Below is my column in The Messenger on the renewed effort of Special Counsel Jack Smith to gag former President Donald Trump. At the same time, Judge Arthur Engoron has repeatedly fined Trump for his public statements about the New York fraud case. Engoron declared this week “Anybody can run for president. I am going to protect my staff.”
There is widespread support for barring attacks on court staff and Trump did attack the Court’s clerk in a prior posting. However, most of his comments have been directed at Engoron and his alleged hostility toward Trump. Where to draw this line is the subject of this column. In my view, criticism of the case, the court, and the prosecutor should be treated as protected speech.
Here is the column:
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion overturning a conviction that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had seemed willing to secure at whatever cost to the rule of law. The case involved the prosecution of former governor Bob McDonnell (R-Va.), and the lead DOJ prosecutor was now-special counsel Jack Smith. The court dismissed the “tawdry tales” offered by the DOJ and declared that it was far more concerned with the damage that Smith was causing to the legal system with his virtually limitless interpretation of criminality.
The rebuke came to mind this week as Smith continued his unrelenting effort to gag former president Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Some of us have previously denounced the gag order issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan as unconstitutional, but even that order was more limited than what Smith had demanded.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading critic of Trump, has come out against Smith’s efforts as an attack on the First Amendment.
Undeterred, Smith now wants to reinstate and expand the gag on Trump, citing Trump’s comments about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who reportedly has been given an immunity deal by Smith. (Meadows’ lawyer disputes those reports.)
Smith wants to bar Trump from criticizing any witnesses as well as the prosecution and the court. That would include criticisms of former Vice President Mike Pence, currently one of his opponents for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, on his allegations linked to the earlier election.[Update: after this column ran, Pence withdrew from the presidential campaign]
Of course, gagging Trump will not materially affect the jury pool in the case. The Smith prosecutions are one of the biggest issues in this election. Moreover, it will not protect potential witnesses from withering criticism in the middle of an election that could turn on the public view of these cases.
Indeed, Smith has insisted on trying Trump before the election but now also wants to prevent him from speaking fully about the case before the election. Trump alone would be gagged, even as other politicians and pundits debate the merits of the cases and the countervailing allegations of the weaponization of the criminal justice system.
The prior order issued by Judge Chutkan is shockingly vague and overbroad. It bars Trump from “targeting” Smith or his staff or potential witnesses or the “substance of their testimony.” It leaves an undefined and uncertain line as Trump campaigns on what he (and millions of citizens) view as the abuse of the criminal justice system to target President Biden’s main political opponent.
Smith would add to the scope and ambiguity of the order in his latest motion. He is arguing that the court should “modify the defendant’s conditions of release … by clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”
Consider that for a moment: Smith would treat comments about witnesses, such as Meadows or Pence, as an effort to communicate with a witness.
Thus, Smith continues to litigate with a sense of utter abandon, showing his signature lack of concern for the implications of his legal arguments. It is the type of blind purpose that leads — as it did in the McDonnell case — to a unanimous ruling against you on an otherwise divided Supreme Court.
Ironically, it calls for a level of self-restraint that the trial court itself failed to show in the past. In sentencing a rioter in 2022, Judge Chutkan said that January 6 defendants “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added that it was “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”
Despite clearly indicating with her comment that she believed Trump should be jailed (long before he was indicted), Chutkan has refused to recuse herself in this trial.
The lack of restraint shown by Smith only magnifies the lack of leadership from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The attorney general has repeatedly said that he would give the special counsel full authority and independence. However, that would not ordinarily mean that the attorney general would reduce himself to a mere pedestrian in this process.
This is an example of the ever-shrinking profile of Garland at the Justice Department. He has often told Congress that his knowledge of controversies is limited to what he has read in press accounts. Even beyond the special counsel’s investigations, he seems as proactive as a ficus plant.
Yet, this new gag motion presents a far more serious cost to Garland’s passive role at the department. Smith is taking a hatchet to the First Amendment in these motions. In doing so, he is fueling anger over the perception of a weaponized criminal justice system.
Smith’s deafening attacks on free speech are matched equally by Garland’s utter silence. The attorney general seems to believe that removing himself entirely from these investigations is more important than guaranteeing that his department does not become the enemy of core constitutional rights.
As Smith seems intent on inviting another unanimous Supreme Court opinion against his department, Garland may want to consider voicing a modicum of concern over the cost to free speech in Smith’s efforts to gag Donald Trump.
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.
The Biden Mafia cartel has already demonstrated that it is willing to intimidate anyone related to its criminal cases. It clearly demonstrated it is willing to defame and smear court staff so its followers would harass and intimidate them on its behalf. The prosecutions and the judges clearly understand this. Biden relies on his followers to do the dirty work for him he just has to drop “hints” through his attacks and critical rhetoric against court staff, spouses of prosecution, witnesses, etc,
He’s willing to sabotage the process if it helps him and that is purely out of desperation since the majority of the cases are not going well for him. His lawyers are incompetent and largely play to the cameras for the benefit of their client.
Trump has already demonstrated that he is willing to intimidate anyone related to his criminal cases. He clearly demonstrated he is willing to defame and smear court staff so his followers would harass and intimidate them on his behalf. The prosecutions and the judges clearly understand this. Trump relies on his followers to do the dirty work for him he just has to drop “hints” through his attacks and critical rhetoric against court staff, spouses of prosecution, witnesses, etc,
He’s willing to sabotage the process if it helps him and that is purely out of desperation since the majority of the cases are not going well for him. His lawyers are incompetent and largely play to the cameras for the benefit of their client.
These gag orders are extremely limited and do not prevent trump from campaigning and criticizing the court in general, the judges, or the process. Trump LOVES to lie and it’s clearly apparent in his whining and complaining.
Judge Chutkan does have a very powerful option if Trump won’t control his intimidation. She can move the trial date to a much earlier one and there’s nothing Trump can do about it. Or she can further narrow her gag order and limit it like Engoron’s Pence can’t be attacked anymore because he is no longer a candidate. Trump can still criticize Biden and his campaign. Make no mistake gag orders ARE constitutional and the only reason Trump is given a lot of leeway so far is because he’s a presidential candidate running for office. He should be treated the same as anyone else. He’s not special.
Why be anonymous? Cowardly much!!
“Why be anonymous? Cowardly much!!”
Says…an anonymous poster. Lol.
Has Trump been charged with extortion ? Bribery ? With threatening to use force against people ?
NO.
Everything else Trump has done that you do not like is Constitutionally protected free speech.
If you beleive Trump has defamed you – you can file a defamation claim.
If as you claim Trump’s followers are illegally harrasing court employees – prosecute them.
Regardless, this is a ludicrously stupid claim – there are few if any open Trump supporters in NYC.
It is left wing nuts that roam the streets of NYC chasing those who disagree with them into closets – Not Trump supporters.
There may be some place in the backwoods of Arkasas where your argument has merit. But in NYC it is just another effort to pull a Smollett.
People are not that stupid.
We are all tired of these whimpy left wing nuts who can dish out insults but can not take it.
THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.
AS YOU prove – free speech is often coarse and brutish. Your hatred of Trump is because he employs the same tactics you have for decades against you.
Turn about is fair play.
If you wish to impose “reasonable” restraints on Trump speech – you would have to impose the same restraints on government, social media, the news, everyone.
If you and others are free to attack Trump – he is equally free to attack you or others.
There is no “only for left wing nuts” clause in the first amendment. Nor does the first amendment have a clause waiving its provisions for people who have been drug into court. Even convicted felons retain their first amendment rights.
Regardess, the is not about Trump – it is about YOU. Trump is just your current victim – and most of us understand that.
There is a reason that few of the dwindling Republican presidential contenders are attacking Trump – and that is because every single one of them knows that if they were the front runner – they would face exactly the same hatred and attacks as Trump does.
Every republican president in my lifetime has been slandered as a Nazi.
While Trump is possibly the most outspoken Republican ever, in terms of policies he is relatively centrist.
But worse still for those on the left – he was effective. Trump’s presidency improved the country and the world.
Biden’s has made it worse.
The reason for the massive support of Trump over many other qualified republicans – many of which are not even in the race – the GOP has an army of well qualifiied future presidential contenders. The reason for Trump support is that most republicans know that replacing Trump with DeSantis. or Scott, or Haley or Vivek will not change anything. The democratic strategy of avoiding issues and politics by lies and intimidation will continue.
Trump has massive support because he will dish back to you what you deserve.
That is how free speech is supposed to work.
And that is why you hate Trump.
“Everything else Trump has done that you do not like is Constitutionally protected free speech.
If you beleive Trump has defamed you – you can file a defamation claim.”
Trump is a criminal defendant in a court of law. He’s limited in what he can do as a consequence of the indictment.
“We are all tired of these whimpy left wing nuts who can dish out insults but can not take it.”
Lol! You are confused. You’re projecting what the right is doing.
Trump is a criminal defendant who has limited rights like any other criminal defendant. Courts CAN impose limits if his rhetoric is interfering with court proceedings
Ultimately, Biden bears the responsibility, not Garland. Garland is a mere employee. I see no evidence that he is acting in any way other than in accordance with the Chief Executive’s wishes.
There’s the evidence that Garland said under oath that Biden hasn’t attempted to interfere.
And there is the evidence under oath by about a dozen people in DOJ/FBI/IRS that the investigations WERE interfered with.
Does this means that you are now accepting testimony under oath as evidence ?
Are you then retracting the claim that there is no evidence of bribery and corruption involving Joe Biden ?
Some would argue Garland is a Nazi since he has not sent his SS Troops / FBI to raid the homes of pro-terrorist Hamas-Palestinians who have stalked, threatened and disenfranchised the rights of Jews in America, e.g. Cooper Union Library, Nazi Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib insurrection at US Capitol, etc.
“MTG Introduces Resolution to Censure Rashida Tlaib for ‘Insurrection’ at Capitol Hill”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/mtg-introduces-resolution-to-censure-rashida-tlaib-for-insurrection-at-capitol-hill/ar-AA1iUySp
I would argue that prosecutor Jack Smith’s requests for expanding the gag order also amount to a violation of Donald Trump’s rights under the Sixth Amendment, which includes his right to a speedy and public trial. Since it is obvious that no video footage is being made available in real time, his comments amount to the only version the public may be exposed to during the trial of the defendant’s version of the testimony.
Trump not only waived his right to speedy trials, he has been trying to delay them.
His federal trials will be as public as any other federal trials: reporters will report on them to the public. His state trials will depend on state law. The GA trial will be televised.
Santa is coming on Christmas Eve, the tooth fairy will leave money for a pulled tooth, and Jews are a beloved people by Hamas. Let us know when you return to Earth for reality.
There is no such thing as a blanket waiver of a right.
Trump specifically waived the right to a trial in October.
That is not all that unusual Trials rarely happen in the time frame the state is required to adhere to.
Further proescutors also routinely seek delays – Willis sought delays, but they need the defence to agree to get them.
The gag order “leaves an undefined and uncertain line as Trump campaigns . . .” (JT)
Smith is missing an opportunity.
He should list Biden as a potential witness. Then under the infinitely elastic gag order, he can argue that *any* criticism of Biden — any Trump critique of any Biden policy — is an attempt to “intimidate” a witness.
(If the Left replaces Biden with whoever, just list “whoever” as a potential witness.)
Biden isn’t a witness. Why do you choose to live in a fantasy world?
Just because Biden is cognitively impaired shouldnt make him a target of your mockery. Thankfully you didnt suggest burning alive cognitively impaired people and decapitating them, though if they were Jews, your pro-Nazi NYT writers and students at Leftist universities would
You and all those like you are the ones who are living in a fantasy world. A world which destroys our constitution our way of life, and instead installs a Marxist, communist government! I, for one, and I am sure, many, millions of others, do not wish to see that happen, particularly for our children, grandchildren And future generations.
He could easily be.
Is what we’re witnessing with the persecution of presidential candidate Trump any different from the handling of Alexey Navalny? The Republic is in a great deal of danger.
Jack Smith is following Merrick Garland’s orders to a T, and probably Hillary Clinton’s “Disinformation Crusade” orders truth be told.
Anonymous posters are meant to be scrolled past and just ignored.
Reason…..anonymous posters would never say what they do if they used their true names.
One example of the drivel they post……”Pence dropped out of the race yesterday, so if Trump attacks Pence now, it’s as a witness. Trump should not be engaged in witness intimidation.”
Pence spoke out while a Candidate which was his right, and if he speaks out now it is still his right.
Likewise, Trump enjoys that same right but risks causing the Judges, Prosecutors and potential witnesses to bear scrutiny by the public when he exercises that right.
Gag orders should apply to ALL parties to the many cases NOT JUST Trump. after all the the Justice system is supposed to be fair and even handed and a system where Due Process protections are meant to protect the rights of the accused.
As these “Anonymous Posters” go….they continue to post drivel and do so because they are protected by this sites failure to demand folks identify themselves on the public forum.
So….all ya’ll keep posting your crap but do not think what you post matters or provides a positive contribution of any kind.
Now….try to figure out who this anonymous poster is and direct your angst against her.
“Anonymous posters are meant to be scrolled past and just ignored.”
OK, I will just scroll past the rest of your comment.
An empty car drove up to the U.S. Capital and out stepped A.G. Merrick Garland.
I wish that was an original quote that came from me but as many of you know it is a paraphrase of a quote that has been attributed to Winston Churchill, for the most part. However it’s true origins are very unclear since there is no direct evidence Churchill said it. Nevertheless it certainly fits the present Attorney General.
As far as the gag order to keep Trump from intimidating witnesses, how is that possible? American politics has been rowdy and a full contact sport since we beat the unbeatable British.
We are guaranteed a public trial before a jury of our peers. The media has no restraints put upon it and with the Sullivan decision they are ALMOST immune to libel attacks.
We already have the FISA Court where warrants and searches are validated without even representation granted to the target. Is that what we are evolving to in the regular courts? Will the accused just get to show up and get his/her verdict without any apparent access to the jury because he might say something unpleasant. I would rather a trial turn into a Free For All than just hav a sterile Star Chamber with decorum and process the religion but with no justice.
“The Smith prosecutions . . .” (JT)
The degree of the Left’s moral depravity can be measured by the degree to which it is proud of those *political* prosecutions.
Whether by intent or incompetence, the Left is fabricating a tyrant’s favorite tool: the concept of “political criminals.”
Combined with this — “Smith continued his unrelenting effort to gag former president Donald Trump . . .” — we see, yet again, the Left’s desire to criminalize dissent.
The Left is an authoritarian movement (crawling toward totalitarianism), with a desire for a one-party state — a state with the power to “deprogram” dissenters. Any person with a passing awareness of tyrannical regimes knows the specific tactics of that “deprogramming.”
The aim of the Biden administration and its hand-picked apparatchiks is clear. Make campaigning by Trump against the law however and whenever possible. Yes, the Supreme Court will reverse and probably do so again unanimously but, and this is a big but, by then it may be too late to save the 2024 election. Trump is running for president and has prior service in that role. If little else, his need to inform his supporters of his legal status is important and overshadows the government’s desire to protect its grinning staff from ridicule.
Trump should seek the unprecedented move of asking the Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) to bring a halt to all these politically-motivated proceedings until after November 2024. A one-year TRO/PI is not unusual, especially when Trump, as so many agree, is likely to prevail on the merits if and when his cases reach the appellate level. Irreparable harm to the nation might occur by the re-election of a president under improperly engineered circumstances and whose administration perpetrated the silence of its political opponent via this spiderweb of selective and invidious prosecutions.
Jack Smith’s record and reputation speaks to the elements needed for a successful petition for a TRO/PI and on this basis it should be sought immediately. As for the unprecedented involvement of the Supreme Court to perform in this manner, what other court might have jurisdiction but the one established solely to protect and interpret the Constitution? Absent this strategy, Trump should run on this issue as his primary issue and promise the people to clean up the judicial system and the Department of Justice if elected. The people of all parties and none at all are sick and tired of tyrants twisting the laws and procedures of our beloved nation to secure their evil ways.
“Jack Smith’s record . . .”
A record that includes the *political* prosecution of conservatives during the infamous IRS scandal.
JJC,
Once again thank you for a very interesting comment and analysis.
I think you, the good professor, MostlyHonestLawer, Lin, and a few others on this blog could make a interesting panel discussing several law issues.
I know I would pay to hear that panel.
AG Garland is useless, his words are meaningless, he has adopted the woke/anti Trump/anti freedom/against parents etc agenda. We are thankful he is not on the Supreme Court. Jack Smith needs to be set down by the Supreme Court for his actions and anti freedoms.
If we taught history and civics, all the Nation would be in an uproar.
We can tie this fiasco, to stats like 40% of Baltimore Schools fail to produce a single student that can read at grade level. The elimination of civics, and replacing history with woke politics.
The basics.
The BoR was added to the Constitution as an incentive to show the people the new Federal govt had defined limits of power.
Jack Smith is exactly the person the founders had in mind. The power mad govt prosector under the power the President attacking political rivals.
When in doubt, the citizen is always given the advantage over the government. Because the govt is nothing but a single powerful man with the unlimited assets of he federal govt.
100 men go free, lest a single man is unjustly found guilty.
Leftist, what with their ignorance of our founding, driven by irrational fear, have been gaslighted into believing Smith is an honest prosecutor. And Garland is anything but a leftist apparatchik
We are living in a MARXIST state. Our Republic is in tatters. We have mo rule of law, nor secure borders. The corruption runs long and deep. Take the FBI. Not one retired agent has spoken up. Which appears to mean FIVE decades of corruption.
You don’t say where the line is. I think bearing any speech that is not a threat or a call for violence is unconstitutional. “Protecting” a clerk from criticism doe not justify a gag order.
“Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading critic of Trump, has come out against Smith’s efforts as an attack on the First Amendment.”
No, the ACLU objected to Chutkan’s specific gag order, as it was worded, but did not object to having a gag order of any sort.
“That would include criticisms of former Vice President Mike Pence, currently one of his opponents for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, on his allegations linked to the earlier election.”
Pence dropped out of the race yesterday, so if Trump attacks Pence now, it’s as a witness. Trump should not be engaged in witness intimidation.
“gagging Trump … will not protect potential witnesses from withering criticism”
It will protect them from Trump’s attacks or communications, which is the goal.
“Despite clearly indicating with her comment that she believed Trump should be jailed”
Nope, she only indicated the fact that he was free.
If any other defendant were saying the things that Trump is saying about his case, they’d already be jailed prior to trial.
“Trump should not be engaged in witness intimidation.”
Criticism is “intimidation?!”
Your inner snowflake is showing.
No doubt you think that chants of “Hang Mike Pence” is just criticism.
“No doubt you think . . .”
Your deceit and intellectual dishonesty know no bounds.
Trump incited that chant with his criticism.
Incite has a very narrow legal meaning and clearly you do not know it.
Turely calls criticism an “attack” the majority of the time. Trump’s “criticisms” are attacks on a person solely to bully and intimidate. This has a long and well recorded history of such attacks. Tump has already been found to violate a gag order twice and fined twice. Turley is not against judge Engoron’s gag order. In fact he agrees with it because it’s limited to not just Trump but anyone in the court and it’s specific to his staff and witnesses.
Here we go with the 1984 stuff again.
As you have defined “attack” – Smith has “attacked”, Willis has “attacked” Chutkan has “attacked” Biden has “attacked, …..
The difference between Trump and your heros is his policies – Not has “attacks”.
Trump – and for the most part most of the rest of the people I mentioned – have NOT engaged in speech that is not constitutionally protected.
They have not engaged in violence or incitement to violence.
What separates Trump from those others is that Trump has NOT used the actual power of the federal government to go after his enemies for protected free speech.
Words are symbols – you can attach any meaning you want to them. What you can not do and have a working society is routinely use those symbols inconsistently, hypocritically. The reason you can not do so is because then all we have is babble.
If you wish to call what Trump does “attacking” – you are free to do so – so long as you consistently describe the same conduct the same way in others.
But you don’t.
I am not afraid of your words. You can not injure me with your words.
That you are intimidated by Trump’s words speaks more of your moral and intellectual weakness.
Why does Trump intimidate you ? Is he going to beat you over the head with a lead pipe ?
Are you so intellectually frail that you crumble faced with an argument ?
Judges do not have the power to bar speech about government employees – that violates the first amendment, it is irrelevant whether it is Trump or anyone else criticizing them.
I would further note that you say the gag order is limited to anyone in court – but it is not. It covers speech out of court. Yet, MSNBC isnot and can not be covered by the gag order.
The authority of the court ends at the doors to the court.
This is not about Trump.
The judge is just plain wrong PERIOD.
Federal law from 1831 limits federal contempt – and therefore gag orders to behavior in court or so very nearly so as to obstruct the administration of justice.
This did not apply to state courts – but it does to the DC court, The 1831 law was upheld by the supreme court in 1874.
In 1941 the Supreme court applied the same standard to state courts.
More recently SCOTUS has limited the use of Contempt to speech that is a “clear and present danger”
The indictments are a ploy. Nobody wants a trial. They are a cudgel to beat Trump with by the media, Democrats, and never Trump Republicans for the next year.. The trial will be delayed until after the election and then Trump will be pardoned by Biden, hoping to set a precedent for his pending legal problems. Biden will not be the Democrat nominee.
LOL
Quite the opposite. Smith really wants a trial. Then the evidence against Trump can be fully presented without Trump lying about it. If Trump were to take the stand, which would be a really bad idea, Trump would end up confessing to every crime (and then some), or commit perjury, likely both.
Glad you can read smith’s mind.
I do not doubt Smith wants a trial in DC. Where he will win even if he does not put on a case – as we saw with so many of the J6 cases.
The FACT is there is no crime, there should be no trial. There should be no supression of free speech,. there should be no weaponization of the federal government for political purposes.
People are not stupid – a CRIME is where someone causes REAL HARM to another through force or fraud.
Not an attempt to fit constitutional activity under a strained interpretation of the law.
We read laws narrowly specifically to avoid this kind of mess.
It is perfectly legal for Trump to attempt to overturn an election – via the means he used – even if it is completely beyond any doubt at all that he lost and that the election was conducted perfectly.
Worse that is not what happened – Trump tried to overturn an election that was conducted lawlessly – and in violation of the states constitution – in the case of GA, MI, WI, PA, and AZ. He used perfectly legal means to attempt to overturn that elections – means that had been used many times before – occasionally successfully and sometimes by democrats.
But even if he had used novel and new ways – even if he advocated for bad and unconstitutional views – that is STILL NOT A CRIME.
More than 50% of the country beleives that the 2020 election involved some form of corrupt conduct by democrats.
That alone is more than sufficient that these cases should have been laughed out of court.
“It is perfectly legal for Trump to attempt to overturn an election – via the means he used – even if it is completely beyond any doubt at all that he lost and that the election was conducted perfectly.”
Not when he was using false claims and attempted to use fake electors and tried to use a debunked constitutional theory dependent on an action the vice president was not legally authorized to do. Using violence to prevent the count of electoral votes and no evidence of mass voter fraud is certainly not legal.
“But even if he had used novel and new ways – even if he advocated for bad and unconstitutional views – that is STILL NOT A CRIME.”
It is when those bad and unconstitutional views were acted upon because they were illegal.
If you truly believe that nonsense then I’m sure you would be perfectly fine with Biden and his vp doing the same thing if he election is close again. You would be singing a very different tune.
What false claims? We keep seeing problems with the election in many states.
What is a fake elector? How is that illegal? How does that differ from past “fake electors”?
What violence was there from Trump? He wasn’t there. He offered troops to prevent violence.
You lie and deceive but you never provide proof.
Democrats have become the party of hating free speech and free thought. Those who so vigorously fought “the man” for free speech in the 1960s have ironically become “the man” today and distain any thought or speech they disagree with. Sad.
Any other defendant would have been treated more harshly by courts. You failed to mention the deaths that have occurred due to trump’s exercise of his free speech, see Cleveland FBI office, Ashley Babbit,
Babbit was killed by a Capitol Police officer. You probably also think that Halyna Hutchins was killed by someone other than Alec Baldwin. The person holding the gun and pulling the trigger is the killer.
I have a theoretical. What if Trump had spoken Swahili & not English?
Hahahahahahahahahah
Trump has an IQ of a rock. He can barely speak English.
Racist much? When the Left mocks people who speak Swahili, what group will be next, Jews?
Oh wait
you’re right, my statement that said nothing about Swahili did impugn rocks as being equal to trump in intelligence. I’m sorry rocks, you’re much better than that.
Apologizing to yourself, Rock?
“Trump has an IQ of a rock. He can barely speak English.”
Everyone be quiet, the Rock (Bill) is speaking.
Now we can all laugh at the Rock.
There are many means that we can use to measure the IQ of public actors.
IQ incredibly strongly correlates to success. This is the strongest correlation that exists in the social sciences.
But success in multiple endeavors puts you into an entirely different category.
Trump has succeeded in residential real estate, in commercial real estate, in the hospitality business, in Casino’s in Beauty pageants in Golf courses in televison and entertainment.
It is possible – though highly unlikely, to succeed by chance. The average successful person fails 7 times before they succeed. Private sector success is very hard. It does not come by accident. And contra the left it requires trust – therefore sustained success by fraud or exploitation is not possible.
Trump has “failed” on rare occasion, and pulled himself back and succeeded again and again.
The lowest plausible estimate of his IQ is about 135.
You can hate or love highly successful people on the left or the right – but they are not stupid.
I would note Trump was a far better President OBJECTIVELY than Biden – and that despite massive hostility.
In the end it is the credibility of the institutions that opposed him that was damaged – not Trump.
You have done everything short of nuclear war against Trump – and he is still standing.
He has stood up against a significant part of the republican party. nearly all democrats, the media, social media.
And he is still thriving.
It is really clear who has the IQ of a rock – and it is not trump.
It is those who keep beating their hard against a wall expecting a different outcome.
Since Swahili is the language native to Kenya, I would expect that to be more likely used by Barack Obama.
Yeah….Might as well ask Emperor Palpatine to rein in Darth Vader. Gotta be the dumbest thing you’ve ever suggested.