Academia, Columns, Lawyering, Military, Politics

“Reimagining” the Resistance: Lawfare Warriors Express Regret But Not Remorse After Election

Below is my column on Fox.com on the new effort to “reimagine” the resistance to Trump, including the recognition of the failure of lawfare. While some figures on the left are expressing doubts over the efficacy of weaponizing the legal system, it is doubtful that we have seen the end of it. They are only regretting that it did not work. The center of gravity of lawfare will now likely shift to the states and Democratic attorneys general and District Attorneys. “Reimagination” is rarely a form of self-examination, let alone self-criticism. That is evident in some of the most recent writings of lawfare warriors. They are like wandering Ronin samurai, warriors who lost not just their master but their purpose. What they seem to lack most, however, is principle. Whatever “reimagining” occurs, it should start with a recognition that lawfare was an abuse of the legal system for political ends.

Here is the column:

The reaction to the reelection of Donald Trump in the media has ranged from histrionic to outright hysteria. MSNBC analyst and former Sen. Claire McCaskill wept openly on television as CBS News anchor John Dickerson got choked up on national television in an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, still struggling to discuss the news days after the election.

However, arguably the most perplexing responses came a few days ago when the New York Times ran a column from one of the advocates of the lawfare used against Trump since 2016.

Yale Law Professor Samuel Moyn has long been a favorite of the New York Times as part of what I have previously described as a counter-constitutional movement in higher education. As I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right, Moyn and others have insisted that the constitution itself may be the problem with America.

In a previous New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” Moyn and Harvard Professor Ryan D. Doerfler called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

While the New York Times publicly condemned a U.S. senator for writing about the use of the National Guard to stop violent protests (as would be done at both the White House and the Capitol), it has published a long line of figures who have engaged in violent or extremist rhetoric from the left.

However, this particular column may be worth the ink and hypocrisy needed to publish it. The New York Times long lionized those who brought raw partisan prosecutions against Trump and his allies, including efforts to cleanse ballots to deny citizens the opportunity to vote for the man who just won the popular vote.

In his new column “Liberals Bet They Could Beat Trump With the Law, Moyn regrets the lawfare, not because it distorted the law and weaponized the legal system, but because it did not work.

He even quotes Benjamin Wittes, who helped create the Lawfare website, which was used, in Moyn’s words, “to hem in Mr. Trump.” Wittes wrote, “I have no interest in recriminations.” Perhaps, but the public does.

The election—which handed both houses of Congress and the White House to the GOP—was arguably the largest verdict in history. However, it was not necessarily a verdict for Trump as much as it was against the lawfare and advocacy journalism that had been used openly for years.

After all, the “Let’s Go Brandon!” movement developed at the start of the Biden Administration and was as much a criticism of the media and political establishment as it was Joe Biden —  a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the governing elite.

For years, these figures ignored the “recriminations” of some who objected to using the legal system for political purposes, particularly in the New York cases.

To his credit, Moyn now admits that “the more uncomfortable truth is that our search for political salvation primarily through the law has backfired.”

However, he remains remarkably uncritical of such tactics in the first place. Instead, he insists that these losses were due to simply “legalistic tactics.” Some of us call that the law.

Moyn plays Shakespeare’s Othello in claiming to be “one that lov’d not wisely but too well.” The problem, he explains to the fragile Times readership is that they “rooted their opposition to Mr. Trump in the law since his first month in office.” He even refers to efforts early on to block Trump’s immigration policies.

As soon as Trump came into office, he faced an acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, who ordered the department to stand down and not assist the new president in his immigration orders. I wrote at the time that the order was an outrageous and partisan act by Yates, who was planning on leaving in a matter of days.

While I criticized the initial Trump orders as poorly crafted (perhaps due to the lack of legal support) and in need of revision, I noted that he was likely to prevail on his claimed underlying authority. He ultimately prevailed after revising the orders. Yet, the New York Times and other publications again lionized Yates for an act that some of us view as unprofessional and arguably unethical.

The problem with the lawfare campaign is that it did not just treat the law as an extension of politics, but treated the public as chumps. A large part of the public saw these cases for what they were: the use of motivated judges in favorable jurisdictions for political advantage.

These same figures claim to be “saving democracy.”

The result was that liberals convinced many citizens that democracy was at risk . . . from them. What they saw was efforts at ballot cleansing to remove Trump and other Republicans from the ballots. They saw raw lawfare in New York courts. They saw Kamala Harris and other Democrats supporting an unprecedented system of censorship that one court called “Orwellian.”

Liberals continue to ignore that obvious disconnection despite the polls showing that they were increasingly viewed as the threat. Voters in swing states felt that Trump is more likely to protect democracy than Kamala Harris, who was running on a “save democracy” platform. One poll asked whether Trump or Harris “would do a better job” of “defending against threats to democracy,” 43% picked Trump, while 40% picked Harris. Likewise, free speech registered as one of the greatest concerns for voters in this election after years of censorship and blacklisting from the left.

Now, one of the academics who previously said that we have to reimagine our democracy and trash our constitution is advising that the election left “a Democratic Party in dire need of reimagining.”

There is a point where “reimagining” everything from the police to democracy becomes less of an exercise of self-evaluation than self-delusion. What many figures like Moyn are not willing to admit is that what Democrats attempted to do with lawfare was wrong and that the public rejected it … and them.

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.”

 

 

 

216 thoughts on ““Reimagining” the Resistance: Lawfare Warriors Express Regret But Not Remorse After Election”

  2. The powers that be have been too hesitant to drop bombs as a way to punish wrong-doing nations. Every wrong can be righted by dropping bombs. The number of bombs would be commensurate to the level of the transgression. This will keep rogue nations from going rogue.

  4. Well, Turley, you are officially shameless–what is it you want? A federal judgship? An appointment to a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals? Or, just your own show on Fox or other MAGA media? Turley: you DO know better. You DO know that it could only be partisan “lawfare” if: 1. Trump didn’t steal classified documents, lie about returning them, moved them around to prevent his lawyer from returning them and lied about “mentally declassifying” them; 2. it is not illegal to steal classified documents or fail to return them or lie about returning all of them while hiding some of them; tell us, who else could do what he did–steal documents, leave them laying around, unsecured, where anyone could get access to them, return some, lie that all had been returned and then resisting returning the rest? 3. Trump didn’t falsify business records by lying about payoffs to a nude model and porn actress as “legal expenses”; or that it’s not illegal to do these things; a jury found that he DID do these things and convicted him of 34 counts; 4. Trump didn’t try to get Secretaries of State to crook the vote counts by awarding him votes he never got; to falsify Electoral College results; or if it’s not illegal to do these things. Then, there’s the insurrection.

    Or, maybe, the overarching theme is that Turley is jonesing for some benefit by accusing prosecutors of partisan political motivation, echoing one of the themes belched out by MAGA media, especially the one he works for. BUT, what Turley hasn’t done and cannot do is challenge the underlying facts or the validity of the underlying law. Instead, Turley attacks the prosecutors. Turley–it’s not “lawfare” if charges are presented first to a grand jury and that grand jury finds that Trump committed the acts and that these acts are crimes. It’s not “lawfare” if a jury convicts Trump, after a fair trial at which he was represented by counsel of his choosing, of falsifying business records. Trump is not entitled to a free pass. It used to be in America that no one is above the law. The SCOTUS has done everything possible to weaken this bedrock principle when it comes to Trump–but that doesn’t change the fact that none of the rest of us could either commit the crimes Trump has committed or expect to get away with it. It also doesn’t change the fact that a law professor should promote disrespect for the rule of law, the legal system, judges, prosecutors and juries because he wants some material benefit.

    The theft of the classified documents is especially disconcerting–we still don’t know what sensitive information might have gotten into the wrong hands, or whether our sources or methods have been compromised. Our allies are worried, and if Trump’s theft of classified documents wasn’t reason enough, the proposed nomination of totally unqualified and ethically compromised Tulsi Gabbard adds to their concerns. It is likely that they will hesitate to share intel about our enemies because of the risk that someone like Gabbard doesn’t understand the importance of the information, the risk of disclosing sources and methods and might well share it with Putin or the Syrians or others. We could end up with another 911. Of course, Turley will be there to deflect blame away from Trump.

    1. Well, Turley, you are officially shameless–what is it you want?

      Gigi, after every shameless performance you drop here with pathological lying and defense of the Democrat indefensible… how do you lie to yourself successfully that you have any credibility towards accusing anyone else of being shameless? You don’t even come close to the level of a pot calling the kettle black.

      You’re an amoral, hypocritical, pathological lying vicious political whore. A shameless and well known one.

      And you know after any one of deuces you drop here that everybody reading your filth knows that’s exactly what you are.

      Answer your own question Gigi, Fire Ho Of Democrat Lies: What is it you want? Why do you come here to insult everybody with every one of your posts?

      1. Old Dog: WHAT did I lie about? Did Trump take classified documents? Was he permitted to do so?–the NARA says “no”. Were the documents left lying around in boxes on a stage, in a bathroom and storage locker that all kinds of people could access them, copy them, or just take them? Is there any way to trace whether sources and methods might have been compromised? Can top secret documents be “mentally declassified”?–the U.S. Code says “no”, and that there is a paper trail created that doesn’t exist for the papers Trump took and refused to return. Why did the jury find Trump guilty of 34 felonies? The bigger question of all: why should Trump get away with doing these things when the rest of us could not, and why should prosecutors ignore crimes committed by Trump? As to my criticism of Turley–why can’t he find fault with the facts or the law, and why does he criticize prosecutors, the judge, and the jury when it was Trump who did these things?

        1. Old Dog: WHAT did I lie about?

          You ask WHAT lie, you scandal ridden shameless skanky political whore? How about this one:

          Hillary clinton did not have the criminal intention to violate the law by receiving classified materials at home where her computer did not have the sufficient security.

          FBI Director James Comey outlined her long list of crimes over the four years she was Secretary of State, sharing classified information with as many as five different adversarial nations with those illegal and unsecured emails and devices. Took him over ten minutes standing at the microphone to detail them all if I remember correctly.

          Strict liability crimes that do not require any proof of intent.

          Comey then shoved Obama’s Attorney General aside to speak as though he were the Attorney General and announce that none of that Attorney General’s federal prosecutors would prosecute Clinton for her four years of crimes.

          How’s that for having one of your lies shoved back in that shyte filled pie hole in the middle of your face, Gigi.

          Your that one that fathers warned their sons never to go near, even if they had two large shopping bags and a full length hazmat suit suitable for the occasion.

          1. I have looked at several resources, and ALL of them say there is NO strict liability for mere possession of classified documents if there was no deliberate intention to take them wrongfully. There is NO comparison between Trump’s deliberate theft of classified documents, refusals of polite requests to return them and lying about returning them and Pence and Biden’s inadvertent possession of classified documents that they immediately self-corrected. None of the things of which you accuse Hillary Clinton is true–Comey said there was NO criminal intent. You are a MAGA, and therefore fact-immune.

        2. Old Dog: WHAT did I lie about?

          Gigi, here’s another one of your lies to be shoved back into that shyte encrusted pie hole in the middle of your face that functions as your second crap emitting anus:

          neither Pence nor Biden DELIBERATELY STOLE classified documents.

          Gigi wants us to believe her defending Biden. Claiming Biden didn’t DELIBERATELY remove BOXES of classified information in repetitive serial felonies from classified areas throughout his prior DECADES as a Senator. And then again in his EIGHT YEARS as Vice President. During which time NOTHING empowered him to declassify any of that material plainly marked as classified that he stole.

          Gigi wants us to believe Biden thought it was perfectly legal to stuff documents plainly marked classified down his pants and walk away with them. Exactly as Bill Clinton’s lawyer got caught doing about the same time Biden was doing it.

          No mens rea on the part of lawyer Joe Biden whatsoever! Not even awareness of stealing these classified documents being a strict liability felony!

          He just kept “inadvertently removing and secreting” those classified materials away in his home, over and over again for DECADES.

          And just like his fellow lawyer and Senator Clinton’s defense, lawyer and senator Joe Biden didn’t have the slightest clue what those classified markings indicated.

          Gigi, if posting deliberate lies in an attempt to destroy a person’s political and/or personal life were a crime, you’d be serving about three back to back life sentences by now.

          1. Nobody has to lie about Trump to make him look bad–he has always had a bad reputation for being a liar, womanizer, cheater and crook.

            1. Nobody has to lie about Trump to make him look bad

              Gigi, if you’re telling the truth for the very first time here, then explain your Dear Leaders’ illegally commissioned and paid for “Trump-Russia Dossier”. Yes, that one – the one you spent years proclaiming was true. The one the whole world now knows was nothing but you Soviet Democrats’ illegal political propaganda lies.

              If Obama, Clinton, Biden, the DNC et al didn’t have to lie about Trump to make him look bad (meaning “Make Our Hillary Look Good”), why did they illegally pay one of Putin’s spies to write that lie?

              Tell us why they needed to lie so bad about Trump that Obama sent his Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to perjure themselves to FISA judges in their courts?

              The audience knows that this is yet another one of your serial pathological and corrupt lies.

              As always Gigi, you are the contemptible Fire Ho’ Of Democrat Lies.

            2. a bad reputation for being a liar, womanizer, cheater and crook.

              Gigi, you voted repeatedly for Bribery Biden, President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Incest Showers LONG before Trump ever ran for president. A man who is all of those things while holding public office and then continuing that while out of public office.

              You knew he was a womanizer, a childizer, and a cheater before Trump ran for office. You knew he raped a young intern while married. You knew he screwed the kids’ babysitter before his wife and kid’s bodies were cold and buried in the ground. You knew women complained that he was molesting them while he was still a senator. You knew he got off fondling other peoples’ children in the White House from the first days he was Vice President. And you knew female Secret Service agents asked to be taken off his detail because he got off swimming nude in front of them while Vice President.

              You knew there were over 170 Suspicious Activity Reports filed with the Obama administration reporting being paid bribes, payments for access to his office, and money laundering. You knew he got over $30 million from the ChiCom government alone while Vice President. We call that “a crook” here.

              And as for being a liar, The Big Guy is the only person in the USA who may be able to say they’re a greater liar than you, Gigi.

              Whether claiming he graduated from college with two different degrees at the top of his class in both while on a full pull scholarship, or 40 years later repeatedly lying that he didn’t know any of his customers while in the VP’s office. Didn’t know their names, didn’t know who they were, never spoke or met with any of them – and certainly never met any of them in the Vice President’s office.

              Meanwhile, nobody has to understate or invent a single thing to call you a liar, political whore, and crook.

              No, you show us that every day, Gigi, Fire Ho’ Of Democrat Lies.

      1. “Gigi- What a perversion of beautiful name.”

        What a complete and total waste of skin and rations.

  5. What Turley refers to as “lawfare” is, in reality, the standard application of legal principles and procedures

    Really!!! Two Obama Attorney Generals, three Obama FBI Directors, and multiple Obama FBI lawyers repeatedly perjuring themselves to FISA courts with the additional felony of uttering false documents to those courts to get illegal espionage spy warrants to violate the civil rights of Americans is apparently “the standard application of legal principles and procedures”.

    At least it is in the Democrat Bluesky World of Lies where Curious George The Democrat Marxist Monkey comes from. Dropping his Daily Deuces here to insult us with his lies while telling us “please don’t believe your lying eyes, believe me speaking my truths to you”.

    George, do you get sexual gratification each time you insult us with your blatant sophomoric Democrat lies and Harris style word salad? Why ELSE do you do this every single time you post?

    Your abjectly poor reading comprehension and denial that context and nuance exist is not an excuse for your serial campaign of pathological lies. You’re no better than Bribery Biden claiming he never met or knew any of his ChiCom or Putin customers while Vice President.

    1. “Screaming Lil Bow Wow,” what were your MOS, Awards, Campaign, and Theater, or is yours stolen valor “Tampon Tim” style?

      1. Little cut like a marshmallow Airsoft Gravy Seal Sniper, you child molesting pervert, why is it that you’re posting here when your probation order is that you’re to stay off the internet?

        And where are your quotes from those AOL posts that you claim to be stolen valor?

        What branch of service did you serve in to walk in harms way as an Airsoft Gravy Seal Sniper, Anonymous? You learned the terms from one of the base brats you molested?

        You’re lucky they allowed you a Hunter Biden resignation to spare the military the embarrassment of a court-martial telling Americans there were perverts like you in uniform.

  6. Da Juicy News

    Ex-CBS News reporter accuses network of ‘defying’ orders from Shari Redstone, CBS CEO to probe Hunter Biden laptop scandal
    Fired CBS News reporter Catherine Herridge accused her former editors of “defying orders” to probe into Hunter Biden’s laptop from their own bosses at the Tiffany Network — namely, media heiress Shari Redstone and CBS CEO George Cheeks.
    By: Alexandra Steigrad ~ Nov. 26, 2024,
    https://nypost.com/2024/11/26/media/ex-cbs-news-reporter-accuses-network-of-defying-orders-from-shari-redstone-george-cheeks-to-probe-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal/

    Fox News Wins Defamation Suit Against Jessica Tarlov Brought by Hunter Biden Whistleblower
    Tony Bobulinski’s $30 million defamation suit against Fox News host Jessica Tarlov was dismissed on Tuesday by a New York judge, who also ordered Bobulinski to pay Tarlov’s legal fees in a first-of-its-kind decision.
    By: Alex Griffing ~ Nov 26th, 2024
    https://www.mediaite.com/news/just-in-fox-news-wins-defamation-suit-against-jessica-tarlov-brought-by-hunter-biden-whistleblower/

    ‘Unprofessional and unwarranted hostility’: Ex-Overstock CEO says Hunter Biden’s request for sanctions violates court rules and is ‘factually and legally baseless’
    A certain level of mystery has been injected into a long-running lawsuit between former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and Hunter Biden in a flurry of back-and-forth motions filed on Friday. Still, the animus in the case is clear.
    The precise nature of the latest legal dispute is necessarily being kept under wraps because of how the motions practice occurred.
    By: Colin Kalmbacher ~ Nov 23rd, 2024
    [Link] lawandcrime.com/high-profile/unprofessional-and-unwarranted-hostility-ex-overstock-ceo-says-hunter-bidens-request-for-sanctions-violates-court-rules-and-is-factually-and-legally-baseless/

    Hunter Biden lawyer Lowell asks judge to toss IRS agents’ defamation lawsuit
    Nov 19 (Reuters) – Prominent criminal defense lawyer Abbe Lowell fired back late on Monday after two IRS agents sued him for defamation over his actions while defending President Joe Biden’s son Hunter against tax charges.
    Lowell asked
    , opens new tab a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to throw out the agents’ lawsuit, which accused him of falsely suggesting they illegally disclosed grand jury material and taxpayer information.
    He called the agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler “disgruntled,” and he said his statements in letters to Congress defending Hunter Biden were lawful.
    By: Mike Scarcella ~ November 20, 2024
    [Link] reuters.com/legal/government/hunter-biden-lawyer-lowell-asks-judge-toss-irs-agents-defamation-lawsuit-2024-11-19/

    As the Biden Administration runs for the exits, the Legal Clearing House begins … Pardons, Clemency, Commutations, and Reprieves.
    [ Paper Shredders make the perfect Christmas gift for The Hill DEMs & RINOs – Oh but what to do with Hunter & Stormy Daniels? ]

    1. Anonymous-12:20 pm
      Well there is always defenestration in the classical sense of the word.

  8. What Turley refers to as “lawfare” is, in reality, the standard application of legal principles and procedures that are designed to uphold the rule of law. The mechanisms and procedures employed to charge Donald Trump for his alleged criminal activities are fundamentally the same as those applied to any individual facing similar accusations. This consistency is essential in maintaining fairness and equality within the judicial system.

    It is genuinely disappointing that Turley appears to overlook the themes of retribution and vengeance that Trump seeks. In doing so, he inadvertently enables this form of “lawfare” himself. There is a belief among some that “turnabout is fair play”; however, this viewpoint often arises from individuals who believe they are insulated from the consequences of their actions, like Trump. He may feel affronted or victimized when held accountable for their unethical or illegal conduct. The idea that accountability is unfair often surfaces when those who have acted inappropriately experience scrutiny.

    Moreover, Trump is poised to weaponize the Department of Justice (DOJ) in efforts to pursue those who have accused him of wrongdoing and to target those responsible for the legal findings that deemed him guilty of felony offenses. It is critical to remember that, despite the suspension of certain legal proceedings, Trump remains a convicted felon. This suspension does not erase or negate the guilty verdict he has received. Consequently, the politicization of the DOJ under Trump’s direction raises serious concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the justice system moving forward.

    1. Yeah, blah blah blah, and Roy Bryant and JW Milam didn’t kill Emmett Till neither! Cause a jury said they didn’t! Geeesh, what a putz you are!

    2. “What Turley refers to as “lawfare” is, in reality, the standard application of legal principles and procedures that are designed to uphold the rule of law.”

      Sure.

      And: Inflation is transitory. The border is secure. KH ran a great campaign. XY=XX.

      A rational person uses words to express reality. A deceiver uses them to manipulate people.

    3. Gosh can you tell me where you acquired your Crystal Ball, I sure could use one for my next trip to the Casino? Predicting the future mostly ends up in the assumption pool, where you make an Ass of yourself, and me for reading your tripe.

    4. George, I didn’t read your screed past the first line but please answer one question. If this lawfare is just the law going after people committing crimes then why wasn’t Biden indicted for having classified documents in his garage, in his “think” tank and at his beach house? Biden, who was not a president, removed classified documents from a sciff and yet wasn’t indicted???

      Why was Lois Lehrner not indicted?

      Why was Obama’s AG not indicted after being held in contempt of Congress?

      Why did the DOJ allow the SOL to run on Hunter’s biggest criminal activities?

      Why was the Hilary campaign only fined for her “sloppy” record keeping while Trump was convicted of 34 offenses for the same thing?

      Why was Hilary not charged when she destroyed her computers?

      Why, and this is the most important question, why are you such a partisan moron?

      1. HullBobby,
        “Why, and this is the most important question, why are you such a partisan moron?”
        It is a cult. It is plain and easy to see. Accuse your opponent of what you are already doing. Deny you are doing it. Try to claim you are fighting against . . . something. Tell friends and family to cut ties with others who did not vote the way you did. Spread more lies so much so, the legal department makes you read a legal note immediately after the lie or face a libel lawsuit that they would likely lose.
        For me, the fun part is watching the slow and stupid one come here and make a fool of himself on a regular basis. It is a good time watching people like you, Lin, John Say and others easily dismantle the slow and stupid one. Especially when he is clearly over his head and has to resort to word salad, definitions for his lame defense. And then when John Say responds with even more devastating take down, the slow and stupid one runs away.
        How marvelous!

      2. hullbobby: neither Pence nor Biden DELIBERATELY STOLE classified documents. In fact, when Trump’s theft was discovered, both Pence and Biden immediately searched the papers they retained, they found some with classified markings and immediately returned them to the NARA. Neither man lied about having them, having a right to possess them, or kept some and lied about returning all of them. A requirement for commission of a crime is mens rea–clear criminal intent–and Trump did deliberately and intentionally steal and lie to keep classified documents he wasn’t entitled to have. The NARA tried patiently to work with him to get the documents back–but he returned only a few and lied and refused to return the remainder.

        Hillary clinton did not have the criminal intention to violate the law by receiving classified materials at home where her computer did not have the sufficient security. She was investigated by the FBI. From “Time” Magazine:

        “In practice, however, law enforcement officials have set a high bar for prosecuting violations of those laws, looking for clear criminal intent, which Comey said was absent in the Clinton case. Because the government is awash in secrets, they are regularly mishandled unintentionally. In 2013, according to the National Archives, which tracks classification, executive branch agencies created more than 77 million documents with secrets in them, including 46,800 with newly created secrets. The FBI receives dozens of referrals of leaked classified information every year, according to Justice Department declarations to Congress.

        Prosecutors have also been wary of testing whether broad prosecutions under the espionage laws would hold up in court, especially in cases of news organizations pursuing Secret or Top Secret information for publication. In the Clinton probe, investigators found that at least some of the classified information referred to was contained in a newspaper article that aides then forwarded to Clinton.

        To be sure, the Justice department has been aggressive in prosecuting leaks in some cases, especially under President Obama. But Clinton’s mishandling of secrets did not clear the bar for prosecution, Comey said Tuesday, when compared to other cases that have been taken to court. “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” Comey said.”

        1. hullbobby: neither Pence nor Biden DELIBERATELY STOLE classified documents.

          Gigi wants us to believe her defending Biden. Claiming Biden didn’t DELIBERATELY remove BOXES of classified information in repetitive serial felonies from classified areas throughout his prior decades as a Senator. And then again in his eight years as Vice President. None of which empowered him to declassify any of that material plainly marked as classified.

          Gigi wants us to believe Biden thought it was perfectly legal to stuff documents plainly marked classified down his pants and walk away with them as Bill Clinton’s lawyer got caught doing about the same time Biden was doing it.

          No mens rea on the part of Professor Turley’s fellow lawyer Joe Biden whatsoever! Not even awareness of a strict liability felony! That’s why Gigi swoons with unrequited lust every time she thinks of Biden!

          He just kept inadvertently removing and secreting those classified materials away in his home, over and over again for decades. And just like his fellow lawyer and Senator Clinton’s defense, lawyer and senator Joe Biden didn’t have the slightest clue what those classified markings indicated.

          NEVER STOLEN AND RETAINED DELIBERATELY, HOWEVER. So please audience: believe Gigi – not your lying eyes.

          You are a shameless, amoral and vicious political whore Gigi.

          Why do you come here every day to insult us?

          What is it you want when your history is that the audience rejects you and every single one of your firehose of Democrat lies?

          1. Cite me the portion of the US Code or case law that says that inadvertent possession of classified documents is a “strict liability felony”. Neither Pence nor Biden deliberately went through papers when they left office and took them–their possession was inadvertent and they immediately remedied the situation. And, BTW, the reason Trump stole the classified documents and refused to return them is because someone said he couldn’t have them and had to give them back–it’s his narcissistic sociopathy rearing its ugly head. He had no reason to possess the papers, but no one tells DJT what to do, and he’s more than willing to lie to get his way. He belongs in prison. AND, I, like most citizens expect and want our DOJ and FBI to take necessary steps to protect our most-sensitive secrets.

            1. “Cite me the portion of the US Code or case law that says that inadvertent possession of classified documents is a “strict liability felony”.”

              18 U.S.C. § 1924
              This law prohibits the unauthorized removal or retention of classified documents. It applies to government employees, contractors, consultants, and officers. The penalties for violating this law include fines of up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison.

              This is not the Espionage Act. This is the law concerning the handling of classified materials. Unlike the Espionage Act, it does not require “willful intent”.

              Biden KNEW he had the goddam documents, he admitted such to his ghost writer. He also kept personal CLASSIFIED notes in locked storage, because he KNEW it was classified. But even locked up in a safe, he was IN VIOLATION.

              Go READ the goddam statute yourself, ya spastic bltch. You’ve been gaslit by the prosecutor and all the sycophants in your bubble to believe “willful intent” was required.

              I conducted Commanding Officers Non Judicial Punishment for sailors mishandling classified information, more than once. YOU don’t know what you’re talking about.

              1. From the Brennan Center for Justice:

                “With only one exception in the past century, the Department of Justice has prosecuted the mishandling of classified information only when it was able to conclude that the person knew he or she was mishandling classified information and intended to do so. ”

                Mere possession is insufficient. Stop grandstanding.

              2. * the President doesn’t fit into any of those categories of people as established by the 14th. He alone can classify , declassify documents or the archive after 10 years.

            2. “AND, I, like most citizens expect and want our DOJ and FBI to take necessary steps to protect our most-sensitive secrets.”

              Which is why you have repeatedly apologized for Biden and Hillary.

            3. 1. Hillary KNEW that her sever was not secure.

              2. Hillary KNEW that the information she was transmitting was classified.

              Mens rea only requires that she KNEW these two things.

              Do you DENY that she knew these two things??? Are you claiming that she did not know that the server wasn’t secure??? Are you claiming she didn’t know the information she transmitted was classified???

              So she CLEARLY INTENDED to store and transmit classified info on an unapproved, unsecure server.

              That is all of the intent necessary to violate 18 USC 2484. THAT IS ALL the intent necessary. She did not have to be doing it for nefarious reasons. And why is that, you ask??? Because, the goddam end result is the same under 18 USC 2484. The information was COMPROMISED. Thats what 18 USC 2484 is about, its not about spying or purposely divulging information. It’s about doing something you swore NOT to do. Mishandling classifed information.

            4. ‘inadvertent possession’

              Can’t get through your first sentence without lying, you filthy b1tch. Right up there with “my dog ate my homework”.

        2. Hillary clinton did not have the criminal intention to violate the law by receiving classified materials at home where her computer did not have the sufficient security.

          Bollocks! Gigi, you incompetent, vicious liar. FBI Director James Comey outlined her long list of crimes. Strict liability crimes that do not require any proof of intent. Comey then shoved Obama’s Attorney General aside to claim her position and announce that none of her prosecutors would prosecute Clinton for her four years of crimes.

          In response to that the federal prosecutor who had just indicted and convicted an ordinary seaman for having pictures of classified areas on his ship, which he hadn’t attempted to share with anybody, publicly said he would gladly prosecute Clinton for her four years of deliberate felonies. Comey let her walk just as the Special Counsels for Joe and Hunter Biden let both of them walk.

          For his part, Obama knew for years that every single email, voicemail, and phonecall he had with then Secretary of State Clinton that contained classified information was an Espionage Act felony. He knew that Clinton never once had an official secured phone, email address, mail server, etc to use for her communications with him or anybody else in his administration including Biden.

          Every time CIA Director John Brennan informed Obama that Clinton’s latest email address and devices had yet again been hacked into by adversarial nations like the ChiComs and Putin, the White House cyber communications staff had to put her latest email address on Obama’s Blackberry. Don’t try lying that Obama wouldn’t have noticed them coming to them telling him why they needed him to hand over his Blackberry.

          Which makes Obama a knowing accessory both during and after the fact concerning Clinton’s years of felonies. He allowed Clinton to share their four years of classified discussions and shared classified material with the world – including Putin and Xi. But you aren’t worried about that – you’re worried about Trump, eight years later.

          If Trump were as terrifying as you claim he would be, Trump would have picked a Jack Smith type Special Counsel to prosecute both of their felony asses at some point during his four years in office.

          You are a horrible liar, Gigi. And you haven’t gotten any better since your lying failed to get Harris elected.

          1. That, right there, demonstrates how lawfare is used for political purposes.

            Well done Airborne!

        3. “neither Pence nor Biden DELIBERATELY STOLE classified documents”

          That is a fvcking lie.

          Biden took the documents intentionally. What are you, stupid??

          He KNEW he wasn’t supposd to have them AND he knew he had them.

          End of story.

          1. Gigenius wants everyone to believe that when the Trump documents case broke, brain dead Biden just thought to himself, “huh, I wonder if I may have inadvertently ended up with HUNDREDS of classified documents scattered everywhere I’ve ever taken a shit??”

            What a STOOGE.

          2. * In Biden’s case he was VP and had no authority to classify nor classify. He’s a sweet old man with a poor memory on the otherhand

        4. Gigi – the espionage act does not have a requirement for criminal intent.

          End of Story.

          Though I would note proving criminal intent in the Clinton case is trivial.
          There is absolutely no way that classified material can be transferred from a Secure computer in the State Department SCIF – where computers have no printer attached, and no external storage like USB drives to Clinton’s basement bathroom email server in her home.
          How exactly do you think that happened ?
          You are not allowed to take cell phones, or laptops or any recording devices into a SCIF. You are supposed to check those before entering.
          The investigation found that Clintons staff had destroeyed their blackberries and iphones immediately after it was revealed that she has classified information on her bathroom server. Her IT person was directed to bleach-bit the contents of that server. Both these actions are obstruction of justice – destroying evidence.

          Bill Clinton’s CIA director – John Deutch took a laptop with Classified information home with him returning it the next day. He was charged, and convicted for violating the espionage act and then pardoned by Pres. Clinton. There is no evidence that anything from Deutch’s laptop ever got into inappropriate hands.
          While we KNOW that hostile foreign powers were reading Clinton’s email server in real time. We KNOW that many people had access to classified information – without clearance.

          Sidney Blumenthal a Clinton confident was responsible for creating the Birther attack on Obama – part of the deal when Obama gave Vlinton the Sec. State position was that Blumenthal would NOT be part of the Obama administration. Hillary provided several TS/SCI – the highest level of classification documents to Blumenthal. Blumenthall used that information to make money as a consultant in the mid east. There is absolutely no means to claim that the information was not INTENTIONALLY provided to Blumenthal – who did NOT have clearance.

          The Hillary Clinton classified documents mess was nearly as bad as Aldrich Ames, John Walker, or Robert Handsen – as lots of classified information went to a hostile foreign power – likely china in near real time.

          The Clinton fiasco was not that different from Snowden’s leaks – similar techniques were used to exract classified data from classified computer systems.
          Methods that REQUIRE intention.

          Clinton did not just put a few classifided docs in here briefcase and accidentally take them home.
          Thousands of pages of informaation were removed from secure computer systems in SCIF’s
          This can not be done accidentally.

          As noted with Bluemnthal they were provided DELIBERATELY to people without clearance who profited off that information.
          Further Clintons RECKLESS handling of those documents resulted in hostile foreign powers gaining access.

          That is actually WORSE than Snowden. Snowden removed proof that Clapper and Brennan had lied when they said that the government was not spying on US citizens.
          Snowden was incredibly careful about what information was provided to who – despite the fact he now lives in Russia – he has not provided the Russians or Chinese with information harmful to the US.

          1. Snowden was incredibly careful about what information was provided to who – despite the fact he now lives in Russia – he has not provided the Russians or Chinese with information harmful to the US.

            The House Permanent Select Committee Releases Declassified Snowden Report
            Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor fled to China and then Russia after stealing an estimated 1.5 million classified documents.

            John Say, if you want to lie to yourself that Snowden “carefully screened” 1.5 million documents before he gave the Chicoms, Putin and others to access those files, just keep right on doing that. But don’t try selling the rest of us that to defend what Snowden did simply because we’re happy his actions unmasked what the government was doing.

            No human being has the capability to do that, much less do so in a way that will defeat intelligence agency computers doing statistical analysis of those documents, processing thousands each second, using Kriging and other data analysis methods to connect documents that together provided intelligence. Six degrees of separation doesn’t even begin to cover it.

            We don’t pardon child rapists for their crimes because they rat out the guy living next door who’s doing armed robberies of the Town Pumps in the city. What Snowden did was well beyond that.

            Dozens, probably hundreds of people have been hunted down and killed by our enemy nations due to Snowden (and similarly Julian Assange). People who were not only our fellow human beings, but people who had been risking their lives to provide our country with intelligence. Intelligence sources that we have now lost.

            Both of them should have been executed by hanging for what they did. If not by us, then the Brits or other members of the Five Eyes whose classified documents they handed over to the Chicoms and Putin.

            https://intelligence.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HPSCI_Snowden_Review_Declassified.pdf

        5. No prosecutors are NOT wary of testing the espionage act in court.

          That has occurred HUNDREDS of times.

          There is a very serious question as to whether the espionage act is constitutional with respect to presidents of ex presidents regarding information from their administration.

          But that is a very unusual question that does not apply to anyone but presidents and ex presidents.
          It does not apply to VP’s or Sec States or anyone else in government.

          Many people are currently in jail for violating the espionage act.

        6. You have blurred allot of legal issues.

          First – classified information is no longer classified once it is public – there is no putting the gennie back in the bottle.

          It IS an affirmative defense to a espionage act violation that what you mishandled was already declassified because it was public.
          Affirmative defense means YOU – not the government must prove that.
          Similar is not good enough – exactly the same information MUST be reported publicly – and it must be reported as FACT not speculation.

          As an example Seymor Hersch has reported repeatedly that a US navy diving team blew up the Nordstream II pipeline.
          If you make public the orders to deploy a specific UDT team to denmark as evidence that story is true – that would STILL violate the espionage act.

          Hersch’s story is informed speculation.

          WaPo and NYT were not prosecuted for the Pentagon papers – they were even allowed to publish the parts not yet published.
          The Espionage act does not apply to people who do not have an affirmative duty to protect xlassified information – government employees and government contractors – people With a security clearance.

          None of this applies to the clinton case.

        7. Gigi – Comey is a crook. The mess he made of the clinton investigation, of Crossfire huricane – are just a few of myriads of examples of Comey’s malfeasance and/or incompetance.

          Nor is this claim political – Comey has worked for Republicans and democrats and behaved criminally working for both.

          Hoover would roll over in his grave that Comey was ever FBI director. He is a santimonious, hypocritical incompetent corrupt crook.

          He can not go to jail soon enough or long enough.

        8. “hullbobby: neither Pence nor Biden DELIBERATELY STOLE classified documents. ”

          False with respect to biden. Biden had documents that he had to have personally removed from a Senate SCIF.
          That and many other known facts regarding Biden completely obliterate any claim that his actions were not deliberate.

          With respect to Trump – Smith’s ACTUAL case against Trump was an incredibly complex effort to thread the needle arround the PRA, presidential powers and the law.

          Smith explicitly claimed that the remove of classified documents to MAL was LEGAL and for the most part NOT directed by Trump.

          To have a case it was NECESCARY for Smith to claim that.
          If Trump ordered the documents moved to MAL – they are no longer classified.

          For Smith to charge Trump with a crime – the doccuments had to arrive as MAL either accidentally – or atleast not at Trump’s direction.
          Any scenario in which Trump intentionally brought clasified documents to MAL would have had the government on the wrong side of JW vs NARA.

          Smithc’s claim is that Trump had nothing to do with transporting documents to MAL – but that after they arrived and he was no longer president he refused to return them.

          Any other scenario leaves no path to an actual crime.

          Regardless there is no allegation that Trump stole classiifed documents.
          Even making such a claim would end the case in Trump’s favor.

          If the documents arrieved at MAL because Trump intentionally brought them there – the case is over and Trump wins.

          Presidents can not steal classified documents while president,
          and Trump did not clime the fence at the wh on Jan 21, 2021 to get these documents.

    5. What do you call it when you change laws even the SOL just to get a political opponent?
      Lawfare.
      Why didn’t they take Clinton to court for her mislabling “legal expenses,” for the Steel dossier/Russia hoax? They did fine her.
      You do realize you claim Trump is going to do what Biden/Harri/DNC have already done? We all know it. We all see. So did everyone who voted for Trump.
      Your gaslighting and lies are not fooling anyone but yourself.

      2. UpstateFarmer says: What do you call it when you change laws even the SOL just to get a political opponent? Lawfare.

        Well, that’s how Professor Turley terms it.

        For myself UpstateFarmer, I would expect a lawyer and Constitutional scholar writing legal columns and blogs to more properly and precisely call what his fellow lawyers are doing Bills Of Attainder.

        Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3

        No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

        Rather than minimizing and defending their actions to the level of merely being offensive by considering the American public to be chumps.

        This ongoing minimization of the outright felonies as well as wildly unethical conduct of Professor Turley’s fellow lawyers and friends that have been doing this for over eight years now does nothing to build trust and credibility towards Professor Turley, despite how interesting they may be otherwise.

        At some point you no longer have the defense of also being an official Democrat voter.

    6. Glad you feel that way because the next 4 years are going to be very very “standard.”

      Enjoy your karma.

    7. George says cops lying to judges to convict innocent people is standard Democrat legal principles and procedures.

      Who knew!

    8. No George what Turley calls Lawfare is not in anyway standard.

      JW v NARA established that Presidents can take whatever docs they want from the WH at the end of their presidency – including Classified docs,
      Not only did it lay down that clear legal marker – but the constitution CLEARLY required that. As Judge ABJ noted – NARA does not have the power to seek documents from a former president, and the courts do not have jurisdiction to order it. The PRA is only constitutional if the president has complete unreviewable discretion to decide what they wish to take with them.

      Yet, the Documents case has consumed you and the left for almost 4 years.

      You can dislike Trump’s claims regarding fraud in the 2020 election – though that election stinks to high heaven – and only more so when this year, Trump barely got more votes than in 2020, while Harris – who for all her many many flaws is still actually a better candidate than Sleepy Joe and still ran a better compaign – and yet she came up 20m ballots short of what Biden did in 2020. And that despite the FACT that there is lots of evidence of fraud in the 2024 election.

      Regardless, even if the 2020 Election was undeniably pure as snow, it is a candidates right to challenge the results. Sen. Bob Casey in PA Challenged his loss to McCormck.
      Trump lost GA, AZ, NV, and WI by less than half what Casey lost PA by. Casey’s and his attorney’s were not only saying the same things Trump did in 2020, But they were arguing those to election commissions and in courts. And unlike Trump Casey Won before SOME election commissions and SOME courts – with the same or weaker arguments than Trump.
      But no one is appointing a Special Counsel to go after Casey for refusing to concede – that is his RIGHT.
      Again there is no special counsel going after Casey for saying nearly the exact same things as Trump did – asking election officials to “find enough votes”.

      Then We have E Jean Carrol. The Satate of NY had to TEMORARILY suspend the statute of limitations – to allow Carroll to go after Trump. That alone is damning evidence of lawfare.
      We do not allow the courts to be clogged with cases regarding events 25 years ago – we do not do so for the very reasons we saw in the carroll case. Defendants are deprived of the ability to defend themselves – not merely by biased courts and judges as Trump got, but by the fact that it is virtually impossible to disprove a claim that a defendant did something bad, somewhere, sometime without providing any specifics that can be tested. Carroll wrote books about all the men in her life – accusing pretty much every man that has ever smiled at her of raping her – and yet Trump is not mentioned. Carroll had no problems accusing the rich and famous and powerful of rape – but not Trump. Not until claiming that Trump raped hr was useful in selling books on her book tour. And then you left wing nut idiots used lawfare to extort nearly 100M dollars from Trump in a court case that would be the most lawless in history – but for what followed.

      Then we have the James/enmoron nonsense. There are so many flaws in this, but JUST one that was raised by Trump’s attorney’s both with Enmoron and the appellate courts is that Deutche Bank testified in Court that if Trump’s networth was only Half of what he claimed – they would have given him the same loan on the same terms. That testimony was unrebutted – that means the court was OBLIGATED to treat it as absolute FACT. At which point the case is over. Regarldess anyone who has bought or sold a home KNOWS that a sellers claims regarding the value of that property establish ONE and only ONE thing – and that is what the selllor is willing to sell for. The law REQUIRES banks to conduct due dilligence before writing a loan. For comnercial properties such as Trump’s that due dilligence involves an army of appraisers, accountants, architects, engineers and other professionals who not only establish the prevailing sale price for similar properties, but the maintanace costs of the specific property the anticipated maintanace, the revenue generated by the property and the expenses, whether the income from the property can cover the loans, and whether the market for the services provided by the property supports the revenue from the property.
      So YES the Jeames/enmoron case was massive lawfare. It was also a massive constitutional violation – the 6th amendment requires that all but de minimus financial penalties must be decided by juries. And the constitution requires that states NOT interfere in private contracts.

      Then we have the Bragg/merchan nonsense.

      Far far far too many people including Turley incorrectly concede there was a valid misdemeanor here.
      There was NOT. Businesses and individuals are free to record their finances however they please. They can label expenditures whatever they wish.
      What they can not do is claim as expenses things that are not expenses on their taxes.
      There was no claim of Tax Fraud (or any other kind of actual fraud) in this entire case – it should have been dismissed outright on day one.
      No court should ever be arging over whether a payment to a lawyer can be called a legal expense when there is absolutely no impact of any kind tresulting from the label given that expense.

      Hunter Biden committed fraud – by deducting payments for hookers and drugs as tax deductable expenses. The crime was not mis naming those expenses. It was deducting those expenses from his taxable income.

      All this is made all the more absurd because every business in the world would call payments to a lawyer – legal expenses.
      In FACT that is not even a lie much less fraud. Payments to ANYONE to secure an NDA – is a LEGAL expense. Payments THROUGH anyone to get an NDA is a legal expense.

      Nor is this the limits of the lefts lawfare – and political weaponization of public power.
      Bannon and Navarro asserted Executive priviledge in refussing to testify before the J6 committee about their communications with Trump.
      The committee did NOT as is required go to court to ask the court to decide if that priviledge applied – which BTW is absolutely does with respect to any communications with the president. Any President can discuss anything – legal or not, with his advisors and NO Court, nor Congress can demand to know of that conversation. This ties directly to the SCOTUS immunity decision. Pres. Obama almost certainly discussed the assassination of US citizens in Yemen with advisors before ordering them murdered. Neither Obama’s communications, nor his actions ordering their execution are reviewable by courts. Congres can impeach for those actions – but it can not compel Obama’s advisors to testify to their communications with Obama. A president can plot murder with his advisors and the courts and congress are not free even to enquire about that converstation.
      Regardless, congress skipped the requirement to have a court establish whether executive priviledge applied, Found Bannon and Navaro in contempt, a BIASED DOJ prosecuted a case DOJ has NEVER prosecuted before, a BIASED DC judge refused to conside executive priviledge as a defence and sentenced two presidential advisors to jail for the non crime of refusing to violate the constitution. I can provide a long long list of members of the executive branch that had refused to testify to congress, none have been prosecuted, much less gone to jail.
      Cabinet officers such as Garland, and Mayorkas have refused to testify regarding evidence that Executive priviledge does not apply at all – and no one has dreamed of prosecuting.
      Yes, that was lawfare – not only was due process violated – congress was required to get a court to find that EP did not apply before finding Contempt, but the constitution was violated – because the direct communications between a president and an advisor ALWAYS are covered by EP.

      And we are FAR from done. with the lawfare. Whether it is trying to unconstitutionally remove Trump from the ballot, or trying to remove 3rd party candidates from the ballot, or trying to force third party candidates onto the ballot, or trying to force counting of unlawful ballots. or refusing to conduct elections according to the actual election law – all morte left wing nut lawfare.

      Or the left using govenrment power to censor people – whether it is NYS trying to force other busiesses to refuse to do business with the NRA, or the federal government trying to force social media to censor speech that has all turned out to be true regarding Covid. Or the use of government power to fund private groups to compell third party censorship at govenrment direction – all MORE lawfare, and more unconstitutional actions.

      Or the DOJ/FBI designating parents that sought to protest the rape of their daughters by female identifying boys, or opposing teaching this absolute drek to preschoolers as Dmoestic terrorists. Or designating catholics as suspected domestic terrorists, or prosecuting pro-life protestors for protecting their children from abusive prochoice supporters.

      The lawfare goes on and on.

      We have not ever in US history seen so many incredibly unconstitutional and lawless actions taken by those in power purely for political benefit.

      Those who support this nonsense are lawless scum.

      1. John Say: You know that the JW v. NARA case did not say what you claim it says–your mistake was corrected the other day. Trump could not take classified documents, and that case didn’t say he could. You completely misunderstood the case–it involved tape recordings of an interview by a presidential historian who interviewed Bill Clinton and gave Clinton a courtesy copy of the tapes. Judicial Watch wanted the tapes, and tried to force the NARA to declare them to be presidential records and seize them–but they weren’t–they were the property of the author, and the NARA had no authority to declare them to be presidential records because the interviews had nothing to do with official presidential acts. Why did you repeat this misinformation?

        The State of NY temporarily changed the SOL for ALL victims of sexual assault–not just E. Jean Carroll–that’s not “lawfare” either. I don’t have time to go through all of the other misinformation–I have a pumpkin pie to bake.

          1. “I hope you are better at pie than you are case law, Gigenius.”

            I think she’s also lying about being able to bake. Nobody wants to be anywhere near her. Who would she be baking for in the first place?

  9. This lawfare that our host continues to write about spans over eight years now. Professor Turley’s fellow lawyers in government and some who are now teaching law have committed dozens of acts against not just Trump – but private members of the public as well, unmentioned in this column. Some of those acts committed by Professor Turley’s fellow lawyers against both Trump and members of the public have been outright felonies.

    No honest lawyer could call these actions ethical, but not a single one of Professor Turley’s colleagues has been disbarred for their actions. Not even the ones who were fined for violations of the law or pled guilty to felonies committed while hunting Trump or members of the public. Professor Turley is undoubtedly a member or former member of some of those bars.

    More lawyers have been engaged in felonies and actions to deprive both Trump and members of the public of their civil rights than there were J6 rioters committing crimes other than trespass in that three hour long riot.

    Professor Turley has consistently referred to the J6 rioters as committing “a desecration of our constitutional process”. A verdict he has never pronounced on those who earlier stormed into the Senate while it was in session attempting to prevent the confirmation vote for Justice Kavanaugh.

    Professor Turley has never pronounced a similar sentence of desecrating either the constitutional process or the profession of practicing law on his fellow lawyers and judges engaged in this lawfare that included felonies.

    The worst verdict he can pronounce on friends of his like Merrick Garland, the lawyers who willingly followed Obama’s orders to perjure themselves to FISA courts regarding the illegal ‘Trump-Russia Dossier’, judges like Chutkin is to tell us that the greatest problem is that they played the American public for chumps.

    I’m reading this and wondering if Professor Turley is now one of those lawyers like Merrick Garland, Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Marc Elias, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, judges like Merchan and Chutken, etc.

    Lawyers who have done nothing no worse than attempt to play us for chumps in how we’re supposed to see the world around us.

    1. “I’m reading this and wondering if Professor Turley is now one of those lawyers like Merrick Garland, Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Marc Elias, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, judges like Merchan and Chutken, etc.”

      That is a very good question.

    2. I’m thinking this goes back to as far as Gore’s 2000 run, or even before Clinton. They’ve just gotten complacent with their ways and think that we’re all too stupid to see what they are plainly putting out.
      Then again, given the tripe from some of the comment-bloggers oh this site, that argument does have some merit.

  10. Does anybody need a good scare this morning??? Geeesh, this is like waking up and finding a shed rattlesnake skin in your bed! Thank God we dodged this, for the moment! Read the full article, even more scary stuff beyond just this excerpt:

    “For decades, Andreessen has supported Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. However, a troubling spring meeting with Biden administration officials caused major concerns. During the meeting, officials explained their plan to control AI through government regulatory capture—a strategy reminiscent of Communist policies in China.

    “We had meetings [Biden officials] this spring that were the most alarming meetings I’ve ever been in. Where they were taking us through their plans, and it was – basically just full government – full government control – like this sort of thing, there will be a small number of large companies that will be completely regulated and controlled by the government, they told us. They said don’t even start startups – there’s just no way that they can succeed – there’s no way that we’re going to permit that to happen.”

    In mid-July, Axios reported that Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz had donated to President-elect Trump’s campaign. At the time, their support was attributed to Trump’s pro stance on crypto and AI regulation. It’s another telling example of just how far-left Democrats in the White House spooked Silicon Valley heavy hitters, such as Elon Musk.

    Back to the podcast, Rogan asked Andreessen: “When you leave a meeting like that, what do you do?”

    Andreessen responded: “You endorse Donald Trump.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/marc-andreessen-tells-joe-rogan-why-he-backed-trump

  11. By the same token, shouldn’t Russia be ashamed for launching Russian-made missiles into Ukraine?

    1. Me: The earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.

      You: That reminds of Ukraine …

    2. Russia would of never fired Russian made missiles into the Ukraine if it were not for Boris Johnson crushing the peace deal the Ukraine and Russia had planned in Istanbul in the Spring of 2022 at the behest of Biden the butcher. But, hey! Biden looks like he is getting us that much closer and closer to WWIII!!! Your children or grandchildren have a good chance of getting drafted into another neocon forever war!!!

          1. “And no one benefits from the Ukraine/Russia war.”

            A war that wouldn’t have happened if the Ukrainians hadn’t trusted Americans and had kept their deterrent nukes against a future Stalin or Putin.

            A war that wouldn’t have happened if Putin hadn’t been sure that Obama would keep his promise to give him “space”, and never honor America’s promise to a now de-denuclearized Ukraine.

            A war that wouldn’t have happened if Trump had been president the years that Putin methodically built up and then invaded Ukraine.

            1. Foreign policy experts have written papers that what is happening now in the Ukraine as far back as a decade ago with the Eastern expansion of NATO. Putin’s reactions are from aggressive neocons in Congress and NATO.
              Putin acted when Biden took the WH. Putin saw weakness in Biden and so did the rest of the world. That is why we are so close to WWIII not only in the Ukraine, but the middle east too.

              1. Putin’s reactions are from aggressive neocons in Congress and NATO.

                The word “neocon” no longer has any meaning other than as a handy pejorative thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans. Kind of like “the rich don’t pay their fair share”.
                I am fascinated that “foreign policy experts” – perhaps the ones who hysterically warned us Trump would start WWIII after he took office after the 2016 election – have decided that ‘neocons’ and NATO terrified Putin so much that he initially invaded Chechya and then Georgia.

                Now imagine his terror that warlike NATO nations like Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau would sign up to send their underfunded and forcibly Woke troops to participate with the USA and Ukraine in a land invasion of Russia. Just as Napoleon and Hitler did before.

                Oh, those terrifying and warlike Canadians, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks! Chomping at the bit to invade Russia and prove they could succeed where Hitler and Napolean failed! This is what Putin fears so much, despite his angry claim that the greatest disaster in human history was the collapse of his beloved Soviet Union and its vassal states.

                Putin acted when Biden took the WH.

                You skipped not only past Georgia and Chechnya, but his invasion while Obama was president as well.

                I will grant you my assumption you have a good faith reason for only telling a very small part of the story.

                But it doesn’t provide an excuse for our deliberately reneging on our promise to replace those nukes as Ukraine’s defense.

                And doing so while they were right beside us fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq from our first days there to the very last. Even though they could have said “We weren’t attacked; not our war!”.

                And continuing to do so even after we deserted them by reneging on the promise to them because their nukes terrified us so much.

                I can’t think of any good outcome to this, no matter what actions we take after we have twice allowed Putin to do this and surrendering Afghanistan and hundreds of our citizens to hajji terrorists at the same time.

                But whatever we do, there are going to be second and third order negative effects not only for our national security but global security for the free world as well.

  12. Another perfect analogy, IMHO. I’m not embarrassed to admit I’m your biggest fan.
    I kept telling people this election was not going to be close. I thought the Polymarket gamblers had a better read on the voters than any pollster. I was right.
    The bottom line was that Democrats were on the wrong side of every issue about which people cared the most. And once women figured out that they could still get abortions – with 60% done chemically anyway – they would vote more on the “better off today than on 1/20/2021” question with their families on the line.
    Of course, it didn’t hurt that Dems bypassed democracy and put the two worst politicians in modern history at the top of their target.
    As the weeks since the election have drifted by, I see no mea culpa from Democrat politicians, their media or their voters, as you also observed. I just hope that this continues so we’ll see the longest run of mostly-conservative elections to come.

  13. Lawfare was one of the four Ps that contributed to Harris losing the election.

    Policy (open borders, inflation, defund the police, forever war)

    Personnel (Harris and Walz were phenomenally awful candidates even if they had favored popular policies)

    Personal destruction – slander (calling Trump a threat to democracy, Hitler, fascist)

    Personal destruction – lawfare (see above article)

    When Trump said he was one indictment away from being elected, he touched on a truth about the effect of the Dems’ lawfare.

  14. Dear Mr. Turley, it’s too bad for the Democrats losing to Mr. Trump in a resounding way. The egg is on their faces as they thought they would have him behind bars by now. Instead, he will be taking up residence in the White House come January 2025. Who would have thought he would win and by a landslide at that? I would ignore all of the hissy fits from the left and carry on the agenda we voted for!!! Carry on Mr. Trump!!

    1. Trump did NOT “win by a landslide”, nor was his “victory” “resounding”–that is MAGA lies fed to you MAGAs . As a matter of fact, he barely squeaked by with less than 50% of the popular vote and only 6 more EC votes than in 2016. His victory stands at 41 of the last 55–far from remarkable, much less “resounding”. MAGA media has to lie to you to make you believe that your candidate did something special–but he didn’t. Trump’s “victory” was the product of lies–that our economy was not stable, that the country was headed in the wrong direction, that migrants are overrunning small towns, stealing and eating people’s pets, plus misogyny, racism and xenophobia. He also lied that personal income would “soar”, and that food and housing costs would fall “precipitiously”. He has no plans for making this happen, and economists say that his tariffs will drive up the cost of many things and drive up inflation. It’s not a “hissy fit” to point out these inconvenient facts.

  15. Professor Turley, this line you wrote stands out:
    The problem with the lawfare campaign is that it did not just treat the law as an extension of politics, but treated the public as chumps.

    That’s it???? That’s what you consider the worst of the problem of your fellow lawyers – some of whom you are friends with – carrying these actions out, which included committing felonies carried out against not just Trump, but private members of the American public as well? That’s it?

    It doesn’t sink to the level of what you called the J6 rioters day before yesterday: I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process

    You’ve watched the criminal and non-criminal actions of your friends in the legal profession doing these things. You’ve watched lawyers that you know who KNEW the entire “Trump-Russia Dossier” was a hoax created through multiple felonies sit on the sidelines smirking and saying nothing as Americans were torn apart because half of them believed that lie pushed and supported by the media and those lawyers.

    You’ve watched these lawyers deliberately use lawfare to deprive Americans of their civil rights. You’ve watched multiple bar associations interpret their ethical guidelines to attempt disbarring lawyers for the crime of representing Trump while at the same time those bar associations never took disciplinary action against their members who committed serious felonies while waging lawfare against Trump and private citizens.

    But in your august opinion, your fellow lawyers never crossed whatever line you use in order to pronounce sentence that there has been a “desecration of our constitutional process”.

    Professor Turley, I would suggest you engage in some introspection and examine yourself and your relationship with the lawyers and the legal system that were central to this. The bar associations that found none of this beyond what they call ethical guidelines. You are no doubt a member of some of those bars who have sat and smiled watching this.

    Stop engaging in where the public failed or not, while putting on the equivalent of beer goggles at closing time at the bar when you look at the many lawyers you know who were engaged in all of this lawfare. Start with your good friend Merrick Garland.

    As your friend Dennis McIntyre just said a few days ago: “Be better”.

    1. Too bad there is no way to confirm an individuals ethics, before certification of the bar.

    2. Law, I have found, has to be one of the most sycophantic, and nepotistic, fields of work in the history of mankind. There is no way our host hasn’t been affected by that

  16. OT, the majority of American workers have had to go to DEI trainings. A study concludes that DEI training causes people to be more hostile toward their coworkers, more authoritarian in their attitudes, and more likely to favor punishing others who they imagine are the source of “microaggressions.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-study-finds-dei-initiatives-creating-hostile-attribution-bias

    It would be reasonable to conclude that the whole DEI industry was set up and is being run by enemies of America and of western civilization.

    1. OldManFromKS,
      We have said many times, DEI is divisive, hate filled, does not bring anything of worth other than hate and adds nothing to company culture or their bottom line. Wal-Mart has now ditched their DEI policies and DEI division.

      1. “Wal-Mart has now ditched their DEI policies and DEI division.”

        Thanks (again) to Robby Starbuck. Has that guy received any kind of award for the tremendous anti-DEI accomplishments he has been responsible for? I certainly think he deserves more recognition that he seems to have received. Elon Musk’s transformation of Twitter/X has received a lot of credit for being instrumental in the dynamics that resulted in Trump winning the election. I wouldn’t go do far as to claim that Starbuck’s role was equally important, but I do think that the impact was considerable.

    2. I am guessing you didn’t actually read the report referenced by Fox News: https://networkcontagion.us/reports/instructing-animosity-how-dei-pedagogy-produces-the-hostile-attribution-bias/

      The study has so many flaws. First it doesn’t even test “workers.” It is using Rutgers college students. Is that a representative sample of the American workplace? No.

      Second, the study cherrypicks texts that are in no way representative of DEI trainings in the American workplace. Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist is not what corporate America uses for diversity trainings. DEI and antiracism trainings are conceptually distinct.

      Here is a much better macro-study, which shows that 12 of 15 DEI training studies (80%) reported statistically significant results for one or more measured outcomes. Several studies reported short-term changes in knowledge and awareness, and others reported changes in participant attitudes, such as increased participant self-efficacy (confidence) to act in accordance with, amplify, and teach DEI principles. Others reported improved conflict resolution, increased familiarity with skills needed to work in culturally and racially diverse teams, and fostered inclusive environments.

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10890819/

      This study reviews anti-racism training separately and finds positive results as well, though with different desired ends (because – as mentioned before – they are DIFFERENT things).

      1. This study reviews anti-racism training separately and finds positive results as well,

        Isn’t it weird how after 12 years of Democrat race-baiting and outright racism initiated by the Obama-Biden presidency, racial animosity has greatly increased in this country and “anti-racism” training is suddenly required?

        Has it tamped down the Obama racism and dog whistle to his fellow racists that white America is “systemically racist”?

      2. Tell you what Anonymous, keep up with the DEI “training” and see how the elections go.

      3. In other words, your study did not study human beings at all, not even college students, but instead studied studies??? Oh wow, I am sooo impressed! You ever hear of the Replication Crisis??? Here, from AI –

        The “replication crisis” in social psychology refers to a growing concern that many prominent findings in the field cannot be reliably replicated when researchers attempt to repeat the original studies, raising questions about the validity and generalizability of those findings, often due to issues like methodological flaws or publication bias in the original research.

        That being said, the study that was deep-sixed by NYTs and Bloomberg, was performed a second time, with a larger population, and it had the same results.

        As for me, I am going with my gut, that tells me when you blather on about racism constantly, people start seeing what isn’t really there. Just like with all the alleged, “poor widdle trans kids.”

        1. Floyd,
          Well said. The funny thing to me, I dont need a “study” to tell me DEI is divisive or promotes hate. Just READ it! It is plain as the nose on your face that it is promoting hate and division. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Use some common sense.

            1. Translation: If it were not for Independent thinkers like myself and others, non-thinkers like you would still believe the Earth was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and masks are effective against a virus.
              Granted, leftist Democrats still do believe the world revolves around them.

        2. Floyd,

          You aren’t using the term “replication crisis” correctly.

          The study I cited was a literature review of existing studies on the topic. The purpose of literature reviews is to reveal the replicability of existing studies.

          The one referenced by Fox was a single study that was not conducted on workers.

          Try again.

      4. “I am guessing you didn’t actually read the report . . .”

        Sight unseen, I guessed you did read it, and are lying about it. Then I did read it, and know you’re lying about it.

        Just two of your howlers:

        1) “First it doesn’t even test “workers.” It is using Rutgers college students.”

        That’s a lie. The study tested employees (as well as students) and references a number of other studies that tested employees from countless corporations and institutions around the world.

        2) “[T]he study cherrypicks (sic) texts that are in no way representative of DEI trainings in the American workplace.”

        That is a bald-faced lie. The study employed and references countless texts and training materials used by schools, corporations, and governments around the world.

        Never trust an apologist for evil.

        1. Sam,

          Why are you talking about? Do you have a citation to this ridiculousness?

          Page 3: “To examine the impact of anti-oppressive pedagogical materials on race, NCRI conducted a study involving 423 undergraduates from Rutgers University, employing a controlled experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one exposed to a neutral control essay about U.S. corn production (for full text, please see supplement) and the other exposed to an essay which combined educational texts from prominent DEI scholars, Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.”

          In case this wasn’t immediately apparent:

          1) an “undergraduate” is a college student.
          2) Kendi and DiAngelo are both “anti-racist” scholars, not DEI scholars.

          DEI and anti-racism are distinct. By focusing on anti-racism (i.e., why are there no Black Board members?), the study cherry picks the more confrontational types of training within the DEI umbrella. DEI can be as simple as a training designed to promote a workplace that is fair and affirming of people with all backgrounds.

          Not to mention the obvious difference — other types of identity (such as gender) are not part of an anti-racism training. Of course, a white woman would feel slighted if the entire DEI training focused on the racial aspect of her identity rather than her gender. The focus on Kendi and DiAngelo is not representative. Period.

          2. 2) Kendi and DiAngelo are both “anti-racist” scholars, not DEI scholars.
            Both “anti-racist” scholars and DEI scholars are made up, fake degrees, positions amounting to nothing.

          3. “. . . a study involving 423 undergraduates from Rutgers University . . .”

            That was the sample for *one* of their studies.

            Apparently, you missed their use of “Prime Panels” for the sample used in another of their studies. And apparently you felt like ignoring all of the other research that NCRI summarized and referenced.

            Now who’s cherry-picking?

            “DEI can be as simple as a training designed to promote a workplace that is fair and affirming of people with all backgrounds.”

            Now you’re just trying to hide a rusty nail in a marshmallow.

        2. “Never trust an apologist for evil.”
          — Sam

          “Never trust anyone who only wants to tell the audience a small part of the story – instead of the entire story”
          — Dr. Thomas Sowell

  17. How many of these law professors are Red Diaper babies or their children? It’s well known that Red Diaper babies took over the history and sociology fields after their parents were outed as Communists. I suspect this is also true of law.

    1. Red Diaper Babies living mostly in NYC have been a scourge for decades and decades. These are the children of the Soviet supporters who said the Rosenbergs were innocent and that Whitaker Chambers was a liar and Alger Hiss was not a spy. The same people who said the US was to blame for the Cold War and that Reagan was a war monger who wanted to get us into WWIII. They fought our own weapons as they never said a peep about the Soviet nukes and they tried like he** to shut down OUR nuclear energy sector.

      Notice that these same Red Diaper Babies want to end US fossil fule while never saying a word about Chinese coal plants.

      Please understand that this in the left trying to harm the US because they hate themselves, they hate their fathers and they hate the west. They were supported by the Soviets and now they are supported by CCP money.

    2. True. The Law schools in the 1970’s adopted “Critical Legal Studies” which is cover for Marxist views on property and power. It reigns today.

  18. If Western civilization is in decline, entitled parents who don’t discipline their children are to blame. By being allowed to do whatever the hell they want without limits or restraints wherever they are, children are encouraged to become criminals.

  19. “Moyn and Harvard Professor Ryan D. Doerfler called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.””

    These clowns want to institute a dystopia in which their hallucinations are recognized as reality, Without the Constitution (and, hence, “constitutionalism”) there is no America.

    ROAR – Restore Our American Republic!

    1. These clowns want to institute a dystopia in which their hallucinations are recognized as reality, Without the Constitution (and, hence, “constitutionalism”) there is no America.

      The phrase that comes to mind is “be careful of what you wish for”. In all their time at university as lawyers, boning up on subjects as journalists to write stories, none of this cabal of lawyers and journalists has any idea of what happened after they helped Castro, Lenin, etc obtain totalitarian power?

      The very thing they are fighting for would very quickly destroy them, lest they become a threat to what they empowered.

      1. They would be the first ones taken out for the installation of a ventilation system in the back of their heads. After all, they were involved in the overthrow of their government so how could the new government trust them. Cut off their nose to spite their face type of people.

  20. “However, it was not necessarily a verdict for Trump as much as it was against the lawfare and advocacy journalism that had been used openly for years.”
    Well said professor!
    And not just lawfare and advocacy journalism but a number of things leftist Democrats have been trying to force on the rest of us since 2016.
    “Instead, he insists that these losses were due to simply “legalistic tactics.” Some of us call that the law.”
    What is the “law” to those who declare by any means necessary? To include changing laws, SOL, twisting the law into something you would have to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what law was broken.
    “Yet, the New York Times and other publications again lionized Yates for an act that some of us view as unprofessional and arguably unethical.”
    What is acting professionally or ethical to those who have no problem acting unprofessionally or unethically?
    “the use of motivated judges in favorable jurisdictions for political advantage.”
    Yes! It was pure “by any means necessary!” to “Get Trump!” even if it was un-Constitutional, unethical. Yet another verdict not for Trump but against leftist Democrats lawfare.
    “There is a point where “reimagining” everything from the police to democracy becomes less of an exercise of self-evaluation than self-delusion.”
    Self-delusion. That is where leftist Democrats live, everyday.

    1. These deluded marxist/anarchists seem to constantly decry this nation as it was originated yet they never seem to want to emigrate to a nation that represents their values. Do they not realize that they couldn’t live the life they do if it weren’t for our constitution. I am sure they do and that is why they are still like a horde of mosquitos on a hot summer night, harassing but staying to suck the very blood out of the nation’s body. We should call them out on this faulty thesis and ask them why they won’t leave and they won’t be able to truthfully answer that they stay for the largesse of capitalism and freedom.

      1. Whimsicalmama,
        It has been my experience they always come up with an excuse, usually lame.

Comments are closed.