The release of the first part of Jack Smith’s report at midnight was the special counsel’s version of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision: we had seen it before. Putting aside the public filings where Smith fought to get this information out before the election, there was little new in the report. What the report did not contain is an explanation of how Smith destroyed his own cases against Trump. However, one notable element was Smith’s reliance on a dubious concurrence by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of a prior column on what would be an interpretation that was too clever by half.
Much of the report was vintage Smith in dismissing countervailing precedent and insisting that he could “obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.” He may be right about obtaining a conviction before a D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump. However, he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this report makes that abundantly clear.
Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said “fight” ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in the cases with multiple charges, resentencings. One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.
However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.
As I wrote previously after the decision, “It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.” In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it “is not Smith’s style” to yield to precedent and that he would likely “take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.”
Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.
Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.
However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:
“That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.”
Once again, no other justice joined Jackson in the concurrence.
Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote:
“Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).”
Just saying that a proceeding involves “certain records” is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.
The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in 2004.
Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would have likely, in my view, result in another reversal. However, Smith is always about securing convictions more than sustaining appeals. That is why he filed the second case in D.C., where he was given the best possible judge for the prosecution, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.
In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was then brought to her for trial by Smith.
So Smith was going to proceed on the theory of a single justice with the help of a favorable jury and a motivated judge. Little has changed with Smith since his unanimous reversal in the McDonnell case, which seems much of the reason that he was appointed.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This column also appeared on Fox.com
While I find the release distasteful, I am not against it. This is nothing more than ringing the bell on the way out the door. It is already ignored and will slip beneath the surface of the sea quietly. You know how you can tell, even the Democrats are pretty quiet about it.
Prosecutors test the limits of the law, but one should not twist it into knots. He is only going to say that he can win because if he says he cannot win, then he has even bigger problems. I can only hope Trump is the outlier and this does not continue forward with retribution ad infinitum.
Jonathan: There is an interesting aspect to Jack Smith’s just released Volume 1 report on the election interference case. As you know back in April Arizona AG Kris Mayes obtained grand jury indictments of Rudy Guiliani, Mark Meadows and 16 others for their roles in an attempt to overturn DJT’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. That indictment includes DJT as “unindicted coconspirator No. 1”. Since Jack Smith has dismissed the election interference case, Mayes has requested the DOJ to release Smith’s entire case file to her to ensure both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence is available in the prosecution of her case.
In a statement Mayes has said: “Today, my office has one of the only remaining cases cases against national actors. I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury’s indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable. Undoubtedly, disclosing Special Counsel’s file to my office will keep ensure that those who should be held accountable are…”
In AZ the statute of limitations on most felonies is 7 years. This means DJT could still face criminal charges after he leaves office in 2028. This assumes DJT will voluntarily leave at the end of his term. He has already said he might want to serve a third term–disregarding constitutional requirements. So while Jack Smith has resigned and won’t be prosecuting DJT for his crimes it appears AG Kris Mayes is not similarly constrained. And there is nothing DJT can do to stop Kris Mayes!
From sweetheart deal to repudiation, special prosecutor cements Biden family corruption for history
“Special Counsel David Weiss’ report was not a manifesto of new disclosures but affirmed the Biden family made millions trading on its name and that Hunter Biden broke the law.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/sweetheart-deal-repudiation-prosecutor-report-cements-biden-family
It’s clear that the recent pardon of Hunter Biden by President Biden overshadows any actions taken by Weiss. Similar to Smith, Weiss is required to release a report upon concluding his investigation.
Weiss hasn’t proven that making millions was illegal or criminal. Interestingly, Trump could face the same accusations of “influence peddling” that Turley previously highlighted, but on a much larger scale. Will Turley hold Trump accountable for this influence peddling in the next four years? I highly doubt it. Turley seems hesitant to criticize Trump, especially with the DOJ under Trump’s control.
Where do you come up with such nonsense G?
“This assumes DJT will voluntarily leave at the end of his term. He has already said he might want to serve a third term”
Yeah, sure nailed it there Denny. That qualifier “might” sure does rip your diatribe to shreads.
Might, could … conjecture much Denny? More bloated drivel.
It’s odd because that’s exactly what Turley does constantly—mixing conjecture and innuendo, topped off with a touch of disingenuousness and assumption. You’ve got to appreciate Turley’s blend of truths and half-truths to drive home a “point.”
G, your interpretive skills are subpaar.
Right.
If the Chinese Communists don’t start WWIII before then, or if they otherwise just opt to release another far more deadly virus that Fauci funded, or if the Yellowstone Caldera doesn’t explode, or if an EMP burst from the Sun doesn’t fry the global power infrastructure, or if the Rapture doesn’t occur just yet, and so on and so forth.
Tell us oh great Oracle what may befall us next.
Jonathan: There is an interesting aspect to Jack Smith’s just released Volume 1 report on the election interference case.
More performative Soviet Democrat slapstick theater from the straight man of the The Three Democrat Fascist Stooges.
Dennis McIntyre is hoping to persuade everyone (at least someone), to ignore the overriding aspect regarding Jack Smith in this report.
A report showing that this persecution was a carbon copy of his last persecution in America during the previous Democrat presidential reelection effort. The report reveals why SCOTUS who unanimously threw out his previous persecution of the most dangerous threat to then VP Biden’s reelection, took the unusual step of declaring Jack Smith a threat to our democracy.
Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, the Soviet Democrat tiny Hero Of The Revolution for legislating from the bench was one of the signatories to that decision naming Jack Smith as a police state fascist. How bad can Smith be to have Bader-Ginsberg declare him a threat to our Constitution? Pretty bad!
Dennis: remember back when you Soviet Democrats were claiming you were fighting to “protect our democracy”? Good times, eh!
Soviet Democrats like Dennis, George, Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Joe Biden are now just that: a threat to the American republic, with all Americans equal before the law. The Bidens allegedly are some of those Americans – but clearly not equal before Attorney General Merrick Garland’s eyes of law
You should take comfort in the fact that Trump won’t be the dictator that you lie on a daily basis he will be. If that were true, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Jack Smith, and all the rest of them should be either packing their bags to flee the country in the next few day. Or expecting to spend at least the next four years occupying the cells that were used in Stalinist fashion to punish J6 defendants.
And you Dennis with your fellow Three Democrat Fascist Stooges, fearful for your lives, would have gone dark on the internet and would be seeking refuge in Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or perhaps Communist China.
Dennis, if you had the slightest shred of credibility here, you would actually be dangerous instead of being a sophomoric Soviet Democrat clown show.
Old Airborne Dog
I commented on Turley’s earlier article that Smith explains on pp 61-67 why he did not charge Trump with insurrection under the Insurrection Act. He said:
1. He could not prove that the event was an insurrection;
2. Even if it were, he could not prove that Trump engaged in it directly, and there is no precedent for applying the Act to mere incitement; and
3. Even if he could apply it to incitement, he could not prove that Trump engaged in incitement under the Brandenberg test.
I’ve seen that Byron York has mentioned this. It will be interesting to see how this is covered in the media.
Daniel,
Thank you for pointing out those facts. It was not an insurrection. As most of us knew.
Thanks, but these were Smith’s own conclusions about what he could prove, not mine.
Turley– “one notable element was Smith’s reliance on a dubious concurrence by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of a prior column on what would be an interpretation that was too clever by half…”
+++
“Too clever by half” is a nice way of saying “Stupid.”
Young, leave it to Joe Boden, the man that picked Harris to be VP and to be the nominee this year, to pick either the dumbest or the second dumbest (Sotomayor is in the running) person to ever be a Supreme Court Justice.
Hullbobby,
I think the Biden justice is the stupidest, and most vocal, by far.
I think I finally understand the expression “Stupid Is as Stupid Does”. Apparently even Joe and Ketanji can teach me something by demonstration if nothing else.
When I think of justice jackson, why am I reminded of mayor bass of LA?
@hullbobby: both had the two most important qualifications to be Democrat justices on SCOTUS.
1. NOT white colored.
2. NO PENIS ALLOWED: must have verified dark colored vagina. (and Dennis claims Republicans will be the ones doing genitals checks before entering bathrooms. Can’t get a seat on SCOTUS without a Democrat checking to ensure you were issued a vagina at birth)
Coincidentally, the same qualifications to be a Democrat choice for Vice President. The same qualifications to be a Democrat choice to run for president!
BTW, we know that much of the work of writing a Justice’s opinions is done by the law clerks they hired after joining SCOTUS. Given that fact, not only is The Wise Racist Misandrous Latinx Birthing Person clearly the stupidest SCOTUS justice in living memory, but she hired equally stupid people to serve as her law clerks.
These are the brilliant law clerks who did her research and wrote her opinions for her. Oh, if only SCOTUS posted their names and CV that qualified them for those taxpayer funded positions.
That is, the clerks that weren’t helping that Wise Latinx Sotomayer merch out her position in SCOTUS, working with Sotomayor to cash in on her sudden artistic celebrity as an author selling children’s books. Eerily similar to Hunter Biden merching out his position as First Felon Crackhead Son, creating his magnificent paintings.
Old Airborne Dog
“This committee has talked a lot about standards, standards that we, unfortunately over time, have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain schools, certain places, which affects readiness, which is what I care about the most,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth did not say how standards had been lowered for women in those “duty positions,” “schools” or “places.”
Yea, it’s easy to throw out accusations like red meat to the masses so they can get angry. The problem comes when you need facts (remember those? Facts?) to back up your claim. So get angry and get even. What a way to run the country, fact free.
No one is angry. That is just you projecting. Again.
Hegseth is correct. We have seen the standards get lowered. Grades are racist. Math is racist. History is racist. Women’s sports are being infiltrated by biological males stealing spots, awards, medals and even scholarships from real women. Biological males, claiming to be women, in women’s prisons, raping real women.
Those are facts. We all know it. We have seen it in the news. The good professor has many columns on it.
As I have stated on the good professor’s blog many times, I am brown.
Is there a single Anonymous Soviet Democrat who can name one single general or admiral during the Biden maladministration who resigned in honor when Biden let Iran’s Mad Mullahs out of the cage Trump put them in, empowering and enriching Iran so they could go back to using their terrorist proxies to murder not only American citizens, but American troops serving under them as they served Biden?
Is there a single Anonymous Soviet Democrat who can name one single general or admiral during the Biden maladministration who resigned in honor after the horrific ineptitude that was Biden’s Afghanistan hand over to the terrorist Taliban?
Resigning rather than staying to be part of the military leadership visibly supporting Biden deserting Americans and our allies to those terrorists, while Biden ensured those hajji terrorists were left enough military weaponry and advanced equipment to equip a small NATO nation? Weaponry now used to attempt to kill American troops serving under these generals and admirals.
A single general or admiral who resigned rather than continuing to be a supporting member of Biden’s military after watching him allow his ChiCom customers to leisurely fly an advanced spy balloon across America for days.
Nope. Not one. But now: BBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH HEGSETH!!!!!!
Yet another Anonymous Democrat Tranny, fresh off the short bus carrying Jerry’s Kids to their special needs schools, suddenly panics and starts randomly posting about Pete Hegseth.
Projecting it’s rage and complete absence of supporting facts, as it Speaks Democrat Truths, believing their Anonymous claims will have the credibility here that it gets over on the Rachael Maddow blog.
Apparently, Hegseth does not meet Democrat retard standards for leadership. Unlike General Milley, for example, who said his primary job was checking White Rage in the military, pushing Critical Black Racist Marxist Theory onto the officers, and ensuring the ChiComs were kept informed of what Trump was telling his military leadership.
Is there any chance this Anonymous retards is a currently serving Democrat groomer, a Tranny currently hiding in the military who cannot meet any normal military standards for service?
An Anonymous military Tranny terrified that a Hegseth appointment will require them to meet military standards? A Tranny who knows they cannot?
This is why these cowardly Democrat Trannies and Groomers only post their Bull Schiff Show Anonymously. Fear of outing themselves for what they are.
Old Airborne Dog
Here is a quote to ponder on what an independent observer thinks of the U.S.
I know right now the trump cult members will poo poo this But come back to this quote in a year. I hope it is wrong but I fear it is just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come
“Surely, I thought, voters could see the obvious: Trump was a fascist. But then, like a lightning bolt, it struck me — most Americans simply didn’t care. The realization was crushing — a bitter truth about the apathy of my adopted country.”
Who cares?
That is not the thoughts of an independent observer but you making up things. Again.
What registered Independent voters, like me, think and know based of actual evidence is Biden is the worst president ever. We know based off actual evidence the Biden admin is the most totalitarian admin ever.
Actually, the sentiment expressed by your “independent observer” is quite common among foreign ‘independent observers’ I have met and had discussions with regarding politics in the US. The VERY common denominator shared by those ‘independent observers’ is that their primary news sources are either CNN, MSNBC, etc. or a foreign news service that derives their information from those same ‘news’ sources.
I suggest you confirm this impression by asking your “independent observer” his/her source and then question them in detail as to the basis for their thinking. Such a discussion should prove enlightening.
Please don’t take “a year” to do this.
Quote, you give no refernce. Ponder this, when quoting name the source. One might belive you. Hey, you work for the justice dept.?
Here is a quote to ponder on what an independent observer thinks of the U.S.
What a perfectly pathetic Anonymous Democrat self licking ice cream cone that post is!
Never seen THAT here before: an Anonymous Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiot creates it’s own “quote”, straight out of The Biden 2024 Election Strategy binder they were issued.
And then posts a BBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!, that references the quote they cobbled together and insinuated is from one of their Illegal Aliens that Biden allowed to illegally enter America: supposedly “adopted” by America.
The Laverentiy Beria style persecution to take out Trump as Smith took out his previous victim failed. And so, now they project to claiming it’s actually Trump who’s a fascist who will find Jack Smiths to destroy his opponents. Not them.
This is why these single digit IQ Marxist Useful Idiots off the short bus will only post their dreck Anonymously, rather than proudly doing so under a chosen username.
Old Airborne Dog
Did the alleged source of the quote (curiously unattributed and left similarly anonymous) explain why Trump didn’t display his fascism during his previous four years as president?
Turley’s column says, “One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts.” I don’t think there are any pending prosecutions of Trump in federal court.
“don’t think”? Why not research it instead of making an unfounded criticism.
I have a sense that JT knows more than his readers.
Speaking of the Model Rukes of Professional Conduct, Smith should be subject to bar discipline for violating Model Rule 3.3(a)(1), knowingly misrepresenting the law to a tribunal (I’m too lazy tto verify that DC has adopted the MRPC). He should know that KBJ’s musings don’t represent the law.
Subject to? YOu’re not a lawyer yet you pretend to know that smith violated some model rules?
Subject to? YOu’re not a lawyer yet you pretend to know that smith violated some model rules?
I’m not a lawyer no more than I’m a cowardly Democrat cull who will only sneer anonymously in their ignorance. Nor a cowardly Anonymous Useful Idiot who insinuates they have an Internet Law Degree who posses a JD.
Let’s help you out with those sophomoric internet legal skills you have put on Anonymous public display
Regardless of the MRPC, Smith just like his bosses AG Garland, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, former Obama AG’s Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates, former Obama FBI Directors James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissman etc are all members of the Washington DC Bar Association.
Even an Anonymous Marxist Useful Idiot can find that bar association’s rules of professional conduct online to read for themselves. If you lack the mental capacity to find them, fearing you might go to one of your fellow groomers to procure a young child to help you, I will give you a helpful start:
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
https://www.dcbar.org/For-Lawyers/Legal-Ethics/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Advocate/Special-Responsibilities-of-a-Prosecutor
That sub-section has SIX articles listing prohibitions prosecutors must not engage in.
Name ONE of those articles that Jack Smith (and Merrick Garland) didn’t repeatedly violate. Enlist George, Dennis, or Gigi to help you out with that.
Old Airborne Dog
A beautiful dissertation on the art of lawfare. Prosecutors like Jack Smith and jurists like those mentioned in the article remind me of the Inquisitors from the age of witch hunts and their church masters. Or perhaps the Stalinists like Beria who could find a crime to suit a desired punishment. The weaponization of Law must end if this nation is to survive. The sanction of lawfare as a political weapon is causing massive distrust of the legal system which will eventually result in an attitude that the Law does not deserve respect or require obedience. The system is rotting from within and it must be addressed now.
Place your pre-order now for Jack and Ketanji’s new joint biography: ‘Dumber and Devious’ with forward by Tanya (written by Jack, of course)!
This book guarantees to keep you spellbound with insights into twisted but limited thinking, rationalized under-performance and the unjustified entitlement you would expect of most Harvard grads!
Order your copy now from the Sonia Sotomayor Children’s Books Co. with offices conveniently located in the SCOTUS! If you order 2500 copies or more, you will be considered for a personal appearance from an unnamed SCOTUS justice!!!!!!!!
The tyranny of the BLM female is slowly coming to a close. Fani Willis, Judge Chutkan, Justice Brown-Jackson, Mayor Bass, Sunny Hostile, etc. etc. etc.–these radicalized black women have been egged on by silly, asinine, white liberals to chuck common law and explore their inner machete. Joe Biden, as national witch doctor, made this DEI rampage his top project.
Like little black Hitlerettes, these harpies have nearly demolished the same Democrat Party they sought to aggrandize. They are literally burning it to the ground as I type this. Even the military is getting damaged.
Merit matters, so checkmate and good riddance, ladies.
As for the white liberals who enabled all this, how much has to burn down before you alter your outlook? It’s a question.
Correct on many points but this will not bring this ‘tyranny to a close’. This will be a recurrent theme until the profit and power has been drained from DEI. Read up on Steve Biko and what he thought of the “harpies”.
…..explore their inner machete.
ISWYDT.
well played!
Estovir,
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Thank you for the laugh!
Estovir, yes, I was alluding to her and Rwanda. Unfortunately, I was not just speaking figuratively. Machetes happen 🙁
@Estovir: might not want to attempt to use Critical Black Racist Machete Theory in states like here in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming next door, or various other states that haven’t cancelled the Second Amendment.
Might end up attempting to steal more bullets than you have the strength to run away with. Either directly from your victim – or an innocent bystander that is not going to permit Democrat criminality to go unchallenged.
Alternately, there’s more than a few supposed victims in those and other states who will give you a kick in the kneecap while you’re standing there threatening them, then take your machete from your skinny racist arm and shove it up your Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe ass.
Soviet Democrats need to carefully chose their victims became some just don’t play as they’re supposed to.
“various other states that haven’t cancelled the Second Amendment.”
Some of us in states that have tried to do just that have nevertheless managed to jump through all of the hoops set up for us in order to go armed in public. Don’t forget about us…
Never forgotten. Lots of red counties in those blue states.
“Might end up attempting to steal more bullets than you have the strength to run away with.”
Good one. Made me laugh 😉
Please amend your list to include Letitia James.
My bad. Time was short. Whoopi, too. There’s probably a battalion of second-string witches I could have included.
hear hear
I think we have had enough of this nonsense?
I sure have.
“Trump and his administration and agents and other enablers will crash the Biden economy — one of the best in decades — to ‘rebuild’ it again — except they will only keep the first half of the promise. There will be no rebuilding. There will only be mass looting of our tax dollars, greasing of palms, favors to help the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the destruction of the middle class, further ensuring we cannot fight back.”
I hope this is wrong, but everything I see with the incompetent boobs trump has surrounded himself with point to a very bad outcome.
Why are the intellectual analysis like this one always posted by Anonymous? Surely such magnificent brilliance would want to be known by a username?
And provide more than a paragraph of an equally Anonymous Democrat claiming Bidenomics has provided America with a great “Biden economy-one of the best in decades”. Followed by one single sentence of their own.
This is exactly why Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots like this will only post anonymously: somebody who knows them may still have some slight belief that they have the potential to develop a double digit IQ.
Old Airborne Dog
He, she, they or it, one never knows, are likely paid trolls. I challenged one of them a week ago to reveal their name. No response. I ignore them.
The revealing ‘challenge’ to them is simple: Just ask them to answer a question. Go ahead, ask them a question.
They won’t answer it, because they can’t – They ask the questions, They push the buttons (provoke you), They are here to size You up.
the bottom line is that They will never; apologize, admit, or engage You.
They are here to compromise Your integrity.
Don’t feed the Trolls – Just walk away
Yea, I know, the statement doesn’t fit with your world view so it must be wrong.
Look at who trump has surrounded himself with. The number 1 criteria is how much praise said individual heaps on trump 2nd criteria? There isn’t one.
When you’re in a cult it is hard to see anything the cult leader doesn’t want you to see. Open your eyes.
Trump has surrounded himself with competent people with experience and roles in leadership. Open your eyes. Not DEI hires.
Old Airborne Dog,
They have nothing. No credibility. No critical thinking. They cannot read a jobs report to see how badly the Biden economy really is. How bad Biden’s economic policies really are. The fun part is we have actual evidence to prove them wrong. Easily. Take these two facts for example,
New Biden-Harris Medicare plan could cost taxpayers $20 billion in election-year giveaway, CBO warns
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/new-biden-harris-medicare-plan-could-cost-taxpayers-20-billion-over-next-three
Biden mandate requiring heavy trucks to be EVs will raise inflation by as much as 1%, study says
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/bidens-electric-heavy-duty-truck-mandates-will-drive-inflation-much-1-study
Just the news? Really? You call that reliable news? Hilarious.
There is no mandate that Trucks be fully electric. The rule does not force anyone to buy and/or get rid of gas-powered vehicles.
It’s an emissions rule that is not limited to EVs. It also promotes greater use of hybrids, plug-ins, hydrogen, and even lower-emission gas-powered vehicles.
Trump’s tariffs will raise inflation much higher. Car parts will be far more expensive, cars, both ev’s and gas wil be more expensive since the majority of materials are exported from china and other countries targeted by Trump’s tarifs.
EV’s, especially Chinese ones are far cheaper and better than ours and that is one reason why Trump wants to impose huge tarifs or restrictions on Chinese cars and evs. China is the worlds biggest producer of cars and they produce cheaper cars. BYD is already a serious competitor to tesla. They sell hundreds of thousands of EVs more than Tesla.
The infrastructure can be expanded the same way Elon did. By private investment. China managed to create an EV infrastucrure that is far bigger than ours. Why cant’ we?
Their source is the Congressional Budget Office. Moron. Learn to read.
EVs do more harm to the environment than ICE.
Upstate, clearly you’re not paying attention. I was responding to the EV “mandate” article. Not the medicare article. That article said nothing about the CBO. Just studies produced by Trucking companies and right-wing think tanks. Pay attention to what you’re reading, moron.
Still…just the news is not a reliable news source. They tend to cherry-pick their stats even when they cite “offical” government data. I thought you didn’t trust government data since it’s run by the deep state. Why are you trusting them now? Weird.
I have never said anything about not trusting government data. You are putting words into my mouth. Moron.
You failed to mention the fact the Chinese government is building coal fired power plants at a record rate. EVs are not sustainable without fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Solar and wind are not going to cut it.
Just the news? Really? You call that reliable news? Hilarious.
George exits The Democrat Three Fascist Stooges clown car, to play the part of Larry in slapstick political performance theater where Larry plays the part of believing those watching him will find it hilarious while he plays being serious. George keeps repeating the lines he got from reliable news source, Rachael Maddow at MSNBC.
The question remains: is it anything other than self-gratification of his sexual desires that drives George to come here each and every day to insult and smear his host Professor Turley?
It’s not like George has ever been given any indication here that he is accepted as having any tiny shred of credibility and honesty.
And so we mock him to remind him of the complete contempt and derision he is held in.
Old Airborne Dog
Incompetent boobs like Bolton, who, upon becoming National Security Advisor, fired Trump’s pandemic and bioweapons response director, R.Adm. R. Tim Ziemer? That kind of incompetent
boob? Bolton then disbanded the NSC’a pandemic response unit.
I agree 100%, Bolton should be kept as far away from the white house as trump.
I agree 100%, Bolton should be kept as far away from the white house as trump.
A cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat screams MORE COWBELL! MORE PRESIDENT DADDY-DAUGHTER INAPPROPRIATE INCEST SHOWERS! MORE CHEST-FEEDING REVEREND MRS. PETE BUTTAGIEG! MORE DEMOCRAT COWBELL, DAMMIT!!!!
Old Airborne Dog
Only some incompetent boobs this time.
Trump has learned a lot since his first presidency.
This time Trump is not a virgin.
“I should have pressured Garland more to go against Trump.”
And there it is in a nutshell…
J
Smith is a loser as his 0-4-1 record attests. Let him go quietly into that dark night – and hopefully he’ll have to defend himself before an ethics panel one day.
Hey Jack, McDonalds is hiring. Ask Don for recommendation. Start in the fries dept.
That’s hilarious! I’ve got to hand it to Turley when he posts hypocrisy in the most obvious way possible.
Prosecutors can and do push the limits of the law in pursuit of a prosecution. That’s their job. Pushing the limits is not illegal or controversial. Every prosecutor and even defense lawyers push the limits of interpretation or reason to bend the rules or make their case.
Citing justice Jackson’s opinion that Smith used to push the limits is absolutely no different than what Justice Thomas did in Trump’s immunity case. Thomas, the only one to mention a certain avenue for a certain judge (Aileen Cannon) to intervene for Trump did exactly what Turley whines about.
Smith’s job IS about pushing the limits if he needs to. Any prosecutor would be doing the same thing. Turley knows this becasue we have an adverserial system of justice. Nobody not even the law requires a prosecutor to be fair. That’s why we have judges. They make it fair in the end, except those the likes of Judge Cannon and other Trump appointees.
George:
“Prosecutors can and do push the limits of the law in pursuit of a prosecution. That’s their job. Pushing the limits is not illegal or controversial.”
*****************************
And as usual, you’re dead wrong.
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:
(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and
(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,
(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and
(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.
(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.
ABA Resources
Nothing in the established guidelines explicitly prohibits a prosecutor from exploring the outer limits of those rules. In fact, the rules do not state that a prosecutor is forbidden from pushing boundaries or exceeding standard practices, as long as there is a valid justification for doing so. There are instances when prosecutors operate in this manner, and judges may permit it, particularly when new, compelling evidence warrants such an approach.
It is important to note that Smith did not violate any of these established rules. Critics like Turley and Trump supporters may assert that he did, but such claims often originate from personal biases instead than concrete evidence. It’s important to differentiate between allegations and proof—merely stating an opinion or accusation does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
“ Nobody not even the law requires a prosecutor to be fair.”
***********
This is exactly what you said. You’re dead wrong. In fact, they have to do justice.
Mespo,
Good one! I like to see it when people call out the slow and dumb one with facts.
Upstate is obviously not paying attention to what he reads.
So whataboutism was Hillary Clinton’s bleach bit and destruction of blackberries under subpoena obstruction? Seems to meet 1512 C1 as defined in the article? Why wasn’t she prosecuted George? Selective prosecution and a fraudulent election of a cognitively impaired man then usurped by unelected bureaucrats. That’s what was delivered to America and a $37T debt with two wars killing well over a million people.
She wasn’t prosecuted because there was no evidence pointing out that it was intentional or malicious. Two requirements that would have been needed to prove there was criminal intent behind the erasures. Not being able to prove it prevented the level of confidence that she would be found guilty in a court of law. Mere accusation is not evidence, not in court. That the emails were erased by themselves is not proof of intent. There is a very high bar to clear proving intent, especially malicious intent.
No malicious or intentional intent to mishandle classified documents? You’re lying George, she wasn’t prosecuted because she’s a lying POS Democrat. Just like the Biden documents, they come up with some BS to support their selective prosecution practices, a kindly old Gentleman with a poor memory. Right!
At least be honest about it.
She wasn’t prosecuted because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her actions were intentional and malicious. Remember, she spent 11 hours being questioned by a congressional committee, yet they still could not ascertain that she committed a crime.
The law is quite clear: to prove a crime, they needed to demonstrate intent—specifically, criminal intent—and that is very difficult to establish without direct evidence.
The emails were subject to a congressional subpoena. Deleting them was illegal.
They couldn’t prove that the emails were intentionally deleted to avoid scrutiny. Assuming intent without evidence isn’t enough. It was determined that the erasure was accidental, and Republicans failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was anything but an honest mistake.
To declare the actions illegal, they needed to prove intent, but after years of trying, they couldn’t provide evidence to support their allegations. Allegations alone do not constitute evidence.
George, she had the blackberries hammered and destroyed while under subpoena. There is no malicious intent required for mishandling of classified documents, she knew very well what she was doing. It was against federal law, it’s like running a stop sign. Quit digging
Traveler,
Well said!
That’s hilarious! I’ve got to hand it to Turley when he posts hypocrisy in the most obvious way possible.
George is hopeful that he can leave his current employment with The Three Democrat Marxist Stooges to be hired and sworn in as the driver for The Democrat Keystone Cops.
What’s hilarious as well as odious is how George feels a need to satisfy his perverted sex drive by coming here each and every day to accuse his host of being wrong while he is right, his host is hypocritical but he isn’t, etc. All hail George! Always right while Professor Turley is always wrong.
In the Democrat Borg Bubble that George operates from, George operates on the belief he has at least a tiny shred of credibility in the eyes of the viewers here.
Reaching back to his online JD obtained from The Lavarentiy Beria School Of Law, George claims the sole purpose of prosecutors is to push the limits of the law. In fact, to do the complete opposite of long standing precedents, to ignore existing DoJ standards for prosecution – in fact, do anything short of taking the stand at the trial, swearing to tell the truth- and then lying their asses off.
George is yet another barely sentient example of why they’re known as Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots.
George is also a cheap fake American.
Old Airborne Dog
Prosecutorial overreach, anyone?
Lawfare and the transparent weaponization of Government in a Banana Republiquesque attack on political opponents, worthy of Stalin’s barbaric Chief of Police Lavrentii Beria, is a large reason why the fair-minded People dumped Kamala Harris and her fellow Progressive comrades last election 🙄.
This begs the question as to who constructed the opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence that was too clever by half. She has never constructed any opinion beyond the tripe-level.
Who do you think? How can someone as a judge that couldn’t provide a definition of a woman even be considered for a SCJ position? I would side with a Floyd definition on this one!
That’s what law clerks are for, to make justices look smarter than they are.
So Alito, Thomas, and the rest rely on clerks to make them look smarter too, right? Thomas seems a bit slow and dense for a justice. Could his clerks be compensating for that too? It’s fair to assume, right?
Jackson is younger, Thomas is older. Who do you think relies more on clerks?
She must have an entire wing for her support!
Smith is gone, and hopefully, in such disgrace that he never shows his face in public again. Oh wait! He’s a democrat…..never mind.
Sticks and stones may break some bones, but opinions never harm me.
Smith seems to have been denied sufficient time on the playground in kindergarten to learn that.
Jack and his ilk need a thorough investigation.
More like a severe and thorough azz whipping and relief of his federally funded benefits.