took to the podium to give his rambunctious Ellipse speech, that the mob was armed to the teeth, including with firearms. He is said to have been furious at the use of magnetometers — it thinned the crowd around the podium, which was not the optic he wanted. He railed at his aides to let people in, even if they were armed and dangerous, because they were “no threat to me.” That is, he knew they were a threat to someone — namely the government officials at the Capitol. He demanded that they be let in and said that they could then “march to the Capitol.”

    “He knew an armed mob would be headed to the Hill. Yet, he intentionally whipped them up with his speech. What’s more, he intended personally to lead the protest march. The patent purpose was to intimidate.”

    It’s telling that Turley does not make the same case of potential criminal culpability that McCarthy is making:

    “Trump knowingly and willfully exhorted an armed mob to descend on the Capitol for the purpose of corruptly influencing how members of Congress would conduct the constitutionally mandated electoral count. That’s a rudimentary offense. Everyone in America knows it’s lawful to influence Congress with provocative speech and edgy legal claims, but it is never lawful to influence lawmakers by the threat of force.”

    Why does Turley criticize Democrats who postulate criminality on the part of Trump but ignores Republicans like McCarthy who say so:

    “The stronger the evidence becomes that Trump intended to use the intimidating threat of armed violence to his advantage, the higher the likelihood that he will be indicted.”

    1. Jeff Simpleton you got it wrong when you posted the first article copying McCarthy’s words from NT and at the same time the post published this article as well so you aren’t timely. McCarthy didn’t say what you think he said. He was one of the original Never Trumpers.

    2. First of all I will shower praise on Prof. Turley, he’s allowed criticism of himself criticism that I agree with into the conversation on Res Ipsa. I suspect that he’s open minded enough not to get angry.
      Personally re Jan. 6 and Trumps statement, Re Trump,I think he didn’t think/want that his supporters would bring weapons to this
      event en masse. And I believe that there is no evidence that the group was armed, by that I means like an army. The Liz Cheney committeeis a dangerous joke that we taxpayers are funding By the way I’m OLD enough to remember when the government actually wanted the marchers for peace, for peace to have some violence and had to start the ruckus up themselves. Our country has a reputation for not like free expression of anything that doesn’t conform to their ideology.

    3. Are you totally nuts? If they were armed, why were there no arrests? Hutchinson’s entire testimony was shot thru with rank hearsay, most of which has already been totally proven to be false. Trump was never in “The Beast” as she claimed, the Secret Service publicly said they’d testify that her claims about him supposedly grabbing the steering wheel (which video proves was impossible no less – and it wasn’t “The Beast” he was in either), and supposedly attacking a SS officer were false, she claimed to have authored a memo that she didn’t, and to have spoken to a top official that morning – who’s been proven to not have even been there at all that day, etc., etc, etc. All her claims are bogus – and the J6 Committee knows that full well, which is why they refused to allow the SS to come and provide rebuttal testimony (the driver also), refused to allow anyone to come and testify to rebut her claims in fact, and even stated that they had no interest in allowing any such testimony, no matter if it was first hand (where hers was almost all hearsay, second, third, or even fourth hand at that). That’s also why they never even bothered to try to get any corroborating evidence of her insane claims before they put her on.

      This is one massive dog and baloney show – hard core banana republic police state show trial, meant to do nothing other than push the left’s anti-Trump agenda. Which is also why the J6 committee has been caught actually tampering with evidence and lying multiple times.

      1. Rational Db8 says,

        “This is one massive dog and baloney show – hard core banana republic police state show”

        Turley absolutely disagrees with you:

        “The House hearings are likely to add details that damn Trump for fueling the riot and failing to immediately call on the rioters to pull back. Yet many of us reached the condemnation stage years ago; I reached that point while Trump was still speaking on Jan. 6, 2020, and opposed his efforts to challenge the certification. The problem is not that the committee will move forward with hearings or a report. Despite its partisan composition and agenda, there is always a value to greater transparency about what occurred on that tragic day.”

        I agree with Turley not you.

        1. I hate to break it to you, but even if your Turley quote is right (highly arguable), there’s nothing remotely illegal or “insurrectionist” about saying things which some people view as “fueling the riot and failing to immediately call on the rioters to pull back.” What’s more, the J6 Committee isn’t remotely accomplishing this even: “Despite its partisan composition and agenda, there is always a value to greater transparency about what occurred on that tragic day.” They haven’t added “greater transparency about what occurred” that day at all – in fact, they’ve grossly muddied the water with lies, tampered with evidence to purposefully create grossly false impressions, refused to use any basic due process or have allow any contradictory witnesses, etc., etc., etc.

          This hearing is a gross travesty any way you cut it. They even violated House rules which stood for several hundred years in the creation of this grossly partisan commission. It’s a despicable charade pushing the left’s anti-Trump agenda in every way – nothing more, nothing less.

            1. Yep, you’re right, the truth does hurt some people – apparently you’re one of them as you’re unable to actually refute anything I’ve said. Plus, the left is sure hurting right now, and incredibly desperate to generate anything they think might help sway a few voters, right out of thin air.

  5. Anonymous the Stupid, you are such a dear to give me an opportunity to post #19. I don’t know why anyone would dislike you.

    #19/21. More illegal harvesting. In Arizona, a half dozen people have already been indicted on charges of illegal harvesting in a probe by Attorney General Mark Brnovich that shows signs of expanding. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Democrats’ arguments and concluded Arizona’s ban on harvesting was constitutional.

  6. You are blaming Sicknick’s death on stress without an examination of the body. Stress killed him, not the stroke. That is true. I am in agreement with you based on your criteria.

    Your criteria would put stress as a cause of death on every death certificate.

    You are so smart. We never need medical examiners again. We can just put down the diagnosis of stress. The man didn’t die from the bullet shot into his head. He died from the stress of seeing the gun fired.

    Everyone will recognize your brilliance in the years to come and repeat your words, ‘stress kills everyone.’

  7. “Yawn.” writes ATS.

    You are so kind to provide me with an excuse to continue posting. Thank you so much Anonymous the Stupid.

    18/21. Uneven enforcement of election laws. The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau identified more than 30 problems with the administration of elections in 2020, including unlawful orders and uneven enforcement of the law and urged lawmakers to make sweeping improvements.

  8. Thank you Anonymous the Stupid for giving me the opportunity to finish my posting.

    17/21. Illegal exemptions from voter ID. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled as many as 200,000 voters were allowed to illegally skip voter ID for absentee ballots by claiming they were indefinitely confined by COVID when there was no such legal authority to do so. Biden beat Trump by about 20,000 votes in the state


  9. Anonymous the Stupid, I have a life, but you don’t. We can see that on the blog non-stop. You made sure this post would be deleted as well. I now use only the reply button so I don’t have to go back and forth the net and there is no interruption to posting..

    “Oh, boy. Get a life, Meyer.”

  10. Notice how Turley’s heading says there’s NO criminal case against Trump, and in the body of his little piece, he says “a compelling criminal case against President Donald Trump has still not been made”. What is a “compelling” case in the view of someone on Fox’s payroll, anyway? Never forget that Sean Hannity appeared with Trump at rallies, that Laura Ingraham and other Fox hosts gave advice to Trump, including advising him on Jan 6th to call off the rioters. Fox is NOT a news outlet at all. And, the J6 Committee did NOT promise they would establish a criminal case against Trump. A couple of members expressed their opinion that there was evidence that Trump committed crimes, but not the Committee itself.

    I still want one of you hard-core Trumpsters to explain away the 3 hours Trump did nothing to stop his fans who were desecrating the Capitol and attacking police officers. Testimony last night proved that Trump did NOT call the military, Homeland Security or the National Guard to try to quell the attack on the Capitol. These facts cannot be disputed. Come on, now, what’s the spin for this one?

    1. Natacha,

      I agree with you that Turley is playing Devil’s Advocate in defending Trump consistent with his allegiance to Fox News. Still, let’s recognize the fact that he is not implacably opposed to acknowledging evidence which would prove Trump guilty of a crime. This fact distinguishes him from a lying Trumpist. No Trumpist here will accept a Trump conviction. They realize that if Trump goes down, they go with him. Turley, on the other hand, will accept a final unappealable verdict against Trump.

      Turley is not unlike Madison, a man whose legacy he greatly admires despite it being stained irreparably by his having been a slave-owner. One also can admire Turley’s faith in our American jurisprudence and his belief that *no one* is above the law despite staining his own reputation by working for, and profiting from, a broadcast outlet which championed and fostered someone he once dismissed as a “carnival snake charmer” whose suggestion as a political debate moderator, much less a participant, was- in his words- “obscene.”

      1. I agree with you that Turley is playing Devil’s Advocate in defending Trump consistent with his allegiance to Fox News.

        Turley’s defending the Constitution. That’s why you don’t understand his position.

      2. A FEDERAL judge, the Honorable David Carter of the United States District Court, Central District of California, said it is more likely than not that Trump committed crimes by tring to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. Turley doesn’t mention that, either.

        1. Natacha,

          I agree with you that Turley characteristically omits facts which undercut his argument. He has omitted the recently uncovered statement by Bannon who said the quiet part out-loud about Trump declaring victory despite knowingly losing the vote. Turley disingenuously claims that the Jan 6th committee was claiming to reveal “smoking gun” evidence of Trump’s criminality. I am not aware that anyone on the committee made any such claim. To expect such evidence is raising the bar too high given that most criminals are not caught red-handed. Turley is inclined to throw shade on the committee without going so far as to dismiss it as a “show trial” as ALL Fox opinion hosts do. In so doing, Turley appeases his bosses at Fox while not becoming a pariah at his law school. As always, Turley prefers to straddle the fence. You will notice he never fails to remind us that he condemned Trump’s speech as he gave it while defending Trump against criminal accusations. As more evidence comes out, however, Turley is becoming a bit more willing to entertain the prospect of Trump’s criminal culpability unlike his Fox colleagues (except for legal analyst Andrew McCarthy).

  11. Professor’s entire column is based on taking Democrats’ statements as facts

  12. All illness can be related to stress. If one wants to find an expert witness to sign their names to garbage it is very easy. Anonymous the Stupid can think what he wishes and then delete the post.
    “Were the strokes that killed US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick after the January 6 insurrection really natural? Some neurologists don’t think so.”

  13. The difference between Sicknick and everyone else is that he died from natural causes. That is the cause of death by the medical examiner. The other stuff is hypothetical, and Wecht did not examine the body. He merely stated what everyone knows to be true. Stress always exists around people and is impossible to eliminate. It can be an excuse for anything one desires. It might even have been used as an excuse when Byrd murdered Ashly Babbit. Stress is impossible to eliminate, and specific jobs require medical examinations.

    Anonymous the Stupid is trying to create a lie. If we accept his lie, one can blame every natural death of a police officer on stress. That would be Stupid, but should we accept any less from ATS?

    Going from the Stupid to the proven, we see the murder of Ashly Babbitt, clear as can be. An officer stands with his gun focused on a location even though there is no threat to life and limb. He murders Ashly in cold blood, but to Anonymous the Stupid, that didn’t happen. Roseanne Boyland is gassed, beaten, and crushed, but to ATS, she did it to herself. How did Greeson and Phillips die? One death was from some type of percussion grenade thrown by the police. It is thought something similar happened to Philips.

    Now we get to Anonymous the Stupid calling mespo a coward. “Cowards like mespo and S. Meyer couldn’t possibly understand.”

    Mespo’s identity is well known. Who is Anonymous the Stupid? He is a coward who posts anonymously, to blend in and hide. But he is worse. He blames others for his deeds. He uses pretend friends to show people others agree with him and uses an identical anonymous name and icon. He uses alternative aliases and icons as well. He lies and twists the truth. Lately, he has been intermittently using an address that deletes not only him, but everyone who responded below it. Mespo had that happen just recently.

    Anonymous the Stupid requires a label, so others know who the vector is creating the disease on the blog. Lately, ATS has been running around the list like a rabid animal.

    1. ATS writes: “S. Meyer is all worked up, again.”

      He’s playing the part of a fool and making sure his postings are deleted. Now that it is clear to everyone what he does, he is using this tactic on many people. Just click on his posting and yours that follow and see if they are deleted, some not all.

  14. “I look at it as a dereliction of duty. He didn’t act. He did not take action to stop the violence.”

    If that’s the standard, then a lot of mayors and governors will be in jail for failing to curtail the 2020 riots.

    But, of course, it’s not intended as a standard or a principle. It’s merely a convenient talking point, used only now and this instance, for kneecapping Trump.

    1. Dereliction of duty isn’t a crime, except for members of the military, who can be court-martialed for it.

      When the President does it, it’s arguably a high crime or misdemeanor.

  15. I woke up this morning expecting to read headlines of “bombshell” witness, or smoking gun (NOT a Hunter Biden reference) evidence of Trump giving direct orders, coordinating with the military, LEOs, NG (ya know, what a coup actually requires) to take key installations, and install himself as dictator for life . . .

    Hawley jogging down a hall?

    That is it?

  16. “former senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said of the hearings that “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.” It is not even clear, after seven hearings, what crime we are discussing.”

    That is because this is a classic kangaroo court, conducted by parties who have decided the party under trial is guilty, without any substantive evidence in support of that decision, and therefore must rely on hyperbole, anecdote and clearly fraudulent witnesses to events that, even if true, do not reflect any wrongdoing, and whose testimony is readily defeated by actual eye witnesses (such as in the so-called Trump SUV story).

    It should be borne in mind that the Rally was held about a 35 minute walk from the Capitol Building, yet it was reported the “riot” activity began within15 minutes of the close of the rally.

    It has been demonstrated that the violence, not heard in this Sham proceeding, was not perpetrated by Trump supporters, but by persons who would never have heeded any call by Trump to stop, start or pass go.

    The only wrong doing was the refusal by the DC Mayor and the House Speaker to accept Trump’s offer to bring in 20,000 National Guard troops at any time before, during or after the event. That is the criminal conduct that should be on trial and hopefully will be, with a changing of the corrupt guard.

    The only obstacle to this prosecution is the mountain of factual evidence that contradicts their decision of guilt, none of which they will allow to be heard.

  17. Anonymous the Stupid likes things taken out of context, incomplete snippets or meaningless third party statements. Ge is a liar.
    ATS “Here’s a link to the article:” (it isn’t true but I like to lie.)

    ‘Leaked Audio: Bannon Said “

  18. I believe you Anonymous the Stupid when you say you are healthy, not sick. Your body might be fine, but mentally you are a disaster and demonstrate it on the blog morning to night.

  19. Anonymous the Stupid blames all medical illness on stress. The man had a stroke, stress can cause hypertension, heart disease, stroke etc. A crowded subway train can cause stress. ATS causes stress for everyone on the blog. Is he a mass killer?

    He will bend the truth until it breaks. He is a liar and stupid. He quotes many stupid articles that eventually look foolish, but ATS is the foolish one for quoting such crap. Blame the Capitol Police doctors who screen applicants for disease that makes them unfit for service.

    You are such a dope.

  20. C-Span’s video of the hearing, which is well worth watching. The hearing starts about 12 min. in:

      1. You mean like Dem. Hillary has done ever since she lost to Trump in 2016, and Dem. Stacy Abrams has done for years now ever since she lost, and so many other Dem. leaders have done time and again when they’ve lost to a Republican? Gee, the horrors!!

Comments are closed.