This week the January 6th Committee voted to make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, including the proposed indictment of former President Donald Trump. However, the Committee’s splashy finale lacked any substantial new evidence to make a compelling criminal case against former President Donald Trump. The Committee repackaged largely the same evidence that it has previously put forward over the past year. That is not enough. Indeed, the reliance on a new videotape of former Trump aide Hope Hicks seems a case of putting “hope over experience” in the criminal Justice system.
While still based largely on the failure to act, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) insisted that “if that’s not criminal, nothing is.” The opposite may be true from a First Amendment perspective. If the failure to act is criminal, it is hard to see what would not be criminal under this standard.
After members like Schiff, again, promised new evidence to support criminal charges, the Committee continued its pattern of rehashing previously known evidence with network-quality videotapes.
The failure of the Committee to offer any new and direct evidence of criminal conduct was obvious at the outset. Vice Chair Liz Cheney began her remarks by again detailing what Trump failed to do. It was a repeat of the prior hearings and for some likely left the impression of actors who are refusing to leave the stage long after the audience departed.
The one new piece of evidence was largely duplicative. It shows former aide Hope Hicks saying that she also called upon Trump to make a public statement calling for peace and telling him that there is no evidence of systemic fraud. Nevertheless, the videotape has been heralded by figures like former acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal on MSNBC as “evidence I’ve never seen before from Hope Hicks.” Katyal bizarrely claims “I think that tells you all you need to know about premeditation. Call it criminal intent. The House committees evidence here is very strong.”
So all you need for premeditation is the failure to accept the weight of evidence or to act promptly after the start of a riot. Katyal might “call it criminal intent” but many judges would likely call it something else.
The fact is that the J6 Committee failed to change many minds largely because of what was on display in the final public meeting. It was the same highly scripted, one-sided account repeated mantra-like for months. There is justifiable anger over these accounts, but this hearing was billed as presenting the case for criminal charges. It missed that mark by a considerable measure.
Of course, to raise obvious legal barriers to prosecution today is to invite an Internet flash mob accusing you for being an insurrectionist or fellow traveler. Major media from the Washington Post to National Public Radio routinely refer to the riot as an insurrection despite a deep disagreement over the characterization of the criminal conduct. The media unrelentingly echoes this one view despite polls showing most citizens view that day as a reprehensible “riot” motivated by loyalty to Trump.
The media also downplayed the glaring failure of the J6 Committee to produce what it described as bombshell evidence of a criminal conspiracy by Trump. Members like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Ca.) repeatedly promised that the next hearing would reveal such direct evidence only to have the same rehashing of the prior claims for prosecution.
The Committee was playing to the same audience and knew that they did not have to produce such evidence to make their case. Experts like Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe have previously declared Trump’s felonies were shown “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” That included what Tribe suggested was a clear case of attempted murder of former Vice President Pence.
Likewise, experts like legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter over the riot.
The problem is that crimes actually require satisfaction of underlying elements and cannot be proven by soundbite or desire alone.
Instead, much of the evidence cited 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 counsel, seizing voting machines or replacing the Justice Department’s leadership. It is a chilling list, but it is also notable in that no final action was taken on such proposals.
That is a far cry from evidence showing 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.
The most damning evidence concerns what Trump failed to do in those 187 minutes.
However, while repeatedly omitted by the Committee, Trump 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.
That speech appears protected by the First Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The Trump speech, in my view, falls well below that standard for criminalization.
Repetition of the same earlier points does little to strengthen the case for prosecution. The Committee has presented a powerful record of Trump’s failures on that day, including his reckless rhetoric and lack of response. Trump may be guilty of all of these failings, but that does not mean that he is a criminal actor. The reason that Mar-a-Lago presents a greater threat to Trump is that it is based on his actions, not inaction, in retaining classified material.
It is a disappointing end for the J6 Committee, which could have been so much more than it was. Both sides have pointed fingers at each other for the failure to have a single member nominated by the Republican party. However, even after that breakdown, the Committee could have strived to create greater balance by discussing alternative interpretations of key actions or statements. It could have allowed for greater public examination of witnesses rather than the tightly scripted accounts used in the hearings. It could have explored other issues in public hearings, including the failure of the Congress to adequately prepare for the riot despite prior warnings.
While some Democrats have asserted an almost proprietary claim to the January 6th riot, this was a desecration of our constitutional process that harmed us all. Indeed some of us were critical of Trump’s speech as he was giving it. At a minimum, that day was a failure of leadership — but that does not mean it was a violation of the criminal code.
While the members assured each other that history would honor their efforts, the judgment is likely to be more mixed. It is not a criticism of what they became as much as what they could have become in investigating the tragedy of January 6th.
Despite the broad condemnation of Trump for his speech and conduct on that day, there is a difference between what is viewed as reprehensible and what is chargeable as criminal conduct.
Jonathan Turley, the fine editorial in TNYT, co-written by lawyers, comes to the opposite conclusion.
and water is wet
NYT writers have a tendency to choose a conclusion and then fabricate arguments to support the conclusion. That’s why they are so often wrong.
I fear that Young has a tendency to Just Make Stuff Up.
David: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/12/accountability-in-journalism.php
Young, so does ‘powerlineblog’.
So the collusion delusion was correct ?
You know one of the sub stories in the twitter files is that the FBI was so desparate to find Russian interferance in the 2020 election they asked Twitter to look for it so much that Twitter brass became annoyed, told them there wasn’t any, and so the FBI paid twitter to keep looking – and they still found none.
The twitter files expose the FBI as delusional and fully engaged in snipe hunting.
While it is clear that the Twitter Brass are as left as left can be, it is hilarious when the Left Wing nuts at twitter are telling the FBI “There is no russian election interferance in 2020. We looked. Not there, go do something actually productive”
The initial twitter files dumps make Twitter look pretty bad, but increasingly the newer ones are making the Government – particularly the FBI look like complete morons who can not let go of a bone.
This is the top law enforcement agency in the country ?
Everything that the twitter files exposes regarding the FBI:
Is politically biased.
More important is institutionally biased. The FBI wanted twitter to provide proof that the FBI elections group should exist – and they failed.
As far afeild of any legitimate FBI task.
Is distrubing not just because it was partisan, but because it was stupid, self serving (and failing at the),
Forgetting the politics this exposes this FBI working group as something that should be on Rand Paul’s yearly list of dodo bird wasteful spending.
The only “big score” of the FBI was that they successfully set Twitter up ahead of time. Primes them to beleive that Russian disinformation about Hunter Biden was coming, and had them primed and ready to kill the NY Post story when it arrived.
BTW this is very nearly Yeol Roths version of events.
There is plenty to support Young’s conclusion.
Do you have some evidence to the contrary ?
Surely before defaming Young you could have gone out and found atleast 1 NYT story where the reporter did not just make things up.
NYT has not as of yet returned their pulitzer for reporting on the collusion delusion – something that turned out to be a Clinton manufactured hoax.
David,
Being in the sciences you may not be aware of a common distinction in law, the distinction between scholarship and advocacy. Both draw from the same well of knowledge but can often arrive at different conclusions.
The NYT article you cited was written by advocates. Norm Eisen, for example, is a former special counsel to Obama and was also worked on the [or course partisan] Congressional investigations that led to the phony impeachment against President Trump. The article you embraced is advocacy. In one sense it is like a trial brief, intelligent, informed, and deliberately misleading. Conclusion first, argument later if one can be cobbled together.
On the other hand, there is legal scholarship such as one finds in Restatements of different areas of the law and professional texts. The goal is to try to understand the law as well as may be possible so that one can have a reasonably clear understanding of its likely outcome(s). Professor Turley’s comments almost always fall into the category of informal legal scholarship and they are more valuable than advocacy arguments for that reason.
In the sciences advocacy can be compared to a researcher who fudges his numbers a bit, or leaves some out, to make the best case for what he hopes is true. Legal scholarship is nearer to a random double-blind study designed to avoid any bias that may mislead the researcher. That isn’t a perfect comparison, but it is one you might understand. In going for the NYT piece you chose to extol the number-fudgers..
David,
Which of the several editorials in the Times are you referring to? Do you have a link?
Here is a link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/opinion/january-6-trump-criminal-referrals.html
Thanks.
DB says NYT already demonstrating credibility problems. And follows with unnamed lawyers.
DB also does not seem to grasp that on the whole lawyers are wrong 50% of the time.
The same people who won a Pulitzer for their fake Russian Collusion hoax stories…That NYT’s who is deceitful, and haven’t returned those Pulitzers nor have they apologized for printing lies. The New York Times and the Washington Post are no better than the National Enquirer any more.
Not a popular comment, may get deleted, but f*** the modern, American leftist regime. Period. I am not a boomer, just someone that pays attention. Wish with all my might that boomers or Gen X did, too. They do not. We absolutely DO need to continue these discussions, but we also need to back them up with action in the world. if you hear this but still vote democrat, you might as well be deaf. This is do or die time.
The J6 committee blew its reputation from the very start. Any thinking person would know that when Republicans were not appointed to the committee the outcome was preordained. They could have allowed witness from the opposition but they didn’t. By doing so they might have better presented their case. The American people know that this committee was just a political schill game. Now they don’t even stop when they know that their game has been exposed. In the past when the con man at the county fair was found out he just moved on to the next town because no one would step up to his table to guess what shell held the pea. At least once in a while he would give out a little kewpie doll to keep the crowd coming back for more. With the J6 committee you got squat.
Who are the “witnesses from the opposition”? Almost all of the witnesses were Trump insiders: Ivanka, Cassidy Hutchinson, Hope Hicks, various members of his staff, etc.. So, just whom are you speaking of? Just like Turley, you don’t speak for “the American people”–a false claim Fox uses as an indoctrination technique–for instance, calling itself “America’s newsroom”. There’s no “game” or “con man” here that was “exposed”, other than Trump. The Committee did a fine job of proving that Trump knew he lost because almost everyone told him so, but his ego wouldn’t let him accept the will of the American people. The insurrection was Trump’s Last Stand. With the J6 committee we get facts. Do you have some “alternative facts”? What are they? What did your lying eyes and ears tell you when Trump said “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”? How about when he said “frankly we did win”, when he knew better? Then, there’s the promise that he would join the insurrectionists. How about the “Stop the Steal” rallies, telling the faithful disciples that their candidate was cheated out of a “landslide victory”? Where’s the proof? I still want one of you Trumpsters to defend the 187 minutes of chaos, personal injury and property damage done to the Capitol during which Trump basked in the glory of his fading power trip. Give me the benign explanation or validation for that, if you can.
Those people may have been “insiders,” but they were not Trump’s witnesses. Dems only called witnesses who would (or whose testimony could be twisted to) strengthen their Orange Hitler narrative. Trump was not allowed any respresentation, witnesses or evidence. No questions allowed, no video released unless it supported the left’s narrative. Add the involvement of chronic liar Adam Schiff and color revolution specialist Norm Eisen and this was clearly a one-sided attempt to smear Trump and anyone who disagrees with the left, trying to paint us as domestic terrorists. Wake up.
Trump was invited to participate, but declined, as did several of this key advisors. They’re not about to go on camera under oath and take the Fifth hundreds of times, so they ignore a subpoena and then claim they were denied a chance to speak. What is the “orange Hitler narrative”, anyway? How do you defend the Big Lie, or the 187 minutes? What is the Trump evidence–who are his “witnesses”? You can’t say, so it’s just easier to just scream “unfair” than to actually come up with some facts that could possibly exonerate him. That is the Fox narrative, and it’s a lie. I keep inviting you Trump fans to put out some facts, but all I get is crickets. There’s no “left’s narrative”, either. Congress would be engaging in malpractice for allowing Trump to get away with the Big Lie, the insurrection and stealing classified documents without investigating and making criminal referrals. It can and will happen again, only next time, it might actually work.
The “Big Lie” is a bipartisan phenomenon – did we prosecute John Kerry, or Hilary, or Stacey Abrams or the many Dems who voted against verification of previous elections, including the chair Jamie Raskin? Slick Willie took classified documents when he left the WH, as did Obama, and Hilary took them and destroyed the evidence that was under subpoena- no prosecutions. The riot was bad, and stupid and reckless, but if you really think a few hundred unarmed citizens could overthrow the US government, well I suggest you are delusional.
Who are “Trump witnesses”?
@Gigi: “The Committee did a fine job of proving that Trump knew he lost because almost everyone told him so ….”
You really need to rethink this conclusion, if you can. Remember the era when “almost everyone” said the world was flat? Were the people who disagreed wrong? The fact is, there is plenty of evidence and plenty of people who agree that the election was rigged. That it was not is largely an article of faith among Democrats and other Trump haters.
Moreover, what does any of that have to do with criminal conduct by Trump?
Not one person who “thinks” the “election was rigged” has come up with any facts to show widespread voter fraud. Over 60 courts threw out lawsuits making these claims that failed due to lack of evidence. Giuliani, now suspended, is looking at disbarment for lying about widespread fraud that didn’t exist. What does this have to do with “criminal conduct by Trump”? Are you serious? What was the underlying reason for the insurrection–here’s a clue–it was the Big Lie that Trump used to stir up the disciples into storming the Capitol to: “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. He even went on “Stop the Steal” tours to promote the false narrative that he was cheated out of a “landslide victory”. How many of his insiders told him this wasn’t true–all but Giuliani, including Ivanka and Hope Hicks. Not just the Big Lie,but the secondary lie–that Pence had a “choice” to refuse to certify the votes–which he didn’t have—so the disciples went hunting for Pence, erected a gallows, and shouted “Hang Mike Pence”, all part of a plot to stop the certification. The plan was that Trump could get Pence to throw out the actual votes of the American people, which he believed could force the election to be decided by state legislatures, most of which were Republican, as a means to stay in office, even though he lost and he knew he lost. This plot, concocted by John Eastman, who is under investigation, is, of course, illegal. All of this is lies, all one big plot to circumvent democracy. Then, there were the false slates of “electors” who tried to claim that Trump won in certain swing states, when he hadn’t. These people committed felonies by signing fake election certificates, and they will likely be prosecuted and have a criminal record. Do you not see how this is a serious threat to democracy and the peaceful transfer of power? And, you think that the J6 Committee was wrong to investigate these matters?
“ Over 60 courts threw out lawsuits making these claims that failed due to lack of evidence.”
I would suggest you look into the details here instead of relying on an unreliable leftist media who are parroting democrat talking points. You will find many were thrown out due to process issues and never looked at evidence. One was thrown out in AZ because the lady making a very credible accusation hadn’t voted. The AZ legislature fixed that last year so that evidence is looked at now.
Giuliani, when asked by judges in each of these cases what evidence he had, admitted he didn’t have any and that he filed the lawsuits so as to generate evidence, but seeking an injunction to prevent Biden from taking office. YOU are the one who doesn’t understand what happened, but don’t believe me–look up the NY State Disciplinary Complaint filed against Giuliani’s law license for details of why the law licensing authorities sought, and obtained, an emergency suspension of his law license.
“Not one person who “thinks” the “election was rigged” has come up with any facts to show widespread voter fraud. ”
Of course they have – your paying no attention.
Trump lost AZ by 11K votes.
The Cyber Ninja’s audit found just under 50K duplicate ballots.
The AZ audit also founf that very nearly half of all ballots had problems that if the rules had been followed would have required not counting them.
We do nto have election laws for the purpose of ignoring them.
TTV’s review of Google Geofencing information and ballot box security cameras found a LOW estimate of 384K mailin ballots that were illegally harvested, and a high estimate of 800K.
The WI supreme court found numerous illegal actvities during the 2020 election – some effecting as many as 140K ballots.
They found Ballot Drop Box’s in WI illegal – none of those ballots should have been counted.
They found that Covid did not qualify as a hardship that allowed absentee voting – WI has no actual mailing voting. the SoS cheated and pretended that covid was a legitimate reason for absentee voting and that she could mail absentee ballots – which you can’t
They found that 140K ballots from nursing homes were illegal because WI law requires an election official to go to a nursing home to facilitate voting. It does not allow, staff, or random outsiders to do so.
The WI Supreme court made it perfectly clear there was massive election fraud in 2020.
And last but not least as we now know from the twitter files.
The DNC, the Biden Campaign, DHS, FBI, and CIA all conspired with social media in 2020 to limit the political reach of conservative voices, to outright silence them and to prevent the disemination of numerous stories harmfull to democrats – particularly the NY Post story.
All of the above and much more is Election rigging.
There are no pro forma tasks in the constitution. A vote is a choice, a delegation of power without direction is delegation fo the choice as to how to perform it.
All this nonsense was debunked long ago.
Why do you keep repeating idiocy that has been proven false in great detail long ago.
You wonder why you can not change peoples minds ?
Because you constantly offer the same repeatedly discredited or falsiifed nonsense.
And you think that saying it another 20 times will make people buy it.
They don’t.
You have nothing new, just as the J6 committee never had anything new.
Your beating a dead horse.
You have not seen ALL the evidences. You do not control the information. Your premises are wrong. The conspiracy is well spread out, there are agents of the enemy everywhere, and plenty of useful idiots, you are one of them.
I never attempted to convince anyone, that’s not my job or department, only the Holy Spirit can do that, and the person has to invite him first. Your case seems pretty desperate, I suggest you pray about it.
Take care.
Sorry bud, the Holy Spirit’s job is not to “convince anyone” of anything. Go back to sleep.
Thank you for showing everybody here how ignorant you are of the Scriptures, apart from leaving no doubts that you are a useful idiot.
“And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement.”
“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come He will guide you into all truth.” John 16:8,13 KJV.
It’s good you will not attempt to come to my farm to put me to sleep, because you will be the one that will be put to sleep.
“You have not seen ALL the evidences.”
Nope, but I do not make decisions based on fears of guesses about what I do not know or can not know.
With respect to the constant claim that my view will be changed when I see ALL the evidence – so far for the past 6 years ALL the evidence has been more damning to those who told me there would be more evidence than to me.
I was told – there will be something in the Steele Dossier that is coroborated – insteal we leand it is a manufactured hoax from the Clinton campaign.
“You do not control the information.”
Nope, I make decisions and comments on the information that is available.
In life I have found that those who say – there are things you do not know, are usually wrong,
“Your premises are wrong.”
Then you could point out with evidence which premsis are wrong and why
“The conspiracy is well spread out, there are agents of the enemy everywhere, and plenty of useful idiots, you are one of them.”
I know, a “Vast right wing conspiracy” With a side of deplorables.
I am perfectly happy with my relationship with God.
Gigi – Do you think the suppression of the Tara Reid story and the Hunter Laptop story were “serious threats to democracy”? If fully explored, either story could have shifted the election to Trump. The press seems to be celebrating the conviction of Harry Weinstein for rapes that occured many years ago. But another old-time rapist resides in the White House.
I do not know if Tara Reid was sexually assaulted by Biden.
I do know that the press paid very little attention to the allegation.
Gig says, “I still want one of you Trumpsters to defend the 187 minutes of chaos, personal injury and property damage done to the Capitol…”
I’m not a Trumpster, nor am I any of the other names you like to call people on this site. However, may I respectfully ask you why it took 88 DAYS (not minutes) of “chaos, personal injury and property damage done” in Portland by left-wing BLM and antifa in the left-wing city of Portland, when they repeatedly burned, looted, and destroyed a federal courthouse and police/fire station?
https://nypost.com/2020/08/24/blm-protesters-set-portland-police-station-on-fire/ (“The riot came on the 88th consecutive night of protests….”)
(“The federal courthouse was the site of intense rioting in July 2020 when thousands of rioters tried to break the protective fencing and set the building on fire night after night.” https://nypost.com/2022/02/06/antifa-almost-killed-me-but-i-wont-stop-reporting-their-dangerous-deeds/)
I could list many more for your consideration but as you know, I am limited to two. How ’bout the anti-Trump protesters vandalizing and looting in DC on Trump’s inauguration day? How many minutes and hours did that continue?
We’re not talking about Portland or anywhere else, because that is just a deflection away from the present subject–Trump. Pointing to other situations is not a response to Trump’s actual crimes. “Whataboutism” is not a response.
Yes, yes, I know. Trump is ALWAYS your topic, whether it is others’ or not. This is Not “whataboutism” but rather a response to your constant flinging out the word “hypocrite” and “hypocritical.”
Should Biden be prosecuted for creating-and spreading- the Lie that border patrol agents were whipping illegal immigrants? Do you think he was whipping up left-wing anger? If people started attacking border patrol agents, could we prosecute Biden for inciting them? “Assaults on Border Patrol agents increased in 2021 – BorderReport”
https://www.borderreport.com/immigration/border-crime/assaults-on-border-patrol-agents-cbp-officers-shot-up-in-fy-2021/
Would you like some more examples of Biden’s lies used to incite/anger his followers?
I have previously said on this site: “(1) In a perfect world, I do not think Trump could be found guilty/liable of these charges railed against him because of the likely absence of scienter, mens rea, criminal intent, etc. I do think his ego got in the way in making more rational decisions and/or listening to advisers–and I fault his advisers (eastman, etc.) for most of his troubles. Trump reminds me of a football player I knew. While people were talking to him, he would be looking beyond them at the TV screen to see if and how the cameras caught his big play of the night….
But in an imperfect world, political agendas can trump justice…”
It is increasingly evident – the Twitter files are pretty damning, that Trump was facing an unbeleiveable uphill battle in 2020.
I would like to See musk expose what was done in Election 2022 by Twitter.
Was the FBI, WH, DHS, FBI, CIA involved in that.
And honestly Why are federal government agencies involved in elections before the fact AT ALL ?
There is absolutly nothing I have seen in the direction from Government to twitter int he twitter files that is legitimate action by Government.
With respect to Trump’s advisors – what is increasingly apparent is there is absolutely no way that any of the “powers that be” had any intention of allowing Trump to win the 2020 election.
And that is the biggest fraud of all – What ever it took – Trump was going to be defeated.
Bend the law, break the law, supress the truth.
Given what we KNOW as an absolute indesputable fact occured – why should we beleive the people who did what we KNOW was done – would not commit fraud ?
Trump’s inauguration was in DC, where they burned down some businesses, and lit limos on fire. They ambushed and threatened people who went to the Inaugueration. But of course, since they were Antifas and BLM, they were excused, and the Media claimed they were more of those peaceful protests that lefties are so fond of. Lies. Gigi thinks Inaugurations are held in Portland. That’s why we laugh at her.
Actually it is. It is a principle of law that justice is blind.
We have the same law for democrats and republicans, for whites and blacks, for gays and straight.
You have my support 100% when the law is applied differently for blacks than white, for gays than straights.
With respect to your Trump nonsense it is You that is on the wrong side of Apples and oranges.
If you had actually bothered to conduct real inquiry into the 2020 election MAYBE you could claim Trump was guilty of being a sore loser. That would put him in a class with Clinton, Abrams and many other democrats.
Few of us like people who continue to claim they won, when real inquiry has proven they lost fair and square.
But no one is looking to prosecute Clinton or Abrams as sore losers, because being a sore loser is not a crime.
No one is looking to prosecute clinton for the violence that took place in DC in 2017 when Trump was certified and then inaugurated.
Aside the fact that “the big lie” is actually the collusion delusion that originated with clinton what you claim is Trump’s Big lie is slef evidently to a majority of people not a lie. While there is not broad agreement on how the 2020 election was stolen. the majority of people beleive that it is somewhat likely it was. And that has remained stable for 2 years.
But lets assume that it is false. That it is incontrovertable that Trump lost the election. It is incontrovertable that Clinton lost the election. We do not hold clinton responsible for bad conduct done by her supporters or in her name – including arson and looting in Washington DC. Did those in Clinton’s inner circle tell her she lost ? I do not know, lots of people beleive telling Hillary something she does not want to hear will get you concrete boots.
The Eastman Strategy to kick the election to the congress, came from Prof. Lawrence Tribes memo to Hillary Clinton.
Tribe is the leading constitutional scholar of the left.
Regardless, the point is that Clinton’s conduct was not criminal. Neither is Trump’s.
Everything that those you hate does that you do not like is not a crime.
If you keep trying to manufacture crimes out of political differences, it could easily be your side that ends up in jail.
It is a huge mistake to keep trying to make into crimes conduct that is not criminal just becuase you do not like it.
It was all a trap prepared by the Deep State and the Democrats to attract the “hot headed” inside the Capitol, adding a good amount of trained actors, some from the FBI, to the mix.
Many fell in the trap, and got us a black eye.
Never use the enemy weapons against his agents, they have more experience with them and will beat you in their own game.
Almost all of the witnesses were Trump insiders: Ivanka, Cassidy Hutchinson, Hope Hicks,
If we had the list of ALL the witnesses, and their testimony, we would have facts to make such a declarative statement. But lacking that, you only get conclusions by tribalism.
Gigi also seems to think that testimony of the form “we hold a different opinion” is evidence of a crime.
1984 is NOT an instruction manual.
Contra the J6 committee “wrong think” is not a crime.
And as we learn from Covid and the twitter files “wrong think” all too often is turning out to be true.
Let’s not forget that tens of millions of people think the election “was fraudulent”. Elections do have consequences especially stolen ones.
The House Republicans nominated a couple of wackkkos and Nancy said, “NO”!
Herr Drumpfenfuhrer’s “presidential” campaign will go nowhere. He’s a loser.
Jonathan, it’s not meant to put him behind bars (although they’d be ecstatic if it did), it’s to tie his hands for 2+ years so he cannot run for president again.
I fail to see how it ties his hands. It gives donors an excuse, but does nothing to limit a candidate
None of the rioters on J6 were charged with “insurrection” by the DOJ. If none of the actual rioters have been charged with “insurrection” then how can Trump or anyone be charged with “inciting” and insurrection?
This entire thing is laughable.
Some were charged with sedition.
And some have already been convicted of seditious conspiracy.
“… there is a difference between what is viewed as reprehensible and what is chargeable as criminal conduct.”
LOL — True. And there is also a difference between what reasonable people would view as reprehensible and what hired shills CLAIM to be reprehensible.
The “criminal referral” from the J6 Clown Committee was expected from Day One. It was what they decided to do before forming the Clown Committee and is the entire purpose for which the Clown Committee was formed. It’s the conclusion from which they worked backwards in their futile two-year Stalinist search for “evidence” to support their conclusion. It is of interest ONLY to anti-Trumpers and is considered “news” only by people who equate political stunts with news.
What IS news — important news just breaking the other day and NOT getting the coverage it deserves — is that the lawless DOJ got secret subpoenas to spy on Devin Nunes and his investigators back when Nunes was Chairman of the House Intel Committee and was doing his JOB investigating the circumstances surrounding the Russia-Collusion Hoax.
Apparently Super-RINO Paul Ryan — then anti-Trump “republican” Speaker of the House and now anti-Trump member of the anti-Trump Fox Corp board of directors — improperly concealed from the White House the information about the corrupt DOJ spying on Nunes and his duly-appointed investigators while they were investigating the Russia-Collusion Hoax. Not surprisingly, ever since then, as a Fox Corp board member, Paul Ryan has been carrying out a RINO campaign against Trump, dragging Fox “News” into the RINO gutter and trying to thwart the will of the vast majority of people who vote republican, including Independents and even some democrats.
This illegal, fraudulent collusion between the corrupt STASI surveillance state that is even now being exposed via the “Twitter Files” and a former Speaker of the House and current board member of Fox Corp is MUCH bigger news than the buffoonery of the J6 Clown Committee’s “criminal referral” stunt. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear about it from RINO-Fox “News” or any anti-Trump associate thereof. They are all still trying to make a case over Orange Man Bad and his “reprehensible” mean tweets.
“RINO” means “Republican in name only”.
The Party of Abraham Lincoln (Republican Party) was originally the pro-African American party opposed to slavery and supported equal rights for African-Americans.
Trump is the RINO, he is not a real Republican. Former Republican Hillary Clinton is more Republican than Trump has ever been. Hillary, a Rockefeller Republican (non-racist wing of the party) left when the Dixiecrats switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party following the Civil Rights Act.
The noun “republican” refers to a system of American government called a “constitutional democratic republic” where the voters choose their lawmakers (Congress/state legislatures) and can vote for anything within constitutional legal boundaries.
Real Republicans don’t try to overthrow “republican” government. Congress is the “republic” part of “constitutional democratic republic”.
Real Republicans respect the outcome of elections and respect Congress, they don’t attempt a coup when they lose (destroying the Republic).
It’s noteworthy to mention that former Republican Hillary Clinton received about 3 million more votes than RINO Trump did and that Al Gore received about 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. Democrats didn’t try to overthrow the “republic”.
You sound like Stacey Abrams at her best. Now do interpretive dance for us.
Ashcroft, after the civil rights act was passed there were still dixie-crat Democrats in Congress. You should Google Robert Bird to further your education before you post. By writing about Hilary Clinton getting three million mor votes you reveal yourself to be an election denier. I know it’s not what you want but we live in a nation where the individual states have a right to have their voices heard. I understand that you want a nation where all things are controlled by the central government. Your preference would be a Duma that rubber stamps the edicts of the Emperor. No thanks.
In the bipolar “two-party system” of our political ideology comprised of right vs left or “conservative” vs “liberal” or republican vs democrat, a “republican” would be defined as someone who presents the strongest contrast from the definition of a democrat. Lincoln has nothing to do with the contemporary definition of a republican any more than Jefferson Davis has to do with the contemporary definition of a democrat.
If you want to define what “republican” means TODAY, you have to simultaneously define what “democrat” means TODAY, and for instance, you sure as heck wouldn’t use assassinated-by-the-CIA JFK as your definition, because today’s “democrats” would call him a “right-wing nut job” due to his anti-communist beliefs and his free speech advocacy. One more time:
“We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” JFK, Feb. 26, 1962: Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.
No reasonable person would use someone who believed THAT as the definition of a democrat today. So you need to figure out who IS the typical democrat today — Joetard? AOC? Schiff? California Governor Hair-Gel? And after you do that, good luck finding someone who presents more of a contrast than TRUMP — today’s republican. Compared with Trump, all other “republicans” have FAR more in common with democrats than they have with the majority of republican voters, who have come out to vote for Trump in greater numbers than they’ve previously come out for ANY “republican.”
IF “the failure to act is criminal”, then all of Congress should be locked up.
They send Billions to Ukraine and the Military while American; Cities, Infrastructure, Industry, Education, and the Welfare of its Citizens
goes into a Living Hell.
As far as proving the Trump’s plot to interfere with the EC Count in order to mickey a 2nd term, in my summary to the jury, I would replay the video clip of Trump’s J6 Ellipse “Stop The Steal” rally speech:
“And Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights, he fights.
And I’ll tell you. Thank you very much, John. Fantastic job. I watched. That’s a tough act to follow, those two. John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, “What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.”
And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.
Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.
States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”
—————–
Trump admits the plot, the goal of the plot, and the various means of the plot, and tags his 2 main collaborators in the plot — on nationwide TV.
How do you defend this admission of waging a coup? Does the defense say “the results of a Presidential Election, as certified by the 50 states, is still a matter of differing opinion” ???? Or, “Allegiance to the Constitution can sometimes mean having to circumvent its most central processes”? Good luck with that.
JT overlooks the obvious. There’s nothing new at this point, OK. Trump himself made his plot obvious on 1/6/21.
The problem with your closing argument is that there is nothing illegal about plotting to do something legal.
Trumps efforts to challenge certifying Biden were a hail mary, but they are fully consistent with the constitution and election law.
It is not a crime to conspire and plot to do something legal.
Even if YOU do not like what Trump sought to do.
59% of Americans STILL believe it is somewhat likely that the 2020 election was the result of cheating.
How do you defend this admission of waging a coup?
By throwing out states that ran illegitimate elections, It is constitutional to toss those slate of electors. Toss those electors no candidate gets 270 EC votes and the election of President is thrown the the house of representatives. Each State delegation gets 1 vote.
So all of this was anticipated and would have very ably elected a President, as desired by the representatives of the voters.
You would think that a congressmen – who you would hope knew this – given that it is part of their job to elect the president when things go wrong.
But instead we have a whole committee trying to pretend that asking congress do its job – one specified in the constitution, is somehow criminal.
John, I go back the 2000 election in Floriday. The one where the Florida Supreme Court ordered a State wide recount that no one wanted…even though the Court had no constitutional power to do so. But those Oracles in Robs were afraid the state would miss the dead line to approve the slate of electors to send to DC. The Court ignored their own Constitution that anticipated such a problem. The constitution provided for the House of representatives to vote for the slate of electors.
The stop gap procedures have been in place for centuries. The left hates that.
The left only hates republicans doing things.
The same things are perfectly acceptable if done by the left.
Can you see the left is the twitter files revealed that the Trump FBI was coordinating with Social Media to silence democrats and block a bad news story about Trump claiming it was russian disinformation and was paying social media to ban democrats and was meeting with Social media on a weekly basis to ban democrats.
FL among others has come up in the SCOTUS ISL debate.
Contra whatever left wing nut here is claiming Katyal did well, he actually did poorly. He even did badly with Justice Jackson.
I also found it interesting that while there was disagreement within the court about the remedy, the courtnear universally recognized there was a problem.
And the core problem as even the left justices were expressing was that Elections are inarguably federal. But the federal courts near universally will not intervene when state courts rule on state law, and even less so on state constitutions. In the NC case that was before SCOTUS the NC supreme court struck down a legislative federal redistricting map based not on State law, not on State Constitution but on claims of vague principles in 17th century english election law. Pretty much no one on the court was impressed.
There was broad recognition among all justices left to right that from Bush v Gore through the NC that State courts could not be allowed to pull things out of their ass to effectively legislate in Federal elections.
This is also why despite claims here Katyal fell flat – I am not sure that Kagan spoke. But Jackson and SotoMayor to differeing degrees understood there was a problem. And Katyal’s answer was it does not matter, the federal courts can not interveiine no matter how partisan. or outside their legitimate roles state supreme courts go. There was another opposition lawyer that did much better than Katyal. She recognized the problem but wanted a less drastic solution than ISL.
My Big read was that Marc Elias and the Democratic election lawfare team had gone too far with the NC redistricting and the court as a whole understood they needed a solution beyond – overruling the NC Supreme Court map – which is actually a moot issue because 2 NC supreme court justices were replaced and very shortly the map will be fixed.
The ISL proponents were NOT arguing the state legislatures can do whatever they please, and only federal courts can judicially review them – which is the best read of the actual constitution. The ISL team was arguing that everything should stay as it is now EXCEPT that state courts and the state supreme court should be limited to applying procedural provisions in the state constitution rather than subtanative ones.
As an example the state constitution can say – redistricting shall be done by bipartisan comittee. But State courts can NOT apply state constitutional provisions such as “elections shall be free and fair” those would have to come from fedederal law and constitution.
Most of the court was not happy with that – because deciding the difference between procedural and substanative is already a problem for the courts.
But Nobody was supporting what the NC Supreme court had done, and everybody understood that there was a problem with state supreme courts usurping the legislature in federal election and being essentially unreviewable by federal courts, because they based there decision on non specific languange in their state constitution.
If the failure to act is criminal, what is encouraging rioting, arson and theft by arranging bail for those engaged in such criminal conduct like our current V.P.?
The only hope of a prosecution on this evidence lies in the fact the trial would be held in the District of Columbia, a deep blue and rabidly Trump-hating population. If they can get it to the point of a jury verdict, they could probably get 12 votes to convict even if the charge was for Lincoln’s assassination.
Dave, IF IF it gets to a trial, can you request a bench trial?
Liz will live in infamy, as the worst rino ever. “ To argue with one who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead. “- Thomas Paine
Generally speaking, the most genuinely evil things that government bureaucracies do is “inaction” not the system’s actions.
It’s the same legal concept as “Good Samaritan Laws” – if someone is being harmed and you don’t help them, the “inaction” is a crime itself in some state laws.
Presidents, executive branch agencies and Congress receive weekly paychecks to act and help people (financed by us the taxpayers). They also swear a supreme loyalty to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.
Trump is not a non-paid citizen refusing to help his fellow citizens, his culpability is way higher than that of the average citizen. He gets paid to protect us and swears an Oath of Office to help.
Trump watched TV for 3 hours and did nothing!
You might view inaction as the greatest evil committed by bureaucracies, but it is also not generally a crime. Hell, most of the time it isn’t even a tort. I refer you to, among others, DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.
Omission is the actus reus for any statute, which specifically requires action. There are many of these. Obvious examples include failure to pay taxes, failure to pay child support/alimony, and failure to comply with a duty to disclose terrorist acts.
Omission may also constitute the actus reus if the defendant had a legal duty to act, but failed or omitted to perform that legal duty with the required mental state. An obvious example of this is a police officer assigned to guard the Capitol who abandoned her post because she hoped they would violently disrupt a joint session of Congress and keep President Trump in power.
The tenuous legal question, in my mind at least, is whether Trump’s constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution (which provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”) is akin to a police officer’s duty in the example above. This ultimately seems to be too significant a legal hurdle to rely upon, not to mention the causation question.
But it is incorrect to dismiss the idea of inaction as the actus reus of a crime.
“An obvious example of this is a police officer assigned to guard the Capitol who abandoned her post because she hoped they would violently disrupt a joint session of Congress and keep President Trump in power.”
An obvious example of this is a police officer assigned to guard the Capitol who abandoned her post because she hoped they would violently disrupt a joint session of Congress and make Trump look bad and make him liable.
Ya never know what a jury will conclude….
That’s why I stated not *generally* a crime. It can be a crime where a specific criminal statute makes that particular failure to act by that particular individual at that particular time a crime. But no statute has been offered that would make it a crime for Trump to fail to make placating gestures to rioters at the Capitol. Trying to conjure an actual crime, with actual specified elements and actual specified penalties, out of a the “Take care” clause in the Constitution… That’s just not the way criminal law works.
“Good Samaritan Laws . . .”
That is not what those laws mean. They do not impose a duty to assist. Under certain conditions, those laws *protect* those who do assist.
And if “inaction” is a crime, then Pelosi, Bowser, et al. better grab their toothbrushes.
What the January 6th Committee successfully accomplished was to put the Fifth Estate’s Media Cartel on trial. The Committee proved that the 5th’s Cartel Subversive Activity* are ‘subverting-by-the-use-of-conjecture’ the reality of Trumps Presidency for the benefit of the Democratic Party. While the Democrats shamelessly loot and pillage the U.S.A. with faux impunity.
It is absolutely sickening to stand by and watch in horror the desecration of Our County. WE should all be ashamed of what Washington D.C. is doing.
It is not even worthy of the name “Washington” **.
*
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/subversive-activity
**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
Turley is a paid disgraceful hack.
Congress knew they were nothing more than a paper Tiger with nothing more than making noise . They made a joke of our rule of law and to be real it was was nothing but about politics .
It opened people’s eyes, as to how quickly our right to due process and a speedy trial, can be swept under the rug. “ WE’VE BEEN CONDITIONED TO THINK THAT ONLY
POLITICIANS CAN SOLVE
OUR PROBLEMS.
BUT AT SOME POINT, US MAYBE WE WILL WAKE UP AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT WAS POLITICIANS WHO CREATED OUR PROBLEMS.” Ben Carson
Bottom line….Trump encouraged those who attacked the capitol building and who put up a gallows to hang Pelosi and Pence, and did NOT call off the rioters even though encouraged to do so for hours by his staff. The issue is clear that Trump is no patriot, but an individual willing to go to great lengths to harm the USA for personal reasons. Serious Republicans and serious Democrats who want the best for the USA are not in support of Trump or his self serving agenda.
@Laurella,
I suggest you actually listen to what Trump said or to actually read the transcript. The full transcript, not the edited one made by the Dims on the committee.
And that’s the thing. Were this an actual fair investigation. Trump would have been cleared.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions along w the clearly unconstitutional treatment of those who erred by trespassing into the Capitol.
When you separate fact from fiction… you start to see the swamp in action and its a travesty.
-G
Are you referring to Trumps mob like CYA statement about going in peace when he knew quite well that many of those he was sending were armed? Laughable!!
The only ones armed were the Capitol Police
That’s not true. People have already been convicted of carrying arms into the Capitol Complex. Guy Reffitt, for ex.
Guy Reffitt never entered the capital.
He entered the Capitol Complex, which is what I claimed.
He was outside so his gun possession likely falls under the recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the right to carry.
It doesn’t, which is why he was convicted and sentenced already.
Given that New York has repeatedly tried to pass new laws that run afoul of the SCOTUS decision on the right to carry,
Why would I beleilve you or the DOJ or a DC Jury ?
I said not firearms were inside the capitol.
You replied with what is by your own admission a non-rebutal rebutal.
If there was an actual attempt at insurection there would not be one gun out in the mall, and a couple in someone’s hotel room.
There would have been 1000 people with AR-15’s and Trump would be president.
We are not YET at the point in which it is justified to
“to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them”
But we are working towards that. Actually read the declaration of independence.
When government fails to protect the rights of citizens, when it becomes abusive of them.
the people can take up arms and alter or abolish that government.
While Chris Cuomo was wrong in justifying violence in BLM riots, he was correct that protests need not be peaceful.
As the left has said for decades “No Justice, No Peace”
I do not beleive this ends in violence – but keep this lunacy up and it will.
My initial comment was in reply to Scott M’s December 20, 2:11 PM comment, and THAT is what I’M discussing. You want to shift the discussion. Do what you want, but don’t expect me to follow you.
You made a specific reply to ME about what I wrote.
John, you were the one who responded to MY comment to Scott M (not to you), and I only responded to you in order to point out the irrelevance of your comment to my response to Scott M.
You are free to try to change the topic. I am free not to join you.
None of this changes the fact that everything I have said was correct.
There is not a commutative property of replies.
“You are free to try to change the topic. I am free not to join you.”
But you did. Badly.
I would also note you are posting as anonymous – you do not have an identity – not even from one post to the next.
Every anonymous post must stand alone.
That is the price for anonymity.
He didn’t shoot anyone, but the Capitol police killed 2 protestors and likely killed 2 more with a flash bomb that was outside the perimeter of action (why would such a weapon be used and why so far away?). The Capitol Police went after Guy Reffitt to find something on him. He has some responsibility for his actions but outside of the DC court system he likely would be serving a lesser sentence.
Thanks for taking care of that for me
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Turley is 100% right. It is just a bunch of want-to-be actors up there gesticulating and screaming until everyone in the audience gets sick, throws up on the stage and storms out slamming the door.
Bottom line….Trump encouraged those who attacked the capitol building
Now we are getting somewhere. Exactly what did Trump say, to who, making such an encouragement?
The criminal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Not sure how anyone that watched the “Day 8 of the January 6th hearings” could be in any doubt about who caused this. Just this week Mitch McConnell said we all know who started this. McConnell has no doubts.
The Civil lawsuit standard is even looser “a preponderance of all the evidence”.
Maybe a good first step would be invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (Disqualification Clause). There is 2022 case law where a New Mexico judge disqualified a founder of “Cowboys for Trump” from ever holding governing authority again.
Using current case law, it seems like the Capitol Police officers harmed could hire an ACLU attorney to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment citing “14th Amendment injury”.
If private plaintiffs (police officers) disqualified Trump and his co-conspirators (instead of Congress) it would remove politics from the equation and create a healthy legal precedent to deter future coup attempts. Private plaintiffs could also remove some members of Congress, federal officers and local police officers participating in the January coup attempt.
If Democrats do it, even if legitimate, many will perceive it as political games. If plaintiffs successfully remove disloyal officials citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it does NOT prevent future criminal prosecution or future civil suits.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Mitch McConnell is a Democrat. Of Course he hated Trump. Trump upset his perk cart. Trump made the politicians who promise to do things for us look like the losers they are when he got more done in 4 years, than many of them have EVER gotten done. Can’t have that. How can we fool the peons to keep paying more taxes so we can enrich ourselves as we dish out billions to be money laundered in Ukraine. Oh, and the insider trading?? WE love that!!!
“The problem is that crimes actually require satisfaction of underlying elements and cannot be proven by soundbite or desire alone.”
Kind of like the “Hunter Biden laptop” right?
Nope, nothing like the Hunter Biden laptop.
But you knew that.
Please quit acting like a troll. Your TDS is showing.
-G
I’ve often wondered how many times the Bridge over the “Valley of Truth” has been sold to the ‘illiberal’, and I must say ‘Ignoble’ left. As the old saying goes “ignorance is Bliss”.