Below is my column in the New York Post on the pardoning of the January 6th defendants by President Donald Trump. The scope of the pardon appears broader than some had hoped. What is clear is that any such relief should not extend to violent actors, particularly those who attacked police officers. However, the Justice Department itself may have made the strongest case for presidential pardons.
Here is the column:
On January 20, 2025, the “shock and awe” campaign of the Justice Department came to an end as President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500 January 6th defendants.
Four years ago, the Justice Department set out to send a chilling message to the nation. In an interview with CBS News a year later, Justice Department official Michael Sherwin indicated that they wanted to send a message with the harsh treatment of defendants.
Sherwin explained that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”
The awe is gone but the shock remains at the Justice Department.
If Sherwin and his colleagues hoped to “Trump proof” the nation, they failed in spectacular fashion.
While there was ample basis for criminal charges, the excessive treatment of some of the January 6th defendants undermined the credibility of their prosecutions for many.
That is no easy feat.
Most of us denounced the January 6th riot as a desecration of our constitutional process.
Those who engaged in the rioting, and most importantly the violence, needed to be punished.
However, what followed left many increasingly uneasy.
The Justice Department rounded up hundreds and, even though most were charged with relatively minor crimes of unlawful entry or trespass, the Justice Department opposed the release of many from jail and sought absurdly long sentences in some cases.
It also sought restrictions on defendants that raised troubling first amendment concerns.
In my recent book, “Indispensable Right,” I discuss these cases and their troubling elements.
A good example is the handling of the most well-known case of the so-called QAnon Shaman.
Bare-chested, wearing an animal headdress, horns, and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley became the iconic image of the riot.
Seeking to make examples of these defendants, the Justice Department took special measures in hammering Chansley. He was held in solitary confinement and denied bail.
Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing.
In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”
Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”
However, long withheld footage, showed recently that Chansley (like hundreds of people that day) simply walked into the Capitol past police officers and was then escorted by officers through the Capitol.
At one point, two officers not only appear to guide him to the floor but actually try to open locked doors for him.
Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.
Does that make Chansley’s actions acceptable, let alone commendable?
Of course not.
He deserved to be arrested and punished.
However, what many saw was a troubled individual being made an example for others.
In my book, I discuss how, in history, “rage rhetoric” was allowed to become “state rage.”
This is one such case.
Trump ran on the promise to pardon these defendants and secured not just the White House but the popular vote.
It was not just the public that rejected the narrative of January 6th as an “insurrection.”
In the recent Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. U.S. to reject hundreds of charges in January 6th cases for the obstruction of legal proceedings, the Court left most cases as simply a mass trespass and unlawful entry.
The shock may be gone for these defendants, but it may only be beginning for the Justice Department and the FBI.
When the campaign of Hillary Clinton secretly funded the infamous Steele Dossier to launch the Russian conspiracy investigation, it was the Justice Department that was not just the willing but eager partner.
The “insurance policy” described by former FBI official Peter Strzok was redeemed in investigations that derailed much of Trump’s first term.
Later, it was the Justice Department again that pursued a no-holds-barred effort to convict Trump before the election.
The Justice Department is the hardest of silos in Washington to reform.
Unlike most departments, it is largely homogenous, with thousands of lawyers who share professional and cultural ties.
It is a department composed of people who are by their very definition, litigious.
Trump insisted on selecting an Attorney General, nominee Pam Bondi, who has no past ties or identification with the department.
For the Justice Department, it must feel like the Visigoths arriving at the gates of Rome . . . only to be let in by the citizens.
According to polling, the public ultimately found the “barbarians” less threatening than those who have insisted that Rome would fall.
That must certainly be shocking for many in Washington, but the record of the Justice Department showed how the awe can become awful when officials feel the license of state rage.
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.”
Mr. Turley
I hope you are well and warm this cold winter morning.
Question- Many say the pardons issued by [buyden] are an admission of guilt. Is the pardons issued by PQTUS47 an admission of quilt? Most of these Patriots are guilty of nothing other than being escorted thru the Capital Building. Just wondering. Stay safe, keep pushing
MAGAA1st
11b
Did part of the website go down??? The whole Nazi thing disappeared for me.
Yes, all of a sudden it was Oops! That page can’t be found.
The Mods might have purposely or accidentally made that thread private. Just making sure my computer had not flaked out on me.
Thx!
Absolutely my pleasure, Floyd.
I thought maybe I had made someone mad and had been put in a timeout. Silly me.
“Does that make Chansley’s actions acceptable, let alone commendable?
Of course not.
He deserved to be arrested and punished.” What did he do that hundreds of Kavanaugh or Gaza protesters didn’t do? Members of the Democrat coaltion “storm the Capitol” and even occupy Congressional offices on a regular basis and seldom if ever are punished in even a minor way.
It would certainly appear that the Capitol Police officers escorting Chansley did not believe that his actions warranted arrest, let alone prosecution. But the crucial missing fact here is that on that morning, fencing had been placed to block entrance to the the Capitol, and signs had been posted, warning that it was illegal to pass. But that fencing and those signs were removed while Trump was speaking, by a person who had clearly come prepared to do exactly that. There is video of this person, but he has not been arrested. If he, and the other provocateurs with whom he was clearly working in concert, were government employees, then J6 was entrapment on a massive scale, and Trump’s pardons were more than justified. We shall just have to wait and see. But perhaps not much longer now.
Has any moderator of this site ever charted, both the number of posts and the size of posts by “anonymus”. It seems as if we are overrun by this poster.
Anyone who doesn’t leave a name is anonymous.
Like me.
But I sign it
-G
or
-Gumby
I’m pretty sure she is referring to “Anonymous” posts that bear startling POV and stylistic similarity to those made by the 2nd “George”, “Gigi”, Dennis MacWhazhizaz, and a few other obvious sock puppets. Frankly, I frequently suspect, based on style, that some of the posters here who involve themselves in contentious debates with those leftist puppets are the very same people (or person), creating phony arguments with themselves just to see their words on a web site (or possibly to be compensated by competing political influence organizations).
@whimsicalmama
Agreed. Would love a mandatory sign-in. And for those scared of being ‘identified’ – it would make exactly zero difference if you were using a designated and anonymous sign-in within the system compared to now. Use a VPN if you must, and if you aren’t currently, your IP is open to the world anyway as it is, your email ID be damned. The rest of us that actually learn here and enjoy the conversation would love to be free of the trolls.
OUTRAGEOUS AND SPURIOUS IMPUDENCE CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVILITY RULE.
BAN DARREN SMITH FOR LIFE!
Addendum: Lachlan Murdoch is now the top Executive.
Re: Keith Rupert Murdoch – (age 93)
In September 2023, Rupert Murdoch retired, and handed over the leadership of his businesses to his eldest son Lachlan.
Lachlan Murdoch oversees News Corp and Fox Corporation (incl. Fox News).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Activities_in_the_United_States
“… In 2023, during a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, Murdoch acknowledged that some Fox News commentators were endorsing election fraud claims they knew were false.[165][166] On 18 April 2023, Fox and Dominion settled for $787.5 million. … ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Political_activities_in_the_United_States
TRUMP STILL SUCKS
Donkey balls.
Regarding the $500 billion investment (with $100-200 billion more to come), the SoftBank CEO said straight out that it wouldn’t have happened but for Trump winning. It would have still been invested, but somewhere else than the US.
A lot of jobs can be funded with $500-700 billion.
Not really.
Watch what happens.
It will go to feed a couple of people a small team that will burn thru it
ATS – you clearly have no clue about investing.
Will this succeed ? Who know. But those involved have a track record of success.
Absent failure – and even failure will benefit the economy – just not nearly as much as success, no one will burn through anything.
This is an investment – these people are spending money expecting to make more money which then gets reinvested or invested in something else.
What does this investment means ? It means the construction of lots of buildings. It means the construction of lots of GPU based super computers
US companies that make all the things that go into a data center will grow, they will make more money, they will reinvest that and that will involve hiring people.
The data centers will need people to operate and maintain them – these will be higher paying jobs.
If they are successful we will use more and more AI in our businesses and daily life. That will make us more productive, it will raise our standard of living.
Why would this not happen without Trump ? It would have happened regardless of who was president. But it will happen much faster with Trump.
Why ? Cheap Energy.
The US has the cheapest energy int he world, we have the best energy infrastructure in the world and we can grow it faster than anyone in the world,
Data centers have three many costs – the costs associated with repaying the capital user to construct the buildings and equipment.
The labor needed to maintain and operate them and the energy necescary to operate them.
The internet allows a data center to be located anywhere in the world. One major factor for locating data centers is where is there reliable cheap energy.
Another factor is where is there a high skill technical labor pool. The US is top of the list globally for both of those.
AI is likely to be a significant productivity boost for the world. But the data centers that serve the US, China, Europe can be located anywhere.
The income and the taxes on that income can flow to any nation in the world.
There is little reason at the moment that the lions share of it can not go to the US.
That is likely no matter what.
What changes with Trump is because Trump is NOT trying to choke US energy production – and I can not think of anything more stupid to do,
AI data centers can grow faster because they will not be energy limited.
The big deal is not that this is happening in the US – that was likely regardless,
It is how FAST it is happening.
“For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.” It applies to “people atoms,” (as Hobbes might say) too, I think. I see an utter unwillingness to accept the Left’s BS any more:
Left wing BS… like across the board national tariffs. I guess if it was good enough for Mao and Stalin, it’s good enough for you.
Mai and Stalin also exercised. I guess exercising must be a bad thing then.
Old man
I think tariffs may be the alternate answer to removing liquidity in the market caused by COVID cash and Obama’s quantitative easing. At the same time leveling the trade markets and paying down national debt? What say you?
Professor Turley, you lost me in your opening statement. You seem to enthusiastically advocate for punishment of any act of violence against law enforcement. You should be so enthusiastic about the prosecution of the vast number of criminals in the Biden regime, congress and the deep state.
In the case of the January 6th protest, which turned into a riot, thanks largely to the criminal actions of law enforcement, and FBI provocateurs, there may very well have been some situations where violence against police could have been justified.
For example: Video proof exists of Capitol Police being ordered to, and then gladly obeying those orders, to fire teargas into a peaceful assembly of citizens, with zero provocation. The citizens in question were not trespassing and they were not breaking any other laws. They were peacefully assembled in front of police barricades.
More than a few of the Capitol Police, and other law enforcement on scene that day are guilty of crimes. One specific Capitol cop is guilty of murder. Why aren’t you advocating for justice for the family of Ashley Babbit? Michael Byrd is a murderer and deserves to swing, and a number of his cohorts in crime deserve to spend a few years in the DC gulag, and receive the same exact mistreatment the J6ers have.
It’s no wonder so many people don’t respect law enforcement. Our system sometimes prosecutes and locks up good cops and promotes the gangster cops. Gee, it’s kind of like politics!
Hear Hear
Some here may be unaware that, contrary to Biden’s claim that accepting a pardon should not be seen as acknowledging that those pardoned engaged in wrongdoing, SCOTUS thinks otherwise and has for 120 years.
On his January 20 System Update show, Glenn Greenwald has an informative segment on how, according SCOTUS, accepting a Presidential pardon is the the same as admitting to guilt in the matter the pardon affects.
[ https://rumble.com/v6bvevs-biden-shamelessly-pardons-liz-cheney-dr.-fauci-and-his-family.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp ]
Starting at time stamp 14:17 Glenn discusses the 1915 SCOTUS ruling in “Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79” (1915)
[ https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076&q=Burdick+v.+United+States,+236+U.S.+79+(1915)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 ]
In referencing an older (1833) SCOTUS ruling, “United States v. Wilson, 7 Peters, 150,” the Justices in Burdick concurred [at 90] with the statement:
“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”
So, a pardon can be “extended” to someone but it is not “granted” unless that person agrees to accept the pardon.
Moreover, the Justices in Burdick, are absolutely clear that a pardon implies/imputes guilt and accepting accepting a pardon is a confession of guilt.
SCOTUS states [at 94]:
“This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is non-committal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law giving protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.”
So, under U.S. jurisprudence, as per SCOTUS since at least 1915, the act of a accepting a Presidential pardon is, in and of itself, a confession of awareness of some kind of guilt. And this alone would be enough (usually) for a summary conviction in a trial court.
No matter how much Biden, and the media, claim the contrary, each one of those Biden pardoned, from members of his family to a creepy short-statured “doctor”, are, at least in the eyes of the law, guilty of some crime by way of accepting the pardon – even un-enumerated crimes for which they have been pardoned.
In the case of Biden’s blanket pardons for un-enumerated crimes, acceptance of a Presidential pardon is one and the same as admitting to a guilty conscience regarding the matter the pardon affects.
OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle
Trump hasn’t even broken a sweat yet; Trump is just warming up!
That’s what Stormy said.
So funny I forgot to laugh.
Some here may be unaware that, contrary to Biden’s claim that accepting a pardon should not be seen as acknowledging that those pardoned engaged in wrongdoing, SCOTUS thinks otherwise and has for 120 years.
On his January 20 System Update show, Glenn Greenwald has an informative segment on how, according SCOTUS, accepting a Presidential pardon is the the same as admitting to guilt in the matter the pardon affects.
[ https://rumble.com/v6bvevs-biden-shamelessly-pardons-liz-cheney-dr.-fauci-and-his-family.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp ]
Starting at time stamp 14:17 Glenn discusses the 1915 SCOTUS ruling in “Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79” (1915)
[ https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076&q=Burdick+v.+United+States,+236+U.S.+79+(1915)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 ]
In referencing an older (1833) SCOTUS ruling, “United States v. Wilson, 7 Peters, 150,” the Justices in Burdick concurred [at 90] with the statement:
“A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”
So, a pardon can be “extended” to someone but it is not “granted” unless that person agrees to accept the pardon.
Moreover, the Justices in Burdick, are absolutely clear that a pardon implies/imputes guilt and accepting accepting a pardon is a confession of guilt.
SCOTUS states [at 94]:
“This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is non-committal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law giving protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.”
So, under U.S. jurisprudence, as per SCOTUS since at least 1915, the act of a accepting a Presidential pardon is, in and of itself, a confession of awareness of some kind of guilt. And this alone would be enough (usually) for a summary conviction in a trial court.
No matter how much Biden, and the media, claim the contrary, each one of those Biden pardoned, from members of his family to a creepy short-statured “doctor”, are, at least in the eyes of the law, guilty of some crime by way of accepting the pardon – even un-enumerated crimes for which they have been pardoned.
In the case of Biden’s blanket pardons for un-enumerated crimes, acceptance of a Presidential pardon is one and the same as admitting to a guilty conscience regarding the matter the pardon affects.
https://www.federalcharges.com/treason-laws-charges/
Here is an excellent missive on Treason in the Constitution and notable “precedents” that SCOTUS, [lawyers] and [judges] love to waller in….
MAGAA1st
11b
Very interesting, thanks for posting the link.
“Trump announces a $500 billion AI infrastructure investment in the US”
– CNN
AOC will just call this AI investment “Corporate Greed “.
Those AI investments are sure bringing down the price of groceries.
Jonathan: Speaking of “shock and awe” you missed all of DJT’s EO’s in the first minutes of his inauguration. What the DOJ did in prosecuting the J. 6 insurrectionists pales in comparison to DJT’s campaign of arbitrary and unconstitutional orders. Beyond just all the pardons, here are just three areas in which DJT’s EOs are immediately being challenged in the courts:
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: DJT declared that persons born of undocumented residents are not US citizens. Eighteen state AGs are going to court to challenge DJT’s EO. The first case was filed last night in “New Hampshire Indonesian Community vs Donald J. Trump” because Indonesian residents of the state have TPS after they fled Indonesia in 2023 due to violence in their home country. Many have children born here. The lawsuit claims DJT’s EO violates both the clear language of the 14th Amendment and established court precedent (See Won Kim Ark vs US,169US649 (1898)).
DOGE: In another EO DJT “officially” created DOGE–now headed by Elon Musk because Vivik Ramaswamy was kicked out. Three lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legitimacy of DOGE because it violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA requires advisory committees in the executive branch to follow specific rules of disclosure, hiring and other practices. They must be open to the public despite Musk and DJT’s effort to keep their work in the shadows, run by unelected billionaires.
SCHEDULE F: In yet another EO DJT reinstated “Schedule F” which seeks to strip federal employees of civil service protections and deprives them of due process rights. DJT wants all federal employees to pass a “loyalty test” Yesterday, the National Treasury Employees Union filed suit to block Schedule F.
DJT is drunk with power and rage. He no doubt realizes that many of his EOs are more aspirational and won’t stand up to court scrutiny. He doesn’t care. He only cares about wielding personal power and vengeance–to hell with what the law says. Of course, that’s what all wannabe dictators do when they regain power. It’s up to the citizens of this country and the courts to say “NO” to DJT’s grab for unlimited power!
Donald Trump has been very moderate and restrained. His predecessor amended the U.S. Constitution all on his own. These are EOs unlike our new 28th Amendment which is the law of the land according to our prior Commander-In-Chief.
Boy am I enjoying this.
I used to think Turley was a respected member of the bar, who would voice his opinions on Constitutional matters even when he disagreed with the people he was defending… ie. The impeachment hearing….but after reading this drivel, I now know he is nothing more than another talking media hack who would rather ride Trumps dick and blame everyone else for him pardoning cop beaters. What a garbage take from a garbage human.
At some point, when you slather on the insults too thick, you lose credibility.
* great job Barack…
McConnell said, “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of Jan. 6. He called the attack a “foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.” Blasting Trump for failing to call off the mob, he said “The president did not act swiftly. He did not do his job… Instead according to public reports he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded, kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election.” Powerful words from a member of Trump’s own party.
Trump requested that the National Guard be deployed; Nanny Peeloosi denied his request.
What was that, Trump calling the police on himself?
Also he ordered triops be deployed to keep the peace but Milley disobeyed a valid direct order from his commander in chief, as he later admitted.
The only evidence that Milley explicitly disobeyed a lawful order from Trump is that Trump claimed it. Trump is a pathological liar.
No, there is other evidence.
https://cha.house.gov/2024/9/transcripts-show-president-trump-s-directives-to-pentagon-leadership-to-keep-january-6-safe-were-deliberately-ignored
* Milley looks like person who’s had too many electronics shocks and his brain is fried.
Here’s another refutation to your lie.
“Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Kellogg said he was present at the time of Trump’s request, and Congress should release his testimony to the public.
Kellogg, who was serving as Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Advisor at the time of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach, tweeted last week, “To be clear on 6 Jan/NG. Pg 199 of my book, ‘On 3 Jan the President asked the Def Dept to deploy NG troops’ into DC for J6 contingencies. OK for J6 Cmte to publicly release my full sworn testimony. Release Army Guard and DC Mayor J6 testimonies as well. Would be illuminating.””
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/gen-kellogg-trump-did-request-natl-guard-troops-on-jan-6th-asks-congress-to-release-his-testimony/
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and close the border, impose martial law, prosecute a war against the communist rebellion without a formal declaration, shred the Communist Manifesto and irrevocably extirpate all principles of communism in America, implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, and absolute private property including a fully constitutional dearth of taxation and regulation, eliminate the Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, and EPA, issue the “Deportation Proclamation” deporting all illegal aliens, past and present, including those who illegally pursued citizenship as criminal border crossers and “asylum” seekers who all made false and fraudulent claims of phantom, nonexistent persecution as foreign citizens with no U.S. rights, establish coherent voter qualifications by State legislatures per the Constitution, declare English the sole official language of the United States, suspend habeas corpus, smash opposition printing presses, networks, podcasts, social media platforms, etc., and throw anyone and everyone who opposes him in prison to Save the Union until America is placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The states were not in rebellion. They seceded — formally and legally — left the Union.
Lincoln had no authority over them anymore.
It was The American Revolution 2.0. Only this time the ‘king’ won.
Lincoln and the communists CLAIMED it was a rebellion.
Yes.
Trump declares invasion at southwest border, suspends entry
(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump has declared an invasion at the U.S. southern border and issued directives to suspend physical entry and repel the invasion.
Trump is the first president in modern history to declare an invasion at a U.S. border.
The proclamation signed late Monday comes after 55 Texas counties were the first and only ones to declare an invasion, changing the national conversation, The Center Square exclusively reported.
By: Bethany Blankley ~ January 21st 2025
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_86c8ac3c-d835-11ef-bdae-372bed52042d.html
10 million border encounters in 4 years sounds like an invasion or a free-for-all to overwhelm the nation.
It’s all about Democratic votes. The deaths, injuries, and destruction are all collateral damage for those seeking ever more power.