President-Elect Donald Trump gave President Joe Biden and his critics a major boost this weekend by stating on NBC’s Meet The Press that he believes that the entire J6 Committee “should go to jail.” Despite weeks of saying that he did not plan any campaign of retribution and “success will be my revenge,” Trump undermined those statements with the statement, which the media is now playing up as proof that he is going to unleash a vengeance campaign. Many in the media are also omitting that Trump immediately said “no” to whether he would direct either the Attorney General or the FBI director to indict or investigate. The fact, however, is that there is no viable criminal case to be made against the J6 Committee members for their investigation or report. We need to move beyond the rage rhetoric if this country is going to come together to face the tough challenges ahead.
In the Sunday interview, Trump was referring to how Cheney and the “committee of political thugs” deleted all the evidence from their investigation: “Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with [Chair Bennie] Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps.”
He added, “Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee. For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.”
I have been one of the most vocal critics of the J6 Committee, having written over a dozen columns on their misrepresentation of evidence, false claims, burying of evidence, and political bias. I consider the J6 Committee to be not just a colossal failure but a missed opportunity for a bipartisan look at that tragic day. I also fully support the effort of the House committees to finish its own investigation into the security failure at the Capitol and the record of the J6 Committee.
Having said that, these are ethical and political failings, not criminal violations. Politicians routinely distort facts on both sides of scandals, including Presidents Biden, Trump, and Obama. We have elections to allow the public to hold such politicians accountable. In the case of Liz Cheney, the people of Wyoming overwhelmingly removed her from office.
Cheney’s work on the committee was rife with false claims and the manipulation of evidence. What could have been her finest hour in forcing a balanced and honest approach to the investigation proved to be her undoing (at least with her prior political base).
Members, however, are protected from prosecution for expressing their opinions or advancing legislative measures. This includes Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, which states that members of Congress “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The Supreme Court has held that “to the extent that [congressional officers] serve legislative functions, the performance of which would be immune . . . if done by Congressmen, these officials enjoy the protection[s] of the Speech or Debate Clause.” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 320 (1973).
More importantly, the omissions and unfairness of the process do not constitute crimes.
That brings us to the focus of Trump’s remarks: the alleged destruction of evidence by the Committee. Over a hundred files were allegedly destroyed, though Thompson insists that they were not required to be preserved.
It does appear that the Committee may have violated the House’s archiving rules. However, this is not ordinarily a case for criminal prosecution. These rules have sufficient room for interpretation to make any such claim difficult to prosecute. Moreover, the responsibility of any given member of the Committee for such violations is doubly difficult to establish.
Clearly, a false statement to federal investigators or an effort to obstruct an investigation can be separate criminal violations, but there is no indication of such allegations.
Most importantly, presidents do not send people to jail. Juries and judges do that. We have the oldest and most successful constitution in history. J6 Committee members, like all citizens, are fully protected under that system.
Trump’s statement, however, has given a boost to his critics who are trying to preserve the narrative that blanket preemptive pardons are needed to protect his political opponents. As I recently wrote, some are suggesting up to thousands of such pardons.
In a statement to The New York Times, Cheney immediately used Trump’s statement to keep the narrative alive:
“This was the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history. Donald Trump’s suggestion that members of Congress who later investigated his illegal and unconstitutional actions should be jailed is a continuation of his assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our republic.”
The media is widely reporting Trump’s statement and omitting his prior insistence that he was not going to unleash a retributive campaign against political opponents.
Trump gave his critics a windfall benefit, which they can now cite as the basis for the blanket pardons. The press and pundits have been dreading the rather awkward prospect of democracy not ending as predicted or the chance that this is not (as figures like Cheney claimed) our last election. The “white knight pardons” are a way of arguing that Biden prevented the collapse.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how “rage rhetoric” has long been a part of our political debates and elections. The danger is that “rage rhetoric” can become state rage, as shown repeatedly throughout history.
President Trump just won not just both houses of Congress with the White House, but also the popular vote. That victory was not the result of rage rhetoric, but the promise to move beyond these divisions to achieve progress on issues ranging from the border to the economy. Trump can now cement such a legacy or destroy it by fueling our divisions.
The J6 Committee is not going to jail. The question is where our country will be going and whether President Trump can use this election to help unify this country.
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.”
I commented earlier, but one more. Years ago, already a moderate – but then it meant a pox on both houses – I kind of laughed off Rush Limbaugh’s remark one day that the left is relentless and can’t just be defeated; they must be destroyed. I’ve apologized to his spirit, because he was right. Liberals have now gone way beyond too far. They hate any semblance of justice, fairness and have no shame. It is as if a group of intellectuals are trying to thwart zombies by reasoning with them. What do you do when fascists keep trying to put good people in jail for things like opposing them (like Trump or pro-lifers), expressing their thoughts (they want to end free speech) or even trying to help others (like, say, a Daniel Penny) and your side doesn’t think it’s necessary to do justice? What happens is they win, sometimes for a long time. I love the Professor’s commentary day after day, but I do not think he realizes, despite writing continuously about their unconstitutional ways and attempts to do really bad things, that when free speech is taken away – and they would if they could, as he knows – then only violence brings back freedom. I am not saying we need a civil war, but it is getting closer to when we will not be able to vote our way out of tyranny, and D corruption must be fought with justice. That includes investigating and prosecuting election interferers on left, those who attack or even just intimidate others (DSA, BLM and Antifa, for example), and doing it in jurisdictions where we can have justice.
Exactly right. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. You cannot negotiate with people that are of the “ends justify the means” mentality. The left isd fundamentally broken, there is no fixing them.
As someone who has made a good living shading the truth, making things up, and flat-out lying, I can assure you that the only moral question that arises is, “Will the check clear the bank?”
Occasionally, as recently happened to me, my personal paycheck cleared the bank, but the company began to have a problem with declining readership, and their “paycheck” was impacted. So I was presented a choice – quit or be fired. That was disturbing, but I still have television gigs, and I still get to consort with the rich and famous. Plus I have been able to start my own blog! I have dreams of becoming the next Joe Rogan!
The point is, that while I am a morally reprehensible human being, I sleep well at night, and I have made a good living! I have no worries about going to jail, and let Thump do his worst!
Of course, the J6 Commies members shouldn’t go to jail. Public flogging is eminently more reasonable.
Saying “they should go to jail” is not the same as saying ‘they should be prosecuted’ He said many times that ‘Hillary should be locked up’ and, guess what, de did nothing.
<<JT "President Trump just won not just both houses of Congress with the White House, but also the popular vote. That victory was not the result of rage rhetoric, but the promise to move beyond these divisions to achieve progress on issues ranging from the border to the economy. Trump can now cement such a legacy or destroy it by fueling our divisions."
"The J6 Committee is not going to jail. The question is where our country will be going and whether President Trump can use this election to help unify this country."
My good professor, who I most often agree with. How exactly certain are you that "rage rhetoric", was not at least in part, perhaps a major part, of the overall Trump victory? Americans are pretty well fed up with just about anything and everything having to do with the last four years of a politicized and weaponized DOJ, FBI, NSA, DHS, HHS, DIS, NSA, DOEducation, and DOEnergy, the woke military, and on and on. Not to mention the glaring corruption, incompetence, and malfeasance, of this government and it's elected and bureaucratic officials. While Americans suffer from natural disasters with little to no help from a government who see's its citizens at best as their enemies, denying them life saving aid, while shoveling out billions of our tax dollars from the exit doors in flyovers from every little country on the globe with no oversight at all for the money or the weapons, legal and illegal, that we're providing, while our wives and daughters are forced to go to the public restrooms and locker room showers with bearded men pretending at that particular moment in time to be a female. And that's just the the tip of the iceberg. I'll refrain from listing more.
So how can anyone say how much or how little the rage rhetoric, I think better termed the "sick of this sheet" blow back, played a part in this electoral revolution? Rage rhetoric? At best it is a well deserved rage, and as for rhetoric?!? Since when is a justified and morally righteous indignation response termed rhetoric? Was it rage rhetoric when we launched B-25's from the USS Hornet to bomb Tokyo after Pearl Harbor? I think not.
Secondly, how could anyone believe that someone, anyone, is going to "unify" this country? The only potentials I can envision that would unify this country is perhaps the Chicoms, or the Russkies, maybe Iran, if they are stupid enough to engage us militarily and do so in a manner similar to the Japanese. Which back in the day, instantly unified a deeply divided America on December 7, 1941. While the idea of unification is indeed a happy thought, it is unlikely to happen so long as we are enveloped in a mass Marxist infiltration of our societal infrastructure.
Good luck with that.
Professor Turley writes, “The media is widely reporting Trump’s statement and omitting his prior insistence that he was not going to unleash a retributive campaign against political opponents.”
I humbly disagree with the Professor when he suggests that this is a problem for Trump. I’m sure the Professor is right on the legal points, but President-Elect Trump seems to operate by the principle that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Trump has routinely baited his enemies to fits of hyperbole by making statements that could be taken out of context.
Looking at MSNBC now, this dynamic may finally be working in Trump’s favor.
The time to act like journalists and not like unhinged propagandists is now, but some people will never learn. The View is the last bastion of glandular journalism. When they start losing ratings, Trump’s transformation of America will be complete.
Personally, after fifteen years of absurd, woke terror (blame Obama), I will welcome such a transformation.
Diogenes,
During Trump’s first election campaign and admin, MSM would sit there and pile on and on about anything and everything negative. Someone did mention that MSM was giving him all kinds of free coverage. As they clutched their pearls, he and the rest of us were laughing at them as he played them. And he did it again in 2024.
“Glandular journalism.” Great term for The View!! Fits to a T.
😉
“The time to act like journalists and not like unhinged propagandists is now, but some people will never learn. ”
Oh contraire, Baudelaire! I have made a good living by being an “unhinged propagandist.” I had little choice. My target audience did not want to hear the truth – they wanted to be reaffirmed in their belief system. I assure you that not one talking head at MSNBC, myself incuded, ever believed the Russian Collusion story for a minute. Or the J6 Insurrection. Or that Biden was as sharp as a tack. BUT our audience wanted to believe it, so we gave them what they wanted to hear.
Are we any different from the floozies at OnlyFans, or the chick at the strip club? We just get paid a lot more! 🙂
Do not expect the crazy to go away. My advice to my superiors has been, turn up the cray-cray!
True. There will always be a market for quack remedies.
Diogenes, I strongly concur with your disagreement with the Professor. Trump functions well in any type of street fight and most likely the problem will enhance Trump’s message.
No doubt, Alan.
Hard to imagine that Liz Cheney can tamper with a witness without the knowledge of that witness’s attorney, collude with that witness to create a narrative by telling a lie about Trump grabbing the steering wheel of his limo, and then pass that narrative off as true to the American people AND the J6 committee, all the while knowing it was a lie that had been completely fabricated, further use that lie to try to disbar the witness’s attorney … and there’s NOTHING she can be charged with? Seriously???
All that is covered by the speech and debate clause. She has absolute immunity.
Clearly the President does not charge, prosecute, adjudicate, or sentence. In this case DJT simply expressed an opinion based on the known record of the Committee. Is a criminal (DOJ) investigation into the actions of the members and staff? I believe it is based on the admission that records were purposely destroyed. As for indictments and prosecution, we should leave that to professional investigators and prosecutors.
What Turley is saying is that Trump proved his critics were right, and Trump was not helping himself by being stupid enough to even consider it, but he just might do it as long as he isn’t directly saying it.
Wrong again.
When Trump said they “should” go to jail, he expressed an opinion about how little regard he, as well as many others, had for the credibility of the J6 Committee. Had he said instead they “will” go to jail he would have expressed a certain future reality that those suffering severe TDS might have really sunken their teeth into. It is important here to appreciate the difference between what one thinks and what they will do if one expects not to be manipulated by the news they receive.
Ron A. Hoffman,
Great comment.
Too bad that being a RINO isn’t a crime. The people of Wyoming should sue Cheney for false representation.
There’s no such thing. And if there were it would be covered by congressional immunity.
I’d have to do some research to determine crimes, if they exist, but I don’t think the professor gets who these people are even though every week, sometimes every day he writes about the horrible things they do. These are not political opponents, they are fascists consumed with one-party power, interference with elections and intimidating and even jailing their opponents. Keep in mind, the fascists made up crimes for Trump. I’m not suggesting that.
Isn’t it a crime to NOT retain records?
Also, Cheney MUST be disbarred for coaching a witness who already had an attorney.
I can understand the rational legal analysis and the desire for future fairness and calmness, but probably the majority of 77 million people are outraged that a) elected representatives boldly lied to the country again and again and again and b) their lies provided stimulus and cover for imprisoning hundreds of people, many of whom committed no crimes and many who have been in federal prison 3 years and more without a trial.
A travesty of justice has occurred and you want the country to just forget about it because Congress members are allowed to commit whatever misdeeds they want without any consequences except possible loss of a future election. A J6er was just arrested this week. So the damage done by the committees falsehoods and purposeful media amplification continues to this day.
Dispassionate left brain thinking that ignores harm done is a cop out in this instance. Is that intentional or do you just not care about actual people and equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment or a just, justice system.
He’s a demonrat, so of course he does not care about actual harm, ethical behavior, common decency, or justice.
One could consider a Truth and Reconciliation Committee and do all investigations in the open unless specific national security is involved. All witnesses should be interviewed openly and then all evidence pro and con tallied and itemized in a searchable database and preserved for all to see and access. This would also have to include investigations of the 2020 election since few were carried out because of a “lack of standing”. Strange things occurred in 2020 with the sudden appearance of millions of votes and then followed in 2024 with a disappearance of those votes. Was this mail in voting pristine and clean or was it massive fraud. I don’t know but I do suspect shenanigans. Minimal voter id at the time, lock boxes standing on corners with no security or observation, interminable variability of time to vote, mail in and then have variable legal times to accept, who filled in the mail in vote , etc.
Do it all then make judgements on the actions to take.
I don’t want scalps, I want truth and clean politics starts with clean elections.
One truth we do know. Too many people stay in Washington D.C. way too long. That needs to be rectified.
I’ve been pretty outspoken about the J6 Committee, writing a bunch of columns about how they’ve twisted the evidence, made false claims, and shown political bias. To me, the committee isn’t just a big failure; it was a missed chance for both sides to look at what happened that day.”
That’s why some people are calling for them to face jail time for what they feel are crimes. And honestly, Professor Turley, you’ve contributed to that narrative. Now that Trump is shooting his mouth off, you’re trying to ‘clarify’ things, but the truth is, Republicans had their shot to participate in the committee. Instead, they sent in individuals looking to cause chaos rather than stepping in as fair judges. Liz Cheney and Kinzinger were the only real bipartisan voices there. They could have nominated different people to replace those who got rejected, but they chose not to and then blamed the Democrats for it.
You are impressive, and you will go far!
Prove that they are bipartisan, because from where I sit, they are not THAT at all.
What Trump said is the equivalent to, “There oughta be a law.” And maybe there should be. But it is not a threat of imminent prosecution, as he made clear.
A question for Professor Turley and anyone else who will offer an opinion based upon facts, case, and statutory law, not spleen. Is there some legal way to reduce the vile lawfare that has wasted our judicial resources and inflamed our population? I feel some sort of punishment more immediate than the threat of being primaried is needed. As a simile, when a toddler does wrong, a good parent will mete out immediate and appropriately-sized punishment, not offer the “you just wait until Daddy gets home” or “no toys for a week.”
Unless I’m mistaken, I believe destruction of government records is a crime. So is conspiracy.
But Turley is a demonrat and he does not think any demonrats should ever be charged with a crime, because they are so well intentioned, don’t you know.
I don’t think it’s that. But he does seem to believe in what Obama tried to apply to foreign policy – if we are nice to them, they will be nice to us. It doesn’t work with any of them.
Manipulation of evidence – Professor, that’s your term – should be punishable by law. I’m no lawyer, but when someone misrepresents factual material, destroys evidence to put forward a false case, at a minimum that should lead to disbarment.