Have You Seen This Man? Biden Special Counsel Robert Hur Appears to Have Vanished

Below is my column in the Messenger on the ongoing (but still largely unknown) efforts of Special Counsel Robert Hur. In fairness, Hur could be doing what Jack Smith and his predecessors failed to do: run a leakless investigation. However, for the roughly half of Americans who view the Trump impeachment as “politically motivated,” the lack of any indication of an equally aggressive investigation is concerning. People  should not view this as a competition between “our” and “their” special counsels. However, the public wants to see a balance of effort. Those citizens are asking if you have seen this man because they want their special counsel back.

Here is the column:

With the arraignment of Donald Trump in Miami, Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith is pushing forward with a historic criminal prosecution that could result in a terminal prison sentence for the 76-year-old former president and, at least for now, the leading Republican candidate in the 2024 election.

This also is the six-month anniversary of the appointment of another special counsel … Robert Hur. In the company of better-known appointees like Robert Mueller, John Durham and Smith, Hur is the prosecutorial version of the missing Beatle. He was appointed on Jan. 12 and then seemingly vanished.

Unlike the apparent leaks and speculation about the Smith investigation or the breathless accounts of Trump grand jury testimony, Hur’s investigation of classified documents allegedly found to be improperly in Biden’s possession appears to have all but disappeared.

The lack of leaks is, in one sense, a good thing; prosecutors should do their work without public comment. Moreover, Hur is well short of the multiyear investigations of special counsels Robert Mueller or John Durham. However, even with the Durham investigation, there still were indicators of action, from subpoenas confirmed by recipients to grand jury appearances.

Hur is clearly going to face heightened comparative scrutiny. The concern in many minds is that, once again, there may be a stark difference in how the Justice Department pursues Trump versus his opponents.

With then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her possession of classified documents on private email servers, the Justice Department was so accommodating that it seemed to send requests in gift baskets rather than as subpoenas. As State Department investigators worked to determine the potential compromising of classified information, she and some members of her staff did not fully cooperate initially and refused to turn over her emails and other evidence; Clinton declined to speak to the State Department’s inspector general. Ultimately, the FBI cut deals with her close aides to secure their cooperation. Later, additional classified material was found on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails, potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation.

A majority of the public at the time believed Clinton should have been charged in that case, and nearly half of Americans have come to view the FBI as politically compromised or untrustworthy.

Hur may answer all of these questions eventually, but he will be asked not simply whether there will be charges against President Biden but how he investigated the allegations.

With Trump, the FBI followed the familiar no-holds-barred approach to pursuing him, including a raid on his home at Mar-a-Lago.

To be clear, there are significant differences between the Trump and Biden cases. The Trump indictment details alleged efforts to conceal documents, obstruct the investigation and lie to the government. For two years, I have written that Mar-a-Lago was the greatest threat to Trump, and it has proven to be precisely that.

We obviously do not have an indictment on Biden and, thus, do not know the full extent of any evidence in that controversy. Yet when the Trump documents were found, Biden famously declared his revulsion with anyone possessing classified material. As he responded to a question from CBS’s Scott Pelley: “How that could possibly happen, how one, anyone, could be that irresponsible.”

Hur is now, presumably, trying to answer that question with regard to Biden himself. However, what is clear is that what President Biden has said publicly on the matter makes no sense.

Classified documents have been discovered in Biden’s possession at several locations, hundreds of miles apart, ranging from a prior office in Washington, D.C., to his home and his garage in Delaware. We also have learned that Biden may have removed documents from a SCIF while he was a senator and kept those documents.

Biden has publicly declared that he has “no regrets” and assured Americans that the special counsel investigation would soon peter out when it determined that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

Yet, his claim that these documents were inadvertently removed from the Senate and the White House strain credulity. You do not just inadvertently remove classified documents from a SCIF and then retain them for almost two decades.

Moreover, the documents from the period of the Obama administration were not just removed but were then divided and repeatedly moved to different locations. One document reportedly ended up in Biden’s personal library. The movement and division of the documents suggest purpose and knowledge.

That brings us back to special counsel Hur. Given a suspect who is offering an implausible explanation for potentially criminal conduct, most prosecutors would want to secure a statement on the record. Lying to investigators is itself a federal crime — removing any questions over statutes of limitation.

In the case of Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, then-FBI Director James Comey later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations but that he sent “a couple guys over” to White House offices to question Flynn. Comey broke protocols and sent the agents, who were able to get a statement that was later used to prosecute Flynn for misleading the FBI.

The question today is whether Hur has asked to speak to Biden or asked for a statement from Biden. The best time for such a demand was six months ago, before Biden might learn of countervailing evidence.

Biden has repeatedly insisted that he would fully cooperate with the investigation. That would seem like an invitation for an interview or a written statement back in January. If Biden has refused such a statement, it would appear that he is following a Clintonesque view of cooperation. But that, of course, depends on whether Hur actually asked for an interview or statement.

Smith used a flurry of subpoenas to pursue Trump over his documents. Smith was all over the place in pressuring Trump World figures, from low-level aides to Trump’s own lawyers — even compelling Trump counsel to testify against their client.

After six months, it may be a tad early to put Robert Hur’s face on milk cartons with a “Have you seen this man…” plea. However, after six months, it would be reassuring to see some proof of life in the investigation of President Biden’s classified documents.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.

216 thoughts on “Have You Seen This Man? Biden Special Counsel Robert Hur Appears to Have Vanished”

  1. Prof. Turley you are correct in noting huge differences between Biden and Trump – but you are WRONG about the differences.

    Trump has repeatedly claimed the documents are his. That has always been a powerful claim. JW V NARA as well as its predecessor cases strongly asserts that the PRA is only constitutional if the President can take whatever WH documents he wishes without regard for classification and declare them personal property – much as was unarguably the case for over 200 years of our history.

    The recent WSJ editorial brings to light even more about the JW V NARA case – It is not just Trump and his Lawyers that are arguing Trump owns these documents classified or not. But the Obama DOJ argued exactly the same thing AND WON on that basis in JW. V. NARA.

    That is a major problem for DOJ and Smith and Garland.

    What we now have the receipts for is that DOJ as a matter of law under Obama concluded that Presidents can take whatever documents they wish – classified or not. The court concluded that. And Trump relied on that.

    You argue that Trump has been obstructive – yet the FACT is that in OUR justice systems people are permitted to agressively assert their innocence AND defend there rights.

    Conversely the Government is NOT permitted to allege as a crime against one person what it claimed by LAw was not with another without the statury or case law changing – which it has not.

    I have repeatedly argued here that if NARA wanted Trump’s documents – it had to go to court – where based on JW V. NARA and prior cases it would have lost.
    Which is why NARA never went to court.

    That toto use the Subpeona to gain ownership rather than access to Trump’s docs, DOJ had to go to court – where again based on prior caselaw they would have LOST.

    At every step of the way the Biden administration as avoided doing what the law required. It has PRETENDED that prior caselaw did not exist, and now we find it also pretended that DOJ itself had not created that prior caselaw.

    The malfeasance, arogance and lawlessness seen here is not that of Trump – but that of DOJ – including Garland and smith.

    There is no “we forgot” argument regarding JW. V. NARA – DOJ successfully litigated the case against JW claiming and winning on the issues.
    DOJ argued and won – the claim that the Courts have little or no ability to review the decisions of the president regarding what documents are his personally.
    DOJ argued and won – the claim that the PRA creates no power or duty of NARA or the federal government to seek documents back from former presidents.
    DOJ argued and won – that it did not matter if those documents were classified – former presidents are entitled to take ownership of classified documents.

    If Bill Clinton can keep nearly 100 tapes recording his official actions as president – including unarguably classified communications – Donald Trump is free to do the same. DOJ is not free to have different rules for different presidents.

    While this is far from the only proof that DOJ/FBI have done absolutely nothing about the political corruption that Durham found,
    This is DAMNING proof.
    Nothing Durham found has been corrected.

    In fact this indictment is itself grounds for impeachment of Garland, impeachment of Smith. and criminal prosecution of both for the violation of a persons civil rights under color of law.

    It is clearly grounds for the House to drag Garland, Smith, Biden, and all DOJ attorney’s involved infront of the house under oath and grill them mercilessly.

    Garland has already unarguably lied to congress under oath about the directions DOJ gave to US marshalls regarding prosecuting protestors at Supreme court justices homes. It is highly likely he has lied ragarding his memo based on the NASB letter and the interactions with the Biden WH.

    It is well past time to demand all communications between the WH and DOJ and SC regarding a number of investigations where Garland has testified that The WH was not involved. There is already porof that the WH was involved early in the NARA efforts to confiscate Trump’s property.

    What we self evidently have is a DOJ that is politically in the tank. That is violating the law, citizens rights and its own rules and guidelines.
    As well as ignoring law that it helped to create.

    Nor is this limited to Trump. We have seen SWAT raids on prolife protestors in cases whether the target had already been aquited twice at the local level and where when prosecuted by DOJ the jury took less than an hour to aquit again.

    This is NOT faithfully following the law and constitution – this is the rule of man not law.

    There is a reason much of the country does not trust the DOJ or FBI or federal government – because their conduct is criminal.

    Until DOJ went to court and persauded a federal court to either overturn JW v. NARA or rule that it was far narrower than written, DOJ was constitutionally, morally and legally barred from even attempting to confiscate property Trump claimed was his own, and that DOJ had agreed in prior cases – without an intervening change in the law or caselaw.

    Again this is not about Trump – that is just were we see this most egregiously.

    The list of constitutional rights violatations of THIS DOJ.FBI is extensive.

    What Durham found has not been corrected – it has been made worse.

    All that has changed is the DOJ/FBI have taken the lack of consequences as permission to act even more corruptly.

    1. This was an amazing retort. Maybe you should be a guest columnist in JT’s absence.

      1. Thx,

        I greatly respect Turley. That is NOT the same as universally agreeing with him.

        Turley is a 20th century liberal. Much like Alan Dercshowitz. They are both “Civil Libertarians”.

        But they are both influenced by the 20th century liberal proposition that government is a force for good.
        That it is OK for government to try to do good things for the people.

        That position is incompatible with individual liberty. Historically does not actually work, and finally incrementally brings us to where we are today.

        Modern progressivism. Has Zero respect for individual liberty. Has no concept of the rule of law. Has no connection to facts, reason or logic.

        Modern progressivism has no real foundation for anything.

        To those progressives here and elsewhere who do not think there arguments through any further than the first order – I would warn them – this ends badly for them
        even if they get everything they want.

        We get lots of common good arguments from the left – this is despite the fact that historically we have found that actually determining the common good in the massively complex world we have is impossible, and that there will always be powerful forces seeking advantage by pushing their view of the common good.

        Regardless, one easy example of how things will go wrong for the modern left would be abortion.

        We have had 6 decades of the left ranting about over population. While predicted harms have not come about and increasing population has resulted in rising stanrd of living for all, as well as actual improvement in all other measures of quality of life.

        That said – partly naturally and partly as a result of efforts to control population – we are rapidly approaching population collapse.

        China and JApan are in deep trouble – for many reasons – but specifically related to collapsing population.

        The consequences of collapsing population are massive. Absent growth in individual productivity we have never seen standards of living in these countries MUST drop precipitously. At each generalizational level they have more older people depending on the cohort below them to produce to support the needs of a larger older group.

        China is already begging women to have children. They are incentivizing it. Soon they will coerce it. The country that aborted 350M fetuses over the course of 3 decades will likely make abortion completely illegal, force women to give birth, force them to get pregnant. And reduce the status of women to baby making factories all for the “common good”

        The rest of the world that is infected with this progressive mind virus will likely follow china’s lead -= though more slowly and somewhat less draconianly.

        To one extent or another nearly the entire world is experiencing declining populations. As the problems from that increase – “comon good” pressures will drive slowly more draconian laws.

        Without any core values – without concepts like free will and individual liberty whatever can be argued to be the “common good” will justify most anything.

        I noted that declining populations will drive outlawing aborton.

        It will likely also drive regression on all fronts related to non-reproductive sexuality.

        Who is it that thinks a nation facing population decline whee the clear “common good” is to force more children – is going to continue to respect any aspects of non-reproductive sexuality ? Or non-traditional roles for men and women ?

        To varying degrees – modern progressives will be driven by the core of their own ideology to reject transsexuality, homosexulatiy. all forms of gender confusion.
        Reproductive freedom – as population problems worsen -birth control will go to.

        While I am not predicting for certain that the US left will over time turn 180 on every one of these issues. I am preducting that nations like China probabaly will, and that to a lessor extent europe and the US will follow.

    2. John Say, your point about the apparent turnaround in the DOJ’s position is interesting. But I don’t think you are right about the holding in the sock drawer case.

      In that case, the NA did not have possession of the tapes. The court held that no order it could issue to the NA could result with certainty in its gaining possession of the tapes and making them available under FOIA. Accordingly, it held that the claim against the NA was not redressable.

      On the question whether a court could review a presidential determination that certain records were personal and thus within the exclusive control of the president, the court expressly made no decision.

      Records prepared by a government department are not presidential records under the PRA. They are covered by the FRA. There is no provision for the president to declare they are personal. He is not authorised to take them away. It is unclear how many of the classified documents at issue here belong to government departments.

      Under the PRA, presidential records must be placed in the control of the NA when a president leaves office. He is not authorised to take them away. Documents that would otherwise be presidential records are excluded from that term if the president determines they are personal. There is a definition of personal records in the PRA. The president is free to do as he pleases with personal records when he leaves office.

      So far as I am aware, there is no case holding that a court may not review a determination by a president leaving office that documents are personal. Given the purpose of the PRA, it would be odd that a president would have unreviewable discretion to vitiate it.

      If Trump had no right to declare particular documents personal and walk off with them, he is vulnerable to being charged under 18 USC 793(e) with respect to those documents. The PRA would not be a defence.

      Will Scharf in The Federalist makes other arguments that Trump could use as part of his defence, in particular regarding his state of mind.

      Don’t get me wrong — I think these charges against Trump are politically motivated and should not have been brought. But that is a different matter. I don’t think the PRA provides a likely basis for a defence to these charges.

      1. There is a definition of personal records in the PRA.

        The Article I branch, cannot dictated to the article II or III branch. Legislation does not amend the Constitution.

        Agency documents that pass through the White House, are then under control of the White House.

        You keep running up against POWER. All Power emanates from the People, Delegated by the constitution.

        Hence, who can overrule the enumerated power of the Executive Branch?

        1. So you would find the PRA unconstitutional to the extent that it restricts the right of a President to retain any document he wishes?

          1. Yes, God Yes. Under what power can you cite, that gives the Legislative branch the power to dictate how the Executive Branch conducts its business?

      2. Daniel, the arguments are reversible and depend on a court’s ruling. The DOJ jumped the gun, so we have opposing opinions.

        For example:

        “They are covered by the FRA. There is no provision for the president to declare they are personal.” What provision says they are not personal? Are the laws Constitutional?

        In my mind, the DOJ created the problem. The solution is to assume the case went before the court system and Trump complied with the court’s orders.

        Under those circumstances, what charges would the DOJ make? I don’t think they would have any with merit.

        We have to prevent overreach by government agencies. The way to do that is to invalidate any claims made after this type of inappropriate action.

        1. The PRA and FRA govern the disposition of official documents. I don’t see how the PRA gives Trump a defence unless you conclude that the President has unreviewable discretion to walk off with whatever he wants by designating it personal even when it obviously isn’t. You could also conclude that it is unconstitutional. I don’t think a court would conclude either of these things.

          1. ” unless you conclude that the President has unreviewable discretion to walk off with whatever he wants by designating it personal even when it obviously isn’t.”

            Daniel, that was not my point. My point was not to consider the merits of the case (PRA and FRA) as is presented, but rather recognize the raid was an overreach by the government. Therefore the government should invalidate any specific claims (PRA or FRA) based on the raid.

            1. I agree it was an overreach. But I don’t think the PRA will be a winning defence, except perhaps to the extent that Trump can argue that he relied on his interpretation of it and therefore did not have the requisite intent under 793(e) to retain documents in an unauthorised way. William Scharf makes this argument in The Federalist.

              I don’t think selective prosecution will be a winning argument.

              Three real possibilities are arguments that the search warrant was overbroad and thus unlawful, that the piercing of attorney-client privilege was unlawful and that there was prosecutorial malfeasance in the threats made to Nauta’s lawyer. In addition, the prosecution will have to prove that the documents in fact contained information that if revealed would harm the national defence. Classification is irrelevant.

              1. As I have addressed with others – there are multiple facets to this.

                Trumps posession of these records is authorized REGARDLESS of the PRA.

                The PRA questin is whether Trump OWNS the records. I think that is a much stronger argument than you do.
                As I noted in another post to you – not only is the PRA likely unconstitutional if the documents are not the property of the ex president – includig those in NARA’s custody. But the PRA does NOT convey ownership to the government.

                It is not enough to SAY something in a law. The law must effectuate what is said.

                I used the hypothetical clown protection act as an example.

                But specific th the PRA – YOU noted that neither NARA nor any other party is given the power to TAKE custody of these documents.
                NARA is given DUTIES regarding documents in its posession. And some duties to assist ex presidents.
                But it is not given any power. Nowwhere in the PRA is any part of government given any of the rights or powers that are associates with property ownership.

                The PRA is little more than a statement of hope by Congress about how it wishes things were – with no power to make that happen.

                But skipping the PRA – where the debate is fundimentally about ownership.
                And if Trump wins on ownership – and I think that claim is far stronger than you think.

                The mere fact that these records have been the property of presidents for 202 years – arguably precludes the PRA from changing that without violating the constitution. SCOTUS is routinely striking gun laws that do not have a long historical basis.

                Proprtyu is a clear right – both under the9th and 4th and 5th amendments, as well as commonlaw. It is not like Proprty rights do not enjoy the protection of the constitution. And the Supreme court has had a series of recent rulings strengthening property rights.

                As the left is interpretting it – the PRA takes the property rights of the ex president.

                I do not think that is the only PRA argument, but it is one of many.

                Much of the text of the PRA is not consistent with the constitution if the government owns the documents. It is not even consistent with the text of the PRA

                Regardless, I beleive that the claim to ownership is strong – even with the PRA.
                I belive that because the court ingoring the defintion of a presidential record, and using the executive powers clause to give the president the power to decide what to keep and what not, results in something that is consistent constitutionally.

                So long as the courts never get sucked into judicial review on what is and is not a presidential record, and so long as the president is free to claim ownership to whatever he wishes. The PRA has no constitutional or internal conflict.

                It works as law. But any other read of it generats a string of problems and fixing one triggers others.

              2. “I agree it was an overreach.”

                When there is such an overreach, the government should not be able to derive any benefit. Everything that follows is tainted. That leaves us only with the question of espionage. The law was wrong ~100 years ago and is no better today. Trump meant no harm and caused none. All of Trump’s actions occurred as President where he was in charge of all executive agencies including NARA.

                Out of office doesn’t change his rights to the files, no matter what they are. I cannot see any criminal charges winning except if our descent into totalitarianism is complete. The raid tells us we are more than halfway there. The other actions involving attorney-client privilege are telling us the same.

                I don’t see major flaws in John Say’s logic. Do you think John missed a portion of the law that is not under the executive branch?

          2. The PRA and FRA govern the disposition of official documents.

            No, they attempt to legislate the dispostion of White House Papers.

            No judge has ordered a President to hand over papers. Why? Under what power can the Judiciary, decide?

            The negotiation of Presidential papers is a dance as old as the PRA. A gentleman’s agreement has aided the process. The President understands the peoples desire to have access to historical materials, and the NARA understands if they push too hard, the President is likely to walk away from negotiations, and the NARA gets little to nothing. Pushing it to a judge, silly enough to rule against the President, will throw it to SCOTUS, that is left with a piece of legislation that tramples Article I enumerated power. leaving them no options but to point out what is obvious. The legslature has no constitutional power to dictate to the Executive Branch. Poof goes the PRA

          3. unless you conclude that the President has unreviewable discretion to walk off with whatever he wants by designating it personal even when it obviously isn’t

            Why do Article II powers overrule Article I powers?

            You have to structure this as an examination of Constitutional Power. Not legal statutes.

            Where does the power reside?

        2. Good point.

          The specific means by which this case arrived where it is is incredibly important.

          The FACT of the path the DOJ took means one of two things – or both.

          Either that the objective from the start was to entrap Trump – to game the legal process and the power of the executive in the hope he would do or say something that could be framed as a crime.

          Or that the DOJ knew from the start that these documents were his property and would have lost in court so they studiously avoided a court.

          Further Both can be true.

          While this game is Mostly being done by the left – republicans have engaged in it too.

          I absolutely beleive that Garland,. Wray etc should be FORCED to answer the questions of congress.

          I beleive that the house should be able to subpeona them, and that if they do not comply – they should be cited, and ultimately criminally prosecuted and jailed.

          BUT I do not beleive that the house can do that unilaterally. Nor can DOJ.

          When a party refuese to comply or when the subpeoning party does not beleive they have gotten full compliance with a subpeona – the next step is for the subpeoning party to go to COURT. Failing to comply with a US Attonernies GJ subpeona becomes a crime WHEN That attorney goes to court and asks for an order, and when the subpeona’d party has the opoertunity to challenge the subpeona in front of a hopefully neutral party, and when even that decision can be appealed through the courts to SCOTUS if needed.

          Neither the House, nor the DOJ should have the unilateral power to convert failure to comply into a crime until AFTER the courts have given their impramature on the order to produce.

          Neither the house, nor the DOJ should ever be permitted to manufacture crimes.

          I think Comer and the GOP house have the right to demand nearly anything they want of the executive.
          But they should not have the power to criminalize failure – until the courts have reviewed and agreed that compliance was required.

          HOWEVER – that having been done – the next step is compliance or JAIL. And that should be true regardless of whether those being jailed are law enforcement itself.

          I am also not a big supporter of various executive privileges. I do beleive that the direct communications with the president have absolute priviledged.
          No one directly advising the president should have to wonder whether they will be second guessed on the legality of the advice they give the president.
          And the president should not have to worry that his advisors are holding back options.
          The only choice they or the president should be judged on is the one they MADE, not those that were discussed.

          But that is the ONLY executive priviledge I recognize.

          I think Congress should take great care in prying into criminal investigations. I thinkthat the if congress seeks information on an “ongoing criminal investigation” the courts should tell congress that though they are free to do so, their inquiry could undremine the investigation itself.

          BTW that is exactly what the courts did several decades ago with Iran contra.

          I think every time a government witness says to congress “our policy is not to answer” – the response should be – your policy be damned. This is congressional oversite. You must answer – or you will be held in contempt, and that contempt has teeth.

          At the same time – congress should be careful about doing so. And it should require more than the power of congress to compell.

          I have spent more time on congress – but the principle here is the same.

          Though this entire Trump mess the claim is that Trump is a criminal because he failed to do as DOJ demanded,

          Yet, absolutely nowhere in this process did DOJ get a single court to assert their was merit in their demands and they had to be complied with.

          Those on the left say – Trump- failed to return things DOJ/NARA asked for that he was required to.

          If that was so – go to court and get a court order. No one doubts that actual court orders must be complied with – even those from politically biases courts.

          If as the left claims it is clear that Trump did not own or declassify any of this – then GO TO COURT – the courts will give their impramatur to your demands.

          The claim of the Left – and of the SC is that ONE agency of government can demand whatever it wants, and compliance is mandatory, otherwise you are criminal.

          Whether we are dealing with Trump or anyone else – that is NOT the system we should want.

          That is litterally totalitarian.

          1. ‘Good point. The specific means by which this case arrived where it is is incredibly important.”

            Thank you John for better defining what I tried to say. 🙂

            If anyone should go to jail, it should be those involved with a prosecution that is unwise and wrong.

            1. We are increasingly learning of the details of the SC investigation.

              There are now multiple allegations that SC Smith’s team TARGETED the lawyers – those for Trump and those for witnesses.

              That they went to great efforts to get the lawyers to violate priviledge – and that some did. Those will likely face disbarment.
              But the same should be true of the SC lawyers that sought to get other lawyers to violated privilege. One lawyer seeking to get another lawyer to violate privilege is an ethics violation, and absolutely a violation of the clients civil rights. I would further note that succeeding in getting a lawyer to violate privilege risks getting the entire case tossed.

              I would further note that we are finding that an increasingly large number – I beleive we are up to 4 now, of the SC Lawyers have been previously cited, and even fined for ethics violations.

              One of the allegations being made by a lawyer of a codefendant of Trump is that they called him and his client in for an emergency meeting and it turned out the emergency meeting was first to threaten the cleint with a bogus lying to the FBI charge unless they flipped on Trump,
              And separately they threatened or favor the Lawyers application for a judgeship depending on whether the client flipped.

              Aside from the fact that this is unethical – it also means that the SC was SPYING on lawyers.
              If they do not have a warrant – they are in trouble,
              And frankly even if they do – there are serious problems here.

              The courts have unfortunately given prosecutors far too much latitude regarding coercing and inducing witnesses and defendants.
              Threatening a witness with prosecution if the do not “flip” is tolerated by the courts.

              But the same is NOT true regarding the lawyers for witnesses and defendants.
              Threatening a lawyer – especially with something unrelated to the case – such as interfering with an application for a judgeship is a CRIME – it is Extortion.
              Attempting to induce a lawyer – by promissing to look favoeroably on something unrelated to the case is also a crime – Bribery.

              Further, if there is merit in these allegations – State courts can file charges. It is my understanding that the FL AG’s office has taken an interest in this.

              Trump’s lawyers have filed a sealed motion alleging numerous ethics violations by SC Smith’s team as well as demanding the GJ Transcript – as there are allegations that SC Lawyers lied to the GJ as well as made improper inferances to the GJ.

              As an example it is well settled law that the prosecutor CAN NOT suggest to a jury that they can infer guilt from a person’s invocation of priviledges.
              Trump lawyers invoked attorney Client priviledge on numrous occasions – though apparently several violated priviledge too – these are likely to be disbarred,
              And the DOJ attorneys involved can be sanction for coercing attorneys to violate priviledge. Regardless allegedly the SC attorney’s told the GJ that they could infer guilt from an attorneys’ refusal to violate attorney client privilege.

              This is both improper and stupid. Attorney client priviledge belongs to the CLIENT, This is again law school 101. Attorney’s are not allowed to voluntarily breech piviledge.

              An attorney can not even tell a Grand Jury or prosecutor completely innocent – even exculpatory remarks by the client. One of the reasons that attorney can even reveal exculpatory information is that once privilege is broken – EVERYTHING that was said gets in.

              1. After hearing Howard Root describe how the justice system went after him (he won), I realized that federal prosecutors needed to be leashed. Disbarment is a good way.

                I take note of how the left is so careful with murderers and rapists but not careful when it comes to federal prosecution. Smith’s team should face disbarment if these allegations are proven.

                When ethics and morality drop below a point, ethical and moral people are squeezed out.

                1. The root case is damning – and unfortunately not unusual.

                  Nor is it political in the traditional left right way.

                  But it is highly political in the sense that it is a reflection of the self licking ice cream cone that is government.

                  If we create laws and regulations, if we give those in government money and power to enforce those laws they will inevitably seek to increase their own money and power by increasingly creatively prosecuting with less and less relation to the law and regulation.

                  When it is not crystal clear to all that a law has been violated – IT HASN”T.

                  The left rants about ambition and greed. Failing to grasp that government is the worst domain for both.

                  Free markets naturally self regulate – while in government ambition and greed build exponentially, with each new Attorney or Agent required to go beyond the last in order to make their mark.

            2. I find it interesting that we were Told by Wray and Garland and several other DOJ/FBI officials UNDER OATH that After the Horowitz Report they cleared out the bad apples and implemented processes and procedures to prevent these unethical and politically biased practices.

              Yet we are strting to hear of conduct in the SC’s office that is WORSE that that in the DOJ/FBI under Crossfire Huricane and worse that that in Mueller’s investigation.

              Separately – what is an attorney that was cited for ethics violations doing in DOJ AT ALL – much less 4 so far ?

              1. “they cleared out the bad apples and implemented processes and procedures ”

                If that were true, we would have seen people jailed or publically humiliated so they could not gain from their ethical breaches.

      3. “Records prepared by a government department are not presidential records under the PRA. They are covered by the FRA. There is no provision for the president to declare they are personal. He is not authorised to take them away. It is unclear how many of the classified documents at issue here belong to government departments.”

        Daniel, every President is the ultimate “authority” for the entire Executive Branch (EB), including all executive departments within and all records those departments create. There is no higher authority in the (EB) that can override an Executive Order, according to Article 2. Nor can anyone at DOJ or other executive departments revoke Presidential Security clearances at the end of a term. The only authority that can is a sitting President, which hasn’t happened.

        FRA is a Congressional Act. Congressional acts do not usurp Executive Branch *powers*, including those held by the President. That’s literally due to the Separation of Powers enumerated in the Constitution. That, on it’s own, is an important – if not the MOST important – distinction that’s being either overlooked or (more likely) being completely ignored in Smith’s case.

        1. So you are saying that both the PRA and FRA are unconstitutional to the extent they restrict the President’s power to walk off with official records? And I suppose you are also saying that 793(e) is unconstitutional too to the extent it punishes the President for going that?

          1. Again, “yes”. And based only on the Separation of Powers established in the Constitution. That Separation is a clear “Red Line” that can not be crossed without an Amendment to the Constitution saying as such.

            Laws passed by Congress do not determine Executive Branch powers within. You present an interesting rebuttal though, and if not for SoP limiting Congressional power and authority to it’s own Branch, it might even have Merit. Alas, it’s difficult, if not impossible to see where any policy, law, department, definition, or person in the Executive Branch has the *power and authority* to tell a sitting president, “Um no, sir. You can’t take that because *I* say so. I outrank you because, you know, Congress vested me to do so. Give those papers back!”

            Does that help clarify the point John, Iowan2, I, and others have repeatedly opined? It seems Garland and Smith et al, have forgotten.

            1. Very clear, thanks. I don’t know if Trump’s legal team will seek to challenge the constitutionality of these laws as applied here, and if they do whether five Supreme Court Justices will agree.

              1. I’d be a little surprised if the case reaches the Supremes. Not shocked, just surprised. That 5 would agree seems likely with this Court but, as always, nothing is ever guaranteed

        2. Just to be clear – I have not addressed FRA issues in my arguments – because they are not relevant.

          But the absoluteness of executive power gets more muddy outside the WH. And the courts have found that.

          Congress does have the power to constrain agencies that it creates.
          But it does not have the power to go arround the president.;

          I do not profess expertise in the nuances of how these contradicory propositions are resolve – or claim that they have been correctly resolved.

          I have not addressed them because they are not relevant to this discussion.

          Unless Trump took the original of a Federal rather than WH record – and there are no copies. a copy of a federal record in the white house is a presidential record.

          The courts have rules that the president can not do whatever they want with federal records, and that the courts do have judicial review over federal reocrds.

          Some of the cases that build to JW V NARA or are cited by it address Federal VS Presidential records.

          Generally the power of the president within the WH is pretty close to absolute. The office of the president is created by the Constitution – not congress.
          It is very close to the exclusive domain of the president. The balance of power between the president and congress in other agencies is less clear.

          And that is consisten with centures of court decisions.

      4. First I want to thank you for actually making well reasoned arguments resting on arguable claims of fact and law.
        Rather than most of the BS nonsense being posted.

        I see several of your points – some I agree with – atleast in part, or in the narrow rather than broad sense.
        DoD records are not presidential records. Copies of DoD records at the WH are.

        “Records prepared by a government department are not presidential records under the PRA. They are covered by the FRA. There is no provision for the president to declare they are personal. He is not authorised to take them away. It is unclear how many of the classified documents at issue here belong to
        government departments.”

        correct – but you go to far.

        The courts have decided as an example that the president can not use powers under the PRA to as an example order NSA to destroy its records where the FRA limits that. However the President has absolute power to order the destruction of copies of NSA records that are in the whitehouse – those are covered by the PRA – not the FRA.

        If Trump ordered the DoD to give him all copies of some classified doc, and then claiming they were his property under the PRA took them to MAL,
        He actually would have violated the FRA (not the PRA).

        But if Trump ordered the DoD to give the WH copies of a classified document and then took that document to MAL – that would be covered under the PRA.

        Did Jackson duck the issue of judicial review ? I do nto think so, but there is an argument there. Regardless, the issue was previously decided by teh courts – and Jackson cites the prior decisions.

        There is a legitimate legal argument as to whether judicial review is absolutely barred or just severely limited.
        Regardless, the courts have multiply decided that the decision as to what is and is not a personal records is the presidents.

        Regarding your claim that Jackson determined that NARA did not have the clinton tapes and could not be ordered to get them.
        Again – I am not sure that is the holding. But even if it is – Trump case closed.
        NARA did not have Trump’s docs and could not be ordered to get them.

        You ARE correct tht ONE facet of the JAckson – and earlier decisions is that the PRA gives NARA no power to take possession of anything.

        One of the many problems with the PRA is that it has no enforcement mechanism and delegates no power,

        If Congress passes the Clown protection act – declaring that insulting clowns is a federal crime,
        But specifies no punishment, and does not provide for any enforcement – it the Clown protection act a constitutional law ? The answer is no.

        To the extent that the PRA is meaningful law – it requires the NARA to preserve documents that the President leaves with the government on his departure,
        and empowers NARA to provide assistance to former presidents to preserve their records and administer their libraries.

        It does not give NARA or any other govenrment agency the power to confiscate records not in government posession.

        as a principle of property law – if you have no control over property, and no posiession. and no rights regarding that property – you do not own it.

        While the PRA SAYS that government owns presidential records, without posession, or control or some other property rights – there can be no onwership.

        A law that states something – but gives no meaning to what it states – is not a law.


      5. NARA did not have possession of Trump’s documents either – so whatever the basis of Jacksons decision – the results would be the same for Trump.

        If NARA has no authority to take possession – they have no authority to take possession.

        I would further note that if you do not possess property, and you have no power to ever do so, you do not own it.

        Or put differently – I am not sure there is a whit of actual difference between your claim and mine.

        There is certainly no difference in effect.

    3. “It is clearly grounds for the House to drag Garland, Smith, Biden, and all DOJ attorney’s involved infront of the house under oath and grill them mercilessly.”

      They, the UniParty/Cabal, will *never* do anything even *close* to holding DOJ’s feet to the fire for at least two reasons: 1. Any crimes committed by DOJ uncovered by Congress require the DOJ, itself, to prosecute them. History has made it clear the DOJ will never prosecute their own “higher-ups”, with Holder being only the latest example. 2. UniParty members will only pay lip-service about seeking Justice against their own kind because they don’t dare open the closet where their collective skeletons live and risk countersuits up the wazoo.

      At the end of – at least today, we’re ‘stuck’ with a broken system that continues to fail the both The People and fails to uphold the principles of Equal Applications of Justice, under The Law.

      Regardless, your posts are highly informative and need to be heard by True Believers, Inc.™, you know, the ones who say only *their side* is Righteous. Continue the good work, friend.

    4. Out of my ignorance comes no rebuttal. If you are a lawyer, you may want to get on Trump’s criminal defense team. I am being sincere in my suggestion; I lack the legal acumen to understand whether your arguments are valid. If they are, and you have an interest in playing a part in the pushback of this dangerous overreach of indicting political enemies, I hope you’ll consider it.

      1. Brendan,

        My clients do not ask me what university I graduated from or what my class rank was.
        They hire me because of a long track record of successful projects.

        My advice to you would be to trust those who have been right about the collusion delusion,
        Covid, Inflation, the Biden family finances, ….

        Ultimately the law belongs to the the people – not lawyers, not the courts, not even the legislature.

        WE have to abide by it, we are also responsible to elect those who create and enforce it.

        Put simply WE own it.

        Most of us take an very hands off approach to the law – trusting government to create and enforce the law.

        And when government follows the cannons of law, the principles and foundations that we have spent 7 millennia developing – that usually works out fairly well.

        But the more arbitrary the law becomes, the more arbitrary the courts become, the more arbitrary enforcement becomes – the less we do and should trust government.

        We are the ultimate check on the law and on government – not the courts, not even the supreme court.

        Most of us are not very good at the logical analysis required to deal with complex legal issues.
        That said the core logical principles are not all that complex.
        The biggest problem most of us have is that though the law really is not all that complex – reality and the circumstances we must apply it to are often very complex.

        But that too should inform us.

        People rarely have days to consult lawyers before deciding how to act in complex situations.

        The truism that ignorance of the law is no excuse, comes with the corollary that the law must be founded on moral concepts that are intuitive for most of us.

        We battle in court over such things as whether the requirements for self defense or defense of others were met in some situation.
        But the people involved had milliseconds to make their decisions. In MOST instances the real issue for the court – is NOT what is the law – but what are the actual facts. And we MAY get that wrong, and when we do we come to erroneous outcomes.

        But the intricacies of the law using self defense as an example are NOT truly decided by legislators. They are decided by our actions – decisions we make with milliseconds of though. And legislators are ACTUALLY supposed to craft the law to reflect the outcome that moral actors reach in the instant such decisions are made.

        One of the foundations of criminal law is that it must involve serious harm to others, usually through violence, or the threat of violence. It must involve the initiation of force, or fraud to accomplish something that harms others that we can not legitimately accomplish without force or fraud.

        There are exceptions to this – but most of those are bad law.

        Claims of criminality rooted in a failure to dot ones eye’s and cross ones’ ts should ALWAYS be viewed skeptically.

        There is Zero doubt that we are free to pay others for silence. Just as they are free to not accept and speak out. Absent force or fraud that is legal.
        In NY Bragg is alleging that Trump did not do so in precisely the correct fashion.

        There is Zero doubt that the president has limitless non-re-viewable authority to classify of declassify material – SCOTUS Navy V. Eagan.
        Smith is trying to claim that Trump did not do so properly.

        There is a legitimate debate over whether presidents own the work product of the WH from their term. There is ZERO doubt that for over 200 years they absolutely did. Whether those on the left will admit it or not, there is a great deal of doubt over whether the PRA actually changed that or even could constitutionally do so.
        The JW v. NARA case does not settle the issue beyond any doubt at all. But it comes incredibly close.

        The fact that there is legitimate debate – does not mean the issue is 50:50. There is ZERO doubt based on JW V. NARA that ex-presidents can legally possess classified material an there is nothing that NARA or the government can do about it.

        Both of these cases reflect examples of DOJ attempting to reach far beyond the law to manufacture a crime, where there is no underlying use of force or fraud and no harm.

        That should have been shut down long ago.

        The problem is not the alleged political motive of those prosecuting. It is that reaching beyond the actual law, and beyond the foundations of the law, allows the law to be abused – for political as well as myriads of other bad purposes.

        We strive to apply the law equally – not because that is required by the constitution – as well as the rule of law, but because failing to do so converts the law into a weapon – does it matter if it is being used as a political weapon or a religious weapon or an ideological weapon ?

        Further it is a breach of the social contract – we ceded the right to initiate force to government in return for the protection of our other rights. Not to empower government to target some of us when we are not actually harming others.

      2. Trump has lots of lawyers – some good, some less. Nor are the arguments I have made exclusive to me.
        You can find them made by many many others including Trump’s lawyers.

        I would suggest that you are likely to slowly hear many of them front and center now.

        The earlier 11th cir ct of appeals decision was in error. But those on the left do not grasp it did NOT rule on the merits of Trump’s claims.
        Their decision was essentially a scheduling and jurisdictional decision. Judge Cannon now unequivocally has the jurisdiction the appelate court claimed she lacked,
        And the matter is NOW a criminal matter and those issues are SQUARELY before her in a context that is MORE favorable to Trump than a civil case.

        Further the 11th cir ct of appeals has established a bad precident – allowing the appeal of non-final court orders that will likely drive this case to the supreme court multiple times before it ever reaches a jury.

    5. Excellent analysis, John. Mr. Turley has it right again…sadly, having made the mistake of believing the Democrats and Obama, long ago, I’ve concluded they are right about one thing…they are masters at lying and misdirection.

      1. We are in the midst of a political corruption scandal involving Biden. We have the fitst instance in US history of a president getting caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

        As bad as that may be it is mostly inconsequential. We have studied global political corruption for centuries and the regimes that are most heavily into graft are not especially dangerous.

        The greatest danger a country or its people face is from ruling class that is prepared to impose its will on all by force and willing to use the power given it by the people to do so.

        It is not that Joe Biden’s DOJ is falling all over itself to exhonerate Hunter and Joe for Graft, it is is the obverse of that – that they are willing to use the power they have to punish those they disagree with.

        Far too many – Turley included, give those on the left the benefit of the doubt, because they are allegedly “the good people”.
        They put enormous amounts of effort into virtue signaling. They MUST be the good guys.

        But when we remove the scales from our eyes and measure people by their actions rather then their moral preening,
        the world is different.

        The world Reveres Mother Theresa – but Bill Gates who I do NOT personally like, did more to improve the world including the poorest before he became a philanthropist than 1000 mother theresas.

        Trump is coarse and uncouth but he has spent his life profiting by giving others what they want and need.

        When Joe Biden told the mayor in Florida that “Nobody messes with a Biden” – that told us all we should need.

        Even Derschowitz understood that no one tried to prosecute Al Gore for challenging the 2000 election.
        Derschowitz continues to beleive that Al Gore won in 2000, blaming Nader or Butterfly Ballots.
        Possibly true – but not evidence of election fraud or malice. Those who voted for Nader KNEW he could not win and chose not to vote for gore. Those who screwed up Ballots in FL were in Democratic run precincts. There has been no allegation that they deliberately tried to make Gore lose.

        The FBI/DOJ/DHS censorship fo the Hunter Biden story specifically – and political stories generally was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. It was a deliberate attempt to RIG the Election – it was election FRAUD.

        It it NOT what “the good guys” do. Nor is it something “the good guys” condone, or even turn a blind eye to.

        We allow those facing immediate threat of serious violence to use violence against that threat.
        We do NOT allow people to pre-emptively murder those we deem bad people – because of what they have done in the past or might have done in the future.

        We have spent thousands of years working these and many other principles of law out.

        Those principles are NOT arbitrary, they are NOT merely the decrees of 9 old white men in the supreme court,
        nor the wisdom of some latina. They are the product of thousands of years of trial and error, experience, philosophical debate and its practical application.

        The ideals and principles of the west that those on the left are currently pissing over are not perfect.
        They are however the best humans have managed in 300,000 years and unlikely to be improved by the rantings of a generation of angry young college students.

        The west has in the past 500 years done better than the rest of the world – not because it has been the most exploitive – that is nonsense. Other parts of the world have been at the forefront at other times – not because they were the most exploitive – but because their core principles were the best of humanity AT THAT TIME. The anglosphere has lead the west – because anglo principles were superior. The United states has lead the anglo sphere because its principles were superior.

        Principles like Free will, individual liberty, self government, free speech, the rule of law, the conservative demand that change prove itself before being broadly adopted.

        Crime is the use of force or fraud to take from others. Lying for personal gain is NOT Fraud, Fraud requires a lie that deceptively harms those who believe you.

        The rule of law requires narrow adherence to the actual law – and it requires actual law that does not criminalize conduct just because we do not like it.

        Any time someone says the prosecutor is attempting a novel legal theory – that prosecutor has already violated the rule of law.

        And that is the the worst danger to us all – not Biden’s graft. But the abuse of government powers that has increased year by year atleast since the start of the Obama administration.

        If you are desparate to bend the law – because Trump is a bad person. or because you think those who are prolife are bad, or because you think those who beleive in god are bad or because you think those who differ from you on policies are evil – then YOU are the problem.

        1. You lost me when you praised Bill Gates as some kind of humanitarian x a gazillion over Mother Teresa. No way, jose.

          Long, but worth a read:

          “But, what about polio!!” Let’s see…

          Written by Robert F. Kennedy.

          “Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India ‘s National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017.

          In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB. Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously. In 2017, the World Health Organization reluctantly admitted that the global polio explosion is predominantly vaccine strain, meaning it is coming from Gates’ Vaccine Program. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, the Philippines, and Afghanistan are all linked to Gates’ vaccines. By 2018, ¾ of global polio cases were from Gates’ vaccines.

          In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

          In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a trial of a GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,049 children.

          During Gates 2002 MenAfriVac Campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Between 50-500 children developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for drug makers”

          Nelson Mandela’s formar Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philantropic practises as “ruthless” and immoral”.

          In 2010, Gates committed $ 10 billion to the WHO promising to reduce population, in part, through new vaccines. A month later Gates told a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony “tetanus” vaccine campaign.

          Independent labs found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.

          A 2017 study (Morgensen http://et.Al.2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP is killing more African than the disease it pretends to prevent. Vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of unvaccinated children.
          Gates and the WHO refused to recall the lethal vaccine which WHO forces upon millions of African children annually.
          Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of – hijacking WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases; clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal fetish – that good health only comes in a syringe.

          In addition to using his philantropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI and PATH, Gates funds private pharmaceutical companies that manifacture vaccines, and a massive network of pharmaceutical -industry front groups that broadcast deceptive propaganda, develop fraudulent studies, conduct surveillance and psychological operations against vaccine hesitancy and use Gates’ power and money to silence dissent and coerce compliance.”

  2. Anonymous
    Can you stick to reality – While Johnson is corect that the mention of tapes is not proof they exist.
    The source is according to the FBI credible – It is reasonable to presume they do exist – though they are not necesary to prove a case.
    Further the lack of certainty as to whether they exist does not logically allow you to jump to – they were manufactured – or even the claim was manufactured.

    Next – people are convicted on “purely circumstantial” evidence all the time.

    All forensic evidence is circumstantial.

    With respect to a bribery charge against Joe Biden – there is already enough to convict with a non biased jury – that would be most of the country, outside the coastal peoples republics.

    There is a credible allegation that a bribe was offered in return for Shokin being fired.
    There is proof that Hunter Biden received money from Burisma – the source of the Bribe.
    Joe Biden admitted to coercing Ukraine into firing Shokin to receive $1B in US loans.

    It is highly likely that with further investigation – more evidence will be found – but that meets the minimum standard for a jury to convict.

    The case is FAR better than the case against MacDonald that SCOTUS throughout, and the Case against Sen. Menedez that hung.

    In MacDonald there was no alleged official act that MacDonald performed in return for alleged bribes.
    In Menedez there was no evidence of a quiid pro quo – Sen. Mendez did official favors for a rich constituent/friend. And the Friend did favors for Menedez.
    But there was no claim beyond allegation that one was for the other.

    The case against Biden has all required elements for Bribery.
    An oiffer of money explicitly for an official act,
    An exchange of money,
    and execution of the promised official act.

    You can choose to disbelieve the offer was made – that is the only element that is not an indisputable fact.
    But a Jury is also free to believe the allegation.

    I would further note – we are getting WAY past the “Shokin was corrupt” idiocy of the left.

    Comer and other house republicans are making it clear than “Giuliani had no part in this.

    But the FACT is that even if no further evidence is uncovered – Giuliani has been vindicated. John Solomon has been vindicated.
    The Trump impeachment has been exposed for the political garbage that it is.
    It is self evident – as always, that democrats – failed to even consider the possibility that Trump’s allegation might be true.
    Or more correctly – that there was sufficient evidence for Trump to request the investigation.

    There was at the time Trump asked for the investigation. But in the past 3 years the available evidence has multiplied – and there is enough to go to trial and in much of the country convict.

    But further investigation will undoubtedly strengthen the case.

    The house has made clear – they are not even close to the bottom of the Biden money laundering ring.
    What has been exposed so far has been SOME of the chinese money,
    House republicans will likely move to looking for the Burisma/Russia money – beyond what was paid to Hunter Biden.
    That alone is sufficient to convict for bribery. But it would be a stronger case if the 10M alleged was found in the right time frame.

    And contra the lefts cases – which get weaker with age and under the light.

    The case alleging public corruption by the biden’s gets stronger with each new revelation.

    1. While Johnson is correct that the mention of tapes is not proof they exist.
      The source is according to the FBI credible

      The FBI has been paying this source for years. Because his intel has always been proven accurate over time. Yes this source is much different then Steele, who nobody would trust any claim he made. Unless it was Obama and Biden, and they needed to fabricate a phony mission against a political rivial. The Steele is perfect, because he is already a bought man.

      1. IK do not k the tapes will ever be heard.
        I do not think this source will ever testify.

        But I do think the informaton in the 1023 will allow house republicans to go looking for further evidence and find some.

        It is not likely that the standard of proof that left wing nuts require with ever be met.

        But there is already enough for reasonable juries in 90% of the country to convict. for bribery.

        This case is already stroner than MacDonald or Mendez.

  3. “Earlier today, the Justice Department indicted Donald Trump on 37 counts related to his retention of classified documents after leaving office in January 2021. A good many Republicans have reacted by claiming that the indictment is “the stuff of a banana republic” (as Trump’s former acting attorney general Mat Whitaker put it) or otherwise reminiscent of authoritarian states. Nothing can be further from the truth. … It is simply not true that prosecuting a former president or other prominent politician is the kind of thing that only banana republics do. … Giving high officials impunity for criminality is actually a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. The fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin routinely commits war crimes and other violations of law without fear of prosecution is a sign of the degeneration of that country’s political system, even if some trappings of constitutional government remain.
    “Another variation on the banana republic claim is that Trump is being charged for petty offenses, on weak evidence, or on the basis of convoluted legal theories—and prosecutors would not have done such things to an ordinary person who had done the same thing. … [But t]he indictment includes extensive evidence that that 1) the files were in fact classified, 2) Trump knew they were (they even have recordings of him saying so!), 3) Trump deliberately tried to withhold them, and 4) the classified information (at least some of it) was actually important (e.g.—war plans). This was not simply a case of him retaining some insignificant records that perhaps should never have been classified in the first place. For that reason, Trump’s offense here posed a genuine risk to national security. …”

    1. #’s 1, 3, 4, assumes facts not in evidence. 2. is an unknown since context is yet to be revealed, and the DoJ most likely will not allow the entire recording to be public. You very big on accusing Trump of lying using braggadocio. According to you, this would be 100% in line with Trumps character flaws.

      Ilyua Somin is a sufferer of TDS. He has never recovered from President Trump re-instituting Obama’s travel ban on Muslims.

    2. No mention of the failure of the DOJ to prosecute Hillary Clinton on stronger evidence. Equal application of the law is a prerequisite to a system being “law”.

  4. “If you have not yet heard the term “the silent witness rule,” you soon will. It’s almost certain to play a crucial role in United States v. Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president for allegedly, among other things, willfully retaining 31 documents containing sensitive national defense information. Twenty-one of those documents were allegedly classified at the Top Secret level. The silent witness rule is a practical, court-fashioned approach to prosecuting cases involving national security secrets. …”

    1. On the one hand the hypocrites of the left don’t accept evidence that is clear cut. However, when the tables change suddenly they will desire silent witnesses. Such hypocrisy is astounding.

      1. You clearly didn’t read the column and don’t know what “the silent witness rule” refers to.

    2. Those 31 documents are mostly the handouts for his daily briefings. It there’s anything actually Top Secret, I’d be mightily surprised, Most classified information is Confidential or Secret at best. I had a Top Secret clearance and never saw a Top Secret document. An entire document might be classified at a higher level because of one sentence. A major problem of government is the tendency to classify information just to keep it out of the eyes of the public. The CIA and NSA classify everything under the pretense that knowledge of it might jeopardize their methods. That’s where most of the allegedly classified documents came from. Smith’s chances of getting a conviction under the Espionage Act are between slim and none, so he’s hoping to get something under the obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI claim. The DOJ usually gets those convictions by getting the accused to plead guilty to a lessor charge. Hillary Clinton’s Emails were damaging to national security because she was transmitting classified information on an open carrier. The only person who supposedly saw any of Trump’s documents was a writer who was interviewing him for a book about a colleague. This is a purely political prosecution. Biden wants to knock him off before the election and is weaponizing the FBI and DOJ to do it.

      1. “Those 31 documents are mostly the handouts for his daily briefings.”

        Some of them, but not most. Here’s a good overview with an informed guess about what they are:

        “It there’s anything actually Top Secret, I’d be mightily surprised”

        Why surprised. Several are marked Top Secret. You did see that the indictment shows the classification markings on the documents, right (except for a few that are redacted)?

        “Smith’s chances of getting a conviction under the Espionage Act are between slim and none”

        I doubt you’re right, but we’ll find out in time.

        “This is a purely political prosecution.”

        It isn’t.

        “Biden wants to knock him off before the election and is weaponizing the FBI and DOJ to do it.”

        Total BS. Biden was not involved in the decision to prosecute.

  5. “Mike Pompeo slams Trump on Fox News saying his handling of secrets put US troops in danger”

    – Independent

    Oh, well —- me! Real President Donald J. Trump was the first President to put American troops in danger.

    That may have been George Washington, “Crazy Abe” “War-For-No-Reason” Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin “General Secretary” Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush et al.

    And Good Olde Mikey wants the executive branch to cede executive Power to the legislative branch.

    Mikey, Thou Shalt Not Covet.

    You are green with envy, my man.

    Pompeo! What a ——- idiot!

    Pompeo, Pence and William “Mr. Deep Deep State” Barr, idiots one and all.

    These backstabbing, perfidious quislings are looking for work with the Liz Chaney RINOs-R-Us Ass-ociation and Lonely Hearts Club.

    11th Commandment

    Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

    – President Ronald Reagan

    1. That was right before a plane took Robert Hur to search for Biden files in all the igloos in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. His leads all went cold.

      1. There you are, Oscar.

        Does the following state that the legislative branch has “executive Power,” or that the legislative branch has any dominion over “executive Power,” or that the legislative branch has any facet, aspect or degree of “executive Power” sufficient to legislate commands to the sitting President regarding classification, declassification, archiving, or archiving modality of materials in perpetuity?

        Article 2, Section 1

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

        1. George K. Marx,

          Since we have a system of checks and balances, to answer such a question one needs to look deeply and specifically. Your question is too generalized.

          1. Per the fundamental law below:

            – Does any entity other than the President have any power to classify, declassify and archive material, or does any entity enjoy the Power to order the President to do so?

            – Who has the Power to classify, declassify and archive material?

            – Is there any executive Power vested in the legislative branch that allows the legislative branch to usurp the Power vested in the executive branch, to amend the Constitution, and to direct and command the executive branch?

            To be sure, I did not ask you to make —- up.

            I asked if you can read the Constitution and know who has the Power to classify, declassify and archive material, in any modality and in perpetuity.

            Article 2, Section 1

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

            1. Please cite the Constitution for “Checks and Balances” that hold any force or weight, then please read Article 2, Section 1, to definitively determine who is vested with the executive Power, including the EXCLUSIVE Power to classify, declassify, archive, set the archive modality, and archive in perpetuity.

              1. George K. Marx, I do not disagree that declassification of classified information is a Presidential power, but to say EXCLUSIVE is wrong. I agree with Trump’s position.

                1. Trump is not a body of law. Trump is not fundamental law in America. Trump is not the Constitution.

                  You are rewriting the Constitution.

                  The Constitution states clearly and unambiguously that:

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

                  That vesting of executive Power is not qualified, as the 5th Amendment right to private property is qualified by the phrase in the law that private property may not be “taken for public use, without just compensation.”

                  If the vesting of executive Power was to be qualified, the Framers would have done so.

                  Clearly they did not.

                  No one has any power to modify or qualify the Constitution outside of the amendment process.

                  Exclusively, executive Power, including all Power to classify, declassify, archive, set the archive modality, and archive in perpetuity, is vested in the President, only the President and no other entity, office, elected official or branch of government.

                  1. George, when you play these types of games, you must be 100% accurate. You are not. You misquote and make errors.

                    “You are rewriting the Constitution.:

                    Quote what you are talking about, and tell me your objections. I don’t think I have rewritten the Constitution at all. My position on the Trump papers is they are his, and if there is some loophole, there still is no cause for criminal action.

                  2. Actually, the power to classify and declassify is much, much lower than the White House. Basically, ANYONE with a security clearance has the power to classify a document. Whoever classifies it may also declassify it. The Constitution says nothing about classification because it didn’t come along until around the time of World War II.

                2. Any legislation that usurps the constitutional Power of the executive branch and, thereby, the President is irrefutably unconstitutional.

                  The legislative branch enjoys no power to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the Power of the executive branch – not one scintilla.

                  1. It depends on what you mean by usurp. Executive powers are the President’s, but the checks and balances provide Congress mechanisms to check his powers. Remember, Congress has the power of the purse.

                3. So what are you claiming? That the President isn’t the Commander & Chief, that all power of the Executive is vested in the Bureaucracy 1st & the rest to the Judiciary? That the Prez is just a pretty face corrupt Idiot like Biden the Pedo Azz raping lil boys & girls? Come on.

                  FYI, Taiwan is being Evacuated! Think just maybe we can argue about the table settings after some loyal people in Govt have those evil b*stard legally removed for cause?

                  1. Oky, I claim the President is the Commander and Chief with strong powers, especially in foreign affairs. However, the President is not a dictator.

                    I don’t think they are evacuating Americans from Taiwan. I think they are creating plans for an evacuation of Americans if necessary. I am not privy to what is happening behind the scenes, but If Joe Biden received a check for $50,000 that might mean he sold Taiwan to the Chinese.

                    1. LOL;)

                      I just see so much info blocked from us by the old paid for Govt funded media I’m just sick of being lied to.

                      That’s one of the things I like about RFK jr., he has his bonafides as we’ll all know now the CIA/Intel , his dad, uncle, etc.

                      Back on the topic while I’m here, because of the misuse of governmental power the magistrate/judge needs to toss this case as it’s so improperly constructed/presented. At best that biased UN/Obama supporter SP should have investigated, issued a report to the House of Reps to see what they wanted to do something with it since this case might set a very important precedent that’s far beyond some nut job SP.

                      All to done now is for the Judge to say get this Ph crap out of my court Rm, take Andrew V (W)eissman with you & don’t come back. lol

                    2. RFK Jr. is far to the left. He sounds good when surrounded by stupid leftists, but he is not an answer.

                    3. Yes, that’s my problem with RFK jr., but he’s up against that East Coast, Ohio, West Coast Commie Dims/NeoCon Rinos War Mongers, much like DeSantis & rest of the pack. They’ve all these different Mafia groups that run each area/state politics that if a candidate doesn’t kiss their butts just right they can being them together.

                      It’s another odd year. I’m still very pissed that Trump let others & VP Pence harm & m*rder millions of Americans with the so called mRNA Vax.

                      There’s so much research coming to the front this week I should have been busy filing & posting about it.

                      If people still haven’t figured out why they should care about all of those 300+ illegal US Bio-weapons around the world at this point I don’t think their kids & them can be help.

                      Others & I, RFK jr. spent your time warning, but it was my free choice to do so, no regrets. Proven right in spades.


                      FAUCI LIED: Scientists Discover First Victims in COVID19 Pandemic Were Researchers from Fauci-Funded Wuhan Lab
                      by Jim Hoft Jun. 15, 2023 7:45 am316 Comments


                      Gab Telegram Share Tweet

                      Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Kristian Anderson

                      On January 31, 2020, Danish-born and British-educated scientist Kristian Andersen, emailed Dr. Tony Fauci saying the virus looks lab-made.

                      Kristian Anderson, “Some of the features look engineered” and the “genome looks inconsistent with evolutionary theory.”

                      Then on February 4, 2020, after a call with Dr. Tony Fauci, British scientist Kristian Anderson wrote that the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theory.
                      Urologist: Plenty of Men With An Enlarged Prostate Do Not Know About This Simple Solution
                      Too Much Belly Fat? Top Cardiologists Share A Surprising Tip For Bedtime
                      Urologist: Enlarged Prostate? Do This Immediately (Genius!)

                      Kristian Anderson, “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment related to this virus being somehow engineered… and that is demonstrably false.”

                      The Surprising #1 Reason People Are Asking A Faith-Based Company To Help Them Back Their Retirement Accounts With Gold

                      So what happened between January 31, 2020 and February 4, 2020?

                      Dr. Tony Fauci called Dr. Kristian Anderson and ordered him to publicly say the COVID virus was NOT lab-made.


                      And Dr. Anderson was not alone. Dr. Fauci bribed numerous doctors to keep them quiet on the origins of the COVID pandemic that he funded.

                      Now there is evidence that the first COVID19 patients were researchers in the Fauci-funded Wuhan Lab.
                      Fauci was lying the entire time – and millions died around the world.

                      There’s a special place in hell for people like Tony Fauci.


                    4. “It’s another odd year. I’m still very pissed that Trump let others & VP Pence harm & m*rder millions of Americans with the so called mRNA Vax.”

                      That is the nature of medical treatments. There is a lot of guesswork. I am not angry at the vaccine. I am upset that the government interfered with free speech, free choice, and our right to conduct business.

                    5. …and in many cases, a Citizen’s decision to refuse “the jab” without reprisal.

                  2. Be really careful with that “Commander in Chief” stuff. The president is ONLY the CIC of the Army and Navy (and since 1947, the Air Force.)

                    1. Interesting, I hadn’t heard that, like many other things coming to the surface now.

                    2. Well Please give at least one example of military that is not under control of the President.
                      The Constitution requires civilian control of he military.

                4. Sorry I missed some of this conversation. But I’m still very ticked & concerned Biden’s handlers/Dinos/Rinos are racing head long into an unwinnable WW3.

                  Maybe someone else in the US posted it but the Russians said they are done talking & cut off the hotline to DC.

                  Ppl can check for themselves the nature of escalations at the Rand Corporation, where very close to the end. & Ck history. The Planet will still be here It’s just the people won’t be here.

                  So hey all that 2020 plus Voter Fraud Mattered!

                  1. You are right OKY. WW3 is right around the corner if the stupidity continues. Some people don’t like Trump because of his perceived lifestyle. I get it, but I don’t want to see idiots getting us into WW3 when a better choice like Trump would have kept us out. I don’t care that he cheats on his wives, I don’t care that he has been married more than once, and I don’t care that some of the things he says are annoying. I don’t want war.

                  1. To be specific the VP can classify and declassify that which he classified.

                    I’m sure you knew that before, so why the question?

                    1. To be specific the VP can classify and declassify that which he classified.

                      Yes the office of VP is treated like an executive branch agency. Enumerated agencies have the power to classify. NOT all agencies.

                      ONLY the President has exclusive power to declassify any document created by any agency.

                    2. “Name an exception.”

                      Iowa, I did so correctly.

                      In order to prevent confusion I will repeat what I said.to George. “I do not disagree that declassification of classified information is a Presidential power, but to say EXCLUSIVE is wrong.”

                      Thank you for your additions to George’s comment. That specificity shows my comment was correct.


    Was the Warren Commission an investigation by a Special Prosecutor or a completely false white wash (Oswald was in the lunch room)?

    Was whatever Robert Mueller did an investigation by a Special Prosecutor or a jurisprudential debacle-in-dementia?

    Was John Durham’s designed-to-fail effort a Pyrrhic un-white wash?

    Was Andrew “Mike Nifong” Weissmann a felonious, overreaching, “Pit Bull” Special Prosecutor or a criminal?

    “The now unsealed records expose efforts by Weissmann, and the Enron Task Force he led, to intimidate witnesses and to interfere in the attorney-client relationship of a cooperating witness. Several affidavits unsealed last week catalogued veiled threats made to witnesses the Enron defendants sought to interview….”

    – The Federalist


  7. Wahh Wahh Wahh: Turley can’t really dispute the fact that Trump stole classified documents because his big fat ego needed to pretend he’s still “president” and therefore entitled to possess and distribute our national secrets according to his whims, how he refused to return classified documents, lied about returning them, lied about a nonexistent “power” to declassify them, lied about the PRA being applicable, but, most of all, put our national security at risk by his reckless mishandling of our nation’s most-valuable secrets for no reason other than to feed his massive ego. So, Turley has to trot out something, anything, as a diversion. So, today’s diversion is several-fold: 1. the special counsel investigating Biden is missing, and we, the public, need to be reassured that he’s going after Biden; 2. Hillary was bad, too; 3. The “Hunter Biden Scandal”.isn’t being taken seriously; 4. has to get in a dig at Comey.

    The Trump saga will go down in history as a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of alt-right media created as a push-back to mainstream media after Nixon got caught abusing his power and being forced to resign. Nixon supporters were frustrated that there wasn’t some national media willing to call Woodward and Bernstein liars, and/or to accuse them and the WaPo of having an anti-Nixon agenda by investigating him and getting the goods on him. So, they created Fox (fake) News which has spawned several imitators. Historians will note how alt-right media pandered to the fears of non college educated Americans who felt threatened by the success of Barak Obama, and who are threatened by educated women and minorities to promote a deeply-flawed immoral phony like Trump for whom there is no limit to lying, attacking his critics, attacking minorities, women, migrants and anyone else who isn’t white, Christian and straight. They simply make up claims of things like Biden being demented, but still, the head of a “crime family”, all without evidence, and go after anyone and everyone who doesn’t support Trump. They ignore or downplay the facts in the numerous scandals, and have successfully turned a segment of America against science, the DOJ, the FBI and IRS. Turley is playing a role in his saga–and history won’t look kindly on him. At the end of the day, the pendulum will swing the other direction, Turley, and you will be on the wrong side of history.

    1. “At the end of the day, the pendulum will swing the other direction, Turley, and you will be on the wrong side of history.” That reads so desperately…and I love it!

      How do *you* explain the then-VP and then-senator having classified documents? Whoops.

      1. Try to pay attention, please: the ISSUE with Trump was not a matter of inadvertent POSSESSION of classified documents, which is the case with Pence and Biden: it was: 1. taking them AFTER being told he couldn’t; 2. refusing for months to return them; 3. Returning some, but not all, and lying about returning them all; 4. moving contents of boxes around and shifting boxes to places where his lawyer wasn’t going to search in order to comply with the subpoena.

        1. How does one “inadvertently” possess classified documents? I’ve produced and worked with tons of classified material in my careers with the Air Force and NATO for 30 years and cannot recall a single instance where a classified document just happened to blow into the room through and open window. I’m sure that you’ve had much more experience working with classified than have I, so perhaps you could thrill me with your acumen. Thanks!

            1. I knewed what you mean’t.

              *’inadvertent’ is just another word for mishandling classified documents .. . and doubt president Trump ‘stole’ the ones [allegedly] in his possession.

              1. . and doubt president Trump ‘stole’ the ones [allegedly] in his possession.

                The GSA packs and moves the President out. So “stealing” is used to prompt and emotional, not logical response.

                Also a good time to repeat. Trump is the ONLY President not offered assistance by the National Archivist.

          1. Why don’t you ask Mike Pence that question–he had some documents marked “classified” stored in his Indiana home. He said, and I believe him, that he didn’t intentionally take them. He was cleared of criminal wrongdoing, as Biden will be–because there was no criminal intent to take and hold documents they were not entitled to have. There’s no evidence that they directed anyone to pack up classified documents, unlike Trump. After the flap over Trump’s theft of documents came out, Biden directed a search of the documents he had, and that’s how the ones he had that were marked “classified” were discovered. He immediately notified the FBI, which repossessed the documents..

            Triump’s case is very different. He directed the packing of the boxes, always took the position that the documents were his personal possession, and that he had every right to possess them–he said as much this week–yet, he was told by the NARA that he couldn’t take them. He’s come up with a number of excuses, none of which is credible–but, at the end of the day, the NARA politely asked him to return the documents several times, which he refused to do. Then, he gave back some of them, forced the NARA to obtain a subpoena, and he gave back more of them, and had his lawyer file a false affidavit claiming all of them were returned. Knowing this was a lie, he forced the NARA to obtain a search warrant, which was executed by the FBI.

            If he had simply returned the documents when asked–or better still, didn’t take them in the first place after he was told he couldn’t, he wouldn’t have been indicted. His latest lie is that the boxes contained all sorts of personal belongings, like shoes and shirts, but witnesses claim that Trump directed the packing of classified documents. You do realize, don’t you, that all of this is due to Trump’s massive ego–no one tells him what to do, and because he just couldn’t accept the fact that he had been voted out of office, he had to have something to use to prove how powerful he believes himself to be. Let’s just hope that none of the documents, or copies thereof, has fallen into the wrong hands.

            1. > “… Trump’s massive ego-no one tells him what to do,”

              “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

              ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

              *this is not an endorsement of Trump’s massive ego.

            2. You didn’t answer my question. You may buy the “How’d that get there?” defense from people like Pence, Biden or anyone who gets caught taking classified out of a controlled area (SCIFs, etc) but anyone who’s ever worked with classified material knows what a load of crap that is. Classified material is clearly marked and carefully controlled. The only way that a person can remove a classified document or other product from a secure space is through willful disregard of security protocols. It’s a simple matter of thinking that the rules only apply to the little people and not to me. Of course this would apply anyone who wrongfully separates a classified product from its secure space, including Trump. That doesn’t let liars like Mike Pence and Joe Biden off the hook, however.

              1. this would apply anyone who wrongfully separates a classified product from its secure space, including Trump

                Wrong. The President is exempt from rules concerning the handling of classified document. The controlling authority, is a Presidential Executive Order issued by Obama, that exempts the President and Vice President from the Executive Order.

                  1. Iowan 2 continues to insist on believing the president is a king.

                    Concerning the ‘classified’ eco system, yes. That eco system is an invention of the Executive Branch. King? Well that’s your word, not mine.

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

                    What do I have wrong?

                    I have asked you and countless others to identify the person, agency, officer that retains the Constitutional Power to over rule the claims of the President of the United States.

                    To a person, you and all others have refused, and forced to hide behind insults and innuendo.

                    I wrote three simple sentences. (one just had a single word) What did I get wrong in those three sentences.

            3. Why did Biden hold on to documents he stole in 1984 while he was a Senator. There are a lot of questions that need answering, and Biden must be made to answer them too.

        2. Trump is required to comply with federal law. The final arbiter of compliance with federal law is the federal court system. It is not some obscure archives agency nor is it the DOJ.

          It is important to remember that the DOJ is also required to comply with federal law. For example, under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the DOJ may not target someone for investigation because he is a political adversary and then spend the next seven years searching for a crime that the political adversary may have committed.

          1. Trump is required to comply with federal law. The final arbiter of compliance with federal law is the federal court system

            Your confusing the federal law that enforces the rules written by the President. The rules are a Presidential Executive Order written by Obama. Obama’s EO like the previous EO controlling the Classified info enviroment, excludes the President and Vice President from the EO.

    2. Thanks Karen, I mean GiGi, but we’re already familiar with standard Democrat talking points. You should pull your head out and look around at the world, you might learn something.

    3. NUTCHACHACHA is allowed out of the asylum at the usual time carrying out her daily mission to propagate communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) lies and propaganda in a feeble attempt to influence and indoctrinate the good people of the Turley Blog.

      Is she doing it; is she WINNING?

      Be strong; she is extremely effective and convincing, is she not?

  8. Set your Tickler:
    𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝: 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬
    Rachel Schilke, Washington Examiner ~ June 15th, 2023


  9. RonFilipkowski:
    “Mike Pompeo hammers Trump on Fox: ‘Trump had classified docs when he shouldn’t have had them, and when given the opportunity to return them he chose not to do that .. That’s inconsistent with protecting America’s soldiers .. some of these were pretty serious, important docs.’”

    1. If Pompeo cared about protecting lives, he wouldn’t be stirring up trouble in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which has cost, so far, $40 billion in American taxpayer money and the lives of several hundred thousand Ukrainians and Russians. It wouldn’t take much for things to get out of hand, drawing U.S. troops into the conflict.

    2. some of these were pretty serious, important docs.’”

      That proves Pompeo is lying. Nobody knows the content. All we here is the construction of a ‘get Trump’ narrative.

  10. Sorry to post this, it is not directly in reference to Hur’s whereabouts:

    The tides come and go every 12h hours 25 minutes, and a moth that flies to close to the flame gets burnt, are occurrences with indubitable certainty. Today we can add the media will advocate the agenda of the Democrat Parties Line without forethought or care for truth. Their arrogance was on display by PBS (not that they are anything by partisan hacks) during the speech President Trumps gave at Bedminster after his arraignment, a disclaimer on the lower portion of the screen of; (‘VIOLENT RHETORIC HAS ESCALATED IN ONLINE FORUMS AND FAR TIGHT MILITIA GROUPDS SINCE TRUMP’S FEDERAL INDICTMENT’) Additionally posted: (‘EXPERTS WARN THAT INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS OR PEOPLE IN POWER CAN PROMPT INDIVIDUAL ACTORS TO COMMIT ACTS OF VIOLENCE’.) This is remindful of there’s a bogie man waiting to take you away.

    And speaking of the Moth, Jack should be very careful; the beans he’s counting on may turn out to be seeds for Habanero Peppers, which could severely sear his rear end.

    John Locke “On Politics and Education” Part 9, Section 143, 4

    “(4) Captiousness is another fault opposite to civility; not only because it often produces misbecoming and provoking expressions and carriage; but because it is a tacit accusation and reproach of some incivility taken notice of in those whom we are angry with. Such a suspicion or intimation cannot be borne by any one without uneasiness. Besides, one angry body discomposes the whole company, and the harmony ceases upon any such jarring. “

  11. “…nearly half of Americans have come to view the FBI as politically compromised or untrustworthy…”

    I’m fairly certain that same half views the entire federal government the same way because there is simply no accountability—zero, none, nada, zilch. High ranking bureaucrats at the federal level never seem concerned about the consequences of actions because they know there won’t be any. Until these bureaucrats start being held accountable (and I don’t mean sacrificing some low-ranking clerk) they will continue to thumb their collective noses at the private citizenry.

    1. I believe Hur was told by AG Garland to shut his mouth up and confine himself in his bedroom….Or maybe he’s been given a yellow slip and now a “non-grata” in the DOJ.

  12. In taking Biden at his word (not a given by any means) that he would fully cooperate with the investigation and assuming Hur has done his due diligence having Biden’s initial sworn statement firmly in the record by now, we can wait a little longer for the usually inevitable leaks to begin filtering through. However, since those leaks most always come via the federal government’s chosen media, we need not wait too much longer before concluding that something may be amiss. As time goes by we may have to conclude that either Hur would have been able to do what no other Special Counsel has been able to do relative to leaks, or the investigation had progressed so poorly for Biden that none of it was to ever be leaked.

  13. Turley, I’m be concerned with Hur if he actually finds anything. Right now, the focus is squarely on a habitual criminal ex president.

    1. Of course he is. In your post modernist dreams. Crimes are just what you lot want them to be.

  14. 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐃 ~ If he is (Robert Hur) it’s because Merrick Garland told him to. In regards to Merrick, it’s the case of Hillary Wagging-the-Dog (Garland).
    Face it, Biden’s out-to-lunch and Harris is free-loading a free lunch. There may be Others in the Admin & Cabinet wielding the Power that could match that of the H.R.C., but it is not evident as to whom that is (𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳).

    1. (𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳) – I have a gut-feeling it’s someone on the Vice Presidents Team. that is the conduit for Hillary.

      WHY? Well if you are going to have an “𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳” then it would be anyone of the Presidents Team, simply because Bobby Woodward went down that road in the Nixon Admin and now everybody looks there.
      So if your going to have an 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 the Vice President’s Staff would be a good choice.

      One, Kamala is from California, but more importantly is the Pelosio/Schiff/Feinstein/California et.al. established connections there.
      Two, Hillary’s DNC has no problem with communicating-directives through these connections.
      Three, Hillary’s comuniqué to 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 are indirect, to avoid conclusion of there being a connection.
      Four, And its a Female, just my gut feeling. Besides Men are more often suspect than women.

      Come out, come out, wherever you are!

    2. LAST SEEN ~ Feb. 2023 the FBI searched the University of Delaware for any classified records held by Sen. Joe Biden, presumably at the direction of Special Counsel Hur.

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI searched the University of Delaware in recent weeks for classified documents as part of its investigation into the potential mishandling of sensitive government records by President Joe Biden.

      The search, first reported by CNN, was confirmed to The Associated Press by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The person would not say whether anything was found.

      Under the terms of Biden’s gift, the records are to remain sealed until two years after he retires from public life.

      Biden’s Senate records would not be covered by the presidential records act, though prohibitions on mishandling classified information would still apply.”

      *neither the WH or DoJ would comment about ‘on-going’ investigations ™.

    3. 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸: 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗽: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻’𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲
      The intrigue surrounds the future of Feinstein’s seat. Pelosi has endorsed Rep. ADAM SCHIFF, her longtime protege and former hand-picked House Intelligence Committee chair, to succeed Feinstein after her sixth and final term ends next year. Schiff is a household name in California and already has a $15 million campaign cash advantage over his nearest competitor.
      By Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels and Ryan Lizza – Updated 05/18/2023


    4. Really, you cant be that dense.
      This is OHomos 3rd term.

      The eff bee liars arent protectimg PedoJo, tbey are protecting their tranny god Barack Baphomet OHomo

  15. IMHO ~ In all, I think this Guy is pretty square. It’s Merrick Garland that troubles me.

    Robert K. Hur

    On November 1, 2017, Hur was nominated by President Donald Trump to be the next United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.[6] On March 22, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[7] He was confirmed by voice vote later the same day.[8] He was sworn in on April 9, 2018.[9]
    Appointment of Robert K. Hur as Special Counsel

    On February 3, 2021, Hur announced his resignation, effective February 15.[10] Following his departure from the U.S. Attorney position in Maryland, Hur became a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson Dunn, a national law firm.[11]
    Special Counsel

    On January 12, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur to oversee the United States Department of Justice’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time as vice president.[12]

    Additional Ref.: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy

    1. General Information
      Robert K. Hur – Special Counsel

      Department of Justice
      Special Counsel’s Office
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
      Room B-101
      Washington DC 20530

      About: On January 12, 2023, Robert K. Hur was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to serve as the Special Counsel by Order No. 5588-2023.


    2. Why does this investigation feel like yet another John Huber.
      Huber supposedly investigated the Clintons, but never seemed to do anything. In fact, a Senate hearing to have Huber report on his investigation was cancelled when it seemed he hadn’t done a damn thing.

      1. I agree, but Hur’s diligence remains to be seen. If we have the same outcome, then there’s evidence of an established relationship between the Biden/Clinton/DNC and a mis-information/dis-information Cover-Up. (a syllogism of an investigation)

        In regards to Huber, I recalled Trumps comments about Huber’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
        Here too his boss, Jeff Sessions was the Dog being Wagged by Hillary.


  16. The DOJ has long been ground zero for sleaze and public corruption in America. Over the decades, it spied on Helen Keller, Jackie Robinson, Jack Kennedy, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Steve Jobs. Just within the law two years, it has spied on parents who have expressed disagreement with their local school boards and on local parishes of the Catholic Church. Now the DOJ is involved in an active cover up of the allegedly illegal actions of the Biden family. At the DOJ, lying in public, even under oath, has become second nature.

    The DOJ needs to be shut down, its top three or four layers of management need to be fired and banned from all future employment with the federal government, and its main building in DC needs to be torn down. The land on which the main building once sat should be covered with grass and trees and called something like Constitution Park or, maybe, Liberty Park.

    At the same time, Congress should start a new federal law enforcement agency with new management and a new name, headquartered in the middle of the country, maybe in a state capital such as Little Rock or Jefferson City or Topeka. To limit the accumulation of power, employees at the newly formed agency should be limited to no more than 10 to 12 years of service in the federal government, meaning any time spent working for another federal employer plus the time spent working for the federal law enforcement agency could not exceed 10 to 12 years.

    1. The DOJ has long been ground zero for sleaze and public corruption in America. Over the decades, it spied on…

      You skipped the big one

      The DoJ, giving personal, regular, updates to President Obama and Vice President Biden, spied of the Presidential Campaign of Donald J Trump. Not happy, Obama continued the spying on the Transition Team, and the office of the Sitting President. This spying included use of the FBI, CIA,IC, State Department, and Included help form the the Five Eyes agencies including Israel, Great Britain, Australia, and Italy. (because the CIA is not supposed to spy in US Soil. But inviting our allies spy agencies onto our soils is “legal”.

      Also did not mention, the last Audit conducted by SCOTUS on the 702 backward look up tool, found the FBI conducted 1.4 million illegal look ups.
      This is at least the 3rd audit identifying the FBI illegally spying on US citizens communications without a legal warrant.

      (a fun side note, Durham discovered the law offices of Perkins Coie, had an FBI terminal to access the 702 data base.)

  17. The entire DC complex and the MSM daily run on illegal leaks. Almost every story is anonymous sources illegally leaked and told us x y z.
    Without it DC and the press would shut down tomorrow.
    What is telling and ominous is the fraud not pursuing biden is not leaked, not even once, he may even be dead.
    So total control and compliance is present and practiced and enforced.
    It’s all one big lie.

Leave a Reply