We previously discussed how the J6 Committee and many in the media played up the “bombshell” testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson despite glaring contradictions that were hidden from the public. The J6 Committee denied reports of those contradictions and then delayed the release of directly conflicting testimony as the press played up who Trump allegedly tried to seize control of the Presidential limo to go to Capitol Hill. In his deposition before Congress, former special counsel Jack Smith indicated that Hutchinson’s testimony as unreliable, unsupported, and unusable in any trial. Smith appears to have finally presented a conclusive indictment . . . of the J6 Committee.
While Smith maintained that he had strong evidence against Trump overall, he was far less enthusiastic about the Hutchinson claims. Smith said that the much-reported account was legal chum as based on a “second or even thirdhand witness” and directly contradicted by those who had firsthand knowledge. He added:
“If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay, and I don’t have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a decent part of it.”
The former Mark Meadows aide was made the star of the J6 hearings despite Democrats knowing that she was directly contradicted in her claims. Smith said that they found no support for the claims:
“We interviewed, I think, the people she talked to, and we also interviewed, if my recollection is correct, officers who were there, including the officer who was in the car. And that officer, if my recollection is correct, and I want to make sure I’m right about this, said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand…. a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay, were things that she had heard from other people and, as a result, that testimony may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”
Like so many other debunked viral stories, the media seemed to just shrug and move on after the testimony. After playing up the account in wall-to-wall coverage and cover pages, the press has again moved on with little self-awareness or circumspection.
The account further undermines the work of the J6 Committee which spent millions in high-scripted public hearings, including the hiring of television producers to perfect the made-for-television moments. Not only were opposing witnesses left out of the hearings, but even cooperative witnesses were tightly scripted and records (including statements from Trump) were misleadingly edited to maintain the narrative.
As figures like Rep. Vice Chair Liz Cheney were lionized in primetime by the media as champions of the truth, she and other members were fully aware that they were withholding contradictory evidence and presenting highly manipulated accounts. Note, this was not the usual “fact too good to check.” They did check and found contradictions . . . and then presented the narrative anyway in a type of show trial.
If the J6 committee was structured to allow a bipartisan and balanced inquiry, these conflicts and contradictions could have been identified and addressed. Instead, the narrative rather than the facts drove the proceedings.
The Junk 6th kangaroo court was a tool , every bit as much a tool as jack smith was. This was the deep bureaucratic state infused with the D brand cultists in full revisionist attack mode. I still can not fathom why these cyphers have not been legally punished for their outright fraud and abuse of the system. But we all see how the system protects it’s own here. This jack & j6 con job circus is a stain upon or govt and legal system that will show history of just how tainted and broken our political class has become.
Trump had 4 years and a mandate from the people to eliminate the deep state from the Federal government in his first term. In his second term he has eliminated about 10% of the federal employees, but it’s not based on anything except by targeted department from a list by the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation looking to undermine the functioning of government at large and setting a path for unelected privatization. Trump and the Republicans forced tax cuts, but without matching cuts to spending. Where’s that money going?
“Trump had 4 years and a mandate from the people to eliminate the deep state from the Federal government in his first term.”
This is the 2016 GOP Platform:
Restoring the American Dream
A Rebirth of Constitutional Government
America’s Natural Resources: Agriculture, Energy, and the Environment
Government Reform
Great American Families, Education, Healthcare, and Criminal Justice
America Resurgent
The term “deep State” was not in the Platform and it really was not in common use on the right until the Collusion Delusion nonsense started to get exposed in 2018.
Eliminating the “deep state” was not on Republican Radar in 2016.
” In his second term he has eliminated about 10% of the federal employees,”
In his first year – there are 3 more years to go. I would love to have seen even deeper cuts – but this is a start atleast.
When is the last time 300K+ federal jobs were cut much less in 1 year ?
“but it’s not based on anything except by targeted department from a list by the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation looking to undermine the functioning of government at large and setting a path for unelected privatization.”
The majority of those RIFFED did so voluntarily, with a few critial exceptions Federal Employees were offered the oportunity to get bought out. That is ANY federal employee, There was no political targeting or agency targeting.
There have been a FEW targeted RIFFs – DOE is being cut, USAID is being slashed.
There are also a number of firings for cause Both of these are very important, but they are a small portion of those losing their jobs.
Beyond that – the Federal Govenrment is doing its job just fine – and it could do so even after canning 70% of Government employees.
“There is no plan to privatize government – with very few exceptions the plain is to SHRINK Government. ”
Federal Spending in 2000 was 20% of GDP,
In 2021 under Biden it was 30% of GDP it is back down to 23% of GDP and dropping.
“Trump and the Republicans forced tax cuts, but without matching cuts to spending. Where’s that money going?”
In all of US history federal receipts have NEVER been more than 20% of GDP, for the past 75 years they have ALWAYS been approximattely 17% of GDP. Changes in tax rates have ZERO impact on the percent of GDP that is paid in Taxes.
But they do have an effect on the Growth of GDP. The FACT is whether the left likes it or not the purported Voodoo economics of tax cuts on investment actually works – not just in the US but accross the world.
The Economy has gone from near 0% growth in the e3nd of 2024 and early 2025 to an average of 3% for the entire year of 2025. Projections are 4.5% for 2026. The last time the US saw a full year growth rate over 4% without massive Government spending was 2000.
I would love to see cuts to spending – ans here have been some – but not enough.
But the federal budget though still not good is much better than under Biden.
Further – Republicans MAY not cut spending.
Democrats WILL NOT cut spending.
“If the J6 committee was structured to allow a bipartisan and balanced inquiry, these conflicts and contradictions could have been identified and addressed. Instead, the narrative rather than the facts drove the proceedings.” Another gift from Nancy Pelosi.
A pretty good plug for the American adversarial legal system as opposed to inquisitorial legal system. We can thank the Brits for this invention.
The Republicans refused to participate with the J6 committee simply because, of the 50 senators and 230 or so Representatives, the Democrats wanted to exclude five who were in direct contact with Trump on J6 from leadership positions on the committee, for much the same reason that those accused of bank robbery are usually excluded from serving on their own grand jury. Unable to draw from the remaining 280 Republicans, perhaps unable to find any honest enough, the Republicans chose to not participate and just went off to pout.
There was literally no chance at all that Gym Jordan, a key witness who would have been (was?) called to testify, would, in a place of control on the committee, have allowed even one witness against him or any other Republican or against Trump to ever speak a single word. The result would have been “No one can come forward. No testimony can take place.” He referred to calls for his testimony “a witch hunt.”
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115601/documents/HHRG-118-JU13-20230329-SD001.pdf
https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-subpoenas-five-members-congress
Bug Anon at 2:10 pm – you say “the Democrats wanted to exclude five who were in direct contact with Trump on J6 from leadership positions on the committee [.]” What is the evidence that Rep. Jim Banks, one of the two Republicans who was excluded from participation, was in contact with Pres. Trump on January 6? And what evidence do you have that Democrats only wanted to exclude five members from the committee?
edwardmahl,
They included 2 Republicans.
Of the hearings, Jim Banks said:
“Again, I can’t get past the lines in his speech when he told his supporters to go down to the Capitol and peacefully and patriotic — patriotically make your voice heard.”
This leaves out the part at the end, the exhortation just before concluding the speech: “fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore. ” They did go and fight like hell, just as Trump demanded. To the end Jim Banks is lying to protect Trump.
The Republicans refused to participate with the J6 committee simply because’… Commissar Pelosi, continuing the new Democrat tradition of fulfilling her role as a Soviet proclaimed that she had decided only Republicans that were known to be opposed to Trump would be picked by her to serve on her show trial.
Happy New Year and hope everyone had a good Christmas.
Now, to start the new year… sigh. Professor Turley seems strangely laser focused on the claims made by Hutchinson while ignoring the rest of Smith’s more damning testimony. Choosing the easiest claim to “debunk” or put doubt on for the gullible and the those perpetually stuck on ever deepening conspiracy theories while ignoring the more serious accusations that Turley has admitted in the past its much more serious and credible against Trump.
Trump was aided by Judge Cannon and legal experts knew she was giving him as much cover and delay as she could to help him out.
Then we have the blaming of the J6 committee as being corrupt, deep state, or whatever word-of-the-day descriptions the right can come up to label it.
If Turley likes to bring up issues about government corruption and malfeasance he has plenty to pick from not from the Biden era, but the current administration. The DOJ has become an ongoing train of incompetence. Jenine Pirro, has has the unenviable privilege of having the most no-bills from grand juries…ever. Failed indictments, failed convictions, cases thrown out for illegal appointments, poor evidence handling and collection, incompetent prosecutors, and constant overreaching, all to please the president’s whims and irrational need to punish those who criticize him and his very real corruption. Turley was big on government corruption when Biden was in office. Now he’s quiet as a mouse while Trumps and his family and associates are exploiting the fact that the DOJ will turn a blind eye on it while pursuing useless and pointless vindictive prosecutions against Trump’s political enemies. Even the case against Abrego Garcia is collapsing under the weigh of incoherence and plain stupid decisions. What a year this will be.
Will Trump last the entirety of the year? His health is not holding up and he’s not looking very cognitive lately.
His point was that the J6 committee presented as “evidence” a story they knew was not true. That by itself is a very important story about the state of Congress.
His point was to present the ongoing MAGA narrative. Not the facts. Republicans has plenty of opportunities to join in and keep it as non-partisan as possible. But they wanted to nominate the most partisan Trump suck-ups to the committee. Pelosi offered the Republicans another opportunity to nominate real non-partisans to the committee and they refused. Because they wanted to protect Trump from damaging evidence. The whole intent from the very beginning was to protect Trump from the various corrupt and criminal motivations he has always done by steering blame onto others as he always does. Professor Turley is just on of many enablers who have dedicated their time and energy to facilitating it. What will Turley do when Trump croaks in office or is ultimately impeached and removed IF it ever happens. Will he focus on old stand-by’s of free speech and oddball college incidents involving radical leftist professors or the “purges” of conservative faculties?
FACT – Hutchinsons testimony was Hearsay – sometimes double and tripple hearsay.
FACT – it was irrelevant – even if true it revealed nothing other than Trump wanted to lead the protests at the Capital.
FACT the J6 committee violated numberous rules of legal ethics in seeking Hutchingson’s testimony – just as Jack Smith’s teams attempted in trying to blackmail Walter Nutra’s lawyer.
“Republicans has plenty of opportunities to join in”
Republicans were prohibited from putting their choices on the J6 committee.
The J6 committed is viewed as illegitimate and corrupt – because it was.
“But they wanted to nominate the most partisan Trump suck-ups to the committee. ”
They are entitled to put whoever they choose onto committees.
That is the rules of the house.
“Pelosi offered the Republicans another opportunity to nominate real non-partisans to the committee and they refused.”
Pelosi according to house rules does not have the right to dictate minority party committee members.
” Because they wanted to protect Trump from damaging evidence. ”
No – neither party in a committee truly has the power to prevent damaging evidence.
What Pelosi wanted was to prevent the exposure of the J6 comittee courrption and to prevent the public release of damaging evidence against Democrats
“The whole intent from the very beginning was to protect Trump from the various corrupt and criminal motivations he has always done by steering blame onto others as he always does.”
While your argument is false – it is also irrelevant. On ALL congressional comittees the objectives of the minority and majority party are nearly always different. Accoring to the house and senate rules Each party is free to pursue its own objectives in committee.
You and the left are citing Smith testimony that is allegedly damaging to Trump. It isn’t – but you are free to try to spin it.
Regardless that testimony for what little it is worth exists because Democrats were allowed to ask whatever questions they wanted.
SOME of the Epstain releases have been because the house GOP gave the democrats in committee the power to subpeona the Epstain estate. They did not need to do that – while it is COMMON for the minority to have subpeona power – it is AWLAYS done with the permission of the majority committee chair. Republicans pretty much always allow Democrats to subpeona their own records and witnesses. Democrats increasingly refuse to allow republicans to subpeona their own records and wtnesses.
Had the Republicans chosen to participate they could have impeached the witness. It’s not up to a prosecutor to make their case weaker when the defense says “Do whatever you want to.” The state of Congress is that the Republican half supported the Trump attack on the Capitol building in an effort to toss out the landslide victory of President Biden over Trump. This, in spite of running for their lives from the invading mob.
This wasn’t the only testimony. If the other 99.99% implicated Trump and a handful of Representatives, then they should have been impeached and convicted.
Anon at 2:16 pm – So you admit that the role of the Committee was to be “a prosecutor”. That is not how it was presented.
Only to the extent that the Republicans treated it as a prosecution.
Do you live in the real world ?
Biden won in 2020 buy less than 50,000 votes in 3 states. That is NOT a “landslide” it was far closer that Clinton’s loss in 2016 which was by about 300,000 votes.
“Had the Republicans chosen to participate they could have impeached the witness.”
Correction had Republicans been ALLOWED to participate. Pelosi rejected Republican choices – something the house rules do not allow her to do.
She was trying to rigg the J6 comittee – she succeeded and as a result it is near universally viewed as corrupt.
Trump did not attack the capital – in fact J6 protestors did not “attack the capital.
They were peaceful until they were tear gassed.
And no one “ran for their lives” – There was very little violence outside the west tunnel entrance FAR from Congress where the CP started a mele by teargassing a peaceful crowd.
There is video of all of this.
“This wasn’t the only testimony. ”
“the other 99.99% implicated Trump and a handful of Representatives,”
False the J6 committee burried almost all of the testminony they received – nearly all of which was exculpatory.
But Republicans starting in 2023 have been able to recover most of it and it has been made public.
If you want the turth you should read the ACTUAL testimony – not the narrative sold by the left.
Could not even finish your irrelevant boring screed. Please try harder to sound – write coherently …..next time ?. .
Everyone has known Hutchinsons testimoney was bogus hearsay.
Yes the J6 committee was corrupt – and Smith just said that.
It is the J6 Committee that sought Hutchingsons obviously eroneous testimony – even Smith could not buy it.
So WHY did YOU ?
Smith did not have more damning testimony.
He testified that he though that challenging an election was a crime – so what is Hillary not in jail ?
Smith was wrong on the law – and as the GA revalations – most of which are old hat for those paying attention – Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election were valid.
You can beleive what you want about who actually won. What you can not claim is the election was conducted lawfully and without fraud.
315K illegal ballots in GA is a huge deal. There ere atleast 50K illegal ballots in AZ.,
ANY consequential number of illegal ballots means Trump’s demands in 2020 for investigations were morally and legally correct.
Frankly even if there was no consequential fraud and lawlessness
as in the 2016 election – Hillary’s claims that the election was stolen are not a crime, they are free speech. Something Smith failed to grasp.
Cannon did proceed slowly – as we are now learning – she should have thrown the whole case out much earlier – the MAL search was unlawful.
So Why are we supposed to buy claims by Smith who was not lawfully appointed and conducted an unlawfull investigation.
I would note that Smith’s appointment was fr more unlawfull than Halligan’s.
Smith was not appointed by a president and confirmed by the senate, he served more than 120 days so he was not appointed to an acting position.
Regardless Biden/Garland could have appointed an SC legally – they appointed Weiss legally – he was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate as US Attorney and then latterally transfered to a SC position. The same was true of Hurr.
If you did not want to have the case thrown out – all you had to do was follow the constitution.
What have YOUR “legal experts” been right about “ever” ?
“Then we have the blaming of the J6 committee as being corrupt”
They were – there is an enormous amount of proof, Jack Smith’s testimony that featuring Hutchinson was unethical among the evidence.
The J6 committee was NOT the “deep state” – they were political lawfare.
The deep state is those inside of the executive branch – particularly the intelligence community quietly abusing their executive power for political purposes without regard for the policies of the current president.
They have existed for a long time – even Truman complained they had too much power.
If you have REAL examples of corruption involving this administrtion – please raise them.
“The DOJ has become an ongoing train of incompetence”
They have won 90% of their cases at the Supreme court – far better than Biden – that is pretty competent to me.
Judge Dugan was just convicted of a Felony – in a bloue district – pretty surprising.
They caught Robinson in days. After Brown botched things they found the FBI found the brown killer.
They found the Pipe Bomber – somethng Biden could not do.
They have found and successfully prosecuted nearly 100 fraud cases in MN with MANY more to come.
DOJ is doing fine. Pirro is having problems in politically Biased DC – which is to be expected.
Jeanine Pirro announces guilty verdict for Georgetown Law Professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzmxV2j58zM
Jeanine Pirro announces arrest of seven alleged members of DC drug ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB3NVT6JoPc
There are plenty of other successes of Piro in DC.
“Turley was big on government corruption when Biden was in office. ”
Biden was inarguably corrupt.
“Now he’s quiet as a mouse while Trumps and his family and associates are exploiting the fact that the DOJ will turn a blind eye on it while pursuing useless and pointless vindictive prosecutions against Trump’s political enemies.”
Comey lied to congress and leaked classified informtion.
James lied on Mortgage applications committing fraud.
Bolton stole Classified information.
“Even the case against Abrego Garcia is collapsing under the weigh of incoherence and plain stupid decisions.”
In what world ? DOJ has put Xinis between a rock and a hard place based on her OWN rulings.
She ruled that the prior deportation order was no longer valid and Garcia much be released.
DOJ decided not to appeal – that ENDS Jugde Xinis’s jurisdiction of the case – THAT case is OVER.
And DOJ has demanded that Xinis rescind her order precluding ICE from detaining him as she no longer has Jursidiction and Garcia is admittedly in the country illegally and DOJ is getting a new deportation order against him.
Regardless Garcia faces Trafficking and other charges in TN – that trial will start shortly and Xinis has no jurisdiction over that.
“Will Trump last the entirety of the year?”
For certain ? Who knows – you could get hit by a bus tomorow. But the odds are Trump lasts another 10- years.
“His health is not holding up and he’s not looking very cognitive lately.”
You left wing nuts have been arguing this for 10 years. What is certain is that Trump will die EVENTUALLY, and you will prove right – 10-15 years from now.
In the meantime Trump is speaking more in public in a month than Biden did for 4 years.
Trump could have a stroke tomorrow – or you could.
But there is no special reason to expect that.
Regardless the country will do fine and this administration will continue.
While much of the country will mourn Trump’s passing whenever that is.
And it will be a loss. It will be a speed bump at most to the future of the GOP and the MAGA movement.
There is a long list of heirs.
What is massively different with Trump 2.0 is that Trump himself is doing more than he did in his first term, BUT his appointments throught the government are enabling him to do fr far more.
X/George says: Now, to start the new year… sigh. Professor Turley seems strangely laser focused…
To start the new year, you picked up right where you left off: BBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! I WANT THE OVAL OFFICE HOUSE PLANT BACK IN THE OVAL OFFICE – COMPLETING THE JOB OF DESTROYING AMERICA!
It would have been great if we had a public trial to fully present the facts to the public using strict rules of evidence.
An absolute bombshell. Just ignore all the stolen classified documents and the pathetic attempts to steal an election while whining about a stolen election — in the same way King Moron barfed about a fictional deep state in order to install a real one himself.
But don’t worry, the swamp is now drained: just donate to the ballroom for temporary, impulsive favor from a corrupt dimwit who has to diarrhea his name on everything.
Jack Smith!
Squirrel!
Magats have TDS.
Everyone says: An absolute bombshell. Just ignore all the stolen classified documents and the pathetic attempts to steal an election
Bribery Joe, you’re here! Buddy, your puppeteers and caretakers have no idea you’re on the loose, babbling in public about your 40+ years of stealing classified documents while having no authority to have them in your possession and attempting to use the FBI and fictional and felonious “Russia Dossier” to steal several elections!
Biden’s Bolshevik Birthing Boyz are so incredibly clever, thinking that they can have Bribery Joe pull this off while posting as “Everyone” – thinking there’s no way he’d reveal his identity.
Well, “Everyone” is what you get when you do DEI identity politics hires from the Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe types to serve as your political apparatchiks.
It’s not a bribe if nothing is given in return.
Jonathan has become too much of a MAGA apologist
Wrong.
The good professor is pointing out how Jack Smith’s testimony confirms what many of us already know or suspected: Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was bologna, and not even the good kind. Many of us knew or suspected the Jan6th side show was exactly that, a circus side show. Complete with a TV producer, scripts, edited video and now, bogus testimony from one of the Jan6th key so called “witness.” And they themselves knew it, we knew it, the MSM knew it and they still went on with the show!
You missed the part where Smith said the problem was not lack of evidence, but too much.
You do comedy often ? , you should as you made me laugh oh so hard.
I missed it – was Cassidy Hutchinson the only one to testify? What did all the other witnesses say about that event?
Then that makes you another drone going derp derp like a frog in a demorat pond.
John Johnson says Jonathan has become too much of a MAGA apologist
Johnny… this is a terrible place for you when you’re desperately seeking refuge in the words of someone from the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda complex.
Johnny… you’re actually looking for a safe place where the columnist continues to promote that Bribery Biden was as sharp as a tack every day he was in office.
You want a Biden apologist who will continue to assure you that the Biden Bribery Laptop was “just Putin election campaign disinformation”.
Whatever made you leave the comfort zone of Rachael Maddow’s blog, to come here where your feelings and sense of security would be damaged by being subjected to facts?
MAGA apologist is where the money is. How long before he starts his own line of pillows and survivor rations?
Recall when the MAGAs were wearing bandages on their ears in support of Trump?
Trumplicans are going to have a meltdown when Trump finally kicks the bucket.
So here’s the thing. With the First Family, and Top Cabinet Officials and some Congressional Members there is an “Officer” (a Secret Service Officer or Other Agency Officer) assigned for the day to surveil the surroundings and protect the Individual assigned.
Smith:
“We interviewed, I think, the people she talked to, and we also interviewed, if my recollection is correct, officers who were there, including the officer who was in the car. And that officer, if my recollection is correct, and I want to make sure I’m right about this, said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand…. ”
In this instance the Officer was allowed to report, to the Investigator’s inquiry as to the nature/disposition of the situation, yet the Officer’s direct disclosure (interview) was not used by the Investigator to Debunk (which is a bit different from Discredit and Refute) the claims of Ms. Hutchinson.
…
as a result, that testimony (Ms. Hutchinson) may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”
Why aren’t these “Officers” (Secret Service, etc.) deposed and preserved as the firsthand testimony?
Certainly the “Officers” around Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Joe Biden, and absolutely Hunter Biden would have a trove of ‘firsthand testimony’ to give. Along with the Investigators* themselves having ‘firsthand testimony’ as to what was done to preserved the interview testimony.
(* John Durham & Michael Horowitz for example)
It appears that the Absence to preserve ‘firsthand testimony’ is selective and politically selective, as well as, the conduct becoming the Dereliction of Duty.
The stealth Cover-Up(s) of the indecencies of Governmental Officials, cleverly washed away, and the Statute of Limitations deliberately allowed to pass.
The Secret Service “Officers” are the proverbial “Fly on the Wall”, yet not a “firsthand testimony” to escape the lips of their Duty. Obviously “Secret Service” is also meant to “Keep the Secret(s) safe” from the People. All of them whom are sworn to protect the People of the United States of America. 🇺🇸
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE IT ALL NOW !!!
Comey, Brennen, Wray, HRC … et.al.
DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Re: Mark your tickler: (will see)
January 13, 2026, for the deposition of President Clinton (Bill)
and January 14, 2026, for the deposition of Secretary Clinton (Hillary)
Given the track record of the Trump administration I expect both depositions will go very poorly for Trump.
What do depositions of both Clintons have to do with the Trump Administration when they’ll be questioned by Congressional staff?
“What do depositions of both Clintons have to do with the Trump Administration …”
Since Individuals from both Parties had been in the company of Jeffrey Epstein and his convicted madam Ghislaine Maxwell,
the House Oversight Committee is interested in what the Clintons relationship was with him & her was.
Ref.:
https://nypost.com/2025/12/16/us-news/bill-hillary-clinton-deposition-in-jeffrey-epstein-investigation-pushed-back-to-next-month/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comer-warns-contempt-clintons-face-january-dates-epstein-probe-depositions
At this point the Clintons have ‘stalled’ all they can, So the big question is ‘Why?’ They have avoided things.
Your guess is as good as mine, We’ll have to wait and see what the Clintons do next.
Hope that helps
Given the track record of the Trump administration I expect both depositions will go very poorly for Trump.
Math is hard for Democrats, still trying to make it through third grade. Let’s see… so far SCOTUS rules that the track record’s score is 21-3 favoring Trump.
You’re handicapped at figuring out the score once you run out of fingers and toes to count on.
This coming August is the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the most prominent “show trials” of Stalin. These were grossly unfair proceedings, with absurd charges, relying on forced confessions of the defendants, with few procedural rights afforded to the defendants. (See Conquest, The Great Terror.)
Some prominent Western intellectuals of the Left, like John Dewey and Bertrand Russell, publicly condemned the trials. But the usual suspects – the correspondents of the New York Times, famous writers like Bertolt Brecht and Upton Sinclair, as well as Hollywood (“Mission to Moscow”) defended them. See J. Heilbrunn, “The New York Times and the Moscow Show Trials”, World Affairs, vol 153, no. 3, 1991, pp. 87-101 (Wiley 1991).
For most of our history, we have been proud that our legal institutions were not used to settle political scores. Beginning with the Nixon Impeachment, and widening in scope, the misuse of legal institutions has accelerated; it is now regarded by Democrats generally and by some Republicans as de rigueur to use the legal process for political ends. Indeed, we have reached the point in some jurisdictions that the political use of legal institutions is now regarded as more important than its historical role in keeping the lives and property of its citizens safe. The J6 Committee is proof that Congressional Democrats have reached and surpassed that point.
Beginning with the Nixon Impeachment, and widening in scope, the misuse of legal institutions has accelerated;
There is a connection from Nixon to the first Trump impeachment, but you’ve lost me if you think Nixon’s all-but-impeachment was about misuse of legal institutions.
There were committee investigations in both houses of Congress that led to Nixon’s almost certain impeachment and conviction. Those were valid proceedings under the Constitution, not mere show trials.
Nixon’s high crimes and misdemeanors were carried out by his re-election campaign committee (which had been funding a plumbers unit to commit burglaries to suppress information leaks) and by his immediate White House staff, not by the FBI, DoJ, or other legal institutions.
The Watergate scandal was initiated by Democrats to drive Nixon from office after winning a 49 state victory in 1972 and preventing a realignment of the electorate along the lines that occurred under Reagan. You refer to “high crimes and misdemeanors” but you did not identify them except by reference to “burglaries to suppress information leaks”.
First, the information leaks were “classified documents”, the thing that Jack Smith charged Trump with stealing.
Second, you admit that the “burglary” was committed by someone else.
Third, you imply that a simple burglary of an unoccupied office is “a high crime”. What do you consider a “low crime”. Without politics involved, it would probably have been charged as a misdemenor.
But if Nixon had ordered the break-in (which the record shows not to be the case), it paled in comparison to actions Presidents like FDR and LBJ. For example. LBJ used the FBI to spy on Barry Goldewater in 1964. https://www.heritage.org/commentary/lyndon-johnsons-watergate I have never heard a Democrat say that this spying was either a high or low crime. Nor have a heard a Democrat say that spying on Donald Trump in 2016 was wrong in any way.
The Watergate breakin in June, 1972, was months before Nixon was re-elected. It was curious that there were five burglars; had there been one or two, you might imagine they were rifling drawers for loose change or ripping off stereo equipment. To assert “the scandal was initiated by Democrats” is the height of absurdity. Two former cabinet members with Nixon’s re-election committee, Mitchell & Stans, ultimately were convicted of felonies. By the end, Nixon had lost the support of Sens. Baker & Goldwater, so the impending impeachment would’ve been bipartisan.
During the investigation, it came out that the plumbers had also broken into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. That itself was potentially an impeachable high misdemeanor if presidential involvement could be shown. Prof. Turley has covered this topic before, and the gist is whatever the House and 2/3 of the Senate can agree on is impeachable.
J. Edgar Hoover was an independent operator and loose cannon. If his interests and Johnson’s coincided, then he could play the part of faithful servant. He died before the Watergate breakin.
The fact that the Watergate scandal started before the election (whose likely outcome was obvious) does not change the fact that it was used to drive Nixon from office and reverse the decision of the election. Democrats scored easily in the 1974 elections, taking a stranglehold on the House.
And you still have not identified a “high crime” that Nixon was guilty of. The fact that some Republicans joined in the campaign to force his resignation does not establish a legal, that is clear-line, threshold for removing Presidents from an office he/she has been elected to. The Constitution is a body of legal rules. We must be able to understand those rules.
You said the Watergate scandal was initiated by Democrats. Now you say his resignation was forced. But Watergate was a classical tragedy in which the protagonist was defeated by his own fatal flaws (in sharp contrast to the first Trump impeachment which was based on the Steele Dossier contrived by the Democrat losing candidate).
Sure, Nixon could’ve easily coasted to victory in 1972, but his own paranoia led to the breakins and his tape recordings provided evidence of criminal conspiracy. As a free agent, political animal, and lawyer, he did the calculus and saw his impending inevitable impeachment and conviction according to the rules set forth in the Constitution. That Democrats scored easily in 1974 was in ratification of what took place.
You want a clear-line threshold for impeachment. I certainly thought that was met when Clinton perjured himself. With regard to Nixon’s resignation, the thing itself speaks. He did it to himself every step of the way.
What rights have been withheld from defendants and what forced confessions have been put forward?
I am surprised Jim Jordan is still in Congress considering he had a massive memory loss about one of the most tumultuous days on Capitol hill. It doesn’t appear to be PTSD, but a very selective slice about which he has no recall. Almost like he had blacked out the entire day.
I am surprised Jim Jordan is still in Congress considering he had a massive memory loss about one of the most tumultuous days on Capitol hill.
How James Comey continues to display his lack of credibility -245 times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/12/how-james-comey-continues-to-display-his-lack-of-c/
We’re surprised that you are so gullible that you believe you have the credibility to not only lie to yourself, but to the normal people here as well.
And nobody is surprised to read you hopefully claiming that Jim Jordan had a James Comey level memory loss – which would require people to be unaware that Jordan has no problem answering questions put to him from your mentors in the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex.
So, who did Hutchinson get this second or third hand information from? Or was it another Trump did/said something, it gets debunked but then they say, “Well, it sound like something he would do!!” And keep repeating it even though they know it is not true.
Well, we all knew the J6th committee was a sham. Now it is even more obvious.
It was obvious all along that Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was hearsay. It’s just funny to hear Jack Smith say so. She doesn’t seem to have much to do in the 2nd Trump Administration.
It sounds like it was mainly true, but embellished by people in between in the usual way where someone goes from “Did he do this” to “This is what he did” without understanding the origin was a question.
The damning part is that the Secret Service told the President what to do. That Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and the Secret Service intervened and refused a direct order.
The Dem’s first commandment: The Ends Justify The Means. It’s time that the Republicans realize that this is a street fight and adopt the same mentality. “When they go low, we go lower”!
Okay I’ll take your word for it Turley, you gaslighting punk.
How kind of you to accept a direct review of sworn statements.
Okay I’ll take your word for it Turley, you gaslighting punk.
“Hey… everybody pay attention to me! Look – I’m a drive in theater!”
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
How is the good professor gaslighting? Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was always questionable with contradictions. Jack Smith, in sworn statements, confirmed it.
Turley gaslights everyday here. On virtually every single op ed.
If it weren’t for gaslighting there would be no lighting here at all.
Turley only mentions Smith’s testimony that discredits Hutchinson but omits any reference to the part where he says there was enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes. Thanks for the Fox News presentation which totally skews reality. BTW, it’s hard to see a “derange Jack Smith” in his words and clear to see why Republicans don’t want him to testify in public. What happened to transparency?
“Turley only mentions Smith’s testimony that discredits Hutchinson but omits any reference to the part where he says there was enough evidence to convict Trump of crimes.”
Biden’s fellow racist and favorite Uncle Tom, enigmainblackcomracism, swiftly rushes to attempt to defend Biden’s attempt to use Jack Smith a SECOND time to take out the Republican most feared to beat a Democrat president’s hopes for reelection. His desperate hope is he can save his fellow racist and communist Biden and his version of Lavarentiy Beria, Jack Smith, if only his audience has the same short memories as the three people who follow his failed blog where he defends both racist black nationalism and communism.
Maybe it’s HIS memory that’s faulty? This the same Jack Smith that just a few short years ago SCOTUS ruled completely changed the definitions of crimes in order to take out the Obama/Biden challenger, Governor McDonnell. The same Jack Smith that SCOTUS unanimously ruled was a threat to our constitution.
This pathetic defender of Biden and his use of Jack Smith left that part out.
A federal judge ruled that Jack Smith’s appointment was illegal. This ruling was never appealed. Enough said.
It wasn’t appealed because there was no reason to. His efforts had ended.
Oh please , spare us your dogma. Your leftist lynch mob failed gloriously in their tangle of manipulations of truths and lies. And least of all you wont admit that truth.
Hutchinson was discredited long ago. All this article says is that even Jack Smith recognised it. We know about all the hoaxes and lawfare against Trump. The question remains: where is the accountability?
There will be no accountability as long as Trump is not in prison.
There will be no accountability as long as Trump is not in prison.
There will be no accountability as long as every Democrat I voted for to be president is still unindicted, never mind in prison.
There, fixed it for ya – no need to thank me… the short bus is waiting for you to get to the bus stop to take you home to mommy.
For Hutchinson? That’s who you mean, right? For the person who committed perjury?
Conspiracy is a crime…for judges, congress, committees, media, etc
Jail them all!
Gotta prove it first.
shame Republicans are as GUTLESS as Neville Chamberlain!
We need a Nuremberg Trial NOW…to root out the FASCIST Democrats from any power!
Nuremburg? Really? Where are the war crimes then?
Folks, this is a typical commenter on this blog. The kind Turley praises. They have no idea what they’re saying.
And don’t give me any of your MAGot crap that I’m the typical Democrat commenter on this blog. I’m here to lie about Turley, damn you all!
Liz Chaney Will not apologize because then she would have to admit that she was wrong. And she is never ever wrong.
Just like her father mr. WMD’s in Iraq
So they did shoot Robespierre in the jaw.
Keep reporting the truth, maybe it will sink in.🤞
Good morning! What is “the truth”?
The truth is what actually happened based upon verifiable facts only.
Not what the J6 committee told you what happened.
You seem convinced that you know exactly what happened. So, what did “actually happen”?
Where exactly did I say that?
Please show me the ‘Fact’ where I said exactly that.
(You see how easy it is?)
J6 the committee compared to a Kangaroo court. Cheney and all participants should be fully prosecuted and held finally liable for all their waste of Gov’t money and people they prosecuted or forced to defend themselves. The Star Witness Casey Hutchison should be brought in front of Congress and tell the truth and she to should be prosecuted. I think they all look good in Orange Jumpsuits in hard core jail
Chiming in here. A committee and a kangaroo court two mutually exclusive.
Right, a Congressional committee investigation has been universally known as a witch hunt since 1692.
We all know this will never happen. It is exactly why the majority of the American people are just plain fed up. That defeated lethargy may well be the beginning of the end of American we envisioned.
I hope so much you are wrong, but fear you are not. ‘Fed up’ is putting it mildly, it is more like a quiet rage that eats at all of us who have tried living decent lives.
Yes, one problem with layers of government is money waste! Pooled money from 50 States wasted. DJT and Musk couldn’t be more correct. Illinois can waste Illinois money but not money from other States.
Next, a Biden judge will prevent nonfund of Illinois. Be sure to present a bill to Illinois and claw back federal money, levy a fine, imprison, and reclaim federal court costs if illinois elects such criminally negligent officials. At least, at least the California boondoggle rail has stopped.
What happened to the first part of this post? Here it is if you click on it from X: We previously discussed how the J6 Committee and many in the media played up the “bombshell” testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson despite glaring contradictions that were hidden from the public. The J6 Committee denied reports of those contradictions and then delayed the release of directly conflicting testimony as the press played up who Trump allegedly tried to seize control of the Presidential limo to go to Capitol Hill. In his deposition before Congress, former special counsel Jack Smith dismissed Hutchinson’s testimony as unreliable, unsupported, and unusable in any trial. Smith appears to have finally presented a conclusive indictment . . . of the J6 Committee.
Smith said that the much-reported account was legal chum as based on a “second or even thirdhand witness” and directly contradicted by those who had firsthand knowledge. He added:
“If I were a defense attorney and Ms. Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay, and I don’t have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a decent part of it.”
The former Mark Meadows was made the star of the J6 hearings despite Democrats knowing that she was directly contradicted in the claims. The former aide to Mark Meadows. Smith said that they found no support for the claims:
“We interviewed, I think, the people she talked to, and we also interviewed, if my recollection is correct, officers who were there, including the officer who was in the car. And that officer, if my recollection is correct, and I want to make sure I’m right about this, said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol, but the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand…. a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay, were things that she had heard from other people and, as a result, that testimony may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”
The lawfare used against President Trump was the closest thing to a fascist coup d’etat that has ever occurred in America. Leftwing fascists used every means at their disposal, violating civil rights and the Constitution the entire time, to destroy a private citizen. Leftists are the greediest people on earth, lusty for power above all else.
Coup d’ etat? Not at all. Trump was NOT president when he was legally charged with several felonies. So, it was not a “fascist coup d’etat “.
Russian Hoax was a Coup d’ etat
but Trump remained president.
Legally charged based upon what?
When was anyone else convicted for the same ‘supposed’ felonies?
Who was the targeted victim?
You’ll have to do your own investigation. Your’re at the wrong starting point. Good luck
Trump could run for the presidency again so the fanciful, made-up “felonies” constituted a preventative coup d’etat. Whatever it takes to squelch the Right and maintain the Left’s control. Too bad the lawfare didn’t work, eh?
He cannot run for President again. A nuisance thing called the Constitution does not allow that.
Preventative coup? And you got proof of that? Looks like the MSM got deep into your brain.
Preventative because they occurred before his second run for the presidency. Reading comprehension difficult for you?
Where did you state that you were pointing to his first presidency?
You literally state that “Trump could run for the presidency again”, not “This was done so that Trump could not run for his 2nd presidency again”..
So: Having problems with stating accurately what you mean to say much?
Anyone running an opposing campaign might be viewed as a coup d’etat because their opponent might, in the next 50 years, try to run for President?
It is unfortunate that Trump was not held accountable.
Coup d’ etat? Not at all. Trump was NOT president when he was legally charged with several felonies.
And he was NOT president when President Biden’s hand picked Special Counsel said he was lucid enough to share the nuclear football with his trusted advisor, The Crackhead Bagman First Son… but not lucid enough to be legally charged with 40+ years of felonies.
Meanwhile – the part you hoped you could leave out. Obama and Biden WERE president and vice president when they committed the felonies of ordering TWO of their Attorney Generals and THREE FBI Directors to repeatedly go to FISA courts and perjure themselves in an attempted coup d’ etat.
So… is your memory faulty? Or you don’t actually have a clue as to what felonies look like?
It was’nt just left wing fascistas on a crusade…the deep bureaucratic state all across the board was sabotaging and attacking Trump. Still is in fact. Hideous govt unionized drones , ludicrous benefits and retirement perks. Sickening how self aggrandizing our govt bureaucracy has bloated become.
What sabotage is that?