The Trump Prosecution by the Numbers: 90, 70, 12, 1

Below is my column in USA Today on crunching the numbers of the prosecution of former President Donald Trump. The most important may be the number one. In this case (as Three Dog Night warned), one “is the saddest experience you’ll ever know.”

Here is the column:

The arraignment of Donald Trump is a historic moment as a former president stands in the dock to plead not guilty to a federal crime. It may foreshadow an equally historic trial in the Florida courthouse.

A few key numbers could ultimately determine whether the case is history in the making or much ado about nothing. Those numbers are 90, 70, 12 and 1.

90: Prosecutors are on the clock

Now that the Justice Department is on the docket, the countdown begins. There is a reason why special counsel Jack Smith dedicated one of his few public lines after the indictment to declare that the Justice Department is intent on pursuing “a speedy trial.” Smith’s greatest problem is not Trump, but time.

The Justice Department has long followed a rule that it should not take actions that could influence elections. While there are ambiguities around the meaning of this policy, many legal observers read this rule as kicking in 90 days before an election.

The first primary elections are scheduled for the first week of next February. That places the redline for prosecutors in the first week of November.

Since the Justice Department has generally followed this rule, a departure for Trump would reinforce the view of almost half of Americans that the charges are politically motivated.

However, a failure to try the case before November could mean pushing the trial until after the election.

Republican contenders are already suggesting that they may pardon Trump if elected, and Trump might even be able to issue himself a pardon if he is the winner. It could mean that Smith might never see a jury seated in this case, let alone a guilty verdict.

70: Trump trial could start as early as August

That is why Smith is invoking the constitutional right to a speedy trial − a right that protects the defendant, not the prosecutors. A speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment − and a federal statute − would set the case for trial within 70 days. That would put the trial before the end of August.

However, criminal defendants routinely waive the right to a speedy trial because it does not allow them to fully prepare for trial. The Trump team would be legally insane not to waive.

After a waiver, the Trump team can then delay matters further by filing a series of challenges on threshold issues − ranging from the use of the Espionage Act to relying on the compelled testimony of Trump’s former counsel. After a period of briefing before the trial court, appellate courts could delay the matter for months depending on whether they expedite review.

12: Selecting an impartial jury will be a daunting task

This case will require a particularly demanding jury selection process to find 12 jurors (plus alternates). Jurors are no longer expected to have no knowledge of a controversial case. Indeed, I do not think we would want a juror who has lived in such seclusion as to have avoided any knowledge of Trump, Mar-a-Lago or this fight over documents.

However, few people seem undecided on these charges. Indeed, this might be the most talked about and least read indictment in history. People seem content that the case confirmed either a pattern of Trump consistently flouting the law or the Justice Department unrelentingly targeting Trump. Identifying such bias will be a challenge for the court and counsel.

1: Neither the Defense nor the Prosecution Can Lose One

The last number is probably the most important for both sides.

For Trump, his team must run the table on all of the 37 counts. As a man who will turn 77 years old on Wednesday, Trump cannot allow for a single count to survive because the charges come with a potential of 10-12 years in prison. It would ordinarily be unlikely for a first offender in such cases to receive prison time, but this is no ordinary case.

Even half of the time served on one of these counts could be a terminal sentence for a man of Trump’s age. I am the founder of the Project for Older Prisoners, and I can attest to how prison ages people, particularly those with no prior experience with incarceration.

There are cases going both ways on sentencing. Egregious cases such as the one involving President Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, resulted in a light plea. Berger, who stuffed classified documents in his clothes to remove them from a secure facility, was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, received two years’ probation and was given only a three-year suspension – not a permanent revocation – of his security clearance.

Yet, Asia Janay Lavarello, a former civilian employee of the Defense Department, was recently sentenced to three months in prison. That was on on one count of mishandling such material, and Laverello pleaded guilty.

The number 1 also is looming for Jack Smith. Just as Donald Trump cannot lose a single count, Smith cannot lose a single juror without facing a hung jury.

That’s the Trump prosecution by the numbers, and they add up to far more uncertainty than either side seems willing to acknowledge.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley

217 thoughts on “The Trump Prosecution by the Numbers: 90, 70, 12, 1”

  1. Turley keep changing the goalposts, e.g. the Justice Department standard is not trying a person 90 days before an election instead of 60. Even then in this case with the issues involving national security, the trial would go on. On a separate note, instead of comparing him to Hillary and Biden, try comparing Trump to Nixon and Agnew, people we know were guilty but didn’t spend a day in jail.

  2. 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐭 𝐆𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧
    Former House speaker Newt Gingrich reacts to claims a Burisma executive intended to pay President Biden and Hunter Biden and the indictment against former President Donald Trump
    By Sean Hannity – Foxnews – Jun 10, 2023

    1. 𝐆𝐎𝐏: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬 $𝟏𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐈𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦?
      In light of recent revelations from whistleblowers, including the fact that the FBI hid evidence that the owner of Burisma made 17 blackmail tapes of the Bidens, who were allegedly paid $10 million ($5 mil to Hunter, $5 mil to Joe), Republican lawmakers want to take a closer look at Biden’s tax return,…
      By Tyler Durden – Wednesday, Jun 14, 2023

      1. Remember, former CEO Patrick Byrne came out publicly and reported the FBI hired him to set up Hillary and she accepted a 15 million dollar bribe from him. Shortly after that he fled and hid.
        The FBI has been paying that oligarch for some time, 200k total according to Newt – so of course the FBI knew all about it, they probably arranged it all. Now, I don’t know definitively what the back story is, but clearly when they get dems loot they all show up at the parties and thank each other and laugh. When they tried to get Trump to accept bribes he refused. Same for his family. Of course it enraged them but they were already red hot ragers, so whatever.
        Remember, the FBI ran that “Russian spy” gal through the GOP campaigns and around the block and had Byrne boinking her while helping. Eventually they reportedly locked her up, then after 6 months solitary she got let go and is reportedly a hero in Russia now. The truth behind that is more of the same.
        So, the FBI probably helped Hillary set up her illegal server, claim Russians broke into it while Seth Rich died and Assange let the cat out of the bag as well as the Brit Diplomat who went public, along with so many other scams we’ve seen played as “real” but only were given the pat LEO lies story.
        Once again, Patrick Byrne flat out reported in detail how he bribed Hillary for 15 million with the FBI forming the plot. She took it. Patrick fled. He’s been very quiet since. He had been “helping” the FBI for some time, and trying to bust out scams in “shorting” in the markets, and what exactly the back story is on that I don’t know.
        What I do know is the FBI is cool with it when they bag Hillary 15 million with a little help from their friends, or Joe and mafia fam 10 million with a little help from their ukraine buddy oligarchs, and many other nations.
        Yes, it’s so dirty the general babbling about it is clown world stupid.

      2. Uh, Biden was NOT in public office in 2017–so HOW could he be “bribed” to do anything? Remember, despite losing the popular vote, the pig got the Electoral College vote in 2016, and took office in January, 2017. This has been pointed out over and over again. Even Turley messed this up.

        1. RE:”Uh, Biden was NOT in public office in 2017–so HOW could he be “bribed” to do anything?” I postulate a simple matter of chronology. He was VP at the time of the quid pro quo of the $1billion payment on contingency of the firing of the prosecutor investigating Burisma. That came to pass. Prior to the aforementioned, conversations on the matter of a quid pro quo of a money offer to Biden were entertained by Burisma and Biden, et al, contingent upon the firing of the prosecutor. These are alleged to have been recorded. Payment was held until he was no longer in office and the various routes the cash would travel were established. Making the tapes public as well as the following of the money is the only way these allegations can be confirmed as true.

        2. @Gigi: Another matter I leave you to ponder is an issue which has been conveniently swept under the rug. It begs the question of that earth-shaking phone call between the Presidents of USA and Ukraine regarding having Biden ‘looked into’ and the importance of that content to Alexander Vindman with regard to Obama/Biden.Biden had to have the authorization from Obama for the $1billion quid pro quo as well as the why and wherefore. Given the content of the following, Vindman, in all respects is the ultimate dirtbag.

    2. @𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐬𝐨𝐧
      Ep. 3 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂’𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆
      Tucker Carlson · Jun 13, 2023

      Twitter Video Link:×1080/6wIwhrT1QqOT0CM0.mp4?tag=16

  3. The Constitution does not allow the government to first target a man and then conduct investigations looking for any crimes he may have committed, which is what the DOJ and the FBI have been doing with Trump non-stop for the last seven years.

  4. It is eight months before the primaries, and over a year till the election. If Trump thinks the case would hurt his campaign, he is more the welcome to insist that the trial happen before then.

  5. Whitney Houston’s standout performance of the 🎶 Star Spangled Banner 🎶 is the best rendition ever, IMHO.

    In honor of Flag Day, June 14.


    The Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem of the United States.

    To celebrate their victory over British forces during the War of 1812, U.S. soldiers raised a large American flag at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 14, 1814.

    Poet Francis Scott Key was inspired by seeing the flag after witnessing the fort’s bombardment. He wrote a poem called “Defence of Fort M’Henry.” This eventually became the Star-Spangled Banner and the United States national anthem.

  6. ” It would ordinarily be unlikely for a first offender in such cases to receive prison time, but this is no ordinary case.” Turley proves he’s once again fundamentally unwilling to telling the truth. There is an air national guard member whose case is identical to Trump’s with the exception that he didn’t obstruct justice or try to hide his classified documents after being exposed. He was immediately put in jail and has been denied bail. No one expects a sentence in that case less than a decade. Trump is right that there is a two tier system of justice. If he wasn;t an ex-president, he would have been in jail since last august.

        1. The DoJ admitts it is declassified. It is the only reason they were forced to use the term “marked classified” in the warrant.

          1. That’s not an admission that it was declassified, and elsewhere they referred to the documents as classified, so you’re either ignorant or lying.

            1. ATS, that is an utterance, not an admission where no one knows if any document existed, much less, whether it was classified or not.

              You have taken things and placed them into a context that satisfies your needs. That is what you do with the law. That is why nothing you say can be believed.

            2. That’s not an admission that it was declassified,

              Lawyers use words for a legal reason. What part of the law requires the use of the work “marked”, in this warrant.

              The back story(the left always has a back story), Trump had spent 4 months telling the FBI all of the Crossfire hurricane stuff was declassified and he demanded an un-redacted file. They kept sending copies, and Trump would order more redactions. This went till 1-19-21, when Trump said screw it, and took the marked, already declassified file with him.. The DoJ could not allow the truth to come out. So they enlisted the Archivist to start demanding documents back from Trump. A negotiation that every single President as entertained. This went on for a while, and when the FBI did not get what they wanted…they found a magistrate judge to sign off on a bogus warrant.
              The rest, as they say, is history

            3. It doesn’t matter if the documents are classified. 18 USC 793(e) makes no reference to classification.

              1. Agreed, but the DOJ hasn’t said or implied that they’ve been declassified, yet Iowan keeps lying about that.

    1. But the fact remains he IS a former president. Furthermore the government had all the documents. There is not a single document in the government that is written by hand. All are computer generated and the government’s servers are backed up everyday, some multiple times per day. So there is the fact that the Government wasn’t actually missing anything. All presidents take documents with them when they leave. Pres Johnson sealed a classified document in a manilla envelope with instructions to open only after his death. The Supreme Court has ruled that documents in a President’s possession in his/her home are personal documents of the president.
      Look at the photos again. The one – one – that shows contents are newspaper clippings and other printer documents. None hand written.
      So perhaps Mr Turley has weighted his comments and oped but he certainly does not deserve the moniker you levied upon him.
      The Supreme Court is a branch of government but lower courts are a segment of the Executive Branch as they execute the laws on the books. Just thought you may want to know.
      Signed, A concerned veteran

      1. Didn’t read the indictment did you. Documents were found with hand written annotations. “All presidents take documents with them when they leave.” Sorry, but you are a liar. Since the PRA, Trump is the only president to steal documents. “Pres Johnson sealed a classified document in a manilla envelope with instructions to open only after his death. ” Johnson predates the PRA. “The Supreme Court has ruled that documents in a President’s possession in his/her home are personal documents of the president.” Again, another flatout lie. “Mr Turley has weighted his comments and oped but he certainly does not deserve the moniker you levied upon him.” If Turley is bothered by the moniker I gave him, he should stop exclusively publishing lies so stupid they insult the average 3 year old. However, in his defense, as Trump’s lawyer, he is ethically obligated to providing Trump the best defense, no matter how dishonest or stupid. “but lower courts are a segment of the Executive Branch” 100% wrong.

        1. “Didn’t read the indictment did you.”
          Don’t need to. It viuolates the law, the constituon and centuries of practice on its face.,
          You can not fix a constitutional violation with details.

          Did Congress modify the espionage act after 1978 ? Prior to the PRA passing in 1978 this indictment would have been impossible.
          Nowhere n the PRA is the espionage act modified.
          Nowhere in the PRA is there any criminal penalties for violation – the PRA is not a criminal law and does not modify a criminal law.
          NHowhere in the PRA is any enforcement mechanism o any kind. You claim the PRA grant NARA custody of presidential records – but as numerous courts have noted – it does not give NARA any authority at all to try to recover presidential documents.

          Which is precisely why NARA did not try to do so.

          Your claim that NARA owns these documents is magical. If you own something – you have to power to go to court to recover it.
          Yet multiple courts have said NARA has no such power.

          If you own something – you need not contract with another party – such as the Obama foundation regarding that property.

          Contracts are an exchange of rights. You do not contract with parties that have no rights.

          “Documents were found with hand written annotations”
          That likely weakens your case. A presidents actual writings are his own.

          ““All presidents take documents with them when they leave.” Sorry, but you are a liar. Since the PRA, Trump is the only president to steal documents.”
          NO, Trump is the only person to be accused of stelling documents, because prior to Trump NARA was not so stupid as to make such an ignorant claim.
          All presidents since the
          PRA passed have in their posession documents that THEY not NARA decided were their property.

          Never before has anyone successfully claimed otherwise.

          You are absolutely 100% ont he wrong sidfe of this.

          ““Pres Johnson sealed a classified document in a manilla envelope with instructions to open only after his death. ” Johnson predates the PRA.”
          The constitution predates both Johnson and the PRA and NARA, and for over 200 years Presidents owned their own documents.

          Did the PRA amend the constitution ?

          Your claim is no different from the idiots saying that it does not matter what our founders thought about gun rights – we can get away with ignoring the 2nd amendment today.

          Only you are seeking to ignore the 4th and 5th amendment.

          Where int he PRA is the constitution amended ? Where does the PRA amend the espionage act ? Where in the PRA is there any penalty at all for an alleged violation ? Where in the PRA is there any enforcement mechanism ? Where in the PRA is NARA given the power to even go to court ?
          Where in the PRA is ANY part of government granted the power to enforce anything in the PRA ?

          None of these things are in the PRA,

          There are several things the PRA DOES do that are enforceable. It obligates NARA to take CARE of any documents it is given.
          And it obligates the current executive to go to court to access the records of prior presidents. The later of these provisions would be unconstitutional if the government owned the documents.

          You do not just get to make up law as you please.

          You do not get to manufacture crimes from thin air. The Espionage act was not amended by the PRA and the PRA is not criminal law, it is not even enforceable law.

          It is wishful thinking that imposes some duties on NARA for the documents a president gives it.
          That is all.

          ““The Supreme Court has ruled that documents in a President’s possession in his/her home are personal documents of the president.” Again, another flatout lie.”
          To my knowledge the Supreme court has NOT ruled on this since the PRA passed – but other courts have REPEATEDLY, and they have found as Lori claimed.

          “If Turley is bothered by the moniker I gave him, he should stop exclusively publishing lies so stupid they insult the average 3 year old.”
          Insults are not arguments, and it is typical of a left wing nut to try to extgort people by calling them names until they change their views.
          Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue unless others agree with you ?

          Numerous people have made excellent legal arguments that are far better than yours on this matter.

          Many of them are or shoudl be damning – and this never should have happened.

          As is typical – left wing nuts creat idiotic intpertetations of the law to get those they do not like.

          Biden stands accused of succuming to bribery. There is no twisted legal argument there.
          It is an easily testable proposition.
          1). Did Burisma offert money to Biden in return for an excercise of Government power ?
          2). Did Biden excercise that power ?
          3). Did Bursima pay that money ?

          The F1023 makes that allegation, The allegation is made by someone the FBI deemed as a credible source, and by someone who was part of the deal.
          Is that proof of that element beyond any doubt at all ? No. But it is more than sufficient proof of that element of bribery to get a conviction in 90% of the U.
          2). Is without constest true – Biden has admitted that He demandined that Shkin be fired and that he threatened the loss of US loans to do so.
          3). I am not sure at this point we have proof of payments of 5M to Hunter and 5M to joe. But we have lots of proof of payments to Hunter and to the Biden family.
          You are free to beleive that proof is insufficient. But a Jury is free to disagree.

          But simply we have a jury ready case of bribery. Without any unusual applications of the law.
          We are not dealing with McDonald – where no Government power was excercised.
          We are not dealing with Menedez – where the claims was this was mutual exchange of gifts between friends.

          And yet – no investigation – no special counsel. At the very least Hunter should be indicted right now for facilitating bribery of a public official.
          Is that being investigated ?

          We have a president who is fighting a proxy war – agains ththe country that bribed him, and for the country he screwed over.
          And you think that is small potatoes ? In 2015 10M was allegedly paid – just to be clear – while I do not YET know that 10M was paid – there is zero doubt Hunter got lots of money, so SOMETHING was paid. And that was to get 1B in aide. Today the consequence of this is arguably 100B’s of tax payer dollars and a needless war with needless death. We can not prove alternate realities. But since Carter Trump is the ONLY president who did NOT start a new conflict somewhere. There are dozens of reasons to beleive that but for the bad choices of Biden Ukraine would never have been invaded and the world would not be facing a small possibility of global nuclear war.

          So this bribery complain is NOT small potatoes. There are very real national security issues. There is absolutely nothing in the Indictment that makes a credible claim that the US is less safe as a result of Trump’s posession of documents that are trivially arguably his property.
          It is not like Trump shared them with a Chinese think tank that was paying him.

          Wars start when we have weak and corrupt leaders that our enemies beleive they can play.

        2. Just to be clear – lower courts are not part of the executive branch – but immigration courts, IRS courts and magistrate judges are.

        3. Probably the biggest deal about this indictment – which is absolutely no surprise this that Trump is arrogant.
          So what. Biden is arrogant too.
          Hillary is arrogant.

          Juries tend not to like arrogant defendants.
          But that presumes there is a case to begin with.
          The odds of this getting in front of a jury before the election is just about zero.

          There are so many legal issues to address here – and While Turley is correct – 1 is a very important number.
          But that plays BOTH ways. Trump only needs to win ONCE on a significant legal issue – of which there are dozens, that take out this whole case.

          The entire case goes away if Trump wins on ownership of the documents. Further Trump does not even have to outright win their.
          All he needs to do is get a court to accept that the governments claim to ownership is in sufficient doubt that they proceeded to a criminal charge way too precipitously.

          I am hard pressed to think of a case like this. When the prosecution gets overly creative, it creates a mess for the courts.

          The supreme court could as an example get the case – remand back to cannon with instructions to hold hearings to determine clearly whether DOJ has properly litigated its claim to ownership prior to filing criminal charges.

          Or it could find that Trump does not own the documents, but that because DOJ did not FIRST try to retrieve them in civil court and win that they can not raise a criminal claim.

          Or they could find the parts of the PRA granting ownership to the government unconstitutional for any of about a dozen reasons, or they could find that the decision as to what is personal is up to the president and unreviewable.
          Or that it is reviewable with significant deference to the president or that it is reviewable and the courts can apply the language in the PRA as written, but that if a president claims ownership absent a prior finding by a court of government ownership that there can be no crime.

          This entire case hinges on the Governments claim that these documents are unarguably government proprty – when like it or not, the PRA makes it clear that there is a decision involved, and prior court rulings make it clear – that presidents are allowed to make that decision.

          You are tyrng to manufacture a crime out of a decision by Trump that you disagree with.

          Even your BEST case – they courts decide they are allowed to overrule the presidents decision STILL requires their doing to PRIOR to bringing criminal charges.

          The Biden admin has studiously avoided bringing an actual ownership claim into a federal civil court.

          Instead engaging in a game of chicken with Trump. Trump comes off arrogant – but the Biden admin comes off lawless and political.

          And that is just ONE of the many legal issues you have. SCOTUS can trivially declare all or part of the PRA to be inviolation of the executive powers clause of the constitution, or all or part of it in violation fo the 4th or 5th amendment,

          Or just decide that the PRA has no criminal or other enforcement provisions and therefore does not alter the fact that the president is not subject to the espionage act – and can not be again because of the executive powers clause int he constitution.

          And again this is a tiny portion of your legal problems.

          This is not getting resolved any time soon.

          This is what happens when you try to create new criminal law.

          I would further note – as a rule criminal law requires actual harm.

          Thus far there is no credible claim of harm.

          Clinton’s email server was likely being accessed by hostile foreign powers in real time – while she was part of the federal government.
          That is real harm.

          Biden’s documents were in a chinese funded think tank for years. As well as an unsecure garage and numerous warehouses in china town.

          Trump’s documents have never left MAL. They have never left Trump’s residence at MAL. There are only poor claims they have left his presidential office or his SCIF. There does not appear to be any time the Secret Service was not vetting people who might have gotten near.

          There is an allegation that Trump waived some document that may have been classified that may have exposed former Trump defense staff to ridicule.
          That is NOT a matter of national security. Further Waiving an alleged document – we only allegedly have audio, is weak tea.
          Clinton’s documents likely WERE accessed. Biden’s we really can not tell. Trump’s were waived infront of someone – maybe.

          Is there a crime of waiving a classified binder ?

          And all the above does not address the powerful legal claim that the documents are all declassified merely by Trump as president removing them from the whitehouse. That alone is going to be a very hard arugment to overcome. There is absolutely no doubt that presidents can declassify documents merely by actions – not requiring any official process, not even requiring magic incantations of “i declassify thee”
          Many presidents have declassified information just by revealing it to people without security clearances.
          It is a very powerful legal argument that byu choicing to transfer these documents to MAL at the conclusion of his presidency – Trump declassified them.

          I Further as with ALL these legal arguments – in the end you also trip over a separate major flaw in your allegation.

          You are repeatedly trying to manaufacture a crime out of YOUR claims that some magical procedure was not followed.

          Do you doubt that Trump had the authority as president right up until noon on Jan 20, 2021 to declassify anything he wanted ?
          So long as you accept that – your claim that a crime was committed rests on your argument that Trump did not do so in the specific way YOU require.,

          That is a piss poor argument.
          You are trying to claim that Trump’s actions change from legal to criminal subject to potentionally hundreds of years in prisons because MAYBE there are no witnesses claiming Trump utter the magic incantations that you require.

          And you expect a sane judge, a rational supreme court, and a jury to buy this Harry Potter argument ?

          Crimes are acts that harm others. – not the failure to prove you recited the correct incantation.
          We are in the United States – not hogwarts.

      2. Minor quiblle – Article II courts – what MOST of us think of us courts are part of the judiciary – not executive.

        Article II courts are part of the executive. These include IRS courts, immigration courts, as well as magistrate judges – the ones like Reinhart who sign warrants.
        These are part of the executive.

        The PResidential Records Act DOES say many of the things that left wing nuts are claiming it says.
        It also says many things that CONTRADICT what left wing nuts are saying.

        The PRA is NOT an espeicially bad law – many laws have provisisons that conflict with other laws and.or with the constitution – that is one of the many reasons we have courts – to sort that out.

        The provisions of the PRA the left is relying on have NEVER been read by the courts as the left claims.

        There is good reason for that – doing so would conflcit with atleast a dozen provisions of the constitution, US history and tradition,
        Other law, and other portions of the PRA itself.

        One of the more interesting parts of Judge Jacksons JW V. NARA ruling is where she – following other courts asserts that the PRA is written giving the president a great deal of deference and trust.

        There is absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the PRA. If the president allegedly violates it – the only recourse is impeachment.

        Judge Jackson explicitly finds that the PRA does NOT give NARA the power to take documents currently in the posession of ex-presidents.
        Again no enforcement mechaism.

        Even the left wing nut PRA argument is essentially claiming that a law – that is NOT a criminal law, that has no enforcement mechanism defacto converts a failure to follow the provisions of the law into a crime – because there is no enforcement mechanism.

        That is total nonsense.

        That is like Claiming that Biden has committed a crime by failing to enforce immigration law.

        Absolutely Congress can impeach Biden or any president for failure to follow the law. Though no such impeachment has ever succeeded.
        But you can not convert the failure of a president to follow a law exactly as congress has written it into a crime, without specifying that doing so is a crime in the law.

        I would further note that the left – and Smith is trying to alter the meaning of the espionage act – which is a century old – using the PRA which is 40 years old.

        Nowhere in the PRA does it reference the espionage act.

        It is completely inarguable that prior to the ‘PRA the president could not possibly be subject tot he espionage act. Nor could former presidents as a consequence of papers they took with them as they left office. The espionage act has NEVER been applied to a president or former president before – and prior to the PRA could not be applied to either.

        Nowhere in the PRA does the PRA assert that it is a change to the criminal code of the US.

        Trying to change the Espionage act – without actually amending the espionage act – is “unconstitutionally vague”.

        Congress – nearly always with the consent of the president changes our criminal laws – not the DOJ, not US Attornies, not Special Counsels.

        There is ZERO doubt that the provisions of the espionage act applied to Senator Biden, there is no doubt that they apply to SoS Clinton.
        There is no doubt that they apply to VP Biden. But they have never been applied to presidents or ex-presidents before – because they CAN”T.
        Not and be consistent with the constitution as well as past practice.

        I would further note – though in different domains – we have multiple recent supreme court cases that establish:

        That laws that limit explict constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment – but also the 4th and 5th amendment must be consistent with historical practice.
        SCOTUS has been striking down gun laws all over the place – because even though many have been in place since the 60’s, they are inconsistent with the understanding of the constitution and those rights as exemplified by PRACTICE at the time.
        The Practice since before the founding has been that the papers of the president are the presidents property.
        Why is a change to that practice – which is rooted in the right of people to be secure in their papers and property, and to not have government take their property without just compensation. Were presidents after Nixon compensated for their papers ? Did they willingly agree to surrender them ?

        Laws do not magically make rights go away.

        Even if SCOTUS migh magically decide that Congress had the power to confiscate the papers f a president – it would not rhetroactively criminalize reliance on decades of case law saying otherwise.

        Whenever anyone is trying to make a legal claim that has never been made before – especially in a criminal context – the default presumption is they are WRONG.

        We do not create new crimes as unintended side effects of non-criminal laws.
        We do not create new crimes as the consequence of US attorneys brainstorming creative ways that have never been tried before to prosecute a political enemy.

        Next, more directly in the area of property the Supreme court recently rules that the government can not restrict peoples property rights without direct and specific authority from congress. Essentially killing the WOTUS regulations. But this same principle should apply in the criminal context – even more so.
        DOJ can not change something that was legal into something that is now a crime without Congress explicitly identifying that as a new crime or an extension of an old crime. Put more simply – congress can not make conduct of a president or ex-president that was legal into a crime by changing a civil law.

      3. You have an important piont regarding everything being essentially a copy today.
        That is something that the PRA did not address at all.

        Though I think it is more complex than you state.

        After the president and staff have left the WH GSA comes in and clear the entire WH – papers, computers, everything.
        These are put into storage where NARA takes custody of them.

        The PRA specifices that these are NOT within the control fo the subsequent executive – even though NARA is part of that executive.

        We have multiple things going on concurrently as a result of the PRA.

        Whether Trump or Clinton or Bush or Obama – these papers are NEVER under the control of the next administration.

        If as PART of the PRA claims – the government owns them – then they provision of the PRA violates the presidential powers clause.
        Congress could have given presidential papers to The courts, or to the congress – maybe. But by placing them with NARA and then telling NARA ift can not share them with the current president without a court order, the PRA violates the constitution. It creates an explicit obligation for NARA to excercise power that the current president does not have and against the direction of the current president.

        NARA is part of he executive branch – I know left wing nuts have a problem understanding this – but everyone in the executive branch answers to the president – not the courts or congress.

        Referencing you “copies” argument further.
        If I have a car title – and you make a copy of that car title – if you leave my house with that copy – did you steal the car title ?

        I would further note that Even when NARA retains the documents – the ex-president has unlimited access to those documents.
        While the current president and executive must go to court to get to them.

        Left wing nuts are claiming that the documents are the Prooerty of the government – but al the rights that are associated with property rest with the ex president – according to the PRA and none with the current president.

        Proprty is not merely a word. It is a collection of rights – and it you buy law hold those rights – then you OWN the property.

        Congress can not say “The US government owns these documents, but all the rights typically associated with ownership of property are granted to the ex-president.”

          1. I like many of us are having difficulty vascilating between reason and anger.

            It is essential that we end this nonsense. It is also essential that there must be a consequence.

            Trumps election was a reversal of the penulum swing to the left that occured under Obama.
            The right response for democrats was to move to the center.

            Instead we have had 7 years of increasing cycles of doubling down by the crazy left.

            Each doubling down significantly increases the risk of seeing our differences resolved by totalitarian force in some form.

            Chaos and conflict usually produce bad outcomes.

  7. “Biden laughs off FBI bribery claims as evidence against him and Hunter mounts”

    Audacity is Joe Biden’s magic power.

    When the walls are closing in, he laughs in your face and dares you to come after him.

    He did it last week when he laughed at a question about “damning evidence in an FBI file” that he allegedly took a $5 million bribe from a Ukrainian energy company in return for a policy decision when he was vice president.

    “Where’s the money?” he quipped.

    – New York Post

    “What fresh hell can this be?”

    – Dorothy Parker

    Goldwater, Rhodes and Scott told Nixon to leave.

    Who will tell Biden?

    Who can possibly replace Biden?

    The inimitable ditz, Kamala Harris, or that intellectual/political powerhouse, Michelle Obama?

    Which of these eminent candidates could possibly beat Trump?


    1. Who will tell Biden to leave? Nobody! The dims have no decency or morals or ethics. They use our constitution for toilet paper.

    2. He laughed at the evidence since so far its 100% hearsay. And there is pretty much zero chance that it will ever amount to anything beyond that. The republicans have his bank records with no evidence of payoffs. The Burisma owner is never going to be interviewed by the FBI because he is a wanted criminal in the US and the US can’t drag him back.

      1. He laughed at the evidence since so far its 100% hearsay.</i

        This is evidence the FBI has had since March of 2017. IN that time, the FBI has not been able to disprove any of it.

        Which sock puppet are you?

  8. Although Trump doesn’t hesitate to mock Democrat and Republican adversaries who put themselves on the public stage, he rarely mocks regular, everyday people who disagree with him. Democrat politicians, on the other hand, continually mock and show contempt for regular, everyday conservatives. That is a big part of the reason Trump will always be able to find a diner or a deli where he is welcomed enthusiastically, while Biden never will.

    1. That is complete nonsense. Trump mocks regular everyday Democrats who disagree with him all the time.

      1. Biden, Obama, Hillary, etc, have a long history of denigrating millions of Americans, nay, swaths of the country, habitually

      2. I apologize for my mistake.

        It had been my observation that Trump frequently mocks Democrat and Republican adversaries who have put themselves on the public stage.

        It had also been my observation that, on rare occasion, Trump mocks regular, every Democrats and Republicans (people who have NOT put themselves on the public stage) who disagree with him.

        Now that I have been informed that Trump mocks regular, every Democrats and Republicans (people who have NOT put themselves on the public stage) “all the time” if they disagree with him, I stand corrected. Please provide links showing that Trump does this “all the time” or at least that he does it on a somewhat frequent basis.

        Again, I apologize for my mistake and look forward to receiving those links.

        One final note, there is a huge difference between mocking a person and mocking a person’s views. What we are talking about here is mocking the person.


    2. “he rarely mocks regular, everyday people who disagree with him. ” When he’s not sleeping, he doesn’t go an hour without doing that.

      1. Examples please.

        Wait, don’t tell me, there are so many, you can’t think of any right now,

    3. I have received zero evidence backing up the claim in these comments that Trump mocks regular, everyday Democrats and Republicans (people who have NOT put themselves on the public stage) “all the time” if they disagree with him.

      In fact, I have received zero evidence countering my real-world observation that Trump rarely mocks regular, everyday Democrats and Republicans (people who have NOT put themselves on the public stage) if they disagree with him.

      Go Trump,

    4. If you pay attention, Trump returns fire.
      There likely exist exceptions, but for the most part, Trump goes after those, of all stripes, that attack him personally. Esentially, if you enter the arena with Trump, you will get a fight.

  9. “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the fence for themselves” Will Rogers….. Having quoted Will Rogers, and having to read Trump supporters comment’s today, …. I say good luck on that fence.

    1. I guess by soliciting and accepting a $5 million bribe from a Ukranian natural gas company, Joe Biden has also identified himself as the third kind of man.

      1. Biden is fast heading to being the man who broke America.

        But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”
        – Gospel of St Matthew 12:25

        We are deteriorating quickly; all of this was expected.

        For every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reactionSir Isaac Newton’s, 3rd Law of Motion


      2. Why are you bald face lying about Biden soliciting a bribe. Right now, the claim is that Burisama’s owner is so stupid that he offered Biden a 5,000,000 Bribe to make US policy what it, and the foreign policy of every NATO member (and the IMF) already was.

    2. Well, with all due respect to the cowboy wisdom of Will Rogers there is a 4 kind. There is the kind that doesn’t learn and when he sees a fence runs up to it and pees on it. I am not saying a Trump supporter fits this description (although they may) but there are many commenters that do.

  10. One thing I was wondering about is federal court procedure. Can the Judge allow the Jury to convict on a lesser misdemeanor charge for any of the counts if a unanimous verdict proves to be impossible, and if so, on which charges?

    1. Andrew, IANL, but my understanding is the prosecutors balance exactly the jury conundrum, you cite. You boss dies when you shoot him on a deer hunt. 1st degree murder? Could be, some circumstantial evidence leans that way. But, enough to get an unanimous verdict? Or do the prosecutors go for Negligent Homicide, and have a much higher probability of a conviction. Of course often prosecution is willing to negotiate during the trial, if it goes poorly.

      That’s just one of the problems with this indictment. It’s a civil document dispute that Biden wanted criminal charges for.

  11. Gee, Turley, did you forget about what you previously wrote about the ability of a POTUS to pardon himself? To refresh your recollection: (From ThoughtCo)::

    “Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University, wrote in The Washington Post:

    “Such an act would make the White House look like the Bada Bing Club. After a self-pardon, Trump could wipe out the Islamic State, trigger an economic golden age and solve global warming with a carbon-eating border wall — and no one would notice. He would simply go down in history as the man who not only pardoned his family members but himself.​”
    Michigan State University law professor Brian C. Kalt, writing in his 1997 paper “Pardon Me: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons,” stated that a presidential self-pardon would not hold up in court.

    “An attempted self-pardon would likely undermine the public’s confidence in the presidency and the Constitution. A potential meltdown of such magnitude would be no time to begin legalistic discussion; the political facts of the moment would distort our considered legal judgment. Looking at the question from a cooler vantage point, the intent of the Framers, the words and themes of the Constitution they created, and the wisdom of the judges that have interpreted it all point to the same conclusion: Presidents cannot pardon themselves.”
    The courts would likely follow the principle stated by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. “No man,” Madison wrote, “is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.””

    1. The way I read the Constitution, a self-pardon is legitimate. The only way a self-pardon is negated is if the President is removed from office in an impeachment proceeding for the acts that he pardoned himself over. Impeachment and removal would render the self-pardon null and void.

        1. Good question, Daniel. I’m not sure anyone can ‘unpardon’ someone, even someone removed from office. But I don’t think anyone should ever Pardon themselves.

    2. Gigi, If you could speak common sense to a Trump supporter, their wouldn’t be Trump supporters.

      1. My, you leftists are a ugly people.
        That is all you do is come here to the good professor’s blog and make insults.
        Most of us have to the good sense to just scroll past your comments. Unfortunately, while reading Daniel’s comment I could not help but see yours.

        1. RE: Doctor Murry Blum was a teaching colleague of mine. His favorite reply to a resident who didn’t have the information at his/her fingertips and began ‘fumphering’ around for response was.’C’mon ‘doctah’, don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining’. Murry Blum was Judge Judy Sheindlin’s father. That comment, in honor of her father, was the title of her first book. I offer that in response to those of you who present argument in support of this wretched, incompetent Chief Executive , his minions, and the rest who are dancing to his piping, like lemmings dashing headlong to the edge of the cliff, dragging the rest of the nation along with it. You, out of whatever mindboggling folly ever moved you to support the profound example of moral and ethical turpitude currently seated in the Oval Office, as well as those which sprung from his loins, and that of his parents, should not be so bold as to pretend to know for whom the bell tolls. Not yet! Not yet!

    3. If you are going to have political trials for front-runners on trumped-up charges, it is only natural that self-pardons should be an option. The notion of a politically motived trial is so outrageous, so egregious, that a self pardon seems almost a necessity.

      I expect we will be seeing a lot of them going forward.

    4. And “Crazy Abe” Lincoln illegally and unconstitutionally seized power, declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus, started a war, threw opponents in prison, smashed printing presses, failed to deport 4 million illegal aliens who could not be admitted to become citizens by law, seized private property and amended the Constitution to impose communism on America – courts be damned, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney be damned.

      NUTCHACHACHA, you go, comradette girl!

      Oh, and may we end unconstitutional public assistance, affirmative action programs, etc., yet or do you still need them all?

  12. Democrats are racists.

    “Chuck Todd upset over ‘bizarre moment’ of Hispanics greeting Trump in Miami: ‘A real perversion’”

    June 14, 2023 11:58am EDT
    NBC host upset by Cuban refugees supporting Trump in Miami after court hearing Video

    NBC anchor Chuck Todd was appalled by the sight of Hispanic supporters greeting President Trump at a Miami restaurant after he left the courtroom on Tuesday, declaring their support a “perversion.”

    Fox News

  13. Daily I question: WHEN DID THE DEMOCRATIC’s LOOSEN THE SCREW in their brains. They have drifted so far astray for righteousness’, lawfulness and sanity they have become frightful to the average citizen. Their pursuit of some Utopian Paradise at all costs has become the pathway to Tyranny with a dystopian discipline of warring those that oppose their idealist views. They act like children out of control, stomping their feet and crying ME, ME, ME! These foolish dopes must be shown the exit from any leadership or validation before it becomes too late, if it’s not already.

    1. GW…What the UniParty members are doing today *IS* their Utopian Paradise being played out live and in color. At least to those who can ‘see’.

  14. Let’s look at this straight on. The ‘Presidential Records Act, ‘ completely left out of the indictment, MUST come in and replace the ‘Espionage Act’, which does not apply… Trump did NOT take ‘Classified Docs (which he said he unclassified with his Pres. Power before leaving Office.) sell or give secrets or info to anyone, esp. to a Foreign Govt. Like Every President, all Docs were taken to support his Books, Library and the years of ongoing research and books re: his Presidency…If there were materials the Archives wanted back, the DOJ lawyers should have come and negotiated all of that with Trump’s lawyers… not raided his house and staged photos.. which now includes photos of where the GSA movers deposited ALL of the Boxes in his heavily guarded home, with and without Class. Docs… We do not know if the overflow of Boxes that were stacked in the spare Bathroom even contained any never de-classified Classified Docs… This kind of ‘staging’ was Out of Context purely Political.. exactly like the J6 Cmte. ‘staging,’ which (one example here..) showed a video clip of Sen. Hawley running out of the Capitol, done in a way that showed him as a scared rabbit running out the back door by himself .. when indeed the entire ‘big picture’ (the entire video shown In Context..) showed a large group of Senators/Congressmen being pushed out together, running out in a long stream, being ordered by the Capitol Police.. and Hawley just happened to be the last man out, lagging behind the rest.. Staging vis-a-vis the Truth. We are dealing with that here.

    1. It is unclear to me how the PRA can help Trump here.

      He would have to argue that:

      1. He designated the documents as “personal” and is thus entitled to retain them; or

      2. Even if they are not “personal,” he is somehow entitled to retain any “presidential records” under the PRA and the only recourse for the NA to recover them is to negotiate. Recourse to other laws, such as 18 USC 793(e) is precluded.

      Presidential records are documents prepared or received by the President or his designees. Personal records and agency records are excluded from the definition.

      The indictment says that the documents originated with or “implicate the equities of” government agencies. This is crafty obfuscating language that fuzzies up whether individual documents are excluded from the definition as agency records. If they are agency records, they are governed by the FRA, which is more restrictive than the PRA.

      If they are not excluded as agency records they might be excluded as personal records. The president is free to deal with personal records entirely as he wishes. The PRA has a definition of personal records.

      Trump appears to be arguing that he is completely free to designate any record he wishes as personal, regardless of the definition in the PRA, and that such a designation is not subject to judicial review. He cites the sock drawer case for this proposition.

      The sock drawer case expressly did not decide this. Instead it held that there was no remedy it could grant against the defendant NA that would be effective in compelling the NA to obtain the records and make them available under FOIA. It did not have to decide the reviewability question because it held the matter not to be redressable.

      So as I now see it:

      A. Trump has no right to retain agency records;

      B. None of the records are truly personal records and a court is likely to be able to review a determination by Trump that they are, even assuming that he made such a determination; and

      C. The PRA nowhere gives the president the right to retain presidential records, and nor does it preclude the application of other laws, such as 18 USC 793(e), to their retention.

      A defense based on the PRA will fail in my view.

      1. Daniel, you are ignoring History… let’s start with Bill Clinton… and the Presidential Records Act…. etc…

      2. “The indictment says that the documents originated with or “implicate the equities of” government agencies. This is crafty obfuscating language that fuzzies up whether individual documents are excluded from the definition as agency records.”

        The simplest response defense counsel could levy is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Then ask the prosecution where the plain-language exceptions to that executive power for the executive branch exist in the Constitution.

        1. Are you saying it is unconstitutional for Congress to regulate how the president deals with documents after he leaves office, and so the PRA and 18 USC 793(e) as applied here are of no effect?

          1. The question is: Who, if anyone, has more ‘power’ than the President regarding Executive Branch functions – *according to the Constitution*.

            PRA is a Congressional act. That Act, via Congress, does not give Congress, PRA, or anyone else in the Executive Branch, *more* authority or power than the President to determine which documents are Personal vs ‘not’, nor whether they can be taken (or not) by the President on his way out the door on last day of his term. NR vs NARA affirms that conclusion.

            To me, that’s the brass-tax opening point/question for the defense to pose to the prosecution and Judge. The rest of the case is moot until that question is answered definitively.

          2. Does congress make the regulations up and the decides to go after an expresident after they made new regulations?

        2. Trump isn’t President.

          He’s a private citizen and was subpoenaed for these documents, and he not only refused to return them, he engaged in obstruction in his attempt to keep them.

          1. Anonymous… your view is the woke DOJ perspective – the fact is that this is a ‘staged’ argument, out of context with the big picture… hopefully the Trump legal team can rise to the occasion and show why these ‘Svelaz’ type arguments cannot hold water thus.

      3. “He designated the documents as “personal” and is thus entitled to retain them; ” Only the national archivist has that power. You must be a victim of judicial watch’s lie that in the sock drawer case the court ruled that the president has the power to designate items as personal. The court actually ruled the national archivist solely has that power.

        1. Only the national archivist has that power.

          Very good. A strong declaritive statement.

          ALL power emanates from the PEOPLE. The People, created Three Branches of Government. The Constitution, imbued Each Branch of with specific enumerated powers.

          Now. Where did the National Archivist get his sole power? It did not come from the Constitution. That power had to be delegated to that Office.

        2. This is completely wrong. The court held that the PRA gives that power to the President. The question it addressed and ultimately did not answer is whether a court may review the President’s decision.

          1. The court held that the PRA gives that power to the President.

            Congress can’t delegate power, congress doesn’t have.

            The question, who controls the executive Branch? The branch that generates Presidential papers


            Article II, Section 1

            The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

            The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification and archiving of materials.

            The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch.

            No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.

            No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify and archive material is constitutional.

            Archiving occurs in perpetuity after the President with the power designates a modality, for example, “I will keep my materials next to my Corvette in my garage.”

      4. “FRA, which is more restrictive than the PRA.” The FRA is much less restrictive. It applies only to documents that are federal records, i.e. must fall into 1 of 12 categories such as dealing with government policy. The PRA covers all documents,excepting purely personal documents, made by of for the presidency, regardless of whether they are a government record.

        1. No, the PRA explicitly excludes agency records covered by the FRA, even if they’re given to the President. See 44 U.S. Code § 2201 (2)(B)(i): “The term “Presidential records” … does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) [1] of title 5, United States Code)…”

    2. “Trump did NOT take ‘Classified Docs” He indisputably took classified documents. That was why he was caught with hundreds of them. Though he hasn’t been charged with that. He was charged with not returning them after getting caught taking them.

  15. Although some of the Democrat prosecutors going after Trump are very smart, they are not being driven by thoughtful analysis. Instead, they are being driven by their lust for power and their hatred of Trump.

    Due to lightweight nature of the prosecution’s case, Trump will absolutely win, either at this stage or on appeal. It will not be close.

    At the same time, millions of Americans who were previously apolitical or supporting Democrats or supporting RINOS are coming over to Trump.

    Just in time for the 2024 election.

    The day of reckoning for the uniparty has arrived.

  16. Why haven’t we heard from special counsel Robert Hur? Remember that he was appointed to investigate Pres. Biden for violating federal law. So why have they not finished the Biden investigation and explained the results like they have for Trump? This glaring disparity exposes the corruption of the Justice Department. They can’t exonerate Biden at this point without losing the Trump case in the court of public opinion. Yet they can’t charge Biden without diminishing their case against Trump in federal court. The result: The investigation of Pres. Biden will disappear just like the Hunter Biden investigation. Merrick Garland and the JD have become the police arm of the Democratic party.

    1. The Trump criminal case was opened in Mar 2021. Biden’s case was opened in Jan 2023, i.e. Trump’s case started 22months before Biden’s case. Which is the obvious logical reason the Trump case resulted in an indictment earlier than the Biden case.

      1. You’re saying Trump’s DOJ would be expected to indict Pres. Biden 22 months from now (Apr 2025) or from Jan 2025 (Nov 2026)? Everyone knows the president can’t be indicted.

    1. Drop Merrick Garland and Joseph Biden in the middle of Miami where locals are rallying for Trump without Secret Service protection then watch what happens.

  17. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one legal constitutional way to prevent Trump from ever running for future government office and this ain’t it. Trump can still run and win from prison.

    Although unprecedented, Congress or a private plaintiff harmed (ie: Capitol Police Officer, member of Congress or staff harmed on the January 6 Coup Attempt/Insurrection) could go to court to invoke “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment”.

    Since Trump gave aid & comfort to “domestic enemies to the U.S. Constitution” and swore an Oath of Office not to be disloyal, he could be banned from future governing authority for life under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (Disqualification Clause).

    This solution would also help deter a tit-for-tat war between political parties in the future (similar to third world banana republics) and what has historically made America different from despotic regimes.

  18. I believe I no longer need to look at DOJ allegations or indictments any more than I need to examine claims made by North Korea or Iran.

    Waste of time.

    The rot is too deep and too thorough.

    If they speak they lie.

    About half the country is likely thinking the same. DOJ = Evil

    1. @Young

      I certainly am someone you describe. The Biden admin has not uttered a single true thing for the entirety of its term so far. Not a single one. Nancy Pelosi’s House was similar prior to that. I am doubtful that the agencies beholden to these people can be reformed *at all*.

      1. James: “I am doubtful that the agencies beholden to these people can be reformed *at all*.”

        I agree. The House needs to starve them for cash.

        1. Young, I agree with you and James. We’ve arrived at that point where the DOJ and FBI leadership no longer hides their total disdain for the majority of our citizens. They shattered their credibility with Hillary’s classified document scandal, Crossfire Hurricane and finally the Hunter Biden laptop. They and the Democrats have built a solid reputation for projecting the corruption and impeachable offenses they are doing onto Republicans and conservatives. From insurrections in Portland, Minneapolis and throughout the country in 2020, to Biden’s quid pro quo in Ukraine, to Biden’s handling of classified documents, and of course the Biden Crime Family. All get projected to the conservative insurrection at the Capitol, Trump’s quid pro quo, impeachments and Trump’s indictment in Miami. It’s often said the American people are not stupid. But they can be ignorant. All it takes is to deploy a state run media to deluge them with disinformation. But even that enterprise if failing, Which leads right back to my first point. The DOJ and FBI are simply giving the American people the middle finger and daring them to do something about it. Okay, challenge accepted.

          1. Today is Flag Day. Did anyone notice other than this Cuban immigrant?

            It appears some middle schoolers get it. No Memorial Day observance, no Pride Day observance. And how the public school admins are howling. Well done children.

            Our Pronouns are USA!


              1. Sorry, Olly. My comment was supposed to go to the top of the page as an original post, and not a reply to you or anyone else. My cursor must have jumped to your comment. My bad

                My father kept an American flag in a box tucked away safely. He would grab the box, recruit us into this annual family ritual, and we would help him attach it to a flag pole that was then affixed to our house roof. We were so excited when he did that as a family. We didnt know a word of English but we were proud to be Americans. Strange huh?

                Viva USA!

            1. Estovir,
              When I first read the report, I thought it was the Bee.
              More and more people are pushing back. Go to see kids doing it as well.

            2. RE: “Today is Flag Day. Did anyone notice other than this Cuban immigrant?” As a matter of fact, “Yes”. The POA displays an American flag in front of every mailbox at every home in my club community for every holiday which celebrates this nation, political persuasion of the property owner notwithstanding.

    2. “Waste of time.”

      Spot on.

      They remind me of a paranoid delusional I once knew. For your own sanity, at some point you have to decide: Nope. Not even going to look at the particulars of this latest delusion.

      1. Sam: you are a full-blown disciple. Not only can you not perceive facts–you refuse to even look at them–and why? Because you are a disciple of the cult of the worst person who ever occupied the White House in recent history–a deeply-flawed person, a well-known cheater at business, who paid $25 million to settle a lawsuit for defrauding people (Trump University), who paid fines and had his phony “charitable foundation” shut down because he used it as a personal slush fund, a malignant narcissist, a chronic, habitual liar, someone who not only assaults women, but brags about it, who cheated his way into office, who tried to start an insurrection to stay in office after he lost a free and fair election, and who is a misogynist, racist, xenophobe, homophobe and islamophobe. And, you worship this creature, who habitually does as he pleases to satisfy the whims of his massive ego. The fact that you won’t even read the allegations, look at the pictures or even consider the facts proves you should not be eligible to even vote. Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: Donald Trump, for no reason other than his massive ego which requires him to portray himself as important, has put our national security at risk, as well as that of our allies, by stealing classified documents, storing them in unsecure locations where any number of people had access to them, he disclosed contents of some very sensitive matters, including North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, to people who had no need to know about the information and no security clearance, he refused to return them, lied about returning them, forced the FBI to get a search warrant, and is now spreading lies about a nonexistent “right” to possess these papers. And, you don’t want to hear it becaise alt-right media has told you that Joe Biden is much, much worse–without any proof, of course, because there isn’t any proof. Yet, you believe. As we sit here today, a risk assessment is being conducted to see what damage Trump’s arrogance and recklessness may have done to our sources and methods, as well as those of our allies. Our national security depends on our ability to assess what our enemies might be doing that could harm us, and some of them may well be reading classified reports about how we glean such information, as well as our human and other resources to observe and monitor them. Any reasonable citizen ought to be very, very concerned about this. Because there was a copy machine near where some of these documents were, it may be impossible to determine who has gotten copies. Trump became a regular citizen at noon on Jan 20, 2021–at which point, he had no more right to possess classified documents than any other citizen. But, nope–you don’t care. The very definition of discipleship.

        1. The other version of Sam who won’t even look at the evidence are those who looked at the evidence but refuse to believe any of it, even when they hear Trump admitting to it on tape. These are members of a support group, telling each other verything is going to be all right.

        2. “Sam: you are a full-blown disciple.”

          Yes — a disciple of: Consider the source. Which is why your shrill comments go in one ear and out the other.

Leave a Reply