A few days ago, I had the occasion to debate Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. Colgate asked us to address the following question: “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?” Many asked me to post the video of the debate, which is available below. I was also asked to respond to factual assertions made by Professor Klarman, who invited such fact-checking during his remarks.
Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.
The result was a bit of a disconnect between our remarks. I addressed the common claim of a constitutional crisis and why I do not believe that we are in a true crisis. I have rejected that claim for decades as hyperbolic and unfounded.
Given Colgate’s framing of the debate, I did not respond to many of the specific claims made by Professor Klarman. After the debate, some faculty members and students asked if I disagreed with some of those claims. I thought that I would respond now.
At the outset, I appreciate the invitation of Colgate to address this important question and the work of our moderator, Cornell Law Professor Stephen Garvey. I also want to thank Professor Klarman for his participation and his candor. Although the debate became sharp at points, I still believe that these events are important efforts to expose students to opposing views on the difficult issues facing them and our country.
I should also note, as a threshold matter, that I do not agree with much of Professor Klarman’s characterization of our current conflicts. This includes his repeated references to “fascists,” “ICE thugs,” and analogies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. During the debate, he stated:
•”[The Republicans] are trying to steal the 2026 election.”
•”[The Administration] is indifferent to suicides committed by transgender youths. There is a word for that. It is fascism.”
•”[The Administration] is essentially telling the world go ahead and attack [transgender people] we don’t care.”
•”They are indifferent to higher death rates among African Americans.”
•”Many [republicans] are very uninformed…many do not read newspapers…”
•”There will be a pretext…I do not know how far it will go…What happens when …. [they[ shoot down immigrants in the streets… seize voting boxes…put troops in democratic cities to intimidate people from voting…that is terrifying.”
It is clear that Professor Klarman truly believes these things and, as he correctly noted, there is subjectivity in how we view the same events or controversies. I credit Professor Klarman for wanting to have an exchange on these issues.
Professor Klarman started his remarks by noting:
“I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.”
He later added that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”
I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman claimed that
“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”
As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot.
I would like to now address five additional claims.
- “[Undocumented persons are being] deported without due process. Kavanaugh has said go for it, not constitutional problem.”
I am not sure what Professor Klarman was referencing here. However, in cases like A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Justice Kavanaugh joined his colleagues in halting deportations to protect the due process rights of these undocumented persons. It was Justices Alito and Thomas who dissented to allow removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The majority stated that the Administration “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating:
“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”
In 2025, he did vote with the majority in a 5-4 decision on Venezuelan immigrants. It allowed for deportations to continue in ruling that the challengers erred in not bringing their challenges as habeas corpus claims. However, it also ruled that the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest the deportation. Kavanaugh voted in favor of that position. I may be missing what Professor Klarman is referencing but Kavanaugh has repeatedly voted in favor of due process rights, even if it may not be as robust as Professor Klarman might have wanted. There are cases under this and prior administrations allowing for immediate deportations near the border that occur within a certain period of time. I cannot see any decision where he has effectively “said go for it” and deny any due process.
2. “Washington Post fired a journalist who simply reposted words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” and “[Bezos] just fired a journalist for basically saying something that is true.”
Professor Klarman made repeated claims about this controversy. It appears to be a reference to the termination of former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah. However, it is not true that she was fired for “simply reposting words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” but for making racially inflammatory comments in direct contravention of both Washington Post policies and prior warnings from her editors.
Soon after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attiah went on to Bluesky to post an attack on him with reference to his race. In one, she declared: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.” In a second posting, she wrote, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”
Those were the comments cited by the Washington Post for its actions. The Post stated “Your postings on Bluesky (which clearly identifies you as a Post Columnist) about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy.” The Post prohibits postings that disparage people based on their race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
Sources told the media that Attiah had been confronted multiple times by the paper’s management over her inflammatory social media posts. This includes one in 2020 where she ended up apologizing on social media for erroneously saying that a new French law targeted Muslim children. It is simply not true that the Post fired her for quoting Kirk.
3. “ICE agents acting as thugs are kidnapping people off the streets…They are building concentration camps… they show up on streets without any identification.”
This is a common claim made by politicians and pundits. However, it has been debunked as untrue. ICE agents wear vests and badges that identify them as law enforcement. As with other law enforcement agencies, ICE agents in plain clothes are presumably used on occasion. However, in making an arrest, officers identify themselves as law enforcement. While widely claimed, there has been no evidence submitted (that I know of) of a systemic failure of officers to identify themselves when making an arrest or taking someone into custody.
ICE is not kidnapping people. Once arrested, these individuals are input into an electronic system. Kidnapping is a legal term that does not apply to a case of a person placed into custody by federal law enforcement. Even when an arrest is deemed legally invalid or improper, it is not treated as a kidnapping. That is why there is no case that I know of finding that ICE has engaged in the kidnappings referenced by Professor Klarman.
The reference to “concentration camps” was made in a debate with other references to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime. Large holding areas have been used for decades in immigration operations under both Democratic and Republican presidents. They are not “concentration camps” as the term is commonly understood or used.
4. “Trump says quote ‘slavery was not that bad.'”
This appears to be a claim that was circulating on the Internet and was debunked as untrue. There is no such quote that I could find. On August 19, 2025, Trump criticized Smithsonian museums for focusing on negative aspects of U.S. history to the exclusion of more positive elements. He noted that there was “too much” on slavery. Trump wrote the Smithsonian is “OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” He went on to add that there is “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.” One can certainly object to the comment about the relative importance of slavery and why it should be mentioned prominently in these displays. However, the quoted statement by Professor Klarman appears to be apocryphal.
5. “James Madison designed this whole thing without thinking about political parties… he was not thinking [of one party controlling the White House and Congress]”
As someone who frequently writes about Madison, I was surprised by this statement and wanted to present an opposing view. It is certainly true that some figures like George Washington opposed the establishment of political parties. However, Madison actually started one of the first such political parties in the early 1790s around the time that the Constitution was ratified. It was the Democratic-Republican Party created with Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist Party was formally established in 1789 by Alexander Hamilton and other prominent figures. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the country was deeply divided along partisan lines. Madison would have had to be naive or moronic to ignore the partisan alliances around him. He was neither naive nor moronic.
I think it was very clear that Madison “was thinking” about political parties when he laid the foundation for the Constitution. While Madison wrote about “factions” rather than “parties” in his famed Federalist Paper writings, he viewed such alliances as natural and inevitable. In a speech to the Constitutional Convention, Madison declared that “no free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom.” By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the country was already divided along Federalist and Jeffersonian lines. Indeed, he said, in a latter letter to Henry Lee, that “The Constitution itself … must be an unfailing source of party distinctions.”
Clearly, Professor Klarman and I hold opposing views on a myriad of issues. The program at Colgate is an important effort to create greater dialogue and diversity on our campuses. (I will be participating in another debate at the Virginia Military Institute on the same question on Sept. 30).
In fairness to Professor Klarman, these remarks should be considered in their proper context. Below is a link to the debate.
The debate won’t play
Michael “Clown Show” Klarman doesn’t do the Constitution.
He makes up whatever he wants as he goes along, ending up somewhere on the Manifesto.
Crap! Here’s a fun video! Cumia nails it!
Here’s a fun video! Cumia i
Ignore this. Cooter Brown pawed the computer before I could finish writing.
😂
*. A moment of gravity when the winner of Kirk slurs during a funeral and mourning goes to Omar. The gravity folks is they are ill. There is illness sitting in high places and with ill will.
None of it is amusing. Kimmel joins the rank. Think about the atrocities and be sober. Klarman is ill. PT thinks Klarman clearly believes what he spoke.
Quietly, softly remove these ill people from high places.
^^^ pour money into non reelection…
The video of the debate was very engaging, although I’m talking about Prof. Turley’s presentation. Klarman pompously promised he’d use facts only, but then indulged shamelessly in subjective interpretation, paranoid mind-reading, and speculative grievances.
I learned why Turley is not worried when Congress cannot legislate on hot-button issues. His Madisonian take is that, when the country is divided down the middle on something, it’s the Constitutional design that Congress not legislate on it. That doesn’t entirely satisfy me, because I’m pretty sure 80% of the country is ready to repeal or revisit Section 230, and force more human responsibility-taking over utter depravity published via the dark web. The big tech giants speak with huge donations, not popular opinion, and we get posturing, speeches and nothing done.
The pace of change will be unforgiving of a Congress that cannot keep up with societal change and each year’s new crop of controversies needing to be solved, so we can get on to the next ones.
If Professor Klarman didn’t want to debate that topic, wouldn’t the right thing to do be to decline the invitation and let Colgate find someone else to take that side? Rather than accept under false pretenses?
Professor Klarman should be thanked for reminding us that derangement syndromes existed long before Donald Trump’s arrival on the political scene.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today is a very important day in History, President Trump essentially announce the War on Russia at the United Nations General Assembly forum.
Trump’s stunning pivot on Ukraine thrills hawkish Republicans
“President Trump’s strong speech and post today show why he’s the peace-through-strength President,” Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told Axios in a statement.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on X that “Trump is correct in assessing that the Russian economy is under stress and this will only get worse if we make buying cheap Russian oil and gas toxic for those who choose that path.” Graham has led the charge on a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill.
Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) posted: “President Trump and I believe Ukraine can win – a fact President Biden avoided saying for years. It is time to ramp up pressure on Putin to end this senseless bloodshed.”
By: Stef W. Kight ~ 9/23/2025
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/23/republicans-trump-ukraine-russia-war
Putin announced war on NATO on February 24, 2022.
Yes indeed – Te two Super Powers are now ready to rumble.
Nope. Europe can handle Putin. Prez Trump can throw more sanctions at Russia
“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”
As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false
—
This is a common conservative debate technique – reframe the original statement with additional restrictions to cause it to be false. The original statement said nothing about “during” or “that day.”
Some died soon after as a direct result of the strain of repelling the insurrectionists.
Regardless, Trump pardoned violent insurrectionists and word-smithing an excuse for that is reprehensible.
Rabble:
Violent insurrectionists, huh? How about the thousands of “peaceful” riots that caused billions in damages, frightened a nation into compliance, and killed ~30 people? Does 30 innocent deaths, plus however many were stupid a-holes who waved guns at cops, equal 6 “suicides” and “health-related deaths” days, sometimes weeks after the nonsurrection?
Anonymous from the Darkside.. and all yr fellow Anonymous Trolls.. we are sick of yr TDS Mis/Disinformation….there were no ‘violent insurrectionists..’ all the live videos show only a few out of hundreds of thousands on the Mall who joined the in-place instigators, incl. Epps, BLM & Antifa.. also incl. those instigators who brought the ‘hangman’s display’ – NONE of that came from Trump supporters….. Video upon video clearly show the Capitol Police waving the crowd into the Capitol and videos inside showed them all behaving like Tourists except for a very few rioters at that one entrance where unarmed US Air Force Vet Ashli Babbitt was killed in cold blood, those up-front who became rioters after sprayed by tear gas and a few bad-mannered dummies who did things like enter Pelosi’s Office for a photo Op…. Why don’t you learn the meaning of ‘Insurrection’ and you will see it is a FACT there was no insurrection that day. Is it that hard for you to deal in Real Facts vs. Lies & Fake News??
ATS – the statement is that insurectionsts were directly responsible for police officers deaths.
There were no insurrectionists.
That is looney toons nonsense from the left.
Nor was anyone at the Capital on J6 responsible for a police officers death.
As Turley noted – had Sicknicks stroke had the slightest connection to the days events – the coroner would not have called it natural causes.
As tot he rest – Every officer at J6 will eventually die – are you going to blame that on protestors ?
The only Reframing or deceit is yours.
It is always possible to take two unrelated things, and construct some narative that suits your purpose to connect them.
Deconstructing a false narrative is not deception – the construction of the false narrative is.
Tyler Robinson is responsible for the choices he made in life.
The FBI is doing its job investigating further – but the currently available evidence is Tyler acted on his own and is fully responsible for the murder he committed.
The left is not responsible for Kirks murder.
But they are morally – if not legally responsible for their words and deeds.
Kimmel lied when he claimed the right was trying to frame this as anyone other than one of their own.
It is the left who from the start has been pointing fingers anywhere they can that is not at them.
Kimmel lied and blamed innocent people – and you idiots celebrate that.
Not only are you lying about J6 – but you are such a constant and well known liar – that no one should beleive you about anything.
If you want people who are not wing nuts to beleive you – start by telling the truth occasionally.
Truer words were never spoken. Josh Billings said, “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.”
Anyone who has dealt with an aging parent suffering from dementia fully understands that their parent absolutely believes things that just ain’t so. It’s no fault of their own.
This guy however is choosing to live in the world of dementia all on his own.
To the dementia patient like this guy believes every bit of what he is saying is true.
They’re not all in mental institutions. They walk the streets and sometimes shoot people in the neck or stab an innocent girl on a subway. The rest who do not do so themselves aid and abet those who are performing the actual acts and afterwords openly celebrate the results. They then call for mercy for the assailants and bail them out of jail. Only dementia can explain it.
Did the Founders and Framers say, “We’re writing this, but we don’t mean for any of it to be taken seriously or to be taken as absolute or to reflect the literal verbatim words of the English language we employed”? Of course, we wrote those words to have absolutely no weight or force; indeed, we were just messing around; we had nothing else to do.
Of course, you idiots, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are final, definitive, and absolute!
Here’s a constitutional crisis.
None of this can be legislated or taxed for, funded, or regulated per Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property, and yet there it is, smack dab in the middle of your tax bill:
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
It is up to Congress to decide which funding promotes the general welfare.
General Welfare
General – All or the Whole
Welfare – Well proceed
All Well Proceed
Not individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity.
You can read, can’t you?
You can grasp the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can’t you?
You can grasp that general welfare means security and basic infrastructure to facilitate the well proceeding of all, can’t you – police, fire, post office, internet, airports, roads, water, sewer, rubbish collection, etc.?
The Founders never conceived of or implemented Social Security, Medicare, or any other form of “free stuff” or “free status” or redistribution, or social engineering, and any regulation is clearly enumerated.
The Founders provided one thing: Freedom, to allow individuals to “pursue happiness,” their own version thereof.
Period. End of American fundamental law.
Nony Mouse — Once again, the Supreme Court that ruled that it is up to Congress to define ‘General Welfare”, not you or me.
Nony Mous —- The Supreme Court rules that it is up to Congress to determine what is ‘general welfare’, not me or you.
Anony Mouse — It is up to Congress to decide what promotes the general welfare.
Congress allocates the President executes.
Congress has the power to tax for and fund.
The President has all of the executive power exclusively.
The judicial branch has the power to judge and issue a determination while it has not one scintilla of executive power.
Congress may legislate absent any aspect or degree of the exercise of executive power.
The judicial branch has the power to issue a determination absent any aspect or degree of the exercise of executive power.
Congress has the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense, and general Welfare (see definition above).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;….
I often wonder about the dishonesty of the Left. Is it deliberate narrative control or self-deception? I gues I’ll have to answer that question for myself on a case by case basis.
Re dishonesty by my President and his staff I think the hesitation about releasing the Epstein information is related to only two factors:
1) Protecting a number of compromised politicians.
2) Protecting Israel. If Americans knew that Israel was coercing US politicians Israel would get disowned but quick. Too bad, they made their play, thought they won, ultimately failed. Who cares?
Just bloody expose everything and fight through the mess. We’ll end up stronger.
Forget about Tylenol.
Find out what Trump’s mother was taking while pregnant, and avoid it at all costs
So funny I forgot to laugh.
Rabble:
I heard it was something called dephlogisticated air, also known as dioxygen. You should avoid it, I heard it causes blood to rust!
Is this the best Harvard Law School can do?
Daniel,
Only goes to show you how a university who hands out A grades like candy or meth in San Fran has become a mockery of not only law school but of higher education in general. And it is not just Harvard.
Oh, no, on the best/better/good spectrum he’s really, really good.
It’s scary how Michael Klarmann be so psychotic about President Trump and his policies.
Thank goodness for people like Jonathan Turley!
OT, despite all the Democrats other “threat to democracy!!!” rage rhetoric failures, the newest “threat to democracy!!!!” rage rhetoric is New Leftist Talking Point: “Christian Nationalism” Is Latest Threat To Democracy. https://modernity.news/2025/09/23/new-leftist-talking-point-christian-nationalism-is-latest-threat-to-democracy/
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into normalcy waters, nope! The “threat to democracy!!!!” rage rhetoric fin is baaaack!!
It is like a bad remake of George A. Romero’s original Night of the Living Dead, but re-titled as Night of the Living Dead Democrat’s “threat to democracy!!!!” Starring Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schummer, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, the rest of the Squad, and many others!!
From beyond the grave, Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down, one saying, “What the heck was that?” and the other “Whoever thought that was a good idea, must of been an idiot or brain dead.”
Other critics had different views:
“I thought it was so good it made Schindler’s List look lame.” The slow and dumb one.
“It was better than Yentl!” Gigi.
“In my expert, legal experience, it was better than Legal Eagles. Did I mention I am a proud domestic antifa terror . . is Matlock on?”
Meanwhile, Hollywood is abuzz with Oscar talk!
Upstate: “Meanwhile, Hollywood is abuzz with Oscar talk!”
Oscar? They still do that?
The bothersome things aren’t what Professor Klarman said, because he is certainly allowed to express his beliefs: the bothersome thing is that someone who represents himself as a practitioner of the law is so consumed with emotion and venom. Insofar as a neutral, objective thinking applies to the law, Professor Klarman is simply in the wrong business.
“Steal” an election instead of engineer 😏
Klarman is a prime example of the legal saying:
If you have the law, pound the law;
If you have the facts, pound the facts;
If you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table.
Or in Klarman’s case, also pound your enemy/opponent.
Practicing law at the lowest rung on the legal ladder.
-g
So true.
Jonathan: In your debate with Prof. Klarman you claim ” I do not believe that we are in a true [constitutional] crisis. I have rejected that claim as hyperbolic and unfounded”. I say your position is contradicted by all the evidence. You are telling the American people “Don’t believe your lying eyes”. Here are just a few examples that show we are in a constitutional crisis.
First, DJT is turning the DOJ into his personal agent for retribution against his political enemies. On Saturday, DJT posted this: “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “It’s an old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Letitia [James]?? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done…We can’t delay…JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW!!!”.
It’s pretty clear. DJT is declaring the above named are guilty of crimes, even before an investigation or possible indictment. This is vindictive and selective prosecution and a violations of due process. All prohibited by the Constitution. DJT doesn’t care. He declares his political opponents and state AGS to be guilty in advance.
And DJT has gone further in his vendetta against his political enemies. Federal prosecutor Eric Siebert was forced out by DJT because Siebert refused to prosecute AG James because he couldn’t find any evidence against her. This is a hallmark of all dictatorships and one illustration of how we ARE in a constitutional crisis.
So while DJT is demanding Bondi charge his political opponents he is protecting his allies. Take the case of DJT’s border czar Tom Homan. Last year Homan was caught on tape taking a $50k bribe from undercover FBI agents. After DJT took over in January he ordered the Homan investigation closed. Caroline Leavitt told reporters with a straight face that “Mr. Homan did absolutely nothing wrong”, even though he was caught on tape!
When a President uses the power of his government to go after political opponents, even forces late night comedians off the air because he doesn’t like being made fun of, we know our constitutional republic is under attack. Sorry, but all the evidence so far indicates we ARE in a constitutional crisis!
Dennis, evidence? You? You, the self-proclaimed lawyer and legal expert who has been pretty much wrong about everything you have ever commented on? Pee tape? Russiagate? Hunter Biden laptop not real? Fanni is going to spank Trump’s fanny? Trump will be doing the perp walk in orange before the summer is over? We could go on about how wrong you have been about nearly everything!
Oh, and your No Kings day failure. Yeah, despite MSM spin, there might have been only 2M who turned out. And most of them were over the age of 65, to include you. Then all the follow on No Kings day, even bigger failures.
And now you are a proud domestic antifa terrorist. I do hope you live long enough to see to the end of a second successful Trump admin, a two term successful Vance admin and then a two term successful Gabbard admin. They all turn America around from the disastrous Obama and Biden admin and all the other Democrat failures.
That would truly be marvelous! Live long Dennis and prosper in a MAGA country!!!
Is the DOJ going after anyone in which there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed ?”
Comey lied under oath.
Comey took classified information from the FBI and leaked it to the press.
Those two charges are dead on.
Schiff conspired to leak national security information,
and lied repeatedly on federal mortage disclosure forms.
Again dead on.
James lied repeatedly on federal mortage disclosure forms – more frequently than schiff and more substantially.
James also lied on varrious applications and permits to the city of New York – but those are not federal crimes in the DOJ’s juridiction.
“It’s pretty clear. DJT is declaring the above named are guilty of crimes”
Correct.
“even before an investigation or possible indictment.”
Incorrect – there has been some investigation of some of this – some of the evidence is comming from criminal referals by Fannie and Freddie, Some is coming by recently declassified information from the Durham report.
“This is vindictive and selective prosecution”
That is debatable. Regardless, when you use government power to go after someone else – especially relying on a KNOWN Hoax, you should expect that when they gain power – they are going to look into your conduct.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Their “vindictiveness” becomes a problem – when they proceed on the same kind of thin reed that you did.
I am not sure whether Schiff or James or Comey can be convicted. But there is very little doubt they committed crimes. Not necescarilly all the crimes they are accused of – to my knowledge – as vile as much of the conduct of these people might be – it is not treason as some claim.
I am not sue whether these people should be indicted or prosecuted – not because they are not criminals, but because DOJ is unlikely to get convictions in DC and NY where these crimes were committed.
But absolutely they should be vigorously investigated – and if DOJ thinks they have enough to overcome jury nullification by the left – then they should be indicted and tried.
All of them are far more guilty than Van Der Zandt, Carter Page, Gen. Flynn, Papadoulis, Manafort, Roger Stone, Bannon, or Navaro.
“a violations of due process. ” – What violation ? There is more than enough evidence to open an investigation, Frankly there is more than enough evidence to charge these people. That is due process.
“All prohibited by the Constitution.”
Nope, The constitution requires reasonable suspicion to open an investigation, and probable cause for a warrant or for an arrest. That is easily present in all these cases – and many more.
“He declares his political opponents and state AGS to be guilty in advance.”
He is free to do so – they certainly look guilty.
There is no bar against calling someone guilty as h311. The constitution bars government from infringing on their freedom (jailing them) without a trial and conviction. It does not preclude calling them guilty as h311 – which they appear to be.
“Federal prosecutor Eric Siebert was forced out by DJT because Siebert”
the correct term is FIRED
“refused to prosecute AG James because he couldn’t find any evidence against her.”
There is plenty of evidence and I doubt Siebert said otherwise. There are reasons to prosecute james and reasons to not prosecute james – lack of evidence is not among those.
“DJT is demanding Bondi charge his political opponents”
Which he is free to do – Just as Jefferson demanded the prosecution of political rival aaron burr.
“Take the case of DJT’s border czar Tom Homan. Last year Homan was caught on tape taking a $50k bribe from undercover FBI agents.”
Have not seen the tape. Have not heard anyone but you claim this. Worse still all of this took place while Homan was not in government – and had not been for several years. One of the required elements of bribery is that the person being bribed must be part of govenrment and must be being paid for the execise of GOVERNMENT power – Like Joe using the power of the VP to fire a prosecuor in Ukraine persuing the company that hired his son in return for $5M paid through various eastern european shell companies. There are now 3 FBI CHS’s that the FBI did not disclose to the senate when they were subpeoned who have confirmed the report of the prior CHS that the Biden administration sent to jail for reporting the truth.
Regardless, thus far:
You have not produced this video.
You have not shown how Homan could possibly be excercising power as a government official when he was not in government.
You have not shown that he was paid money specifically for the excercise of government power as a government employee.
In 2024 Homan was a private person – I am sure that he was paid far more than $50,000 for very many things.
While your story is thin on details – about all you have is a CLAIM that while out of government Homan was paid by FBI agents – and there was purportedly Video.
You do not really have Why he was paid. And you litterally have PROVEN yourself that he was NOT bribed – because this all happened not only before he returned to government, but before Trump was elected.
But lets assume that someone actually paid Homan 50K in 2024 in return for his influence in getting them govenrment contracts. That is perfectly legal.
But you have not proven that even that occured.
Homan was NOT part of government until mid january 2025.
Prior to that he can not be guilty of bribery.
Even now – he has no role that has any influence in government procurement.
You claimed there was no evidence of a crinme with respect to schiff, james, and Comey – but there clearly is.
Conversely you claim there is evidence with respoect to Homan – but everything you claim – even if True is NOT a crime.
” After DJT took over in January he ordered the Homan investigation closed. Caroline Leavitt told reporters with a straight face that “Mr. Homan did absolutely nothing wrong”, even though he was caught on tape!”
Presuming this tape exists – I have not seen it, by YOUR OWN description, Homan was caught on tape taking money LEGALLY from FBI agents.
“a constitutional crisis”
Since you use that expression with such authority, you must know what it means. So what is the definition of a “constitutional crisis?”
BTW, providing examples is not an explanation.
Anyone who starts the way the first speaker did will end up nowhere but outside the Constitution. I made it only a couple of minutes in. This Michael Klarman has a vivid imagination, which goes nowhere near the verbatim “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. The problem has been for a century and a half the unconstitutional implementation of the principles of the Communist Manifesto and the nullification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At the outset, he supports lower courts that egregiously violate the Constitution by usurping and exercising executive power that they have absolutely not one scintilla of: “Executive power is vested in a President of the United States.” Courts may provide a determination, but they have no power to usurp and exercise executive power. Courts have no power to modify or amend the Constitution or amend the Constitution by “interpretation”; a judicial power to “interpret” is not conferred by or in the Constitution. This is the problem that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ran into when Lincoln violated the Constitution and suspended habeas corpus. Taney could only issue a determination; he could not exercise executive power.
To wit,
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
_________________________________________________
America could not have ended up anywhere near where it is if it had simply read and upheld the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Klarman was crying like a baby saying doggone it, WE want to establish a new agenda and wah wah you just won’t let us. The Constitutional crisis is that there is that big meany, the Constitution!
To the anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs), the Constitution and Bill of Rights ARE the problem, and the Communist Manifesto is the solution. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are the direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.