Below is my column in The Hill on the concerning record of Attorney General Merrick Garland on a variety of recent matters, including a frivolous privilege claim to withhold the audiotape of President Joe Biden during the Hur interview. There is a certain corruption of judgment that is evident from this and other decisions by Garland since he became Attorney General.
Here is the column:
This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland took to the pages of the Washington Post to lash out at critics who are spreading what he considers “conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself.” His column, titled “Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end,” missed the point.
It is Garland himself who has become the problem. The solution is in Wilmington, Delaware, where 12 average citizens just showed a commitment to the rule of law that seems to be harder and harder for the attorney general to meet.
Since his appointment, Garland has repeated a mantra that he is apolitical and would never yield to the pressures of politics or the White House. When he was nominated, I believed that claim and enthusiastically supported Garland’s confirmation. He was, I thought, the perfect man for the job after his distinguished judicial service as a moderate judge.
I was wrong. Garland’s tenure as attorney general has shown a pronounced reluctance to take steps that would threaten President Biden. He slow-walked the appointment of a special counsel investigating any Biden, and then excluded from the counsel’s scope any investigation of the massive influence peddling operation by Hunter Biden, his uncle and others.
However, it is what has occurred in the last six months that has left some of us shaken, given our early faith in Garland.
I have long been a critic of Garland’s failure to order a special counsel to look into the extensive evidence of corruption surrounding the Bidens. As I stated in my testimony in the Biden impeachment hearing, there is ample evidence that Biden lied repeatedly about his knowledge of this corruption and his interaction with these foreign clients.
However, a more worrisome concern is the lack of consistency in these investigations. First, Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden knowingly retained and mishandled classified material. However, he concluded that Biden’s age and diminished faculties would make him too sympathetic to a jury. It was less sympathetic than pathetic, given that this is the same man who is running for re-election to lead the most powerful nation on Earth. More importantly, Garland has not made obvious efforts to reach a consistent approach in the two cases by dropping charges based on the same crimes by Trump in Florida. (Such action would not affect the obstruction counts).
Second, Garland has allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to maintain positions that seem diametrically at odds with past Justice Department policies. This includes Smith’s statement that he will try Trump up to (and even through) the next election. It also includes a sweeping gag order which would have eviscerated free speech protections by gagging Trump from criticizing the Justice Department. While Garland has said that he wants to give the special counsels their independence, it falls to him to protect the consistency and values of his department.
Garland’s most brazenly political act has been the laughable executive privilege claim used to withhold the audiotape of the Hur-Biden interviews. The Justice Department has not claimed that the transcript is privileged, but only that the audiotape of Biden’s comments is privileged. This is so logically disconnected that even CNN hosts have mocked it.
The Justice Department went further in court by adding conspiracy to absurdity as part of its unhinged theory. It asserted a type of “deepfake privilege” on the basis that the release of the audiotape could allow AI systems to create fake versions of the president’s words. It ignores that there are already ample public sources now to create such fake tapes and that, by withholding the real audiotape, the Justice Department only makes such fake copies more likely to arise and ensnare the unwary.
Most importantly, the arguments of a “he-who-must-not-be-heard” privilege or a deep-fake privilege are ridiculous. Garland knows that, as would any first-year law student. Yet, he is going along with a claim that is clearly designed to protect Biden from embarrassment before the next election. It is entirely political and absurd.
After stumbling through a half-hearted defense of the audiotape decision before he was held in contempt of Congress, Garland was faced with another clear test of principle. Three House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means) this month referred for prosecution cases of perjury against Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden. Despite what appear to be open-and-shut allegations that they lied to Congress, most everyone in Washington believes that Garland and the Justice Department will slow-walk and then scuttle the referrals to protect the Bidens.
This is the same Justice Department that seemed on a hair-trigger to prosecute Trump officials for perjury and contempt after referrals from Democrat-controlled committees.
The questions at issue were not “gotcha” traps, like showing up at Michael Flynn’s office to nail him on his description of a meeting with Russian diplomats. These were some of the most-discussed questions heading into Hunter Biden’s long-delayed appearance before the committees.
Hunter is accused of lying about his position at Rosemont Seneca Bohai, a corporate entity that moved millions of dollars from foreign individuals and entities to Hunter Biden. He also allegedly lied about the identity of the recipient of his controversial message to a Chinese businessman, in which he threatened that his father was sitting “right next to me” and would join him in retaliating against the Chinese if they did not send millions. They promptly wired the money as demanded.
Hunter’s answers appear to be demonstrably untrue. Yet, there is little faith that the Justice Department will allow the matter to be presented to a grand jury. If Garland’s pledge to remain apolitical were widely accepted, there would be little question about the prosecution of such compelling claims.
Garland now appears entirely adrift in his own department. While mouthing platitudes about being beyond politics, he continues to run interference for the Biden White House. He appears to be looking to close aides for such direction.
He should instead look to those 12 people in Wilmington, Delaware.
Despite facing overwhelming evidence of Hunter Biden’s guilt, his legal team pursued a jury-nullification strategy. Wilmington is Bidentown, the hometown for the president and his family. An array of Bidens, including the first lady, lined up behind Hunter during the trial, in case anyone forgot that fact.
Yet the jury convicted Hunter on all counts without any hesitation. Despite sympathy for a recovering drug addict in a town that has overwhelmingly supported the Bidens for decades, “nobody mentioned anything about political motivations” in the jury room, as one juror noted. “I was never thinking of President Joe Biden,” said another.
Garland needs to show a modicum of that courage and principle as attorney general. He could start by dropping the farcical privilege claims over the audiotape and sending the referrals to the U.S. Attorneys Office for the same priority treatment afforded to Trump officials like Flynn.
As it stands, few believe that will happen, despite Garland’s repeated line about transcending politics. It is not the mantra that is in doubt, but the man.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University School of Law. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
“You can’t make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Garland forgot that – if he ever knew it to begin with.
NOT Lincoln. Lincoln never said that or anything like it. The source for your quote, slightly tweaked, is William John Henry Boetcker (1873–1962)
I’ll take that correction.
Largest crime in US history.
Jail all involved, especially Garland.
Anonymous said: “Largest crime in US history.”
It is undeniably serious, but hardly what you claim. Just off the top of my head, I think the false flag incitement of the Spanish-American War was a worse crime, as was McNamara and LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin lie, and I’m reasonably certain there are others of comparable or greater magnitude.
Always funded by the Rothschilds war machine Bank.
Jail ? Club GITMO is better choice… Hold em all in the general population…
The murder of JFK by the (!@.
See below as turdrunner just realized that on Jan 22nd 2025, biden will be indicted for violating
18 USC 1984
REGARDING ABOVE:
Floyd James Estovir is the one and ‘only’ Turdrunner. No one but Floyd has ever used that name.
The name is tom, turdrummer
I am a healthy 62 year old man who still plays baseball.
Floyd is medically disabled, and is the one who mind fvcked you well before i ever came to this blog.
I am curious, Peter Shill, who you think your audience is, when u say this shit.
Turdrunner is the name i gave you. Own it. Love it. How chickenshit you would give up brandrunner just because i ridiculed you. What a little kunt.
There is no such section. Title 18 skips from §1968 to §1991.
That was a typo. It is 18 USC 1924
Enjoy
I wonder if Gigi thinks the photo of Crying Chuck was a “cheap fake”.
No smoke or flame, the gas nobs turned off, raw meat with cheese on it. Chuck was grillin’ out for fathers day.
Shumer deleted the post when called out.
What the fvck is Shumer doing, cooking on a GAS grill????
Last September, Turley Told Comer’s Committee They Had No Case
One of the panel’s expert witnesses, law professor Jonathan Turley, acknowledged that the evidence Republicans had gathered so far, however, doesn’t prove their case.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” he said, but noted that he does believe it warrants an inquiry.
Asked later by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., where the Republicans’ evidence is lacking, Turley said on the issue of influence peddling and whether the president was aware of it and “encouraged it.”
Some Republicans were also unhappy about how the hearing went. A senior GOP aide said that Comer’s strategy of feeding Fox News impeachment stories is not working and that “we are losing the media narrative game to the White House right now.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-hold-first-hearing-biden-impeachment-inquiry-rcna117657
……………………………………………
We don’t remember any specific column when Turley announced that Comer finally had the smoking gun. So where does Turley get off labeling Merrick Garland ‘corrupt’?
This move to hold Merrick Garland in contempt is coming straight from Donald Trump. And everyone knows it! And Turley, like every good MAGA loyalist, is taking orders from Trump.
DNC troll. ^^^^ do not reply
DNC troll vvvvvv
While I think Turley was incorrect last september – that does not matter.
I would note that Turley did NOT say “do NOT investigate”
“Turley said on the issue of influence peddling and whether the president was aware of it and “encouraged it.”
That has been established now. The testmony of verious members of the Biden family and others places Joe in meetings with those seeking influence.
And confirms that Joe had significant involvment in Hunter’s influence peddling business.
Frankly – though the GOP did not dwell on that – the Biden’s have been selling influence for DECADES
“We don’t remember any specific column when Turley announced that Comer finally had the smoking gun.”
Correct, there is not “one” smoking gun, but many.
More bad news for Nazi Merrick Garland. Looks like Judge Cannon has placed a 🎯on his boy Jack Smith.
How does it feel to be in the crosshairs, Merrick?
….
“Judge Cannon Grants Landmark and Tillman’s Request To Participate In Oral Arguments”
“This week, Judge Cannon granted Landmark and Professor Seth Barrett Tillman request to present arguments in support of its amicus brief seeking to declare Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment unconstitutional. Landmark and Tillman argue that Smith is not an “Officer of the United States.” At most, his temporary position is characterized as a mere “employee.”
For the Special Counsel to exercise the powers he is exercising, he must be an officer. And to be an officer, a position must have continuity. The Special Counsel is something else – an employee – because his position is not continuous. The hearing is scheduled for June 21st.”
https://landmarklegal.org/
amicus brief here: https://landmarklegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LandmarkTillmanAmicus.pdf
Thank you, Legal Eagle, and much obliged for the Doc link..!
This was a problem for Mueller also.
But it is actually worse – though Smith does not qualify to be an SC,
The FACT is there is no SC law.
There used to be an IC law, but republicans and democrats jointly chose not to renew it towards the end of the Clinton administration.
As SCOTUS just said in the Bump stock case – the executive can not create law from thin air.
There is no IC or SC law today.
We should remedy that. We might even need a constitutional amendment to do so.
But even if there were an SC law and it was constitutional – which what we have in the way of DOJ regulations is not on many levels,
Absent a constitutional amendment the SC would have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
There is no getting arround that – and Garland should know better.
But we have repeatedly seen that he has either participated in or been blissfully unaare of unconstitutional actions by the DOJ and then done nothing about them.
The Tape Subpeona is classic – Nixon lost the claim that a transcript was sufficient 40+ years ago.
Right now Garland should be prosecuting himself – just as he did Bannon and Navaro.
In FACT Garland has LESS of legal leg to stand on – as the tape vs transcript issue is decided law.
DOJ can relitigate it if they wish – but in the meantime they MUST comply.
Over and over We have seen FBI or DOJ engage in blatantly unconstitutional acts under Garland.
First Garland denies knowing.
Later he claims to be outraged and to have put a stop immediately.
He also claims the issue was small on never turned into action.
And then finally denies congress the ability to investigate – claiming a priviledge of “ongoing investigations”.
There is no such priviledge.
Congress can investigate in paralell with DOJ/FBI and demand everything DOJ/FBI has on the matter.
They should be careful as they do so – several Iran-Contra convictions were tossed because congress effectively gave those testifying immunity by making them testify.
Congress is absolutlely free to investigate malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ – with the understanding that a Congressional investigation might prevent a criminal prosecution.
Does anyone beleive that Garland is going to criminally prosecute agents who violated the civil rights of others under color of law ?
Often it is more important to KNOW what DOJ/FBI are upto than to successfully criminally prosecute their targets.
Thank you and Touché, Professor Turley…!! ..who would have thought that Garland (..yes, we agree, this once ‘moderate’ even-keel judge..) could ‘shrink’ even further than exposed in your extraordinary column of 8-16-22, ‘The Incredibly Shrinking Merrick Garland…’ but.. now, as you have so masterfully described (part 2..), indeed, he is so ‘shrunk’ in stature both as an AG and as a man, he can be fittingly fit ‘into a shoebox’ as the old saying goes… Tragic for him and for us.
There’s no way Garland is guilty of anything. He is smiling in the picture, for one.
Plus the ‘No One Is Above The Law’ Dems would’ve put a stop to him, if he was bad.
Because they’re so very concerned about justice, democracy, not wasting tax dollars, etc.
TALK ABOUT YOUR ALL TIME GASLIGHTING
IS TURLEY IN ON IT?
Every act of unlawful handling of classified material isn’t goddam ESPIONAGE.
18 U.S. Code § 1924
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Does anybody see the word “willful” in there?
I repeat
Does anybody see the word “willful” in there?
How about you, bug. Mr mens rea. You see the word willful?
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home. However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“willfully retained” is not the standard.
“knowingly retained” is the standard.
What your goddam intent was with the info is only an issue with respect to the ESPIONAGE ACT.
You need “PROOF” that he retained it knowingly?? Its in the report. He bragged to the ghost writer that the staff took his note cards but not his notebooks, which he ALSO bragged contained classified information, and indeed did. TOP SECRET SCI information about confidential human sources in fact!
18USC1984 IS A CRIME
Hur used the word “willful” or “willfully” over 100 times in his report. I guess since Comey got away with that gaslighting horseshit with Hillary, they decided to pull it again.
THE POWER – UTTERLY, CATEGORICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY
_________________________________________________________________
Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the power of the executive branch.
The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp any aspect, facet or degree of the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.
No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify, dispose of, and archive material is constitutional.
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
Says who? Since when is that inherently an executive power? Classification is a creation of statute; Congress invented the concept in the first place, and therefore has the full authority to modify it as it chooses.
Says the U.S. Constitution.
The executive branch does not negotiate with the legislative branch to determine powers the executive branch is provided by the Constitution.
Executive power is not in question.
The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
The legislative branch has no power of classification, declassification, disposition, and archiving of materials.
NOTE
18 USC 1984 IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE HUR REPORT
WHY???
How does it feel to be gas lit by EVERYONE?
There is no such section in Title 18.
18 USC 1924.
If you read my original post on the subject, you’d know that.
My apologies for the confusion.
The way comments are presented on this site makes it impossible to read them in order.
Fair statement. Its pathetic, really
Waters,
Can you clarify what you are arguing
(a) is ONE of several crimes identified in the espionage act.
This was discussed long ago with the Clinton nonsense.
I beleive the standard in (f) is negligently
and in (e) is recklessly
ALL require “intent” – but the standard of intent for e&f is very low.
Much like the standard of intent for homicide when driving drunk.
It requires that you were knowingly negiligent or knowingly reckless.
It does not require that you even knowingly retained – only that it was likely that your negligent or reckless actions would cause classified material to be unprotected.
But ultimately the Espionage act does not and can not apply to presidents. And if can only apply to ex-presidents with respect to actions they took AFTER leaving office.
There are other caveats that are also specific to ex-presidents. But the above is more than enough to distinguish Trump form Biden, or Pence or Clinton.
I am not sure why it unclear to you.
18 USC 1924 is NOT the espionage act.
CLEARLY Biden and Hillary were not engaged in espionage.
They should both have been investigated and charged under 18 USC 1924.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e) Is the standard Hur uses in his report. This requires “willful” intent to break the law.
Why? Because its the goddam Espionage Act. Punishable by 30 years in prison.
This was not an act of espionage.
GASLIGHTING.
It was an unlawful act to knowingly possess classified materials when/where he was not authorized to do so. He KNEW the information was classified and he KNEW he possessed it. Read it again. The word willful is NOT there.
18 USC 1924
What else he did or didnt know or what his intent was is immaterial.
Felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
Don’t even get me started about the Vice President’s lack of need to know with respect to a host of information. They’re all a bunch of law breakers
Wonderful to see the GOP embracing people of color !!
It doesn’t matter if you’re white, alabaster, milky, porcelain, snowy, chalky, cream, frosted, ivory, pale, pearly, eggshell, or ivory, you have a home in today’s GOP.
Those were mostly Whites at that Black church in Detroit. But Trump thinks his felon status will be a big draw with Blacks.
It is
Whatever the reason large groups of people are abandoning Biden and some of those are embracing Trump.
If it is not because they identify with Trump being wrongfully convicted, what does it matter – they are still dropping Biden and moving to Trump.
Typical: anonymously charging an entire political party with racism. What does your comment have to do with the discussion?
Wait! Are opinions unconstitutional? Are opinions on race unconstitutional.? Who dictates the opinions of once-free people? Was the Naturalization Act of 1790 unconstitutional in its requirement that people admitted to become citizens must be “free white person(s)?” Were the American Founders unconstitutional?
No, because it preceded the 14th amendment. Any such law after the 14th amendment would be unconstitutional.
He is a white douchebag. Ohhhh the Irony!!!
About as much as all the other garbage, nonsense, and self-important foolery that passes for “discussion” here.
no, less really
May we end welfare, SSDI, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, public housing, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum now?
Racist assclown
The war has begun. US House should send the Sergeant at Arms and arrest Merrick Garland, then place him in the basement of the House
“FBI suddenly cancels Capitol Hill briefing on warrant-proof encryption”
The two briefings, scheduled for Tuesday and Thursday, have been indefinitely delayed but no further details on the reason for the cancellation have been released. The FBI said it hopes to reschedule the briefings at a later date.
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fbi-suddenly-cancels-capitol-hill-briefing-warrant-proof-encryption
President Donald J. Trump must pull a full “Crazy Abe Lincoln,” deny all illegal alien invaders, deport all illegal alien invaders, close the border, start a war with invading Mexico et al., impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, and repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Would one of you brilliant legal scholars please cite the Constitution for a legal basis for Social Security and/or Medicare?
Article 1 Section 8
Doesn’t really matter if you like it, George. LOTS of brilliant legal scholars disagree with you. Go find one and see if you can convince them.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The trick is plausibly characterizing the “general welfare” clause, then rationalizing the equitable but unequal redistribution of shares.
General – ALL, THE WHOLE
Welfare – WELL PROCEED
_____________________________
Basic infrastructure required by the general public:
Roads, water, post office, electricity, rubbish collection, sewer, and other commodities and services that are not readily available in the private sector.
Even you are reading more into the general welfare clause than is intended.
I beleive there is an explicit constitutional provision for roads. Though MOSTLY those are state and local government matters.
There is an explicit provision int he constitution for post offices.
Electricity, Rubbish, Sewer etc are OUTSIDE the domain of the federal govenrment.
They are state and local government powers.
We have lots of federal laws regarding those – but they all tend to work as follows:
The federal governent collects taxes, and then transfers that money to the states in return for their passing laws that meet the wishes of the federal government.
This is why many federal programs are administered by the states.
George said: “Roads, water, post office, electricity, rubbish collection, sewer, and other commodities and services that are not readily available in the private sector.”
Generally, the most significant reason that those infrastructure and service elements are not available from the private sector market is that government has long asserted and enforced a monopoly on them to itself. In fact, there have been a number of fairly recent exceptions to that list: road building and maintenance; rubbish collection; potable water supply and distribution; and sewage disposal have all been established very successfully in some large, privately-owned, housing developments without government involvement. Regarding the post office, UPS does a far superior job of package delivery, and, if not restricted by law, would probable eclipse the USPS wrt ordinary mail, as well. NTM, that paper mail itself has largely been supplanted by electronic document delivery methods, none of which are provided by the government. In sum, the need for central government for services beyond common defense from foreign adversaries, is highly exaggerated, and largely a myth.
Sorry, but the General welfare clause has NEVER been read by SCOTUS as a grant of power.
Nor will it – there is no way to attach any meaning to it that does not give congress infinite power.
The General Welfare clause only authorizes taxes; it doesn’t authorize spending, let alone regulation. All it says is that one of the purposes for which Congress is authorized to lay taxes is the general welfare. The program the taxes are intended for still needs to be based on one of the enumerated powers.
The General Welfare clause only authorizes taxes; it doesn’t authorize spending
What the fvck are you talking about???
Let me help you.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
That’s taxing AND spending for general welfare. Like it or not.
General, all or the whole, well proceed.
No, it is not spending; the first item in the enumerated powers authorizes Congress to raise taxes to provide for all those things. It doesn’t authorize Congress to do those things. For that Congress must rely on one of the other powers enumerated in that section.
Congress can raise taxes for only three purposes: To pay the national debt, to provide for defense, and to provide for the general welfare. No other taxes are allowed. But it can’t do anything that it isn’t specifically authorized to do, even if it is in the interest of the common defense or the general welfare.
So, if I were authorized to take from you to pay your home insurance, that’s the end of it, right?
LMAO
Yep, you need another clause to allow you to pay it.
Bwahahahahaha
Millhouse
Perhaps you can explain how Congress can tax for the general welfare.
How does taking money from people do anything for general welfare.
Answer: it doesnt.
Thank you. Can you be a little more specific? Article 1, Section 8 is rather lengthy and comprehensive.
In fact, Article 1, Section 8, severely limits and restricts taxation by Congress to debt, defense, and general Welfare,” which can only mean basic infrastructure as in ALL WELL PROCEED, understanding that the benefit and entitlement programs I presented serve a very small segment of the population, not at all general, of those over 65.
Additionally, there is no enumerated power to regulate retirement income and healthcare coverage, again, for those over 65 only.
Perhaps you mean your redefinition and misinterpretation of Article 1, Section 8.
You asked for legal scholars. I said go find you one. there are plenty
There were plenty of legal scholars that said that Colorado could remove Trump from the ballot.
Constitutionality is not determined by the consensus of legal scholars – especially since we have abandoned constitutionality as being determined by what the constitution SAYS and when we do not like it – amending the constitution, for the “living constitutionalism” of scholars trying to decide what they WANT the constitution to mean.
If it does not say what you want it to, work to amend it.
And they all know more about the law than you.
TDS is not at issue here.
The power of congress wrt social security and medicare is not “a consensus of legal scholars”.
Gaslight much?
comprehensive
Yep
What is this ‘all well proceed” nonsense? It’s literally gobbledegook, and it certainly isn’t what “general welfare” means.
Your “legal scholars” do not constitute fundamental law, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Your “legal scholars” have no bearing on fundamental law, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The partial members of the judicial branch who high-criminally legislate from the bench, deliberately misreading those basic documents, are as corrupt as Merrick Garland et al.
You provided no citation of the Constitution or legal basis for Social Security and/or Medicare, both of which are clearly and flagrantly unconstitutional.
As I said previously, the singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
GENERAL WELFARE
ALL WELL PROCEED
NOT ONE, A FEW, OR SOME
“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the [general] welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Merriam-Webster
ad libitum
adjective
ad lib
adverb
1: in accordance with one’s wishes
2: without restraint or limit
ad labia
its funny how george uses miriam when he chooses and “fundamental law” when he doesn’t
Now that is the very essence of high caliber debate, effective rebuttal and definitive refutation.
I am at your mercy, Sir.
Congratulations!
Who the fvck is he??? LMAO
George is a moron—-Thomas Jefferson
I believe he also said it is the duty of all Americans to pay as little tax as possible. I DO like that one though.
Obama said Americans should pay their “fair share.”
45% of Americans, his legions, pay no taxes at all.
That’s fair.
Touche’
provide for the [general] welfare of the Union.
Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation.
Your false statement is proof of what?
Spastic idiot non savant says Hamilton didn’t argue that??? LOL look it up.
Proof that there was debate among the “founders” about what the power of Congress should be.
Odd that you need that explained to you. Google Schoolhouse Rocks!. That might be helpful to you.
And Hamilotons plan was rejected at the constitutional convention.
James Madison and other Democratic-Republicans argued that the Clause authorizes spending only when it implements other powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
Today about 1/3 of a states budget is monies from the federal government to perform tasks that are not granted tot he federal government in the constitution. @
While Hamilton had a role in getting the constitution ratified,
Madison WROTE it.
Regardless, it is pretty trivial to grasp that pretty much any reading of “general welfare” that are not constrained by the enumerated powers of congress in the constitution,
results in infinitely powerful federal government able to do anthing it pleases.
Madison wrote the constitution
Is this Svelaz?
there is that danged word again
general welfare
NOT “the specific welfare of EVERY individual citizen”
There are no legal scholars here.
Just a bunch of pathetic losers who know less than nothing about what they talk about.
Classic Dunning-Kruger.
Is that the entirety of your contribution? Rather than prosecute ad hominem, why don’t you elucidate and edify with particulars?
He is including himself.
It ain’t exactly the Algonquin Round Table.
I like that!
See below for Gigi’s daily steaming turd vvvvv
NUTCHACHACHA,
I want “free stuff” and “free status.”
Free, free, free, free, free!!!
I wants fair taxation!
But it ain’ts no ways fair ifn I has to pay!
The only word I can attach to today’s purchased piece of malarkey is : shame. Turley uses the phrase “corruption of judgment” to describe AG Garland because he’s paid to, and he bases this attack on: 1. there is supposedly “massive influence peddling” going in that involves Joe Biden. Where’s the proof? Why haven’t Republicans come up with any proof, despite multiple hearings and witnesses? If there was proof, then why hasn’t it come forth? More importantly, who benefitted? Who paid? What was the quid pro quo?; there are no answers to these questions because there are no facts to support them. “Massive influence peddling” and “Biden Crime Family” are common MAGA themes–all as a distraction to the actual criminal, DJT, now a convicted felon. WHY should AG Garland go after a “massive influence peddling” operation that exists only in MAGAsphere and which, based on the House hearings, have no basis in fact? 2. Jack Smith intends to try Trump ASAP, even through the election and he sought a gag order. How are these things “corrupt”? According to Turley, the stolen documents case is the strongest of the cases against Trump, who has proven that he has no qualms about disclosing classified information to show off–like he did when the bragged to an Australian billionaire about how close our nuclear submaries could come to Russian submarines without being detected. Trump has done everything possible to delay justice for stealing the documents, lying about declassifying them, moving them around to prevent their return and then playing the victim. The SCOTUS, containing 4 invalid (in the opinion of many because they lied to get onto the SCOTUS) Republican-appointed judges, has also delayed the trial on this charge by refusing to deny certiorari on the appeal of the ruling that Trump has NO immunity. So WHY should Jack Smith delay the trial–because Trump wants him to? because MAGA media whine about it? If Trump isn’t guilty, then you’d think he’d welcome a speedy trial to put all of this behind him, but he knows that he’s guilty and is counting on “winning” so he can pardon himself. Allowing this to happen would be a gross miscarriage of justice. The delays are not the fault of Jack Smith, much less proof of corruption.
3. Then, there’s the refusal to hand over the audio tape of the interviews with Biden on the grounds of executive privilege. I would add law enforcement privilege as well, as investigatatory notes and recordings are usually considered privileged if a party is not charged with a crime. Turley hasn’t explained WHY the audio tape is needed since they have the transcript, and Hur has not claimed it is inaccurate. We know that the RNC is capable of misrepresenting audio and visual images–like the false claim that Joe Biden “wandered off” at the G-7, when he turned to salute paratroopers. The RNC X video omitted these details. They endlessly attack Biden while ignoring Trump’s gnorant comments that many would consider a sign of mental derangement–like referring to the “late, great Hannibal Lector” and talking about a battery-powered boat sinking and electrocuting passengers while shark is approaching. Then, there’s the time he claimed that he offered “Nikki Haley” 10,000 National Guardsmen, that he ran against Barak Obama in 2016 and that if you live anywhere near a windmill you will get cancer and your home will lose 75% of its value. Turley and the RNC never mention these gaffes.
Now, Turley’s free to disagree with Garland on the subject of privilege, but that doesn’t make him corrupt–except in MAGAsphere. 4. Turley claims that statements by Hunter Biden “APPEAR TO BE demonstrably untrue” because he “allegedly” lied and is “accused of” lying. Notice the little qualifiers “APPEAR TO BE”, ACCUSED OF” AND “ALLEGEDLY” but Turley nevertheless claims there’s “overwhelming evidence of guilt”–for something that only APPEARS to be untrue? Shame.
Turley also throws in gratuitous criticism about Hunter’s attorney pursuing jury nullification and criticizes Jill Biden for attending the trial. HOW does this fit today’s little trash piece about AG Garland’s alleged “corruption of judgment’? AG Garland was not defending Hunter Biden, and, unlike Trump’s family, Hunter’s family loves and supports him. Turley ends with: ” It is not the mantra that is in doubt, but the man.” The same could be said for Jonathan Turley, but I actually don’t have ANY doubt about the fact that he sold his credibility to help elect a convicted felon. Turley does not give Garland credit for not firing Weiss and Hur, both partisan hacks.
HORSE SHIT FROM GIGI^^^^^
A goofy 4 year old’s thumbs up is not a salute. He saved that for the Italian PM and Hunters wife on the tarmac.
LMAO so goofy.
Gigi, last year Turley went before Comer’s committee and told them they didn’t quite have anything on Biden. And I don’t recall any developments that changed that status. Yet now we’re supposed to think Merrick Garland is ‘corrupt’..?? Sounds like Turley’s corrupt for even making that pronouncement.
Excerpted from “The Daily Beast”, dateline June 17, 2024:
“The practice of deceptively editing and circulating clips of political opponents, dubbed recently as “cheap fakes,” is increasingly being used in recent weeks by Republicans and conservative publications, especially to highlight problems relating to Biden’s age.
Sunday’s video features Biden and former President Barack Obama on stage at the conclusion of a star-studded fundraiser in Hollywood, taking in the crowd’s cheers. The president and his predecessor had just sat through an interview with late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for more than a half hour at Los Angeles’ Peacock Theater.
After they wave to the applauding crowd for nearly a minute, Obama reaches out and gently touches Biden on the arm before they walk off stage together.
As is often the case with recent “cheap fake” stories, the Republican National Committee first posted a misleading clip to its RNC Research account on X that cut the entire lead-up to the seemingly innocuous moment.
The New York Post then used a similarly clipped video under the headline “Biden appears to freeze up, has to be led off stage by Obama at mega-bucks LA fundraiser.” The Daily Mail, Newsweek, Breitbart and a host of other conservative outlets also followed suit, prompting outrage from the likes of Piers Morgan and hundreds of others on social media.
In a statement to The Daily Beast, White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates suggested that the growing trend was indicative of these publications’ collapsing journalistic standards.
“Fresh off being fact checked by at least 6 mainstream outlets for lying about President Biden with cheap fakes, Rupert Murdoch’s sad little super pac, the New York Post, is back to disrespecting its readers & itself once again,” Bates said. “Their ethical standards could do with a little unfreezing.
“By pretending the President taking in an applauding crowd for a few seconds is somehow wrong, all they’re really admitting—once again—is they can’t take on the leadership that’s fueling the strongest economic growth in the world, bringing violent crime to a 50-year low, restoring manufacturing jobs from overseas, and strengthening our alliances.”
The New York Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.
Last week, the New York Post made its story on Biden “wandering” off at the G7 conference the cover of its print edition, under the headline “MEANDER IN CHIEF.” The only problem with its story? The photos—and the accompanying video on its online story—left out an alternate angle which showed that Biden was simply congratulating a skydiver who had just made a landing near a group of world leaders.
Earlier this month, the same group of publications followed the same script to suggest that Biden had again “frozen” while on a dance floor at a Juneteenth celebration—while conveniently cutting the video to exclude the people standing right next to the president.
Just a few days earlier, Trumpworld influencers used a 13-second video to suggest that Biden had pooped his pants at an event in France meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing. Many of the same right-wing outlets also covered the claims.
But even some in Trumpworld cast doubt on the absurd claim, with one Republican strategist telling The Daily Beast at the time: “I don’t know what Biden was doing. It looked weird, but was he shitting his pants? I don’t know.”
The strategist, who requested to speak on the condition of anonymity, added: “This is the influencer internet wars of spreading disinformation or semi, he practice of deceptively editing and circulating clips of political opponents, dubbed recently as “cheap fakes,” is increasingly being used in recent weeks by Republicans and conservative publications, especially to highlight problems relating to Biden’s age.”
Turley wants to talk about “corruption” because Garland opposes giving an audio tape of interviews in a case in which Biden is not going to be prosecuted–how did he overlook this pattern of intentional dissemination of disinformation?
^^^^More HORSE SHIT FROM GIGI
WHO CHEAP FAKES HERE DAILY
Gigi, your daily TDS confirmation bias rant is way wrong, as usual.
How about if instead of the possibility of deep fakes being produced
–which is certainly something the Dems have never done,
selectively editing clips to suit their narrative/ campaign strategy–
there will be NO recordings made from now on, of anyone?
Why even know who the President is? Just leads to possible troubles.
Basement Campaigns for Everyone!!!
The Gigi way.
No Biden adds out there misquoting or taking Trump out of context, right, Gigs?
NARRATOR: Nothing Gigi posted above is true.
Gigi;
I am guessing that Garland’s refusal to turn over the Biden/Hur interview tapes is a turning point for Turley.
Garland’s position is legally absurd – it is 10,000 times WORSE than the claims of Navaro or Bannon.
This is a DECIDED legal issue – Nixon LOST and had to turn over the tapes – a transcript was NOT sufficient.
Garland was a federal judge and a supreme court nominee – he KNOWS better.
We have heard YOU rant about the criminality of refusing to comply with subpeona’s.
Why aren’t YOU here demanding the Garland lock himself up ?
The REALITY is failure to comply with a subpeona is NOT a crime.
But it DOES subject one to legal jeophardy.
The subpoenaing body has multiple choices.
Get a court order to enforce the subpeona – which was NOT done in the Trump, Navaro and Bannon cases. If the court order is violated then civil and in SOME cases criminal penalties apply.
The other choices is to draw adverse influences from the refusal to provide subpeoned material.
That is LITERALLY how the law works.
Garland refuses to provide the audio of the Hurr/Biden interview – Congress can then Conclude as a legally binding finding of fact that Biden was non-compix mentis in the interview.
This is the actual rule of law, it is the same for democrats and republicans – though you would not know that watching the way that Garland/DOJ apply the law.
And that is Turley’s point.
While I have explained the REAL law regarding subpeona’s.
The BIG reason that Turley has turned on Garland is because Garland and large numbers of democrats are DROWNING in hypocracy.
Many of us – Turley and myself included had hoped that Garland would be a voice of reason and a return tot he rule of law.
Barr attempted to restore the rule of law in DOJ and FBI. Had Garland continued that we would not be in the legally insane world we are now, where the same prosecutors and judges decide cases differently based on who they are going after.
That is the epitomy of the rule of man not law.
Garland had the oportunity to show us all why he should have been confirmed as a supreme court justice.
Instead he has proven why we all dodged a bullet.
Like Turley I had high hopes for Garland.
They have been dashed. Garland is a massive hypocrite who wields the law as a weapon against enemies.
The law is supposed to protect our rights.
Although I”m not a big fan of Mitch McConnell, but every day I thank him for having the b*lls to hold up Garland’s nomination. I can’t imagine what he would have been like on SCOTUS
PetrK is Floyd James Estovir with another deceptive puppet posing as a nonpartisan. Floyd posts these deceptions several times per day.
Anonymous is turdrunner, who lost his screen name when his mommy stepped on it in a drunken stupor, returning home from her glory hole gig at the local pool hall
There have been 326 comments in less than 12 hours since JT posted his 2-day old Hill column, more than half by the trolls. One can sense the desperation in the Left.
Floyd James Estovir is the only troll that matters. And more than half the posts are his.
Anonymous is turdrunner, also known as Peter Hill, who apparently got cornholed so extensively by Floyd, that he returns daily to display his Tourettes related illness of calling out random names.
Signed—-Not Floyd
Professor Turley,
You write: “The Justice Department went further in court by adding conspiracy to absurdity as part of its unhinged theory. It asserted a type of “deepfake privilege” on the basis that the release of the audiotape could allow AI systems to create fake versions of the president’s words. It ignores that there are already ample public sources now to create such fake tapes and that, by withholding the real audiotape, the Justice Department only makes such fake copies more likely to arise and ensnare the unwary. Most importantly, the arguments of a “he-who-must-not-be-heard” privilege or a deep-fake privilege are ridiculous. Garland knows that, as would any first-year law student. Yet, he is going along with a claim that is clearly designed to protect Biden from embarrassment before the next election. It is entirely political and absurd.”
But this was NOT the basis for the claim of privilege. Using the link YOU provided to your Hill article, you refer to Edward Siskel’s letter to Comer, which YOU link to here: https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-16.Siskel-to-Comer-and-Jordan-re-Privilege.pdf
Let’s look at the actual words of the letter, then.
“The President has a duty to safeguard the integrity and independence of Executive Branch law enforcement functions and protect them from undue partisan interference that could weaken those functions in the future. As you know, the Attorney General has warned that the disclosure of materials like these audio recordings risks harming future law enforcement investigations by making it less likely that witnesses in high-profile investigations will voluntarily cooperate. In fact, even a past President and Attorney General from your own party recognized the need to protect this type of law enforcement material from disclosure.
The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes. Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally-protected law enforcement materials from the Executive Branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate.”
Basic reading comprehension tells us the following:
1. The reason for asserting privilege was that providing audio recordings may jeopardize the ability for law enforcement to obtain such recordings in future cases.
2. The reference to potential audio distortion was a conclusion drawn, rather than a legal rationale for failure to comply.
Regarding 1, here is the reference to Michael Mukasey’s (George W. Bush’s AG from 2007 to 2009) Letter: https://www.justice.gov/file/523056/dl?inline
There is no plausible way to read Edward Siskel’s letter and to draw the conclusion that it was asserting a “deepfake privilege.” It is a disservice to your readers to distort the words of this letter. Ironically, such distortion is the only actual “deepfake” that has occurred here.
REGARDING ABOVE
Oh look, a troll
looks like I wasn’t fast enough. Wow.
Maybe because of what Garland said to Congress?
….and before anyone blindly tries to defend Turley, please note here that the point is not a normative argument as to whether Siskel is correct. He may very well be wrong. My issue is entirely with how Professor Turley has distorted the actual words of a easily verifiable primary document.
Coming to the defense by attacking Biden or Garland is irrelevant here… If you would like to defend Turley by questioning my understanding of basic reading comprehension, by all means, pick me apart, but if you cannot put politics aside to show how awful this “interpretation” of Siskel’s argument is, then that is truly elucidating.
The President has a duty to safeguard the integrity and independence of Executive Branch law enforcement functions and protect them from undue partisan interference that could weaken those functions in the future.
LMAO where is that duty detailed?
ATS – you seem to confuse the argument of the Garland DOJ with the actual the actual caselaw on executive priviledge.
Regardless, this is a DECIDED ISSUE and Garland and DOJ KNOW it – which is why it was so easy to hold Garland in contempt.
The DOJ remarks are all intestesting – but they are argument – NOT law, and AGAIN the matter is decided.
Nixon was required to turn over the tapes.
Garland and the DOJ KNOW that they are on the wrong side of the law.
Put simply – they are in criminal CONTEMPT of congress.
They should hope that SCOTUS rejects the 18US1512(c) case before it.
Because Garland and DOJ are obstructing an official proceding.
Both the legitimate inquiries of various house committees as WELL as the Biden impeachment committee.
It is NOT up to DOJ to decide what past legal preidents to comply with.
Though we have seen permutations of this from the begining of the Biden administration.
NARA did not go to court to get records back from Trump – they have no legal authority to do so.
Bratt did NOT seek to enforce his subpeona for Classified documents from Trump – because he does not have the authority to do so.
While Judge Howell would have found for Bratt and held Trump and his attorney’s in contempt – SCOTUS would have easily dispatched this.
Subpeona’s are to acquire information – NOT to take possession of property.
We see the same over and over with the Garland DOJ – trying to Bend the law to serve their wishes.
Frequently bending one way when attacking political enemies and another to defend friends.
That is called hypocracy – Dante put hypocrits in the 8th circle of h311 only betrayers are guilty of worse sin.
Well done Merrick Garland. Even blacks are realizing the corruption and lying of Joseph Biden’s administration and you helped you lying coward
‘Speechless!’: CNN analyst shocked at Trump’s spike in Black voter support, ‘huge’ Biden decline
According to the aggregate of Black voter polls, Biden’s share of the Black vote has gone from 86% in 2020 to 80% in 2024. For Trump, his share has tripled from 7% to 21%.
“I keep looking for this to change, to go back to a historical norm, and it – simply put – has not yet,” said CNN data reporter Harry Enten. “It’s not just that Joe Biden is losing ground – it’s that Donald Trump is gaining ground.”
“Right now we’re careening towards historic performance for Republican presidential candidate the likes of which we have not seen in six decades,” Enten said.
The massive shift is mainly in Black voters under the age of 50, the data found.
Per the polls, Biden has lost support in Black voters over 50, from +83% in 2020 to +74% in 2024.
In contrast, his Black vote under 50 has gone from +80% to only +37% – a swing against Biden of over 40 points in just four years.
“Holy cow, folks… holy cow. Look at this. Joe Biden was up by 80 points among this group back at this point in 2020,” Enten said. “It’s now just – get this – 37 points. That lead has dropped by more than half […] I’ve just never seen anything like this. I’m, like, speechless.”
https://flvoicenews.com/speechless-cnn-analyst-shocked-at-trumps-spike-in-black-voter-support-huge-biden-decline/
Garland is Biden’s man at DOJ. He is the most corrupt AG since John Mitchell. Enough said.
you forgot Eric Holder
“The Corruption of Merrick Garland”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
The corruption of Merrick Garland is merely a subset of the total corruption of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” under the Communist Manifesto.
You must understand that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are superior intellectuals in their own minds and ideological fantasyland.
The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is imperative; freedom simply cannot be provided to the unwashed masses (i.e. smelly people at Walmart), and the intellectual elite must prevail and rule.
The American Founders and Framers vehemently disagreed; their thesis was Freedom and Self-Reliance.
American freedom would have constituted an entirely different result, one based on absolute and unfettered freedom, absolute and unfettered free enterprise, absolute and unfettered free markets, absolute and unfettered private property, and absolute and unfettered self-regulation under severely limited and restricted and constitutionally mandated, infinitesimal government.
The entire communist American welfare state is an egregious corruption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, as it has been since 1860.