Below is my column in The Messenger on how the second indictment could prove damaging for President Joe Biden. Ironically, both Trump indictments have blowback potential for Biden on the retention of classified material and the dissemination of false claims. Notably, the New York Times has reported that Biden has had his own Thomas Becket moments in telling aides that he wanted Trump indicted and criticizing the Attorney General Merrick Garland for the delay. It is not clear if Smith will “rid [Biden] of this meddlesome president,” but his theory of criminality could prove costly to Biden himself. Indeed, it could be used as a basis for an impeachment inquiry.
Here is the column:
After last week’s indictment of former President Donald Trump relating to the 2020 election, CNN declared that the charges were “personal” for President Joe Biden, who previously said Trump’s words sounded like “sedition.”
Of course, Trump was not charged with sedition or even seditious conspiracy. Nor was he charged with conspiracy to incitement or insurrection, the grounds for his second impeachment.
However, if Biden does view this case as personal, as CNN suggests, he might be right for the wrong reason. That’s because the case being constructed against Trump by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith could prove a serious problem for Biden, too — particularly as the basis for a House impeachment inquiry.
The latest Trump indictment, based on little new evidence and even less established law, faces a major threshold challenge under the First Amendment. Smith is seeking to criminalize what constitutes disinformation, which not only runs against the grain of the First Amendment but also prior cases. That includes United States v. Alvarez, which overturned the conviction of a politician for knowingly lying about his military background.
The Justice Department acknowledges that the Constitution protects false statements made in political campaigns. Yet it maintains that Trump can be convicted for lying because he really did not believe what he said.
The problem is that the effect of these lies largely fueled the actions of third parties. If Trump were accused of using fraud for pecuniary gain or of lying to federal investigators, there would be no free-speech problem. The complaint, however, focuses on the lies rather than any larceny or standalone crime. It is diffuse in saying that raising doubts over the election undermined the value or results of voting. Previous challenges have been made to certification of presidential elections with little basis (including by Democrats) and even alternative sets of electors have been submitted without criminal charges.
This criminal intent is based on Trump being told by many people that the election was not stolen and he could not stop its certification. I was one of those who maintained that Trump was wrong on the election, Vice President Pence’s authority to void the results, and the Trump team’s challenges. However, Trump followed the advice of a second, albeit smaller, set of lawyers who told him there was a basis for challenging the election.
That is not a crime. It is, in my view, protected political speech. Presidents routinely lie on matters great and small. Many of those lies cost citizens dearly, from “keeping your doctor” under ObamaCare to losing your life in Vietnam. Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope that vests unprecedented power in the Justice Department.
There is a wicked twist in all of this for Biden. The very controversial linchpin used against Trump could conceivably be used against Biden, particularly in the launching of an impeachment inquiry by House Republicans.
While third parties proceeded to take steps to challenge the election and offer alternative electors, Trump continued to publicly deny the election’s legitimacy and failed to effectively call them back. He is accused of seeking out those who would legitimize or enable his political spin on his 2020 defeat.
Not dissimilarly, Biden has long been accused of knowing disregard for constitutional limitations as his administration has pushed unconstitutional measures. For example, Biden conceded that his own White House counsel and trusted legal advisers uniformly told him that renewing a national eviction moratorium would be unconstitutional — but he listened instead to a Harvard law professor who reportedly assured him he had the authority. His eviction-ban order was quickly found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Far more serious are the accusations facing Biden over his response to a growing corruption scandal allegedly involving his son and others. It now seems clear that Biden has lied to the public for years on critical details of the scandal. Indeed, his denial of any knowledge or involvement in his son’s overseas business deals go back to the 2020 presidential debate.
Biden also denied that Hunter Biden received any money from China, which the Washington Post now declares to be manifestly untrue. For years, Biden has allowed his staff, including White House officials, to repeat his denials while opposing any further investigation.
That is why guilt by implication or association, as employed by special counsel Smith against Trump, could be a dangerous legal standard for Joe Biden.
Hunter Biden’s former friend and associate, Devon Archer, told House Oversight Committee investigators last week that they were indeed selling “the brand” and that Joe Biden was part of that brand.
Ironically, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) — who demolished Biden’s defense in an earlier House hearing with two IRS agents — repeated the same blunder during Archer’s closed-door committee appearance. In the previous hearing, Goldman bizarrely raised the instance of Joe Biden going to a lunch at the Four Seasons with Hunter and his Chinese business associates.
In his own committee appearance, Archer was careful not to overstate his knowledge of demands made on then-Vice President Biden and denied personal knowledge of any. Yet Goldman refused to leave a good answer alone and plowed forward into the unknown. He noted that Archer had said they discussed “niceties” — “Where are you, how’s the weather, how’s the fishing?” — in more than 20 phone calls with the senior Biden in the presence of Hunter’s foreign business partners. Goldman pressed Archer to expand, and Archer did, stating: “They were calls to talk about the weather, and that was signal enough to be powerful.”
In other words, the point was the call itself — the access — not the content of the calls.
Later, in a media interview, Archer reaffirmed that it is “categorically false” that Joe Biden had no role in or knowledge of his son’s business dealings, stating: “He was aware of Hunter’s business. He met with Hunter’s business partners.”
Archer also confirmed dinners long denied by Biden officials and the media. For example, prior reports of a 2015 dinner with Hunter’s business associates directly contradicted the president’s repeated denials of knowledge or involvement. A Biden 2020 campaign spokesman at the time insisted the story was false, and Politico reported that other officials also assured that it was all untrue; some suggested it was more “Russian disinformation.”
It turns out that denial also was a lie, because Archer confirmed that Biden “had dinner” with him and several others, including “Vadym P. from Burisma,” referring to an officer of a Ukrainian energy company. The senior Biden reportedly joined the dinner and engaged in discussions.
Biden surely knew his denials of knowledge and interactions were untrue, even as his aides misinformed the public and as congressional and federal investigations occurred.
Now, according to special counsel Smith, such knowing lies can be criminal matters, at least in the case of Donald Trump. For Congress, it could also trigger impeachment inquiries in the case of Joe Biden — and that would make this very personal indeed.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Trump lawyers just asked to exclude 25 days (Aug 3 – Aug 28) from speedy trial calculations. If he were innocent, they’d want a speedy trial to show him as innocent. Instead, they’re trying to delay it. Expect them to keep trying to delay it. He wants it delayed til after the election, in the hopes that he’s elected or pardoned by a Republican if some other Republican is somehow elected.
Speaking of GOP candidates, is Trump going to show up for the first Republican debate?
Speaking of “showing up”,….
1) when is Brain-dead Biden (BB) ACTUALLY going to “show up” for the Presidency job…
2) I suppose all those days at the beach, driving his “taxpayer” Corvette, riding his bike, (and falling down…it’s reported he’s still seeking a bike that has pillows taped to it all over) and taking BS trips to blue states including the “9th Wonder of the World” recently, his crib sheets of democratic party lies about “global warming”–maybe you should educate yourself by reading about the Milankovich cycles–scientifically proven, instead of listening to political BS),
4) and other gaffs in his dismal 40-year history of doing NOTHING (only voting for removing African-American civil rights, on the record that he conveniently forgets), along with everything else, even where he is at any moment–
5) Whew…I suppose those facts take all his time…when he’s not falling down, sleeping, talking to the Easter Bunny, or fondling little girls…
Is Biden going to debate whomever the GOP candidate is, is the bigger question.
Nope, They will induce a stroke with a needle behind an ear by then, Although Kamala Harris may be a reluctant debate Candidate.
From one train wreck to another one.
It’s no bigger question than whether the GOP candidate will debate Biden.
The speedy trial element to trials is to protect the accused from the govt. The judge can ignore the request,(almost always granted to defendents) and it gets added to the list of appealable rulings from the Judge.
If Trump were innocent, he’d want a speedy trial.
Why? The prosecution must prove that what Trump said was false, that he knew it was false, that the statutes cited cover the conduct alleged and that Trump’s due process and 1A rights were not violated. Accordingly the defence must have substantial time to develop the facts and arguments in opposition. This could involve reviewing election records in every state Trump contested as set out in the indictment and interviewing numerous election officials and advisors, in addition to reviewing all the materials Smith has. The idea that this could be done adequately within the speedy trial period is ridiculous.
Daniel,
Again, good analysis and insight into legal workings.
Why? The answer is: because he should want people to know that he’s innocent, and the best way to convince people of that is for a jury to find him not guilty. Moreover, once the trial is over, he’ll be able to speak freely about the witnesses, etc., so the sooner it’s over, the sooner he can speak freely.
“The prosecution must prove that what Trump said was false, that he knew it was false”
Yes to the first, but NO to the second. As I previously pointed out to you:
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).
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully
“This could involve reviewing election records in every state Trump contested as set out in the indictment and interviewing numerous election officials and advisors”
A reminder that Trump already had two separate research firms — the Berkeley Research Group and Simpatico Software Systems — look into the alleged fraud, and both concluded that there was no outcome-determinative fraud in the state elections. Just what new evidence do you think there is?
You wrote:
“Yes to the first, but NO to the second. As I previously pointed out to you:
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).”
But that can’t apply to a case in which it is impossible to learn the truth, and this is such a case.
It’s not impossible to learn the truth here.
You need to get into this Century and maybe this decade to get current SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS has much expanded free speech protections.
Consider what Bill Clinton did regarding the holocaust in Rwanda. A million slain in cold blood. Intentionally, he dismissed as best he could, every effort to inform him of the tragedy unfolding there. Later, he “apologized to the survivors, saying he was in his office awaiting word what was happening there, said he didn’t know. Oh, he knew. Nothing has been done to hold him accountable for his part in a holocaust. America is finished
Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with the outcome of political trials in DC.
Our legal system says otherwise.
“If Trump were innocent, he’d want a speedy trial.”
If the Bidens were innocent, they’d release all of their financial records.
If you were innocent, you’d let us search your car. (said the cop to the driver)
If you were psychologically healthy, you’d publicize all of your psych records.
This is fun. Concoct a conjunction, then conclude whatever tickles your fancy.
He’s going to have a trial either way, unlike all your pretend examples.
Foreign oligarchs moved millions to Biden-tied firms before meeting Joe Biden, investigators say
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/Third%20Bank%20Records%20Memorandum_Redacted.pdf
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/hldforeign-oligarchs-moved-millions-biden-tied-firms-meeting-joe?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Didnt Biden deny ever meeting Hunters business associates?
Two dinners?
Lot of money for what exactly?
And did they deliver?
If they did not deliver on their “family brand” that would be lying and fraud.
Biden was not involved in Hunters dealings, just like the Turkey was not invited to Thanksgiving Dinner.
Not Epochtimes?
Imagine, Wally, the Epoch Times and JTN were mostly accurate while the NYT and WaPo lied.
Democrats, Leftists, and those so sadly inflicted with TDS all love Impeachment Inquiries up to and until it is their favorite Ox that is getting gored.
They rushed through one and skipped the second….and got their butts handed to them during the Trials.
Now, when the Republicans are at bat the mere mention of an Impeachment Inquiry is made….they go to panic stations and sound the collision alarm!
Turn about is fair play folks….If I was McCarthy I would have started the Impeachment Inquiry months ago and drawn all these Hearings under that and use every power of the Congress to bring forth the evidence and testimony possible to prove without any doubt or dispute the guilt of Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray and others……and let the People decide.
Remember when that Poll came out clearly showing had the Hunter Laptop story not been hidden by the FBI/DOJ, their Media and Big Tech co-conspirators that almost ten percent of Voters who did so for Biden would have not done so?
That is Eight. Million votes that would have switched positions meaning a Sixteen Million Vote difference in how the Election would have gone.
Yes…..and Trump would be President again today except for just that one bit of dirty business that clearly subverted a National Election.
Was it “Election Fraud”…..No it was not in the accepted definition.
It damn sure was illegal, corrupt, and warrants criminal prosecution of those culpable in criminal acts.
“Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope…”
Does Turley actually think Trump was indicted for anything he said during a political campaign? All the citizens voted on Election Day. The actions at issue in the indictment all concerned things that happened after the political campaign was over and all votes had been cast.
Of course, Trump also spread all kinds of disinformation during the campaign, but the indictment is not about that.
For Turley to misstate this point is kind of shocking for a law professor.
Your point works in Trump’s favor. Lies after the votes are cast are inconsequential.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a politician from saying things he knows to be false. Joe Biden should get down on his knees every day and thank God for that.
Excellent. So true.
Why did the United States provoke Hitler by invading Normandy?
Suggest you read Patton or see the Movie.
Jonathan Turley needs to write on the constitutionality of likely lethal “Employment Tampering” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. Employment Tampering is a Cointelpro style blacklisting tactic that is likely being used in some Trump supporters right now.
Background: Before and after 9/11, Bush Republicans destroyed the careers of some of Bush’s perceived political enemies, destroying safe white collar employment then only allowing their victims to work the most dangerous jobs in America. Likely using John Ashcroft’s “Material Witness Statute” abuses.
This resulted in little or no income for more than 20 years working in America’s most dangerous jobs.
The innocent Americans that did survive, then had almost 20 years work experience in dangerous jobs.
Apparently today, more than 20 years later, the Homeland Security bureaucrats realize that the vast majority of Bush victims were innocent.
So risk adverse DHS bureaucrats – instead of manning up, instead of apologizing or making their crime victims whole again – now these same bureaucrats fear negligent homicide charges from their victims working in dangerous jobs (jobs DHS forced them to take).
So these innocent Americans, now with almost 20 years experience in dangerous jobs, aren’t allowed to make a livelihood since the bureaucrats fear being charged with negligent homicide. The DHS destroyed their safe white collar employment, now fears the truth of their past crimes.
Trump supporters should be concerned about this, since now it’s their turn and this is likely a highly lethal program.
It takes alot of balls to compete in a woman’s competition
I am sorry, but I can make no sense of your post.
I am predisposed to be distrustful of Bush – but you have provided no substance to your arguement.
Who is being deprived of certain jobs ?
What jobs are we talking about – EOD tech or Farmer ?
And HOW were they being deprived of specific jobs ?
What is the SUBSTANCE of your post ? Your argument ?
” However, Trump followed the advice of a second, albeit smaller, set of lawyers who told him there was a basis for challenging the election.”
Professor, don’t fall into the trap that consensus is proof.
Wouldn’t every politician be susceptible to what they indicted President Trump for? Maybe this is how we drain the swamp.
Re: “Maybe this is how we drain the swamp.”
That would only work if there were a Justice Department and Deep State that have not been pathetically politicized along with an MSM that is not a lock-step lapdog for the parasitic Swamp..
Mamie Fish – because they are paid to. Or, because he is paid to, if Holly and Anonymous are the same person.
Re: “For Congress, it could also trigger impeachment inquiries in the case of Joe Biden — and that would make this very personal indeed.”
The perverse irony is that the DNC would not care if Biden is impeached. Biden is just a placeholder. I read recently that a court has ruled that the political parties are private corporations allowed to make their own rules. If Biden is impeached or cognitively falls off the table, the DNC can simply name alternate candidates for President and Vice President. No primary elections or conventions necessary. So why muddy the waters by allowing primary challenges to Biden?
Even if the sclerotic, parasitic hack Joe Biden goes or the stupid and lazy Donald Trump is re-elected, the systemically rotten system will remain in place. Schadenfreude about the screw-ups on either side is worthless.
Stick a fork in America – because it’s cooked…
With ZERO chance of a Senate conviction, impeachments and impeachment “inquiries” are just political carnival acts for hardcore political junkies, senseless fodder for political writers, and a strategy for political parties to turn up the volume on empty rhetoric to 15 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Under the currently-existing circumstances, arguments about impeachment fall into the same category as “news” about UFO sightings and rumors that Big Foot was seen playing poker with the Loch Ness Monster at Jimmy Hoffa’s house.
Biden has been a prolific liar throughout his political career, so to now try to eliminate his main opponent using “lies” as the excuse is beyond ironic or even hypocritic. It’s pure cynicism.
“The latest Trump indictment, based on little new evidence …”
JT has little idea what evidence Smith has, and he shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
“Smith is seeking to criminalize what constitutes disinformation…”
He isn’t. JT is only pretending this.
“it maintains that Trump can be convicted for lying”
Nope. None of the charged crimes are for lying. The DOJ has charged Trump with Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding—18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2) — and three criminal conspiracies:
a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k); and
c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
“The very controversial linchpin used against Trump could conceivably be used against Biden”
If Biden has engaged in those conspiracies, then he too should be charged. But JT presents no evidence of Biden committing these conspiracies.
repeating an uninformed opinion does not make it true.
A Harvard law prof is the latest scholar to dismantle the baseless indictments.
There are two distinct defences here that should not be conflated:
1. Trump did not lie because he believed the statements he made or authorised were true or at least arguable; or
2. Even if Trump lied, he did not commit a crime. That could be for one or more of three reasons:
A.. The criminal statutes cited do not cover arguments to officials or legislators that the recorded election results were wrong and should be rectified and the submission of votes by alternative electors to ensure that options are available if the arguments persuade;
B. The criminal statutes do cover these matters but without sufficient specificity or clarity to allow for Trump to have the requisite criminal intent or to survive a due process challenge; and/or
C. The criminal statutes do cover these matters with sufficient specificity and clarity but applying them here is a violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition for redress of grievances.
I would hope that Trump raises all these defences. If he does, I believe Smith can win only if he persuades everyone on the jury of his position on each of these points beyond a reasonable doubt. With fair-minded jurors and a fair-minded judge, I think Smith should fail on at least one of these points. I am not at all confident, however, that fair mindedness will be present here.
In the meantime, it looks like the judge is determined to stop Trump from publicising exculpatory evidence he learns of through discovery. If she does, this will be further evidence of the political nature of this proceeding, since its effect will be to let the indictment’s recitations of the alleged facts stand throughout the campaigns up to the time of trial. This will obviously help shape the information environment against Trump.
“With fair-minded jurors and a fair-minded judge, I think Smith should fail on at least one of these points.”
How can you know this, when you don’t even know what Smith’s evidence is?
“I am not at all confident, however, that fair mindedness will be present here. ”
Why aren’t you confident in voir dire to find fair minded jurors?
“it looks like the judge is determined to stop Trump from publicising exculpatory evidence he learns of through discovery.”
She hasn’t even had the hearing on it yet, but you’ve decided that.
“If she does, this will be further evidence of the political nature of this proceeding, since its effect will be to let the indictment’s recitations of the alleged facts stand throughout the campaigns up to the time of trial.”
It’s totally normal to have a protective order for discovery evidence. Defendants are not supposed to be using discovery information to try the case in the court of public opinion. Defendants are supposed to use discovery information to try the case in the actual courtroom.
I’ve said what I think. You are free of course to disagree with my opinion as you obviously do.
On your specific points, voir dire is in my view likely to be of limited effectiveness when undisclosed political bias is at issue. The judge refused to make a minor rescheduling adjustment to the protective order hearing to accommodate the schedule of Trump’s counsel even though Smith accepted the adjustment. Broad protective orders may be common in routine criminal trials but the political context makes this anything but routine; Trump’s counsel’s submission on the point was entirely reasonable. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised and the judge will rule in Trump’s favour but I very much doubt it. We’ll see soon enough.
1/3 of eligible voters in DC didn’t even vote in the 2020 election. I’m sure that the lawyers can find a dozen jurors who’ll be fair, and they can ask questions to surface “undisclosed political bias.” I also doubt that Chutkan will rule in Trump’s favor, because his lawyers haven’t made good arguments for the changes they want, and protective orders are routine. We’ll find out soon enough.
“I’m sure that the lawyers can find a dozen jurors who’ll be fair,”
No doubt you would feel that way, because you think that the TDS that you have is normal. You honestly believe that your analysis of every topic is fair and unbiased. LMAO
No, they can’t find 12 lawyers who will be fair unless the defense is allowed to remove 100+ potential jurors for cause. We know from the J6 trials that the DC courts will remove almost no one for cause.
Yet the J6 juries found some of the defendants not guilty of some of the charges. As I said: it’s possible to find impartial juries in DC.
Proof of nothing. Those people don’t occupy space in your head rent free. DJT does. Case closed.
Daniel,
Good analysis.
It’s amazing how mavens to alt-right media believe the lies that are shoveled to them. Trump began, BEFORE Election Day, saying his “landlide victory” would be stolen by fraud–that stealing the election would be the “only way” he could lose. He knew better–every poll predicted he would lose. How could he know there could be “fraud” even before Election Day? He couldn’t, so he had to make it up–all of the phony claims about stolen ballots, ballots from China, fake ballots, “suitcases” full of ballots, illegals and dead people voting–are all BS–to try to back up the lies he started telling before Election Day. He was determined to keep the power he stole in the first place, no matter what it took.
He had set a 4-year record for low approval ratings. He alienated our EU and NATO allies, and the rest of the world made fun of him–Baby Trump balloons and Trump on the Toilet balloons. The country was in shambles–he destroyed the successful economy he inherited, started a trade war with China, unemployment was in 2-digits, schools, bars, restaurants and businesses were closed down, no leisure travel–due, in large part, to Trump’s utter incompetence and deliberate downplaying of the seriousness of COVID, which made it spread more and create opportunities for mutations–all because of his ego–he couldn’t yield to public health experts and insisted on domineering news conferences and pushing fake “cures” like Hydroxychloroquine. Over one million Americans died due to COVID–the worst record of any developed country. We have something like 5% of the world’s population, but 20% of COVID deaths (this is from memory, but is close). Why would we want more of this pathetic “leadership” with someone the rest of the world thinks is a joke?
At 2:00 a.m. after Election Day, he took a victory lap, declaring that he won–even though all of the votes hadn’t even been counted yet and even though the vote totals at this point clearly favored Biden, who had won some key swing states, like Arizona. In fact, when Fox called Arizona for Biden, he flipped out–demanded that someone call Lachlan or Rupert Murdoch and command them to retract their call that Arizona went for Biden. They wouldn’t budge. Desperate not to “lose”, even though everyone, with few exceptions, told him he had lost, that’s when the plotting began in earnest–the scheme to pressure Pence into rejecting certified votes, even though he had no authority to do so. Then, pressure on Secretaries of State to flip votes from Biden to him–alleging fraud, even though he KNEW there was NO fraud. There were over 60 lawsuits–each one alleging fraud without any evidence whatsoever–so they were all tossed. Then he went on “Stop the Steal” rallies–to rile up the faithful with lies about his “landslide victory” being stolen, and to get them to come to Washington to try to stop Congress from accepting Biden’s victory by force–in case Pence didn’t come through. The plan was to get swing states to falsify their election results and award more votes to him than Biden, all based on NOTHING. He even got fake “electors” to falsify Electoral College certificates–knowing that he hadn’t won. It is a felony to falsify election records. When they argue that these fake certificates were for “just in case”, they’re lying to you–an elector cannot falsely “certify” a win that didn’t happen. These facts are the basis for his indictments–and we all saw it unfold. There can be NO doubt, much less reasonable doubt, about Trump and his motives.
Trump does not have any “exculpatory evidence”–just another alt-right lie. What the motion for protective order is doing is to prevent Trump from trying his case in the media. Grand jury testimony is sealed–for good reason–to protect the process and witnesses. We’ve all seen what happens when Trump goes after someone with his lies–like Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, who were harassed and had death threats after Trump falsely accused them of bringing “suitcases” full of Biden ballots to be tabulated. Trump is just begging the judge to toss him in the can, and I hope she does because he has no respect for anything–not the will of the American people and our judicial officers. Here’s one little, bitty fact you haven’t considered: Trump is out on bail, and one condition of his being released on his own recognizance was that ne not attempt to intimidate witnessses. He’s already violated that order and promises to violate a protective order if one is issued.
We have democracy–“one person, one vote” and the rule of law in this country, but we won’t if Trump gets away with any of this.
gigi, you regularly describe people as mavens, disciples, fat pigs, etc. I wonder how many of the people on this blog consider you to be describing yourself? Your insults only reflect badly on YOU.
Same old tired BS from Gigi. Its like he/she/they feels obliged to tell us all to not believe our lying eyes. Has all the answers and projects like nobody I have every seen before.
People know (77%) that they were better off 5 years ago, and none of your crackpot horse manure is going to convince them otherwise. An equal number of people also feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. If you want to believe that fox news fault, feel free, but dont bother peddling that crap here.
Tom,
Well said.
As always, just scroll past Natasha. She lives in a alternative reality.
Gas prices shot up $0.20 the other day. Food prices are higher when compared to this time last year. The Home Household survey shows just over half a million full time jobs were lost while 975,000 part time jobs were added. That means more people are working two or more jobs just to make ends meet.
The wife and I decided to treat ourselves the other day and get Chinese carry out. Beef with broccoli was $11.95 two years ago. Now it is $15.95 and the portion size is smaller.
Upstate: do you know why gas prices are so high? Because in Texas, they generate electricity using petroleum–and there’s been a devastating heat wave there, so electricity usage is very high, which makes demand for crude oil high, and thus, prices are high. In fact to prevent the grid from getting overloaded, they ask Texans to raise the temperature on their air conditioning and to limit use of appliances like washers and dryers to non-peak hours. Gas was a lot cheaper right before the current heat wave. We have made progress recovering from the Trump recession, but there’s still room for improvement. Inflation is at 3% now. Unemployment is at a 50-year low. We are no longer setting new daily records for COVID deaths and infections. Schools, businesses, restaurants and bars are open again. Leisure travel is a a record level. Yes, things are better.
“Because in Texas . . .”
If nothing else, the Left is talented at concocting rationalizations and scapegoats.
Just out of morbid curiosity: Why were gas prices some 50% higher *before* that heat wave in Texas?
Tom: tell me what myh “lying eyes” should have seen, but didn’t. Everything I said is TRUE, and you know it. Insulting me isn’t going to change the facts. It’s not “crackpot horse manure” to say that inflation is now 3%, that we are at the lowest unemployment in 50 years, and that due to Bidenomics, America is thriving once again.
Gigi
Its crackpot to tout 3% inflation. Let me try to explain it just in case you are uneducated and bot deliberately obtuse.
The inflation rate you refer to is CPI (consumer price index) of a particular month compared to the same month a year ago. June a year ago the inflation rate was NINE PERCENT. So thats 3 percent higher CPI this year that was 9 percent higher than the year before. Thats a CPI 12.7 percent higher than june 2022.
So yea, its crackpot to tout 3% inflation as some sort of windfall, especially when it took the Fed raising interest rates to levels that put homebuying (part of the american dream) out of reach of many americans.
Its also crackpot to blame Trump for the covid recession, and even more so to suggest that it led to the current economic condition. If you think that 6 trillion dollars printed and a failed energy policy had nothing to do with americans having less in their bank accounts than 2 years ago, you either know very little about economics or you’re intentionally gaslighting.
Also crackpot to say that unemployment is at 50 year low when it was lower as recently as April of this year and was at similar levels for a full year under Trump. Also crackpot to suggest that the current unemployment rate is somehow due to Bribenomics or that its even meaningful. The labor participation rate is 1 percent lower than pre pandemic, yet there are over 10 million vacant jobs.
You keep trying to make the case that things are better than under Trump (pre pandemic) or that “stuffs gettin’ better”, and insinuate that people only think they are worse off because of alt-right media. Crackpot. Its like biden touting that he “lowered the deficit”.LMAO. Did u fall for that?
Cant believe you would even mention Covid deaths. Disgusting. Briben had more over the same period of time and he had mask mandates, a vaccine, and new therapeutics that Trump didnt have.
Crackpot.
And here is the biggest pile of horse manure of all
TEXAS DOESNT USE PETROLEUM TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY. Was that an intentional lie or just more crackpot horse manure pulled from your a$$? Or maybe u got it from alt-left news.
Natural gas—-45%
Wind—-23%
Coal—-18%
Nuclear—-11%
Solar—-2%
Hydroelectric—-1%
Almost everything you says is either demonstrably false, ironically projection, circular logic or just plain misinformed. You get schooled here daily, but just keep spewing nonsense.
“. . . its crackpot to tout 3% inflation . . .”
And, if I might add: It’s crackpot to call it “3%” inflation. That calculation *excludes* energy and food prices, which have skyrocketed some 40% and 20%, respectively.
Natural gas—-45%
Wind—-23%
Coal—-18%
Nuclear—-11%
Solar—-2%
Hydroelectric—-1%
Where is crude oil, fuel oil, or gasoline on this list??
Crackpot
Daniel, you either are or would make an excellent attorney.
Hillary, Hillary Hillary.
You’ve Got the Wrong Man.
Caspar Milquetoast (Biden)
Isn’t Capable of Orchestration a Russian Hoax and Campaign Frauds.
He’s too preoccupied with being Greedy $$$
The indictments/trials will not accomplish their very reason-for-being: To weaken the Trump camp or even to keep Trump from running. Trump could, and should, be removed from the political scene by a clean Democratic victory. 2020 was not “stolen,” but the atmosphere in which the election itself took place was filthy. A China-Covid free campaign in which the discredited influencers are reduced to mere cheerleaders, is likely to go either way: 43-43. As men, Biden and Trump are no longer sharply different, and as POTUS, the rank amateur Trump ran circles around the life-long pol Biden who is now reduzed to licking ice cream.
It is cute that you think the law will be applied equitably. PoS garland will see that biden is protected.
Thank God there is no lifetime tenure for the AG, but if the ship isn’t turned soon, America will be on the rocks as a one-party country. I just hoping to wake up and discover that Trump AND Biden were just horrific nightmares and that the country–and the Constitution–are alive and well.
Even if President Biden is impeached in the House, it will deadlock in the Senate and go nowhere. And you can forget about Merrick Garland and S L O W W A L K Chris Wray. Any investigation involving the Bidens will remain “under investigation” as long as it takes for the statute of limitation to toll while they demand a “speedy trial” for President Trump. The double standard of justice is astounding in today’s Amerika. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Let’s see – Turley thought Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying in a civil case about an affair.
Trump could not be impeached for Trump no to steal an election and inciting an insurrection even if he is lying. He could not be impeached for withholding military aide from a foreign state unless the foreign state went after his political opponent through announcement of an investigation.
But Biden could be impeached for …. Something something which is quite a stretch.
Is it just me, or does what Turley finds to be an impeachable offense correlate directly with which party the President is in? I think if you cannot see that, you are simply blind. Don’t worry, when the Republican House needs someone to testify in favor of impeachment for Biden, they will bring on Turley again.
Holly – Calm down little Trump hater.
Holly, get real. Corruption is a stretch? You need help!
For you never trumpers,where are the criminal charges agaiHollywood’s elites that attempted to get Trump electors to switch their votes to HRC?
Ee
Did the Hollywood elites pretend they were the actual electors?
False equivalence. I doubt Trump would be indicted and co-conspirators in trouble if they merely tried unsuccessfully to lobby Biden electors to vote for Trump.
Holly
LMAO at your implication that somehow perjury in a civil proceeding is more acceptable than in criminal case.
Nevertheless, the lying during his deposition was the least of Slick Willy’s crimes (although that “affair” with a young white house intern was problematic in many ways).
“after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship. Some of the steps he took included suggesting to Lewinsky that she file a false affidavit to misdirect the investigation, encouraging her to use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and attempting to help her find gainful employment to try to influence her testimony.”
Thats called obstruction of justice, and its a very serious crime.
It also gave people reason to believe that many, if not all of the allegations against him from many different women, may have indeed been true.
Look at the definition of perjury and come back to us with where you’ll find it in the latest Trump indictment.
President Biden’s petards are getting more numerous and dangerous everyday…