In 1966, Charlotte E. Keyes wrote a famous article for McCall’s magazine titled “Suppose They Gave a War and No One Came.” Special Counsel Jack Smith may be contemplating the same fate.
Putting the tongue-in-cheek title aside, the odds are that some people will come to any trial of President Donald Trump. After all, a lot of people have to come from the judge to the jurors and counsel. However, Smith has had an ominous week that could severely complicate his plans for convicting Donald Trump before the election. Moreover, a trial after the election could mean no trial at all.
Before this week, Smith found himself on the losing end of the schedule in Florida in his prosecution of Trump for his retention of classified documents. Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a trial for May 20, 2024, but that could easily move with additional delays or appeals in the case.
I have always viewed that case to be the strongest against Trump, but the huge number of classified documents have (as predicted) slowed the prosecution. Despite Smith’s pushing for a pre-election trial, his structuring of the charges undermined that schedule.
Smith then pushed hard for a pre-election trial in the January 6th case in Washington where he seemed to have a supportive judge in Judge Tanya Chutkan who shoehorned the start just before the Super Tuesday elections.
Now, however, Judge Chutkan has been forced to stay the case indefinitely pending the appeal of the presidential immunity claim made by Trump. The matter is now before both the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave Trump until December 20th to respond to Smith’s request for an expedited review — leapfrogging over the D.C. Circuit.
Smith’s filing conveys priority, if not a necessity, in trying Trump before the election. The Supreme Court may not share that sense of urgency. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has preferred to wait to allow appellate courts to render decisions. Since a conviction will not make Trump ineligible to run for the presidency, the question is why the March date should short circuit the review process.
If the Supreme Court ultimately does not rule on the merits, the period for review would easily supplant the trial schedule since an appeal could be taken to the entire D.C. Circuit (en banc) and then to the Supreme Court.
That did not change the March 4 trial date, but it could well make that date unworkable if the appeals drag on.
Then to make the week complete, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Fischer. That case turns on the proper interpretation of the obstruction provision under Section 1512(c)(2).
Fischer was charged with obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and based solely on his trespass in the Capitol.
A ruling in his favor could effectively cut away half of the case against Donald Trump. Among the four counts brought by Smith, Trump is charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) (Count Two) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding) (Count Three).
If those two counts fell to the wayside, Smith would be left with a count on conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) and conspiracy against rights (Count 4). Those counts contain other challengeable elements which would have to be appealed after any conviction.
At some point, the mad rush for a March trial will look illogical and gratuitous if key legal issues remain unresolved and pre-trial motions and discovery remain incomplete in February.
The problem for Smith is that a trial after the election could mean no trial at all. If Trump is elected, he could give himself a preemptive self-pardon, though some disagree with this view. Moreover, the new Attorney General could scuttle or undermine the prosecution.
In other words, it is possible that Jack Smith might never see a jury in either case.
That would still leave the New York and Georgia cases, which are not subject to presidential pardons. However, those cases (particularly the one in New York) have their own challengeable elements.
None of this means that Trump is out of the woods. He will continue to face a daunting daisy-chain of civil and criminal cases around the country. Moreover, it is not clear how the schedule will shake out with both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court giving expedited attention to the immunity question. He could still face at least one federal trial before election day.
However, Smith must be wondering if, assuming the schedule breaks in favor of Trump, he would be holding an empty sack come January 2024.
Turley Collegue:
Case Decides Whether President Is Executive Or King
The justices must decide whether to accept the rare maneuver to take up a hugely consequential issue: whether a former president has absolute immunity from alleged crimes committed while in office.
“I think that Trump’s claims on the merits, based on our American constitutional system, are so weak that if the court adopts Trump’s position, it almost certainly will be seen as a politically-motivated decision to give cover to the former president,” said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman.
“It’s hard to think of a question that goes more to the heart of whether the president is a president or a king than the question of whether the president is beyond the ability of the American justice system to prosecute him,” said Berman.
“This is as important as it gets for American constitutionalism.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/4358902-trump-immunity-supreme-court-crosshairs/
What a mess. If they rule Trump is exempt, then is Biden exempt? GAWD.
Many of Bidens crimes were committed as VPOTUS. The conspiracy to cover it up is as President, but there is no way to argue that a coverup is a Presidential act. See also–Nixon.
Shortly after the 2024 election -regardless of the outcome Joe Biden will take his first major act as a lame duck and pardon himself and his family.
You have an overactive imagination. Also, “regardless of outcome” doesn’t imply that he’ll be a lame duck.
What a mess. If they rule Trump is exempt, then is Biden exempt? GAWD.
Consider the source:
Berman is married to Laura A. Dickinson since 2000, in a ceremony performed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg
– Wikipedia
Berman almost certainly has written a hit piece as politically-motivated decision to give cover to Biden’s Deep State. Next we will learn that Smith’s wife, Katy Chevigny, produced an over the top documentary of Michelle “kick em in the huevos” Obama.
Misinformation Alert:
“Becoming” documentary
Join former first lady Michelle Obama in an intimate documentary looking at her life, hopes and connection with others as she tours with “Becoming.”
Produced by Katy Chevigny aka Jack Smith’s wife
https://bigmouthproductions.com/becoming
Biden does not need to argue immunity.
If he loses the election – he will pardon himself.
Stop spreading nonsense. Nobody (except the corrupt Special Counsel and some moronic trolls that infest this website) has argued that Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution. The ISSUE is whether he was acting in his capacity as PRESIDENT.
If a president pulls out a knife and cuts off the ear of an oppontent, he is not acting in his elected capacity. But when a president takes action to assure that Amrican elections are not corrupted and accurately reflect the will of the voters, that IS acting within the function of his executive office. Assuring that federal elections are legitimate is as sacred of a responsibility as there is in a functioning republic.
“The ISSUE is whether he was acting in his capacity as PRESIDENT.”
If SCOTUS grants cert before judgment, that’s not the issue that will be before them. Their previous rulings require them to assume that the indictment’s description is true prior to trial, and the indictment says that he was acting outside of his presidential duties.
Amazing who you can get most everything wrong.
The only thing the Supreme court has to decide right now is whether it will allow Jack Smith to jump the line.
As to the immunity question – it is not unusual and it is not particularly unique to the president.
And the caselaw runs against you and smith. Those in government have immunity when acting in furtherance of their job.
That immunity is not absolute, but it is real.
One of the many reasons that SCOTUS is unlikely to take the case is because, determining whether immunity applies requires a well developed record. Trying to jump the line precludes a well developed record.
I would further note that courts including the supreme court – do not decide cases they do not have to.
They do not have to decide this one.
They are also reluctant to stick their neck out.
The simplest thing that SCOTUS can do regarding the Trump cases is to run the clock out.
Then they have no decision to make.
Democrats benefited fromt he reluctance of courts to make difficult calls when they have ways to avoid it.
At its core that is the lesson of Trump’s 2020 election challenge failures – The courts went out of their way to look behind the curtain to make the tough calls.
Now Democrats are on the opposite side of the fence. Left or right there are very very very few judges that want to be responsible for tip[ping the 2024 election. More than anything this is why even Obama and Biden Judges have ruled for Trump. Of court tTrump being on the right side of the law helped.
So let me give you the odds.
There are not enough corrupt democrat judges to complete a Trump trial before the 2024 election.
There are few judges in the country who wish to be responsible for “election interferance”.
There are also few
Judges who are likely to read the constitution and toss this nonsense in the trash where it belongs.
So Trump or Smith or Willis may win some fights, lose some, but none of these cases have any consequential results prior to the election.
And after the election – they DIE as they should have long ago.
Along with U.S. Attorney Jack Smith (special counsel), There is also some additional Career reputations riding on these outcomes.
Todd Harrison and Stephen Ryan at the firm McDermott Will & Emery
Moe Fodeman … People that have worked with Jack.
[Link] usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2023-06-08/who-is-jack-smith-the-special-counsel-who-brought-the-trump-indictment
Todd Harrison and Stephen Ryan at McDermott Will & Emery are the Fed appointed Special Masters whom Audit the Seized Docs from Mar-A-Logo.
[Smith and Harrison go back to the days of working under Robert Morgenthaudec (Dec.) buddies at the beginning of their careers.]
They also represented Michael Cohen at some point.
[Link] mwe.com/media/cohen-feds-name-special-master-picks/
BTW: Michael Cohen defense decided to write it’s own Court Reporter Cases to Cite in Cohen’s latest pleading.
If you don’t like the Rules of the Game, Change the Rules. Sounds ‘La Familiaer’ (sic) within the parlance of our time.
[Link] zerohedge.com/political/michael-cohens-former-attorney-ordered-explain-citing-cases-judge-believes-dont-exist
“… If Trump is elected, he could give himself a preemptive self-pardon, though some disagree with this view. …”
Of course He would – You would to.
“though some disagree with this view.” When it comes to Donald Trump, there is always going to be Some who disagree with this view.
Reputations mean nothing in Washington, or Jack Smith wouldn’t have been given this case.
Joe Biden had a long time reputation as a liar, a gaffe machine, and not very bright. Yet Barak Obama gave the open racist the VP job, for a few votes. Now he’s the Manchurian President.
Lock DonnieDoughBoy up. Forever!
Forget about Jack Smith.
The Question is “What happened to Special Counsel Robert Hur?”
Now that we have an Impeachment Inquiry “Who will be the Independent Counsel?” ~ Robert Hur is no Kenneth Starr (Dec.)
Will they go the way Robert Hur did? Turn up on the bottom of the Potomac River for all practical purposes figuratively speaking.
The Independent Counsel will no doubt be working into the Next Presidency.
OT:
Refreshingly honest analysis of the collapse of our society in America vis a vis the New York Times and the polarization propagated by them.
When the New York Times lost its way
By James Bennet
The Times’s problem has metastasised from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether. All the empathy and humility in the world will not mean much against the pressures of intolerance and tribalism without an invaluable quality that Sulzberger did not emphasise: courage.
[…]
Over the decades the Times and other mainstream news organisations failed plenty of times to live up to their commitments to integrity and open-mindedness. The relentless struggle against biases and preconceptions, rather than the achievement of a superhuman objective omniscience, is what mattered. As everyone knows, the internet knocked the industry off its foundations. Local newspapers were the proving ground between college campuses and national newsrooms. As they disintegrated, the national news media lost a source of seasoned reporters and many Americans lost a journalism whose truth they could verify with their own eyes. As the country became more polarised, the national media followed the money by serving partisan audiences the versions of reality they preferred. This relationship proved self-reinforcing.
https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way
James Bennet was the editorial page editor at The New York Times from May 2016 until his resignation in June 2020.
Estovir, James, Tom, Waters, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Edward Mahl, Guy Ventner:
The New York Times would lose all credibility if it suddenly adopted a Trump-friendly tone. So your column is just nonsensical crap that only plays to the rightwing bubble.
7.6%, right drunkard?
Cumulative CPI over the course of his term when Trump left office, yeah. Another wild number just happened yesterday too…, the Dow closed over 37,000 >> for first time in history. Party on.
By the way…, you were replying to someone else scat fetish tommy.
Eb
And by the way scat fetish tommy, your shifting goal posts of looking at the cpi only on trump’s last day in office a) projects on a single data point (a sign of awful research), b) ignores the fact inflation was trending up since 2015, c) bases your rationale on the fact trump crashed the economy with his response/non response to covid and projects that ‘steaming turd’ as you obsessively say over the whole of trump’s term, which of course is wildly disingenuous.
Eb
There is no such thing as “cumulative CPI”, and that’s not what you said. And no it wasnt “over his term when trump left office”. You just lied again. The meaningless number you gave was from 1/17 until 10/20. Trump still had 3 months to go. You can’t get anything right. You’ve sextupled down on stupid, by my count.
But since you brought it up, simpleton, what is Biden’s “cumulative CPI” to date? Answer or be again outed as a liar and a coward.
“the Dow closed over 37,000”
Bwahahahahaha and the average 401K is down 20% since Biden took office. Have another sip.
Peddle hard, scat fetish tommy. In a blog where there isn’t a shortage of disingenuous commenters you are definitely the worst.
You might wanna borrow the bike, simpleton, because you are going backwards. Inflation trending up indeed. LMAO thats a good one. Go look, you made a fool of yourself again buggy.
What is Bidens “cumulative” CPI, Mr Genuine?
The New York Times would lose all credibility if it suddenly adopted a Trump-friendly tone
Trump friendly? Lets start simple and just report facts. Naw . . .tha’ts just silly.
They do not need to be Trump Friendly.
They need to do TWO things – weed out the MASSIVE political bias in their straight re[porting and Just report the FACTS – no spin.
Most everything in NYT is spun to the max.
Balance the editorial page. Any paper that will allow actual terrorists to post editorials but Will not run an oped from Sen. Cotten, a former ranger has a serious problem with bias.
They don’t need to do anything you say.
The more they castigate Trump, the more their desperation shows. I’m not a fan of the *man*, but his policies were good for this country. I did not for him the first time, I did the second time, and so did a whooole lot of other people that will never in polite conversation admit it; and if he is the candidate, I will vote for him again. Really, I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime, and I can’t find anything like it before then. Our modern dems are something else, and I also never thought I’d see an American party sidestep questionable into the territory of actual evil, but the dems have somehow managed it, and splendidly. They are a cancer. Never voting dem for anything, again, ever. ‘Vote blue, no matter who?’., no, ‘Vote blue and shame on you.’. Modern dem voters are perfect idiots.
Why not admit it? Why are so many people such cowards? Come to the south brother and we’ll give you some balls. It’s in our nature.
His policies weren’t good.
What policies weren’t good. Please explain.
I posted a final numbers summary trump’s term a couple days ago, but I’ll just cite a few things and leave you to your own dedicated research on the subject.
Trump instituted tariff taxes to shrink trade deficits and those deficits grew instead…..
Trump’s build the wall mentality actually led to an increase in illegal immigration instead…
Trump’s tax cuts actually were a three card Monty that progressively…
And hey, have to say his trying to steal an election was pretty non awesome.
Eb
You didn’t say anything. Please explain without the ………
Yes, along with the word i left out I forgot to mention that, even with discounting trump’s covid crash, Biden’s administration has produced three times the number of jobs as trump did in the same amount of time in their administration’s. Of course trump then went on to end up with a net loss of jobs, joining GWB as the only president’s in modern history to do that.
“Biden’s administration has produced three times the number of jobs as trump did”
Exactly how did they do that?
I count 26 jobs that the Biden administration *created*. All in the Ministry of Truth. Oh thats right, they went away.
You show your stupidity more and more with each post. You really should leave economic discussions to people who know more than lawn mowing.
Wow! – do you live in reality ?
Trump did NOT institute tarriffs to shrink the trade deficit – He instituted them in response to unfair trade practices.
He has promised to do so again. AND he has promised to CUR tarrifs to countries that engage in truly free trade.
The Trade Deficit is an issue that politicians talk about. but economically it is meaningless.
Either foreign exchange in ALL FORMS balances, or countries with a trade deficit are receiving goods essentially for free from foreign countries.
If the Trade Deficit with say China is a Billion dollars, or a Trillion dollars. China has two choices: Fold all those US dollars into paper cranes or Buy something with them. All US (or other nation) foreign spending MUST balance. In the case of a trade deficit there must be a capital accounts surplus. That means Foreign countries are taking all the excess money from the trade deficit and investing it in the US.
Which is MOSTLY good for the US.
Border encounters reported by USCBP through most of the Trump administration were Way down from Obama.
They DOUBLED in february 2021 – immediately after Biden took office and they have been setting records since.
A border wall is NOT the totality of border control – just an important factor. A wall makes enforcement easier.
What wall was built – as well as the repair of hundreds of miles of failing wall, under Trump was PART of what reduced illegal immigration under Trump. Though the core was actually enforcing our laws.
Biden is NOT enforcing the laws, and yje scale of illegal immigration has increased dramatically.
I have no idea even what you are saying about the tax cuts.
Regardless US Tax revenues ROSE afte rthe cuts. AND Revenue as a percent of GDP rose and it is the highest it has ever been.
Research by Christing Romer Obama’s Cheif Economic advisor found that the revenue optimizing maximum marginal income tax rate – using data from OECD countries over the course of 50 years was approximately 1/3. Rates higher than that do not increase revenue. and will eventually reduce it.
The Standard of living optimizing maximum tax rate is below 20% – we do not know how much below because there is very little good data for developed countries with top marginal tax rates below 20%. But 19th century data suggests that the standard of living optimal tax rate is below 10%.
Lincoln conducted the entire Civil War with total federal state and local taxes blow 8% of GDP.
Good morning, Johnny!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#:~:text=The%20Trump%20tariffs%20are%20a,agreements%20to%20bilateral%20trade%20deals.
Wikipedia!!!!
What a fucctard.
I told you John Say…who needs reality when you have factcheck.org and wikipedia
And this vas deferens licker accused me of poor research lmao
Elvis Bug—-Proudly standing with the 30% who still believe the economy is better, Joe’s not a crook, and the pee tape is real.
“What if Jack Smith Held a Trial and No One Came?
It would be like having a news channel that nobody watches. Cue James Earl Jones: “This is CNN.”
Jonathan: It’s plain as the nose on your face. DJT’s legal strategy is to delay, delay and delay some more–in a desperate attempt to delay his criminal trials–hoping that if he is re-elected next year he shut them down. Need proof. Here it is:
In the case before Judge Chutkan in DC DJT’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on the unfounded claim that a president has absolute immunity for crimes committed while in office. In a long opinion Judge Chutkan ruled a president is not a “King” and can’t avoid criminal liability. DJT appealed to the DC Court of Appeals. Jack Smith filed an opposing brief. Judge Chutkan has stayed the proceedings pending a resolution of the appeal. DJT hoped that would result in months of delay and the 3/4/24 trial date would be pushed back.
Jack Smith saw through all of that and leapfrogged to the SC asking in an emergency petition for the Court to resolve the issue of presidential immunity so his case could stay on track for a March trial. Now you would think that a criminal defendant, who thought he had credible defenses, would want an early resolution by the DC Court of Appeals and the SC. Not DJT. At a rally in Iowa yesterday he rallied at Jack Smith’s strategic move: “Now they’re saying ‘Let’s rush it, rush it, rush it’…They’re fighting like hell because they want to try to get a guilty plea from the Supreme Court”. DJT shows his ignorance every day. The SC doesn’t rule on “guilt” or “innocence”. So much for DJT’s claim he is a “stable genius”!
Most legal experts agree that DJT’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution is a non-starter. The DC Court of Appeals ruled earlier in the month that DJT is not immune from civil lawsuits for the victims of the Jan6 attack even though he was president at the time. So it’s unlikely that court will find that DJT is immune from criminal prosecution.
And I doubt even the conservative SC would endorse DJT’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution. Otherwise, a president could step outside the Oval Office, shoot someone dead, and claim he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Does anyone think the Supremes would endorse that preposterous proposition?
**Otherwise, a president could step outside the Oval Office, shoot someone dead, and claim he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Does anyone think the Supremes would endorse that preposterous proposition?**
Didn’t Obama have a US citizen targeted for drone attack without ‘due process of law’? There is no statute of limitation for murder, is there?
If Trump succeeds, Obama would be immune too. Is that what you want? Do you also want Biden to be immune?
I want the law applied equally between the two parties. Isn’t that how it should be?
Sure. But the facts in the cases aren’t the same, so applying the law equally can easily lead to different outcomes.
No one can honestly say that Trump has been investigated or charged in the same manner as Hillary or Biden. The FBI actually knew the dossier was financed by Hillary, was unproven, and yet they still continued to submit it to the FISA court. You had a FBI agent actually alter a document and present it to the FISA court so the FBI could continue to spy on Trump. Igor Danchenko told the FBI that his sources for the dossier was just “bar room talk”, and yet the FBI actually signed him up to a paid contract for more information. Letitia James actually ran her campaign on promises to go after Trump. New York changed their statute of limitation law so E. Jean Carroll could sue Trump. No one of any seriousness believes that Trump has been treated fairly or nearly the same.
Neither Trump nor his lawyers have EVER claimed that Trump — or any president — is immune from criminal prosecution, although that’s the LIE that Jack Smith is trying to tell the Supreme Court.
The argument is that Trump (and any president) is immune from criminal prosecution regarding acts taken in fulfillment of a president’s DUTIES,, such as assuring that elections aren’t tampered with on a scale that would alter the outcome of an election, as happened in 2020.
“Neither Trump nor his lawyers have EVER claimed that Trump — or any president — is immune from criminal prosecution”
That’s what Trump’s lawyers are arguing: absolute immunity.
“a scale that would alter the outcome of an election, as happened in 2020”
There is zero evidence of outcome-altering fraud in the 2020 election.
Zero evidence of “outcome-altering” fraud. So can you tell me exactly how many votes were fraudulent?
I didn’t make a claim about exactly how many, so I have no responsibility for your question. If YOU want to know how many people were charged with voter fraud, look it up for yourself. If you have evidence of other people engaging in fraud but not being charged, you should contact the local DA.
Anonymous – it is timely that you bring up again the “no proven fraud” claim relaying to the 2020 election. Breitbart currently has on its website an article entitled “Survey: More than 1-in-5 Mail-In Voters Admit to Cheating in 2020 Election” by John Binder, 12 Dec 2023. I’m sure you agree that all As Americans concerned about the future of our democracy should read this article. This was the real insurrection.
I didn’t say that there’s “no proven fraud,” so don’t attribute that to me. Yes, there was some proven fraud, and people have been charged and convicted for it.
What I said is: There is zero evidence of outcome-altering fraud in the 2020 election. Hopefully you understand the difference between what I said and what you substituted.
As for your Breitbart headline, if you look at Heartland’s reporting, it says it was “a poll of 1,085 likely voters.” LOL. The issue is whether ACTUAL voters engaged in outcome-altering fraud. They do not say how large the subsample of actual 2020 voters was. And Heartland says nothing else about the sampling (national? age brackets? etc), important for assessing the results. They don’t show the actual survey. So no, absent all of those important pieces of information, I don’t think it’s an important article.
My mistake: Heartland adds a bit more info about sampling, but doesn’t provide the survey itself nor provide the single-most important piece of sampling info: how large was the subsample of people who actually voted in the 2020 general election?
1 out of 5 is 20 per cent. That is a number sufficient to change election results. The fact that the full effect of these irregularities has not been shown is due to the fact authorities are not interested in pursuing the issue, having been frightened away by the “election denier” label. Let’s all hope that a second Trump administration finally takes a comprehensive examination of 2020.
Again: they did not say the number of ACTUAL 2020 Voters in their sample; their sample was comprised of LIKELY future voters and the questions limited to mail-in ballots, not all ballots. It’s a totally stupid way of sampling to try to understand what occurred among actual 2020 voters. Also, they did not provide access to the survey itself. You are over-interpreting the results. And comprehensive examinations of 2020 already occurred, not only state by state, but also by the firm that Trump hired.
“the questions limited to mail-in ballots.” Yes, that is what I was referring to. In-person ballots are secure, and mail-in ballots are not. This is not an insignificant number of ballots. According to the Heartland Institute, “43 percent of 2020 voters cast ballots by mail ” That is not much less than HALF of all ballots cast. I do not believe that “comprehensive examinations of 2020 already occured.” There cannot have been a systematic and comprehensive examination of mail-in ballots unless the genuineness of signatures on all ballots were compared to the signatures on absentee applications and unless compliance with the rules for “gathering” and depositing ballots in designated boxes have been verified. Do you have evidence that that was done across the country?
“mail-in ballots are not [secure]”
I’ve worked for my local Board of Elections dealing with mail-in ballots, and I disagree. Have you ever examined one?
You also totally ignore the point about likely future voters versus actual 2020 voters.
” I do not believe that “comprehensive examinations of 2020 already occured.””
OK, we disagree about that.
Love that tiny minded “look it up” and “tell the DA” crap. Useful when you don’t have a leg to stand on.
It’s useful and appropriate when someone attempts to make you responsible for reporting info that’s not your responsibility, oh tiny-minded one.
how so?
He is arguing that he is immune from prosecution for actions taken as President within his official responsibilities. The same as the rule for private civil actions already established.
Yes, absolute immunity for that. He’s claimed things like “the law provides absolute immunity ‘for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of [the President’s] official responsibility,'” and “immunity doctrines strongly favor the conclusion that absolute Presidential immunity extends to immunity from criminal prosecution.” He also argues that his acts were official acts; otherwise, the rest of his argument falls apart.
But the acts in question weren’t within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. They were actions taken as a candidate who wanted to stay in office past the end of his term in office, overturning the results of an election he lost. Also, as Smith notes, “Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requir[es] that the indictment’s allegations ‘be accepted as true,'” and the indictment alleges that the actions weren’t part of his official responsibilities.
Trump also argues “this reasoning [i.e., arguing he’s not absolutely immune] would entail that the President has no immunity from civil suit as well—a position the Supreme Court has long rejected,” once again conflating official vs. unofficial acts; the courts allowed E. Jean Carroll’s civil defamation suit against him for statements made while President, as they found the statements to be outside his official duties. He compares himself to a judge having absolute immunity, but they’re not immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken outside their courts.
Perhaps SCOTUS need not resolve the question of “immun[ity] from prosecution for actions taken as President within his official responsibilities,” if they agree that Rule 12 requires the court to treat the indictment’s allegations as true.
I just read the following comment elsewhere and thought it might interest you: https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/12/13/donald-trump-says-he-can-only-work-over-christmas-if-hes-planning-a-coup/#comment-1028438
I replied to your nonsense, but Turdley’s webmaster as seen fit not publish it — AGAIN. This is a failed website, by many measures.
“I’ll have those ——s voting Democratic for 200 years.”
– Lyndon Baines Johnson
___________________________
$25 trillion for the War On Poverty since 1963.
We can’t see the forest for the trees?
You communists have been fixing, rigging and buying elections for centuries.
The entire American welfare state is a purchase of liberal votes.
____________________________________________________________________
“Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship”
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.
The New York Post alleged leaked emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop showed the then vice-president was helping his son’s business dealings in Ukraine.
Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship.
Zuckerberg said that getting the decision wrong “sucks”.
“When we take down something that we’re not supposed to, that’s the worst,” Zuckerberg said in a rare extended media interview on the Joe Rogan podcast.
ADVERTISEMENT
The New York Post story was released just weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, which Mr Biden won.
It claimed that a laptop, abandoned in a repair shop by Hunter Biden, contained emails which included details of Hunter introducing a Ukrainian energy tycoon to his father and arranging a meeting.
Critically, it fed into long-running unproven allegations about corruption on Joe Biden’s part to ensure his son’s business success in Ukraine.
In that context, the New York Post story, based on exclusive data no other news agency had access to, was met with scepticism – and censored by social media outlets.
Zuckerberg told Rogan: “The background here is that the FBI came to us – some folks on our team – and was like ‘hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that’.”
– BBC
(Trumpet blast)
Hear ye hear ye
Comes now before this sacred blog, the dishonorable Dennis McIntyre, court jester for King Donald J Trump, herald for all things Ridiculous, Lord of the Russian hoax, Keeper of the Alpha bank files, and guardian of the pee tape. He brings ominous tidings from the brilliant legal minds of leticia gonna get him james, fani who dat willis, and jack a$$ smith, as well as plagiarized nonsense from the pages of Vox, Media-ite, and teen vogue.
Come nigh and listen.
Yep good old Danny is staking all of his hopes on a couple of diversity hires and a four time loser
It seems your analysis is also missing the concerns of double jeopardy. There is something to be said about the 2nd impeachment trial and acquittal for the same or similar conduct that JS is now trying to assert additional crimes.
There is no double jeopardy. The Senate is not a court of law. It’s a political body.
Wrong AGAIN, fish-breath. For impeachment proceedings, the Senate IS a court of law, with 100 jurors.
Nope. In fact, many of the Senators explicitly stated that they were voting against conviction because he was already out of office and could be tried in the legal system.
How many was many, precisely?
Did you ever listen to McConnell’s speech on the subject?
As far as the exact number, look it up. Trace the interview history of every R senator on the subject.
Eb
If you beleive you are correct – then you will have no problem proceding with your legal cases following the normal process.
But that is NOT the case – Whether you like it or not most of Trump’s legal challenges have a great deal of merit.
He probably will not win them in exactly the way he wishes. But Jack Smith is not going to win on them either.
Civil and criminal immunity are radically different, and Trump is likely to prevail on his civil immunity claims.
Why – because you left wing nuts never think your arguments through.
If Trump is subject to civil suit for actions as president, then so is Joe Biden – people damaged because Biden refuses to enforce immigration laws could sue him personally.
You Idiots NEVER think about how your claims will work when used against you.
While Personally I thin that the immunity we afford those in government – and it goes far beyond the president, though the president inarguably has the highest degree of immunity, is too great, that is NOT what 2 1/2 centuries of court cases say.
I would further note the immunity argument is far stronger than you wing nuts claim.
It is likely that the president DOES have “near” absolute immunity as president. Especially when acting as president.
Further this has been DOJ’s position for decades. The reason a president can not be indicted is because of that immunity.
The constitutions remedy is impeachment, trial, and removal. Trump WAS impeached over J6. There was a senate Trial. Democrats LOST.
Trump was not removed. Constitutionally to be prosecuted, he would have to have been impeached and removed.
Of course Trump’s strategy is delay – as is Biden’s.
So what ?
Both Trump and Biden are entitled to make use of every benefit the law allows them.
The house needs to go to court for an order enforcing the subpeona against Hunter Biden.
That will take time thought he outcome is certain. Then Hunter must testify. He does not get to dictate how that testimony must take place.
He can try to persuade the courts if he wishes.
Democrats were required to afford Navaro and Bannon the same, but they did not. According to precident YOU created DOJ is obligated to prosecute Huner Biden NOW – fat chance. So all we have is another example of left wing nuts making rules for thee but not for me.
Regardless of the merits of Trump’s appeal issues – and the merits are far greater than you claim, Trump is entiled as is every criminal defendant to try to speed up or slow down his trial however he pleases. He is also entitled to the normal due process – and that includes – Smith not engaging in queue jumping.
Finally nearly everyone KNOWS these cases are all dead bang losers and will die after the election.
The various Trump trials, the Biden impeachment – they are all political efforts to influence the 2024 election.
The problem Democrats have is that the Republican strategy is working – it is increasinglyu evident to voters that Joe Biden is and always has been a crook who put his own interests ahead of the country and who has LIED like a rug about it.
Conversely there is no there there in the Trump prosecutions. We KNOW what Trump did in 2020. Some of us think he did the right thing – challenging a corrupt election. But Only lunatic lefties beleive that challenging the messiest and most corrupt election fo the past century is somehow a crime.
We know what Biden did – he took money in return for excercising the public power of the VP vested in him – that is bribery.
And each new stone turned makes it look worse – and there are lots of stones left.
But there are no stones to turn regarding Trump. We all KNOW what Trump did and said. Some of us did not like it, and many of us cheered him on. Regardless, the left has had to bend fold spindle and multilate the law to pretend that it was a crime. And most people are not buying it.
You are trying to manufacture crimes where there are none.
You are trying to abuse law enfocement and courts to influence an election.
It should not surprise anyone that Corrupt Biden is corruptly using executive power to cheat in an election.
“Otherwise, a president could step outside the Oval Office, shoot someone dead, and claim he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Does anyone think the Supremes would endorse that preposterous proposition?”
Yes,
Presidents kill people all the time. Presidents kill US citizens all the time. Obama asserted that as president he could drone a US citizen in the US.
And that is true.
We have a process for dealing with this – it is called impeachment.
If a president does something – such as murder someone, you impeach them, try them in the senate, and remove them and then prosecute them.
If you can not succeed – then you are done.
Every US president in my lifetime has ordered the murder of people in violation of laws.
Trump was impeached over J6, Democrats lost at Trial.
The issue is DEAD.
I’m sensing 0-5 for Jackie-Poo.
“From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear — if not complete — legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).
Smith prosecuted Arizona congressman Rick Renzi on corruption charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. Renzi was later pardoned by former President Trump. Renzi declared that he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).”
~https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself
This is good comedy. Trump 2024.
This is dystopian drama. Biden 2024.
MCINTYRE
Your mission, ObamaBot Dennis McIntyre, should you decide to accept it, is to perpetuate the usual, absurd, convoluted, political prevarication you undertake daily on the Turley Blog.
As always, should you or any of your ODM Force be caught or killed, Obama will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
This tape/disc will self-destruct in five seconds.
Good luck, Dennis.
Dennis McInlyre, aka Mr Alpha Bank:
Please state for the record if you stand with the 30% who say the economy is good, joe biden is not a crook, and the pee tape is real.
Jonathan: I know it is the Holiday season and you have a “wish” list. All the things you think could derail the criminal prosecutions of DJT. So let’s take them in order.
First, in the Florida docs case Judge Eileen Cannon has proved she is in DJT’s back pocket. She previously tried to interfere with the FBI investigation of the docs recovered from Mar-a-Lago and was slapped down by the 11th Circuit. Now she trying her best to delay consideration of CIPA requirements hoping it will ultimately cause the 5/4/24 trial date to slide. That’s not Jack Smith’s fault. The onus is on Cannon who has, to use your words, “undermined that schedule”.
Second, while Judge Chutkan has stayed her proceeding in the Jan. 6 case, it doesn’t mean her 3/4/24 trial will necessarily been postponed. DJT has tried to delay and delay and appealed her decision that he is not entitled to absolute presidential immunity from prosecution. That issue is before the DC Court of Appeals. In a brilliant move Jack Smith has gone directly to the SC to resolve the issue of presidential immunity. The SC has asked DJT’s attorneys to respond by Jan. 20. That means that if the Supremes agrees to hear the case it could be on a fast track for resolution before the DC case is set for trial. The SC realizes this is a case of supreme importance. Whether a president is immune from criminal prosecution.
What is bizarre is that you could argue that even if Jack Smith gets convictions in either the Mar-a-Lago or the DC cases DJT could still be re-elected and give himself a “self-pardon”. That’s unprecedented and has never been done in the history of the presidency. Such an act would create a dictatorship in which the president is above the law. No doubt the Founders would recoil in horror by such a proposition.
Now the reason Jack Smith wants his trials before the 2024 election is because voters are entitled to know whether they are voting for a convicted felon. DJT knows that would be an important issue for voters and why he is desperately trying to postpone the trials until after the election when he can short circuit them by a “self-pardon” or through his crony AG.
What is remarkable is that you, as a constitutional scholar and law professor, have apparently adopted the position that DJT should not be held accountable crimes while in office–at least not until after the 2024 election. If I’m wrong please answer this Q : Is a president absolutely immune from criminal prosecution? How should the SC rule if it decides to take up the case? That’s the issue that you should address but so far you have avoided.
Hey Dennis, how did that House vote go yesterday? Did Doo-rag Raskin get his way?
Asking for Svelass
Svelass also wants to know the legal definition of “absolutely immune” and how that differs from “immune”. He says he’ll pay your $850/hr fee.
Svelaz lives in Tomass’s head, rent free.
Thanks for that Mrs. Peetape
In other Trump legal news, Trump’s appeals of Judge Engoron’s gag orders and contempt findings in the NY civil fraud trial have all been dismissed by the appeals court on procedural grounds.
Tom: Sorry, but I charge $1,500 per hr. If you want the definition of “absolute criminal immunity” send me a check for that amount and I will give you an expedited response.
A great argument for ChatGPT.
“Now the reason Jack Smith wants his trials before the 2024 election is because voters are entitled to know whether they are voting for a convicted felon.”
You couldn’t ask for a clearer statement that this case is about partisan politics and not justice. Thanks!
What’s wrong with that? The jury decides guilt or innocence based on the facts in evidence.
Trump has his loyal supporters thinking a jury decides the verdict based on whether they love vs. hate the accused. Total bs. Lame defensive. Courts are places where lies run into rules of evidence, where mere speculations and beliefs run into countervaling facts. Courts are the best system ever conceived for resolving conflicting narratives. Juries almost never get it wrong (yep, O.J. is the exception).
The whole idea that you can get 12 random Americans to first agree on wrongheaded lies, then form a unanimous verdict based on those lies….that hasn’t happened in nearly 70 years, when the last jury nullifications in the South occurred.
I deeply resent spreading the pre-buttal that Trump finding of guilt next year will be a corrupt, biased jury.
It’s no different from his pre-excuses given in 2020 that “if I lose the election, it will be because it was rigged”.
The man’s moral compass is magnetically aligned to his narcissistic ego. There’s only one principle it operates on: “I’m right, you’re wrong”. “A free and fair election is the same thing as me winning it”. Justice is equivalent to “I get away with it or I’m found innocent; and my opponents found guilty”. It’s a 5-year-old world view.
“The jury decides guilt or innocence based on the facts in evidence.”
Not in Washington, DC.
Absolute nonsense, the voters want to voice their approval of President Trump in the voting booth. You leftist morons want President Trump convicted because you are cowards are terrified that he’ll win in 2024.
He’s said that he wants to be a dictator on Day 1, wants to ignore the Constitution, wants to give big tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting Social Security and Medicare, wants to fire thousands of civil servants and replace them with loyalists, … Damn straight that I’m worried that he win. But none of that is the reason I want him convicted. I want him convicted because the evidence shows that he’s guilty.
Would you be willing to wait until after the election to see him convicted? If what you are saying is true, then a few months either way shouldn’t matter. Either way, justice would be served.
I thought not.
“Jurors almost never get it wrong.”. I don’t think you practice law. Under the best of conditions, jurors are ordinary people, subject to natural limitations. Jury verdicts are often overturned or modified on appeal. Where politics are involved, esp. racial politics, jurymen can be easily intimidated. Ask Derek Chauvin.
@paulsperry_
16h
In retrospect, the first impeachment against Trump, launched by Pelosi and Schiff, was actually a cover-up of what are now impeachable offenses by Biden #BurismaBribes #QuidProJoe
URGENCY: is that what Smith is saying? Urgency for what? If there truly is urgency why not take all the Federal charges against President Trump before the Supreme Court. I know there are steppingstones that are custom but are not the various cases before the courts urgent considering the upcoming election cycle. The courts have on occasion jumped the steppingstones for expediency. Is the Supreme Court not the highest in the land, why waist the lower courts time with something that will end up on the Supreme Court docket anyway? The judicial action against President Trump smells to high heaven, it sure isn’t the aroma of lilacs in spring air.
The lower courts are, in large measure, “waist!”
What? The District Courts are where all Jury verdicts come from…..where defendants go to be found guilty (and others not-guilty). In civil suits, it’s where liars go to be held liable. In both types of cases, it’s where lies go to die. Juries are the brilliant architecture to hear evidence and serve as finders-of-fact.
This is an essential role, since we’ve seen how journalists cannot be counted on for factual portrayals of reality.
Federal criminal prosecutions only take place in District Court. Your question sounds like you think a federal defendant can get their trial moved up to a “friendlier” appeals court (or SCOTUS). No, it doesn’t work that way.
Trump will be tried in the DC District Court. If the Jury finds him guilty, the best he could do on appeal is to get a retrial at the same District Court level. More likely, he’ll be sentenced by that Judge, and ordered to report to
federal prison ( maybe given a month or 2 time to prepare to begin serving his sentence).
Appeals Court cannot change the Jury Verdict established at District Court, nor can they change any of the facts of evidence found by that Jury. Appeals Courts only hear defects in Procedure or Law Interpretation. SCOTUS only takes cases where an Appeals Court has left an important legal principle dangling, ambivalent, or out of line with the Law and Constitution. They don’t most cases that are asked to be reviewed.
pbinCA,
For the record, precisely how long will Real President Donald J. Trump’s federal prison sentence be?
That’s up to the judge and will depend in part of whether the jury convicts on all counts or only some counts.
“That’s up to the judge and will depend in part of whether the jury convicts on all counts or only some counts.”
Brilliant and informative. Would you mind citing your reference??
-10 points for failure to recognize sarcasm and a rhetorical question.
Idiot
What you’ve said is certainly true for every case where the question of presidential immunity is not involved. This is the first of it’s kind where a president has been indicted, not accused via hearsay, but actually being challenged in court, for charges of acting outside Constitutional powers and duties. There’s no precedent to guide anyone because the issue of immunity for a president hasn’t yet been litigated/decided. Seems like skipping to the end to determine that factor first is the right call in the current case(s). Taxpayer dollars and a whole lotta time potentially wasted could be saved instead.
It’s been litigated at the appeals court level in civil cases (e.g., when Trump was found liable for defaming E. Jean Carroll and appealed — the appeals court ruled that Trump does not have absolute immunity).
” Seems like skipping to the end”
Nope. It’s up to SCOTUS whether to grant cert or not, and if they choose to grant cert — as they’ve done in dozens other cases prior to appeals court judgment — then it’s not “skipping,” just part of the legal process.
The defendant being an ex-Prez is new, yes. But the principle at question is not. The President cannot be arrested or sued for actions taken in carrying out the Duties of Office. Campaigning for another term is NOT, and has NEVER been found to be part of an elected incumbent’s duties. Just the opposite — it’s legally outside the zone of protection. Since Trump was trying to substitute his wishes for the votes of the People in the States, that would be post-election campaign continuation.
It’s similar to what Nixon got busted on….his cover-up of the Watergate was not protected as a duty of Office. Trump’s connivances will get classified as not official duty. The protections don’t apply because of that. End of case.
“Trump’s connivances will get classified as not official duty. The protections don’t apply because of that. End of case.” That has yet to be determined since every charge is based on Trump being President at the time of the alleged crime(s), thus the purpose for excalation to the highest Federal Court, yes? Jack, not Trump, wants SCOTUS to decide the immunity question since it will eventually be challenged to that Court anyway (presuming DC juries and courts rubberstamping the prosecution of a ‘policial enemy’, of course. DC and the Northeast are solidy Blue with no chance to get a 50-50 representation in a court setting.) Why Trump is questioning the skip and possible SCOTUS voicing in favor of him is the bigger mystery to me.
JAFO, you talk like the facts and law won’t matter to the Jury. What a crock….have you ever been a Juror? Watched Court TV much? It’s not a bit like DJT says it works (the jury decides based on whether they love you or hate you). That’s just lame defensive bs…how DJT has always handled conflict. He can’t imagine Pat Cippolini telling the jury “We warned Rudy many times that the plot was criminal….Eastman admitted the SC would vote to uphold a Guilty Sentence 9-0.” The word we got back from Rudy was “He doesn’t care”.
One could say SCOTUS is the ultimate jury…which begs the question, why is Smith in such a hurry now with a such a poor win-loss record in past SCOTUS rulings?
SCOTUS is not a jury, any more than any other judge is a jury.
Except for Engoron in New York State. But thanks again for that brilliant, informative information. So helpful.
Engoron wasn’t the jury. The judge in a bench trial is the judge; there is no jury. That’s why he’s called Judge Engoron in this very case.
No, he’s called Judge Engoron in any official setting, and probably by his husband as well.
-10 points for again not recognizing sarcasm
If you need that explained further, simpleton. Were he to appear in a hearing before congress, they would call him Judge Engoron, even though, in THAT case, he would be merely a witness. So yea, he is *acting* as judge, jury and executioner, all while being called Judge Engoron. Now you see the ridiculousness of it all. Good boy.
Per your statement “only takes cases where appeals….”, was jump in 2000? I say procedures be damned. This whole fiasco is unprecedented, and the lower courts will surely be challenged.
We’re talking about federal criminal cases. The Bush-Gore 2000 standoff was not appealing a criminal verdict.
Jonathan:
I’ll title this You Ain’t Got Nuttin’ On Me, Coppa!
I’d like to formally acknowledge what a lefty stooge I am, and apologize for dropping another steaming turd for your readers to tolerate. Recently, I came to your austere site and began rambling on about how the Republicans were going to fail miserably at their misguided attempt to open an impeachment inquiry. I pointed to Mr Ken Buck, the slime ball lame duck RINO from Colorado as evidence of my gangsta assertion “they ain’t got nuttin’!!!” I leaned heavily on him as the voice in the wilderness, the only one who could see the truth. Well, I still maintain he is the only honest, trustworthy politician in Washington, so I guess the allegations have merit after all, since he voted yes.
I also rambled on about the wonderful work of Jamie “Doo-rag” Raskin, and how he was visiting Republican holdouts, pitching the “they ain’t got nuttin'” defense to them. Now, when I watch him speak, I just want to take a shower afterwards.
It turns out, Hunter himself may have gotten this vote across the finish line. Parading to the Capitol, and standing on the Senate steps, a few feet from the jurisdiction of the House Sargent-At-Arms, he mocked the elected Representatives of the people of the United States and proclaimed once again that he is above the law. He brought along Eric Swallowell, just for some street cred lol. If there is any justice, he will soon share a cell with Steve Bannon in a 4 month prison sentence. But I digress.
I would like to apologize for my misguided attempts to make light of what I now see could be the greatest corruption scandal in American history. I will be back from time to time, between now and next November, to eat more crow and apologize for other steaming turds I’ve left behind.
—-Dennis McInlyre aka Mr. Alpha Bank
Alpha Bank: What are you REALLY? The “steaming turd” is a dead giveaway. You must be Tom.
Has anyone seen Turley’s opinion on the merits of the charges and how they align (or not) within the scope of Consitututional Presidential Powers and Duties? He keeps saying Jack has a strong case but never seems to elaborate on which parts make it a case at all, let alone a strong one when compared to other President’s and VP’s who’ve done the same things. Also, has he mentioned how exactly these cases are NOT interfering with the upcoming Federal election?
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is racist.
Who would ever believe that colored people are racist.
SCOTT ADAMS: As you know, I’ve been identifying as Black for a while – years now – because I like – you know, I like to be on the winning team.
TSIOULCAS: He went on to call Black people, quote, “a hate group” and added…
ADAMS: The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the f*** away. Wherever you have to go, just get away because there’s no fixing this. You just have to escape, so that’s what I did. I went to a neighborhood where, you know, I have a very low Black population.
Wonder what would happen if Mattie Parker, the mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, sent out invitations to a “white’s only” Christmas celebration to ALL of the employees of the city.
The African tribal leaders who initiated slavery were racist.
What!?
Congratulations Turley, you have successfully weaponized stupidly for your Trump Cult. To please them, your willingness to frame any subject to their level has been to distort, distract, and outright gaslight them. You have jumped right into their swamp of misinformation that they seem to love and need to be told what they want to hear. Facts and evidence have no place here on Turley’s “law Blog”……..
“Facts and evidence have no place here on Turley’s “law Blog”……..”
No, just steaming turds like the one above^^^^
There’s a story out of Oklahoma this morning that had me thinking about the Democrat’s mission to imprison Biden’s main political opponent. A 24 year old rodeo star was on a lake duck hunting and after taking down a duck, he stepped into a drop off, his waders filled with water and he drowned. With Biden, his waders filled up long ago and the duck is still flying high.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but the desperation by the Democrats to take out the lead duck won’t change the fact their candidate is rotting away.
Beware of a preacher. He is tall and lean. There’s something about his eyes.