I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window. However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement.
An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.
As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed.
The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.
Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.
The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses. However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.
Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:
When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.
At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.
The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.
Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.
Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.
Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”
Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.
Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.
The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”
Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”
The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.
The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.
The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.
Here is his letter detailing the disciplinary problems of Captain Byrd:
11.20.2024 Letter From Rep. Barry Loudermilk to USCP Chief of Police Manger.pdf
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
And some wonder why many find the police reprehensible slugs… they never have to account for their actions and to top it off they have NO constitutional obligation to protect you. They are highly paid verbally abusive meter maids.
This wasn’t the police – this was the politicians who wanted him protected.
As I said in a comment below, Jan 6 was a deep state setup.
https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1860047671907745812
I hope that this time there are sufficient penalties on the principal actors so that mutiny will be discouraged.
Can anyone please explain to me why Michael Byrd got off scott free and no ramifications for killing Ashli ‘in the line of duty..’ but Derek Chauvin got 22.5 years in Federal prison for murder and his life ruined for killing George Floyd also ‘in the line of duty…’ (Chauvin was also stabbed 22 times last year in prison by a inmate protester on behalf of Black Lives Matter…………..) .?????
Eighteenthhole,
I agree with your general premise but not: “and [Chauvin’s] life ruined for killing George Floyd also ‘in the line of duty…’
No policeman killed Floyd. The autopsy expressly noted that there were no life threatening injuries on his body. So how was he killed? Magic?
No, he had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system, Covid, an enlarged heart and clogged arteries.
Under the rules at the time, Floyd was possibly the only person in the world with Covid who didn’t die from Covid. Otherwise, if you had Covid and were shot the authorities would give the cause of death as Covid to maintain their narrative.
Government and media have been lying nonstop and pretending to be baffled that we no longer believe them. They are exceptionally dishonest any time race is involved.
Go google the lethal dose of Fent then go google how much he had in his system at the time. The tl;dr is that he didn’t OD. This is even more obvious if you just look at him, ie. the patient. An OD is obvious. Someone ODing on Fent will 100% not be conscious. ODs do not happen “over time” they happen quickly. GF was in fact, VERY responsive which is why every single doctor said that George Floyd did not OD. Do you have a degree in medical science to dispute their claims?
Byrd got away with murder because he was BLACK.
Byrd did not merely “kill” Ashli Babbitt, he “executed” her. Then this incompetent caricature of a police officer is promoted to Captain? Clearly a DEI promotion.
Ashli DID NOT break the window. She delivered a left hook to the person who did and spend the final moments of her life screaming at the police inn the room to “Do something!!” Please do your research and get your facts straight, sir! Watch the clips released by Epoch Times and other outlets. Ashli was NOT a rioter! There were embeds who were posing as Trump supporters and breaking windows, etc. She was not one of them. So please stop being a parrot of the slander! Get you facts straight.
You dont climb through a shattered window towards the heart of the Capitol and not be a part of the riot, sorry.
kiss off
Rioting is not a capital crime.
Inhuman demon… enjoy hell when you get there
Another low intellect response.
If you have a point on the legality of his actions fine. Lame
Pontificating is a waste of
time.
Being an ignorant dope is strong in you!
No one is claiming that Ashli Babbitt was “not a part of the riot.” Babbitt was, but that does not justify her execution by Byrd, a loathsome excuse for a police officer.
I was in DC on Jan. 6. Although I wasn’t at the building, I was just outside the grounds. Those who call the events of the day a “riot” have an extremely low bar for identifying a riot. If that was a riot then there are riots every day across the land. Some people pushed against barricades. Some scuffled with guards. There was even a broken window, or two. The horror! No protestor was armed. People walked through the Capitol building in a peaceful manner. In the crowd I witnessed no anger or hostility. After I left and returned home I was shocked to hear accounts of a violent attempted insurrection, on media.
People have been prosecuted, and convicted, for being on the Capitol grounds. The only reason I didn’t walk to the building was because I had already seen it decades before. It’s kind of fun to see a neoclassical building but not something I will do a second time. Those who live in the area know the public makes use of these grounds every day. Sunbathing, throwing frisbees, playing with dogs, are some of the routine activities. It would never occur to me that visiting the Capitol, or the grounds, would be a criminal act, even if legislators are certifying an election. American citizens own these properties.
‘Anonymous’ from the Lightside (..please make yourself a different handle so we will stop confusing you with ‘Anonymous’ from the Darkside!) Well said.. 100% Factual re: ‘Ashli DID NOT break the window.. etc…’ Please note this, Prof. Turley in the any future writings re: Ashli….
Damn ’embeds’…I never did get a decent night’s sleep on one even after multiple attempts. Will persevere & keep on “keepin’ on”, nevertheless. Remote possibilities still DO exist, (I’m told).
Still again & yet, “Who can you trust?” The TRUTH: It’s a MYSTERY! And, I fear, it shall remain ever thus…. until it’s NOT! Does that help clear up this burning issue? I suspect NOT, but, well, it’s worth a shot at unraveling it, I’d say.
…Hang in there, yeah? BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA!
You’re welcome!
I suspect that people like Pelosi and factions in alphabet agencies intended to create a Reichstag Fire event to justify the exercise of ’emergency’ powers just as was done in Germany in the Thirties. They were very fast with the ‘insurrection’ howls although nobody has been charged with that. But I do wonder what happened to reasonable bail and speedy trial and fair judges. Insurrection theater without actual insurrection I suppose.
We still don’t know how many agents and assets were in the crowd to cause trouble. Agency heads evaded and refused to answer when questioned in Congress.
At the time I wondered why any ordinary citizen would go to the event because I expected elements of the deep state to do something bad. I thought that they would use their Antifa Brownshirts as they seemed to have done before. I didn’t expect a mob of undercover agents and assets pretending to be Trump supporters.
Either way, it seemed like a toxic and dangerous opportunity for the deep state and I thought the only wise thing was to stay far away. Now I think creating that fear may have been an ancillary goal. ‘Be afraid of your ‘government’.
Support Trump. He and his people may be the last easy chance to restore America.
I think it was a set up to prevent R’s from verbally making proclamations against the count the way Dems do when R’s win. This time the Dems knew there had been hanky panky everywhere to get Biden rammed through with “81 miLLiOn votes!!” and, not sure of what R’s knew about the Hank panky, wanted to make sure they could dispense with any protestations from elected R’s lest they be tarred & feathered as iNsUrEcTiOniStS themselves.
Mr Turley, while Ashli Babbitt was definitely murdered by Byrd that day it is a lie to claim she was the only person killed that day. 3 others were killed by Capital and DC police at the Capital, Rosanne Boyland was standing peacefully holding a sign calling for stopping the steal of the election, she and otgers were sprayed with a chemical the govt doesn’t use in foreign conflicts because it is life threatening. As she gasped for breath the police pushed a huge crowd back and she was knocked to the ground and piled on. She lost consciousness, when others escaped the pile she was beaten to death with a steel rod by DC Officer Lila Morris, all this was recorded on video and witnessed. Boyland’s body was a mass of gaping wounds and bruises and the ME ordered her body cremated to prevent her family from seeing it. The ME then lied victim blaming to discredit her claiming she was on amphetamines when the only medication she took was for ADD or ADHD. Two men, in separate incidents died after the flash grenades illegally fired into the peaceful crowds , struck them and ignited their coats. Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol, Benjamin Philips, died of a stroke. The Capital police denied ambulance rescue to them and many others, and there were men and women many elderly struck by the grenades some lost eyes. The media lie claiming Officer Sicknick died that day, he didn’t but he did have a heart attack or stroke, he requested his CO call an ambulance but he refused as he didn’t want ambulances entering the area and rendering aid to civilian victims.
Jonathan: Here we go again. So much misinformation and disinformation about what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. And it’s not just you. Some of your loyal supporters on this blog keep repeating your false claims. John Say perfectly incapsulates the problem. John thinks Ashli Babbitt was “murdered”, that Pelosi, not DJT, was responsible for the violence and there was no insurrection–just a “protest turned into a small riot…”. I suppose under John’s definition the Civil War was just a protest that turned into a riot!
Definitions count. So we have to distinguish between a “riot” and an “insurrection”. The former is usually defined as a local spontaneous and unorganized reaction to an event, e.g., the 1965 LA Watts riots over mistreatment of minorities by LAPD. On the other hand a “insurrection” or “rebellion” is defined as a violent uprising or organized resistance against authority of the US or its laws. See 18USC2383. It includes taking up arms or otherwise to oppose government power. Historical examples: the Whiskey Rebellion (1794); Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831) and the Civil War (1861-1865).
Hepworth Legal, a prominent legal resource, makes a distinction between protests and rebellion: “Understanding these definitions and examples is crucial when differentiating between a protest and an insurrection. For instance, a protest at the Capitol, where citizens exercise their First amendment rights, is fundamentally different from an insurrection. Protests are typically peaceful. Even when they turn unruly or involve civil disobedience, they usually lack the violent, overthrow-intent characteristic of insurrection or rebellion”.
DJT’s plan for Jan. 6 was not spontaneous. It had been planned for months after DJT lost all his legal challenges and he was unsuccessful in his fake elector scheme. When DJT called on his supporters, like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, to march on the Capitol he had one purpose–to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes in order to stay in power. The insurrection that followed was an attempt to overturn the legal order. A peaceful protest would not have accomplished DJT’s goal. That required capturing or killing the Speaker of the House and VP Pence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And that turned Jan. 6 from a “small riot” into an insurrection to overturn the requirements of the Electoral Count Act so DJT could remain in power. Nothing you have said in your column, nor the regurgitated comments by some on this blog, changes the facts nor the law!
There was no “fake elector scheme. Electors for the candidates or states parties etc are chosen before each election. Because of the charges of election fraud with evidence of fraud, but no actual investigation being made Trump and the voters of those states requested the electors of those states in dispute be sent back and a full count be delayed until audits could be held to determine the true outcomes. This was no new novel exercise, but something that happened I believe on several occasions when there was some questionable outcome. As to the protest, it was no insurrection or coup. Friends of mine a retired pastor and his wife from Wrentham, Ma had traveled down for the speech, they confirmed Trump’s call to walk down and peacefully show congress the large numbers of citizens concerned about what was a threat to our voting rights and fair elections. The hope was the news reports would show the huge crowd. As they started to walk to the Capital they saw numbers of men enter the throng from the side, may with bullhorns and start to try and rule up the crowd, calling them to hurry etc.. the man closest to my friends wasn’t dressed like a conservative and had a pink gas mask around his neck with the face piece pulled around to the back of his neck. It immediately caused him, the pastor to recall reading a year or two before an article about antifa and one of their groups buying a job lot of pink gas masks. He and his wife (both in their 70s) were alarmed and there and then left the crowd and returned to their hotel.
When I see the treasonous acts of Biden Administration the “riot” was totally justified.
..who writes or pays you to write your stuff, ‘Dennis McIntyre…’ always so delusional.. can AI actually come up with such absurd content?’
Where can we read DJT’s pre-Jan 6 INSURRECTION plan, please? Point me/us to the documents. Is it in his trial for INSURRECTION, or anyone else’s conviction for INSURRECTION? Thank you.
Captain Byrd never went to trial, so he can still be brought to justice in a criminal court. There is no statue of limitations, and it would not be double jeopardy.
The crime happened on federal property which under certain circumstances can be tried in a federal court, if it does not meet the specific qualifications of a federal crime then it would be tried in DC Superior Court. Although DC Superior Court is not a federal court, its cases are prosecuted by the United States Attorneys’ Office for the District of Columbia meaning that criminal cases are being prosecuted by federal prosecutors. Trump’s DOJ nominee when confirmed has ways to make that happen.
All you have to do is flip the political affiliations, race, and the whole incident is handled totally different.
Black antifa woman crawling through the broken wondow and a white officer shoots her lying in wait from a position of cover.
Murder charges, within the same day.
Why was there no armed uniformed police standing between the rioters and the chamber, that deep in the Capitol buding. If Byrd and stood out with his gun at ready, the advance would have halted.
But AB should have never been allowed to get that far. They allowed the penetration, that is clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Antifa needs to be “cleaned up”for the sake of the country.
There was no good reason to fire flash bombs into the crowd other than stirring them up along with at least 200 FBI planted to do just that.
Good points . Thanks
–“Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head… even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers.”–
Had the armed man, capable of turning his pistol on others in less than a second, imperiled the life of a judge or even a learned law professor, the officer’s decision to shoot would’ve earned him a commendation instead of a prison sentence.
The video could not be more clear.
That officer could have fired a warning shot.
He could have said, ‘Im going to shoot you if you come through the window’
He was in no danger.
He aimed right at her head and murdered her for being a Trump supporter.
Justice for Ashley !
Exactly. I watched it all happen in real time that day. Ashley was MURDERED. So was Roseanne Boyland. And Victoria White was nearly beaten to death in the tunnel by capitol police, as clearly seen in this video.
https://youtu.be/J5f_Ta3qBoc?si=yAtspwIP-8DNusNd
Police Officer Lila Morris, who continued to beat Roseanne Boyland with her baton after she lay unconscoous not moving on the ground, needs to be charged with tbe murder of Roseanne Boyland.
There’s just so little time, from Inauguration day in 2025 to the end of Trump’s 4-year term in 2029, to undo, reverse, correct, and otherwise restore a ‘just’ outcome to so many badly-handled situations and cases during the Obama administration and the Biden administration. Here’s hoping there’s some success in those endeavors!
* Byrd was promoted? A woman is coming through a broken window during a riot and is shot and killed by police? That’s insanity. At some point when a Supreme Court nominee is asked what is a woman and smugly dodges the question because the questioner is a white woman, people must begin to recognize insanity. In KBJ mind the killing of Babbitt is an acceptable death rate as she also indicated by her questions in the mifipristone case—> people die of drug ingestion all the time. It’s an acceptable rate of death.
Cheers to all and happy holidays. Nice meeting one and all and thank you Professor for the blog. It was fun.
How did tge war in Ukraine happen? An insider tells the story in a few minutes (I have also heard his 2 hour version which is even more interesting).
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1859795890023825691/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1859795890023825691¤tTweetUser=CitizenFreePres
It appears that all my comments on this topic have been erased.
So much for *free speech*.
Nope, just checked, they’re still there.
Missed seeing the comments until a second scan, just now.
I lose commnets all the time – it has nothing to do with censorhsip.
And everything to do with my own mistakes in submitting comments of the unpredictablity of the gods of the internet.
Not Turley.
@John…
Also there are issues w the platform too.
When ones only purpose for posting is to come back and read them later, that is pathetic. You never post anything of substance so it cant possibly be about the discussion.
Benson you are truly a lost soul. Please take your meds. These conniptions are becoming truly sad.
Sometimes they seem to go away but if you refresh the screen they reappear. It must be a computer glitch.
Thanks.
The inconvenient truth is that the Ashli Babbitt incident was a psyop. They needed an event to set the protest off into total chaos. They wanted this to trigger a real, violent riot, way beyond what happened that day. This explains the awkward shooting. I strongly believe she was not actually shot. Go back and watch the video with a rational critical eye. It was fake. Hardly any blood from a neck shot? The way no one did first aid. No covering of the wound. Watch the video. It is so fake. This was part of the master plan devised by Pelosi and probably CIA. Many of the players in the Ashli Babbitt are actors. Weak, undertrained actors. It is obvious this was not a real shooting. Babbitt was cremated without permission by the state. They had no funeral. Then, after so many of us said ther was no funeral, they threw together a beachside memorial months after her “death”.
Wake up. We are not in Kansas anymore.
Pam Bondi is Trump’s new pick. Did he pick her up because she’s pretty?
“Hi America. If you want to understand why Donald Trump likes Pam Bondi, know this: Complaints were filed about Trump U. in with attorneys general in two states. – NY’s AG pursued and got a $25 million settlement – Trump gave Bondi $25k, and she did nothing.”
Why did the NY AG interfere ? It is unconstitutional for Government to interfere in contracts.
Trump U offered specific services in return for payment.
If YOU are a student who contracted with Trump U do not deel that Trump U lived up to their contract with you – you can terminate the contract for breech.
You can sue for damages and breach of contract, or you can join with others to sue for breach.
Those are the remedies available to you. Those are the only remedies that should be available to you.
You would not want the NY AG’s office to come after you for failure to live up to your obligations as a student.
I want to be carefull weighing in on something where details matter and I have not read the agreement between Trump U and students.
But generally students going to Trump U had a specific expectation – that Trump U would teach them the secret to success.
Trump U mixed traditional course with life coaches and motivational speakers. People unqualified to teach english. While the traditional professors are unqualified to teach the secret to success.
That Secret BTW is available to anyone in any bookstore in the world in the “How To Get Rich Quick Section” There are myriads of books and every single one is a lie.
There is no sure fire way to get rich quick. But getting rich is open to nearly everyone.
All is requires is motivation. Perseverance and hard work. Most of us do not care enough to stick it out.
Or we get knocked down a couple of times and choose not to get back up.
Those of you on the left note that Trump has gone bankrupt a couple of times – while wishing he foes so again.
But what happened ? He got back up and made his fortune again.
Many people have done what Trump has. But not Most, not even 1% of people.
Most people can not be as successful as Trump. But most everyone can be successful.
That we are not as successful as we hoped is our choice.
John Say
“I WOULD FURTHER NOTE” that John Say continues to make absurd comments about things of which he knows less than nothing.
He should confine his comments to his only known area of expertise, that being squirrels and rabies.
If the action by the NY AG was in fact unconstitutional, then it would have been a simple and trivial matter to appeal on those grounds.
If you are correct then the appeal would have been successful.
The fact is that the action was entirely constitutional.
You, as usual, are simply wrong.
As usual you simply make stuff up in your fantasy world.
Stop listening to the voices in your head and get some help.
ATS – you continue to rant idiotically.
Yet, you do not point out error.
You say I know “less than nothing” – but that clearly is not so.
You say the case was not unconstitutional or it would have been a trivial appeal – yet whether you are on the left or the right, from the top to the bottom in high profile cases on a variety of issues that is NOT what we see. Trump claimed presidential immunity from the start – courts all over rejected that, Appeals courts rejected it, but the supreme court found otherwise. Independent of whether you agree with the supreme court or not, it is self evident that even on constitutional issues that should be trivial and self evident from the text – that people widely disagree – including the courts.
All or nearly all of this problems comes from the fluid reading of the constitution of those of you on the left.
Ultimately the “living constitutionalists” will have no problem reaching whatever conclusion they way – the ends justifies the means.
But a functioning system of law anf government requires that our law and constitution are clear to all – We do not have to agree on what they OUGHT to say – if we do not like the law or constitution, we can work to change it. But we must near universally agree on what the constitution and law DOES say.
If you are working to bend it to fit what you think OUGHT to be the law or constitution, rather than trying to read as clearly as possible what is actually written,
you have a recipe for permanent conflict and enormous gray areas, and insecurity.
You end up with exactly the lawfare we see with Trump. I would note that all that is new and unusual is that this kind of warping the law nonsense is usually NOT applied to powerful people – the rich the affluent.
Most of the rest of the country has good reason to fear that any day in court means the loss of agency, or rights to judges left and right, who bend the constituton and law to empower government and destroy individual liberty.
The constitution explicitly bars State from interfering with contracts. Try reading it.
Prior to “the stitich in time that saves nine” – FDR’s attempt to stack the court, followed by some of the worst supreme court decisions in history like Wickard V. Filburn – without which the as written constitution would bar most of what the federal govenrment does today.
Regardless, no the NY AG’s actions were not constitutional. They are just permitted by the deliberate misreading of the plain language of the constitution over the past 80 years.
Further as I pointed out – which you did not address – there is absolutely no need for ANY AG to step in.
We have perfectly good contracts and torts legal systems to permit those who think that their contract was breached or someone caused them actual harm without recompense. In the specific Trump U cases – presuming there was a real breech of contract or tort – the case could be filed as a class action, which would draw huge torts and plantif firms like blood in the water.
So again Why would there be any need for government to step in ?
The left likes to rant about “red lining” – in the early 20th century the cases that struck down red lining laws were based directly on the contracts clause of the constitution.
The Court said clearly – that government can not step in to compel buyers and sellers to enforce the prejudices of government.
Similar cases also spelled the end of Jim Crow.
Contra those on the left it is not “big business”that we need to fear. History teaches us that even benign governments are far more dangerous – sometimes out of the delusions of those in power, left or right, sometimes because it is not corporatacracy that we should fear – but rent seeking.
ATS – a long ad hominem post is still a fallacious rant.
I made two arguments – the first is that the actions of the NY AG were unconstitutional. You rant because Florida did not follow.
49 other states did not follow.
Even in the post wickard world where we ignore the plain text of the constitution,
there is no reason for govenrment to step in.
Contracts and tort law address the issue.
SCOTUS ruled unanimously against govenrment censorship in NYS vs. NRA
And then turned around and said that state AG’s did not have standing in the Murty case.
In what world do State AG’s not have standing to thwart violations of the constitutional rights of citizens,
But do have the power to insert themselves into private voluntary free exchange ?
Regardless, the foundation of the case law on standing is that it is important to have the correct party act as a plaintiff in a case.
One bad outcome from allowing incorrect parties to bring cases is that an ideological plantiff could deliberately lose a case to set precident.
But that is not the only reason for standing.
The purpose of standing is to assure that the party making a case is the one that has the most at stake in the case.
Just for standing reasons alone the NYS AG should have been barred in the Trump U case.
ATS – your ability to insult is significantly better than your grasps of facts, logic, reason.
The constraints on government are set by the most recent decisions of the highest court to take up whatever issue is at hand.
That changes constantly. Even the supreme court improperly makes abortion a right, and then properly sumps that idiocy while improperly rejecting that the 9th amendment and the right to control of your own body does constrain state abortion laws – even if it does not manufacture an extra constitutional right to an abortion.
My point is that you can not use the behavior of courts as proof of constitutionality.
The courts are fickle, the best you can get from the courts is they highest applicable court said this in Issue X when it was last before them.
Tomorrow could be different.
But we can all read the plain text of law and constitution and even if we can not agree on what the law ought to be it shoudl not be rocket science to reach a supermajority with respect to what it does say.
We only have problems when ideology and lack of morality combine to engage in mental and verbal gymnastics to bend what the law and constitution do say into what we want them to say.
But easier still – people do not need and are badly served by government lawyers stepping in when there are perfectly good private legal remedies – such as torts and contracts.
You thoroughly dodged that.
I do not know the thinking of our founders on the contracts clause. I do not think they are superhuman.
But a very good reason for keeping govenrment out is that it is always best for people to deal with their own problems.
Government is there for the incredibly rare instances – such as crimes, where that is not possible.
Your obsessive compulsion to defend Trump in all matters, in all circumstances is indicative of severe mental health problems.
Your obsessive, incoherent, rambling rants are completely irrational.
Your twisted understanding of legal matters leads you down bizarre rabbit holes of confusion and delusion.
Your rants are nothing more than a word salad of nonsensical gibberish.
You fly from one disconnected tangential thought to another.
As for your rant about the Trump University case, you are WRONG.
Trump University never had a license.
Any entity claiming to be a “University”, MUST have a license.
Trump was warned by NY authorities in a 2005 letter that his “university” was not in compliance with licensing laws, and that he may be subject to legal action. His response was to open a shell company in Delaware from which the “university” was allegedly run. This led to mail fraud, wire fraud and racketeering charges.
As for your completely irrelevant tirade about contracts and torts, you are again WRONG.
Contract law allows the parties to the contract to take legal action against each other in circumstances where there is a failure to perform. However, if one party enters into a contract in bad faith with no intention of performing, then that is fraud. That is a crime. The remedy for fraud is legal action by the relevant authorities. This is what happened with Trump. He entered into “contracts “ with students in bad faith. The university was not licensed. The faculty were not qualified. He made outrageous claims that he would be personally involved in “teaching” students. He later admitted that these claims were all false. The operation of the “university” was found to meet all the requirements of a racketeering organization.
I strongly recommend that you seek help from a mental health professional
petītiō principiī
We are only as successful in life as we are willing and able to allow ourselves to be! We all have mental blocks which keep us from realizing our full potential in any field. When we address those blocks to our success, and are able to get rid of them, then we can move on up and achieve our goals. It’s not an easy process to do on one’s own, but when we work with another, it can be done quite easily! If you cannot have (experience) something in your life, that you really do want, then sit down with someone who will keep on asking you to think up ways to waste it. After a while, you will get tired of thinking about wasting that thing, and will then realize that you really can have it after all.
If you choose to not believe any of this, then fine, just go along in your life as you are doing now.
Another know nothing brainiac heard from.
““Hi America. If you want to understand why Donald Trump likes Pam Bondi, know this”
A Democrat hoping they will be believed while they try to assure readers they’re qualified and trustworthy enough to make those comments. Why don’t you give us a “know this” about why Biden liked the DEI Hire, the Border Czar. A Democrat SHOULD be qualified to do a “know this” about its own party.
How about telling everybody why you Democrats despised the DEI Hire so badly before the 2020 election, despised it/she/they/zee even more after Biden named it Vice President DEI Hire, Border Czar… and then held an insurrection to throw the sitting president out of the race and slip in the VP DEI Hire as your presidential nominee?
^^ Only a pervert thinks everyone else is a pervert ^^
Typical leftist. All they see are immutable characteristics.