Below is my column in USA Today on the second indictment of former President Donald Trump. While many are celebrating the charges, the implications for free speech are chilling. While Smith did not charge incitement or insurrection (or seditious conspiracy), commentators (and Smith) portrayed the case as holding Trump accountable for the actual riot in the Capitol. Notably, the same pundits and politicians previously insisted that the rejected crimes were obvious and well-established. Indeed, Trump was impeached on incitement charges. They are now shrugging off the conspicuous omission of those charges while attacking those of us with free speech concerns as apologists.
Here is the column:
Special counsel Jack Smith made history on Tuesday.
It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president. Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled classified documents.
No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration of a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.
In the 2012 United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.
The court warned such criminalization “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”
That precedent did not deter Smith. This indictment is reminiscent of the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. His conviction on 11 corruption-related counts was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing that federal prosecutors relied on a “boundless” definition of actions that could trigger criminal charges against political leaders.
Smith is now showing the same abandon in pursuing Trump, including detailing his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, before the riot while omitting the line where Trump told his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to “peacefully” protest the certification.
While the indictment acknowledges that candidates are allowed to make false statements, Smith proceeded to charge Trump for making “knowingly false statements.”
On the election claims, Smith declares that Trump “knew that they were false” because he was “notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”
The problem is that Trump had lawyers and others telling him that the claims were true. Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.
I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech while he was still giving it and wrote that his theory on the election and the certification challenge was unfounded. However, that does not make it a crime.
If you take a red pen to protected free speech in this indictment, it would be reduced to a virtual haiku. Moreover, if you concede that Trump may have believed that the election was stolen, the complaint collapses.
Smith also noted that Trump made false claims against the accuracy of voting machines in challenging the outcome of the election. In 2021, Democratic lawyers alleged that thousands of votes may have been switched or changed by voting machines in New York elections. Was that also a crime of disinformation?
Smith indicted Trump because the now former president “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.” The special counsel also says Trump “repeated and widely disseminated (the lies) anyway – to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.
But how do you prove legally that Trump truly didn’t believe his false claims? And even if you can prove that Trump lied, how do you legally distinguish his falsehoods from the lies other political leaders have told over the years? When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.
Polls previously showed that roughly half of the public viewed earlier charges against Trump as politically motivated. That is why many of us hoped that any indictment would be based on unquestioned legal authority and unassailable evidence.
Smith offered neither. This indictment will deepen the view of many in the public that the Justice Department is thoroughly compromised in pursuing political prosecutions.
These concerns were magnified Tuesday by Smith, who announced the charges with comments that made him sound more like a pundit than a prosecutor. The special counsel gave an impassioned account of the Capitol riot that made it sound like Trump was charged with incitement. He wasn’t. Nor was he charged with seditious conspiracy, despite his second impeachment on those charges.
Notably, many of the legal experts praising the indictment previously insisted that there was a clear case for incitement against Trump. Indeed, Democratic members made the claim the center of the second impeachment, despite some of us writing that there was no actionable claim.
Even Smith wouldn’t touch the incitement or sedition claims that were endlessly pushed by legal experts and Democratic members.
Instead, Smith will seek to criminalize false political claims. To bag Trump, he will have to bulldoze through the First Amendment and a line of Supreme Court cases. That’s why this latest indictment of Trump isn’t just wrong. It is reckless.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley
Professor Turley says that “If you take a red pen to protected free speech in this indictment, it would be reduced to a virtual haiku.”
The Professor, however, neglected to provide the remaining haiku. As a public service, I provide Jack Smith’s virtual haiku:
We indict Trump now
Because it favors our side
And steals the spotlight.
That said, I take issue with the Professor’s implicit conclusion that Trump’s knowledge that his claims of election fraud were false could be established if all his advisors told him the claims were false (assuming they did tell him that). That is nonsense. What Trump’s advisors told him (one way or the other) had absolutely no bearing on what Trump actually believed whatsoever. Intent cannot be proven by what other people told Trump.
If we were to accept Professor Turley’s “logic” as correct, then, for example, Galileo knew that his claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe was false because all of Galileo’s advisors told him that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
See what I mean? So, not only is Professor Turley’s reasoning here incorrect, but Jack Smith’s entire case is fraudulent.
As the United States drowns is corruption and narcissism, the blood of 1 million human beings whose bodies were shredded, cries out pleading with us and Bill Clinton to explain why he broke the law, lied, and encouraged the Rwandan massacre.
Righteousness exalts a nation. We are reaping what we’ve sown.
Good point, but isn’t it true the arrogant snobs of the demoncrat deep bureaucracy three letter machine just cannot fathom that they aren’t capable of “commanding minds with their efforts” ?
After all, they have lied for decades to their little tangential group pets on their plantation, and made them swallow it whole, and repeat it ad infinitum.
So they just cannot imagine someone who thinks and concludes independently and often ignores their rancid obvious lies, even points them out, publicly. That’s just too scary for them to contemplate, after all that would mean they are “exposed” and people see them for who and what they are. That’s perfectly horrible for them, dangerous and humiliating.
Ron DeSantis labels Kamala Harris ‘impeachment insurance’
– Fox News
He said the quiet part out loud and he is not wrong
Turley’s “analysis” has several huge problems: first, he knows that Trump isn’t being prosecuted for exercising “free speech”–Jack Smith went out of his way to make clear that Trump’s lies were not the basis for the indictment, but he is being prosecuted for his actions. Secondly, as to the attempted lame excuse that Trump really, really, really believed that he really, really, really won…this won’t fly, either. Trump started before Election Day saying that the election was rigged against him. This is because every poll, including those from Fox, said he would lose. He also set a record for low approval ratings in 4 years’ time. The country was in a shambles in November, 2020: schools, restaurants, bars, businesses closed down, no leisure travel, daily records for new COVID infections and deaths, widespread unemployment and shortages of consumer goods due to the stupid tariffs Trump imposed when China wouldn’t knuckle under to his bullying. As the vote counts started being published, he appeared to be ahead when election-day ballots were tallied. But, when they started counting absentee and mail ballots, the picture changed–his “lead” evaporated. Trump actually tried to get mail and absentee ballot counting stopped–but that didn’t work, either. Unfortunately, for the current lie about “really believing” he won, Trump had been told by veteran election consultants that this is exactly how it would play out–election-day ballots would favor him, but mail and absentee ballots would favor Biden.(And, this is exactly why Republicans and their media allies try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of mail voting and to do everything possible to limit it–it favors Democratic voters). Then–icing on the fecal cake–Fox called Arizona for Biden–that sent him into overdrive. He demanded that Lachlan and/or Rupert Murdoch be called–demanded that Fox rescind its call that Arizona went to Biden–he flipped completely out. At 2:00 a.m. after Election Day, Trump went before cameras and declared victory–even though all of the ballots hadn’t been counted yet, and he was behind in the vote counts Giuliani is quoted as telling Trump–“just say you won any way”–so he did. This will not fly as an “advice of counsel” defense.
Chris Krebs, head of US Cybersecurity, told Trump that 2020 was the most-secure in US history–so, Trump fired him. Ivanka told him he lost, and she has made herself scarce since leaving the White House. Bill Bar told him he lost. 50 Secretaries of State told him he lost and, in swing states, like Georgia, they refused to falsify official vote tallies. Brad Raffensberger, the GA SOS, was actually threatened with criminal prosecution. But, he got several swing-state fake “electors” to sign false election certificates saying he had won–all part of the plot cooked up by Eastman–get Pence to refuse the certified votes–throw the matter back to the states–then pressure state legislatures to declare the votes invalid due to “fraud” (even thought they KNEW there wasn’t any fraud) and award Electoral College votes to Trump. Pence had no such authority, so he refused. As usual, Trump turned on him. Today ‘s current lie, pushed last night by Trump’s counsel, is that he just wanted swing state legislators to “take another look”–just “pause” the certification of Biden’s victory. That lie won’t fly, either. Multiple recounts, re-recounts and audits, even before Jan 6th, proved he lost. He admitted to insiders that he lost, too. 60+ court cases challenging the election based on nonexistent “widespread fraud” were tossed–all before Trump’s Last Stand–January 6th. Trump did avail himself of all legal remedies to challenge his loss–recounts, audits, lawsuits–and they went nowhere because he DID lose. Trump wanted Pence to refuse the certified votes because he had a plot in place to circumvent the will of the American people by trying to pressure swing state legislators to throw out valid votes based on nothing but his narcissism–he just couldn’t lose–so, there must be fraud. Maybe he should plead insanity? That is actually more vallid than the BS defenses his lawyer is trying to sell.
Turley pathetically tries to downplay the “fight like hell” rhetoric by thowing in the milquetoast “peacefully” comment for argument’s sake–but, the disciples had their marching orders–numerous of them have so testified–they believed “their President”, his lies and that Jan 6 was a call to arms. And, Trump sat at watched the canage unfold for over 3 hours while Pence and Nancy Pelosi were being hunted by the angry MAGA crowd.
This picture paints a living example of how dangerous someone who is a malignant narcissist can be when he doesn’t get his way. Do 3 current criminal indictments, plus a finding that he sexually assaulted a woman, stop him? How about the fact that, going on 3 years now, plus two privately-commissioned investigations.establish no evidence of widespread voter fraud? Is that enough to at least get him to stop spreading the Big Lie? Oh, no. He won’t stop–that ego must be vindicated!. Turley is just another media enabler who is cashing in by spinning the facts in Trump’s favor–trying to paint this scenario as some version of “freedom of speech”.
What a long-winded way of saying, “I hate Trump and he should be in jail.”
Thanks again Gigi for another well thought out, lucid, expert assessment. Denied.
Now excuse me while i go vomit.
Oh, and “all lies and unsubstantiated allegations”!!! See how easy that was?
Wow, Gigi, I can’t believe you don’t have your own professorship, pundit contract, and website!!! Such expert analysis. You put Turley to shame!
NOT
Actually, all lies and unproven allegations!!!
See how easy that was??
Gigi – didn’t Harry Truman use “fight like Hell” rhetoric? He was far more reckless in his rhetoric than Trump. He actually accused Tom Dewey of being a tool of fascism. “Truman charged that Dewey was the front man for the same sort of ‘powerful reactionary forces’ that orchestrated the rise of Hitler in Germany.”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-xpm-2013-09-28-sns-201304231030-tms-jgoldbrgctnjg-a20130424-20130424-story.html
edwardmahl;
the left has zero historical education (see Sharptons latest take on history), and even less knowledge of civics and the Constitution.
Or how about this nugget, Gigi, since you love whataboutism so much
“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh – you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer told the cheering crowd.
Sometime later, an armed man was arrested on his way to Kavanughs house to assassinate him.
“[OBAMA] WANTS TO KNOW EVERYTHING WE’RE DOING”
__________________________________________________
“Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship”
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.
– BBC News, 26 August 2022
________________________
“Fake” Russia, Russia, Russia!
Obama acted deliberately to stop Trump; Obama is the de facto president and Biden’s puppet master.
Obama must be tried for perpetrating the continuing Obama Coup D’etat in America.
___________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
I’m just really thankful Hillary had nothing to do with trying to destroy Trump. She would never interfere with an election.
She has excellent taste in men. I just wish my sister found him first
Obama et al.
How’s that?
Better:
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco et al.
How’s THAT?
Listen to what the DimRino commie/fascist/administrative state people saying, that with this Trump stuff in court they think they can get with stuff like false flag & other rotten crap & blame it on USA & Trump supporters.
This is all exciting, but this will never get to trial
As corrupt as Jack Smith is, even he wants no part of attempting to make this pig of an indictment viable in a courtroom. They got a Judge that’s in Obama’s pocket, She might gut it so bad its dropped, to save embarrassment.
Dear Prof Turley,
Ok. This is the second time, that I know of, you’ve described Agent Smith’s myriad Trump indictments as ‘haiku’ – a short form of poetry originating in Japan. “The haiku is a Japanese poetic form that consists of three lines, with five syllables in the first line, seven in the second, and five in the third.”
Not only do I criticize Trump’s ‘speech’ (almost all of it), including his J6 ‘Stop the Steal’ barn-burner, I personally prevented more than few MAGA hat apostles from attending that well-advertised, closely monitored hootenanny in D.C. – the Holy of Holies – in the first place. IT WAS A TRAP .. . as any fool could see. yw.
Quite frankly, I’ve grown weary just counting Agent Smith’s furious flurry of Trump indictments lately – much less if they have any merit. I guess Special Counsel Hur does so little, Agent Smith feels it’s his obligation to do more.
Whatever else is true, D.J. Trump must be the most investigated, indicted and impeached s.o.b to ever walk the halls of power and he’s ahead in all the Polls. .. and that doesn’t count the dramatic, exclusive, ongoing coverage of ‘the J6 coup’ Trump continues to receive every night on the Maddow Blog. Free of charge.
Also, the more we talk about Trump, the less we talk about Biden. Do the math.
We know, e.g., Biden et al support for Zelenskiy is unwavering with Victory already assured .. . but Trump says he would throw all that away and end the war in 24 hours. Loser.
* In a translated response, Zelenskyy said, “It seems to me that the sole desire to bring the war to an end is beautiful. But this desire should be based on some real-life experience. Well, it looks as if Donald Trump had already these 24 hours once in his time. We were at war, not a full-scale war, but we were at war, and as I assume, he had that time at his disposal, but he must have had some other priorities.”
TDS
dgsnowden: First–Trump is only “ahead” in the polls for the Republican candidate–Americans will not vote for Trump for lots of reasons, just like most of us didn’t in 2016 and 2020. Setting aside the sexual assault verdict and the indictments–he was one of the worst leaders we’ve ever had. He is clueless as to how to successfully lead a diverse population with competing goals, literally. One flaw is that he cannot accept the advice of experts because that’s admitting that he’s not superior. His biggest flaw is that everything in his pathetic existence is about his narcissism–him–him–HIM! That’s why when COVID came along, he really didn’t (and still doesn’t) care about the one million Americans who died from it and the millions who were sickened by it, some having long-term problems–it made him look bad–that’s all he cares about–him–him–HIM!. That’s why he admitted to Bob Woodward that he deliberately lied and downplayed the seriousness and dangers of COVID, why he tried to usurp CDC news conferences and pushed fake “cures” like Hydroxychloroquine. He thought he’d get lucky and it would go away–even though multiple experts told him otherwise, that it would mutate to more-virulent strains, and that social distancing, and other measures were needed to help stop the spread until we could get widespread vaccinations. He kept lying about “15 cases will soon be 0 cases”…It’ll be gone by Easter….”It’s just one person coming from China”…. He knew these things weren’t true when he said them, but he thought it would assuage the American people, and it kept him from making hard decisions–something he’s not capable of because his universe revolves around him, so everything HAS to be about him. In his book “Rage”, Woodward comments that FDR held “fireside chats” with his radio audience, and when WW II broke out, he gave it to Americans straight–lots of our young men were going to die, and we should be prepared for that, but that with God’s help, America would prevail. That’s how a leader should act–for the benefit of the people–not himself. Tell the truth and make hard decisions for the benefit of all Americans– things Trump is incapable of, which is why he can never be an effective leader. His ego is why he ran for POTUS–he needs the power, adulation and attention and will say or do anything to get it. His ego is the reason he started the trade war with China–they couldn’t be bullied by him. He didn’t understand the basic concept that the costs of tariffs don’t come out of the seller’s profits–it gets passed along to the consumer. This is one reason for inflation–shortages of consumer goods and chips because of Trump’s tariffs coupled with lower demand due to unemployment made worse by his botched handling of COVID. His ego is why he brought about the insurrection–he just can’t lose–the election wasn’t about the American people–it was all about him.
You have to have your head in the sand to believe the lie that Trump could solve the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. Ukraine isn’t going to cede one inch of territory to Russia, and as long as Putin is alive, he won’t give in, either, unless his people turn on him or his losses are too high–things that are starting to happen. Why would you believe the blathering of a chronic, habitual liar who couldn’t even successfully run 2 casinos without taking bankruptcy? In Trump’s delusional mind, he’s some kind of master “dealmaker”–but that’s not true. One tactic he employs is to sign contracts for goods and services and then refuse to pay, forcing a lawsuit, which he drags out until the litigation costs and attorney fees force settlement on terms more favorable to Trump. He brags about doing that–which is cheating when you do it thousands of times, which is why people won’t do business with him. Look at the disasterous deal he made with the Taliban–he released 5,000 of them from prison, drew down our troops from 14,000 to 2,500, didn’t arrange for a land or air base and didn’t involve the Afghans in negotiations, so they just gave up. That’s the mess Biden was saddled with, and now the Republicans are trying to blame Biden for the messy withdrawal.
And, I truly don’t understand how you could feel sorry for Trump. Everything he’s gotten in trouble for is entirely his own fault–the first impeachment, in which he thought he could just leverage aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up lies about Joe Biden. Then, there’s the insurrection. He assaulted E. Jean Carroll, and then defamed her. When he was forced to leave the White House, he deliberately took our most-sensitive national secrets–to what end? Who really knows? Who knows that he hasn’t already given or sold them to the wrong people. He did use them to show off to young female staffers. His ego is likely at play here, too–he thinks no one can tell him what to do, including taking things that aren’t his. He lied about returning them and “negotating” with the NARA–there’s nothing to “negotiate”–he had no right to posses them. He lied about “declassifying” them. He forced a search warrant, and is now playing the victim. I remain dumbfounded how anyone can feel sorry for this person.
Gigi
“He is clueless as to how to successfully lead a diverse population with competing goals, literally.”
You mean like calling them deplorable, or saying in a Presidential speech that they are the enemy, seeking to destroy our way of life, that kinda stuff???
Pot….meet kettle
Please, for the love of god, make it a little tougher!
“He did use them to show off to young female staffers.”
This really bothers you, doesn’t it? You have mentioned it no less than half a dozen times in your past rants. I am starting to get a picture…the face looks a lot like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. It’s no wonder y’all are pissed off at the world. My advice, go buy yourself a nice rack. Fewer people will notice that hammered mug.
“He assaulted E. Jean Carroll, and then defamed her.”
So you find her claim credible. That somehow she ended up in a dept store dressing room with Don, and that he managed to get his erect penis inside her, while standing and facing her, and with her standing and facing him, with her leggings down around her ankles??? I have had (consensual) sex in some very awkward and restricted environments/positions, but I find that position somewhere between very implausible and impossible, even if consensual. If not consensual, then NFW, period. She is a liar.
Yet, I am sure you don’t believe that Pedo Joe the sniffer whiffer, who is on video kissing many women on the lips without their consent, actually fingered a staffer in the halls of Congress.
I don’t like Trump, for many reasons. But I despise you for some of the same reasons.
Any case brought against Democratic Party opponents in the DC Circuit courts will result in an automatic conviction. Years later the SCOTUS may vacate the conviction. But so what? The damage was done. That’s what Jack smith s all about. Ditto for the prosecutor Harbach.
Any case brought against Democratic Party opponents in the DC Circuit courts will result in an automatic conviction. Years later the SCOTUS may vacate the conviction. But so what? The damage was done. That’s what Jack smith s all about. Ditto for the prosecutor Harbach.
Nah, one Trumper in the jury pool is all it will take. Smart enough to tell dumba$$ Jack and his boys what they want to hear at selection.
“Let’s acknowledge that Trump was wrong. The election wasn’t stolen. He lost, and Joe Biden won.”
If Turley is suggesting this as a matter of fact rather than an exercize in devil’s advocacy, then I have to respectfully disagree. Some pretty zany theories notwithstanding, there hasn’t been anything like a fair test of claims of fraud so far. Dismissing cases on the basis of technicalities is not a fair test. Rather there are irregularities in many places warranting a forensic audit.
Lawyers are the epitome of ignorance, and the reliance on precedents and the rule of law is just an exacerbation of that ignorance.
The full body of law we have on the assembly and operation of our government, elections and politicians, is a built on a fallacy, therefor all the laws and precedents for both of the Trump indictments are based upon fallacies and therefore cannot be used to remove Trump from the political arena he most definitely is not qualified to be in in any capacity. You cannot prosecute and punish a person for lying about lies, or taking advantage of an already bastardized system.
I think we forget that it’s impossible to win the presidency, in fact it’s impossible to run for the presidency, or any higher office which includes the Vice President and Senators, and once president it’s impossible for the president to mishandle sensitive documents, because the president is precluded from access to sensitive documents in any manner, the president of the Senate is likewise precluded from access, although they may be exposed to sensitive documents during the deliberations in the senate on subjects concerning those documents. And, when it comes to free speech of the president, well, the president doesn’t have free speech while in office, and when the government is properly assembled, any president who thinks they have free speech will be impeached immediately upon making that free speech, which is insubordination if that president didn’t get the advice and consent of the States assembled in the Senate as the Union, they could even have him removed while making that speech and have him immediately transferred to the Well of the Senate where the States could immediately have the president impeached by the States assembled in the House, which requires removal from office which creates an absence in the presidency, and right after the Chief Justice is called to the Senate, they could take a vote to convict immediately by unanimous consent, and that president would be permanently removed from office which creates a vacancy in the presidency which would require the States as the Union to immediately set a time for electors to be appointed, and a day for the electors to give their votes by ballot, a time and day which must be the same in every State, and it could be the same day with appointment of electors in the morning and the electors making their list of vetted candidates that afternoon.
It’s funny that today no one understands the immense and unchecked collective power of the States as the Union assembled in the Senate, where the States are assembled as equals with equal Suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, and the only thing that protects anyone from that power is that the Senate must reach a 2/3 majority consensus of the States, and some of the Bill of Rights, but they are not applicable to removal of civil officers, there is no defense or due process against removal of civil officers, that’s why the extent of the power is for the States to permanently remove them from office, but they still have the power and authority to remand those convicted civil officers to criminal justice system to face criminal prosecution and criminal penalties in the normal course of law, meaning when Trump was impeached after the 1/6 insurrection, he should have been immediately removed from office to face those charges in a trial in the Senate, his custody while awaiting and during the trial should have been determined by the Chief Justice in a custody hearing where the manner of his custody would have been determined, and since there was already a new President elected, even though by a totally unconstitutional process, they could have voted immediately to permanently remove Trump, creating a vacancy in the Presidency, which would have been filled by the New President, totally bypassing Pence from even acting as the President.
We are so delusional about how our government is assembled and how it functions, and likewise delusional about the roles and responsibilities of the civil officers who serve in that government, that it’s a wonder how we actually got to this point in our history. I could give the constitution and a census to a bunch of high school kids and I would guarantee they would assemble the government properly and give an exact assessment of the roles and responsibilities of all civil officers and how that government would function.
Maybe it’s time to do just that!? By the way, when the current embodiment of the government is razed, the interim governing body, “A Committee of the States”, could choose to preclude anyone who is currently serving, or has served in the past, from holding any office in the government once it’s reconstituted!
From junior at 10:01 A.M. “Trump spent four years as President proving he was a stooge of Putin. The apology should come from those who suggested he was not.” And all the while Hunter as getting 3.5 million dollars, from a Russian oligarch, a Diamond from the Chinese worth 83,000 dollars and a watch worth 53,000 dollars from a Ukrainian while he was paying, according to his notes on his laptop, half of his daddy’s bills. Trump put serious sanctions on the Russians that Biden has kept in place. Trump gave shoulder launched rocketry to the Ukrainians and Biden took them away until he was forced to change his mind. Yep, sounds just like a Russian stooge alright. Be careful with that cool-aide it’ll mess with your mind.
My, our leftists friends seem desperate today.
The good professor must be on to something.
Keep up the good work professor!
CLASS ACTION IMPEACHMENT
MASS ACTION IMPEACHMENT
Turley, Turley, Turley, not again. Trump made it clear repeatedly, over many years, that he would not accept the results of an election in which he lost. He indicated that any election in whidh he lost would be ipso facto corrupt and invalid; When he lost the 2020 election, he acted in accordance with his previous threats. He simply refused to publicly acknowledge the many Republican officials explaining to him how and why the various allegations of fraud were false and how and why the elections were legitimate. I don’t think that a refusal to credit any argument contrary to what one wants to hear, or contrary to what one wants everyone else to believe is a basis for a legal defence against having committed a fraud. If this were true, it would be impossible to convict anyone of fraud unless they admitted that they knew they were committing fraud. If Trump’s trial becomes an effort to answer the question how gullible was Trump in accepting various fraudulent schemes, then there is copious evidence that Trump has been a master schemer and manipulator his whole life. In fact, it’s a persona he vigorously promoted. It’s part of his longest claim to fame. I think that at least this instance, we accept Trump at his word; he did in fact know the score regarding the election.
Adamowiz – and Hillary Clinton never accepted her loss. She started the Rissagate hoax to undermine Trump, and she later stated that the election had been “stolen.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/
The democrats’ illegal and unconstitutional war against President Trump is more absurd than Putin’s completely insane war against Ukraine.
Trump “sought to persuade them to do things that are illegal.”
Not sure who the “them” is. But let’s assume it is the alternate (“alternate,” not “fake”) electors.
Do tell:
What are the federal and state regulations, or legislation, that govern the appointment of alternate electors? (Whose appointment, incidentally, has always been a prerogative of the states.) And if you claim to understand those election rules, you are lying.
That *ambiguity* is precisely why there are competing legal theories, which there have been for decades. It is only now — to “get Trump” — that one of those theories is being criminalized.
From the indictment:
“122. At 11:44 p.m., Co-Conspirator 2 [attorney John Eastman] emailed the Vice President’s Counsel advocating that the Vice President violate the law and seek further delay of the certification. Co-Conspirator 2 wrote, ‘I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here.’”
On TV yesterday, Trump’s attorney, Lauro, told Laura Ingraham that Trump also tried to get Pence to do this, but unlike Eastman, Lauro denied that it violated the law. You’d think that attorneys wouldn’t be going on TV and admitting parts of the indictment.
emailed the Vice President’s Counsel advocating that the Vice President violate the law and seek further delay of the certification.
What law? This is an indictment, so language is unambiguous. What statute was violated?
Pence admitted after the indictment was released, that if he refused to count votes for cause(something Dems have done at the vote counting for decades)The election of President would have gone to the House of Representative, per the Constitution.
The indictment is evidence that Smith needs to be indicted for lying and misleading the court.
“What law?”
Idiot, the law is identified in the brackets.
Pence had the Constitutional Power….to not count the EC votes’
By that I mean, his actions could not be reviewed by the courts.
Can we jail any democratic congressman that has even opposed the certification of an election ?
This is an absolutely insane claim.
At its CORE.
There is no requirement that any election anywhere EVER be certified. Certification is NOT a ceremonial process.
In 2000 the courts delayed the certification of the FL election until SCOTUS stepped in – that was not a crime.
Because there is no REQUIREMENT that congress certify and election – there can be no crime of advocating or arguing that they refuse to do so.
Did Eastman Bribe Pence ? Did he extort him ?
Absent these there is no crime.
I would separately note that as a practice matter the Election control act has even less meaning than the impeachment clause in the constitution. Whatever the election control act may say, it has no power to preclude congress from doing as it pleases.
Turley and Derschowitz quite correctly argued that the impeachments of Trump were not supported by the constitution.
Which they were not. But democrats actually got one thing correct. The power to impeach has no provision for judicial review.
The courts will not and can not tell congress what they can and can not impeach over. The constitutions constraints on congresses impeachment power are for naught – meaningless.
The same is true of the election control act. The courts will not and can not order congress to certify an election.
They will not and can not order congress to follow the ECA.
Even the constitution explicitly says that congress can conduct its business according to its own rules and there is no authority outside of congress itself to order it to do otherwise.
The ECA is law that congress imposes on itself. It is legally and constitutionally meaningless.
Congress can not violate either the law or the constitution in the MEANS in which they carry out constitutionally delegated tasks.
Congress can certify and election by the roll of the dice.
We once again have the left fixating on the idiotic fallacy – “can god make a rock so heavy even he can not lift it ?”.
Congress can not make a law controlling how it must do its own business, that congress must follow.
I have no idea what the ECA says. Nor do I know that Eastman sought to have pence actually violate it.
Given the track record of the left, I would expect that claim is garbage.
But the FACT is that whatever the ECA may say – congress can certify by Ouija board if it wishes.
The only alternatives to this are to allow the DOJ to prosecute congressmen for the way they conduct business in congress – which is not happening as that violates the constitution.
Or to allow the courts to order congress to follow the ECA or other laws regarding how congress conducts its business which is ALW not going to happen. And again would require DOJ to prosecute if congress refused.
“Co-Conspirator 2 [attorney John Eastman] emailed the Vice President’s Counsel advocating that the Vice President violate the law and seek further delay of the certification.”
In reality:
Eastman used a legal theory to interpret election rules (federal and state) — that nobody understands. Why? Because they are so bloody vague, ambiguous, and inconsistent. That fact has been decried, by legal experts on both sides, for decades.
Yet now, those itching to criminalize dissent are, once again, criminalizing dissent. All as a means to kneecap the leading opposition candidate.
“I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA]”
He admits that he was asking something illegal, but even then you cannot admit it.
Of course not – because reality is not illegal
“[of the ECA]”
Good lord, are you dense.
That is precisely the Act that has been described by legal scholars of all stripes as: “very confused, almost unintelligible.”
Those on the left confiuse the spin in their arguments and the claims of left wing nut prosecutors for FACTS and LAW.
They are not. NEARLY all of what Eastman sought. Nearly all of what Lawrence Tribe advocated for in 2016 had occured before.
Of course you would – the indictment is for a non-crime and must be dismissed.
There is no crime of trying to persuade congress or the VP.
The constitution bars laws and external oversight of the way congress conducts its own business.
I have no idea whether the ECA actually asserts what Smith claims – but that would be entirely irrelevant.
No law can tell congress how to perform a task that the constitution delegates to congress.
There is an absolute constraint on what VP Pence can do – that is what congress will allow him to.
That is the ONLY constraint.
Last Term Democrats passed a new ECA – poretty much admitting that the old one did NOT actually prohibit what TRump/Eastman tried.
But whatever that ECA says – congress is STILL free to certify or not, and to run the certification process AS IT PLEASES.
This is little diffferent from the fact that congress can not tell the president how and what he must classify.
Nor can congress tell the president that WH documents based on some congressionally dictated criteria are his or not.
This is what JW. V NARA and a series of cases preceding it concluded.
What records a president determines are his – are the exclusive domain o fthe president – outside the boundaries of congress to regulate.
How a congress certifies an election is the same. it can make its own rules, and it is not bound to follow them.
In certifying an election congress is answerable only to the american people.
The simple test here is:
If congress had done as Eastman sought – could Smith have indicted congress ?
If not – which is OBVIOUSLY true, Then no one else committed a crime by asking congress to do what it is free to do.
Professor Turley cites the Alvarez case that says the false statements are still protected by free speech. But why doesn’t he mention this section of Alvarez?:
“Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say, offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. See, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S., at 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817 (noting that fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of the First Amendment).”
That’s what the case is about, the fraud, not the speech itself. Turley does a disservice by not addressing fraud.
Turley has no shame when it comes to things he leaves out. Turley writes for and to the Cult 45 crowd. Having lost respect from his peers, thats all he can do now, is to write that Trump is above the law.
Fishwings always makes prejudicial statements but he never presents any real evidence. He just piggybacks on what someone else has said. Duh that’s right Daffy.
Salamander, please expound further. What valuable considerations do you claim have been unlawfully claimed by Trump. Heres a man who was already worth billion of dollars who took four dollars in salary while he was President. In other words what the hell are you talking about.
The valuable consideration is the office of the presidency. Obviously.
So what was the valuable consideration in Alvarez?
The case invalidated the Stolen Valor Act because the statute was not limited in its reach. For example, it wasn’t limited to fraud.
Therefore there was no valuable consideration in Alvarez. And that is precisely the point, as to why it DOESN’T APPLY here because there IS a fraud.
Did you read Alvarez?
There was no fraud in Alvarez, only the bald-face lie of whether he was a Medal of Honor winner. That’s why Alvarez won, and Trump may well lose on the free speech issue. After the Alvarez opinion, Congress amended the statute to say this:
“(b) Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals.—
Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Trump had the intent to obtain the Presidency.
The indictments are like gender mutilations. “They,” those willing to harm and oppress others, are willing to normalize a process that is an abomination. How absolutely stunning of Smith to stand on his own side of history while ignoring millions of humans that make up this Constitutional Republic. Hell has plans for all of “them.”
You could literally expand that criteria to include every lie a politician tells during the pursuit of election. Of course it would only be applied for the selective targeting of one’s opposition, like the current corrupt DOJ is doing to Trump. For my friends everything; for my enemies the law. Democrats are trying to expand the criteria and intent of any law and creating novel legal theories in an effort to destroy Trump.
Wouldn’t remaining in Office as President by blocking your opponent’s inauguration be “a valuable consideration”?
I agree that Trump waged a massive Public Fraud.
He should be punished for doing so, because if it goes unpunished, we can expect similar coup attempts in the future.
My preference would be that Civil Torts law be used (the Public as plaintiff, Trump & cronies as respondents) to expose the big lie, and have a rapid-response Public Frauds Court Process work in realtime. The DOJ should leave it to the Public to sue deceitful infowarriors for their falsehoods-of-consequence. That is how we police the infospace while retaining our 1st Amendment rights to expression as honest, good-willed actors in a free society.
I was under the impression that since trump was impeached and tried in the Senate (Senate trials from what I understand are the same as normal criminal trials) that this indictment would run afoul of double jeopardy and Trump could not be tried again for the same “crimes”. At this point they (the dems) are absolutely terrified of orange man bad and will literally burn down the very house they are in to get rid of him, there really is no other explanation. Trump is so far put in front of the others running that it is a forgone conclusion that outside the man being abducted by little green aliens will be the Republicans 2024 presidential nominee and that fact scares them to their core. God help us all if the DOJ actually convicts Trump and jails him since I feel that large groups of people and states even would openly rebel and many good people will get hurt as well as forever harm this great nation. The Progressives would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
HBO Max has a recent series “White House Plumbers” which seems to be very accurate and they disclose the parts that are in question with disclaimers at the end of each episode.
The felony crimes committed by Nixon, before and during Watergate, was justified (like Trump’s coup attempt) by portraying Democrats as foreign “Socialists” while portraying Republicans as “Capitalists”.
The truth is most voters of either party support hybrid policies – not purely “Capitalist” nor purely “Socialist”. The truth of any issue is not found in the black & white extremes.
If Republicans are purely “Capitalist” then the next election propose abolishing social security (subsidized by other taxpayers after about 5 years), public school education (would cost $5000 to $10,000 per student per year if paid by parents) or other public services not listed in the U.S. Constitution. No party would win on such an extreme position.
The truth is most voters of either party support hybrid policies – not purely “Capitalist” nor purely “Socialist”. The truth of any issue is not found in the black & white extremes.
Socialist or Capitalist is a stupid comparison. Because the US is a Constitutional Representative Republic
That means powers not enumerated in the constitution to the Federal govt, belong to the States or the People
Things like food aid, (school lunches, SNAP benefits) are unconstitutional.
Things like the Dept of Education are unconstitutional.
Most Federal agencies lack Constitutional standing.
Donald Trump is now calling on the US Supreme Court to halt all criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against him. King Donald I.
Petitioning the court is somehow wrong?
He hasn’t filed a petition, nor can he do so now, as they don’t have original jurisdiction here.
So in other words, Trump has NOT contacted SCOTUS? Got it. (is your post misinformantion or malinformation? asking for a friend)
No, idiot, he did it in a Truth Social post, not via petition.
“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh – you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer told the cheering crowd.
Here ya go, idiot. Make your apologies.
So trump posting on a social media site, carries weight with SCOTUS? You have officially lost your mind.
Idiot, I didn’t say or imply that it carries weight with SCOTUS. All I said is: Donald Trump is now calling on the US Supreme Court to halt all criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against him.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. Or maybe you’re just dishonest.
And I told my dog I wouldn’t mind having sex with the 20 year old neighbor. Doesn’t mean I cheated on my spouse.
You and all the leftist are forced into mind reading to justify your idiocy. never asked or “called” on SCOTUS to do anything. He put up a post on social media.
Strange that Hunter admits he put aside 10% of the grift for the Big Guy, but that’s meaningless, but a post on social media is actionable by prosecutors.
“All I said is: Donald Trump is now calling on the US Supreme Court to halt all criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against him.”
ATS
You’re a LIAR. You’ve proven it once again. That is NOT “all you said”
You also said “King Donald I”
People with reasonable minds could easily surmise from your past rhetoric that you were implying something there. Would you care to clarify what exactly that was??
ATS
Waiting for your response to my question. What were you implying?