“Can You Give Me The Odds?”: The Betting on Trump is Based on the Wrong Question

Below is my column in the Messenger on the odds of Trump going to jail (as opposed to being convicted) and an interesting option for President Joe Biden: pledge to commute Trump’s sentence.

Here is the column:

“Can you give me the odds?” The question from a foreign correspondent this week was blunt but understandable. Legal analysts often are asked to give the percentages on a case’s outcome or conviction. This reporter wanted the odds on Trump being convicted. As in the past, I declined to offer a spread. For most of us, convictions are what gamblers call “off the board” bets; handicapping criminal cases can be not just untoward but unwise.

In truth, the reporter asked the wrong question if he was trying to get the spread on Trump’s future. The better question would have been the odds on Trump going to prison, not his odds of conviction. They are distinctly different propositions, and there is a reliable spread on that possibility.

On the merits, much can occur between now and a conviction. While the government has the advantage in this federal indictment, there are challenges being planned to attack the use of the Espionage Act, the use of statements made by Trump to his former counsel, and other issues. Moreover, with almost half of the country saying they view this prosecution as politically motivated, Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith could face a hung jury even if the indictment is found to be valid.

However, the odds of Trump going to prison could depend more on the court of public opinion than on the court of law.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has pledged to pardon Trump and challenged other candidates to do likewise. The pressure to do so will only likely increase as candidates attempt to lure away some of the 80 percent of Republican voters who view this as politically motivated.

Thus, the odds of Trump going to prison could well be the same as the odds of him or another Republican winning the 2024 presidential election.

Currently, those odds are roughly even. Voters overall are not enthused with either Biden or Trump, but 34% favor the current president and 32% favor the former president in a USA Today/Suffolk University poll.

Some observers are suggesting that if Trump were elected, he could not give himself a pardon. There is even a suggestion that he would need to temporarily relinquish power to his vice president under the 25th Amendment to allow him or her to pardon Trump.

That is not necessary. Presidents can issue self-pardons. While there are some legal and political analysts who believe self-pardons are impermissible, I have long disagreed. Indeed, five years ago, I wrote how Trump’s future could come down to a self-pardon. While I do not agree with self-pardons, I do not see any constitutional barrier to the use of such presidential power.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the pardon power as allowing a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon. The president is simply given the power to pardon any federal crime.

The Justice Department has one prior opinion on this issue from August 1974, from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It was meant to address the possibility of then-President Richard Nixon pardoning himself. Like Trump, Nixon was hardly popular with the Justice Department. In October 1973, Nixon carried out the “Saturday Night Massacre” over Attorney General Elliot Richardson’s refusal to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox; the standoff led to the resignations of Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton issued the three-page memo, which was lacking both depth and support. She declared that self-pardons are unconstitutional, stating that ”under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, it would seem that the question should be answered in the negative.” It was not a formal opinion, and — in my view — it was dead wrong.

The only limitation on the pardon power is that it cannot be used in cases of impeachment. Some have suggested that the limitation reflects an intent to bar self-dealing by a president. As I have previously argued, that argument confuses very different provisions with very different functions. Impeachment relates to the status of an officeholder, while indictments relate to the individual. A self-pardoned president can still be impeached.

Indeed, presidents have long used presidential powers to benefit themselves and their families in various ways. John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, as attorney general; Trump put his children on the White House staff. Pardons are no different. The Constitution does not bar such self-dealing any more than it bars self-pardons.

Presidential pardons have a checkered past of friends and family made beneficiaries of this power. Bill Clinton, for example, not only appointed his own wife to head a major federal commission on health care but pardoned his own half-brother.

Ramaswamy made a brilliant publicity move in getting to the front of the candidates’ line for pardon pledges. Trump already is running on this case, and many will likely view their votes as a way of defying the political and media establishment.

President Joe Biden could make an unexpected legal move, too, however. He could pledge not to pardon Trump but to commute any sentence handed down if Trump is convicted, declaring that — in the best interests of the country — he would spare his rival and a former president from being sent to prison. It would blunt any criticism of a more lenient outcome in Biden’s own classified-documents scandal.

Trump then would lose the danger of a potentially terminal sentence as a campaign issue — at least with regard to federal charges. (None of the presidential candidates could pardon Trump for state charges in New York or, potentially, in Georgia.)

Trump has pledged a comprehensive legal attack on his federal indictment. His odds in the upcoming challenge are not nearly as good as his odds in the upcoming election. In the end, however, that may be all that matters.

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.

105 thoughts on ““Can You Give Me The Odds?”: The Betting on Trump is Based on the Wrong Question”

  1. Give Turley a check and tell him what to write, and he will. Here’s what he said about the power of a POTUS to pardon himself BEFORE he went on the Fox payroll:

    No, the President Can’t Pardon Himself
    Most scholars argue, however, that presidents cannot pardon themselves. More to the point, even if they were, such a move would be incredibly risky and likely to ignite a constitutional crisis in the United States.

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

    “Such an act would make the White House look like the Bada Bing Club. After a self-pardon, Trump could wipe out the Islamic State, trigger an economic golden age and solve global warming with a carbon-eating border wall — and no one would notice. He would simply go down in history as the man who not only pardoned his family members but himself.​”

    The nicest way to explain your change of tune is to say you are a hypocrite, Turley.



      Let’s take a poll.

      Does unaccomplished and obscure COMRADETTE NUTCHACHACHA’s feeble, chintzy ad hominem cause you to doubt the learned and celebrated Professor?

    2. “Give Turley a check and tell him what to write, and he will.”

      Gigi, that is libelous, especially since you are attacking Turley’s character in a way that could effect his earnings. That you are anonymous means little since virtually everyone posting on this blog is discoverable.

      I don’t think Turley will sue you because:
      1) Everyone knows you are a nut case.
      2) You probably are on food stamps.
      3) Turley is a wonderful human being.

      1. “Everyone knows you are a nut case.”

        – Aninny

        “Truer words have never been spoken.”

        – M.E Grant Duffy, English MP.

        A nut case addicted to affirmative action, public assistance, various and sundry modes of social engineering for losers, dependents and parasites, etc.

  2. I believe that the odds of Trump going to prison is a conditional probability requiring the computation of the odds of Trump being convicted, sentenced, as well as being pardoned. Thus the Probability_TrumpGoingToPrison = Probability_TrumpConvicted x Probability_TrumpSentencedToPrison x Probability_DemocratElectedPresident

    If convicted, it seems unlikely that Trump will be sentenced to prison. It also seems likely that this country has seen enough of the mess that the Biden presidency has created to prevent Biden or any other Democrat from being elected President – I am perhaps overly optimistic here. I am aware that there are plenty of “yellow dog” Democrats. I am also assuming that even if Biden is not the Democratic nominee, RFKjr or Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom would not pardon Trump if elected but that any Republican president would – Trump included.

    I think that the odds are indeed remote.

    1. I’m stunned every single time Fox, other alt-right outlets and disciples claim there is a “mess” created by “the Biden presidency”. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BE SPECIFIC–CITE ACTUAL FACTS. Biden reversed the Trump recession, is controlling the inflation that resulted from supply chain disruptions caused by Trump’s diasterous and ego-driven tariffs because he couldn’t bully the Chinese, he got passed: Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, Veterans Relief Act and an historic Infrastructure Act that will create thousands of good-paying the jobs. The economy is growing, he mended relations with our EU and NATO allies, and got passed bipartisan debt-ceiling legislation. Biden also got COVID under control. That’s just the first two years.

      Explain WHY Trump should be pardoned? Because he managed to cheat hs way into office, despite losing the popular vote, and wrongfully occupied the White Hosue and taking the title of “POTUS”?: So this should allow him a free pass to steal classified documents and refuse to return them? If the Presidency of the United States didn’t mean enough to Trump to stop him from stealing classified documents, recklessly mishandling them, sharing their contents with people without security clearances, refusing to return them, forcing a subpoena and then a search warrant, and then, a criminal indictment, WHY should he be pardoned? Many people have gone to prison for far less. Trump is a disaster–but Republicans are even worse, and they know it. They know most Americans support a woman’s right to choose, are opposed to attacking LGBTQ people, banning books and the other nonsense they stand for. They know that without gerrymandering, they cannot control Congress. And, they endlessly lie about Joe Biden. I want to see the proof of the bribes, the audio tapes and the other evidence that is bandied about but never produced by Republicans.

      If this country has “seen enough” of anyone, it’s Trump. I’m sick of looking at that fat, bloated, saggy skin orange face of his–the arrogance that only comes from mental illness and delusion. Yesterday, he referred to himself as a “King”. I’m sick of the endless rants, attacks on other people, but most of all, the endless lying–about virtually everything. The majority of Americans wisely did not vote for him in either 2016 or 2020, and we were horrified that he has the hubris to try to overturn the election by trying to start an insurrection because he couldn’t win the presidency by winning the popular vote. We’re even more horrified to see that his ego impelled him to steal classified documents because he needed to pretend he was a big shot–flashing around our most-precious secrets–all to show off. Do you really think most Americans would actually vote for this arrogant loser?

      1. Don’t depend on my opinion, it seems that in some recent polls even a majority of Democrats do not want Biden to run again in 2024 – not exactly an ringing endorsement that all is copacetic with this administration. While I am not a fan of Trump’s antics, his administration did have some fiscal policy success compared with that of Biden’s. For example, the CPI increase for the entire 4 years of the Trump administration was 19 points while for the 27 months of the Biden administration, the CPI has increased more than twice that, 41 points. Clearly inflation has increased measurably more under Biden than under Trump. Regarding leadership, Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that climate change is existential and that our most pressing threat is white supremacy all without providing any evidence. The remarkable lack of supporting statements by Biden imply this administration either cannot justify these statements or is not interested in convincing the American people. Fans of this column will recall the impressive list of successful court challenges to some of Biden’s executive orders many of which blatantly violated the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act. For an ex-senator, Joe Biden has made some jaw dropping moves to avoid Congress such as his attempt to forgive student loans to the tune of almost a trillion dollars all without explicit approval by the branch of government that presumably holds the power of the purse. His border policy seems to have come from some ivory tower white paper without considerations of the consequences – either economically, administratively, or from a national security perspective. His administration has promulgated a “meat axe” COVID vaccine mandate approach long after it was well known that those individuals at risk had multiple comorbidities – not the general employment population. His foreign policy Afghanistan withdrawal was not exactly an example of clear headed preparation. The Biden administration has not prevented or brought the Ukrainian war to conclusion but the Biden administration has stated a goal of removal of the Russian leader which to my mind seems counter productive to the goal of peace in Europe. I can go on and on but I doubt that I will convince anyone.

        Regarding the CHIPS act, it is my belief that government policy is best suited to reinforce commercial trends rather than to attempt to buck the trend. I am doubtful that this act is anything more than welfare for certain corporations.

  3. “Presidents can issue self-pardons.”

    – Professor Turley

    Article 2, Section 2

    The President shall…have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    Professor Turley can read the Constitution.

    He did.

    Unfortunately, for the corrupt judicial branch, Americans do not need “interpreters” or “interpretation.”

    If one can read and speak English, one may know the law and one does not need an “interpreter” or any “interpretation.”

    Absolutely and categorically presidents may issue self-pardons,


    ONLY the president has the executive power, exclusively, to classify, declassify, archive, and establish an archive modality for material, in perpetuity,


    the legislative branch has no power to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify, archive and establish an archive modality for material, in perpetuity,


    no legislation that usurps any aspect, facet or degree, of the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify, archive and establish an archive modality for material, in perpetuity, is constitutional.

    The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is unconstitutional, and it comprises the unconstitutional usurpation of the power of the executive branch by the legislative branch.

    President Trump did not commit espionage.

  4. The easy part is observing the obvious. The FBI is obsessed with sending Trump to prison to keep him from running for president in 2024. The hard part is doing something about it. Dismissal of all charges by the court would be a good start.

    1. Obviously, Trump refused to return highly classified documents when asked by NARA to do so. His attorneys recommended that he return the documents, but Tom Fitton (Judicial Watch) told him he could keep them. Hence, Trump has been indicted on 37 FELONY charges.

      1. Panic at the prospect of a Trump presidency is on display in emails between FBI agents in 2016. Out of that politically charged atmosphere in 2016, FBI leadership made the decision to target Trump for investigation based on unconfirmed information from Trump’s political opponent for the presidency, Hillary Clinton. That information was proven to be fraudulent. The FBI then proceeded to spend seven years and millions of dollars scouring the landscape in search of a crime Trump may have committed. It is not legal to target and investigate an American citizen in that manner.

  5. Jonathan: On the issue of presidential self-pardons we will have to part ways. Although her DOJ opinion in 1974 re Nixon’s right to self pardon, which he was contemplating, is not biding I side with Mary Lawton. Apparently Nixon thought it was binding because he eventually decided not to invoke that supposed power. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt agrees with Lawton. So does Harvard professor Cass Sunstein. He thinks the idea of a pardons stems from English law that considered pardons an act of “mercy” and it doesn’t make sense that a King could show “mercy” upon himself. Although there were arguments during the Constitutional Convention over the extent of presidential pardon powers, the Founders never contemplated a president could pardon himself.

    Which brings us to the case of Donald Trump. He often exaggerated his presidential powers–especially if he thought there could some personal benefit. Of the 94 pardons Trump issued 85 involved a personal or political benefit. They had nothing to do with “mercy”, e.g., the pardons of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. Trump issued those pardons to two of his political allies. Trump pushed the pardon power beyond any reasonable interpretation.

    And as you point out the pardon power does not include impeachments or state crimes. The 34 count criminal indictment by Alvin Bragg involves state crimes. So does the likely indictment of Trump by Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia. Assuming Trump is convicted in both cases he will be facing serious prison time. As a practical matter, and assuming the unlikely re-election of Trump next year, how would he exercise all his presidential powers from prison?

    And, yes, like Pres. Ford, Biden could pardon or commute Trump’s sentences. I am not a betting person. But I think the “odds” of this happening are remote. Besides Biden could not pardon Trump for state crimes. This means, in the unlikely event Trump gets the GOP nomination or wins the election next year, how would he exercise all the powers of the president from prison? At this point the “odds” of any of this happening are just the ruminations of academics like you.

      1. Not “the King,” but a noun of address, me thinks.

        “Alright? God save the Queen, man.”

        – USA Today

  6. Daily I watch in amazement as city after city fall into dysfunctional canyons of despair but continue to elect morons from the left. There are so many examples: NYC, Chicago, SF, Portland, Phili and above all Washington DC aka (The Swamp).
    It matches the old saying ‘You can lead a Mule (Horse) to water etc’. These blind fools are changing America into a failed state where insanity is good and damn the consequences.

    GOD HELP US!!!

      1. George W is no confusing TV with reality.
        AT&T, T-Mobile, Office Depot, The Container Store, Anthropologie, Whole Foods, Disney Store, Armani Exchange, CB2, Saks Off 5th, WalGreens, Wal-Mart to name a few not to mention all the small businesses have all closed their doors in the Downtown San Fran area due to rampant crime, organized retail crime, theft, crap on the sidewalks, passed out drug users, dirty needles.
        Westfield and partner Brookfield Properties stopped making payments on the metro area’s largest shopping mall after “challenging operating conditions.”
        Nordstrom is not renewing their lease on 312,000 square feet in the mall. After they leave the mall will only be 55% occupied.
        Cinemark Theater recently announced it will be closing their theater in the mall.
        Crime in Chicago has gotten so bad, Wal-Mart has pulled out of the area.
        Target is putting some of their goods behind locked glass in some of their high theft stores.
        Walgreens is experimenting with a new, customer orders the goods on their app, store employees then get their order and bring it to them at a secure check out.
        I made a trip to Lowes recently. They had wire behind locked cabinets. Never seen that before.




      The American Founders established “Freedom and Self-Reliance,” not the “dictatorship of the workers.”

      Communism is unconstitutional.

      Americans were to be free to run a business or get a job, using their own, personal right and freedom of discrimination (oops, there’s that word again).


      “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

      – James Carville

      Polling and the vote are far less important than the rights and freedoms, and the severe limitations and restrictions on government, secured by the Constitution.

      The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which has abandoned the clear meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

      The judicial branch is an insidious and unconstitutional hybrid (legislative/executive) branch of government which demonstrably supports the principles of communism.

      The U.S. Constitution established a restricted-vote republic, including voting criteria set by the States.

      Turnout was 11.6% in 1788, by design.

      Voting criteria were Male, European, 21 and 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres, generally throughout the States.

      The Communist Manifesto and “fake” Constitution of China establish a one man, one vote “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

      “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

      – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

      “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin, 1787

      Constitution of China
      Article 3

      The state organs of the People’s Republic of China apply the principle of democratic

      The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at different levels are
      instituted through democratic election. They are responsible to the people and subject
      to their supervision.

      All administrative, supervisory, judicial and procuratorial organs of the State are created
      by the people’s congresses to which they are responsible and by which they are

      The division of functions and powers between the central and local state organs is
      guided by the principle of giving full play to the initiative and enthusiasm of the local
      authorities under the unied leadership of the central authorities.

  7. I shall alter a quote by Mark Twain where he talked of newspapers….the standard means of mass communication in his time.

    If one does not listen to the News…one is uniformed. If one does listen to the News….one is misinformed.

    The American media today differs only in the numbers of people it misinforms as compared to past types of media.

    Remember when Trump told the American People it was not about him…..but about all of us…..and that by coming after Trump as the Left has done….is what will confront us all one day if they succeed in taking down Trump?

    A side question: The same IRS that wants to know about any transactions more than or amounting to 600 Dollars or more….was not bothered by 10,000,000 Dollars in transfers to two people…..the Bidens….exactly how did the IRS overlook the one while insisting upon seeing the other trivial amount and not the multiple millions of dollars flowing through SATA Bank the that was well known for Money Laundering to the tune of BILLIONS of Dollars?

    1. @Speakup

      I’ve thought this too. They are going to upset and dismantle as much as possible up to 2024 to ensure that at the least if opposition wins they will inherit an intractable mess. Yes, the globalist regime our dem party is a part of IS that feckless and vile.

  8. Estovir is right about Trump AND Obama. We Americans, en masse, have a pervasive defect. We naively and superficially believe Media propaganda and smooth-talkin’ politicians. Trump does not fit that mold.
    My bets are on the following, as the United States we know continues to transform:
    (1) Michelle Obama will continue to engage in strategic public appearances…for reasons…we can guess…
    (2) News on Special Investigator Bob Hur will remain in absentia until after the election….
    (3) We may never learn why Biden’s collection of classified material dating back decades was never “discovered” or declared missing…..
    (4) Mainstream media will continue to magnify stories buoying their agenda-driven ideology, recent example:
    ( Estovir likely saw the very large crowd of protesters against the LA Dodgers honoring PRIDE and giving an award to the queer/drag group “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.” Yikes!
    Of course, that purveyor of impartial truth, NBC News, noted that “dozens” of protesters showed up, https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/dozens-protest-l-a-dodgers-for-honoring-drag-group-at-pride-night-182744645734
    …But according to the LA Times, “Around 5 p.m. roughly 2,000 demonstrators marched along Stadium Way to Vin Scully Avenue, forcing police and security to close access to the stadium’s main entrance. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/religious-groups-protest-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence-before-dodgers-pride-night/ar-AA1cEQGY)

    God help us all if we cannot rely on honest/truthful news coverage!

    1. When I was in my 20s I traveled from Florida to DC twice with friends as part of a very well organized Right to Life March on the DC Mall for anniversary of Roe v Wade. The DC Mall was covered with throngs of ProLife people from Lincoln Memorial to the US Capital, including Catholics praying the Rosary, singing songs in Latin, Evangelicals carrying their Bibles, Jews wearing their yarmulke and some blowing the Shofar, and armies of women, college age, young mothers with baby carriages, pregnant women and grandmother types. The women outnumbered the men, as usual. The news media reported there were a couple of hundred “protestors” but never showed the video panning the Mall. We never had such a great time, and laughed at the snewz media all the way back to Florida. We learned then, 1990s, that the MSM was the enemy of life.

      Thanks for mentioning the bigotry of the LA Dodgers. The “sisters of perps” were somewhat (not really) funny the first time but now they are angry haters.

    2. Lin,
      That is why we have to rely on independent news like The Free Press, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, the good professor and others.
      That is why we need to point out the misinformation and disinformation of MSM and those who post the same here.
      We easily see through the misinformation and disinformation, but we still need to stay aware.

  9. If the DOJ—in blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution—is allowed to put a target on the back of its chief political rival, Donald Trump, in 2016 and then spend seven years and tens of millions of dollars searching for a law he may have violated, Trump sure as hell ought to be able to pardon himself.

  10. Who else but Trump in the last 20 years has given the media–on both sides and in between, if such a thing exists–so much fodder for reporting and analysis? If America survives–big if–in two hundred years it will no doubt be a head-scratcher for historians how one many could generate so much controversy. You have to hand it to Trump, he has certainly remained relevant long past when we thought the RE mogul would. I wish it was not so, but such is life. We certainly are living in a time of the Confucian curse. Wish they were less interesting.

    1. will no doubt be a head-scratcher for historians how one many could generate so much controversy,

      You are standing too close.

      ALL the controversy is caused by the media. Start with Russia for 7 years.

      1. Media and marketing. Their combined campaigns have a long and glorious tradition to achieve agendas, as Vizzini and Bernays knew well.

  11. No it is the right question. “Are the forces of lawfare going to steal the freedom to vote for the candidate of choice?” This would be like doing nothing because a court ruled that a foreign power has the right to buy up the nations farm land, and “tough toenails” to you citizens. It is a bridge too far.

  12. Trump has pledged a comprehensive legal attack on his federal indictment.

    Ex Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell, Republican, appealed Obama Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS unanimously overturned Smith’s wrongful conviction. SCOTUS will likely do the same with Jack Smith once again no matter his findings

    No. 15–474. Argued April 27, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016

    In addition to being inconsistent with both text and precedent, the Government’s expansive interpretation of “official act” would raise significant constitutional concerns. Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.” In the Government’s view, nearly anything a public official ac- cepts—from a campaign contribution to lunch—counts as a quid; and nearly anything a public official does—from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to an event— counts as a quo. See Brief for United States 14, 27; Tr. of Oral Arg. 34–35, 44–46.

    Meanwhile Joe and Hunter Biden’s Burisma quid pro quo of $10 Million is ignored even if McDonnell’s wife gift Rolex (worth $6,000) triggered Obama. Obama is the grifter who now lives like an untouchable mafioso millionaire in a 20 acre oceanfront property in Martha Vineyard who was a junior Senator from IL and an adjunct law instructor before being the US Chief Executive. Michelle doesn’t look like a Rolex fan but more like a Patek Philippe Platinum World Time piece, worth $5.8 million.

    Not only was Barack Obama’s DOJ / Jack Smith corruption animus towards VA Chief Executive, a Republican, slammed by a unanimous SCOTUS, but so was the 4th Circuit for their dubious instructions to the jury on the definition of the words, “official act”. Bill Clinton initiated this well worn dictatorship of relativism trajectory with his now infamous parsing of the word is.

    Whether Trump is a moral cripple, an insecure, attention seeking, infantile narcissist is not the point. There exists a longer list of politicians that preceded and followed him that should have been charged for massive corruption but especially, grifter of grifters, Barack Obama.

    Meanwhile our US Borders are nonexistent, violent crime is so high that gun sales are through the roof, LEO at the local level are defunded and targeted by Marxist Democrats, US public schools are literally a crime scene of child abuse and bodily mutilation, America is as divided today as in the 1860s, and far more important issues are on the minds of Americans than selective application of laws by a hopelessly broken DOJ/FBI per John Durham’s report.

    This case against Trump is yet another faux hoax by DNC and MSM to steal an election. They cant win elections on facts so rigging elections on lies suffices just like in 2020.

    1. The MacDonald CAse is NOT the only massive high profile Loss by Smith.
      Smith also lost the Edwards case. As well as another significant case I can not recall.

      I previously have commented that Smith would not likely indict Trump – because SC’s are unlikely to want a massive loss to be the hallmark of their career.

      Had I known more about Smith – I would not have made that claim. Smith appears to have no problem with massive losses being the hallmark of his career.

      We are also starting to hear a LONG stream of ethics complaints involving Smith and his team – both in this case and in other cases.
      Atleast 4 lawyers on Smith’s team have been cited for ethics violations.

      Why are these people still in the DOJ ?

    2. “This case against Trump is yet another faux hoax by DNC and MSM to steal an election. They can’t win elections on facts so rigging elections on lies suffices just like in 2020.”


      Additionally, I have no objection to your listing the personality traits of Trump. To a large degree, I agree with you but react differently to them. We all carry a mixture of characteristics where circumstances can highlight some of the worst. Some of those we find objectionable the way they are displayed is one of the reasons I trust Trump to do a good job. He wants to validate himself as a white knight in the eyes of the American people, and he refuses to fail.

      Man is imperfect, and Trump is the same. We should use those imperfections for the benefit of all.

  13. Why does the Left hope that we ignore its seven years of craven attempts to “get Trump?”

    Why do they regard history as important when it serves a desire (e.g., reparations)? But as dispensable when it doesn’t (e.g., kneecapping a political opponent)?

    Why do they regard motivation as important when it satisfies a desire (e.g., parents are driven by “extremism”)? But as disposable when it doesn’t (e.g., prosecuting a political opponent)?

    One might be tempted to conclude that the Left is as unprincipled as a mad hatter.

    1. 7 years? of so-called attempts to get Trump, how about the 30 years of get Hillary? And don’t forget the witnesses on the Trump impeachments were Trump staff and appointments’. Just as they are going to be witnesses and staff and political appointments of Trump about J6 and documents. There were republicans that testified about and against Trump on the J6 hearings.

      1. No one gets away with destroying tens of thousands of emails after they have been subpoenaed unless person’s name is Hillary Clinton.

  14. what is clear is Trump wasn’t very good at hiring in DC.
    I believe DeSantis would be better. But you have a bunch of VERY SMART…AMORAL people who wish to make the entire USA into San Francisco combined with Camden, NJ.

    Importing illegals drive down wages and steal jobs from the poorest…BY DESIGN! Just like Democrat cities run for 60 years…deliver high schools that 5% are at grade level…like Camden!

  15. Fascists don’t pull punches.
    They jailed Manafort after a 40 year career for “working with Trump”. Manafort’s partner Podesta just happened to the brother of Hillary campaign Manager…no charges. Amazing….one firm…two paths.

    They jailed Gen Flynn for angering the swamp.
    There is a 100% chance of Trump going to jail. When Republicans gave in on the debt ceiling, that SEALED Trump’s fate. It must be something in the air in DC that turns people into prostitutes for the richest. It is clear GOP leaders are just Democrat moles.

    Soros has shown the path….hiring hacks to be law enforcers across the land…for pretty low sums…delivers results.
    The USA is Germany late 1920- early 1930’s. The path ahead is DARK
    Voting is now very corrupt in the areas where Soro’s…BOUGHT THE LAW! I believe Philly…with be 105% voting for Biden….since the ballots are ALREADY PRINTED and “mailed”!

    1. My guess is that a Democratic Caucus in Congress, or maybe the President of the Senate or House Speaker if they win back either chamber, would definitely challenge the pardon. Not sure that it would get any traction at the Supreme Court, but I’m sure they would definitely try and frame their effort as “saving democracy”.

      1. My guess is that a Democratic Caucus in Congress, or maybe the President of the Senate or House Speaker
        Separation of powers. The Constitution delegates no power to the Legislative Branch concerning Presidential Powers.

  16. Trump is a test of the system. And the system is failing, miserably. I am a believer, and I believe we all come here with a purpose. I believe Trump’s purpose, his divine mission, was to expose the weaknesses in the system, and the filth and corruption that lie underneath. The fact that at least half the country refuses to see doesn’t change the facts. I’m not sure if it was in Saving Private Ryan or what movie the protagonist intentionally draws enemy fire, both to protect the greater good but also to reveal the location of the enemy. I feel like that’s what Trump is doing, consciously or not. I do believe our country is essentially good at heart; on the other hand, Anne Frank felt more or less the same, and she was wrong. So maybe I’m wrong too. What I do know is that Trump’s fate is the fate of this country. If the system fails in its job of providing equal justice and equal protection under the law, and they manage to destroy Trump, then this country will be destroyed. If they can bring down a billionaire former president, then they can do what they like with the rest of us, and they will. And those who cannot see that will be forced to see it when it happens to them.

    1. Man up!

      Fight fire with fire.

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

Leave a Reply