Below is my column in The Messenger on the emerging controversy in the Trump prosecutions over the testimony of former counsel to the former president. Various lawyers have now accepted plea bargains. However, Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Fulton County District Attorney appear to be arguing that, while Trump was assured of these claims by counsel, he should never have listened to them. It is a type of “Siren’s Call” theory of criminality.
Here is the column:
In Homer’s “Odyssey,” Odysseus faces one of his most fearsome threats — the three Sirens, beautiful sea creatures who lure sailors to their ruin with their seductive songs.
Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis have offered a modern version of the Sirens in the lure of bad lawyering. Three lawyers have recently pleaded guilty in Georgia, and they may join other former counsel in testifying against their former client.
What is novel is the criminal “Siren’s call” theory of these cases. Former President Donald Trump is being prosecuted for following the advice of his counsel, who are now effectively saying that he should not have believed what they were telling him.
This is not to say that Trump is an unwitting victim of bad legal advice. He steadfastly ignored the overwhelming advice of lawyers in the White House and many of us in the media. He pushed for counsel who would support these claims. Indeed, some of the lawyers sound like they were lured by the Siren call of Trump, led astray from their better legal judgment.
Kenneth Chesebro’s attorney, Scott Grubman, says that “Mr. Chesebro never believed in ‘the Big Lie’” and believes that Biden won the election.
Likewise, Sidney Powell has argued that “no reasonable person would conclude that my statements were truly statements of fact” as opposed to opinions.
Jenna Ellis recently stated “Why I have chosen to distance is because of that frankly malignant narcissistic tendency to simply say that he’s never done anything wrong.”
However, the question is whether a client should be subject to criminal prosecution in following such advice. These lawyers were not just confident but enthusiastic after the election in pursuing the claims they now repudiate. Moreover, their plea agreements had a number of notable omissions. First, none pleaded guilty to a conspiracy with Trump or to racketeering. Second, none will face jail time, and the prosecution has agreed that they did not commit crimes of moral turpitude. All three could keep their licenses.
It is also not clear that these attorneys would implicate Trump if called. They could prove more damaging to other defendants such as Rudy Giuliani, or they could still prove harmful to the prosecution’s overall theory. They secured no jail deals, but only agreed to testify truthfully. Some, like Ellis, may now have animus but lack evidence against Trump in establishing a conspiracy or racketeering claim.
Both the federal and state prosecutions are premised on the claim that Trump never believed what he was saying about a stolen election. If Trump actually did believe he had viable claims in the courts or Congress, the prosecutions would collapse. Even Smith admits that Trump’s early election claims were protected political speech, but at some point became a criminal conspiracy when Trump had to know that his claims were baseless.
The most dangerous aspect to the federal indictment is that Smith leaves the line entirely undefined for future cases. If Trump crossed the Rubicon into criminal conduct in his election claims, Smith should be able to point to the river on the map. Instead, Smith offers no limiting principle on when election claims move from the sensational to the criminal.
That is particularly concerning, since many election claims in the courts or Congress have been unfounded. For example, Marc Elias, who served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and played a key role in its secret funding of the infamous Steele dossier, challenged past elections on such grounds. After the 2020 election, he challenged a New York election by claiming that voting machines had flipped the results in favor of the Republicans through mistabulations.
Likewise, leading Democrats such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of Donald Trump’s 2106 election victory despite lacking any evidence of fraud or legal or factual basis. None of these challenges were raised as potential crimes or even considered unethical.
Smith and Willis are seeking to use Trump’s own counsel to prove that he eventually knew that the election claims were bogus. This remains uncharted territory. Presidents often make unconstitutional claims.
Indeed, President Joe Biden admitted that, in seeking to reinstate the flagrantly unconstitutional national eviction moratorium, his White House counsel and every other lawyer told him that it violated the Constitution. He admitted that he was able to find only one lawyer — Harvard Professor Larry Tribe — who told him that he could do it. He went ahead, and it was found unconstitutional. It did not matter that Tribe has often been proven wrong on such claims or that Biden appeared to have doubts himself. It was enough that he thought it might have a slight chance of success to, according to Biden, get some relief before any injunction.
Many of us disagreed with Trump’s election claims and the theories put forward by this legal team. Indeed, I criticized Trump’s Jan. 6 speech as he was still giving it. Moreover, Trump clearly evinced impatience and even anger with those (like Attorney General Bill Barr) who dismissed the claims. Finally, there is no question that clients often look for lawyers who will tell them what they want to hear. However, it is also clear that Trump found such lawyers.
While Sam Bankman-Fried insisted that he relied on the advice of counsel for his decisions as head of FTX, he could not recall any specific instances of such advice. That is not a problem for Trump, since his counsel was speaking in public on an almost daily basis as to the legal and factual foundations for his claims. They would have to now argue that, despite all the assurances they gave, Trump would have been a fool to believe them.
Yet, accounts from inside the Oval Office show that Trump’s lawyers are going head to head with other lawyers in making the case that their theories could prevail in court. It appears that they were saying privately exactly what they were saying publicly.
The question is how far this Siren’s theory of criminality will go. It is not uncommon for campaigns to seek novel or low-likelihood claims in court. Moreover, since when are clients criminally culpable for following the advice of a team of lawyers?
To resist the Sirens, Odysseus forced his crew to lash him to the mast and fill their own ears with wax, because the “high, thrilling song of the Sirens will transfix him.” Short of lashing a president to his chair in the Oval Office, the question is when the lure of lawyers can lead to actual prison time. For as Homer warned, “those creatures…spellbind any man alive.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
When Prof. Turley refers to the “Siren’s” theory, does he mean the blonde, brunette, or redhead?
And will anyone reading this posting be alive in 2106?
Trump was persecuted so harshly by the system, starting with the Russiagate Hoax (FBI + Hillary Clinton + Obama’s circle), with the Quid-Pro-Joe (DOJ + Democrats + FBI who already had the Hunter Biden laptop and knew Trump had all the reasons to ask about Biden’s shenanigans in Ukraine) and this is just two among many others ending with the FBI and other secret agencies claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation days before the election, silencing all media trying to report on it.
It is no surprise that Trump could not have believed the elections were fair. And they were not. If this all revolves around what Trump believed, that’s a no case.
It doesn’t primarily revolve around what he believed. It revolves around what he did. Trump was totally free to believe that the election wasn’t fair. But he was still constrained by law in his actions. And if he wants to present an advice-of-counsel defense, he has to notify the prosecution and provide relevant discovery (because such a defense removes attorney-client privilege for the attorney’s advice).
What law prevents Trump from having his own opinions and stating them.
“Trump was totally free to believe that the election wasn’t fair. But he was still constrained by law in his actions.” — Anonymous
But there’s no allegation that he did any illegal actions. The indictments cite perfectly legal actions — generally consisting of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances — and then assert that they violate various statutes that have never been applied to similar conduct all the millions of other times such conduct has occurred. It’s the McDonnell prosecution again, but much worse.
“there’s no allegation that he did any illegal actions.”
There are multiple such allegations, from more than one prosecutor.
As you yourself subsequently note: “The indictments … assert that they [i.e., his actions] violate various statutes.” You’re free to believe that those actions are “perfectly legal,” but they’re actions, and the DOJ absolutely alleged that his actions were contrary to law.
But he was still constrained by law in his actions.
Which is why he sought legal advice.
And he’s free to present an advice-of-counsel defense. But doing so pierces attorney-client privilege, so he’ll have to turn over additional discovery.
If Joe Biden was collecting bribes while VP – growing evidence of that (10% for the big guy!) – if that true – then you can surmise Joe Biden would not hesitate to try and steal an election. Let’s face it, the Democratic party has become increasingly corrupt. The party has become the party of Wall St., the CEO’s, high tech billionaires, 500,000 dollar a year lawyers. Blue collar people – I’m a retired blue collar worker – all vote for the GOP now. The Democratic party is an elitist institution run by Ivy League types – who are out of touch completely with regular voters. Regular voters oppose open borders, DEI style check-of-the-box hiring, high gas prices, 33 trillion dollars deficits that cause up inflation, paying for foreign wars, soaring crime rates, bad schools, soaring home mortgage rates – these things are not popular with rank and file US voters voters. The elites at the top though don’t care – they are insulated from bad schools, inflation, soaring crime rates.
Professor Turley,
A defendant cannot pick and choose favorable advice in support of his defense when that advice coves from multiple sources and is a mixed bag. That is why waiver of all attorney-client privilege is required to assert this defense. As a result, all of the alternative advice he received will be reviewed and used against him.
Comparing this to Biden’s choice of Tribe makes no sense because there was no fraud or criminality involved. Picking your attorney to challenge the constitutionality of an issue is not the issue, it is doing so to engage in criminal activity.
By consistently making this apples/oranges comparison, you continue to mislead your readers into think there is some false equivalence.
By that logic, any client advised by more than one attorney is criminally negligent, because the old joke goes “If you have two lawyers, they have three opinions on your case.” It is pure insanity to suggest that failing to follow one of your lawyer’s advice instead of a different one is criminally chargeable. We hire lawyers to give us legal advice on how to *not* break the law. Giving the prosecution carte blanche to subpoena all legal communication between a client and their lawyers when there is any dispute between them is a horribly dangerous precedent that should be squelched by any fair judge.
The prosecution would only be able to obtain lawyer-client communications IF Trump chooses to rely on an advice-of-counsel defense, which pierces lawyer-client confidentiality. This is up to Trump.
” It is pure insanity to suggest that failing to follow one of your lawyer’s advice instead of a different one is criminally chargeable. We hire lawyers to give us legal advice on how to *not* break the law.”
No one has suggested that.
The above discusses the affirmative defense of reliance upon counsel. The defense is not available is you have not relied in good faith upon your counsel. When you will keep shopping lawyers until you find one that tells you what you want to hear, you cannot rely on this defense. That’s using the defense as a “sword” rather than a “shield.” That is the term the relevant case law uses to distinguish these concepts.
“The relevant case law” presupposes in my mind that there might be other case law that you say is not relevant, but that is yet to be decided. It seems to me that the courts in this country have a hard time in distinguishing the “relevant” case law in many cases depending on the judges personal and political affiliations. The courts are a disgrace, particularly in the Federal Judiciary where they have lifetime appointments the biggest mistake of the Founding Fathers. But the same applies in state courts where the political power is so one sided that you get obvious clowns like this guy Engoron (sp?) ruling solely on the basis of his political biases as he knows there will be no personal ramifications, in fact in his NY bubble he will be a hero. It is an absolute disgrace.
Trump needs the help of Poseidon. Happy sailing through the litigation.
@ScottAdamsSays
“To find Trump guilty of inciting some kind of insurrection, prosecutors have to show he knew the unknowable — that the election was NOT rigged.
That. Is. Literally. Unknowable.
And every serious adult who is not a Democrat understands it.
Unless there is evidence Trump ever said the election was clean — and nothing like that has been suggested — there is nothing to the case.
But worse, in the context of every one of our other major government institutions being somewhat obviously corrupt, the odds of 50 separate state elections being clean is close to zero.
The absurdity level is off the charts. Banana republic stuff.
The case against Trump has only gotten this far because Democrats don’t see news that shows all of our other institutions being corrupt. They still think everything about Covid was legit, Putin got Trump elected, Hunter’s laptop was a hoax, Joe wasn’t involved in Hunter’s business, Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people” and recommended “drinking bleach.”
But best of all, Democrats have been duped into believing you can read the mind of a stranger (Trump) and you can see that he can clearly see the unknowable (that an election was NOT rigged.)
Absurd. Illogical. Totally corrupt justice system.
Extra help for Democrats: I do understand that no court has found evidence that would overturn the 2020 election. That fact is not a counterpoint to anything I have written. Rather, it is the method used to brainwash you.”
Actually, if you look at the law, it includes two possibilities: (1) that he knew he lost, OR (2) that he should have known based on information provided to him. And there are public statements both that he was told that he’d exhausted the legal remedies and had lost, and that he knew he’d lost. The issue also is not whether the state elections were 100% “clean” (which isn’t the case — we know that some people have been charged with election fraud) but whether there was outcome-determinative fraud. There has been no evidence of the latter.
It is dumb to determine innocence or guilt through mind-reading.
I believe with lawlessness removed from the election, Trump won by a large margin. 44,000 votes separate victory from defeat. Significant lawlessness occurred.
He has the right to believe what he does and to state his thoughts out loud.
S. Meyer: Tell us what facts you are relying on in claiming that Trump not only won, but “by a large margin”. I’d really like to know, given the fact that EVERY poll predicted he would lose. He set a record for low approval ratings. The country was in shambles–worst recession since the Great Depression, unemployment in double digits, COVID out of control–new daily records for infections and deaths, schools, bars, restaurants and businesses shut down due to COVID and his trade war with China. Leisure travel at a standstill. So, what could possibly cause you to believe that Americans wanted more of Trump’s “leadership”? I’d really like to know.
” given the fact that EVERY poll predicted he would lose. “
That is because one cannot believe the MSM, and one has to look at the raw data, something you never do.
When the press said Trump lost all 60 court cases (actually ~100), they skipped reporting that most cases were not decided based on the law and that Trump / GOP won 18 out of 25. There is plenty of fact out there, much of it on video and audio or in transcripts, yet you believe only what you want to. That makes you a purveyor of mistruths, but you don’t care because you thrive on error and lies.
YOU are the one who is misinformed. In multiple of these cases, some of which sought an injunction to prevent Biden from taking office, the Judge asked Giuliani right off the bat what evidence there was to back up the claims of voter fraud, vote tampering, etc, and Giuliani had to admit he had none–he said he filed the actions in an effort to obtain such evidence. That’s not how the law works. From “Wikipedia”:
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.[1][2] Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.[3]
Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as “frivolous”[5] and “without merit”.[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump’s favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[10]
Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely[11] asserted widespread election fraud in public statements, but few such assertions were made in court.[12] Every state except Wisconsin[13] met the December 8 statutory “safe harbor” deadline to resolve disputes and certify voting results. The Trump legal team had said it would not consider this election certification deadline as the expiration date for its litigation of the election results.[14][15][16] Three days after it was filed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11 declined to hear a case supported by Trump and his Republican allies asking for electoral votes in four states to be rejected.[17]
One suit, Michigan Welfare Rights Org. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., was brought by black voter groups in Michigan against Trump and his 2020 presidential campaign.[18][19][20] Dominion Voting Systems brought defamation lawsuits against former Trump campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, each for $1.3 billion.[21][22] Smartmatic brought a defamation lawsuit against Fox Corporation and its anchors Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro as well as Giuliani and Powell for $2.7 billion.[23]
If you go to Wikipedia, you can click on the links and read the facts for yourself. And, even the Fox polls predicted he would lose.
I have corrected the ones on this blog numerous times about these court cases. When asked to provide the ones Trump won, I provided a couple, but why should I do all the work? I requested that we each provide a case, but your guys couldn’t produce one.
You can do the same. Provide the cases Trump lost based on the merits of the case, and I will present the ones Trump and/or the GOP prevailed.
Now we are on an even footing. Start providing the cases lost, and I’ll respond with the cases won.
You lose because the facts are on my side. After all, you don’t rely on the raw data and only listen to what you believe. You are almost always wrong.
I TOLD you–click on the links on Wikipedia for specific cases and references to the facts it reports. Wikipedia is not leftist mainstream meda. You cannot come up with a link to any story about any legal case that proves DJT really won in 2020. What “merits” are there to his claims of election fraud? His own lawyer admitted there never was any evidence to back up the Big Lie. There aren’t any “facts” on “your side”–and you know it.
Here’s part of the Wikipedia piece you refuse to read, entitled “Post Election lawsuits related to the 2020 Presidential Election”:
Arizona
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Arizona
Several lawsuits were filed in the state of Arizona. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.
District of Columbia
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia
Michigan Welfare Rights Org. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
Black voter groups in Michigan filed suit in the District of Columbia against the Trump campaign on November 20, 2020, alleging the campaign has disenfranchised Black voters through their attempts to challenge election results in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.[18][19] In December 2022, a federal court ruled in favor of the NAACP and the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization in this case. The Court’s ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with filing a second amended complaint.[86]
Wisconsin Voters Alliance et al. v. Pence et al.
A lawsuit challenging the election results of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona was filed by the Amistad Project of the conservative Thomas More Society.[58] Among the plaintiffs were the Wisconsin Voters Alliance.[59] Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Michigan lawmakers Matt Maddock and Daire Rendon attempted to withdraw as plaintiffs, because “what was eventually filed is very different than what was initially discussed”, said Maddock.[58]
The lawsuit named Vice President Mike Pence, Congress and the Electoral College among the defendants; however the Electoral College is not actually an entity, but a process.[59]
The request for injunction was denied on January 4, 2021, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and because Plaintiffs “have established no likelihood of success on the merits”[60] since the request was based on a fundamental misreading of the law.[61] Judge James E. Boasberg also stated that “at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel” due to their failure to duly notify or serve Defendants, despite reminders from the Court.[60][87] The lawsuit was withdrawn on January 7, 2021.[62]
Georgia
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Georgia
Several lawsuits were filed in Georgia after the election. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.[88][89][90]
Michigan
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Michigan
Several lawsuits were filed in Michigan after the election. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.
Minnesota
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Minnesota
Kistner v. Simon
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Kistner v. Simon
On November 24, 2020, a petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court by 25 candidates from numerous races within Minnesota as well as a handful of voters against Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and the state’s canvassing board. The suit alleged various election problems and sought a temporary restraining order delaying certification of election results,[63] which had already been certified the previous day.[91]
On December 4, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed all 3 claims filed by the petitioners, and thereby ordered that the whole petitioned filed on November 24, 2020, be dismissed.[64]
The court’s decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. “Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020,” the ruling states. It goes on to say that “asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable.”[92]
Nevada
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Nevada
Seven lawsuits were filed in Nevada after November 3, 2020. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.
New Mexico
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in New Mexico
Donald J. Trump for President v. Oliver et al.
On December 14, 2020, the same day that New Mexico electors cast their electoral college votes, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in federal court against New Mexico Secretary of State, Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the electors of New Mexico and the State Canvassing Board. The lawsuit concerns the use of drop boxes in the 2020 elections. The federal lawsuit claims that New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver violated the state election code by permitting voters to deposit completed absentee ballots in drop boxes at voting locations rather than handing them to the location’s presiding judge in person. The complaint asks the court to order a delay in certifying New Mexico’s electoral vote, which had already occurred, and mandate a statewide canvass of New Mexico’s absentee ballots, including investigations into every voting location where a drop box was implemented.[93][94]
On January 11, 2021, five days after Congress certified the results for Joe Biden, the campaign dropped the lawsuit.[95] Trump attorney Mark Caruso cited “events that have transpired since the inception of this lawsuit” in a three-page motion as the reason for dropping the lawsuit. Although, the motion still allows for revisiting these concerns in the future.[96]
Pennsylvania
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Pennsylvania
Several lawsuits were filed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[46] Four had still been pending in federal jurisdiction at the United States Supreme Court. Of these, two lawsuits were filed after Election Day, and the other two were filed before the election. The lawsuits filed after Election day were Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al. and Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al.. These remaining two lawsuits were dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021.[97] On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the November 3, 2020, election, the Supreme Court declined to hear the outstanding case brought by former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet, dismissing it without comment.[98]
Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al.
Asked a federal court to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision allowing the receipt of ballots after Election Day. Dismissed by the Pennsylvania district court, appealed to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; dismissed, and appealed to the Supreme Court where it was dismissed without comment on February 22, 2021.[40]
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. is a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court on December 20, 2020.[99] The suit asks the Court to evaluate the constitutionality of three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions: In re November 3, 2020, Gen. Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee & Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, Gen. Election. The Trump campaign also submitted a request to expedite proceedings,[100] but the Court ignored this and instead set the deadline for reply briefs from the respondents for January 22, 2021, two days after Biden’s inauguration. It was dismissed without comment by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2021.[101]
Texas
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Texas
Gohmert et al. v. Pence
On December 27, 2020, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, and other Republican party members filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Vice President Mike Pence was named as defendant of the suit. The complaint argued that certain provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 are unconstitutional under the Electors Clause and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit’s intended outcome was for Pence to be empowered to select self-styled “alternate” slates of electors from specific swing states on January 6, 2021, such that Trump received those states’ electoral votes and wins the election; the Electoral Count Act does not give the Vice President any such “sole discretionary” power over electoral votes, and none of the self-styled “alternate” slates of electors from the swing states have been certified by their respective states’ legal processes.[65][66][67]
Judge Jeremy Kernodle, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, called for Vice President Pence to issue a response to the lawsuit by December 31, 2020, at 5 p.m. and for Gohmert to issue a reply to Pence by January 1, 2021, at 9 a.m.[68] Pence replied on December 31 that the suit should be dismissed because he is not the appropriate party to address the matter.[69] The Justice Department also requested the suit be dismissed.[102] On January 1, 2021, Gohmert and other Republicans filed a new brief contending that Pence is the proper defendant in the case, and that the United States or House or Senate parliamentarians could be added as defendants by the congressman for clarification. Gohmert stated that he needs a ruling by January 4, 2021.[103] Nonetheless, the Justice Department supported Pence and noted that Congress, not Pence, is more suitable to be sued. In addition, congressional lawyers supported Pence’s position as well.[104]
The case was dismissed without prejudice on January 1, 2021, for lack of both standing and jurisdiction.[70][74][71][72] Judge Kernodle ruled that Gohmert lacked standing due to precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1997: alleging an “institutional injury to the House of Representatives” does not grant Gohmert standing to sue “as an individual”. Additionally, Kernodle ruled that the injury Gohmert was alleging “requires a series of hypothetical—but by no means certain—events” that were “far too uncertain to support standing”.[74][105] As for the other plaintiffs, Kernodle ruled that they lacked standing because the injury they alleged was “not fairly traceable” to the Vice President.[106] Gohmert appealed the district court’s ruling that day.[74][73]
On January 2, a three-judge panel speedily and tersely rejected the appeal, “affirm[ing] the judgment” of the district court “essentially for the reasons stated” in Kernodle’s order.[74][107] The unanimous ruling was made by three Republican appointees: Andy Oldham (Trump) and Patrick Higginbotham and Jerry Edwin Smith (Reagan).[74]
Gohmert then appealed to the Supreme Court, which on January 7 also tersely rejected his petition as “denied”.[108]
Wisconsin
Main article: Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Wisconsin
Several lawsuits were filed in Wisconsin after the election. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected Trump’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling in Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission on December 24.[109] The Court considered another case, Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al., though in December 2020 Sidney Powell filed an emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus for intervention in the case. The petition was denied without comment on March 1, 2021, ending the matter.[110]
Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin
On December 14, 2020, a petition was filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin seeking a declaration that (1) Dane County lacks the authority to issue an interpretation of Wisconsin’s election law allowing all electors in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification and (2) Governor Tony Evers’ Emergency Order #12 did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, stating that the Dane County government’s interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous. “A county clerk may not ‘declare’ that any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic,” the court said. The court further stated that “…the presence of a communicable disease such as COVID-19, in and of itself, does not entitle all electors in Wisconsin to obtain an absentee ballot…”[111][112][113] This ruling had no effect on the results of either Dane County or Wisconsin.[citation needed]
Ethics sanctions
On June 25, 2021, a New York State appellate court suspended attorney Rudy Giuliani’s New York law license. A few weeks later, a Washington D.C. court suspended his Washington D.C. law license.[114][115]
On July 12, 2021, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held a Zoom hearing and compelled the testimony of several lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits, including Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, and others. The hearing is the first step in determining if lawyers that participated in post-election lawsuits should receive attorney misconduct sanctions or be referred to a regulatory body for disbarment proceedings, for violating the ethics of their profession.[116][117] Judge Parker issued sanctions against the attorneys in August 2021, ordering them to pay the legal fees incurred by Michigan authorities and to take legal education classes. Parker also referred the attorneys to the states where they are licensed to practice law for possible disciplinary action. She wrote the attorneys had “scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.”[118][119]
On August 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado N. Reid Neureiter sanctioned two lawyers, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker, for a “frivolous” election lawsuit that was filed “in bad faith”, containing “highly disputed and inflammatory” allegations that the lawyers made no efforts to verify.[120][121] In November 2021, Neureiter ordered the two attorneys to pay the groups they sued $187,000 to defray their legal costs, and to deter similar frivolous suits.[122]”
NOW: tell us, which cases did Trump win?
You can copy and paste but you know nothing.
Pick out your best 7 cases in order of strength, the name of the case and a link to the case. When you get all 7 correct I’ll provide 7 where Trump and/or the GOP won. If you start acting honestly I will provide all of them.
Without the case name, I am not even sure that your list is one of the original 60 cases that today is ~100. There were cases where Trump/ GOP wasn’t part of the case.
GIGI you just proved yourself wrong. These cases were dropped…not adjudicated
“I TOLD you–click on the links on Wikipedia for specific cases and references to the facts it reports. Wikipedia is not leftist mainstream meda. “
Since when are you ever right? Almost never when arguing facts on this blog. You are a zero. By the way, where politics is concerned, Wikipedia is far on the left. That has been discussed before, and proof provided, but once again without rebutting prior proofs, you repeat your same erroneous thoughts.
I can show 18 cases where Trump and/or the GOP won. I can present about 75 where the merits of the case weren’t decided. I can only find ~7 won by the opposition. Wikipedia has spun the data, and you are unable to figure it out.
Name the cases for the ~7 cases won by your side, and I will name the ~18 won by Trump. Provide a link to each case so we can debate them based on knowledge. Use only what you think are the best 7 cases, for many of your cases will not be ones decided on the merits, and I don’t like wasting time. Wikipedia wishes to call all those cases not won by Trump losses, but they aren’t. You are confused and wrong, as usual.
I gave you the names of specific cases. You, as usual, tap dance, claim I lie and call me names. Wikipedia has listed cases in various states–there’s no punditry involved. You speak of matters “where the merits of the cases weren’t decided.” The FACT you can’t seem to grasp is that there never were any MERITS to the lies put out by Giuliani, Ellis and others who tried to turn the Big Lie into something other than a pack of lies. In her disciplinary matter, Ellis has admitted that there never was any evidence of widespread voter fraud, and that when she claimed there was–she was lying. Name at least one of these cases Wikipedia got wrong. Trump lost, just like every poll predicted he would. You keep on believing the Big Lie–the question is–Why? Just today, DJT admitted, in court, that the size of his NY apartment in Trump Tower was a lie. It is actually less than 11,000 sq. ft, but he repeatedly, and under oath, in financial statements and in other settings, maintained it was 33,000 sq. ft. DJT mumbled something about counting the roof and the elevator shafts, but he admitted his apartment was NOT 33,000 sq. ft., which tripled the actual size and therefore, the actual value.
“I gave you the names of specific cases. “
You don’t even know how to cite the names, yet you accuse others of dancing. You are ignorant. A case will be listed A vs B and generally you can provide it already highlighted for linkage. However, you do deflect in an attempt to hide your ignorance.
Ethics sanctions are not cases. They do not apply to the original ~60 cases we discussed.
Cases involving other people are not Trump cases or part of the original ~60 cases where according to the left Trump lost the all. That was wrong, but you don’t care because you like to repeat drivel.
Are you unable to understand what you link to. It doesn’t seem so.
“And, even the Fox polls predicted he would lose.”
What did all of those same polls say in 2016, Gigi the red herring?
But I’ll spot you the 2016 results, and lets look at some of the “battleground states” in 2020.
We’ll use the Average of the major aggregate polls, 270 to win, RCP, and 538.
Florida was predicted as a 2.1 win for Biden, Trump won by 3.3
Iowa 1.5 for Trump. He won by 8.2
Michigan 5.9 Biden. He won by just 2.8
North Carolina 0.6 Biden. Trump won by 1.3
Ohio .9 Trump. He won by 8.1
Pennsylvania 4.6 Biden. He won by just 1.2
Texas 2.1 Trump. He won by 5.6
Here is my personal favorite. Even after the upset in Wisconsin in 2016, the polls showed Biden up by 8.1. He won by 0.6
In all of these, and most other states, Trump overperformed vs the polls. So please, STFU about the polls, because they are clearly oversampling democrats. They mean nothing. Even you could predict the results of 465 Electoral College votes. The rest were no given in 2016, nor were they in 2020.
“schools, bars, restaurants and businesses shut down due to COVID and his trade war with China”
Precisely how many schools, bars and restaurants were shut down due to the tariffs on China? I’d really like to know.
You say the dumbest things.
Jimmy, do you think Gigi will admit being wrong? Never. She will change her name again like she did from her former name Natasha. The 60 court cases was disclosed as a fraud 2+ years ago and she is still lying and providing links proving ignorance. Today the entire list was provided. She will not admit her error. Instead she will continue lying and making a fool of herself to all.
Trust me, Mr Meyer, I am fully aware of Gigi’s MO. She is not merely incorrect, she is a LIAR. She repeats falsehoods after being properly educated. She belittles others sources while using Wikipedia (claims its not left wing lmao), Rachel Maddow, and Vox as her Gospel.
Here’s another example of the alt-right lying that is, sadly, hooking so many Americans. Tom: and I DO know that’s who you really are–you know I don’t lie. I cut and paste or provide a link to articles containing facts you don’t like. So, according to you, I’m a liar. I’ve never cited either Rachel Maddow or Vox–something else you know quite well. Trump did lose over 60 lawsuits–thrown out for lack of evidence. I’ve yet to see anything resembling a citation to a case over his losing in 2020 that he won. That’s because there aren’t any, because there wasn’t any widespread voter fraud, and all of the lies told by his lawyers about having proof of voter fraud are just that–lies– for which his lawyers are getting disciplined. Rule 11 of both federal and state rules states: “The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleadings; that to the best of his knowledge, inforrmation, and belief, there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.” Rule 11 also says: “for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action.” Unlike Trump, lawyers cannot spit out one lie after another and hope something sticks. Ellis’s admission that there never was any evidence to back up the Big Lie is huge and IS binding on Trump. Colorado let her off easy. The state where I live wouldn’t be so generous.
Trump got indicted for stealing classified documents, lying about returning them and also for trying to prevent Joe Biden’s victory from being certified. The legal system exists to vindicate our rights, including enforcing penalties for stealing and disclosing classified information and trying to overturn a free and fair election. Trump was indicted for these crimes and will be tried for them as well. We’ve all seen the evidence. On the civil side, Trump lied in NY to obtain loans on more-favorable terms. That’s illegal and he was found liable for doing that. Every day, he insults the judge lies about his law clerk being Chuck Schumer’s girlfriend, attacks the NY Attorney General. Every day, he proves that he IS the loser Americans voted out of office, and for good reason.
“Why I have chosen to distance is because of that frankly malignant narcissistic tendency to simply say that he’s never done anything wrong.”
This is the essence of why Trump is innocent. He’s an obvious malignant narcissist. He can’t even fathom a state of reality in which his big, beautiful, powerful campaign failed. Doesn’t have it in him.
Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this.
JJS in AZ, Non of that is crime. The Judge out paces the Trump for malignant narcissistic tendency
Which judge?
Several states unconstitutionally changed election law in 2020. Changes were made by the executive, not thr legislature. The fraud continues.
In PA, absentee voting rules were relaxed due to Trump allowing COVID to get out of control.. Those are the “changes” to which you refer–but there is still NO evidence that any absentee ballots cast as a result of relexing the requirements were fraudulent—this is just alt-right argument.
“Trump allowing COVID to get out of control”
LIAR
Covid was a Pandemic, you fool. Get a grip. This is the reason no one listens to you. Sensationalist and serial liar.
“this is just alt-right argument.”
LIAR
Only 61% of AMERICANS believe Biden won legitimately in 2020. 69% of Republicans and and R leaning Independents believe the 2020 election was fraudulent.
You have been told the meaning of alt- several times. Repeatedly misusing the term makes you a LIAR.
10/29/2020–CNN “12 Ways the Trump Administration Botched America’s Response to Covid-19:
First, the Trump administration failed to adequately acknowledge the existence of the Covid-19 challenge publicly early on as evidenced by the President’s comments about the first Americans to be infected such as “… the 15 within a couple days is going to be down to close to zero …” cases, or “it will go away.” This explicit downplaying of Covid-19 was either an act to overtly spread misinformation or it was a reflection of complacency, but in either case it led to an inadequate Covid-19 response.
A resercher from the Sys2Diag laboratory, of the biotechnology company SkillCell, shows a EasyCov fast-acting saliva-based test display yellow reagent negative at the Covid-19 disease, on April 30, 2020, in Montpellier, southern France. – The EasyCOV fast-acting saliva-based test will be used by healthcare professionals and works with the reagents at a temperature of 65°C for 30 minutes after collecting the saliva sample, test results are read through colorimetric analysis. (Photo by Sylvain THOMAS / AFP) (Ph
Second, the administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in particular, had difficulty developing and rolling out initial testing strategies leading to serious delays in the necessary uptake of testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. For weeks, testing in even hard-hit areas was limited to diagnostic tests for hospitalized people or health care workers rather than population-level testing. Diagnostic testing is still too slow in some areas and testing for asymptomatic persons is still insufficient. The US got off to an avoidable slow start in testing, is still catching up, a key administration adviser on Covid-19 is actively arguing against the testing of people who don’t have symptoms, and the President has been known to say, “slow the testing down please.”
Third, the administration provided some personal protective equipment but failed to make supplies of it for health care workers and schools available at the scale necessary to meet the needs. Without sufficient supplies of the basic equipment needed, it is hard to protect yourself from SARS-CoV-2.
Fourth, the administration reportedly pressured for FDA Emergency Use Authorizations of treatments such as hydroxychloroquine without sufficient evidence of potential effectiveness, eventually leading to a withdrawal of the hydroxychloroquine EUA, but not before the interest in this one drug diverted massive efforts in the medical, public health and research communities to focus on a drug that ultimately garnered scant evidence of effectiveness in well conducted studies.
Fifth, even after states like New York showed that physical distancing (in many forms), mask use, avoidance of large gatherings, hand sanitization, staying home when ill, and other basic techniques served to bring down cases, hospitalizations and death rates, the administration encouraged states to abandon such effective strategies even in the face of widespread community transmission (such as in Florida) and if they did not, the President encouraged residents of jurisdictions such as Michigan to “liberate” their state.
Sixth, the President chose to demonize researchers whose findings did not suit him (such as calling the work of researchers finding no benefit to hydroxychloroquine, an “enemy statement”), thereby putting some scientists in the position of not only defending their science but also their motives for conducting urgent and important research in the first place. Such assaults on science and scientists can lead researchers to think twice about engaging in potentially lifesaving work, and can set back the scientific process such that evidence-based answers to pressing societal challenges are slower in their evolution.
Seventh, White House Task Force member Dr. Scott Atlas and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar have met with and embraced proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration. The Declaration proposes to achieve herd immunity (before a vaccine is available) by protecting older persons yet removing most SARS-CoV-2 preventive measures among young people. Although he did not cite the Declaration, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows recently said on CNN that “we are not going to control the pandemic,” a sentiment consistent with the Great Barrington document. This herd immunity approach has been widely criticized by many in the public health community, because by not having in place the necessary preventive precautions, it could yield substantial expansion of Covid-19 cases in the US and induce serious increases in morbidity and mortality.
Eighth, the President interpreted his personal experience of receiving world-class, life-saving, experimental medical care from a single-source, government run and supported program to be the kind of care that everyone in the US can have (especially as he supports the destruction of the Affordable Care Act, the means to health insurance for millions in the US). Further, based on his experience of medical care privilege, he told the residents of the US not to fear Covid and to not let it dominate their lives … clearly dangerous health care advice for many and especially those without access to the same level of health care he enjoyed.
Ninth, the President, his administration and his campaign have held or attended events in which they ignored most if not all public health recommendations for Covid-19 prevention. For instance, the first family brazenly took off their masks at the initial presidential debate despite the rules of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Cleveland Clinic health care experts on site. One is reminded of celebrity Fernando Lamas saying, “it is better to look good than to feel good.” Well, that ironic phrase is not one we utilize in public health.
Tenth, the devastating disparities of Covid-19 in communities of color are matters of social justice, and yet the President barely seems to notice or acknowledge them. Clearly, to alleviate the suffering from Covid-19 in the US, one must address the injustice of these racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities and begin to better build health equity.
Eleventh, if the administration wanted to address these issues, there would be a comprehensive, evidence-based national Covid-19 strategy, but there is no such national plan at this point. Without a plan in place, there can be no tracking of key metrics, no informed mid-course corrections, and little accountability.
Twelfth, there are instances when members of the administration are giving out risky information, undermining the American public’s ability to inform and protect itself. Just recently, White House adviser Dr. Scott Atlas tweeted “Masks work? NO” (synergistic with the President’s less than enthusiastic attitude toward mask use), despite substantial evidence to the contrary.
It is difficult to assess the precise number of deaths, life years lost, and lives disrupted by this collection of errors of commission, omission and complacency, but it is clear that a large number of the over 225,000 lives lost to Covid-19 could have been saved had these errors been avoided with straightforward, evidence-based precautions in place, delivered at the necessary scale, and provided at the right time.”
In PA, absentee voting rules were relaxed
The only way to “relax” a law is through the legislative process. Thanks for admitting the election count should have never been certified.
Relaxing voting rules due to Trump’s botched handling of COVID-19 does NOT mean that any votes were fraudulent or should be thrown out.
Where is the video that confirms VP Harris and others claiming they were actually process to manipulate voting machines? CLAIMS MADE BEFORE 2020 ELECTION! Also, where are the videos of ballot stuffing?
None of what the lawyers have pleaded to implicates Trump. They have instead pleaded to peripheral crimes to avoid jail. In addition, if they comply with the terms of the agreement, the record will be expunged. I think it unlikely that their testimony will damage Trump much.
Daniel: Jenna Ellise admitted, in her Colorado Attorney Disciplinary matter, that she lied about there being any evidence of voter fraud. She admitted there never was any evidence to back up the Big Lie. That will damage Trump a lot.
Except that there was evidence, dum dum. Just no proof.
Worse than that, Daniel. They’ve plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit and were never charged. Are there no other attorneys willing to defend them pro bono or file counter claims for malicious prosecution?
To someone like Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, and the other “lawfare” members, the law is not a “jealous mistress”, but rather a conniving whore to be pimped for their evil purposes.
“Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Fulton County District Attorney appear to be arguing that, while Trump was assured of these claims by counsel, he should never have listened to them.”
Yet Turley doesn’t quote a single thing from their indictments or filings to back this up. He cannot, because that’s not what they’ve argued.
“Former President Donald Trump is being prosecuted for following the advice of his counsel”
He isn’t. In fact, in the two federal cases, Smith has moved that if Trump is planning to make a defense of counsel argument, he be required to state that by a specific date prior to trial.
Turley also ignores that other lawyers have stated that they told Trump that he’d lost the election (e.g., Cipollone) and that others have stated that Trump himself acknowledged that he’d lost.
More, from a recent relevant Smith filing, which Turley provides no evidence of having read:
“The defendant has provided public notice [e.g., in TV interviews] that he intends to rely on an advice-of-counsel defense at trial. When a defendant invokes such a defense in court, he waives attorney-client privilege for all communications concerning that defense, and the Government is entitled to additional discovery and may conduct further investigation, both of which may require further litigation and briefing. To prevent disruption of the pretrial schedule and delay of the trial, the Court should exercise its inherent authority to require the defendant to provide notice in court of his intent to assert such a defense by the date exhibit lists are due, December 18, 2023.”
Your last paragraph stated “Turley also ignores that other lawyers have stated that they told Trump that he’d lost the election (e.g., Cipollone) and that others have stated that Trump himself acknowledged that he’d lost.”
Actually he didn’t. Here is a couple quotes from above:
“He steadfastly ignored the overwhelming advice of lawyers in the White House and many of us in the media. He pushed for counsel who would support these claims. Indeed, some of the lawyers sound like they were lured by the Siren call of Trump, led astray from their better legal judgment.”
“Moreover, Trump clearly evinced impatience and even anger with those (like Attorney General Bill Barr) who dismissed the claims.”
And what is your legal position on whether or not President Biden committed a crime?
“Indeed, President Joe Biden admitted that, in seeking to reinstate the flagrantly unconstitutional national eviction moratorium, his White House counsel and every other lawyer told him that it violated the Constitution. He admitted that he was able to find only one lawyer — Harvard Professor Larry Tribe — who told him that he could do it. He went ahead, and it was found unconstitutional. It did not matter that Tribe has often been proven wrong on such claims or that Biden appeared to have doubts himself. It was enough that he thought it might have a slight chance of success to, according to Biden, get some relief before any injunction.”
I wonder whether these attorneys should pay back the legal fees they charged Trump now that they admit that their legal advice was garbage?
Trump stiffs a lot of people. Are you sure he paid them?
Trump is no victim in the use of bad legal advice. Indeed, some of the lawyers sound like they were lured by the Siren call of Trump, led astray from their better legal judgment.
Wait, so if the lawyers committed legal malpractice because of Trump’s charisma, and Trump relied on their advice, that’s Trump’s fault?
And if Trump’s current lawyers follow Professor Turley’s analysis, the Smith case and the Willis case should not lead to a conviction. And if hey do, SCOTuS will have the final say, likely in Trump’s favor —
Turley does a good job of tying all these loose ends together. The former Trump lawyers are hapless losers who once dreamed of big jobs in a Trump administration. Now they turn on him and themselves to keep the job they have. Trump is not a lawyer and had a right to rely on their information and advice that they now reject for the only puirpose of keeping their licenses. When these cases eventually leave the political realm and be considered by more evenhanded appelate judges and justices, it should result in righting this ship. The people were deprived of their right to choose the president by the many peculiar changes broght about by Democrats in voting as a result of Covid-19. Courts routinely stayed away from these cases because the Constitution vests the power to elect the president in the people, not the courts. Thus, the actual merits of such claims were never vetted. Cases were tossed on standing or some other non-meritorious procedural grounds. Now, the people have a chance to correct all this by re-electing Trump next year. What supports this hypothesis more than anything else is that the more these obscure Kafkaesque prosecutors attempt to re-define the Constitution for their evil political purposes, the more Trump’s ratings increase. Leave it to the people; they get it right more often than the lawyers and the courts.
>> Courts routinely stayed away from these cases because the Constitution vests the power to elect the president in the people, not the courts. <<
That's a nice theory assuming you believe they are driven by principle. In practice, however, I think the courts were reluctant to hear another presidential election case because they know that after Al Gore tried and failed to use the courts to overturn the 2000 election, Democrats engaged in a two decade long hissy fit to delegitimize the courts.
Furthermore, elected Democrats began getting themselves booked to appear on MSNBC to call for Trump's impeachment BEFORE he was even inaugurated. Their strategy was to use the media to spend every second of every day stoking hatred against Trump. Granted they do that to EVERY Republican, but with Trump their pundits regularly compared him to Hitler, Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Caligula, Gengis Khan, and other bad guys in history to stoke hatred against him. They falsely called him a Putin stooge; Nazi; fascist; white supremacist; racist; misogynist to inflame the hatred in their low info voters.
After five years of that kind of disgusting hateful rhetoric designed to stoke hatred in Democrat voters, can you imagine how those voters would have reacted if the courts had to rule in Trump's favor if the facts and the law demanded it? I mean, Democrat voters rioted on the day he was inaugurated. Destroyed DC with property damage and arson.
“…the actual merits of such claims were never vetted. Cases were tossed on standing or some other non-meritorious procedural grounds. Now, the people have a chance to correct all this by re-electing Trump next year.”
How exactly will ‘the people…correct this’ when their own government refuses to “hear” their concerns or investigate claims, presuming shenanigans will be played again next year?
Special Counsel Jack Smith can use the “siren” legal theory, or any other legal theory for that matter, because he is on Team Biden and there are no legal limits for pursuing President Trump. None. The double standard of justice in America today is astounding. Merrick Garland has made sure that Attorney-Client privilege doesn’t apply to any of his designated enemies of the Bidens. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all that Trump believed what he said about cheating in the election. People have an uncanny ability to deny the “truth” when it is counter to their beliefs and the beliefs of others who may support them. If you have sat in an office or by a bedside for 40+ years and listened to otherwise knowledgeable or bright people espouse radical untruths with almost religious fervor without a shred of support, then you might understand this concept. Many simply think that the real truth is just around the corner and simply has not seen the light of day. Robert Kennedy Jr is on the left and is much a truth denier as possibly Mr. Trump is. His war against immunizations in general and many in particular is seldom supported by scientific data. He ignores the fact that the reason our average lifespan has jumped from 30 to 80 is by simple public health measures such as clean water, sanitation, and immunizations. Antibiotics, life saving trauma surgery and other recent advances have some effect on lifespan but no where like that of simple public health measures.
In fact the actions of the Biden administration, and the Biden crime family, that has all come to light since “Good Ole Joe” was inaugurated seems to make the likelihood of cheating back in 2020 more likely than less likely. Now we are getting a clearer understanding of how leftists in government has had their fingers on the scales of communication, banking, tech, and such.
It’s all about belief, not facts. And some of our greatest discoveries came from persistent souls who defied “logic” or leaped beyond logic.
I still see close to half of the American people honestly believe the election was rigged/stolen. There has been many videos and even a movie that seems to show that it was rigged/stolen. I myself am not totally convinced it wasn’t as there are numerous things that give me a reason to believe that May well be the case. Do my eyes deceive me? Is my brain operating on illusion? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I’m sure the answers needing to be answered to factually clarify the question will not be brought to light and do not make any difference now. We have a person who has been confirmed and will finish his term, unless something happens to him to prevent that from occurring.
I, like many others, see what is happening now as every effort I being put forward to prevent former President Donald Trump from making a second bite at the apple.
We need to jail 10,000’s of criminal Democrats across government
Russian Hoax
100’s indictments against Trump
Anyone that helps Illegals
Anyone that pushes drugs
Anyone FORCING girls to compete against boys in sports
etc
think Nuremberg Trials…against Fascist Democrats
Trump heard what he wanted to hear. He deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Wally spoken like the FASCIST you are!
Hey Wally, why stop with Trump! What’s the max number of politicians and their supporters you’re willing to put in jail or maybe just concentration camps to formally deprogram anyone dissenting from your views?
Wally, any room in your prison for Hilary? Gore? Kerry? Stacy Abrams? Jamie Raskin? The liberals on the Supreme Court in 2000? The FLorida Supreme Court in 2000? All of the Dems that supported not certifying the 2016 election?
and you don’t??
For hearing what he wanted to hear and you say he deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars?
“I think it’s also critical to understand that, as I’ve been telling candidates who have come to see me, you can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,”
-Hillary Clinton, May 5, 2019.
Does she deserve to spend the rest of her life behind bars for believing she had the election stolen from her?
Belief that an election was stolen isn’t the issue. Actions are the issue. Trump is alleged to have acted illegally (see the indictment). In some cases, the mens rea is relevant to proving a crime, but without the action, there is no crime.