Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.
I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.
Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).
In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”
Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:
“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”
Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”
He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”
This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases. Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials. However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.
Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.
On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”
Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.
The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.
After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.
The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.
The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.
The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas of financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”
That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”
However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.
Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.
Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.
The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.
The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.
Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.
The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.
While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena. So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?
The court merely states
“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”
That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?
Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.
For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”
The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket: “In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.” (In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).
What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas. Judge Boasberg writes:
“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”
This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.
None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.
The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: Boasberg Opinion
It’s difficult for a non-lawyer to read the link. Pirro asked the fed res for some information and it was ignored forcing Pirro to go this route? Boasberg unsealed the information and isn’t it true they have what they wanted? Trump doesn’t like wasted money.
I’d be more inclined to think Trump truly thinks Powell is a hindrance as Trump has been attempting job growth and that requires loans at very good interest rates?
Personally I’m biased. Democrats are evil and have caused lamentable harm to the world. Let’s recall Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and so many other bizarre events.
Meanwhile, Turley is ignoring the fact that a company partially owned by the Trumps has signed up for government contracts. Yeah, rooting out waste fraud and abuse is a big priority for Trump.
Then we have Jared acting as a US representative while simultaneously seeking a huge investment from the Saudis for a company of his. Gee, which interests would come first here —-Jared’s or the United States? We all know that the interests of the US will be subordinate to those of Jared and that he will throw us under the bus if it benefits his financial interests.
Next, we have Trump starting a war against Iran and then throwing a tantrum when other countries he is hitting with tariffs refuse to bail him out of the mess he created by bombing Iran. Trump actually said that our allies wouldn’t come to our defense if we needed them—ignoring the fact that our NATO allies DID assist after 911.
When a woman journalist pushed Trump for answers on Air Force One, instead of answering, he went on a rant, bad mouthing ABC . He has also threatened journalists with treason if they publish things he doesn’t like. Treason is punishable by death.
Trump has made Russia stronger than ever by lifting sanctions on the sale of petroleum—even though Russia is helping Iran kill Americans.
Where are Republicans in all of this? Trying to help Trump keep power by trying to shove through the voting restrictions act Trump wants.
On Air Force One, Trump was asked to comment about the deaths of the six airmen who were killed in the war he started. He ignored the question and said “who else”? He couldn’t even muster any scintilla of condolences for the loss of these brave Americans.
Trump had the outrageous audacity to send out a fundraising message containing a photo of him wearing a campaign hat at the dignified transfer of the remains of the first victims of his war with Iran. No Democratic President could get away with something as disgusting as this. At minimum, there would be a Congressional censure. But not while Republicans are in power. We are getting outrage fatigue.
OT SAVE America Act
Talk about the real “democracy” of Nancy Pelosi et al., the SAVE America Act was long-preceded by original voting restrictions that enabled ~12% at the inception of democracy in Greece:
AI Overview
Democracy in Ancient Greece, specifically in Athens, began around 508–507 BC. Led by the aristocratic reformer Cleisthenes, this new political system—demokratia—shifted power away from elite families to the citizen body (adult male Athenians), establishing a form of direct democracy.
Core Voting Restrictions
– Gender: Women were categorically excluded from all political processes. They were not considered citizens and had no right to vote or participate in the Assembly.
– Age: Only adult males could participate. While requirements varied by era, men typically had to be at least 18 to 20 years old to vote in the Assembly and often 30 to serve as a juror or official.
– Citizenship & Heritage: One had to be a free-born Athenian citizen. Under later reforms by Pericles (451 B.C.), this was tightened so that a man could only be a citizen if both of his parents were Athenian.
– Legal Status: Enslaved people and freed slaves had no political rights.
– Residency (Metics): Foreign residents, known as metics, were excluded even if they lived in Athens for generations and paid taxes.
– Military Service: Men typically had to complete their military training (as ephebes) before being granted full voting rights.
– Property Qualifications: In the earliest stages, voting was often limited to wealthy landowners. However, reforms by leaders like Solon and Cleisthenes eventually extended the vote to all free male citizens, regardless of wealth.
– Physical Presence: Athens practiced direct democracy, meaning voters had to be physically present at the Assembly (the Pnyx) to cast a vote. This effectively restricted the vote of poor farmers living far from the city who could not afford the travel time.
– Atimia (Loss of Rights): Citizens could have their voting rights suspended for various reasons, most commonly for failing to pay debts to the city.
I have a great idea, we let the temporary foreign crop pickers vote!
Boasberg is immune. He can write an opinion that says anything including reasons such as- Mr. Trump has cheerios for breakfast and it’s disgusting.
Boasberg is bulletproof unless he commits a crime worthy of impeachment. He’s a broken cog in a wheel, unethical.
Trump claimed during a press conference today in the Oval Office that he had spoken with a “former president” who said he “wished” he had made the same decision to bomb Iran as the Trump administration. When pressed by reporters about the claim, Trump did not reveal who he was referring to. Former President Bill Clinton’s team told CNN Senior Reporter Daniel Dale that Trump has not spoken with Clinton about Iran. And Trump himself also denied speaking with presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
So who is left???
All the other living presidents deny having this conversation with Trump.
I think I know the answer.
Trump is actually a “former” president himself, from 2016 to 2020.
Obviously, Donald Trump was looking in the mirror, having a discussion with himself in the bathroom this morning.
It does not say when he spoke with this “former president,” so in theory it could be Carter, Reagan, or Bush the Elder, depending on how loosely he is talking about time. It also does not say “former president of the United States,” just “former president,” which leaves a long list of possibilities from other countries. Another option is that one of the living former U.S. presidents privately expressed that sentiment but would never admit it publicly. The odds that at least one of them has, in private, regretted not having the stones to do what Trump is doing with Iran are probably higher than their public statements suggest. And then there is Biden, who could not remember how to ride a bike, so not recalling making a comment like that would be very much in his lane.
Oh so desperate to rationalize Trump’s insanity.
Trump said he had spoken to a former president who wished he had made the same decision that he has just now made.
If it was Carter, Reagan of Bush Sr., then how could they have expressed that they wished that they had made the decision that Trump has only just now made.
If that was true, then the only way that conversation could have taken place is via a seance.
Or Trump is simply insane and demented and is hallucinating.
Which do you think is more likely ???
And speaking of insanity, your suggestion that it could have been a former president of another country is truly insane.
Which other countries would have had the capability and desire to bomb Iran ???
Israel certainly has the desire, but not the capability to act alone. And which former presidents of Israel would have done it. The living former presidents of Israel were not war mongers like Netanyahu.
I was not trying to rationalize Trump’s insanity, I was trying to rationalize yours. Given the actual text of your comment, any one of those scenarios are possibly true. And given your track record here, every one of them are far more rooted in reality than anything you manage to cobble together.
But hey, you keep doing you. 🙃
All you are doing with this comment is confirming your own insanity.
Obviously this is required in the MAGA cult.
Stones? As in David’s stones and Goliath? Maybe you meant courage. Yes, you meant courage.
Olly, it’s called reading for content. As the OP of the statement you have trouble digesting suggests, the concept of a president agreeing with the decision Trump recently made limits the number to those presidents still living and excludes those who are dead. It also odd that anyone no longer in office and no longer eligible for office would both completely support Trump’s decision and not want anyone to know about it.
The only one who fits that description is Trump himself.
It really depends on the meaning of talk.
Turley– “I do have serious concerns over his ***own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.”
Delicately put. Boasberg reeks of fetid bias. He has nearly convinced me that the federal courts should be abolished and to leave all cases to state courts.
If judges are going to be politicians they should be subject to the will of the people like other politicians.
Boasberg makes it impossible to maintain the pretence that they are only following the law. That isn’t what they are doing.
Here’s another one dressed like a judge but acting like a tyrant.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/120328
It doesn’t take a brain scientist to figure out why he would jeopardize his position in the courts.
The “cost overruns” in this case are staggering! Fraud, waste and abuse are indicated; no matter the president. Boasberg is showing his true colors—he can’t be fair to Pres Trump and thus won’t be fair to anyone in his Administration or anyone who possibly favors Trump. Scary.
Wait until you see the cost of DOGE vs the decrease in Federal spending. Maybe they should investigate that.
Did Aninny say micropenises?
What the heck are Megyn Kelly and Marjorie Taylor Greene bragging about?
Their vaginas are only 3 inches long (i.e. female avg.).
Microvaginas then?
“…his own POSSIBLE bias…?” (emphasis added). Possible?
I’ve always wondered what the rarified air smelled like in the judge’s chambers, is it sweet like a lilac or putrid like the ‘titan arum’ which smell like rotting flesh.
Charlatan’s a plenty prating about their esteemed skills, and knowledge, with such pretentious malicious we would soon think them unqualified for the honor of interpretation of law. This particular empiric Judge writing prose about a principle not associated with the legal request to justify his ruling is nothing but astounding.
Constitutional Law is breaking down, without uniformity of law society will crumble.
I asked Ai to define Law:
Law refers to a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through institutions or governmental authorities, aimed at regulating behavior within a society. It serves to maintain order, protect individual rights, and promote justice. Laws can vary significantly across different jurisdictions and can be categorized into various types, including:
• Statutory Law: Laws enacted by a legislative body.
• Common Law: Laws developed through court decisions and judicial precedents.
• Administrative Law: Regulations created by government agencies.
• Criminal Law: Laws concerning crimes and their punishments.
• Civil Law: Laws dealing with disputes between individuals or organizations.
Laws are essential for establishing standards, maintaining social norms, resolving disputes, and ensuring the rights and responsibilities of citizens are upheld.
The US does not allow common law.
(?) STARE DECISIS
Citation?
The US Supreme Court has indicated by it’s many reversals of existing interpretation that stare decisis no longer applies.
What about Common Law marriage Daniel?
Citation?
Thank you, GW. I started following this blog around 2012 because I wanted to see what was being said about The Law today compared with Frédéric Bastiat’s definition in his book by the same name. I find it interesting to see how far we’ve drifted after 178 years. Here is his definition:
What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense… Nothing, therefore, can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all.
This maps perfectly with what Jefferson wrote as the purpose for government in the Declaration of Independence: to secure our rights by just powers derived from the consent of the governed.
You’re making that up. You use no sources, no citations.
What total garbage you make up man.
🤣 You’re right, I completely invented Bastiat and Jefferson. Next I’ll work on forging the Declaration of Independence too. Oh, well would you look at that: Source: Bastiat’s The Law and the Declaration of Independence. I know, very niche documents, but Google might have heard of them. Give it a think.
Olly law if natural or man’s is adhered too makes an orderly society what we are experiencing is anything but. gW writing from phone
Trump goes on a late night rant about Judge Boasberg quashing the obvious-political illegal subpoenas issued by Jeanine “Winebox” Pirro and Turley then tries to back him up. Turley has the hypocrisy to accuse the Judge of failing to “separate politics from the merits” and then tries to make the case that this is an example of the Judge’s “bias”. Turley’s problem is that nearly everything the Trump DOJ does is based on politics.
WHAT “merits”? The Judge points out that merely because there are cost overruns, this does not prove illegality, and investigating overruns by the Inspector General is the first step before going for criminal investigations.
Everyone who saw Trump make a fool of himself when he toured the Fed building during renovations recalls how Trump accused Chairman Powell of massive overruns and produced a document detailing the allegations — only to be confronted with the fact that Trump included the cost of renovating an additional building that was not part of the estimate for the main building. And Chairman Powell explained that there were unforeseen problems that caused the cost to increase. Anyone who knows Trump knows that it was only a matter of time before Chairman Powell would be accused of a crime after Trump’s little confrontation backfired.
Everyone who pays attention to this controversy knows that Trump repeatedly tried to force Chairman Powell to resign when he couldn’t be bullied — and that Powell refused. And everyone knows that Trump has pursued a pattern of using law enforcement to pursue his own personal agenda, law be damned.
Judge Boasberg is not blind to these facts—nor is he required to be, which brings us to the core issue— did the government provide any evidence of criminality to justify seeking subpoenas? The Judge said “No”. What is the proof of criminality ? Turley doesn’t recite any, and downplays Trump’s pattern of using the DOJ as his personal law firm to do his bidding. Court after court has ruled against him— including judges he appointed.
Turley makes a tepid effort argue that the Trump administration is pushing to root out waste and fraud. What a joke! Take a look at ICE Barbie spending our money renting a flying luxury love nest and millions more spent on a vainglorious commercial of her on horseback riding around Mount Rushmore. How about the overpriced warehouses that will be turned into concentration camps and Whiskey Pete blowing thousands on lobsters and other luxury items? How about the cost of unnecessary deaths of Americans in the Trump war with Iran that Trump still doesn’t have any explanation for? The list of other examples of waste, fraud and abuse is very long, but rooting out waste and fraud is not a Trump administration priority.
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
Abject Judicial Corruption
Let’s take the discussion back to 1791 with a stop in 1819 when Chief Justice Marshall, despite his maximal effort, could not find an enumerated power allowing the establishment of a national bank, leading him to arbitrarily “interpret” and transform (i.e. amend) the “Necessary and Proper” clause into “legitimate” and “appropriate” regarding his irrefutably unconstitutional decision on the matter, understanding that the “Necessary and Proper” clause pertains merely to “the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers,” which omit and exclude a national bank and any power to operate a commercial enterprise or regulate the banking industry.
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
– Chief Justice Martial, McCulloch v. Maryland
The National Bank Acts and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were similarly without any citable legal basis and remain wholly unconstitutional, as does the entire communist American welfare state.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Not a surprise the number of reaction opinions from the Pseudo Justice Warriors making claims on law and order for a President who flouts the law at every turn.
“In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal ”
If so it will not be on legal grounds, but simply by placement of Federalist Society members working to the plan.
If the verdict is guilty, perhaps the Iranians will deal with it MBS style.
Low-IQ trolls suffering from TDS: today’s article has nothing to do with Operation Epic Fury.
I know you’re too dumb to figure that out for yourseles, which is why I told you.
On the contrary. Turley’s weak attempt to deflect attention away from Epstein Fury is exactly what this push piece is about.
Thus proving how low-IQ you are. Turley runs a legal blog. He has no obligation to highlight political stories trolls think are important rather than the legal issues he finds interesting. Go pound sand, moron.
Ha. You’re as stupid as you sound. Lol @ your claim this a legal blog. It’s a push piece op ed funnel. Couldn’t be more clear that’s the case…, and it’s likely a condition of Turley’s employment by fox news. Turley is a social media influencer. He doesn’t discuss legal issues in a serious way here. The whole reason this blog exists is to whip up the rage of clueless magats such as yourself.
Ha. You sound completely crazed and delusional, making up your own facts. The whole reason you pathetic low-IQ trolls suffering from TDS show up here to clutter up the comment section with smelly turds is that you are psychotic, delusional, morons with self-loathing tendencies and a penchant for conspiracy theories.
Even though Epstein’s work was critical in the picy capture operation in tne US, I find the moniker Operation AIPAC Fury to echo more coherently.
For crying out loud Gods sake! You have won a Chicken dinner….for a small fee plus 18% service charge.
It’s clear that the resolution of trump’s mess in the Straight will involve he and hegseth being surrendered to the Iranian government for war crimes prosecution over bombing/mass murder at the girls school. American immunity can not protect trump in an Iranian court.
^ Severe TDS on display ^
Here is a wonderful example of Trump’s psychotic thinking.
He claims he has already won the war.
Today, Peter Doocy from Fox asked Trump this, “Now that you’ve announced that the U.S. has destroyed all of Iran’s mine-laying ships, why can’t the U.S. just immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz?”
Trump replied, “So it’s a little unfair. You know, you win a war, but they have no right to be doing what they’re doing”.
So Trump thinks that it is UNFAIR that Iran has closed the Hormuz Strait and they have no right to do that after he has already “WON” the war.
Maybe he should stamp his feet and hold his breath until Iran opens Hormuz.
That’ll sure show them who’s the boss around here.
^ Stage-4 terminal TDS on display ^
A bleach drinker can’t keep from moaning at the circle jerk. ^^
^ Stupid low-IQ troll can’t help regurgitating silly childish stupid insults he thinks are clever ^
Trump also said that England and France should be required to help him out of this mess he created because the oil in the tankers is THEIR property. England and France aren’t interested in bailing him out and neither is China. I guess his view of ownership rights is like his claim that Panama, Canada and Greenland somehow belong to the US.
Poor Gigi. Trump lives in her head rent-free, and she’s miserable. A miserable human being.
@Anonymous
No, just a wonderful example of how unhinged you are when there is likely not a single quantifiable problem in your life, or likely anyone in your milieu. You are bored. That’s pretty much it. If you are paid, you are too lazy to get a job that actually serves people.
The rest of us actually care about the trajectory of our country, and we do not take you seriously, neither intellectually, nor at the polls. 🤷🏻♂️ I am sure the fact that we still have free democratic elections in the United States drives you absolutely crazy in your totalitarian and puerile mindset.
Oh, well. Suck it up, buttercup. If you find it that unbearable you are perfectly free to move to a country more in line with your thinking, though those options are shrinking. Go blow.
You, Sir, are in the distinct minority–the Cult of Trump–the most-unfit person ever to occupy the White House. It is precisely because the rest of us–the majority, DO care, very much, about “the trajectory of our country” that we so vociferously object to King Donald and his abuse of the power he lied to get. We object to his private army of masked thugs beating up people and tear-gassing them for exercising their First Amendment right to protest the murders of innocent people. We object to his abuse of the DOJ to protect wealthy, well-connected pedophiles and to out their victims, as well as the blatantly-political persecutions of his perceived enemies, like Chairman Powell who refused to knuckle under to King Donald’s demand to cut interest rates. We object to the FBI and DOJ taking their marching orders from Trump instead of complying with their duty to the Constituion to use law enforcement for the benefit of the American people instead of to harasss Trump’s enemies. We object to him starting a war with Iran because wealthy Jews who gave him campaign contributions want the US to spend our money and put our troops at risk to attack Israel’s enemies. We object to King Donald paying back Qatar for the luxury flying palace they gave him; from paying back the UAE for purchasing $2 B of worthless Trump cryptocurrency and paying back Saudi Arabia for bailing out Kushner’s real estate problems–each of these countries is a rival of Iran. Now, we have 13 dead Americans and billions down the toilet every day for another forever war that he lied about when he campaigned. There is no end in sight to the waste of money and potential loss of American lives–and, for what? He also caused the deaths of over 100 Iranian school children and refuses to admit that the bombing was the result of an error.
Trump does not want free democratic elections—he proved that after he lost in 2020 and made up the Big Lie that resulted in the insurrection, Capitol Police being beaten, bludgeoned, and millions of dollars of property damage done to the Capitol while your King sat by, mesmerized at the power he held over those pathetic fans of his, willing to beat up cops and tear up property at his command. He only called them off after more than 3 hours when it became obvious that the plot failed–Pence wouldn’t budge–he wouldn’t leave the Capitol, and neither did members of Congress, until Biden’s victory was certified. Now, he’s trying to do everything possible to pre-rig the midterms–by getting red states to create more Republican districts, to do away with early and mail voting (even though he and Pence voted by mail), lying about non-citizens voting in large numbers, lying about people voting several times, all to cast doubt on the results of the midterms before they even happen.
You notice that I don’t insult you MAGAs. I don’t need to—your flawed reasoning and blind allegiance to the worst tyrant ever to occupy the White House speak for themselves.
Watch him make the SOHFA!