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.
Want to bet not a damned thing happens to Chairman O’Biden and his cadre of world wide nazis….
Correct. Deep State and Fake News is on the job….of protecting Biden and the Democrat Party….at any cost.
Also….
“Nazi goon Jack Smith is surreptitiously spying on Twitter user via unlawful legal processes, rubber stamped by corrupt DC judges.”
@Cernovich
And….the FBI just shot dead in Utah, an elderly man who walked with a cane…..because he threatened President Biden online? Were any of the many threats to President Trump met with this kind of deadly response by the F.B.I.?
Anwer? No. Not one.
We, as a country, are devolving toward….not Civil war….but a Revolution.
#Prepare
And that “Twitter user” is President Trump.
#Unlawful Special Counsel
An elderly man with guns threatening to assassinate people, killed when they attempted to serve arrest and search warrants.
https://www.newsweek.com/who-craig-robertson-man-killed-fbi-threatening-biden-1818703
And the FBI had a search warrant for Trump’s Twitter account, with no evidence of corruption on the judge’s part. If Trump thinks it was wrongfully obtained, he can challenge it in court.
Any publicity. Is good publicity. The longer the trial goes on the more publicity he gets.
George, I wonder if the big guy is one indictment away from being re elected?
Forced-Birthers lost big in Ohio yesterday. It seems Ohioans are doing an end-run around the GOP-dominated legislature. Right-To-Lifers discovering they NEVER represented the majority, as they claimed for 50 years.
I, for one and glad, and hope Progressives genocide themselves out of existance.
Gee, States voting for the laws they live under. What a concept.
What rational entity would egregiously and prodigiously abuse power, abandon fundamental law, and use the government to attack and destroy political opponents?
None but communists.
What rational entity would attack an eminently successful entrepreneur and multi-billionaire simply for patriotically espousing and expounding on the Constitution and achieving?
None but communists.
What rational entity would celebrate those who covet (a sin) and persist in America as parasites and dependents?
None but communists.
De facto President Barack Obama is using preposterous and unprecedented attacks on his political opponent and former president, Real President Donald J. Trump, to shroud and mitigate the abject and demonstrable criminal behavior of Joke Biden and the entire Biden Crime Family.
The unfortunate aspect is that this is what one man, one vote democrazy in the American restricted-vote republic has created: a communist clown show led by an ineligible son of a foreign citizen who will never be a natural-born citizen and who will never be eligible for the presidency.
Comrade Barack Obama has but one goal, which is to deliver the United States of America to communist China for subsumption.
Look at him. The emperor has no clothes. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
___________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Barack Obama
______________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
I’m still not quite grasping why the Alvarez case here is so pertinent. Of course, the relevance of Alvarez, for me, could mean a court determination that Trump engaged in protected speech that could result in a dismissal of the charges. But I don’t see it as that dispositive, with other issues still thwarting dismissal.
The indictment, the media, and several commenters here keep focusing on the fact that Trump lost the election and he KNEW he lost it because he was told so by several persons, as well as the official vote count. -But (unlike Alvarez), Trump’s ‘actionable’ speech/speech-as-conduct is not, in essence, “I actually won the Medal of the Presidency.”
Instead, his ‘actionable’ speech/speech-as-conduct was more like, “Biden did not win honestly, fairly and squarely” and he, albeit without producing evidence, alleged that illegal, improper, fraudulent, whatever, conduct/activity occurred in establishing the vote count. THESE were his beliefs/statements/”lies” that triggered the other alleged violations in the indictment. Indeed, it appears his attempts to pressure both Pence and Kemp WERE NOT directed toward asserting that HE was the one who actually won— No, those persuasive efforts WERE directed toward trying to expose what he saw as illegal, improper, fraudulent, whatever, conduct/activity in establishing the vote count.
Therefore, I would argue that case law addressing the “speech integral to criminal conduct” exception to First Amendment protection would also not apply.
As I noted yesterday, I find other case law more relevant, e.g., those cases I cited that address the requirement that Trump’s speech/speech-as-conduct must manifest as intentional “deceit, craft or trickery, chicanery, wilful misrepresentation,” etc.
Soooooo, the question for me is, was the INTENT of Trump’s speech/speech-as conduct (1) to reward himself with the Medal of Presidency; or (2) to gain time for investigation/exposure of perceived illegal/criminal speech/conduct of his opponents and Democratic Party operatives.
The bottom line for me is not Alvarez or First Amendment protection of lies (excepting as for purposes of dismissal as i said above), but rather, whether there was criminal intent by Trump to falsely win the election by overt “deceit, craft or trickery, chicanery, wilful misrepresentation,” etc.
Amen.
Thanks for contemplating what I raise.
As I noted yesterday, I find other case law more relevant
Thank you Lin for being such an academic and obviously an engaged and intelligent discussant. I know nothing about case law, would not know how to access them, never mind have the legal mind to apply them.
Most of the comments on here are like MMA Cage Fights: entertaining for 5 seconds, boring and predictable thereafter. The legal eagles should contribute more IMHO
…but his theory of criminality could prove costly to Biden himself. Indeed, it could be used as a basis for an impeachment inquiry.
It is a two tiered justice system, and Americans see it for what it is, just like with George Soros funded prosecutors.
Excellent news out of Florida, in another example how Democrats disregard the US Constitution, undermine the rule of law, ignore the safety of Americans and are Marxists. Democrats are losing the narrative which shows Professor Turley is correct in arguing how Biden’s DOJ actions, like George Soros funded State Attorneys, are backfiring.
DeSantis Suspends Soros-Backed State Attorney for Neglect of Duty and Incompetence
Today, he suspended State Attorney Monique Worrell from Florida’s 9th Judicial Circuit.
https://www.theflstandard.com/desantis-suspends-soros-backed-state-attorney-for-neglect-of-duty-and-incompetence/
Elections have consequences. The Leftist Florida papers are not mentioning that Monique Worrell is a Soros bankrolled prosecutor. That is no accident. Good for the Florida Standard for putting the Soros connection front and center.
Furthermore, the Ocala (FL) Star Banner newspaper writes:
….Worrell dismissed more than 16,000 charges against defendants over the past year, more than any other Florida state attorney. ….being four times the number of dismissals in Palm Beach County, where another Democrat, Dave Aronberg, serves.
That is unacceptable and shows that both Democrats and Soros backed prosecutors are not concerned about violent crime terrorizing citizens of their districts. Just like Biden/Harris in 2020 with ANTIFA BLM. Orlando has a very high violent crime rate, and Worrell placed political ideology over reducing area residents. Watch Biden, Kamala Harris and the MSM howl. Democrats vs safety of Americans.
Let Americans witness how their safety is meaningless to Democrats. This too will backfire on Democrats like their infamous “defund the police” Marxism
Turley’s blog is censuring heavily today.
If cognizant lies are now criminalized, Jack Smith and his handlers would be in deep water in a nation of law and order…
Jonathan: It’s hard to know where to begin. Your column is an invitation for the MAGA members of the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Pres. Biden. Do you really think there is any basis for that? In order to bring charges House Republicans would have to show Biden violated some responsibility under the Constitution. Do you think Biden’s alleged “lies” about his son’s business activities qualify? Really? Failing to remember one meeting he attended with his son and his business partners hardly qualifies as a ground for impeachment.
And you have intentionally distorted Devon Archer’s testimony before the GOP led House inquiry. Yes, Archer said Hunter was selling the “brand”–the Biden family name. But that’s not a crime, let alone a basis for impeachment of the President. Archer also clearly stated in his testimony that Joe Biden was not involved in his son’s business activities nor did he receive any financial benefit. And what happened back then was when Biden was VP or a private citizen. To support articles of impeachment the MAGA Republicans would have to show Biden committed crimes or other violations of the Constitution WHILE President. None of what you claim qualifies.
All of this is just a desperate attempt to try to stop Biden from being re-elected. So far, neither Comer nor Jordan have being able to prove Biden has been involved in a great “corruption” scandal. All the “witnesses” they say would prove the “corruption” have either gone missing or are not credible. They thought Archer would provide the “smoking gun”. Archer has been the only credible witness who has directly refuted the spurious allegation against the Biden family by Comer and Jordan. None of Comer/Jordan’s allegations are a basis for impeachment.
It’s a sad day when a constitutional scholar and law professor wants the House to impeach a President on such “thin” charges–the same thing you claimed in defending Trump in his second impeachment. The only thing that is going to “backfire” and prove more “damaging” is Jack Smith’s send indictment of DJT. That will be DJT’s undoing–not Biden’s!
Dennis: Thank you. The title of the piece is also misleading, and deliberately so: it implies that Joe Biden is the one who is prosecuting Trump, which is, of course, to feed into the alt-right MAGA lie that Trump is being prosecuted for political reasons, not because he committed crimes. Trump’s prosecutions wouldn’t “backfire” on Biden if Biden wasn’t involved in the decision whether to prosecute. Biden, Garland and everyone else who has been asked have made clear that Jack Smith has been given carte blance to investigate and prosecute whomever he finds has committed crimes. Adding to Turley’s disgrace is the fact that Trump has promised that he WILL direct the actiions of the DOJ, FBI, IRS and other agencies–and, that he is hell-bent on vengeance–something Turley knows is outrageously improper and which has very serious implications for the integrity of these agencies, which are supposed to be apolitical, and whose employees pledge allegiance to the Constitution–not the POTUS. But, instead of condemning this, Turley writes today’s little piece with a title that is calculated to mislead the Cult 45’ers and feed into the alt-right tropes that Biden is prosecuting Trump unfairly, and, not only that–Trump will get even! Oh, and here’s another little aside that I havent thought about for awhile: Turley was in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual activities with Monica Lewinski, which, of course, had no implications for undermining democracy or the will of the American people. Now, Turley is defending Trump by attacking Jack Smith, spinning the evidence and plain language of the indictment to imply that Trump is being prosecuted for lying–not for his actions–despite the fact that the indictment makes clear this isn’t the case. I have frankly lost all respect for Turley.
Isn’t this cute. Two trolls talking to themselves, because everybody else understands they are lying trolls
(–and two trolls “liking” each other’s comments…)
Isn’t that cute, a troll complaining about comments by people he disagrees with.
You know what else is certain besides death and taxes???
Dennis posts a pile of horse manure and GIgI jumps in right behind and thanks him for it.
Hilarious and pathetic
They do it every fricken time because they are the same people. LOL
The DNC Troll farms for the past several months have been carpet bombing Turley’s blog with walls of text and it will intensify till 2024. Thankfully Saint Darren is aware
😉
Gigi: We are definitely getting under the skin of JT’s supporters on this blog. We are accused of being “lying trolls” for the Dems–even for the “Communists”. The only “lying trolls” on this blog are those who think whatever JT posts are the perceived truth–sort of like the Mormon tablets. But notice that there are more who are beginning to Q JT’s “perceived truths”. This should give us encouragement.
And I had nearly forgotten. JT did support the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his tryst with Monica Lewinski. That had nothing to do with Clinton’s official duties. JT thinks he has a better case against Biden over his son’s private business activities. That attempt will ultimately fail. It’s all about JT’s attempt to bring down Democratic presidents. It’s pretty transparent.
Dennis up to his tired old bs. Gaslighting, straw men, and red herrings galore. So now Turley “wants” Biden impeached? This statement is a perfect example of the hyperbole with which your comments are riddled.
Archer a) didnt refute anything. It was quite obvious that he wasn’t telling everything he knows. b) will at some point be called back and asked the right questions. Do you wonder why Archer wasn’t asked the nature of his visit to vp biden in the white house, 5 days before he left for ukraine?? c) is not credible. He changed his gd testimony right there in that interview after his lawyer reminded him that he was implicating himself in the bribery scheme.
Why dont you quote the statement where archer directly stated that joe never received any financial benefit?
Dennis – Same old trite. If you fail to see that Obama, Biden, and most of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NIA, NSA, et als, attempted a full COUP against DT from 2015 until presrnt time you are deceiving yourself. Of course I have no surprise that that will not occur. That will soon be proven and established. The US Constitution stipulates that No Federal elected being can accept emoluments from foreign sources, entities or beings, kings, queens, etc, with out authorization from Congress. Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden, or family members are entitled to the monies received from China, Ukraine, or Russia, for that matter. The Biden Guys Karma and judicial days are coming. I realize your DT hating biasness full blind you to that reality. PS If the facts prove (and that is huge probability) that Joe Biden received funds in 2015 and 2016 from those sources, then based on the limited forms of his Federal tax returns he posted on his political web site, he reported no -0- income from any extraordinary sources and that would be FRAUD. He did report for Sch E of (1040 Return) page 2 sources 2017of extraordinary income of $10 Million + and for 2018 $3 Million. Joe sold influence and power position I would allege, and IANA. There is now too much fire and smoke indicating such. Joe had no business operations other than that said monkey business. Joe will either have a stroke or be removed from office soon, subsequent to the removal of Kam and someone inserted in her place and stead.
The judge for Trump is a radical leftist appointed by Obama. She sent him a check for $4500 bucks when running for the Presidency.
The useless judicial ethics rules demand that justices avoid THE VERY APPEARANCE of impropriety. Our judiciary is a corrupt joke. The foundation of our democracy is crumbling, just as promised were the courts to lose the confidence of the American public.
Why would being appointed by Obama be a conflict? Obama has nothing to do with this case. He was out of office for several years before this case arose.
I can see how a Judge appointed by Trump overseeing Trump’s case would be a huge conflict. That is happening in the case in Florida, and the judge’s rulings there in favor of Trump have been repeatedly overturned.
What are you talking about???
The Appearance of impropriety is the standard. Take a close look at her.
Better yet, judge proportion. Bill Clinton said he was unaware of the catastrophe unfolding in Rwanda. A million people were beaten and slashed to death because he turned his back on them in violation of The Law. And then he lied. Where is the Big Media? Why haven’t they pursued his ass like they pursue Trump who never killed nobody.
Dear Prof Turley,
“Where’s the money” has certainly backfired for Joe, but Smith’s ‘smoking gun’ to nail Trump now rests with Trump lawyer Chesebro’s ‘bold plan’ to recount/litigate votes that ‘most likely’ would not have passed SCOTUS muster.
Nothing like a coup plan that requires SCOTUS approval.. . I think these ppl must be talking cross-purposes.
*show me the money .. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrag8ll85w
If it were possible to enforce a ban on lying, a ghastly silence would fall over the city of Washington.”
Economist Thomas Sowell
“The latest Trump indictment, based on little new evidence and even less established law”
We don’t know who the prosecution witnesses are or what they’re going to say. As for the law, it’s fraud law. It’s well established albeit evolving. It’s fair to point out that the way it’s been evolving is to tighten up the definition of fraud — not broaden it — in certain areas.
I don’t believe Turley’s mentioned the word fraud once.
In all cases of fraud, the prosecution has to show the defendant knew he was lying. To listen to Turley tell it, at least up to this point, we have to throw out all the fraud cases because they violate defendant’s 1st amendment rights to lie.
Are you aware of any fraud case involving a challenge by the losing candidate to the recorded results of an election? If not, that is quite an evolution.
No, but the insurrection here is a first too.
None of the charges involves incitement of what you call an insurrection or seditious conspiracy. They all involve challenges to the recorded results of the election.
Not a single person has been charged with “insurrection”, NONE !!
Under the indictment, Trump isn’t challenging the election results. The indictment says he knows he lost. Knowing he lost, he then engaged in an alternate electors scheme.
I don’t understand your point. The alternative electors were part of the effort, unsuccessful though it was, to challenge the recorded election results. Unless that challenge persuaded the VP and congress that the recorded results of the election were wrong in the states where alternative electors weee proposed, the votes of the alternative electors could not count.
So I reiterate my question: has the crime of fraud on the US ever been applied to a challenge to a recorded election result?
What I think you’re trying to say is that even if Trump knows he lost the popular vote in certain states, and Biden electors were certified as a result, he was pursuing legal means, or thought he was, to have Trump electors cast votes instead — even though he knows he lost the popular vote there. That the “elections results” were the electoral count. And Trump was pursing what he thought were legal means for an alternate electoral count.
Yes, that is what I think. But my question relates to the use of the fraud on the US statute to criminalise the manner in which the recorded results of an election are challenged. Have prosecutors ever applied that statute in that way? I am not aware of that having been done. Are you?
It’s interesting with regard to the electors. Supposedly the prosecution will produce invalid certificates, and claim they can show Trump knew they were invalid. Also that the alternate electors were mislead as to the circumstances under which their certificates would be used. So allegedly we have phony documents here.
The thing is, even if you can establish all of this, these aren’t phony financial documents designed to get money. There’s been very little on the nature of fraud statutes. But I think Turley is obligated to establish what he thinks fraud is, and to say why he can dismiss it here. Then he can say Trump’s 1st amendment rights were violated.
What I think you’re trying to say is that even if Trump knows he lost the popular vote in certain states
Trump KNOWS that several swing states violated the law controlling the election. Trump KNOWS that the illegal votes should not have been included in the totals.
No, Trump may BELIEVE that, but he does not KNOW that, as no court found that.
Wisconsin in fact ruled election laws were broken
If you reread the ruling, you’ll find that it didn’t rule that there were “illegal votes … included in the totals.” Moreover, only in your math-addled brain does Wisconsin = “several states.”
Votes delivered to illegal drop boxes are illegal and should not be counted. What good is a law if violating it has zero repercussions.
But that is a factual basis for challenging the election. If the judiciary refuses to hear any evidence, then when congress certifies the Electoral votes, is when the action can be taken. Congress can see the corruption and act to address the issue.
Congress has a roll, and it is not managerial. One path is to present an alternate slate of electors. Congress can accept an alternate set of electors. This is all in the Constitution.
You will disagree. What you can’t do is name who exactly has the power to challenge such actions.
There are more states
Michigan just dropped a report. 800,000 ballott applications were sent to unqualified voters. Signature match(required by law) was ignored.
There are more states, several in fact, I just use one, and now two, as examples Proving that courts have ruled. That they failed to provide relief is not relevant.
You’re welcome to believe what you believe, but that’s not what the **court** said, which is what my claim was about: the court’s rulings.
You have never even tried to address the VP plenary power to reject EC votes. Or rather, who has the Constitutional POWER to challenge the VP?
What I posted
“Wisconsin in fact ruled election laws were broken”
How the pedantic troll changed my meaning,,,,so he could troll
“If you reread the ruling, you’ll find that it didn’t rule that there were “illegal votes … included in the totals.”
Bad faith responses is why you get deleted.
Stevej
So if the indictment says he knows he lost, then it must be true??? Wow
Ha! Nice try. If it will make you feel better, I have no idea how they’re going to establish Trump knew any details of the electors scheme.
But the point of this thread is Turley wants more. Says Trump’s state of mind and his actions in light of it don’t matter. The 1st amendment’s being violated regardless. You can’t do an end-run like that.
The i have no idea what you meant by this.
“Under the indictment, Trump isn’t challenging the election results. The indictment says he knows he lost.”
Well whatever it means, I’m not claiming it has to be true.
Are you aware of any other President who was involved in a fraudulent elector scheme, who attempted to delay the certification of the EC vote, or who tried to pressure his VP into rejecting EC votes?
You have not answered my question. That is deflection.
Votes by two sets of electors were submitted in 1960 and 1876 of which I am aware. There may have been other instances. I don’t know what was in the minds of those who submitted them.
I am not aware of efforts to delay certification or to pressure a VP.
When has fraud on the US been charged for challenging the recorded results of an election?
Your question was addressed to SteveJ, but since you’re now asking me, my answer is: I don’t know.
ATS
Are you serious? First, do your freaking homework on the history of contested elections. Second, he was the gd president! he could ask/cajole/plead/argue/ with his vp to do whatever he wanted. Scholars are split on exactly what the vp can and cannot do during the electoral count. But thats not the issue because you want to frame it as “pressure”, as though he coerced or threatened him in any way. Mike pence was a grown ass man and experienced politician, not an 8 year old.
The FBI designed them that way.
The only backfiring going on is the inadequacy of the Constitution to do anything about anything until our democracy becomes a totalitarian state and it is proven to be toothless.
Try explaining that in a small town high school civics class.
Expand chuckie, you’re talking in riddles.
Chuckiechan – Don’t need to explain that to High School Students,
They’ve all been assimilated by the device in their hands.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is, by far, the most dishonest person in the most dishonest department of the entire federal government. It is no surprise to see him shred the First Amendment and anoint himself as the arbiter of truth, backed up with arrest warrants and prison cells, whenever the political adversaries of Joe Biden, the most dishonest president in American history, dare to speak. To the certain dismay of the Biden administration, a day of judgment is coming soon.
If January 6 was an insurrection, it was the lamest insurrection of all time. A true insurrection would have had better planning and logistics, the kind that went into the D-Day invasion, with a lot more weapons and equipment. There was none of that. It’s a farce how the liberals in the media keep exaggerating it, making a mountain out of a mole hill, like this woman:
There were a couple of bombs planted. They did not go off, fortunately.
By the fumbling FBI?? Notice how the Secret Service missed them when carting Kamala around?? https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/2/sen-johnson-to-secret-service-how-did-agents-miss-a-pipe-bomb-outside-dnc-headquarters-on-january-6#:~:text=Prior%20to%20her%20arrival%20at%20the%20DNC%20headquarters%2C,had%20been%20reportedly%20placed%20there%20the%20night%20before.
Planted by who? The FBI have arrested everyone in DC on Jan 6, that got on the capital grounds, but for some reason those two bombs materialized without a person putting them there.
The bomb at the DNC headquarters in DC, despite being visible, was missed by the SS security sweep of the area prior to VP elect Harris’ visit. Like they knew it was there, but didn’t care. Like it was not dangerous.
“The FBI have arrested everyone in DC on Jan 6, that got on the capital grounds”
Wrong again.
“for some reason those two bombs materialized without a person putting them there”
They have video of the hatted, masked person. They haven’t been able to identify him/her. Jeez, are you *trying* to show how little you know about it?
“Like it was not dangerous.”
They confirmed it was dangerous.
So is the month of August as the boiling of the ocean occurs this very moment
Because trolls are gonna troll
They confirmed it was dangerous.
The FBI said…you’ll believe anything. I think I remember the Press Conference and the answer contained way to much double speak.
Still trying to figure out why the SS wasn’t worried about it. Of Course if the plan was always to abort the count to avoid floor challenges, a couple of bombs would add to the undercover agents in the crowd removing barriers, as cause to suspend the count.
Your right, there are lots of ways to flatten an area of 68.35 mi²
Ha Ha! This is great!
Morning Greatness: Biden Gives Interview to the Weather Channel
Liz SheldAugust 9, 2023
Good Wednesday morning.
Here is what’s on 46 agenda today:
9am: The President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
3pm: The President delivers remarks on how Bidenomics and his Investing in America agenda are unleashing a clean energy and manufacturing boom just one year after the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act were signed into law in Belen, New Mexico
6:30pm: The President arrives in Salt Lake City, Utah
https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/09/morning-greatness-biden-gives-interview-to-the-weather-channel/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=act_eng&seyid=81982