Roughly a year ago, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel made a splash in the press after she brought charges against anti-Israel protesters at the University of Michigan. The move followed a refusal of liberal local district attorneys to prosecute the cases despite clear criminal conduct. Now, as violent and disruptive protests are again rising on our campuses, Nessel has followed her local counterparts and dropped all charges in a bizarre, convoluted rationalization.
The Michigan protests involved a variety of crimes as students disrupted classes, trespassed on property, caused property damage, and assaulted law enforcement. However, Washtenaw County prosecutor Eli Savit would only charge about ten percent of those arrested and later dropped all those charges. Wayne County prosecutor Kym Worthy dropped all five Gaza protest cases forwarded to her office by Wayne State University police in Detroit. The University of Michigan regents pressed Nessel to charge those protesters involved in illegal conduct. She did so last September, bringing charges against 11 individuals, including seven felony prosecutions.
That move was not popular with the left as figures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib lashed out at Nessel, who declared, “You would expect that from a Republican, but not a Democrat, and it’s really unfortunate.”
After those criticisms, the cases seem to have gone nowhere. The lack of action led this week to the dropping of all charges against the seven protesters facing felonies.
Nessel, however, offered little more justification than the cases were causing her criticism and controversy:
When my office made the decision to issue charges of Trespassing and Resisting and Obstructing a Police Officer in this matter, we did so based on the evidence and facts of the case. I stand by those charges and that determination.
Despite months and months of court hearings, the Court has yet to make a determination on whether probable cause was demonstrated that the defendants committed these crimes, and if so, to bind the case over to circuit court for trial, which is the primary obligation of the district court for any felony offense. During this time, the case has become a lightning rod of contention.
Baseless and absurd allegations of bias have only furthered this divide. The motion for recusal has been a diversionary tactic which has only served to further delay the proceedings. And now, we have learned that a public statement in support of my office from a local non-profit has been directly communicated to the Court. The impropriety of this action has led us to the difficult decision to drop these charges.
These distractions and ongoing delays have created a circus-like atmosphere to these proceedings. While I stand by my charging decisions, and believe, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury would find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged, I no longer believe these cases to be a prudent use of my department’s resources, and, as such, I have decided to dismiss the cases.
So she “stands by” the original charges and she believes that a jury would convict. She also said that a claim of bias against her was baseless. However, she wants to get rid of them because they have “become a lightning rod of contention.” In other words, she is getting criticism from the left.
There was this quaint notion that prosecutors are not supposed to yield to such political pressure. Her solution to the “circus-like atmosphere” is to release the dangerous attractions.
If she hoped to bolster her standing on the left, it does not appear to have worked.
Samantha Lewis, one of the protesters, called AG Nessel the “top pig” and said she was a coward.
So, as more violent protests have erupted on campuses, Nessel is shrugging and walking away. The campaign against her worked, and, as with earlier violent protests, prosecutors are yielding to the demands of the far left. We saw the same pattern with the riots in states like Washington and Oregon. Even federal prosecutors under the Biden Administration dropped or significantly reduced charges in major cases. That includes the absurd handling of two Molotov-cocktail-throwing lawyers.
In the meantime, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) has called even the investigation of violent protesters and arsonists on the left “political weaponization” of our legal system.
At the same time, many have fueled the rage. It has given both students and non-students a sense of license. Across the country, liberals are destroying Tesla cars, torching dealerships and charging stations, and even allegedly hitting political dissenters with their cars.
In Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty (D) declined to charge state employee Dylan Adams for vandalizing Tesla cars and causing more than $20,000 in damages despite surveillance footage of Adams vandalizing the vehicles.
Recently, affluent liberal shoppers admitted that they are shoplifting from Whole Foods to strike back at Jeff Bezos for working with the Trump administration and moving the Washington Post back to the political center. They are also enraged at Mark Zuckerberg for restoring free speech protections at Meta.
One “20-something communications professional” in Washington explained, “If a billionaire can steal from me, I can scrape a little off the top, too.” These affluent shoplifters portrayed themselves as Robin Hoods.
Politicians and commentators have sought to excuse or explain the growing violence. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said to Joy Reid on MSNBC why Luigi Mangione allegedly murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Warren offered a “warning ” that “you can only push people so far.”
Others like former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz gushed over Mangione as homicidal but hunky: “Here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person who seems like he’s this morally good man, which is hard to find.”
The combination of encouraging politicians and enabling prosecutors is fueling a rise in political violence that could quickly spin out of control.
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.”
Dana Nessel taking a strong stance against disruptive protests sends a clear message—free speech doesn’t mean breaking the law. Curious to see how this case unfolds. Also, for trending legal takes, check out ssstiktok!
All you need to know is that she’s a lesbian — it explains a lot!
What? No mention of the professor’s book on free speech? The one mentioned in every post regardless of relevance?
I guess the First Amendment doesn’t apply unless Israel approves.
In response to your anti-Semitic comments, please note that the defendants disrupted classes, caused Property Damage and assaulted law enforcement. Even an Israel-hater knows that these activitties are not covered by Freedom of Speech.
I don’t agree with Prof. Turley. This prosecution seemed like a flimsy pretext for suppressing anti-Israel speech and protests.
It’s deeply concerning when judges dismiss cases despite clear, indisputable video evidence. The justice system is built on facts, evidence, and fairness, and when documented proof is disregarded, it undermines public trust. Video evidence provides direct, unfiltered insight into events, offering a level of clarity that few other forms of testimony can match.
Judges have a duty to uphold the law impartially, ensuring that justice is served based on truth, not technical loopholes or biases. When video evidence is ignored, it raises serious questions about judicial accountability, procedural fairness, and whether the legal system is truly serving the people.
Cases dismissed under such circumstances deserve scrutiny, and if necessary, reform should be considered to strengthen judicial oversight. Justice should be blind—but not to the facts.
The justice system is built on facts, evidence, and fairness…
===
Hahahaha…. You made a funny…..Are you a comedian! The “justice system” can more adequately be described as the “injustice system”. That is unless you’re filthy rich and can afford top level representation. I can assure you that the poor and indigent are receiving bottom of the barrel legal representation from state appointed legal counsel, virtually across the board in our country. In CA a state approved criminal defense counsel in one county I am familiar with is only being paid a straight $65/hour with no fringes, now guess what KIND of defense attorney you are getting for $65/hour!!!!
Publilius Syrus’s Sententiae
Syrus’s collection of moral maxims includes the famous saying, “iudex damnatur ubi nocens absolvitur” (“The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted”). This quote directly addresses the issue of unjust judges who fail to uphold justice by releasing the guilty. Therefore, nothing has changed in hundreds of years! What’s next the fall of America?
OT
“Democrat MA Governor Healey “Grateful for the Opportunity” to Cozy Up to CCP Official”
“On Wednesday, Democrat Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey proudly boasted about cozying up to a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) diplomat. Healey took to X to boast about rubbing elbows with Chen Li, the consul general of the People’s Republic of China in New York, saying she was “grateful for the opportunity” to spend time with him.”
– Gateway Pundit
Shabbat Shalom everyone 🙂
Have a peaceful sabbath.
Thank you and Shabbat Shalom to everyone else. 7:39 is eighteen minutes before they must be lit in my area. Of course that is eighteen minutes before sundown which is the customary time to light the candles for many.
Peace to you
Peace to you
They get paid the same regardless of how much or how little work they do.
OT, Chris Cuomo lays it out straight on Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) and why the Democrats are the party of losing:
https://x.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1920274718038634898
#. She should have resigned, also.
She didn’t do her job. She’s being paid? Resign.
She recused herself?
Overall, the dems have ODD. It’s oppositional defiant disorder. Just proceed with meaningful work. It is necessary to arrest and prosecute as it presents itself for safety. Yes, safety and protection are necessary.
Speaking of “A Circus-Like Atmosphere,” where is there a legal basis for “Health and Human Services” in the Constitution?
Of course, there is none.
HHS cannot be taxed for, funded, or regulated.
Marbury v. Madison found legislation, a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, just as HHS is unconstitutional now.
Why has HHS not been struck down?
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
“to promote the general welfare”
Turley: you are SUCH a joke. You literally abuse your education and the title you trade on because you KNOW that the disciples you are paid to keep up the faith in the face of Trump’s never-ending calvacade of failures don’t know any better–which is that a prosecutor, the AG in this case, has ABSOLUTE discretion whether or not to prosecute a matter. In this case, the prosecutor decided NOT to proceed for several very valid reasons–to wit–that the Court had not yet decided whether there was actual probable cause to support the charges, plus the fact that a non profit had directly communicated a message of support to the Court. So, the case was dropped.
And, what did you expect the prosecuting attorney to do here–admit that it may have been political pressure that caused her to file the charges in the first place? After all, the Court had NOT determined there was probable cause–so there was obviously some issue there. Prosecutors ALWAYS claim when they drop charges that they had probable cause to file the charges in the first place, that they acted in good faith and that they believed that a jury would convict–saying anything else would be tantamount to an admission of misconduct.
But, today’s little crapper piece was designed to throw dirt on protesters–another favorite MAGA theme. Also, Turley tries to make the case that there is “growing violence on the left”—that is simply untrue. First of all the protesters here were opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people–they don’t represent the Democratic party or even “the left”. And, people are very passionate about the US supporting Israel which is deliberately killing innocent women and children and starving the rest of them, all while Trump muses about kicking out the survivors and turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”. The UN condemns this tactic as genocide. Secondly, there have been literally millions of people who have participated in anti-Trump, anti-Musk protest marches without a SINGLE episode of violence of any kind. And, unlike the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the 3 Percenters and Proud Boys who support Trump–the anti-Trump/Musk protesters aren’t driven by racial hatred or xenophobia. And, how pathetic is throwing in the dig at Senator Elizabeth Warren–by commenting that “you can only push people so far”, she was NOT supporting Mangione shooting the United Health CEO. But, fair and balanced commentary is NOT what Turley is being paid to deliver–it is to amply the MAGA media themes, one of which is that “the left” foments violence, another is to attack Democrats, especially women like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who established the CFPB–something the billionaires who set up MAGA media hate, and which Trump has tried to eliminate.
Breaking news! It has been discovered that Gigi’s real identity is Rachael Maddow. Her ratings have tanked both on MSNBC and the Turley blog. Psst out of kindness don’t let her hear you say that she is a part of a very small minority. It might destroy her self esteem and she may have to retreat to a safe space. On the other hand there may be more positive than negative. She just keeps maniacally hitting the repeat button to continue telling us that it is she and she alone who is the one true Rachael Maddow.
Actually not Anonymous but thinkitthrough.
Maddow is far smarter than Gigi – and Maddow is not that smart.
Ya wanna know what MADCOW IS?
WEIRD!
Rules of Engagement. For any dignified and meaningful discourse, the first common agreement is ideas and actions may be addressed. Attacks of the person are despicable and result in dignified, but immediate removal.
For the sake of civilized discourse, please refrain from personal attacks. Those who’ve studied history understand its power, but prefer more meaningful discussion. Example: The leadership (and largest majority of its membership) of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) created a categorization and classification of “oppositional” individuals. The use of hatred, bigotry and violence to attack those they had identified, categorized and labeled as “oppositional” and representatives of hatred, bigotry and violence resulted in the deaths of >60MM.
In other words, while many will be deluded by the attack of the “oppositional” and fail to notice the attackers’ METHODS use EXACTLY what the “oppositional” are accused (via personal attacks), intelligent participants identify the rhetorical pathos of hatred – and ignore. In reality, it is wasting time and de-valuating the intercourse.
And Anonymous and Gigi attack Professor Turley every day. When they’re losing the argument they always turn to Rule of Engagement. Just keep in mind that it’s there haven of last resort. The safe space to which they retreat. The same safe space where the Good Professor is denied entry at any cost. Has anyone noticed that I shed not a tear.
After reading about your imaginary realities, I find it incredible that you expend so much effort on fictional views. To pretend that the leftists in America are not the overwhelming source of arson, violence and destruction, is nothing more than willful ignorance. You must live in a bubble somewhere. Try bouncing your non-factual psycho-babble off of some LEOs and get a dose of the truth.
“a prosecutor, the AG in this case, has ABSOLUTE discretion whether or not to prosecute a matter.”
Correct – and they can be subject to a variety of forms of discipline depending on the specific state and state laws for the way in which they do so.
The rule of law actually requires that discretion is extremely limited. When prosecutors excercise discretion – particularly for political reasons, or because they have been threatened – that is destructive of the rule of law.
” In this case, the prosecutor decided NOT to proceed for several very valid reasons–to wit–that the Court had not yet decided whether there was actual probable cause to support the charges”
Probable case is established when an arrest is made or a warrant is issued. AFTER that a defendant can CHALLENGE probable cause in court – but the burden is on the defendant.
Judges do not get to decide whether there is probable cause on their own.
They must be presented with a challenge or with a request for a warrant.
You are clueless as to how our legal system works.
But that should not be surprising as it has not been working properly lately.
“the fact that a non profit had directly communicated a message of support to the Court. So, the case was dropped.”
Trivially remediable. You make the communication available to all parties. There is no allegation here that some party or third party communicated unknown material to the court.
What is alleged is NOT direct contect with the court – the judge did not communicate with no witnesses with the lawyers for the non-profit in chambers.
He received a letter. That can be made available to all parties – this BTW happens all the time.
I would further note that third parties can petition the court to file amicus briefs, or the court can request amicus briefs.
There is no bar on inside or outside opinions being presented in court,
Improper ex parte is communication with a judge that no one knows about or that no one knows the content of. Anything made available to all parties is NOT a problem.
“And, what did you expect the prosecuting attorney to do here–admit that it may have been political pressure that caused her to file the charges in the first place? ”
The charges were filed because crimes were committed.
That is beyond any doubt.
Whether the defendants committed those crimes is the open question.
“After all, the Court had NOT determined there was probable cause”
Sorry Gigi, probable cause was established. The court can not generally “Sua Sponte” challenge the existance of probable cause. Read the constitution – courts can only decide “cases and controversies” – Courts in the US – unlike banana republics, can not act on their own.
For a judge to determine that Probable cause does or does not exist, one party or the other must raise that issue. In a criminal prosecution – probable cause is presumed because it is a requirement for an arrest. It is therefore up to the defendant to challenge probable cause.
That is NOT common – though it does happen. Challenging probable cause early and losing undermines efforts to challenge reasonable doubt later.
It is USUALLY tactically wise not to challenge probable cause.
That does not mean it never happens – just that it is not common.
Regardless, judges do NOT initiate almost anything.
They make decisions on the issues legitimately brought before them and ONLY those.
“Prosecutors ALWAYS claim when they drop charges that they had probable cause to file the charges in the first place, that they acted in good faith and that they believed that a jury would convict–saying anything else would be tantamount to an admission of misconduct.”
Because they almost always do. Probable cause is a low standard and pretty easy to meet.
” Turley tries to make the case that there is “growing violence on the left”—that is simply untrue. ”
You are correct – the left has ALWAYS been violent.
From the french revolution, though Lennin and Mao, through Che and Castro, through the SDS, the black panthers, the weather underground, through pol pot, political violence has almost universally been the domain of the left.
Even protest – peaceful or otherwise is nearly the exclusive domain of the left. Thi sis actually natural. The left is almost ALWAYS fighting for change. Conservatives tend to want things as they are.
Sometimes the change the left wants is good. Usually it is bad and/or ill thoought through.
Regardless, the left is usually the engine of change – it is just an engine that seeks to go way faster than is possible and often with little thought for consequences.
Regardless, it is always people seeking change that are protesting.
And it is nearly always those seeking change that resort to violence.
What is “new” in the past decade plus, starting with the Tea Party is that conservatives are protesting. They are protesting BAD changes that have already happened. They want to “change Back”. They want to return to secure borders, they want to return to determinations based on merit rather than identity. They want to end the weaponized of courts,
they want to return to the rule of law.
Regardless for the first time in possibly centuries we saw conservatives protest with the Tea Party. We saw more conservative protests to lockdowns early in covid – we saw thousands of armed protestors march through the Michigan capital peacefully and no one was hurt.
And we saw J6 protestors – just about the lest violent protests of all of the prior year.
And the LEFT is terrified – protest is THEIR domain.
They are also terrified because – the world is used to left wing protest.
Left wing protests are mostly impotent because nearly always change is supposed to take place slowly and carefully. It is unwise to disrupt what already works if imperfectly in return for a promise of something better but the uncertainty that it could make things worse.
Conversely when conservatives protest it is because something that used to work has been broken and they want it put back. And they nearly always get what they want.
There is no rule that says violence is restricted to the left. It just historically is.
It is the left that is impatient and tends to resort to violence.
“First of all the protesters here were opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people–they don’t represent the Democratic party or even “the left”. And, people are very passionate about the US supporting Israel which is deliberately killing innocent women and children and starving the rest of them”
People are passionate – but not universally passionate about the Palestinians.
There are as many – possibly more people in this country that support Israel.
Oct 7 in Israel is like 9/11 in the US – if anything BIGGER. And the israeli’s are pissed.
Just as the US was after Pearl Harbor. Worse still – Palestinians attacked civilians women and children at a folk concert – atleast the Japanses attacked a US military base.
And what did the US do in response to Pearl Harbor – to 9/11 ?
An act of war resulted in the US goint to war – and guess what lots of civilians get killed or hurt in wars.
BTW the only attempted genocide in the mideast is the palestinians and their diminishing allies efforts to kill all the jews.
No one in the mideast (or anywhere else) wants the palestinians.
Absolutely Trump is sending palestinians out of the country – We do not want terrorsts or people who support terrorists here.
We are obligated to allow our own citizens to protest for whatever stupid cause they wish.
We are NOT obligated to import people who seek to disrupt our country, and our colleges and universities.
If you are not a citizen and can not behave at a US university – then you can GO HOME.
“all while Trump muses about kicking out the survivors”
Nope, These people might become “survivors” after they are sent home.
But nearly all have been safely here avoiding the violence.
“turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”. ”
Absolutely. And the question is Why didn’t the palestinians ?
The west bank is at best marginally self sustaining.
Gaza is potentially one of the most wealthy places in the mid east.
And yet Hamas has turned it into a h311 hold.
“You can’t even run your own life, I’l be damned if you run mine”
“The UN condemns this tactic as genocide. ”
ROFL.
Mike Waltz is being taken to the woodshed – and sent to the UN.
The UN is pretty much the most useless international organization in existance.
Were were they in the baklkans, in Rwanda ? Where were they EVER ?
In the rare instances they are doing anything in a crisis – they are busy helping the terrorists.
Secondly, there have been literally millions of people who have participated in anti-Trump, anti-Musk protest marches without a SINGLE episode of violence of any kind.”
Not a single tesla has been keyed ot bombed or a tesla dealership firebombed, no one tried to assassinate Trump – twice.
“And, unlike the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the 3 Percenters and Proud Boys who support Trump–the anti-Trump/Musk protesters aren’t driven by racial hatred or xenophobia.”
Of course the left is driven by racial hatred – they hate white people – in fact MOST of the looney left is WHITE PEOPLE who hate themselves. And when they are not busy hating white people, they hate straight people, successful people, working class people, people who want to live in a safe country. People who just want an end to the loonacy. You hate everyone who disagrees with you. And you hate this country.
” And, how pathetic is throwing in the dig at Senator Elizabeth Warren–by commenting that “you can only push people so far”, she was NOT supporting Mangione shooting the United Health CEO.”
Large numbers on the left support Luigi committing Murder. Does Sen. Warren ? It would be one of few stupid things she is not 100% behind if she does not.
“But, fair and balanced commentary is NOT what Turley is being paid to deliver”
Correct, Prof. Turley’s success is because he is usually Correct, not because he usually presents all sides.
It is the job of left wing institutions to make their own arguments – and thus far you have failed miserable. Your not entitled to equal time, or fairness. You have to earn peoples support,
And you have not done so.
““the left” foments violence”
Historically true to an enormous extent.
“another is to attack Democrats, especially women like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who established the CFPB–something the billionaires who set up MAGA media hate, and which Trump has tried to eliminate.”
CFPB is not the enemy of Billionaires, it is the enemy of the working class.
If you want less of something – you regulate it.
If you want less credit to working class people – regulate credit for working class people.
You present a nice, point by point, rebuttal. Thanks.
Gigi give it up your nothing but a dem clown you insult peoples intelligence