The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. However, it is not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith will yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.
Smith has long tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.
It is doubtful that he will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision. In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the current indictment.
That is not Smith’s style. He may decide to push even harder for a trial before the election on the remaining counts. Smith has made the trial before the election an overriding priority throughout his appointment. He also has a very favorable and motivated judge in United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan.
He could also take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence. Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.
Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.
However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:
“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”
Notably, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence. However, Smith and Chutkan could reason that it was not expressly rejected and presumably, the three justices in dissent would support the broader reading since they were willing to sign off on the ultimate extension of the obstruction of justice statute. That includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
However, that still leaves less than a majority and an application that runs against the grain of the opinion. Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.
The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.
Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would likely, in my view, result in another reversal. It is, in my view, too clever by half.
That may not concern Smith who may still want to use the obstruction counts to increase the likelihood of convictions on the other counts. In such a circumstance, the overturning of the two obstruction convictions might still leave the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
We will see in the coming weeks, but Smith is likely waiting for the other shoe to drop in the Trump immunity case. That could add additional complications if the case is remanded by the Court for further proceedings. There is little time for a trial before November if the district court must hold hearings on claims that statements or actions were taken by Trump as part of his office.
Chutkan sought to meet Smith’s demand for a trial before the election by converting her court into a virtual rocket docket. The cost of the fast pace was that she created little record on these issues. That might have to be done in a remand and will exhaust additional days on the rapidly shrinking calendar for Smith.
Either way, Monday will throw the final card on the table for Smith and the Court will determine if what is left in his hand. It may not deter Smith. It often seems like both bad gamblers and special counsels tend to double down on weak hands. If history is any measure, Smith is likely to bet the farm on whatever remains.
The problem is that the farm does not belong to him.
They broke into the Capitol building while they were counting votes to elect the President. That is the very definition of an insurrection. An attempt at keeping in office the person that lost. You failed.
The fact you obfuscate around that simple fact is truly disgusting. History will treat all of the trump supporters very badly in the years to come. if it looks like an insurrection, smells like an insurrection, it is an insurrection. you are all lucky to be alive. In every other country on earth, an insurrection ends in the death of those that failed. You failed. Be thankful Demos are so gracious.
Yes, and Joe Biden is a decent, honorable man who is known for telling the truth. Bwahahahaha.
My post said nothing about Biden. Are you incapable of reading?
Why did 1000 people break into the Capitol Building on Jan 6, 2021?
Because the doors were closed? Isn’t it “the people’s house”? Haven’t you ever locked yourself out and had to break and enter your own house? 🤔
Oh, its 1000 now??
LMAO
“Dems are gracious”…
Talk about detached from reality. Man, get a grip.
How many insurrectionist did the Demos put to death after Jan 6, 2021?
They broke into the Capitol – boo-hoo-hoo – granny walked around the Capitol and scared aoc, whaaaaaaa. The only way Trump supporters will be treated poorly by history (in years to come…lol) is if dems win elections, because everyone is treated poorly when that happens – look at every place they govern – turns to $hit.
Odds are likely more than a couple insurrectionists have been anally raped with a broomstick in jail, quite harmfully, since 1/6. How else could some hit such notes in their recording efforts???
So you admit they broke into the Capital Building? Why did they do that?
Reading for comprehension.. try it.
“So you admit they broke into the Capital Building? Why did they do that?”
So you admit you’re illiterate?
I regard this comment to be an “insurrection”. It broke into this comment section to make an irrelevant and mainly untrue remark (most of the demonstrators walked in) designed to keep in office a man who is set to lose the election. “Looks like” and “smells like” an insurrectionary gesture.
It was a riot. Taking part in a riot is a misdemeanor. Property was damaged and tragically an officer killed an unarmed woman.
In reality riots are part of mass hysteria. The failure was lack of capitol preparation in angry crowd control. The participants are jailed for succumbing to what is naturally occurring if negligence is present.
It was entrapment.
That is the very definition of an insurrection.
😁 Right. Now define “Woman.”
If the time ever comes when an actual insurrection becomes necessary, it won’t be during an unarmed and escorted tour of our nation’s Capitol.
What does taking part in an insurrection have to do with the definition of Woman?
What does “the very definition of
taking part inan insurrection” have to do with the definition of Woman?Had you considered the logical question, you may have stumbled upon the answer yourself. That of course was a leap too far.
Olly, Peter Shill failed to mention that…
In every other country on earth they require voter identification.
In every other country on earth they stone pedophiles.
In every other country on earth they hang or shoot traitors
On a lighter note, secret video camera in the DNC Headquarters has recorded what is taking place around Joseph Biden’s debate performance. They appear to be having a feast, all gathered together, laughing like a group of hyenas. So all is good at the DNC!
NB: no man over the age of 80 was hurt in the making of this video
😉
Wonderful pictures of George and his family.
The SC says differently.
Your mind is so broke, you cannot tell fantasy from reality.
Lol:) … at least your reference to gracious.
The Government disagrees with you.
The magnetically locked doors were opened and the Capitol police escorted people around. You should probably look up and learn the definition of ‘insurrection’ before you start throwing the word around.
Pardon my naiveté, but it looks like Jan 6 was more of a poor attempt to have grievances be heard that was provoked to become rioty. Given the number of people present that day, had a sizable fraction been armed(aka a real insurrection) neither the capitol police nor the 10k national guard troops that Vodka Skeletor refused to deploy would have had a snowball’s chance in hell of stopping them. Dems should be thankful that it was NOT an insurrection. Instead they seem hell-bent on creating violence either by provoking Real Americans or by sending forth their own hordes of rabid flying monkeys. They seem determined to create a terrible outcome for everyone. Sort of an evil, criminal tantrum to get what they want.
There is a bit of good news in this for Justice Sotomayor: she no longer holds the title of stupidest justice.
Sotomayor voted to uphold the 18US152(c) convictions – she STILL stupider than Jackson.
In the case of the fake electors the alteration of records applies.
They HAD to alter the records in orders to falsify the certification of the “alternate” electors. Which were not certified according to the law.
The obstruction charges is a small issue. They can still be charged with trespassing and assault. Trump’s obstruction charges are different because it still involves destruction, deception, and willful retention of documents that did not belong to him.
Spastic idiot non savant with incoherent rambling
Maybe I’m stupid but creating a document for an alternate set of electors does not destroy or alter the original docs, nor does it prevent the legislature from receiving them. Also, isn’t an alternate set of electors required in the event that the courts or a Constitutionally aggressive VP invalidated a corrupt set of electors? So much overreach, so little honesty.
Not when the alternate electors were not certified according to the law. Forgery is a crime. Most electors had no idea they were chosen or that they were legitimate.
WRONG
John,
I will admit that it is an interesting, if somewhat disgraceful, contest betwixt the two.
The DEI people have not shown at all well in court, academy or commerce.
“We have political prisoners in this country. Man. That’s wild. We used to read about this stuff in social studies and history. Communist countries and how they would imprison their enemies. Or worse. Now it’s here.” @Cernovich
Wake up.
Further tales from the left.
TONE deaf column
Nancy Pelosi talking about senility in Donald Trump and democracy (you know the transparent thing) in which she exposes her own shaky intellect.
Also a new evaluation of Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union. – That is destruction of papers (obstruction), I hear the Queen of Hearts approaching, “off with her head”.
Further news from the tone deaf left-Awarding the Pat Tillman award to Price Harry (who, by the way, is no longer a prince)
Good one, GEB, (perhaps DOCTOR Jill Biden will present the award to the Prince.)
Lin- one good only hope. Of course there would be no audience.
I sense no matter what the outcome of the SC decision the democrats will not stop their attacks. Their mantra of “democracy is at risk” is the most accurate and true statement they’ve ever made but their the risk. If you’re a poker player you look for your opponents tell, the democrats tell is they blame you for what they’ve done or about to do. Regardless of how badly the performance of the “debate” you can bet there’s a democrat black swan sitting somewhere on the lake.
They have no choice but to continue – they have no options left.
I heard it on the grapevine. The W.H. doctor who told us earlier this year that Joe was fine and fit as a fiddle (except he failed to mention the termites that had riddled the fiddle) was seen in a forest of hemlocks, contemplating his professional future or lack of it.
Obviously the nitpickers were up early today hoping there would be more red meat to devour since “The Debate” on Thursday nite. Instead they have somewhat of an offshoot of the Supreme Court decision on obstruction. Having little substance to really argue about, they go after the spelling and some syntax errors and proof reading. Small minds sort of do that as the go after a tree and suddenly find themselves lost in a forest and realize no one knows they are lost or even cares that they are missing and, better yet, no one is coming for them. An alternative could come up if this question comes back to the court. Justice Barrett may say “well that aspect has already been decided by the majority 6-3 and so I will vote with the now established precedent”
Also “Do what you want and the law will finally catch up” has already been given a name, “Living Constitution”. You know that idea where the words on the paper does not really mean what 99% of the rest of us think they mean.
Meanwhile back in the political world the Biden Counteroffensive has begun.
“You did not really see what you saw”, You did not understand the subtleties of his arguments”, “It was too late at nite and he was tired”, “He had a cold”, “the White House Doctor gave him temazepam instead of adderal, a touch of thyroid , a monster dose of Aricept, and his anti-amyloid drug” and the best one of all from the Philadelphia Enquirer “Trump must drop out because he lies”.
Wow, that would make Washington D.C. a ghost town.
I always thought the Gate to D.C. said “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here” or maybe I just got it mixed up with some other quotation in history or literature.
Gee, poor Diogenes would get about 3-4 blocks into D.C. and then probably drink the left over hemlock from Socrates cup, after he discovered that his search was truly hopeless.
GEB,
Axios is reporting the WH is telling them Biden is only “engaged” from 10am till 4pm. Outside of that, he gets confused or tires easily.
Meanwhile, other WH aides are reporting how much Jill Biden and a few others have kept Joe Biden roped off even from them, limiting access.
So far, Jill Biden is saying Joe is all in, and not going to drop out.
I imagine our enemies are backing another 4 years of a Biden admin. Makes sense why Putin would endorse Biden.
I am thankful if I get to sleep 6 hours. That Biden only has 6 hours in a given day where he is functional tells me he is far worse than what the debate showed.
It should be noted that neurocognitive decline does not, can not, will not reverse, stop, nor improve. It only worsens in time. This is a message every Republican should be running in their campaign ads, from Congress to local city commissioner and school board. Biden is a reflection of Democrats across the country. Frankly Republicans should not even hesitate to use clips and stills of Biden from the CNN debate, juxtaposed against the photo of a Republican running for any office in the nation. A picture paints a thousand words. LBJ knew that with his infamous daisy commercial against Barry Goldwater
Estovir-you are correct. The best we can do at present consistently is stabilize for a time and maybe slow the descent into senility (such an ugly term). Seen and treated it so many times and always it is a tragedy. Seen it in parents, patients, a wonderful brilliant colleague and best fried of 45 years. And many others. If we all live long enough we will get it. Even digital memories degrade so organic ones will fail.
Upstate Farmer- I had read that but I had trouble making a smartass remark on that at the time.
The best I can do right now is “what is the definition of engaged?” I thought Joe and Jill were already married.
Anyway it seemed to tick off Anonymous the Stupid. He is a bit surly today.
GEB,
The amazing part is by reporting coming from Democrats, they are going to run with Biden.
That is right. The Democrats are going to run with their candidate is clearly on the mental decline to lead America, and be the Commander and Chief of the armed forces with access to the nuclear codes.
And by the way, we are not voting for Biden himself, but his “team,” whoever they might be. And they will be the ones actually leading America’s domestic and foreign policies, the armed forces and have access to the nuclear codes.
Wont another 4 years of a Biden/”team” admin be a good time based off the previous admin failures.
UpstateFarmer said: “And by the way, we are not voting for Biden himself, but his “team,” whoever they might be.”
Cue my smart-assed, semi-tongue-in-cheek remark from yesterday’s comments, “Remember, we aren’t voting for the vegetable, we are voting for the gardeners”…
“And it might well be that . . .” (Jackson)
In its maniacal desire to “get Trump,” the Left has shown that it has a fantastic talent for mental contortions.
Great piece, JT. I was wondering what Jackson was up to. Now I know.
Sam: You’re right. But this is not the first time that a SCOTUS justice has dropped a hint to an appellant/appellee, which I have always found wholly inappropriate, irrespective of intention.
If I understand the reasoning, if a litigant presents Exhibit A to a government agency, and another litigant presents Exhibit 1, which in some way challenges the content of Exhibit A, it is a potential obstruction of the proceeding? Lawyers, prepare for jail!
I attended the law school graduation at GW two years ago where the “distinguished” speaker was some Democrat Representative from PA. Her message to the graduating class was “Do what you know is right and wait for the law to catch up to you.” Seemed like an odd message to tell a bunch of new lawyers to ignore the law and do what you want. And the downward spiral continues . . .
The courts improperly and severely restrict the ability of litigants to challenge bad prior caselaw.
Stare Decisis is important it is NOT the word of god.
That said while litigants should be free to challenge the law in court – it is the duty of Judge to follow the law.
Prior caelaw SHOULD be overturned – when it is at odds with the Constitution and/or statutory law
Construing rights broadly and government powers narrowly.
SCOTUS just threw out Chevron Deference – a correct decision. But transfering power from the executive to the judiciary is small improvement if any at all.
It the the role of the executive to impliment an enforce the law. It is the role of the judiciary to establish that the law is constitutional, and to assure that due process is given in enforcement an that the executive implimented the law that the legislature wrote.
It the the role of the legislature to write the law – not the executive.
“ The courts improperly and severely restrict the ability of litigants to challenge bad prior caselaw.”
Standing is a valid reason. Because you must show you are directly harmed. Those who cannot show how they are directly harmed do not have standing to sue. Suing because you don’t like a law is not enough reason to challenge.
Throwing away the Chevron severance was a huge mistake. Congress will never write law as specific as required for judges to follow. Never. They will write law by experts paid for by their biggest donors. Those who only want certain paid experts who will testify only to their preferred views. Since it will be law consumers and voters will not be able to challenge the law at all. Consumers will not be able to match the wealthy donors “contributions” to legislators in the millions or billions making the free market idea a complete joke.
Legislators will rely on their corporate paid experts to draft law favorable to corporations and the ultra wealthy.
Judges will be forced to seek expert opinion regardless and that’s where they will start having problems. Because they won’t be obligated to follow expert opinion. They can choose to assume their own view on scientific or technical issues to arrive at ruling.
It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
“Suing because you don’t like a law is not enough reason to challenge.”
What the fvck has that to do with anything. You love your little red herrings, don’t you?
A Sovereign State, whose CITIZENS are affected by an UNCONSTITUIONAL law, ALWAYS have “standing”.
Why did SCOTUS take the case? Ruling on standing after you’ve granted cert is a horse shit cop out. If the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, in what world does it make sense to wait until AFTER someone has been victimized by the government?
You’d feel differently if YOU were the one imprisoned on a BOGUS law.
Everything else you said isn’t even worthy of a response.
The only reason SCOTUS took the case is because there were opposing rulings.
A sovereign state still has to prove it’s harmed by the statutes being challenged. A citizen of that state must show it is being directly harmed.
“ A Sovereign State, whose CITIZENS are affected by an UNCONSTITUIONAL law, ALWAYS have “standing”.
The Supreme Court is the only arbiter on constitutionality of a law. Not the lower courts. If a lower court seems a law unconstitutional and it’s appealed to the Supreme Court it CAN review the case in its entirety and determine plaintiffs lacked standing. It didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue. The law requires plaintiffs to have clear standing to sue first before considering the constitutionality of a law.
A sovereign state still has to prove it’s harmed by the statutes being challenged. A citizen of that state must show it is being directly harmed.
Cite the law that says that, big mouth
The rules requiring standing to sue also apply to states. Several states were denied review by SCOTUS for lack of standing when they challenged Pennsylvania’s election laws.
OK, 3rd grader, rinse and repeat your illiterate supposition again. It might work if you say it enough.
I notice you don’t bother to say “Oh, I don’t mind if I’m jailed on an unconstitutional law”
PLENTY of SCOTUS cases have been decided when there was no actual harm to the plaintiff.
Oh, and don’t ask me to cite them. Find them yourself.
All those impoverished people the democrats have been creating and the moron administrators who were supposed to protect them from reality and darwin – poof! gone – another democrat failure on top of a democrat failure. The beat goes on.
@Willie
Yeah. I think we all need to brace ourselves for the coming wave of the worst professional class we have ever seen in this country. It is going to make things very difficult for everyone, it won’t be restricted to campuses anymore.
I think the voters deserve the new information that will come out at trial. Unlike the “court of public opinion” which is roiling with deceptive infowarfare and artful cover-ups about Trump’s efforts to remain in Office after losing the 2020 election, Court is where lies go to die and cover-ups to be exposed.
Trump has a beautiful option should trial be scheduled before the election. That is to go on national TV with an interviewer, and come completely clean about his “overreach”, the details of how it was supposed to work, and why he felt it was necessary for the good of the country. In doing this, he would be getting out ahead of any new and damaging info that Jack Smith is planning to break loose at trial.
This is how skilled pols are supposed to deal with crisis management, by getting out in front instead of duck and cover. Trump saved his 2016 campaign after the Access Hollywood debacle by doing exactly this. All it requires is to stop shucking and jiving, and publicly take responsibility for his role leading up to J6. That will take the wind out of the sales of Jack Smith’s prosecution.
It will show the side of Trump people are waiting to see….self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-effacing criticism….a man who is able to put his ego aside for a change.
Interesting strategy. maybe democrats should try it first. However, I haven’t seen a single one come clean and stop “shucking and jiving” about anything over the past eight years.
“Court is where lies go to die and cover-ups to be exposed.”
Oh yes, as shown in the 3 Manhattan trials of Trump.
This might be the most idiotic thing you’ve said to date.
Pbinca – Honestly – New Information ? Really ? You think after 4 years of the press digging, two year of the bogus J6 committee digging, that voters are going to get new information from a trial ?
There was alot of new information I had not heard before in Bragg case in Manhattan – ALL OF IT EXCULPATORY.
There was nothing new and damning. In fact there has been nothing new and inculpatory in ANY of the left wing star chamber trials of Trump and others.
Worse still what we keep learning with more scrutiny i how exculpatory evidence was burried and inculpatory evidene manufactured.
There is absolutely no new inculpatory evidence regarding Trump that has emerged since J6 on any claim at all.
But there is a growing body of exculpatory evidence and a growing body of proof o f the efforts to manufacture exculpatory evidence.
The purpose of criminal trials is NOT to provide information to voters. That is not a legitimate role of govenrment in any form. Our system eschews government propoganda.
Or atleast prior to Obama and Biden it was supposed to.
Voters are informed by a free and we hope unbiased press.
“ The purpose of criminal trials is NOT to provide information to voters.”
True. But, since it IS open to the public it DOES provide information to voters. Which the voters can choose to use or not in making a decision about their vote.
A voter can use ANY information to make a decision. Even from biased press.
“ Our system eschews government propoganda.”
No it doesn’t. Because free speech allows for government propaganda and any other kind of propaganda. It’s up to the voter to decide if it’s true or not. It’s essentially what you advocate for. A free market system.
George – thorough misunderstanding of our constitution – RIGHTS belong to people – there is absolutley no government right to free speech.
There is no goverment right to anything. The government has the POWERS that are granted to it in the constitution. That is it.
Nowhere in the constitution is govenrment given a power to propogandize.
The POWER of government to speak AT ALL is restricted only to that necescary to accomplish its enumerated powers. That is what the “necescary and proper” clause actually means – If the government can enact laws – it can also publish (speak) those laws.
The government is quite litterally NOT the free market. Free markets in their most pure form is anarcho-capitalism – a form of anarchism. While I am NOT advocating for anarchism – though we have an actually functioning system of anarcho-capitalism that has been arround for milenia in the relations of nations to each other – there is no meaningful world government.
Regardless the fundimental purpose of government is to protect the rights of people from being infringed on by FORCE, as free markets only work in the ABSENCE of FORCE.
Hence the word FREE in FREE MARKETS.
Government is LITTERALLY not a free market – except in the sense that you MIGHT be able to leave your current country and pick another country more to your liking – presuming you can get them to let you in – again NOT FREE.
I would further suggest reading the work or Nobel Economist James Buchannon regarding Public Choice Theory. Buchannon studied how the principles that make free markets work play out in Government – and that is DAMNING.
One of the reasons that Government MUST be limited is that unlike Free Markets Government is NOT self regulating.
It takes gargantuan efforts to constrain those in Government from abusing power in both big and little ways.
One of the examples of Public Choice Economics (the failure of free market principles in government) is the allocation of parking.
With very few exceptions businesses allocate parking to favor customers. Employees park in the back. While Government provides parking garages and primo spaces to government staff in order by rank, and “customers” are left to fend for themselves.
This is a small example, but it reflects the self serving nature of government and the FACT that business is responsive to customers, while govenrment is responsive to its own power.
Regardless, you are thoroughly delusional about government.
You do not have even a grade school understanding of rights,
and you do not have the understanding of free markets that an adult engaged in odinary life should have from their own CONSTANT free market interactions.
“ Nowhere in the constitution is govenrment given a power to propogandize.”
It doesn’t say it can’t. It also doesn’t say it can’t speak of issues either. The government CAN engage in propaganda. Trumps administration engaged profusely in propaganda. Because the law doesn’t say it can’t.
It’s up to the citizens to determine what information to accept. You say we can’t trust government. That’s your choice. But others choose to trust government when their propaganda. Freedom of speech applies to government as well. Nothing in the constitution prohibits government from exercising it. It only sets limits on silencing others.
“ The POWER of government to speak AT ALL is restricted only to that necescary to accomplish its enumerated powers. That is what the “necescary and proper” clause actually means – If the government can enact laws – it can also publish (speak) those laws.“
It can also promote those laws. It can discuss those laws. It can speak of how those laws may benefit or harm others. It can defend its laws when challenged. And it can INFORM the public and that includes propaganda. Free speech applies to government as well. There’s plenty of case law supporting it. Trump’s administration engaged in full blown propaganda and it’s legal. Members of Congress do it all the time when they grant interviews or issue statements claiming certain ‘facts’.
Free markets are not self regulating. Not for those who espouse free market values are affected by the lack of regulation. Free markets fail when monopolies form and the only entity capable of dealing with monopolies is government.
“ With very few exceptions businesses allocate parking to favor customers. Employees park in the back. While Government provides parking garages and primo spaces to government staff in order by rank, and “customers” are left to fend for themselves.“
That’s a poor analogy.
Businesses allocate whatever they want to whom parks where. It’s private property. There’s already preferred parking for veterans, police, employee of the month, managers, etc. Hospitals, designate preferential parking spaces for doctors, administrators, and staff. Thats not free market or public choice.
Government does the exact same thing. Just because it’s a government parking lot or garage doesn’t mean you can park anywhere you want. If that were the case you could park on a space reserved for a legislator or other government official just because it’s closer to the entrance.
“ business is responsive to customers, while govenrment is responsive to its own power.”
That’s false, government is responsive to voters. Business is responsive to profit. Customers are secondary. Profit is the prime motivator not the customers.
Free markets in this country is an illusion. Those who “contribute” massively to government dictate the market. Which means businesses rig the market in their favor. The GameStop shorting from a few years ago is a great example. Those small investors should have decimated multiple billion dollar hedge funds and private equity firms if the “market” left things alone. But they weee saved by preventing some people from selling stock and letting others to sell. Thus manipulating the market. That was done without government intervention. It was pure market manipulation to save a few hedge funds from their poor choices.
“The Government has the right to lie to the people, because the 1st Amendment doesn’t prohibit it”
—-Spastic Svelaz George, the idiot non savant
That is exactly true. Absolutely nothing says the government can’t lie to you. They can lie to you with impunity.
John Say-really enjoyed your essay. Very informative and thoughtful.
Astrology also provides information to voters.
And more arguably exists for that purpose.
Criminal trials are NOT for the purpose of informing voters and can not be conducted for that purpose. PERIOD,
Jack Smith has constantly and properly been shot own in requests to speed up proceedings.
There is absolutely no legitimate election related purpose in criminal prosecutions. And government has ZERO RIGHTS, only powers.
Conversely Trump usually gets his requests for expedited review – Because criminal defendants do have rights – like the RIGHT to a speedy trial.
As well as the RIGHT to due process and the RIGHT to thwart the abuse of criminal trials for the purpose of election interference.
“ Criminal trials are NOT for the purpose of informing voters and can not be conducted for that purpose. PERIOD,”
They sure can be used for that purpose. It’s public information. Republicans do this all the time. The Biden impeachment inquiry was nothing more than an effort to inform the public of alleged crimes. They even claimed crimes were committed and provided zero proof.
“ There is absolutely no legitimate election related purpose in criminal prosecutions. And government has ZERO RIGHTS, only powers.”
Governments do have rights. Just as anyone does.
The articles of confederation show governments have rights.
“ Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States…”
“ The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war ….
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States—fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States—regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated ….”
Federalist 22,
“ The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation….
In this case, if the particular tribunals [i.e., courts] are invested with a right of ultimate jurisdiction, …
Or Federalist No. 31:
It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments….”
So yes, governments have rights and they can include the right to of free speech.
“ Conversely Trump usually gets his requests for expedited review – Because criminal defendants do have rights – like the RIGHT to a speedy trial.
As well as the RIGHT to due process and the RIGHT to thwart the abuse of criminal trials for the purpose of election interference.”
There is no right to thwart. There is a right to defend.
Trump hasn’t been denied a right to a speedy trial. In fact Trump is denying that right to the public. Trump does not want a speedy trial.
His due process rights have never been violated. In fact he’s been given preferential treatment just because he’s a former president. A lesser individual would never get that kind of treatment. Never.
There is no right of the public to a speedy trial.
Yes there is. Taxpayers have a right to a speedy trial. A defendant cannot indefinitely delay a trial or proceeding thru multiple motions. The public has a right to a speedy trial.
According to which Amendment?
“A voter can use ANY information to make a decision. Even from biased press.”
You are living proof of that
“Because free speech allows for government propaganda”
The Government is granted ZERO rights by the first Amendment.
You seriously need to take a high school civics course.
There’s nothing, absolutely nothing prohibiting the government from exercising free speech and that incudes propaganda. Cite a law that says government is forbidden from exercising free speech or engage in propaganda.
Cite a law that says government is forbidden from exercising free speech or engage in propaganda.
EVERY LAW PROHIBITS IT, you moron.
18USC1924 prohibits it, because it does not enumerate it.
10USC Chapter 5 Prohibits it, because it does not enumerate it.
On and on and on, with EVERY LAW every created by Congress.
Why?? Because the right of free speech is NOT conveyed on the Government.
It is not enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, according to 10A, its does not exist. Therefore it is against EVERY LAW.
Because it’s not enumerated does not mean it’s prohibited.
No law explicitly says it’s prohibited. Not a single one. You’re arguing that the absence of a prohibition is a prohibition.
The government is not prohibited from engaging in propaganda. Cite the law that specifically says it is prohibited from engaging in propaganda. The constitution says absolutely nothing about it.
EVERYTHING NOT ENUMERATED IS PROHIBITED
You’re arguing that the absence of a prohibition is a prohibition.
And you’re a moron who, every time he is losing the debate, tries to mischaracterize what is said.
I am precisely NOT arguing that.
I am arguing that the absence of enumeration of government powers is a prohibition. EVERY TIME
“ am precisely NOT arguing that.
I am arguing that the absence of enumeration of government powers is a prohibition. EVERY TIME”
You just contradicted yourself. An absence of a prohibition or enumeration is not a prohibition. It’s not specifically prohibited. Therefore it can be done by government. Until it is specifically prohibited by statute.
I said nothing about an “absence of a prohibition”, douche, only you did.
Any power not enumerated to the government, is prohibited. That is the whole basis of the Constitution. Any functioning of the government not enumerated under the statutes created per the enumerated powers, is PROHIBITED. SHOW me ANY law that ALLOWS the GOVERNMENT to lie to the people.
You cannot. Therefore it is PROHIBITED.
Say its not again. It won’t make it any less false. Article one and the 10th Amendment say so.
Has Hillary addressed the public about her lies and “overreach” ? Has she apologized for the myriads of lies she has foist on voters ?
Joe Biden is not competent enough to appologize for lying to people about his on competence or job performance.
But all those in governent, on the left, in the democratic party and in the media who are complicit in those lies – THEY should show us “self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-effacing criticism”
I do not give a crap about Trump’s ego. I do not give a schiff about the few actual lies or errors he has uttered.
I care a great dea about his performance as president. While that left alot to be desired, it was still superior to every other president in the 21st century.
I do not hear Bush, Obama or Biden engaging in “self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-effacing criticism”
This is not china in the midst of the cultural revolution. Our politics is not about forcing our political enemies into our personally desired “self-criticism”
If you do not wish to be called communists – quit acting like communists.
Trump is justified in his ego.
Everything Biden has touched turns to schiff. Most of what Trump touches turns to gold.
Most of us would have huge ego’s if we were as successful as trump – and justifiably so.
The danger of ego is NOT from those who constantly succeed.
It is the faith of those on the left that after failure upon failure – next time they will get it right that is dangerous.
You can’t be serious. How embarrassing for you that you took the time to write that tripe.
^^^^Dumb
And they’re doing it to keep in office an addled dope who was fully a dope before age deteriorated whatever cogency he ever possessed to begin with.
There is no use trying to decipher Turley’s reasoning here. The legal system of the United States is stumbling chillingly close to abject failure in dealing with the obviously criminally rogue ex-president trump. For him to be able to skate on his crimes and not be tried for them before the next election is nothing short of abysmal.
Dumb
Okay then…, thanks for introducing yourself.
^^^^really dumb
It is idiotic claims like that that are what is destroying the rule of law in this nation and destroying the credibility of the left.
You have hounded Trump for 8 years. During that time you have had numerous idiotic theories of criminality thrown out by courts – All are stupid and far fetched enough they never should have gotten in the doors of a court, they never should have gone before a grand jury.
I know this is really hard for those of you on the left to understand – but free markets demand trustworthy conduct of those participating. You do not buy from those you do not trust.
You do not sell to those you do not trust. Actual Criminal conduct in business is rare – far more rare than in other aspects of human relations. Even among actual criminals engaged in free exchange – such as drug dealers – trust is still paramount. Drug dealers do not last long if their products can not be trusted by addicts.
Contra the left there are few Maddoffs – and even Maddoff could not have survived but for the cover provided by the SEC.
You can believe whatever you want about Trump’s personal moral intentions – you do not succeed in business – in multiple different endeavors over decades with conducting yourself such that others will trust you.
Regardless, all your claims of criminal conduct by Trump are ABSURD.
First you claim Trump conspired with Putin to flip the 2016 election ? Really ? Lets assume Putin actually wanted Trump – which is nonsense – Trump’s policies were exactly the opposite of What was good for Russia. But left wing nuts are incapable of understanding that successful people do NOT act aginst their own interests of those of their country.
I would guess those on the left do not understand that because you nearly always act against the interests of the people and the country.
But lets assume that Putin wanted Trump. Why would Trump with ZERO experience in spycraft and the near certainty that the NSA, CIA FBI and all the other alphabet agencies ere actively monitoring Russia – because that is their job – risk making contact, arranging some kind of deal and russian influence – with the near certainty of getting caught ?
You left wing idiots spent 4 years with the intelligence services of the US, half the reporters in the world, and Mueller and his team turning over every hint of collusions – are you so stupid as to beleive Trump succeeded at duping the AP, the NYT, WaPo, CIA, NSA, Mueller and conducted the perfect espoionage operation that no one has found a single fingerprint of ?
Further are you so stupid as to beleive that Trump went to this massive trouble – with such skilled operatives as George Popodoulis – to get a few stupid internet adds from the Russians, when he could have just dropped another million of so to an internet add agency ?
Are you so stupid as to beleive the Rusisans who thought that Clinton Mr. Potato head adds were effective, was Better at influencing US elections than the people running the Clinton campaign ?
Those of you on the left beleive complete and total nonsense. The collusion delusion is just ONE of many examples.
Each day when I go out – I STILL find a few people wearing masks – everyone is free to make their own choices. At the same time – The actual experts KNEW and lied to us about maks from the start. But by now they have been thoroughly exposed. Study after study has been done – the most rigorous testing possible. RCTs and more than a dozen large scale rigorous trials over the past to decades have NEVER found a benefit to masks from ANY virus. Not even the flu which is an order of magnitude less contageous than Covid.
Wearing a mask today is a giant red flag saying I AM A MORON. Universally only those on the left are still wearing masks.
In addition to the fact that there are so many – often highly educated morons on the left – it is ALSO those on the left that LIED to all of us – KNOWINGLY LIED.
With few exceptions the COVID lies were NOT told by those in business – but by those in government. The consequences of immoral conduct in government are near zero.
While free markets will rapidly punish those who are not trustworthy in business.
How long do you think McD’s would last if it made its chicken nuggets with reprocessed human excrement ?
PETA got First McD’s an then the entire fat food industry to change their standards for raising Chickens by merely threatening boycotts.
BudWeiser lost the trust of its consumers and lost 25% of its sales and its value as a company in 3 months and still has not regained any of that.
Disney delivered garbage that families did not want and has seen its value as a company plumet to half what it was before.
Free markets punish betrayal FAST.
You left wing nuts had to obliterate Statute of limitation laws to allow nutcase E Jean Carroll to sue Trump. Carroll’s case was garbage – but of equal importance is that by eliminating statutes of limitations – you made due process – any defense impossible – How would you defend yourself if I said “You raped my 30 years ago” refusing to specify a year, a day, any testable fact to either verify or reject my claim. And even then you could not get a Manhattan jury to fully bite. The fact is E Jean Carroll is a nutcase who is not credible – but even if she was the most credible victim in the world we do not delve 30 years into the past – because it is not possible to have a real trial where both sides have a real oportunity to present all possible evidence. The world will survive if evidence of guilt spoils with time. But innocent people can not defend themselves because evidence of innocence also spoils with time.
Then you made this idiotic claim that Trump committed some fraud by allegedly overvaluing property. That is total BS.
The value of ANYTHING is whatever a free and willing buyer and a free and willing seller agree to there is no other value of anything. Every single other ever proposed economic theory of value has proven FALSE. Deutche Bank did its own assessment of Whether Trump was worth lending to and determined that the would have done so under the same terms had he been worth HALF of hat he claimed. And that of course ignored the fact that the governments valuations were themselves FRAUD.
Further as we have seen in these political prosecutions of Trump and other republicans – you have dispensed red queen justice – lets assume guilty and proceed directly to determining punishment. Whether it is Trump or Guiliani or Bannon or Navarro.
Yet you would never apply the same standards to yourself. Name a single person on the left who has been prosecuted much less jailed for contempt of congress ? Not ONE.
You say Trump is a criminal – but only by stretching the law beyond recognition and then narrowly applying that distorted law ONLY to those you hate.
In Manhattan a d corrupt prosecutor, and a corrupt judge managed to get a dupable jury to convict Trump of allegedly lying to himself in order to win an election that was already over,
So Trump lied to himself about actions that were perfectly legal in order to win an election that was over.
It should not be very difficult to understand why very few people beleive you.
Thanks for the tourettes episode!
Trump >> criminal
Johnny Say >> bootlicker
^^^^Dumb
I love a literary audience! Welcome!!
^^^^Dumb
Anonymous 8:58 AM
Name calling starts when there are no salient points to argue.
Tsk, Tsk.
Ats
Ad hominem is not an argument
As has Been addressed with others
SCOTUS none other than RBG in a 9-0 opinion that fraud is a property crime
Blacks says that fraud requires tangible harm aka a property crime
What tangible item has been lost in either the merchan nonsense or the enmoron nonsense ?
Are you capable of defending yourself against a claim that you raped someone 25odd years ago
Which year ?
Who knows
What time of day
What day
What month
When the NYS legislature has to poke a hole in the statute of limitations to “get” on person you know the rule of law is gone
John Say,
Great comment!
“ But lets assume that Putin wanted Trump. Why would Trump with ZERO experience in spycraft and the near certainty that the NSA, CIA FBI and all the other alphabet agencies ere actively monitoring Russia – because that is their job – risk making contact, arranging some kind of deal and russian influence – with the near certainty of getting caught ?”
The term “useful idiot” applies to Trump. Trump isn’t doing all this on his own. You leave out the sycophants, yes-men, enablers, and those lying on his behalf.
The free market is useless when it’s already rigged by those who can manipulate it at will. People like Trump will be the first to manipulate the rules and free market in their favor. This free market fantasy has so many flaws and so easy to manipulate that it’s laughable. Free markets can be manipulated by monopolies and those monopolies are the ones dictating the rules to legislators who sell their influence. Which is perfectly legal. It’s not a free market. Consumers don’t have any power when monopolies control the majority of supply and information. And now with the removal of the Chevron deference it makes it worse.
^^^^Useless idiot
“Consumers don’t have any power . . .”
Your concern for the “little guy” is touching.
Now do Biden’s some 30% cumulative inflation and sky-high interest rates.
So it’s magic that allowed trump to deceive all the alphabet agencies and the press for years to this day ?
And Trump is somehow Purim’s useful idiot by doing everything short of invading Russia to harm Russian interests?
In your fantasy work trump is a useful idiot and Putin is just plain an idiot who remains in power despite f#%king over his own country
Wherever you got you education
They owe you your money back
George
Absent government you can not rig a free market for long
The London whale at JP Morgan tried
It cost Morgan $8b
No one can manipulate the free market for any meaningful time to any meaningful extent
If you try to game the system someone will find out and bet heavily against
If you know of some instance where the free market is being successfully manipulated by any other than government
Please tell me
I can get incredibly rich unbelievably fast betting against them
The flaws in free markets are in your head
Learn something
Start with coases law
Which states that in a system where government secures property rights and transaction costs are low the free market will optimally and efficiently resolve everything
Though coases law should be obvious
The only person who can determine how you value anything relative to everything else is you
The Sam is true of each of 8b people
By definition you cannot produce a result that better reflects the sum of the values of all people than a free market
Please name a single natural monopoly that exists without government ensuring its monopoly?
Separately other Nobel prize winning work demonstrated that even an actual monopoly is regulated by the free market
It is virtually impossible for a successful monopoly to raise prices above the level that would exist in a competitive market without creating that competitive market
If you want to stop various special interests from influencing government
That is accomplished trivially
Disempower government
No one rents government powers that do not exist
But you are not really opposed to special interests manipulating government
So long as you are that special interest
Just to be clear republicans who think an end to chevron will change anything are delusional
It just changes which branch of government engages in overreach
Chevron was put in by place in the 80s by a republican court to reign in states and courts
How well did that work for republicans?
Consumers do not have power ?
Are you nuts ?
Both the left and right have been relatively successful leaveraging consumer power politically in recent decades
John, you’ve been doing outstanding work this morning. I would add that these are the same idiots who maintained with straight faces and under oath before Congress on national TV that an adolescent Kavanaugh ran “rape gangs” in Maryland for years and nobody knew about it until he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
And now the Democrats support international terrorists as freedom fighters. It’s a slippery slope being a Democrat these days.
Correction: some Democrats support international terrorists, but the way things are going, someday they’ll be the only Democrats that matter.
John Say 8:34
Well said but I sense some frustration. I’ve seen it before. It comes from having to explains logic, cause and effect, real proof and not hearsay, and the realities of life in a world not dominated by a media that is corrupt, self serving and hostile to thought and goals of a free people. You are talking to morons with a fixed view, sort of a locked in concept. It is frustrating especially to have to deal with it on a daily basis. The left has a personality defect that is almost incompatible with free thought and life. Liberals on the other hand give us a slightly different view and alternatives and can actually respond to reason.
GEB,
Well said.
“ Disney delivered garbage that families did not want and has seen its value as a company plumet to half what it was before.
Free markets punish betrayal FAST.”
That had nothing to do with the free market. It was the constant whining from the right and amplified by legislators threatening punishment. That’s not free market at all. Fred market also includes the LGBTQ community which Disney sought to capitalize on. They ARE a growing market, a new demographic. It’s the right that fought against the free market because they didn’t like the increased recognition and acceptance of that demographic.
It’s no different than the calls to boycott Disney or some other company because they chose to cater to a specific demographic. If free market was allowed to dictate politicians wouldn’t get involved or threaten punishment. You’ve said it before. Government shouldn’t get involved. But you ignore the fact that they did.
John Say 8:34am. I am an up vote. Really liked the Red Queen point.
“ You say Trump is a criminal – but only by stretching the law beyond recognition and then narrowly applying that distorted law ONLY to those you hate.”
Trump IS a criminal. The law and a jury convicted Trump of multiple felonies. He’s literally a criminal felon.
criminal felon is it now?
Felon: a person convicted of a felony
convicted felon: a spastic term used by idiot non savants who dont own a dictionary
criminal felon: a spastic term used by 3rd grade idiot non savants
When “The legal system of the United States is stumbling chillingly close to abject failure in dealing with the obviously criminally rogue”
the problem is with absolute certainty the confusion of too many people of the actual law with their personal values.
Confusing political differences with criminality.
You should pray to whatever your gods that in 2025 Trump and republicans do NOT use the same idiotically broad claims about criminal content to prosecute you and yours.
“ You should pray to whatever your gods that in 2025 Trump and republicans do NOT use the same idiotically broad claims about criminal content to prosecute you and yours.”
Would that mean you will be equally contemptuous of their attempts or will you just dismiss it as “turnabout is fair play” and turn a blind eye towards their efforts? I suspect the latter.
Turnabout is fair play.
Self righteous horse shit, faux outrage, and panty waisted virtue signaling is for you and yours.
The democrats won’t stop the “malarkey” until it is visited on them twofold.
Next?
‘Anonymous’ from the Darkside, ..we can always count on you, a resident Troll, to be like WAPO (..going belly-up due to it’s horrible & horribly biased writing..) always accusing DT of lying but never giving any Evidence.. A LAUGH that u make it DT’s fault for the disgusting Complete Political Weaponization of the US Legal system! The only ‘abject failure’ here is your Propaganda.. PROF. TURLEY is SPOT ON to all of us familiar with all the aspects of the ‘Big Picture…’
when do we start jailing these CRIMINAL Judges, AG, DA, DOJ, etc?
“by converted her court into a virtual rocket docket.” maybe meant converting? Sorry should have corrected these all in one comment, but you generally don’t make a mistake at all so four is really unusual.
“There is little time for a trial before a November”, maybe meant “There is little time for a trial before an election in November”?
In the sentence after the Justice Jackson quote you are missing an ‘O” in obstruction “extension of the bstruction of justice”
The majority opinion also says that the creation of false documents is covered, so it is not just the concurrence that keeps open the prospect that the “alternative electors” plan could be caught.
Please cite that ? The entirety of 18 US 1512 is about the DESTRUCTION of documents to obstruct a legal proceding.
The creation and presentation of ACTUAL forged documents is already a different crime – one that in the case of J6 and Trump DID NOT OCCUR.
Efforts to present alternate slates of electors were done PUBLICLY, and are the court mandated constitutionally blessed means of challenging an election before congress.
In the Tilden/Harris election not only were alternate slates created, but Congress ultimately chose the alternatives over those offered by the State executives.
Further the constitution delegates the appointment of electors to the State Legislature – not the executive.
The False documents in 2020 were those of SOS’s that certified contested elections.
We Recently learned that it took 6 weeks and 3 votes for the Fulton county board of electors to certify – and then only after they were threatened – we saw the same thing in AZ in 2022.
The Fulton county board of electors refused to certify because they had not (and still have not) received chain of custody documents for hundreds of thousands of ballots and because the election officials were unable to provide proof that the mailin ballots had the signature verification that the law requires
It would be the GA SOS certification of the election that was fraudulent.
Nor is this the only case – in PA The state still has over 200,000 more ballot in 2020 than it has records of people casting votes – and ALL the errors are in to places – Pittsburgh but primarily Philadelphia. An election official ha been convicted of election fraud in Philadelphia in every election in my lifetime.
Regardless, the prosecution for forged or illegal election documents should be of those who certified elections that were not performed according to state law.
Otherwise why do we have election laws – just so those on t e left can ignore them ?
The majority opinion also says that the creation of false documents is covered,
FALSE
It is true. Read the opinion. It cites another case for that proposition.
Carry-over sentence pp 8-9 of majority opinion, starting “For example,” at the bottom of p 8.
No it specifically cites a case of a forged court order
That is radically different
The alternate slates of electors are neither forged nor false
The do not pretend to be something they are not
They are very clear about what they are
The correct votes from the correct electors
If and only if congress rejects the executive branch certified electors
In no instance does the documents associated with these electors claim to be the executive certified electors
In fact they explicitly claim those are improper
And I would also like to point out that I feel like, as a voter, my rights are being completely trampled upon by this lawfare against Trump and just wait until they sentence him to jail. I don’t see how this is legal, let alone ethical or moral, and I would like to know who is defending MY rights? Because it seems like the answer is “Nobody.”
Exactly
Corrections: In paragraph 1, “one of those cases that will be impacted” IS (not if) and in paragraph 9 I’m guessing the phrase was supposed to be “runs AGAINST the grain of the opinion” because otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.