Below is my column in The Hill on the furious response of some judges in Washington over the Trump pardons. One judge, however, may have ventured too far in effectively banishing commuted defendants from Washington, D.C. without his prior approval.
Here is the column:
Even though President Trump had made it a campaign pledge to pardon those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, the roughly 1,500 pardons Trump issued on his first day produced familiar reactions from politicians and pundits.
In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner pledged to pursue those pardoned or commuted with new charges on the state level — eclipsing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in repackaging federal crimes as state offenses.
Others cited the pardons as evidence of an even greater plot or purpose. On MSNBC, former NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund head Sherrilyn Ifill declared that the pardons were all part of a plan to build an army of “brownshirts.”
Not to be outdone, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) warned that Trump was issuing pardons to create a “reserve army of political foot soldiers to act on behalf of MAGA and Donald Trump.”
Such hyperbole, particularly the Nazi references, is now commonplace. Indeed, the left jumped the shark on the Nazi-mania and death-of-democracy mantra months ago. This week, however, some of the most strident comments seem to be coming from the federal bench itself.
Indeed, some judges used dismissal hearings to launch into what seemed at points like cable-ready commentary. Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump’s election interference case.
Chutkan had been criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan 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 still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
She then pursued Trump with a vigor second only to Special Counsel Jack Smith.
In the latest hearing, Chutkan again decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
In fairness, judges often express the gravity of offenses at sentencing, and most of us certainly share the strong revulsion over what occurred on Jan. 6. However, these cases are being dismissed after an election whose winner explicitly pledged to close the prosecutions through executive clemency.
The defendant in her courtroom was there to have a required dismissal entered in his case, not to hear Judge Chutkan speaking truth to power. In this case, she is the power. It is the power to rule dispassionately on the specific case before her. It is not the power to hold court on the merits of presidential decisions.
Down the hall, Chutkan’s colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Yet, all of that paled in comparison to what their colleague U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, also an Obama appointee, did with his Jan. 6 cases. He ordered J6 defendants to seek prior approval before going to Capitol Hill or even coming within any of the 69 square miles of the nation’s Capitol. Thus Mehta practically banished Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and seven other defendants.
It does not appear that the Trump Justice Department requested such restrictions, but Mehta was able to impose them because those defendants had received commutations rather than pardons. A commutation does not require the dismissal of a case, and courts are generally allowed to set conditions for released defendants.
However, these are new conditions imposed after presidential commutations. More importantly, they could affect the exercise of First Amendment rights from free speech to free association to the right to petition the government. For example, Rhodes and others would have to disclose intended meetings with members of Congress or participation in political events.
Rhodes previously asked to speak to the House committee that investigated the riot, but the Democrat-controlled committee refused to allow it. (A Yale law graduate, Rhodes insisted that the hearing be conducted in public, the very condition Hunter Biden made with the support of some of these same members.)
What if Rhodes now wants to meet privately with members to supply his testimony? He would need Mehta to approve it and potentially make such plans public.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right,” I discuss the J6 cases and serious concerns over what a top Justice Department official called the “shock and awe” campaign to make an example of the defendants by throwing the book at them.
Nevertheless, even though I opposed the seditious conspiracy charges on legal grounds, I did not support the pardoning of violent offenders who attacked police officers.
The court system plays a key role in either tamping down or fueling rage in society. The book details how “rage rhetoric” often became state rage during periods of crackdowns on free speech. Over the last two centuries, some judges used their courtrooms to lash out at political opponents, anarchists, unionists or communists.
I was particularly concerned in these cases with sentences that seemed visceral, even gratuitous, in denying free speech rights. In Washington, judges imposed limits on what political views defendants could read or share.
For example, Judge Reggie B. Walton, a Bush appointee who had previously called Trump a “charlatan,” had before him a typical Jan. 6 case — that of Daniel Goodwyn, 35, of Corinth, Texas. Goodwyn pleaded guilty on Jan. 31, 2023, to one misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building. It is a minor offense that generated little jail time.
However, Walton faulted Goodwyn for appearing on Fox News and spreading “disinformation,” and so he ordered the government to monitor what he was viewing and discussing. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rebuked Walton for that surveillance order, but he doubled down. On remand, the Biden Justice Department insisted that Goodwyn was unrepentant and still viewing “extremist media.”
Walton, therefore, determined that the risk was too great in Goodwyn spreading “false narratives” when we are “on the heels of another election.”
Now, his colleague is similarly ordering that those freed under Trump’s commutations will disclose and seek approval to go to the Capitol to speak with members or other citizens.
Many of us have long viewed the Jan. 6 riot as a desecration of our constitutional process. Few people want to defend Rhodes or either the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys. However, the First Amendment was not written to protect popular speech or popular individuals.
The Mehta order should not push President Trump toward converting these commutations into pardons. It should also not prevent us from questioning the court’s authority to regulate the exercise of First Amendment rights.
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.”
Democrat ideology has destroyed the judiciary.
Democrats and their warped ideology is the enemy of America and our values as a nation.
Democrat party of today has lost its soul and become nothing but pure evil and a scourge on the country.
Democrat ideological infiltration of the media has destroyed all credibility.
The legacy media is now CLEARLY operating AS the enemy of the people.
And for God’s sake, would someone on the Supreme Court tell Ketanji, the Broadway showgirl, to put away the bling.
Since when is a Supreme Court justice allowed to decorate her black robe with an enormous bib necklace to bling herself up for the Inauguration? Ketanji already shoved her far left ideology down the public’s throats. Now her outrageous bling?
Why is she getting away with her nonsense?
Someone on the Court make it stop.
Check out Ketanji’s bling. Why is this allowed? Make it stop. She’s out of control doing Broadway gigs and playing dress up. She’s a far left DEI dumass ideologue who doesn’t belong on the court in the first place. Rein her in.
😂 I think.a big ol’ African headdress is in order. 😂. It’s affirmative action America 😂. Great plan takes a heads hot.
I call it the Sean Combs Syndrome. Those unused to power become abusive once power is achieved. Like Combs beat-up and kicked his girlfriend down the hall so too these judges beat-up and kick those before them in courts.
It’s a very old syndrome and expected. Drunk with power, Kipling said.
The left likes to talk about cops being injured on January 6th but don’t talk about the White House being attacked and fire bombed 3 nights in a row with the mob screaming they were going to drag Trump out of the White House and execute him hundreds of secret service and police officers were injured some permanently. Not one of the people that took part went to jail all charges were dropped by the same DOJ . No matter how much the Democrat cult wants to lie no police officers were killed and Trump did request the national guard to be there there’s more than one eye witness and paperwork to back it up. Why did Nancy refuse his request why was the capital left with a shortage of officers on duty that day no one wants to mention the truth it’s just made up lies by the cult that hates trump because they have been programmed to.
Some of us may feel revulsion over the actions of the J6 crowd but even more of us feel utter contempt for the Obama pseudo-judges who decided to spew a scornful, juvenile defense of their indefensible rulings from the bench. These radicals in robes are the real threat to freedom, not the tea partiers invited in by the Capitol Police to the FBI sponsored psy-op.
I get tired of this crap like “most of us certainly share the strong revulsion over what occurred on Jan. 6.” I know you are smart Turley, but to imagine yourself as knowing what most of us think is going a bit to far.
Turley talks like so many RINOs in DC. Not sure I’ll continue to subscribe to his site any longer.
Paraphrasing an old bit of wisdom, when someone has a reaction to something that seems over-the-top, they are probably revealing more about themself than the topic they are addressing. The reaction of the political class to January 6th has always seemed way over-the-top to me. I attribute this over-reaction to fear; the ruling class was in abject fear of the people subject to their laws and regulations and court system and enforcement system. I think January 6th needed to happen, to remind the governing class there are limits to their power beyond the limits they set for themselves. Ultimately, if you push people too far, they will push back. The phrase “heads will roll” comes to mind.
Unfortunately for the participants, the ruling class did not glean the appropriate message from the events of January 6th, but instead decided to make a nightmarishly harsh example of them, bending and contorting the justice system into an unrecognizable monster. On a positive note, their suffering was not in vain, for it was likely the most significant cause of Trump no just winning in 2024, but winning with an undeniable mandate for change.
In at least one survey of voters in the 2020 federal election, at least 20% of voters admitted to voting more than once, in election districts that mailed ballots to all registered voters. In past elections, unmotivated voters stayed home; in 2020, unmotivated voters gave their signed ballots to spouses, acquaintances, pastors, activists, etc, who voted those ballots and put them in unmonitored drop boxes. Mail-in voting with ballots sent to all registered voters is incompatible with any notion of an honest election, and none of the proposed remedies can begin to fix the inherent intractable problems.
Th 2020 federal election was a lot of things, but “honest and fair” it was not. To all the January 6th participants, I say “thank you for your service”, we owe you a massive debt of gratitude.
Hear Hear
Patriots each and every one!
Some things never change. The Dems are once again very concerned about who will pick their crops.
In other news reported by the Babylon Bee:
– Exhausted press begs Trump to take a day off
-Confused Biden shows up to Monday morning staff meeting
– Trump reminds Colombian president he wants two coats of wax on his limo
– Pete Hegseth celebrates his confirmation with epic keg stand
– Meet the one person who has never done a Nazi salute [photo is of a man with no arms]
– SecDef Hegseth says all women in the military are now nurses and have to wear those hot outfits like in WWII
– Trump announces immigrants working taco trucks can stay
– Thanks to Trump ending DEI, Babylon Bee is finally able to fire its only female writer
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 fact that you’re not offended tells me everything i need to know about you- was he within the law? yes, the letter of the law, not the spirit- i hope you have a good relationship with fellow sychophants greg jarrett, andy mccarthy, mark levin and alan dershowitz- you’re all excreable toadies
Who are you talking to? Who are you talking about? Offended by what? Who was within the law? Speak up, man.
This dishonesty of Judge Chutkin is shown by her quotation of this phrase from another judicial opinion: “The dismissal of this case cannot undo the “rampage [that] left multiple
people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”’ “Multiple people” were not left dead by “the rampage”. One woman, a demonstrator, was left dead when she was shot at close range, while unarmed, by a capitol hill police officer. In other words, she was not shot by an event, she was shot dead by a specific person acting in excess of his lawful authority. (Another person, also demonstrator, may have died of a heart attack, not by the actions of other demonstartors.)
The fact that the judge is too dishonest or cowardly to acknowledge the fact ot Ashlie Babbit’s killing, and Chutkin’s willingness to use her death to smear Trump, shows that she is no more than a political charlatan disguised in a judicial robe.
edwardmahl: 5 Capitol Police died as a direct result of the insurrection. Babbitt was not a mere “demonstrator”–she broke through Capitol Police lines, she illegally entered the Capitol Building, and was trying to break through into the Speaker’s Lobby, the last barrier to the floor of the House even though there were police on the other side with guns pointed at her. Officer Byrd was cleared of wrongdoing. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BUT FOR TRUMP’S LYING.
“with guns pointed at her”
How many guns were pointed at her, Gigenius?
See below, as Dennis McInliar makes a fool of himself by running his fat yap moments before Judge Mehta reversed course and admitted he was wrong.
Will Dennis? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, silly boy.
Goo Goo = Bull Chit
Gigi –
You write: “Officer Byrd was cleared of wrongdoing.” So was Micheal Sussman, even though he clearly was guilty of lying to the FBI. So was O J Simpson, even though he left DNA samples behind. When the legal system is governed by racial and political passions, its official results cannot be accepted as valid. You seem to have forgotten the columns by Prof. Turley showing how Officer Byrd violated police policies when he killed Ashli Babbit. This might be a good column to start refreshing of your memory. https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/22/no-further-action-will-be-taken-officer-who-fatally-shot-ashli-babbitt-cleared-of-any-wrongdoing-by-capitol-police/
You slso state that “5 Capitol Police died as a direct result of the insurrection [sic]” I assume you refer to the heart attack/stroke that killed an officer on Janauary 7 and to several suicides of officers in the succeeding weeks. These were not a “direct result” of the protest. If Offficer Sicknik was in ill-heatlh, it was not the fault of the protestors. All police work involves stress. It is the responsiblility of the Department to make sue its officers can handle stress. Further, suicide is a vokuntary act. From the viewpoint of the Law, a person’s voluntary act causes itself.
Since he went MAGA, NOTHING Turley writes has any credibility. Officer Sicknick had a can of bear spray emptied into his face. This was a direct cause of his death. Three officers committed suicide due to the stress of the assault inflicted on them and the lack of recognition of their sacrifice. You can keep calling the insurrection a “protest”all you want to, but that’s just MAGA media propaganda.
“Officer Sicknick had a can of bear spray emptied into his face. This was a direct cause of his death.” Please provide the medical support for this statement.
Its been disproved. Time wake up to reality.
It really was a ‘mostly peaceful protest’. 😌
Jonathan: In a previous column you opposed DJT’s 1500+ pardons–calling them a “desecration of our constitutional process.” In this column you say there is “strong revulsion over what occurred on Jan. 6″. Yet, you think Stewart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy, should be able to freely go back to the scene of his crimes and perpetuate his lies about what happened as he led his Oathkeeper disciples in the storming of the Capitol on Jan.6.
It’s pretty clear DJT, in his haste to issue pardons and clemencies, ignored the normal process that each pardon/ clemency must be reviewed by the DOJ Office of Pardons. I think the WH Counsel pointed that out. DJT was frustrated by a process that would take weeks, if not months. So he threw up his hands and said F**k it, I’ll just pardon everyone and make it quick”.
In his haste DJT gave Stewart Rhodes and the rest of the Oathkeepers only grants of clemency. That means DC Judge Amit Mehta still has jurisdiction over Rhodes and his movements and has issued an order preventing Rhodes from being anywhere near the Capitol. Of course, DJT could go back and rectify his oversight by granting Rhodes a full pardon. But the optics would be terrible–pardoning one of the ring leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
In another case DC Judge Beryl Howell dismissed the Jan. 6 assault charges against Proud Boys Nicholas DeCarlo and Nicholas Ochs. But she refused to do so “with prejudice”. This means these two cases could be re-opened post-Trump. And double jeopardy does not attach because federal prosecutors last Wednesday filed new conspiracy charges against DeCarlo and Ochs.
No doubt DJT new AG Pam Bondi will try stop any new prosecutions of the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers. But what message does that send? That crime pays. Stewart Rohdes and Enrique Tarrio now know that DJT’s DOJ will protect them. They will be the “Brown Shirts” who will “stand back but stand by” in case they are needed again by their leader. Jake Angeli Chansely, one of those who was sentenced to 41 months for his role in the insurrection, posted this on Jan. 20: “I just got the news from my lawyer. I got a pardon baby! Thank you President Trump!!!. Now I am gonna buy some
mother fu**kn guns!!!” DJT now knows Chansely and the other 1500 insurrectionists will be available should he try to stay in power after 2028. Not a good sign for our Democracy!
You, dear Sir, have been watching too much State Run Media and this guy Turley, who simply mimics the day’s popular talking points and throws in some legal “analysis”. Turley is like Zuck, an opportunist. Most well paid lawyers are. I myself have been a Federal 4th Circuit Defender in Criminal Court. Turley has no idea why all these J9 Defendants are really political prisoners. And he influences soft heads like yours to buy the fact that J9 wasn’t entrapment. It was. And there are plenty of murder charges that could be brought. That’s why Biden pardoned the entire Capitol Police force, the most Fascist force on Earth outside of China. Turley knows all this, but he’ll never see the real truth. He’s in a bubble.
Speaking of feces, Dennis McInliar parades his again today.
Hey Dennis, better check your DNC email again. Judge Mehta reversed course.
You’re an underinformed stooge.
Here is an update to Judge Mehta’s order.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5108880-federal-judge-vacates-order-oath-keepers/
Perhaps someone higher than he on the judicial food chain rightly informed him that such an indefensible and unconstitutional edict could have repercussions detrimentally affecting his livelihood and lifestyle.
Or perhaps someone lower, like one of his law clerks.
Concerned Citizen: You just resolved my earlier inquiring post, infra, Thank You!
“U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who oversaw the Oath Keepers conspiracy trials, vacated the order after determining that it would be ‘improper’ to modify their original sentences ‘post-commutation.’”
Dear Mr. Turley, I could envision “Gigi” becoming hysterical as she ranted here in the comment section. And she thinks she is going to convince anyone here with her arguments? Not a chance. She appears to me to be unable to offer any grace to anyone but herself. People like her are practically impossible to have a discussion with as she is always right. I pity her.
Hello Anon,
You are 100% correct about Gigi, although I do not pity her, I avoid her.
Professor Turley has never addressed the inappropriate charges and sentencing of J6ers nor the unconstitutional imprisonment of hundreds of other J6ers! He also doesn’t address the two tier system of justice under the Biden Administration.
The misconduct towards the J6 participants was the very reason why they were pardoned by President Trump.
We all watched Democrats burn cities, loot, and assault police officers. That was “fiery, mostly peaceful protests.” Many of them were given diversion, rather than jail time. BLM and Antifa threatened to burn entire cities unless they got the jury verdict they demanded against Derek Chauvin. We are supposed to ignore widespread political violence by Democrats, but pretend that J6 was an attempt to overthrow the entire US government, through the clever use of blue face paint.
Most of the J6 participants didn’t even know they were trespassing, as Capitol police let many of them in, and showed them around. There are video of many of them smiling, and walking around, taking pictures like any tourist. Some of them them were thrown in solitary confinement for months for simple trespass.
I remember being shocked as I read through the list of charges against the J6 participants. Most were just charged with trespassing or illegally parading. Then there was the interference charges. One was charged with assault for moving a wooden barrier. Since this was years ago, I haven’t read what sentences those few got who did assault officers.
The punishment needs to fit the crime, and be non biased politically. We failed to meet that basic standard.
Not only was the riot at the Capitol egregiously wrong, on its face, but it gave Democrats ammunition against conservatives. Until that day, it was Democrats who were infamous for rioting, looting, arson, and generally becoming violent if they didn’t get what they want. It was the albatross around their neck. Republicans had one group break off early from a Trump rally, and go to the Capitol. Most of them milled around like tourists, taking pictures, and many were let in by Capitol Police. Of those, some broke off to protest. Of those, some broke into a riot, and tried to force their way onto the Senate floor, disrupting proceedings. The only person killed was one of the rioters. It was wrong, but it was no insurrection. Democrats, the party of riots and protests, demanded we all get amnesia on their own activities, and pretend the Republican Party was that of violence. That’s what I can’t forgive the J6 participants for. It provided Democrats cover, who have a tendency to condemn Republicans for behavior they themselves do.
We have seen Democrat protestors disrupt Congress multiple times since Jan 6. Most recently, they barged in to the Hegseth confirmation hearings for SecDef. They were not accused of sedition.
Karen S: NO! The only “misconduct” involved with January 6th was Trump’s Big Lie and the delusional people who believed it and took action to try to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified because Trump told them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”.
And, Karen S., I’m really sick and tired of you trying to claim that Democrats told or supported those who demonstrated after seeing George Floyd murdered by Derek Chauvin. That is simply NOT true, no matter how many times you display your MAGA devotion by claiming it is. There is NO equivalency. Trump LIED because his ego wouldn’t allow him to accept the reality that he had lost the election–so conspirators got together at the Willard Hotel to plot how to defeat the will of the American people, which included getting dumb people to commit felonies by falsifying Electoral College documents. Then, there were the reconnaissance missions to plot how to get past the police barricades, and the cache of weapons stored across the Potomac. January 6th was an organized effort to defeat the will of the American people–but it flopped–badly. But, would Trump accept defeat, shut up or go away? NO! Then we have the rise of MAGA media, to convice people like you that Trump won, when he didn’t, to engage in the culture wars nonsense, to endlessly lie about Joe Biden being a criminal, to deflect away from the truth uncovered by the Mueller report and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigations that proved that Trump cheated in 2016. The only Capitol Police who “let” people in were overwhelmed and were told to stand down to avoid getting killed or seriously injured–this was after they had beaten up police breaking past the barricades and entering through smashed doors and windows. And, Karen S., I know you are thorough MAGA, but how can even YOU believe that when those dipsticks saw their cohorts smashing doors and windows and spraying police with bear spray and beating them that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong? NO ONE was thrown into solitary confinement for mere trespass, either. And MOST of the invaders were not peaceful. It was an insurrection because it was planned in advance, for the specific purpose of disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, and to “Hang Mike Pence” and kill Nancy Pelosi. Trump let it go on for over 3 hours because he is a malignant narcissist and loved the fact that violence was being perpetrated in his name. All of the slop you wrote came straight from MAGA media.
Karen S’s new “cool word” is “SecDef”—I guess she can’t find a way to work in her other cool words like “zoonotic”, “machiavallian”, or “hegemony”. Hegseth is a P-I-G– a heavily-tattooed drunken loser who abuses women, who has no experience or qualifications to run the biggest military in the world, who was forced out of leadership positions in 2 veterans organizations for financial mismanagement, chronic drunkenness and sexual harassment, and whose own mother says he abuses women. He brags about not washing his hands. He has proven he has no qualification for running anything. Opposing a creep like this is in no way comparable to January 6th–because it has nothing to do with disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. Trump HAS to nominate people like Hegseth, Noem, Bondi, Gabbard and RFK, Jr. because he HAS to find people even stupider than he is, who don’t know what the hell they’re supposed to be doing, but who will do what they are told.
^^^from Gigi, the big, fat Pink liar who can’t think on her own, so copies everyone’s words, style, and arguments. She comes on board everyday after her shift gets off and sits on her fat behind behind her computer, waiting to pounce on anyone who says anything decent. I love when her fat little behind can’t get through the door when she tries to rush in to insult Turley. She also loves to make the same arguments that others make against her, like ‘Karen S’s new “cool word” is “SecDef”—I guess she can’t find a way to work in her other cool words like “zoonotic”, “machiavallian”, or “hegemony”. This comes after other comments pointed out how Gigi and George like to copycat others’ words. HAHAHAHA Gigi go lower your big fat rump in a tub of lard to cool your jets. When they empty the tub, they won;t be able to tell the difference beetween gigi’s melted big butt and the lard.
Gigi is high-strung. She needs to get laid. Then maybe she’ll calm down.
There’s not enough tequila in Mexico!
A very sane appraisal. Most of the people there would likely have accepted fines and we all moved on. Those that committed assault should have been charged but all the rest that were confined without bail and other misguided policies to provide “shock and awe” made it a desecration of justice. The frothing democratic justices just made it all worse.
As the Professor says “Government Rage”.
So here’s a legal question (I’m not a criminal defense lawyer) :
I thought that only those granting clemency had the power/authority to impose “conditions” thereupon (clemency being an executive and not judicial or legislative power). Trump’s Proclamation “commuted sentence” of those not pardoned.
Was Judge Mehta’s “order[ing] J6 defendants to seek prior approval before going to Capitol Hill or even coming within any of the 69 square miles of the nation’s Capitol” part of the original sentence that predated Trump’s Proclamation and therefore is/should be part of the commutation???
Or did Mehta impose this AFTER Trump’s proclamation–and if so, where did Mehta get the power/authority to apply “condition” to Trump’s commutation?
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-granting-pardons-and-commutation-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-the
Finally, I seem to recall that an early tenet contained within the study of law is: don’t make a law unless you intend to enforce it. From this viewpoint, I thought Trump handled the pardons fairly well,–excluding several from full pardon and limiting others to commutation of sentence.
BUT, likewise– don’t regulate or codify judicial/prosecutorial conduct or ethics unless you intend to enforce it.
If we allow judges, prosecutors, J6 Committee members to introduce retaliatory lawfare in the administration of justice, this is equally a “desecration” of our nation’s constitutional law and order, so admired and emulated by other nations.
(Never mind. I think I have answered my own question. The “sentence” is commuted in its entirety. But Mehta can then re-sentence. Is this right? Not-so-old-from Kansas, where are you?
Lin, a re-sentencing would violate the double jeopardy clause. I believe this was conditions on release. They seem potentially unconstitutional in that they violate freedom of speech and freedom to travel, and possibly others. I hope the defendants appeal to the DC circuit and challenge those conditions. I believe they would win. I don’t think the DC circuit, a very prestigious court, is made up of crazies like these district judges. Even if one judge was a wacko (eg, can’t tell you what a woman is) the panel would go 2-1 in favor of the defendant, in my view.
NotSoOld: Just before I signed off, I see your response, thank you!
Yes Yes, of course I know double-jeopardy, but we are not talking about retrial here, we are talking about re-sentence which could be considered a continuation of the original trial.
I compare commutation to appellate reversal. In that context, double jeopardy clause would even allow retrial under certain erroneous convictions, and simple re-sentencing could be deemed simply a continuation of the original trial.
See, e.g., Monge v. California or Lockhart
???
OAK resentencing is not against double jeopardy, depending on what happened the first trial, at least hardly ever. and as you can see Lin was right. Erase your post
Anonymous – this is not a case of the conviction and sentence being vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial. In that scenario, I agree that a new sentence would not violate double jeopardy. But with a commutation, the sentence has been served in full. Resentencing would violate double jeopardy.
Hi there NotSoOld: Coming back online here and updating. Apologies for any confusion I caused by my use of words.
Here’s a good example. Obama commuted what I think were “time served” sentences also {like Trump). But the prisoners were not released for several more weeks/months while BOP set up all these terms of release. (Obviously, I assume their original sentences did not contain paragraphs addressing what would happen if the sentences were commuted, so that’s akin to a “re-sentence” to me.) And I think that, at the time, several media headlines referred to it as “this is re-sentencing” (but I was already practicing then so I didn’t pay any attention because I wasn’t practicing criminal law).
What I was throwing around is that commutation of sentence, akin to an appellate court vacating an inappropriate sentence, does not remove conviction, so a judge could re-sentence with a lighter sentence, and in case law, it can be deemed “a continuation of the original trial.” Not double-J.
So I think what you referred to as “conditions of release,” I referred to as “re-sentencing,” and I laid out the query as to Mehta’s power to do that, whether a priori or ex post.
Always appreciate your erudite commentary and sorry for confusion!
Didn’t one of the judges or Dem Governor spout off about trying them under State charges? That would be double jeopardy would it not? Commutation and vacating the sentence ends it, the judge has no legal authority to revisit sentencing, finis, over. That is what that dumfuk figured out.
Lin, it is now moot. Concerned Citizen helpfully posted above a story about the judge walking back all such conditions at the request of the *prosecutor* who objected that they were inappropriate once Trump commuted the sentence. (The defense, oddly, didn’t object.)
HA! Thank you to Concerned Citizen.
Excerpted therefrom: “U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who oversaw the Oath Keepers conspiracy trials, vacated the order after determining that ‘it would be improper’ to modify their original sentences “post-commutation.'”
“A resentence after commutation of original sentences means that a court has issued a new, reduced sentence to a convicted individual following the commutation of their original sentence by a governing authority, essentially lowering the total time they are required to serve in prison due to the commutation action. ” Google AI Overview