Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the second federal indictment of former president Donald Trump. I remain deeply concerned over the implications of free speech from this prosecution. Indeed, the general dismissal of these concerns by legal experts shows how our current rage politics can blind us to dangers even to our own fundamental rights.
Here is the column:
In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” In the second federal indictment against former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith seems to follow that advice in bringing a prosecution that pursues the president at any cost, even the First Amendment.
While the Wilde quote is well known, few ever include the second line: “Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself, with desire for what its monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful.”
Smith resolved this struggle by yielding and not worrying about the thing “forbidden to itself.” Specifically, he jettisoned First Amendment protections to try to bag the former president for alleged crimes connected to Jan. 6.
While the indictment recognizes that politicians are protected in making false statements in elections, it proceeds to charge Trump for doing precisely that in claiming that the 2020 election was stolen. Smith simply charged that Trump did not really believe it, therefore it is fraud.
The implications of the filing were captured on CNN, where host Kaitlan Collins explained that “the First Amendment does not allow the President of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was not fraud…”
That is, of course, entirely wrong. Just because you are told something does not mean that you have to believe it, or that you cannot publicly contradict what you have been told.
However, Collins did accurately describe Smith’s theory: you are allowed to say false things unless you should have believed what the rest of us were saying.
I was one of those saying that Trump was wrong. I criticized his Jan. 6 speech in coverage while he was still giving it. I wrote that he was wrong on the law and that Vice President Mike Pence did the right thing in certifying the election. However, being wrong is not the same as being a felon.
Most of us have no visceral opposition to indicting Trump or any former president. When Smith indicted Trump over documents at Mar-a-Lago, I wrote that I thought the indictment was well-supported and a serious threat to Trump.
That is why most of us were hoping that, if Smith was going to indict Trump over Jan. 6, he would do so only with the undisputed legal precedent and unassailable evidence. He offered neither. The complaint advances a novel legal claim with surprisingly little evidence of intent other than Trump was told by advisers that the allegations of a stolen election (and legal theory on challenging certification) were wrong.
It is important to note that Smith could still offer new evidence. There are a number of unnamed “co-conspirators” and Smith may be working to flip them. They could allege that Trump told them that he lost, but Trump still maintains that he believes (as do millions of Americans) that the election was stolen. Moreover, specific allegations on the submission of false electors include allegations of knowingly false submissions to the courts or Congress. Yet, they would need to establish that Trump knew and facilitated such false filings as opposed to following the advice of legal advisers.
As it stands, this is the criminalization of disinformation. It is consistent with the Biden administration’s effort to censor and punish those who refuse to yield on subjects ranging from climate change to COVID. That is why this is a free-speech killing case. Despite Supreme Court cases affirming that lies are protected speech, it would allow the government to arrest candidates who are refusing to listen to “the truth.”
Of course, it depends on who the politicians are. Democrats previously challenged certification of prior Republican presidents under the very same law used on Jan. 6. They also refused to listen to those who said that there were no valid grounds for challenge. During the Trump inauguration in 2017, there were also riots fueled by such claims. Yet, there were no indictments nor should there have been.
The difference seems to be Trump himself. It seems that there is no cost too great in the pursuit of Trump, even the defining right to free speech. Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal actually declared that the indictment “is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.” It was a curious statement since the Dred Scott decision was a disgrace that treated African Americans as property, and led later to a Civil War. Likewise, treating this indictment as the same as ending segregation across the nation shows how untethered the analysis has become in the Trump era.
While Smith and pundits raised the Jan. 6 riot in defending the indictment, Trump was notably not indicted for any conspiracy to incite or seditious conspiracy. Those were the charges that the same pundits and politicians claimed were clearly established. They were used as the basis for the second Trump impeachment. Yet, Smith clearly did not find sufficient evidence to support such charges and instead charged him with spreading falsehoods about the election.
For centuries, we have debated what it would take to get a free people to abandon core liberties or due process. For many, Trump is the irresistible temptation and the First Amendment is now that “monstrous law” that makes them “grow sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.”
“. . . what’s novel about Smith’s argument in the indictment.”
That something-or-other is criminal, if Trump does it.
Here’s what’s missing from that indictment:
1) An identification of the specific *action* Trump took, that is allegedly criminal.
2) The federal law that makes that action (whatever is was) a crime.
(It’s pointless to copy and paste, for the nth time, the indictment. Doing so does not answer either 1) or 2). Neither does hand-waving about “conspiracy.” That merely begs the question.)
“The indictment describes in detail the manner and means by which Trump allegedly conspired to impede and obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of votes in the presidential election. These means included an attempt to lean on state officials to subvert the vote; a scheme to organize fraudulent slates of electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; an attempt to recruit the Justice Department to conduct sham investigations of voter fraud; an effort to convince Pence to obstruct the vote certification proceeding over which he presided; and an attempt to exploit the violence and chaos of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol to disrupt and delay that certification proceeding.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-jan.-6-indictment-the-facts
Since you seem to be having reading comprehension problems with the indictment itself, perhaps turn to analyses/summaries of it by others, like the one I cite here.
+100
My +100 was in response to Sam’s comment, not anonymous the galactically stupid
Turley, you’re stating the obvious.
The question…
Are they trying to get Trump the primary win?
Are they trying to scare Trump off?
Are they trying to take focus off of Biden?
I get this is a multiple choice type of question…
-G
Ian, the plan, if it can be called a plan, it to keep the public focusing on Orange Man BAD! while they continue to steal ‘n hide the good china and silver, if you know what I mean. Nothing more. Sadly, it works well on people who don’t wish to pay attention.
Unless a president uses his words to intentionally incite violence, which Trump did not do, it is not a crime to lie to the American people about a stolen election, which Trump also did not do.
Throughout Trump’s first term, there was a tremendous effort to steal the 2020 election by reducing his popularity with voters. The DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, Congressional Democrats, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and the mainstream media spent thousands of hours spreading a false story about Trump stealing the 2016 election by colluding with Russia. They continually censored conservatives. They ignored or watered-down negative information about Democrats. They brazenly covered up massive overseas bribery engaged in by the Biden family. The House of Representatives then impeached Donald Trump for asking Ukrainian officials to investigate the bribery engaged in by the Biden family in that country. Finally, there was the cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop story by the DOJ, the FBI, and the mainstream media. After four years of this, lo and behold, Trump’s enemies successfully stole the 2020 election.
On January 6, 2021, the only people who brought weapons to the Capitol were the Capitol Police, who had been denied National Guard back-up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The only person intentionally killed on January 6 was a petite, unarmed Air Force veteran named Ashli Babbit, a Trump supporter who was gunned down by a Capitol Police officer. Although not killed by Capitol Police, Trump supporter Roseanne Boyland also died that day—after being crushed by the surging crowd—as Capitol Police stood around not providing medical assistance.
May God bless and protect Donald Trump and his supporters during this shameful time in American history.
Trump’s Big Lie *is* a lie.
And Trump wasn’t indicted for lying to the American people, which you’d know if you bothered to read the indictment.
The DOJ indictment charges Trump with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States; Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding; Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding; and Conspiracy Against Rights.
Regarding the conspiracy to defraud charge, the indictment says:
“The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.”
Right.
None of the charges are about lying to the American people. If you’d kept reading, you’d have read the following, for example:
“As the January 6 congressional certification proceeding approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the Defendant sought to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results. The Defendant did this first by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to convince the Vice President to accept the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them. When that failed, the Defendant attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D.C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.”
“And Trump wasn’t indicted for lying to the American people,”
Yes, we know this to be true because it said so right in the indictment!!!
LMAO the dogma is strong in this one.
“I have a great idea, let’s put right in the indictment that we arent prosecuting his right to free speech, so he cant use free speech as a defense”—-junior attorney in Jack Smith’s office
The stupidity is so transparent, its comical. It reads exactly like a DNC talking points email.
Is it a lie?
There were many unexplained anomalies. Things that were buried and denied.
The question of election fraud is a given. Yes. Fraud exists in all elections. The question is if the fraud is at a level that it can change the outcome.
In this election, the answer is yes. Concerted fraud in key locations along w a tight election… yes the results could be switched.
There’s more to it, but the bottom line is that Trump’s belief that he was robbed is both a valid opinion along w the difficulty in trying to prove that Trump lied when he said he believed he should have won… The key issue is proving mens rhea and Smith can’t do that.
Libtard Soros funded DAs have dismissed cases that had more evidence of guilt than this one.
You are correct trying to jail politicians who lie is akin to giving speeding tickets to racers at Indy 500.
-G
No, the answer to “if the fraud is at a level that it can change the outcome” — what the indictment calls “outcome-determinative fraud” — is No.
The Trump campaign commissioned two different research groups to investigate whether there was outcome-determinative fraud, and both told him No.
In their assessment of whether to suspend Rudy Giuliani’s law license, the NY court looked into whether his claims of outcome-determinative fraud were true, and the answer was No.
“The key issue is proving mens rhea and Smith can’t do that.”
On the contrary, Smith will be able to meet the legal standard: “Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth, can be construed as acting “knowingly.” United States v. Evans, 559 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).
“A defendant is not relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation by lack of knowledge when the means of ascertaining truthfulness are available. In appropriate circumstances, the government may establish the defendant’s knowledge of falsity by proving that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See United States v. West, 666 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); Lange, 528 F.2d at 1288; United States v. Clearfield, 358 F. Supp. 564, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See United States v. Schaffer, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979).”
Trump had 18 months to return stolen documents, including stolen nuclear secrets kept in an outdoor pool shed at a Golf Club – never zoned for his primary residence.
After 18 months, the National Archives and FBI simply asked him nicely to return what he stole – with no threat of criminal prosecution. This extra special and extra light treatment happened after Trump was the leader of a coup attempt.
If the Biden Justice Department was out to get Trump at all costs, these facts point to the opposite conclusion. If they really wanted to get Trump, they would started in the year 2021 when there was no interference from an upcoming election.
The President, alone and exclusively, is vested with the power to classify, declassify, archive and archive in perpetuity the materials generated during his term in the executive branch.
The legislative branch has no power to usurp the power of the executive branch.
The legislative branch has no power to amend the Constitution.
Legislation that usurps the power of the executive branch is unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
SMA
And praytell why wasnt biden ever asked to return stolen documents, including documents he NEVER had a right to possess anytime anywhere outside of a secure skiff?
If you’re interested in a good analysis of the counts against Trump, and the actual statutory language as interpreted by various courts, try this Lawfare article:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-jan.-6-indictment-the-statutes
And two discussions of why Trump’s usual defenses won’t work:
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/trump-usual-defenses-wont-work-new-indictment
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/jack-smith-versus-trump-defense-attorney-john-lauro.html
The defense is trivial. Smith did not indict for an actual crime.
He indicted for free speech – political speech the MOST protected form of free speech there is
Smith did not even come close to the standard necescary – which is incredibly high.
Smith TRIED to deliberately avoid the speech issue.
But he CAN NOT, because all the conduct alleged is SPEECH.
The FACT that he did not indict for incitement to riot is damning evidence that Smith KNOWS he can not get arround the the first amendment issue.
I fully expect the sock pupet judge involved to gag Trump and engage in all kinds of other tom foolery.
But u8ltimately that is GOOD for all of us and GOOD for Trump.
This indictment was an incredibly stupid mistake.
It makes makes what was obvious to most ten times as obvious to nearly all.
That the Biden administration is through and through politically corrupt.
That Republicans need to CLEAN HOUSE – an that includes impeaching and removing Judges that are clueless about the first amendment and constitutional rights.
There are so many ways this indictment is stupid.
Smith and this judge are near certain going to try to rush.
Yet, this case is 10,000 times more complex than the rest.
Not only is it a free speech case – but Smith is alleging that Trump is lying about the 2020 election.
That opens the door to Actually litigating the election fraud in the 2020 election.
I have no doubt that the sock puppet will attempt to thwart that.
I also have no doubt that she will ultimately lose on appeal.
All elements of a crime MUST be proven by the prosecution.
All elements of the crime are fair game for the defense.
Smith can not allege that X is a lie without opening the door for Trump to prove it is not.
And Trump and his lawyers will have a field day with that.
Against the Judge is unlikely to allow that, and that will result in easy reversal.
That is not even a free speech issue.
Further this Judge has already telegraphed and Smith has demanded that Trump be gagged.
That too will be appealed – and likely create excellent law.
Judges attempts to gag the defense in ALL criminal trials is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It always has been. The judge does NOT have the right to violate someones constitutional rights merely because they have been accused of a crime. That never should have been allowed at all.
But this case is the PERFECT case to litigate that. Silencing your leading political candidate in a presidential campaign is about the most egregious violation of the first amendment that there is.
There are so many reasons this indictment is incredibly stupid.
It is incredible weak.
It looks weak.
As a manueveur it reakes of fear and weakness on the part of Smith, DOJ, Garland, and Biden.
It PROVES all the reasons that This administration is corrupt.
It Follows the DOJ/FBI/DHS/ other alphabet agencies getting cought violating the first amenmdnet to rig the 2020 and 2022 elections.
Further this indictment requires ALL democrats to take a stand. Not just Biden and DOJ.
It requires the same people who voted to impeach Trump for allegedly using government powert to go after a political oponent who if it was not Clear in 2020 is a crook, it is crystal clear NOW.
So Democrats must explain why Trump can not use the power of government to go after a political opponent for Bribery,
But Biden can go full bull moose goon loon in on weaponizing Government to go after his political oponent for Free speech.
It Raises Election Fraud AGAIN at a time when Left wing nut claims look increasingly weak.
It raised J6 again – when Polls are now showing that 65% of americans beleive that J6 was orchestrated by the FBI.
I do not personally beleive that – though the FBI is absolutely hemming and hawing about their involvement.
And we now have the fired head of the CP at the time on the record claiming that J6 only occured because of political interferance in his job by Democrats in congress. That The J6 protests were entirely manageable – with Protestors getting the oportunity to speak out if he was just allowed to do his job without political interferance.
The J6 narative is Tanking. Democrats faux J6 committee FAILED to persaude any but left wing nut true beleivers.
Ordinary people increasingly KNOW that democrats LIE to them about everything.
And now all democrats are being FORCED to go on the record.
Are they FOR free speech or are they FOR totalitarianism.
The left keeps alleging that Trump is some great danger to the democracy that we are not.
Yet, over and over it is DEMOCRATS that are violating the constitution.
It is DEMOCRATS that are gagging people.
You are doing an excellent job of making Trump into a martyr.
I would further note that attempting to gagg Trump is highly unlikely to work.
Trump is with near certainty going to violate any gagg order.
And what are you going to do about that ?
Trying to enforce the gagg order will only make the judge and Smith and democrats look even more like Nazi Thugs.
And they will not succeed.
If Trump fails to obey a gagg order – are you going to lock him up ?
PLEASE DO!!!! PLEASE behave as much like Nazis as you possibly can.
Please show the entire world how completely terrified you are of Truimp.
Please show the entire world that you are Nazi’s.
Go For it.
John,
I consider you a waste of time blowhard, so I’m not going to waste my time reading most of your response, much less responding to it. But I read your first paragraph, and even there, you demonstrate your willful ignorance:
“Nothing in the charges filed Wednesday seeks to punish the former president for speech or advocacy as such. While the indictment does recite many things Trump said and calls them false, it identifies each such statement as being part of an overall course of conduct satisfying the elements of a crime under one of four federal statutes: conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. section 371; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, 18 U.S.C. section 1512(k); obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, 18 U.S.C. section 1512(c); and conspiracy to deprive persons of protected rights, 18 U.S.C. section 241.
“It is long established and ordinarily uncontroversial that speech can lose the protection of the First Amendment if, for example, it seeks to intimidate a public official into shirking a legal duty, or if it consists of the submission of forged documents to a government agency, or if it solicits or facilitates crime generally (this past term’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Hansen, criticized by colleague Thomas Berry on a different issue, reiterated that last simple truism). Speech that is part of a conspiracy to accomplish those things may be unprotected as well. …”
https://www.cato.org/blog/seven-questions-about-trump-indictment
Former A.G. Barr: “As the indictment says, you know, they’re not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn’t give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”
ATS
“John,
I consider you a waste of time blowhard, so I’m not going to waste my time reading most of your response, INSTEAD I AM GOING TO WASTE EVERYONE ELSE’S TIME (WHO ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO READ FURTHER) BY REGURGITATING THE SAME TIRED HORSE MANURE I HAVE BEEN SPREADING SINCE I SIGNED MY CONTRACT TO BE A PAID TROLL.”
Fixed that for you.
If you wish people to believe that Democrats are capable of winning an election without massive election fraud, the wisest thing you could do is NOT continue to engage in massive election fraud.
Do you understand that the more bad conduct you engage in to attempt to win the 2024 election – the more people question what you may have actually done to win 2020 and to survive in 2022.
“never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”
Bonaparte.
Go For it!!
Jack Smith has no intention of obtaining a conviction of Trump that will stand. Anyone who thinks otherwise is supremely deluded. One juror is all it takes. One. And if the proceedings are conducted so unfairly by the left wing hack judge that they cant get a change of venue or find a Trumper in the jury pool, the appeals will be slam dunks and more egg on jack smiths shabby beard.
ATS and his ilk want to argue about whats a crime and what isn’t. It doesn’t matter, you fools. You are wasting your proverbial breath. Do you think they will find 12 jurors who never heard of DJT? LMAO at the stupidity. 30% of the voters in this country would not vote to convict him, no matter what “evidence” of “crimes” you think you have. Trumps lawyers have only one job of any consequence. Find that one Trumper in DC. If they get a change of venue, i wouldnt even call it a job anymore, they’ll end up with 3 “Mega MAGA extremists” minimum on the jury.
Dream on, lefties!!! LMAO
LMAO at ATS
I disagree that “most of us have no visceral opposition to indicting a former president.” I think indicting a former President is a very big deal and should only be attempted if the alleged offense should also be a very big deal. For example, Bill Clinton’s presence on Epstein’s Lolita Express would seem at the very least to warrant investigation for sex trafficking and/or pedophilia, both of which, objectively speaking, are a very big deal. A box of documents in Trump’s bathroom, which may or may not have even been there before it was staged by the FBI, is not a very big deal. If Trump had wanted to sell America out, or sell secrets, or sell influence, he would have done it while in power, like Biden has done and is currently doing.
Every American SHOULD have a visceral opposition to prosecuting one former president for a documents case while treating every other president, former or current, as above the law. So that’s point A.
But the really interesting point, to me, is, why Trump? Why is Trump the litmus test (and I use the term intentionally with thoughts of the fake Steele Dossier in my mind) for our constitutional republic? Yes, his personality is abrasive, but millions of Americans were entranced by that same personality for decades before Trump became president. Even while he was running against Hillary, Trump was treated with contemptuous indulgence by the press and by the left. When and why did he become “literal Satan” to Democrats and to a good portion of the old school country club conservatives? How can it be that the same country who recognized the rights of the Boston Bomber to a fair trial think that Donald Trump should have no rights?
What are his unforgiveable sins? Economic prosperity? World peace? Low unemployment? A strong border?The First Step Act and opportunity zones for minorities? The left and the Never Trumpers could have forgiven Trump if he crashed and burned. He’d probably be a hero right now with speaking engagements all over the country. But the fact that Trump went ahead and did all those things that everybody else promised, all while under constant and completely baseless attack, puts Trump beyond the pale because he shows us that everybody else was a liar. Trump made all the Never Trumpers, and all the haters on the left, look and feel stupid. Isn’t that the real crux of the matter?
Even Professor Turley, one of the few to achieve any level of objectivity, treats Trump with thinly veiled contempt. His underlying premise seems to be that “Even the intellectually inferior have rights.”
If you think about the term “haters,” it’s not really about hate. It’s about envy. Men – especially moral and intellectual highground seeking Democrats – hate Trump because there is something hardwired in every man that secretly wants to be a billionaire with a supermodel wife. Women hate Trump because there is something hardwired in every woman that wants to be a supermodel with a billionaire husband.
The fox that couldn’t reach the grapes said they were sour. Because people cannot admit to their envy, they want to destroy Trump, and the country with him. It’s sad. It’s like watching a bunch of preschoolers beat up on the new kid who brought them candy. And it’s not going to work. As Turley pointed out, Trump is the ultimate test of our system of justice and our republic. If we pass the test, we all win. If we fail, this country goes down into the darkness, and that doesn’t mean that Democrats will rule forever. It means we will be invaded and occupied by the people Biden has sold us to, all while our legal “experts” are debating how many FBI agents can dance on the head of a pin.
Excellent points, deboluccia. “When and why did he become “literal Satan” to Democrats and to a good portion of the old school country club conservatives?” There’s only one answer and it covers every other point you’ve made: November 2016, for beating them at their own game, politics. Seriously, that’s all it took.
He convinced a population that was (and is still) fed up with the lifelong, career-minded, run-of-the-mill, campaign-promising, lying directly to your face, in-it-more-for-their-own-power-than-anything-else, political hack… that there’s a better way and what do you have to lose by voting for someone who isn’t one of *them*?
And it worked.
“How dare he claim to understand how taxpayers are getting the shaft while we enrich ourselves at the public trough here in DC. MY GAWD, HE HAD THE NERVE TO SAY IT OUT LOUD, IN PUBLIC!”, they said.
Even Hillary ‘got it’ on election night. “Do you realize what this means? We’re all going to jail!”, she apparently said to her staff.
And THAT was when the so-called “better people” took off their opera gloves, put down their cocktails, circled the limousines, called DOJ, and as a collection of overdressed, drunken, screeching banshees, shrieked, “GET TRUMP!!
You know what happened next.
Hope that helps.
And one more point…do you remember when Trump was every politicians best friend when he donated money to their political campaigns? They apparently don’t, not even when they’re shown photographic evidence.
Professor Turley: Why is the documents case a serious threat to Trump while Hillary took hammers to her devices after deleting 33,000 emails and Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute such a case? I’m having cognitive dissonance over this issue and would appreciate it if you could clarify.
Comey said that because he knew that there would be ZERO chance of conviction. Do you really think there would be any problem selecting a jury that had one or more left wing nut job kool-ade drinkers on it??? One juror who’s political beliefs would not permit them to vote guilty is easy. Look at all the willful blindness to facts you find right here.
It’s been hard to listen to one of our hysterical posters who has posted several dozen times the claims he made were based on partial information that was soft, Here is another point of view.
—
Hottest ever? Key scientist takes ‘default position’ on climate stories as ‘exaggerated or false’
“This rate of warming does not constitute a climate crisis…”
As people are inundated with claims that the globe is suffering an immediate “climate crisis,” and “the hottest July ever” one leading expert in the field is advising people to take these narratives with a grain of salt. …
“I see the main problems as perspective in time and space. July is always hotter than normal somewhere, so focusing on those spots misses the spatial aspect that there are other non-hotter than normal places,” Christy told Just the News. In terms of time, I use US stations with at least 100 years of data, so the present heat can be judged from a better perspective. When compared with other “hot” years, including the notorious 1936 heat wave, the US this year is not in record territory.”
EPA data shows that in fact the 1930s were when America’s hottest heat waves took place. According to the Washington Post, the 1936 wave resulted in around 5,000 deaths, and North Dakota hit 120 degrees Fahrenheit that July.
Continued…
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/key-scientist-suggests-taking-default-position-climate-crisis-stories?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
The former President of the United States occupies a perpetual indelible spot in some people’s minds, rent free, 24:7. I suspect many have tuned this topic out. “Second Verse,Same as the First.” They lost me after the first impeachment attempt.
Time for some actual news.,
Professor Turley likes to bring up the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision at every opportunity. But there is no point in bringing up the Dred Scott decision unless you also mention that the opinion was written by Democrat Roger B. Taney and it was written for the benefit of his fellow Democrats. And Taney and the Democrats honestly believed that Blacks were the property of their fellow Democrat slaveholders, not people and citizens with civil rights.
The Democrat Party still thinks of Blacks as property and they still honestly believe that they own them. But they are wrong, as the following brief video presentation makes clear:
The Professor stated….. “Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal actually declared that the indictment “is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.” It was a curious statement since the Dred Scott decision was a disgrace that treated African Americans as property, and led later to a Civil War.”.
Perhaps this attack on the Constitution and Rights of Citizens under the Biden Administration shall lead to a Civil War 2.0 if they are not careful and as Democrats always do…..way over reach in their zealous ambitions to take, hold, and enhance a powerful central socialist government no matter what they have to do to do that.
Are we doomed to another such disastrous period in our history…..where is the tipping point that will decide whether we do or not?
The ATF is reporting gun sales running at a Million guns per month for the past year….now why would that be you would wonder?
Is it runaway crime that drives people to buy guns for self defense?
Is people buying guns as precious metal surrogates for re-sale at a higher price?
Or….are people thinking they might just need one for resisting a tyrannical government that the Founding Fathers feared might appear one day have to be dealt with by the People?
I am of the mind that all of those are reasons for sure…..and the first two I have no problem with….but the third choice chills my Heart as I have seen War in person up close and in all of its ugliness.
Do the Democrats think there are not people today who would have marched to Breed’s Hill and stand against those trying to deprive us of our Liberties as happened during the War that founded this Nation?
The one thing that stands between those who seek to destroy the Constitution and that is the Military Services of this Country who swear an Oath to support and defend that Document and what it has to say.
If the military gets destroyed by Wokeism being perpetrated by the Left…..it shall fall to the People to do so and they shall if forced to do so.
We can differ on politics but we must adhere to the Rule of Law for all citizens and apply the Laws of the Land without favor or bias or our system shall fail and there we will be….on a hill somewhere looking at others resorting to the option no one should want to happen.
” … While Smith and pundits raised the Jan. 6 riot in defending the indictment, Trump was notably not indicted for any conspiracy to incite or seditious conspiracy. … Yet, Smith clearly did not find sufficient evidence to support such charges and instead charged him with spreading falsehoods about the election. …”
In a word: Raymond Epps (and numerous Other(s) undercover Agent) were involved in ‘INDUCING’ the Riot into the Capital Building.
Smith will not go there because the Agents involved will be discovered and the Ops exposed.
Trump may have ‘INCITED’ the Mob, the Agents ‘INDUCED’ the Mob to assail the Capitol.
Our very own Roland Feisler.
Must also be a Judge Jeffrey’s or two in DC as well.
I have such great confidence in the system–confident that the system is corrupt and suppurating.
“Our very own Roland Feisler.”
Great historical reference (which I had not heard of). The Nazi’s state prosecutor who used the concept of political “crimes” to punish dissenters and to rid the country of ideological opposition.
NB: It’s “Freisler.”
Posting this here because the more you know about Wray, the FBI and Biden’s corrupt DOJ…..the more you know about the J6 Fedsurrection lies…
🎙ALPHAWARRIOR🎙
@xAlphaWarriorx
“2 years ago today (Aug. 4th 2021). The #FBI showed up to my house for a 2nd time. They knew I had legal representation, they made no attempt to contact my attorney or contact me prior to showing at my home, while I was fighting an active case against them.
When I answered the door, they stated they were there to return my electronic devices.
FBI Special Agent Armenta and JTTF Rialto Police Detective Candias stayed in my front walkway with my electronics still in there vehicle.
I made this statement to them “You know the American People don’t trust the FBI.”
SA Armenta responded, “Why do you say that?”
I replied, “You had FBI Director Chris Wray on national television under oath lie and state he had not seen any evidence of Antifa or BLM At January 6th. Anyone with a phone or tablet at a minimum, saw videos of #JohnSullivan (BLM/ANTIFA) at the capitol.”
SA Armenta replied, “Well of course he (Wray) did (Lie), he couldn’t say anything that helps Trump.”
I went on to explain that I think
@POTUS
Biden is an idiot, but if he did something I would have to tell the truth if I was under oath. SA Armenta immediately recognize his mistake and they changed the subject to get my electronics from their vehicle.
In case you’re lost, an FBI Agent told me it is okay for the FBI to lie under oath as long it’s against their opponent.
As soon they left my home I contacted my attorney to request the audio recording of that contact with the FBI. For 4 months, we requested that audio and in December 2021, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office (California) told us the FBI contacted them and said there was no audio recording of that contact at my home.
The FBI would have you believe they went to the home of a J6 Arrestee and did not record the contact in what they say is the DOJ largest investigation in American History.
The truth; they destroyed it because it would impeach the statements of FBI SA Armenta. Why did they have to protect Armenta, because he is also the FBI Agent in charge of the assault case against U.S Capital Police Officer Michael Fanone. If his case falls apart, a major part of the J6 narrative falls apart.
This is one small part of my J6 case against government persecution. I wasn’t even in D.C on January 6th, they used my Twitter account to say J6 was a triggering event and I wanted to disrupt the Inauguration of Biden.
A few more lies – they wrote at least 3 times in the partial warrant we’ve received that my case was started due to a confidential informant, when we requested an in camera hearing to reveal the identity of the informant, they told the same DA, it was an accident. There was NO informant, they meant to write Anonymous Party. This was a deception against the judge who reviewed the warrant. They left exculpatory tweets out of the warrant for the judge to review.Additionally, during the initial FBI SWAT team raid, they asked me who I voted for, for President and which party I was registered with, yet this is not a political attack.
There is so much more and yet NOT ONE SINGLE large Media outlet will touch my story or interview me. Wait til you hear why they chose to visit my home specifically on August 4. It’s very sinister, interview me and be shocked.
I have zero criminal history, I’m a decorated Marine Combat Veteran and awarded the Law Enforcement Medal of Valor and survived 4 shootings as a cop. All this and after a $250,000 bail, tossed in a solitary confinement and endless attacks by the government I’m left to fight this alone like so many Americans. This case has so much more…does any CONSERVATIVE MEDIA dare air my story.”
______________________________
J6 was a setup, an inside job, a FEDsurrection….and they are all LYING about it….
It is odd that Professor Turley invokes the Dred Scott case and he characterizes it today as “a disgrace that treated African Americans as property[.]” But the Professor fails to note that the decision was rendered by Roger B. Taney–a Democrat. And the Democrats were very proud of fellow Democrat Taney’s decision to treat black people as property without civil rights. The Democrats still think of black people as their property to this day. As Democrat leader Joe Biden put it, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
WARNING: Extremely OT:
Hey Everyone, I am sitting here with my friends and we decided to lighten the good professor’s blog up tonight, -considering the
heavy words exchanged with each other yesterday and today in posts.
Do you remember the “Where’s Waldo” craze?
Here’s our updated version. Can you find the conservative Republican in this clip?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-fight-breaks-out-in-the-wake-of-a-chaotic-afternoon-in-union-square/vi-AA1eOmv9?cvid=33414c3c22f742218ab74389db040d93&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
yours in fun, lin.
Lin – white shirt, red shorts?
The guy with the bat.?
Hello there oldmanfromarkansas: We are just now getting up and having brunch after a wild and wanton night of Password, Jeopardy, and Pyramid. (Password is my favorite-Guess what my age is….)
(We didn’t expect any responses; it was more like a rhetorical joke.)
So thanks for taking a minute to respond.
But, Actually, if you go back and open the clip, TRY to pause or freeze the very, very beginning. Right in the very forefront/forescreen, you will see a white male, (proximal to the camera), black shirt, gray shorts, looking at the melee in the distance and continuing to move away (L to R across the screen)…. You will not see this unless you are able to start the video at the very first frame.
IN ANY EVENT, we goofed, because we intended to show this image:
https://media.necn.com/2023/08/UNion-Square-riot.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&resize=1200%2C675
Can you spot/find the blonde?
(ha ha, my friend here at the table says, ‘she’s got a wig on, to save her life’)
(I believe the whole mob scene was in re: some TikTok influencer named Twitch giving away free stuff?)
Lin – I see that now. In that case I’d say there were two conservatives, the second one being the one I identified, haha.
If Biden was Presenting & Selling himself (the Brand, the Product) while acting as the; President, Vice President, Senator,
then isn’t the proceeds from the Sale (His 10% Cut and Hunter’s windfall) property of The United States of America,
thus are not the Biden guilty of Embezzlement from the U.S. Government?
Yes – I know if You or I embezzled money from the Government, We’d be fired and criminally charged.
I wounder if this thought has ever crosses Special Counsel Robert Hur mind.
Come on You Criminal Law experts,
Care to explain that to me, Why this isn’t embezzlement ?
1. He’s ‘trading’ on the Name of his employer (The United States of America)
2. He’s not reporting the ‘Sales’ to his employer (The United States of America)
3. He’s sold the ‘Merchandise’ (what ever the Buyer was after) out the backdoor at the cost to (The United States of America)
4. He’s using Shell Accounts to hide the proceeds from his employer (The United States of America)
5. He’s conducting personal business on Company Time and Property of (The United States of America)
Where’s H.R.? Looking the other way again ???
Yep – We can’t afford this employee any more !
* Replace: (The United States of America) with the name of Your Employer and see how it fits.
em·bez·zle·ment
noun: embezzlement; plural noun: embezzlements
theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one’s trust or belonging to one’s employer.
“charges of fraud and embezzlement”
Against the legal advice of numerous experts, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed criminal charges against Trump. If Trump is found not guilty and a violent, destructive, anti-Trump riot ensues at the courthouse, does that mean Bragg gets arrested for ignoring the consensus of the experts?
If laws were ever enforced in America, Bragg or his ancestors would have been compassionately repatriated on January 1, 1863, as extant immigration law denied that he “may be admitted to become a citizen.”
To wit,
______
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four clear iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
George: If this is how you define trying to help Trump, please stop.
Are you helping Trump, or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights for that matter?
That train left the station in 1860…gonna be tough to get it back.
So you’re enjoying your fair share of wholly unconstitutional communism, including, but not limited to admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
coastal, let me introduce you to George, who’s a white nationalist. Nothing you say will change him.
In fact, I am a constitutionalist in a society of laws, which the communists began nullifying and violating with wholly unconstitutional brutality and violence in 1860.
I have never recommended violating the law, as you do.
____________________________________________
“It’s the [law], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Secession was not and is not prohibited by the Constitution and is, precisely, what the American Revolutionaries availed themselves of vs. Great Britain.
Everything Lincoln did subsequent to his initial illegal act of denying fully constitutional secession was equally illegal and remains illegitimate to this day.
The problem is that you are averse and adverse to the law, believing you can write and rewrite the law to your liking as you go along.
“Crazy Abe” threw the baby out with the bathwater – he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery – he was neither inclined nor willing to change slavery through the legal process, he killed to accomplish his destruction of the Constitution and begin the incremental implementation of the principles of communism, for which Karl Marx congratulated and commended him. America is an aberration of a century and half of illegal and unconstitutional acts.
You celebrate with Karl Marx and his motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Congratulations, comrades!
What defines a ‘nationalist’?
Iowan, I am trying to figure out what is wrong with being a nationalist? If not in the extreme, there is nothing wrong, but there is something wrong with being a traitor to you neighbors and friends. These leftists are lost in a sea of meaningless words.
“…meaningless words” is their best and only hand. They’re the worst poker players ever seated.
A white nationalist (note that it’s a phrase) is someone who wants the country to only have white citizens. Strange that you don’t know this by now.
You, ATS and ATI are so intermingled now that it is difficult to tell which orifice the sh1te is coming from.
I am glad you have made it clear what you think of George and white nationalists (whether true or not is open to discussion), but to date you haven’t explained your affinity toward treason and your hatred of the Constitution. Most of your opinions are off the wall so if the two of you wish to get separated, one of you will have to engage in common sense.
‘…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
Jonathan T will have to go through some painful experience like this before he sees “free speech” from both sides:
Turley goes to Court and wins a jury verdict for his client. But the losing client has a huge media following and they get the word out first that Turley lost. The court of public opinion is saturated with the false narrative to the point where JT is derided as “out of touch with reality” in his claim to have won the case. When he produces a Court Record showing the verdict, it’s immediately dismissed as fake. JT sues for slander, but the Judge throws out the case based on an extravagant 1st Amendment interpretation allowing organized misreporting of official decisions (e.g. verdicts and election winners).
JT has to be squashed and cancelled by deceitful infowarriors before he will appreciate the limits on what is protected by the 1st Amendment. Now that journalism has gone over to advocacy in place of truth-seeking, the court of public opinion has become a playground for professionally-trained psyOps practitioners (like Mike Morrell). Add advanced AI tools where deceptions go undetected and 1A begins to work against the truth.
The Public needs wide-ranging opinions, but cannot be making important decisions duped by fraudsters. NO, it is not the job of government to police the infospace for frauds. It is the right of the People to sue in Civil Torts Court to expose the deceits of the manipulative infowarrior. Otherwise, “the consent of the governed” is so hollowed out by fraudulently-obtained consent as to be meaningless. That is why there are limits to 1st Amendment protections in the area of public frauds of a political nature, but using civil torts (and disallowing govt.prosecution) as the means of deterrence.
What? I guess 23 state ags and 126 congressmen intervenes in texas vs penn who where also told by their staff….with no basis…that there were no irregularities. ???? I think in a separate case even alito told Penn to shape up. Losing on lack of standing is not the same as losing on the merits or after an investigation…..if any. Trump is being shrink wrapped….Jack shits filing says …..trump was told by xyz deep state and proceeded in its face. Okay tell that to 80 million voters and 23 attny Gen. Trump had a duty….to fight for truth and transparancy….not because bill barr or the cisa dude said so…..but because we did! So his intent was noble and neccessary.
I wouldn’t sweat it. I did not vote for Trump, but even I would not vote guilty, even if they delivered the proof in court on a silver f-ing platter. And if i were trumps jury selection lawyer, i would ask every last one what they thought of the Hunter Biden plea deal the DOJ cooked up. If they hadn’t heard of it, i would explain it to them and read it into the record. Get that thought in the mind of every juror before the trial even starts, since it would probably be ruled irrelevant by the hack lefty judge.
If you wouldn’t vote guilty when presented with evidence of guilt, then you shouldn’t be on a jury.
“If you wouldn’t vote guilty when presented with evidence of guilt, then you shouldn’t be on a jury.”
Possibly the dumbest and least self aware thing you have ever said. I would like to see you convince one conservative on the planet that you could be impartial in a trial of DJT.
Heck, I’ll go one further and say u couldnt convince an impartial jury, if they were forced to read the litany of long winded horse manure you have spread on this website alone.
And the standard is not “when presented with evidence of guilt”, just so you know.
Prosecutors present evidence of guilt at every trial. If they didnt have some evidence, WTF would they be doing there? There is evidence here, but there will be no conviction that holds up in this case. Mark it down and come see me when its over.
“I did not vote for Trump, but even I would not vote guilty, even if they delivered the proof in court on a silver f-ing platter.”
Translation: I love Trump and will go to bat for him until the bitter end.
The more you write, the more your true colors come out. You’d be fun in a live debate 🙂
So “I didn’t vote for Trump” translates to “I Love Trump” in your world?
Who’s showing their colors??
I’m not sure why you think you would be more successful debating me live than the schooling you keep getting here.