“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. In my view a self-pardon is permissible, but a successful impeachment and removal for the pardon, or for the underlying conduct pardoned would cancel it, since the Constitution states that
    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”
    The only way that last clause can apply to a president is he can’t pardon himself for federal crimes that result in impeachment and removal.

    1. The power to pardon is solely a power of the president.

      While a wide range of federal officiers are subject to impeachment.

      There is discussion of impeaching Mayorka, or Wray or Garland, VP’s are subject to impeachment.
      None of these have the power to pardon themselves.
      But any of them could be pardoned by the president and could not be indicted or prosecuted.

      A presidents powers last until the last instant of their presidency.
      Including the power to pardon.
      Trump can pardon himself of federal crimes. As can Biden.

      Either can be subsequently impeached.
      Democrats have fairly well established that there are no actual criteria for impeachment – beyond the whim of congress.
      I agree with Derschowitz and Turley that Impeachment SHOULD be reserved for serious offenses.
      But there is no oversight, no appeal from an impeachment that is NOT for bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
      Therefore impeachment can be for anything.

      I would note this unreviable power of congress, is no different from the unreviewable power of the president to declassify documents or to take his own papers.

      Congress can not pass a law constraining its power to impeach – you must amend the constitution to do that.

      Powers given to congress or the president – and all executive powers are the presidents,.
      Are only constrained by other provisions of the constitution.

  2. 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 & 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

    The 2016 election was a highly contested affair between the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and the Republican nominee Donald Trump. Trump won in one of the nation’s biggest electoral upsets, entering the White House in January 2017.

    As the 2024 election looms, folks who like to bet on entertainment wonder if the 2024 Presidential Election predictions show the possibility of a rematch between Trump and Clinton. Overall, it seems unlikely there will be a rematch, but when considering Trump and Hillary Clinton 2024 prop bets, the fact is that anything is possible. That is why observers should not rule out a possible rematch.

    By: insidersbettingdigest.com IBG Group ~ May 12, 2023

    Best to Google: ” 2024 United States Presidential Election Odds ” for a variety & current of Book Odds

  3. Sound familiar?

    “The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.”

    Said one federal prosecutor: We “were guilty of criminalizing technical offenses. . . . Many of the prosecution theories we used were novel. Many of the statutes that we charged under . . . hadn’t been charged as crimes before. . . . We’re looking to find the next areas of conduct that meets any sort of statutory definition of what criminal conduct is.” (“Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” by Harvey A. Silverglate, forward by Dershowitz)

  4. There is no more corrupt organization in America than the DOJ and its subsidiary called the FBI. The concentration of power and political sleaze that define the DOJ and the FBI have been around from day one.

    In previous decades, the FBI spied on people such as Hellen Keller, Jackie Robinson, Jack Kennedy, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Steve Jobs.

    During Trump’s run for the White House in 2016, the FBI eavesdropped on American citizens without a warrant—which is illegal—by obtaining warrants to eavesdrop on foreigners who were known to communicate with American citizens.

    Over the last two years, under Joe Biden, the FBI sent agents to infiltrate local parishes of the Catholic Church, which are anti-abortion, and meetings held by local school boards where parents were protesting school board actions.

    When the FBI starts spying on church parishioners and school parents, it is clear that our government has crossed over to the dark side.

  5. The DNC is ‘retiring Biden.

    1st He’s to much trouble. Joe & Hunter Biden have made a mess and it needs to be swept under the rug.
    2nd He’s to Old to carry on and is falling apart, Obviously.
    3rd. Its his “Get-Out-Of-Jail” free Card. Reagan did it, “I Don’t recall”, so on Biden’s behalf, He’s got Dementia and is not competent to stand trial, The End.

    The Democrats are prepping the Public for the change of Candidate.
    The Press reports of his Gaffs, Stumbling and the Dirt, all say time to reel-it-in before the 2024 Election and get a real Candidate out there. The DNC’s problem is: Who wants the Job?

    𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐚 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 ‘𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐎𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐧’
    Wednesday night, Joe Biden announced a bizarre and implausible plan to build a railroad that stretches across the entire Indian Ocean.
    By Debra Heine – June 15, 2023

    𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐮𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 ‘𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐞𝐧, 𝐦𝐚𝐧’
    President Joe Biden left many perplexed after ending a speech in Connecticut on the importance of gun control with the unexpected sign-off, “God save the Queen.”
    Isobel van Hagen – Jun 17, 2023

  6. “The reporter asked the wrong question if he was trying to get the spread on Trump’s future.”
    Professor, “Jimmy” Finkelstein can be proud that your commissioned writings were an essential part of the roll-out of digital news platform “themessanger”: A month ago, you closed your inauguration column [1]:

    “Durham can contemplate an ultimate Zen-like question: If a 305-page report proves a concerted political hoax but no one is there to read it, does it make a difference?”

    Some of us are under the impression that Special Counsel Durham missed a lot of essential question (like the late Larry King who did by intention). As next weeks congressional hearings will take place, time will tell if some of our Representatives like Elise Stefanik (who is very vocal in telling the media that Hunter Biden will be subpoenaed, she missed so far) will step in!

    “The better question would have been the odds on Trump going to prison, not his odds of conviction.”
    James Finkelstein (CEO) & Richard Beckman (President) wrote on their “About Us” page:

    “The Messenger was founded to champion balanced journalism in an era of bias, subjectivity and misinformation, with a mandate to deliver the news — not shape it — and a clear vision of earning our readers’ trust and rekindling their passion for media”.

    Before writing your next column, here are five questions (you will worded much clearer than myself) that Nancy and John from Mainstreet USA like to read an on-the-spot answer:

    1. Why did # 45 not comply & cooperate to several subpoenas (though this is the legal advise to general public)?
    2. How can former President Trump successfully invoke “malum prohibitum” because he was misrepresented by his lawyers [2]?
    3.How severely impaired Court Order [3] his defense strategy?
    4. What Trump’s legal counsels court filings and arguments make a trial start before 11/24 seem unlikely?
    5. In the likely event that there will be an (insurrection) indictment (J6): How likely could 14th amendment, section 3 be successfully used to prevent Mr. Trump for running?

    [1] https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1658780506161401859
    [2] After all, it wasn’t until he read the indictment that Jim Trusty realized what it’s all about and pulled the ripcord! Reading the “Statutory Authority” redacted 38 pages affidavit, “Espionage Act” as well as EO 13,526 was referenced (ten months earlier)!
    [3] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/22-13005/22-13005-2022-12-01.html, SCOTUS denied emergency application on 10/13/22

  7. Well, the good news is that Bud Light now has a new spokesperson who is sure to boost sales to glory days . . .

  8. Gigi.

    What has patrice been right about in the past 6 years ?

    The collusion delusion ?
    The Biden crime family ?

    I have not read what you have written citing patrice.

    My life is too short to waste time reading garbage from those with an incredibly long record of lying, bad legal analysis, misconstruing facts and misconduct.

    Why are you wasting time with this nonsense ?

    Reports of aliens at roswell are more credible.

    Do you have sources left – for ANYTHING that are not people who have been caught flat out lying or shilling complete garbage in the past 6+ years ?

    At what point do YOU decide that you have been lied to one too many times and start disbeleiving this garbage.

    As Lincoln said

    You can fool all of the people some of the time.
    Some of the people all of the time.
    But not all of the people all of the time.

    Why do you choose to be one of those that can be fooled all of the time ?

  9. There is no way in hell it is legal in the United States of America for the government to spend seven years and millions of dollars in taxpayer money trying to put a political opponent in prison. If this illegal prosecution goes through, however, the standard will have been set, and Democrats should prepare for the fact that what goes around comes around.

  10. Ron Filipkowski: “John Eastman, who wrote the legal brief Trump cited to pressure Pence to overturn the election, is complaining that he lost his job as a tenured law professor, and the judge ordered that his CA disbarment hearing be live-streamed this Tues so the American public can watch.”

    1. Eastmans argument was actually constructed by Lawrence Tribe for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

      Disbarrment hearings are conducted by the Barr – not the courts. Further to the extent the Barr is accountable it is to the entire State Supreme court – not an individual judge.

      Personally I think that ALL judicial and governmental proceedings should be recorded and made available to the public.

      But that is not the state of the law today. And it is ERROR on the part of any court to do so selectively.
      The State Sumpreme court controls how trials are conducted – and the 14th amendment requires those rules to be uniform.

          1. To not know why is distinct from not knowing that.

            A couple of days ago, someone else said he was banned, and that comment was removed by Darren. Svelaz clearly hasn’t commented in over a week, whereas he normally comments daily, and I confirmed that Darren deleted dozens of Svelaz’s comments from the last column where Svelaz commented (the comments are still viewable on the Internet Archive copy). That combination of facts convinces me that he was banned. Darren wouldn’t have removed all of his comments otherwise.

              1. Just a guess.
                Svelaz NEVER contributed anything He was intentionaly wrong many time on the same topic. Discussion was never his purpose, but rather disrupt.
                On shor,t Svelaz role was to make Turley’s blog as unreadable as he possible could.

                1. Iowan2,
                  That right there.
                  His support of grooming 6 year olds and normalizing pedophilia may have also be a reason if he was in fact banned.

  11. This would be a good time for federal judges to focus in on the Constitutional requirement that Americans receive equal protection under the law. More specifically, it would be a good time to get to the bottom of how the federal government decides to investigate and arrest some Americans but not others.

    1. The Constitution has never afforded unequal rights and freedoms to citizens.

      The Constitution has applied equally to all citizens since its adoption.

  12. Some quotes from conservatives gathered by law professor Ryan Goodman:

    “It’s a devastating document. If they can prove half of it, he’s toast.… They can probably prove more than half of it, because a lot of it is recorded conversations, testimony from his lawyers, and that sort of thing.”
    – Andrew McCarthy

    “It is an extremely damning indictment.”
    – Jonathan Turley on Fox News

    “I think [former President Trump] is in an enormous amount of trouble. I think that this indictment is about as carefully structured and evidentiarily supported as any indictment in history.”
    – Ty Cobb, former Trump White House lawyer

    “They have him with significant evidence it looks like as to obstruction. I think the chances of a guilty verdict are fairly high, and the chances of real jail time are pretty high.”
    – Mick Mulvaney, former Trump White House Chief of Staff

    “The most damning piece of evidence to me is the audio tape. I mean you want to talk about consciousness of guilt. You want to talk about knowledge and intent. Those are the darlings of a prosecutor’s nursery. And that came from President Trump’s own mouth.”
    – Trey Gowdy

    “There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought…charges against the former president… no choice but to bring these charges lest the former President make a mockery of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”
    – Judge Luttig

    “It gives me no joy to write about prosecuting… Trump. He and I have been friends for nearly 40 years.… He is his own worst enemy, and the feds — of whom I am often highly critical — had no choice but to indict him.”
    – Judge Nap (Andrew Napolitano)

    1. Every single one of these men require acceptance into the DC swamp to keep earning a living. I noticed the transition to aligning them selves with the narrative, instead of analyzing the law.

      1. Anonymous / Peter Shill:

        “It is an extremely damning indictment.”
        – Jonathan Turley on Fox News


        Every single one of these men require acceptance into the DC swamp to keep earning a living. I noticed the transition to aligning them selves with the narrative, instead of analyzing the law.

        Professor Turley as part of the swamp? he aligns with a narrative instead of analyzing the law? why would you say that considering you enjoy commenting on here daily?

        Turley isn’t a conservative which was your tell that the comment was written by the resident paid DNC troll

        1. Yes, Turley is a conservative. He didn’t used to be one, but he is now.

          Nor am I the person who refers to you as “the blog stooge.”

          1. The Constitution, America and Professor Turley have always been conservative. Professor Turley has never deviated from the conservative Constitution, with the exception of the case wherein Obama and Harris are clearly and irrefutably not eligible for the office of president, and clearly and irrefutably not “natural born citizens,” that is, of two parents who were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, and, most importantly, of a father who was a citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth, to preclude foreign allegiances being held by the commander-in-chief.

            People in America who are not conservative and aligned with the clear and evident, meaning and intent of the Constitution, are communists, understanding that the goal of socialism is communism, who call themselves liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs and AINOs.

            The entire socially engineered, communist, American, welfare state is unconstitutional.

          2. Turley’s position hasn’t significantly changed. He remains in one place while the left moves from crazy to insane.

        2. This is the same dance the vast majority of conservatives did all during RUSSIA, ‘Things have to play out, the allegations are damning. yada, yada, yada.
          Democrats defend their own into extreme lies. Ask Pelosi about Bidens age, she’ll tell you he is 1, no President ever has been as mentaly sharp and physically fit. Biden, Fetterman, Fienstien, are all defended to the hilt by 99% of the Democrats.

          And lets face it, Dems control things like law schools and State Bars. Tip toeing is required if you are going to eat.

      2. On the contrary, the law is on their side, not yours. As will become clear as the case proceeds.

        1. Maybe there is no trial before 11/24, because slow-walking the case could be an option:

          1. Security clearance of Kise, a registered foreign agent for AG of Venezuela, will be delayed,

          2. # 45 legal counsels will file a flurry of court motions and challenges to delay his criminal trial
          * challenges the process in which prosecutors obtained a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago in 8/22,
          * contest crime-fraud exception of attorney-client privilege (many damaging details in the indictment were from notes that Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran took)
          * how did prosecutors gathered evidence?,
          * fights over disclosure,
          * discovery motions into prosecutors’ text messages and emails regarding a meeting that led a lawyer for Trump’s valet to accuse prosecutor Jay Bratt of improperly bringing up the lawyer’s application for a judgeship).

          3. Concerns about the Constitution.

      3. Amen. A person can get down in the weeds of different statutes or sit back and consider the fact that Trump was put in the crosshairs of the federal government seven years ago for political reasons and has been under investigation, non-stop, every day since. Because it is against the law for the federal government to do that to an American citizen, it will be no surprise to see their case come down like a house of cards.

      4. After a federal Grand Jury issued a subpoena (5/11/22), a judged approved a search warrant citing Espionage Act among others (issued on 8/5/22 executed on 8/8/22), indictment issued 31 charges in violation of Espionage Act, among others [1].

        Question is: Are we surrounded by some or many counterflow drivers?

        For those who drove by the flow: This is the key question (since ten months):

        Did President Trump had “unauthorized possession of, access to, and control over documents” named in counts 1-31 and are these documents “related to national defense”? (pp 28-33 of indictment)

        “I noticed the transition to aligning them selves with the narrative, instead of analyzing the law.”

        Andrew Napolitano did! He commented immediately after the execution of the search warrant (aka “raid”) [1] & after the indictment charges [2].

        [1] gov.uscourts.flsd.648653
        [2] https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano/08/22/trump-and-the-department-of-justice
        [3] https://www.ocregister.com/2023/06/15/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-case-against-donald-trump/

      1. Apparently you choose to pretend something about Judge Luttig for which you have zero evidence. You don’t know one way or another what he thought about it.

    2. Article II, Section 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Joe Biden and Merrick Garland may charge and prove that President Trump engaged in “…levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” or not.

  13. Did NUTCHACHACHA’s co-conspiring comrade, Dennis the Meanass, just lie, believing the readers here would buy it, when he wrote, “Trump left without paying the bill?”

    Is Dennis now understood to be a liar?

    “Just the facts, ma’am.”

    – Sgt. Joe Friday (Dan Aykroyd)

    “Fact Check: Did Trump Offer to Buy Food in Miami But Leave Without Paying?”

    “However, it appears that the claim he “stiffed” the restaurant was based on a misinterpretation of a story written by a Miami-based journalist.”

    “In any case, there is no evidence that Trump left the restaurant without paying for orders, but it has not been verified by the restaurant.”

    – Newsweek, 6/16/23 at 3:53 PM EDT (excerpted)

  14. Jonathan: So what else is in the news connected with the GOP House investigation of the Biden family–that you have claimed to be the “greatest influence peddling and corruption scandal in American history”?

    James Comer once again has egg on his face. Last month Comer had to admit that one of his Committee’s key informants went missing. Now Comer says an unidentified oligarch who claims he bribed Joe Biden is also missing. Comer told Fox host Sean Hannity this week that the alleged oligarch “unfortunately, nobody’s had any contact with him for the last three years”. So it appears all of Comer’s witnesses are either “currently in court, they’re currently in jail or they’re currently missing”. Hannity was having nothing of it and told Comer: “Come on! You lost the informant, the guy that you claimed gave you all this information that you built the entire charade on!”. So where does this leave your allegations against the Biden “crime family”? They all have gone missing!

    On a lighter side we saw Trump stop at the iconic Versailles Restaurant in “Little Havana” on Tuesday after his indictment in Miami, and mixed with his many Cuban-American supporters. He was upbeat after the crowd sang him “Happy Birthday”. In his bravado Trump shouted “Food for everyone!”. Trump left without paying the bill. Trump supporters hope he will not do that with his lawyers–who appear to also be missing!

    1. There will be more “visits” from Trump in the Cuban- American areas, if the trial is be be held in Miami. Bet on it……

      1. Dang! Who’d a thunk it? You seem really, really smart, Fishy. Can we get rid of your communist welfare state yet or do you still need it, womb to the tomb, to compensate for your deficiencies?

    2. Jonathan – Rep. Comer can hardly be expected to maintain contact with, let along physical control over, an informant who lives in a foreign country. He certainly won’t get any help from the FBI or the Biden adminstration. Quite the contrary.







    Article II, Section 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Joe Biden and Merrick Garland may charge and prove that President Trump engaged in “…levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” or not.

Leave a Reply