Below is my column in The Hill on new evidence released by the House related to the January 6th riot. The J6 Committee fueled doubts about the official accounts by using only Democratically-appointed members and skewing the evidence. The new information further undermines the narrative pushed by both members and the media.
Here is the column:
On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate.
Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.
January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.
It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”
A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.
A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that “too much is being made” of the riot and that it is “time to move on.” Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as “an attack on democracy.”
The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.
The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”
The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
While the Democrats insisted that Trump’s speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an “insurrection” engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.
The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.
Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.
One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”
Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.
Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.
Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot.
The evidence shows that, at 3:18 p.m., Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy “tells sheltering Members of Congress that he is not blocking the deployment of the National Guard and, while referencing the D.C. National Guard, shares that ‘We have the green light. We are moving.’” However, the secretary of the Army’s own timeline indicates that the DCNG did not physically leave the Armory until 5 pm.
That was the critical period for the riot. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. Just an hour later, McCarthy said troops were on their way. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his public statement asking rioters to stop — roughly an hour and a half later. Yet it was not until 5 pm that the troops actually left for the Capitol.
The House is also under greater scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting of the only person to die on Jan. 6. While Democrats have referred to many deaths on that day, the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police.
I have long disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd for this shooting. The media lionized Byrd and, in sharp contrast to other police shootings during that period, blamed the deceased. Again, an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the media narrative.
The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not 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.”
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage and other offenses at the time she was shot. However, Babbitt was unarmed when she tried to climb through a broken window.
Byrd stated “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.
The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including “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.” In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.
None of this means that Trump or even Babbitt are without fault in this matter. Trump’s speech was clearly “reckless and wrong,” and Babbitt herself was involved in that riot. However, these reports only further highlight what we still do not know about that day.
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.”
Keep investigating professor. We may never know what happened on Jan06, but investigators should look at the similarities that occurred one year later in the Brazil Congress Attack. A populist president was defeated in a suspicious election that replaced paper ballots with a fully electronic system. When the opposition crowds protested, their advance was briefly halted by a strong police presence but went on to a full out riot when the protective force was mysteriously pulled. The aftermath of Jan08 has been exactly the same as that of Jan06. Protestors, journalist, and political opposition arrested and jailed, and they are currently making the preparations to arrest and imprison Bolsonaro. Coincidence or conspiracy of some very deep and secret players? We may learn more during our next administration if there are people who know things and if they feel safe enough to come forward. People in public and in secret positions of power did things to ensure that President Trump would be defeated in 2020. If you’re going to plan and execute an election by any means, you’re certainly going to have to plan to make sure that your actions aren’t investigated. That plan was executed to perfection on Jan06 2022 and again on Jan08 2023.
The Jan 6th committee never had any credibility from the start. The Republicans submitted their choices to sit on the committee, a historical norm, and Pelosi rejected them as they would of called out the farce the committee was. They would of exposed the committee for the Soviet Union show trial it was. They would of brought forth contradicting evidence the Democrats could not afford lest it undermind their narrative. They would of cross examined Democrat witnesses and discredit them. Pelosi could not have that, instead then choose two plainly anti and biased Trump haters to help the Democrats carry their false narrative and help them carry out the Soviet Union like show trial. Thankfully, the Republicans have found out the truth and exposing what a sham trial the Democrats attempted to gaslight America with. Those of us with a degree of critical thinking, common sense already knew this, but it is good to see all the truth and facts deconstruct the Democrat Jan6th committee sham.
Pelosi rightfully rejected the proposed members because they were unlikely to maintain objectivity. Republicans were offered the opportunity to submit alternative candidates after the initial selection was rejected, yet they chose not to. By withholding new nominees, they essentially forfeited their participation, while Chaney and Kitzinger stepped up to represent their party. In contrast, Turley dismisses their involvement without due consideration.
It’s clear that Republicans were hesitant to delve into the complicated details of the events, fully aware that such scrutiny would not reflect well on them. From the outset, it was apparent that the rioting and insurrection were counter to their intentions, with many representatives calling for an immediate halt. Only after the chaos dropped off did they attempt to reshape their history.
Turley previously labeled Trump’s speech as reckless and wrong; however, he failed to articulate the specific reasons behind that condemnation. If he deemed the speech reckless, then focussing on the isolated phrase urging a peaceful march is fundamentally misguided. Turley fully understood Trump’s intentions with that speech, which is precisely why he voiced his criticism so firmly. The ensuing violence and lawlessness emphasized why Turley was right to describe the speech as reckless and wrong.
Did you really say “objectivity” in reference to the Jan6th committee? As we all saw, in reality, Cheney and Kitzinger were anything but “objective.” They were equally biased and complicit in the Democrat Soviet Union like show/sham trial. That is what is clear. So much so that their own constituents saw through it and voted them out of office. If anyone is attempting to reshape history, it is the Democrats and neocon Republicans.
Fun fact, Trump won. He is going to be the 47th president. The majority of Americans have issued a mandate to you and Democrats: We dont want what you are trying to sell us. We dont want DEI/CRT in public education. We dont want pornography in elementary school libraries. We dont want biological males in women’s sports, locker rooms or bath rooms. We reject your pronouns. We reject your assertion America is evil. We reject your hate and division. And that is reality. By all means, please double or triple down on your previous woke leftist non-sense. It will only continue to alienate American voters who will vote accordingly in the mid terms and in 2028.
Vance/Gabbard 2028!
Enuf wit da “would of”. Pelosi cud not of that. Say “woulda”, cudya?
UpstateFarmer says: Yeah, Byrd’s was such an expert shot, as evidence by his own record, he KNEW the collar bone shot was going to ricochet into her neck.
Well there you go, sir. The oft repeated malevolent lying Bull Schiff continuing to emanate from California in the form of pbinca:
The Capitol Police matrix of use of force includes training then Lieutenant Gunslinger (now Captain “Hero” Byrd) the ol’ “shoot the gun out of their hand and if they aren’t holding one, wing ’em by shooting them in the collarbone”
pbinca thinks she/her/zee/zay has built enough credibility here to sell us on that?
Rather reminiscent of former police offer Derek Chauvin attempting the defense that his actions in restraining George Floyd were straight out of his police department’s use of force protocols.
Well, following the protocol pbinca claims exonerates now Captain “Hero” Byrd didn’t work for Derek Chauvin…
Should we realistically expect pbinca to come back to explain her defense of the indefensible with how this works to protect this murderous cop?
* Binka has magical thinking and was caught by the JFK association and the magic bullet. The self determination of a ricochet bullet.
Did Byrd rush in to administer life support? Baldwin defense, I didn’t pull the trigger. My finger slipped.
* She was the target, 100 feet distance, caliber to kill.
Byrd’s stated intent was to protect people. Babbitt was unarmed, restrained by the window, wiggling stationary person. His intent was to kill or wound her and by circumstance Byrd showed negligent indifference for her life. Byrd had no evidence that Babbitt was threatening anyone’s life. He had evidence of illegal entry into a public place.
Magic bullet doesn’t apply, pbinca. She was the 🎯. Was he prosecuted for homicide?
* Ashley Babbitt died of a Glock 22 .40 caliber gunshot to the front of her left shoulder at close range.
Presuming it severed the brachial artery and bled to death rapidly.
That killed her whether it ricocheted or not. Doubtful the ME Diaz used “ricochet”. Unkn. Absent autopsy report.
Reinvestigate for manslaughter.
From the evidence I saw before they covered it up, the only people inciting some in the crowd to enter the Capitol in a disorderly flashing were the FBI hiding in the crowd. Then the police was very aggressive to the point of abusive, pushing people who were just standing. The entry was primarily encouraged by the guard at the door, motioning people to enter. Saw that on tape as well as the peaceful, orderly walk through. Tape also showed Ashley standing, talking, laughing to someone next to her when she was shot where she was standing. Didn’t see anything with her climbing through a window that was two small for a 4 year old. This officer was cowering in another room his arm showed through the window pointing his weapon to shoot without distinction where he was shooting. His claims, her reaching into backpack? how could she and be climbing through a tiny window at the same time, has NO credibility . Also there was another woman in the outside tunnel who was kicked and beaten to death by the police. This situation has been distorted beyond belief and truth. There were pictures of all of that if it has not been destroyed to accommodate the insurrection or riot scenario. It was neither. It was citizens excercising their right to demand an honest election, which it was not, or they wouldn’t try to continue distorting the facts. The members of that committee should be held accountable and severely punished.
Why is the Loudermilk report a “new report”? What prevented it from being released pre-election?
It’s an attempt to re-write history so Republicans don’t look as bad as they really did.
Your spelled corrupt Progressive liars wrong.
Will it was Nancy Pelosi & Adam Schiff that led that Democrat hanging posse with no judge or jury.
Turley has resumed his usual pattern of misleading narratives.
And minutes later in a separate post, a repeat performance: Turley neglects to mention that Republicans had the opportunity to join the January 6th committee.
In rapid succession George drops two of his daily deuces. Specifically intended to insult his host. Rife with outright lies, lies of omission, and lies of implication. Bull Schiff straight from the Biden/Harris mind gutter to George’s fingers on his smartphone as he posts – the cellphone that is the only intelligent thing in George’s life.
The summary of every single post is that George’s portrayal of historical fact is correct and Professor Turley (and his audience) is always, always very deliberately and malevolently wrong.
Once again we’re confronted with the question: why does George come here every single day to insult and attack his host and do the same to the rest of us with his malevolent barrage of lies and misrepresentations? He has yet to convince anyone here he is right as he proclaims he is every day, so why devote the time to insult and lie to people.
Sexual gratification in some form?
When the only attention he gets outside of Professor Turley’s blog is looking in the mirror each morning to pop zits, he considers any attention to be good attention?
Why do you do these carbon copy performances here to insult everybody in such a sophomoric way each day George, you cheap fake Confederate Democrat?
You asked, “[W]hy does George come here every single day to insult and attack his host and do the same to the rest of us with his malevolent barrage of lies and misrepresentations? [W]hy devote the time to insult and lie to people. -Sexual gratification in some form?”
It could be. I have been hearing that autogynephilia (Men dressing up or pretending to be women.) is a way for men to shame themselves, and they get arousal from that. Perhaps he likes to be shamed for stupidity. But more likely, George is either a parody sock puppet, or a paid DNC shill. Alternatively, he/she could just be a mentally ill person who craves attention, even if it negative attention.
Floyd,
Eewwww!
In my book, if you ever voted for any democrat after 1948 then you are suspect of many things in my book; from being a KGB plant to just an unhinged product of our post-1970 media/education industry. There is no reason, at this point, for any sentient being to ever pull the lever for a democrat.
Airborne Dog, you confuse “insult” with “criticism”. Turley is fair game for criticism when he posts misleading narratives and dishonest claims. It’s part of the free speech principle he supports.
I can post my opinon or view just like your detached-from-reality rants.
“…what we still do not know about that day.”
We know.
Turley neglects to mention that Republicans had the opportunity to join the January 6th committee. They nominated members who were more focused on obstruction than on being objective. The Republicans indicated their willingness to participate in the committee, but only two, the more sensible ones, chose to do so.
Turley points out that Trump’s January 6 speech was reckless and wrong, but he never really explains why it was so bad. I think it’s because he was egging on his already fired-up supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Trump even said he’d join them right then, which made a lot of people feel like he was the one telling them to storm the Capitol. The violence and attacks on the police lasted for hours while Trump just sat in his dining room, watching it all go down, even as his staff begged him to call off the mob. He didn’t want to, which showed he was okay with the chaos because he was more focused on how to overturn the election results. Turley would have a very different take if Trump had actually managed to force his way into changing the election outcome. Despite calling Trump out for being reckless, Turley still ended up enabling him afterward. He’s going to have a tough time justifying the mess that will follow once Trump takes office. Turley might struggle to not criticize Trump when he can’t just blame the Democrats.
The Democrats loaded their side of the committee with Trump haters. Do you expect the Republicans to allow the Dems to choose their representatives? Martha listen to yourself.
The Democrats offered the Republicans an opportunity to participate, but they declined when their initial nominations were rejected, indicating that they intended to obstruct rather than investigate. The Democrats provided a second chance for the Republicans to suggest other members, yet they refused again. Although the Democrats controlled the committee, they allowed the Republicans to have their representatives. However, they would not accept those who were obstructionists or bomb-throwers. Ultimately, the Republicans were still represented by Cheney and Kinzinger.
What you call obstruction some of us call cross-examination, and as John Henry Wignore said, “Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
Without cross-examination, the J6 Committee was just an exercise in confirmation bias. Totally worthless.
Please cite the last time a Speaker decided who from the minority party should appoint to any Congressional committee. Anxiously awaiting your reply.
Please cite the last time a minority party tried to place active members in an insurrection to an investigation of that insurrection? McCarthy blew it. Full stop.
It’s never happned before, but that does not mean it cannot happen. The Speaker has sole authority to make all appointments to select committees, including minority party members.
First, under House Rule I (“The Speaker”), clause 11 provides that, “The Speaker shall appoint all select, joint and conference committees ordered by the House.” The resolution creating the Jan. 6 select committee (H. Res. 503) provided for a 13-member committee appointed by the Speaker, “five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.”
When Speaker Pelosi rejected the minority leader’s recommendations of Jordan and Banks, McCarthy withdrew his other three picks. Pelosi subsequently named Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinsinger (R-Ill.) to fill two of the GOP slots, neither of whom had the support of McCarthy. The speaker has the authority to veto a recommendation by the minority leader.
We often hear political commenters and analysts say “The coverup is worse than the crime”.
In the case of what is being hidden concerning government and law enforcement involvement in the three hour long J6 riot, and Commissar Pelosi’s carefully crafted J6 commission, the opposite is true.
The coverup is horrible. But the malfeasance and criminality of the government, law enforcement, and the police state fascists happily serving Pelosi rather than the public on the J6 commission is far, far worse.
The events of January 6 should not be seen solely as a desecration of our constitutional process but as a failure to uphold the people’s constitutional rights and a lack of foresight by the government to prevent the situation from escalating.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right of the people!
It is the responsibility of the government to prevent dissent from getting out of control!
There is evidence suggesting that actions on the left contributed to the chaos that unfolded. Additionally, video evidence raises serious questions about Nancy Pelosi’s role in the disorder and, potentially, the tragic loss of lives that day. Nancy Pelosi’s actions were pivotal to the events that transpired.
Care to make a wager that pelosi is found mentally incompetent from advanced alcohol use before she can ever be held accountable and then quietly expires with a pillow over her head.
Whimsical, as crazy as it sounds, in today’s world, I would not be surprised by anything Democrats do.
“ It is the responsibility of the government to prevent dissent from getting out of control!”
No, it isn’t. It is the responsibility of the protesters to exercise their right peacefully and legally. It’s the responsbility of the government to prosecute the criminals and violent offenders.
The left had nothing to do with the violence. Trump supporters went on a rampage and chose to break the law and commit crimes because they believed Trump told them to.
Protestors are supposed to act responsibly. When they are not, they are thrown in jail. Our leaders, like Nancy Pelosi, are supposed to act to prevent irresponsible acts. They didn’t, but instead of imprisonment, they were permitted to lie, cheat and steal. If it wasn’t for the video Nancy Pelosi’s daughter took, dummies like you would still be in the dark.
wait it took you this long to realize Democrats are Fascists?
pbinca tried this: If Officer Byrd had intended to kill Babbitt, why would he have shot at close range at her collarbone region? But details and facts don’t matter.
Details and facts have never troubled you in your disreputable career here so far, pbinca. Why would anybody be surprised that you are once again eager to post in malevolence and/or ignorance while attempting to defend the indefensible?
This murderous cop previously failed a police qualification WITH A SHOTGUN. How do you miss enough times during a shotgun qualification at the range while not under stress to the point you fail to attain a passing score?
He was so inept that he left his service weapon in a bathroom to which the public had access. Previously he had fired at a stolen van without justification – and then lied about the circumstances that caused him to fire. Like his friends in the FBI in Washington DC i.e. FBI Director Andy McCabe, he was never charged with lying to police investigators.
You want us to believe he took careful, deliberate aim at her collarbone. You know, the ol’ “shoot to wound” seen in the movies (she didn’t have a gun in her hand to allow him to shoot the gun out of her hand)
Any particular reason you believe the ol’ “shoot to wound” is his defense because that is part of Capitol Police use of force training, and so he was just following his training? Exactly like the police officer who was convicted of killing George Floyd, despite claiming what he did was just following his department’s training.
I don’t believe you. You are lying by insinuation to claim he was following Capitol Police use of force protocols by carefully taking aim to shoot Babbitt in the collarbone.
There’s no way he was panicked, a lousy shot, moving rather than stationary, etc. Or maybe he intended to shoot her in the head and missed by a few inches – his marksmanship wasn’t up to it’s usual incredible standard that day!
Or maybe he was a cull who should have never been in a uniform nor issued a service weapon and he panicked. A cull that should have been fired after he wrongfully fired his service pistol in a family neighborhood and then lied about what happened.
If this kind of defamatory falsehood is what we can expect from a respected law professor, what is becoming of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? Of civility? Of moderation?
You do not have any respect that qualifies you to judge anyone else. You’re here to lie and create a false narrative of what happened in an attempt to defend the indefensible – and then insult Professor Turley by accusing HIM of defamatory falsehoods.
This post is yet another reason your logic and opinions never even manage to get past the sniff test, never mind the test of credibility and common sense.
Your posts like this fail because they reek of the stench of Bull Schiff. As usual, the stench carries across the country from both you and Schiff, straight from Kalifornia.
* Pbinca– the case of the rogue bullet.
If Byrd had fired at the ceiling and hit a water pipe, the bullet ricochet created a bullet with self determination. It’s become a magic bullet. Byrd fired at her collarbone creating a magic bullet with self determination. The bullet killed Babbitt and not Byrd.
That’s the argument. Does a ricochet constitute homicide. Get some rest binca, it was Babbitt’s collarbone and she was the intended target. Did Byrd say he was aiming for an inanimate object and accidentally hit Babbitt’s collarbone?
Surrender formally, binca.
IMHO pbinca is trying to limit Byrds control of the fired bullet from the barrel exit to completion at the collarbone. Byrd had no control over the ricochet. Quite an amazing argument.
The bullet both hit and killed the intended target. That’s the evidence.
* Pbinca, are you trying to say Wyatt Earp Byrd was trying to wing Babbitt? He had no intent to kill her? Officers are directed to shoot at arms and legs?
The “ricochet ” does make a difference if it’s a true ricochet. The body is filled with bones and are you trying to set a new standard for homicide and autopsy? The ME must note all directional changes of a bullet if bone is hit?
It’s the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. Unfortunately the evidence isn’t with us. Was it actually a ricochet? Perhaps a knick on the way to the neck.
As it stands a civil case.
It’s all so tiresome and plenty of people had their lives ruined. All J6 committee members should face an execution squad. It’s that simple.
Why limit the firing squad to just the Jan 6 committee? How about the fauci crowd, the 51 signatures on the hunter biden laptop, hillary destroying evidence about Benghazi? There are too many incidences of outrageous and pernicious behavior by the prog/left to list here; each one incrementally destroying our faith in public institutions. We would need something much larger than the 6-gang gallows seen in Hang ‘Em High for the work that needs to be done to clean up that swamp. I think the French of 1789 had a better solution.
Why limit the firing squad to just the Jan 6 committee? How about the fauci crowd, the 51 signatures on the hunter biden laptop, hillary destroying evidence about Benghazi?
Well, there’s certainly a visceral emotional appeal. But in real life, the cure for police state fascism and bureaucratic insurrection isn’t even higher levels of police state fascism.
The tools to deal with this within the standards of our constitution and the rule of law exist.
What I sadly believe doesn’t exist is the will of Republicans to willingly use those tools of law and the Constitution to do that.
I include Trump in that assessment, if only because he still believes that the art of the deal will work with his former Democrat friends and party. For all his campaign rhetoric, he simply doesn’t believe that they are what they clearly show us they are.
You are quite correct but…people have observed the pernicious lies from these people (and there is blood on their hands for much of what they have orchestrated) and the public needs a sense of fairness and finality to these egregious acts (I would say that this feeling might go all the way back to acts by the left including the silencing of Joe McCarthy and the JFK assassination) than just explaining away their maleficence and illegal actions. If we are to restore faith in our system of Rule of Law, there must be severe accountability not just a rational explanation of the crimes.
whimsicalmama posted:
You are quite correct but…people have observed the pernicious lies from these people (and there is blood on their hands for much of what they have orchestrated) and the public needs a sense of fairness and finality to these egregious acts
I agree 100% with you on all of that. From a pragmatic aspect, to allow this to be added to the long list of legal malfeasance that has escaped condemnation, never mind indictments and trial, is to throw away one of the factors in having a law abiding society and government: deterrence.
Aside from everything else, without deterrence, the opposite is happening: we are emboldening further malfeasance and criminality.
However, by this point I see no reason to believe that this time around Trump as well as the Republicans will do any different than what they did during his previous four years in office.
The promise to appoint a Special Counsel if elected to investigate Clinton (and by extension Obama and Biden) for their Espionage Act felonies and their criminal “Trump-Russia Dossier” morphed into Trump saying “Nah, the Clintons are good people and they’ve suffered enough”. The Republicans obviously agreed and did nothing despite owning both the House and Senate.
I just can’t see this time being any better, no matter how often Gigi comes here to tell us Trump is about to send the military to hunt down everybody who offended him.
I hope to be wrong, even if only because without deterrence, criminality within government is emboldened.
If what you say about Trump’s lack of will to prosecute, then we have elected the wrong man.
If what you say about Trump’s lack of will to prosecute, then we have elected the wrong man.
Nobody else would have either. I would have much preferred DeSantis as the candidate for various reasons, among them his ability to communicate and handle the propaganda media without repeatedly stepping on his dick. The ability for him to bleed them when they clash, instead of them bleeding him.
That aside, whoever is the president, the midterm campaign is about 14 – 18 months away and the midterms will decide if Trump still has the legislative branch or if the Soviet Democrats can win one back. If they lose the House, the first thing Democrats will do is impeach Trump yet again. Nothing Trump promised will ever make it to his desk for signing if he loses either, unless he’s willing to pay Democrats a horrible price to get it.
In the face of that, spending time and political support to chase down these criminals is time and opportunity lost getting significant things accomplished. Dealing with these criminals is not anywhere near the top of the priority list for many Trump voters.
The scenario wouldn’t be any better if any other Republican were about to move into the White House; the numbers game for the midterms is no different. A fractured GOP in the House with so many at risk coming from purple states that could easily lose the 2026 midterm will leave them cautious about actions that would be condemned in their district.
OK, here is an alternative idea then. Convict the J6 committee members and their accessories. Sentence them to whichever federal penitentiary holds the most J6 prisoners. Wait until after sentencing to pardon the J6 participants. Arrange for the incoming prisoners and those pardoned and being released to spend a couple of unsupervised hours in a “get together” in the exercise yard of that prison so that they can “chat” a bit.
* Yes, the committee is a disgrace.
“All J6 committee members should face an execution squad.”
Trump should pardon all those imprisoned for their actions on J6. Then those released should have the opportunity to participate in a lottery drawing to be a member of that firing squad.
Not only was the shooting of unarmed Trump supporters allowed on January 6th, the Capitol Police stunningly promoted then-Lieutenant Byrd to Captain for his meritorious defense of democracy. And you wonder why the Capitol Police exclusively answer to Congress and not the DOJ, Treasury, or Homeland Security ? They essentially have no meaningful oversight at all. None.
His job was to defend the House Chamber against intrusion by a violent mob who had smashed a window to gain entrance. He was outnumbered and had no backup. He made a tactical decision to use his weapon to prevent a breach, which was his responsibility since there were lawmakers still in the chamber. It’s easy to 2nd guess his decision process after the fact, when things are known that couldn’t possibly have been known at the time. The fair approach is to judge someone’s behavior in the context of that moment, putting aside what came after as immaterial. What would you have done in his shoes, with his responsibility?…again forgetting everything you know from that point on?
His job was to defend the House Chamber against intrusion by a violent mob who had smashed a window to gain entrance. He was outnumbered and had no backup. He made a tactical decision to use his weapon to prevent a breach
Tell us, you feckless Anonymous coward: where was this gunslinger/hitman a few months earlier? Remember when a violent mob of Democrat street thugs in Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa spent A DAY assaulting the White House with Trump inside, attempting to murder then Lieutenant Gunslinger and his fellow Capitol Police and FBI with Molotov cocktails?
Over 50 of his fellow Capitol Police were transported to hospital with wounds they suffered over the course of a day of fighting, repelling the attackers who so badly outnumbered them that the Secret Service feared they would lose the battle and evacuated the president and his family. (making Democrats like then Senator DEI Hire gloat and cheer)
Explain to everybody why then Lieutenant Gunslinger didn’t make a “tactical decision” to start stacking the bodies of rioting Democrat Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa?
He and the officers under his command were outnumbered, ambulances were taking his wounded fellow officers to hospital, and attackers were still attempting to murder them with Molotov Cocktails. While the president they were attempting to protect was under assault.
The continued lies and malfeasance in an attempt to defend the indefensible are nothing other than an insult to all they’re thrown at.
Tell your employers to send us a better quality of liar and dissembler in future. Somebody at least more entertaining in their cowardly posts they inflict on us.
Congress’s Jan. 6 Investigation Looks Less and Less Credible
And in other breaking news this morning as we prepare for the morning shower: water is wet! Professor Turley, this is essentially a recap of what is well known by now. Preoccupied with Thanksgiving planning and needed to rush a column out the door? Not criticizing you for what you provide readers for free, but there’s nothing thought provoking here.
(Unless your intention was to heavily troll your dear close friend, Dennis McIntyre into another episode of shrieking “It was an insurrection!!!!!” You know he WILL be here at work today to insult you yet again and tell you that you are wrong and his employer and he are right.)
I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection.
You only see desecrations of that process when committed by private citizens? Actions by those in government who like yourself are at the top of the legal profession, allegedly in public service to America, never sink to the depths of being similar or worse desecrations?
I have never read you nail that label (or similar label) on any of your fellow lawyers engaged in malfeasance at a national level while pretending to be working in public service for American citizens!
I do criticize you for the selective ways you discover desecrations of our constitutional process. I am certain many other Americans can agree with you regarding January 6th in the same or similar terms. What we notice is that for all your columns, those four hours of January 6th is the ONLY event of the last ten years you have decided meets your standard of being ‘a desecration of the constitutional process’.
The list of Obama Attorney Generals and FBI Directors who repeatedly paraded through FISA courts to knowingly perjure themselves to those courts while uttering false documents to obtain counterespionage warrants to violate the civil rights of Trump as both a nominee and as a sitting president is a desecration. Not just Trump but every American within two hops of private communications with those named in the warrants.
No judge has brought those Obama criminals back before their courts to answer for those crimes committed in their courts. Where would you suggest their victim Navy veteran Carter Page, go to get his reputation and his career back? They perjured themselves to courts and forged documents in an attempt to create evidence that would make him a criminal and put him in prison! Any desecration apparent to you in that?
No Attorney General including your friend Merrick Garland has ever prosecuted those criminals who are your fellow lawyers at the zenith of their careers of supposedly serving the American public. You give that a weak sauce mewl of protest occasionally. But never call that in-your-face crime wave carried out by your fellow lawyers, radiating from the Oval Office, a desecration of the constitutional process.
You have never wrote that you find that years long period of Lavarentiy Beria style justice, where the FBI and DoJ were converted into being the Clinton/Obama/Biden political STASI to be sufficiently offensive to be a desecration of our constitutional process.
The earlier rioters who forced their way into the Senate while it was in session in an attempt to prevent the confirmation vote for now Justice Kavanaugh… it failed (as J6 failed at whatever they were attempting through their disruption). But somehow or other that has barely attracted your ire – much less the label ‘desecration of our constitutional process’. Even with the disgusting hearings that went on before then?
The manner in which malevolent prosecutors have hunted down practically every J6 granny who trespassed long enough on the Senate lawn to take a selfie. BUT the black clad thugs who months earlier mounted an assault on the White House that lasted over a day to get at the president and his family inside, with over 50 Secret Service and Capitol Police being sent to hospital with wounds they received repelling the would-be invaders. The prosecutors hunting the J6 rioters never hunted down one of them before the J6 riot, and they certainly haven’t developed an interest in bringing them to justice since.
When do you find that malfeasance and polar opposites in enforcing American law for foul political purposes a desecration of our constitutional process?
There have been a lot of desecrations of our constitutional processes by your fellow lawyers in the halls of power going back to Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC’s illegal ‘Trump Russia Dossier’ and events since then involving the DoJ and Soviet style lawfare. That provides you a rich pool of topics to write columns on desecrations of constitutional processes by those at the top of the legal profession, Professor Turley.
What becomes increasingly clear is that you’re happy to pen columns to criticize. But you do so with the soft soap treatment for your fellow lawyers that are fouling the concept of public service in government, while reserving your condemnation of “desecrations” for private citizens outside of your legal profession.
Shame on you for giving your fellow lawyers like Merrick Garland, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Robert Mueller et al a pass.
But then… double standards are an identifying mark of Democrats, so perhaps it’s just an involuntary reaction, not purposeful.
Dog,, Excellent comment.
I do hope that Pam Bondi has the strength of Hercules as she has a far worse job than cleaning out the Augean stables. This is the Republican’s last chance to turn this leviathan around and I do hope this administration has the cajones to get to the bottom and pull the plug on this cesspool.
When you learn of how the bell is going to be un-rung, do let us know won’t you. Be assured that I won’t be holding my breath. Dirtbags like Adam Schiff taking a public position on what the Dems did wrong when he’s prime facie evidence of it, give me little hope for retribution against that cult. After all, those who returned him to Washington are far more culpable than he is. Send not to know who was elected. Send to know who voted.
Professor Turley, you wrote, “the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police.”
How do you classify the death of Ms. Rosanne Marie BOYLAND, b. 26-Apr-1986, Georgia; d. 6-Jan-2021, Washington, D.C.? (Incidentally, Ms. Boyland was a Mayflower descendant and a descendant of a man who fought in the American Revolution).
* Boyland was killed by a stampede. When large groups of people assemble a stampede is possible if not probable if the the crowd is angry. Police know this and institute crowd control. Pelosi is responsible as well as capitol police for the stampede death of Boyland.
RIP
“”The footage is choppy, it’s chaotic, in a chaotic environment. It’s hard to see what’s going on, and this footage that we have is censored. But there is something we can learn from this footage… There is a Capitol police officer that is swinging a large wooden stick and crashing it down on Roseanne Boyland again and again. Even after Roseanne Boyland has fallen to the ground and is writhing on the steps of the US Capitol. The officer continues to beat her, again, and again. People are yelling for the officer to stop, but she doesn’t. She continues beating Roseanne Boyland. “-https://humanevents.com/2023/01/27/posobiec-officer-lila-morris-badge-number-5869-beat-a-protestor-to-death-on-steps-of-us-capitol-on-jan-6
If Officer Byrd had intended to kill Babbitt, why would he have shot at close range at her collarbone region? The Medical Examiner determined that the bullet ricocheted from the collarbone in the direction of her neck, and that was the cause of the fatality.
But details and facts don’t matter. Why?…because this detail totally undermines the drive by partisans to impugn Byrd’s motives as wanting to kill. Quoting Jonathan Turley above:
“He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her.”
If this kind of defamatory falsehood is what we can expect from a respected law professor, what is becoming of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? Of civility? Of moderation? Of preference for facts over deceptively-simplified narratives?
LOL He shot an unarmed woman. The very epitome of a coward.
Have you ever fired a pistol? Under stress? I wager not. The very idea that he was just trying to ‘wing’ her is laughable. Turley is absolutely right. The only ‘defamatory falsehood’ here is that you think you understand use of deadly force.
“Why?…because this detail totally undermines the drive by partisans to impugn Byrd’s motives as wanting to kill.”
??? What, Byrd only wanted to blast a hole in her collarbone, as opposed to wanting to kill her??? Crap, dude, he shot an unarmed white woman.
Yeah, Byrd’s was such an expert shot, as evidence by his own record, he KNEW the collar bone shot was going to ricochet into her neck.
these are the same videos i saw as well. the woman who was trampled was also repeatedly hit by a caital police woman as she lay defenseless. this captal police woman later gets some kind of bravery award that was filmed and shown on tv. as i watched the very first videos that were played live i found it really odd that all these men”dressed in black ” were opening up crowd control gates for the protesters to go through. i never saw that footage again. i was alwas suspicious after i saw that video footage.
Seems to me that a ‘Warning Shot’ to the floor or Ceiling would have sufficed, and the sound of the discharge would have been enough for People to to back-off and disperse,
Officer Byrd like so many L.E.O. these days think that the only self defense is a Kill-shot. The mindset is that a slaughterhouse is ‘ok’ to purse because you’re wearing a Shield.
Defensive Combat is completely different than Close Quarters Combat, just as the use of Non-Lethal Force is different than Lethal Force. Obviously Byrd didn’t have that in mind that day. One warning-shot would have saved Ashli Babbitt’s life.
“Seems to me that a ‘Warning Shot’ to the floor or Ceiling would have sufficed, and the sound of the discharge would have been enough for People to to back-off and disperse.”
The “warning shot” is just as fictional as the “wing ’em collarbone shot” Bull Schiff emanating once again from California in the persona of “pbinca” here. Anyone proposing such a thing has lost any credibility to comment on use of force, whether defending or proposing it.
“Officer Byrd like so many L.E.O. these days think that the only self defense is a Kill-shot. The mindset is that a slaughterhouse is ‘ok’ to purse because you’re wearing a Shield.”
If that ‘exception proves the rule’ you’re attempting were true, police would be stacking bodies by the hundreds in this country every day.
But you already displayed you have no credibility as far as commenting on use of force is concerned.
Are you insane? He was 6 feet from her, outweighed her by 100 pounds, and she was 1/2 hanging through an 18 inch wide window. He could.have grabbed her and cuffed her before she even touched the ground..
What he did wes premeditated murder. He had ample opportunity to use less than lethal force. He flat chose to kill her.
* Ricochet Byrd shot a restrained , unarmed woman. Imagine being on a jury with pbinca.
* He was aiming at her head and hit her collarbone. Does that help Binka? He was doing a trick shot by hitting the collarbone for a ricochet to the neck. Maybe that helps? The ricochet idea is nuts. Tell your doc.
Done
Shots to the collarbone aren’t deadly? LOL HOLY HELL
“Shots to the collarbone aren’t deadly? LOL HOLY HELL”
Yep, in pbinca and Capitol Police (apparently) world, the bronchial, subclavian and carotid arteries do not exist.
That’s why pbinca and Anonymous Democrats informed us that Capitol Police authorize the “wing ’em collarbone shot” – no major arteries or organs in that area of the body.
“Yep, in pbinca and Capitol Police (apparently) world, the bronchial, subclavian and carotid arteries do not exist.”
Pbinca’s resume includes being a professor of anatomy. She concluded that at the angle Byrd’s shot was, the bullet, while ricocheting off the collarbone, would slip around the carotid and subclavian. That is how great a shot she thought Byrd was.
* Give up. Babbitt was the target, close range, high caliber, unarmed, restrained by window. The ricochet is irrelevant.
Babbitt died of a bullet fired by Byrd. The bullet fired by Byrd hit Babbitt’s collarbone at an angle causing the bullet to veer into her neck. The collarbone was knicked by the bullets trajectory.
“If Officer Byrd had intended to kill Babbitt, why would he have shot at close range at her collarbone region?”
Pbinca, you always assume things? Why? Is that your ideology?
How do you know where Officer Byrd was aiming? Don’t you know he wasn’t a good officer? He lost his gun, yet you think he is a crack shot.
“The Medical Examiner determined ….”
Your derangement symptoms keep showing themselves while you leap to conclusions to exonerate Byrd. If you are trying to make Byrd and the Democrats look better, you should note you are making yourself look worse.
“But details and facts don’t matter. Why?”
You accuse others of acting the way you act. Thanks for the laugh.
” what is becoming of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? “
Turley is late to the party, but you are a liar. Keep accusing others when you and your fellow Democrats can’t recognize where your lies begin.
As someone familiar with penal code regarding the use of deadly force and the force compendium, I do not see how the shooting of Ashli Babbitt can be justified when a simple arrest could have been, and more typically would have been, affected,. Particularly so in today’s environment. My immediate impression? Nepotism. And past donations to the party in lieu of disciplinary action, etc. Very common in police agencies, would it surprise anyone that the Capitol Police are highly politicized?
J6 was choreographed by Pelosi, the entire world knows that. You/ they/ them cannot successfully gaslight when video evidence lays bare your untruth to the entire world.
* Byrd was trigger happy.