Below is my column on campaigns on the left to enlist citizens in jury nullification. It is the latest assault on the integrity of our courts. Long supported by far-left law professors and pundits, it encourages potential jurors to disregard the evidence and the law in rendering a form of social justice.
Here is the column:
“You have this superpower.”
That statement from Qiana Johnson is part of reported training material for residents to engage in “jury nullification,” whereby jurors ignore the law and incriminating facts in a given case to nullify any prosecution.
Notably, Johnson is the newly elected clerk of Prince George’s County Circuit Court in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. She is part of a growing left-wing movement gaining traction with voters that calls for radical changes to the U.S. legal system.
The effort is to engineer “Twelve Angry Men” scenarios on real juries — but unlike in the movie, the jurors are actually being trained to ignore evidence and deliberations in favor of political outcomes.
In her election campaign for her current job, Johnson had to overcome questions about her own criminal record. But many voters are willing to give others a second chance when they show evidence of rehabilitation and contrition. The more immediate concern might be embracing a practice that is expressly barred by courts.
One such document allegedly declares, “You have this superpower, and that superpower is you are able to nullify that goddamn jury.”
Far-left professors have long advocated that juries use jury nullification. Georgetown Law professor and MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler has long advocated that Black jurors engage in nullification in cases involving Black defendants. Butler wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that Black lives matter.”
The problem of biased jurors has long plagued the legal system. It can work both ways in ignoring the law to refuse or secure convictions. Past cases involving President Trump and other Republicans have raised bias concerns over the jury pool in cities such as Washington, D.C., and New York City.
But jury nullification is different; it is a direct assault on the very foundation of the American court system. The juror is the thumping heart of that system — a group of empowered citizens who swear to consider cases without prejudice or prejudgment.
It is not a crime to advocate jury nullification. Moreover, there are legitimate concerns raised by investigations into such groups. about chilling the rights of free speech and association. In my view, such advocacy is protected speech under the First Amendment.
But that is not always the case for lawyers, who can face professional consequences. Many courts bar lawyers from arguing for jury nullification. Calling for jury nullification can also present sanctionable conduct for lawyers in a given case.
Even if this is protected speech, voices in both parties need to denounce these efforts. It effectively encourages jurors to lie when they take their oath to follow the law and to shed any outside bias or prejudgment. It is an effort to enlist jurors in using cases to achieve political and social goals at the expense of the rule of law.
The professors and pundits supporting these campaigns are actively seeking a hostile takeover of the courts without explaining to these citizens the implications of such dishonesty. Indeed, Chairman James Comer has detailed how groups like Freedom Trainers are allegedly seeking to enlist potential jurors while, according to the committee, instructing trainees not to “signal the agenda.”
Instead of addressing the impact of politicizing our jurors, these groups are portraying nullification as “a powerful tool for ensuring fairness and justice.”
These efforts are coming at a time of full assault on our judicial system from the left. Leading Democrats are calling for the packing of the Supreme Court, to reverse decisions with which they disagree. Every leading Democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential nomination has now thrown the court to the baying mob.
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is only the most recent, declaring, “We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power.”
From the trial jury to the Supreme Court, many on the left now seek to take control of institutions that have long been the rock of this Republic. If successful, justice will become merely an extension of politics.
What is so disconcerting is that there is no longer any pretense of principle. Law professors are demanding that pledges to pack the Court be used as litmus tests for politicians, and senators are calling for an instant liberal majority on the Court to carry out the “will of the people.”
Liberal professors have long demanded revolutionary change to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
The attack on the American jury may be the most insidious of these efforts. Our legal system invests average citizens with the power to do justice. Every community plays a role in upholding the principles of blind justice. As with court-packing, jury nullification is a previously odious practice now being portrayed as a noble cause. It is part of the conditioning of voters to accept foundational changes to our constitutional system, to further a radical agenda harmful to the nation.
The juror’s role was indeed a “superpower,” but not the one these professors and pundits are pushing. It is a power against prejudice and partisanship; it is the power of doing simple justice in a nation committed to the rule of law.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Turley’s posts are getting more partisan and less factual every day. They hay day of jury nullification was Jim Crow south when juries would not convict whites of murdering blacks under just about any circumstance.
ANON’S posts are getting more partisan and less factual every day.
Did you mean heyday? Are you qualified to comment with minimal understanding and intelligence?
The MAGA morons that infest this blog are extraordinarily low functioning individuals with a very tenuous grasp of the English language.
ANON MORON!
PSYCHO TOO!
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 (Adapted)
I thought conservatives were the ones stuck in the past.
I thought conservatives were the ones stuck in the past.
An early example of “jury nullification” occurred in Munich in 1924. A man who had tried unsuccessfully to violently overthrow the elected government in Bavaria was put on trial for “high treason”. He turned the trial into a political harangue, but he did not dispute the underlying facts. The panel of five judges convicted him of high treason but only sentenced him to five years imprisonment, and it turned out he only served 9 months of even that sentence. Talk about political favoritism! His name was Adolf Hitler. How did a refusal to uphold the law work out in that case?
ushmm.org/content/en/article/beer-hall-putsch-munich-putsch:
A five-judge panel chaired by Georg Neithardt presided over the trial of Hitler and the other putsch leaders in March 1924.
Like the majority of judges during the Weimar period, Neithardt tended, in cases of high treason, to show leniency towards right-wing defendants who claimed to have acted out of sincere, patriotic motives. Wearing his Iron Cross, awarded for bravery during World War I, Hitler held forth against the Weimar Republic. He claimed the federal government in Berlin had betrayed Germany by signing the Versailles Treaty. He also justified his actions by suggesting that there was a clear and imminent communist threat to Germany.
The judges convicted Hitler on the charge of high treason. However, they gave him the lightest allowable sentence of five years in a minimum security prison at Landsberg am Lech with the possibility of parole. He was released in December 1924. While Hitler did have a base of support, left and right-wing newspapers criticized the leniency of his sentence. A prominent legal professor also published a paper outlining many of the trial’s worst errors. Bavarian government officials were equally displeased. However, they acted with restraint to avoid giving the impression of trying to influence the affairs of the Bavarian Justice Ministry.
Godwin’s Law for the WIN!
Jack Smith was a prosecutor doing his job. He was assigned by the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the crimes of Donald Trump.
The evidence of those crimes was obvious. Trump had stolen classified documents and had committed election subversion crimes, including concocting a fake electors scheme to submit false election results and pressuring state election officials to find him more votes or not certify results.
Republicans, however, had no interest in holding Trump accountable. They chose instead to paint Smith’s prosecution as a witch hunt. And, unfortunately, they had allies in the judiciary who were more than willing to do what was necessary to make the cases go away.
The first blow to Smith’s prosecution came from Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon in Florida. She was unable to dismiss Trump’s classified documents case on its merits, so she instead let Trump’s lawyers play every game they could to delay it from going to trial. Then she dismissed the case under the false pretense that Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed.
The crimes of Donald Trump. What a bunch of garbage!
You don’t think stealing and refusing to give back classified documents is a crime?
He was assigned by the Department of Justice(and Joe Biden) to make up phony crimes to prosecute Donald Trump.
FIXED it for TDS infected Anon!!
ANON must have had his student loans paid off by Biden(BRIBES)!
Did Biden plant all the documents that were on the recovery list used in the raid at Mar-a-Lago?
No, but he did plant the ones in his Penn office that the Chinese had access to, and he planted the ones in his garage that his meth head son could have used to bribe himself more money he wasn’t entitled to. And to think he stole Classified documents way back 30-40 years ago from a SKIF when he was only a Senator and was forbidden to have them in his possession.
Jack Smith’s appointment by the DOJ did not automatically make his prosecutions lawful, nor did his allegations establish Trump’s guilt. The Constitution requires both prosecutorial authority and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified-documents case on constitutional grounds, ruling that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause—not because she found Trump innocent on the merits. Critics may disagree with her ruling, but calling it a corrupt judicial maneuver is not a legal argument. The Justice Department later abandoned its appeal, leaving the ruling in place.
Smith’s election case likewise never went to trial. His final report asserted that the evidence was sufficient to secure convictions, but that was the prosecutor’s assessment, not a jury verdict.
The Constitution demands accountability—but it also demands due process. Neither a prosecutor’s accusations nor a critic’s claim of judicial corruption substitutes for a fair trial and a lawful judgment.
“Jack Smith was a prosecutor doing his job. He was assigned by the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the crimes of Donald Trump.”
Bzzt wrong. He was a partisan hack and has been a hack all his life. While he failed to “get Trump” because there was nothing to get.
He was also a ridiculously bad choice – he has failed up his entire life. He has a long history of failed and over reaching prosecutions.
His appointment was stupid – and illegal and arguably that was even deliberate – if it was not it was massively stupid.
The constitution requires that all officers of the United states are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
While I disagree the supreme court has for decades allowed lateral transfers without reappoinment and reconfirmation.
There are no instances in which an officer of the united states was able to evade presidential appointment and senate confirmation.
Jack Smith never legally had any power within DOJ.
But that is separate from the merits of any cases.
“Trump had stolen classified documents”
Nope and Smith absolutely never charged Trump with stealing classified documents – His staff periodiically danced close to asserting that in court – were asked by Cannon to confirm that was what they were arguing and immediately backtracked – Why ?
Because it is long establishe – essentially by the constitution that the president can not steal classified documents. Anything the president intentionally does that removes a classified document from protection declassifies it.
The power to classify and declassify is a pure executive power that vests entirely in the president.
There is no way arround this.
Smith’s CALIM was that Trump or Trump staff UNINTENTIONALLY removed classified documents as power was turned over and then INTENTIONALLY refused to return them. That too was a losing argument – the Biden FBI practically revolted when ordered to search Mar-A-Lago because Trump had been coopoerating with the FBI in returning anything they wanted. This is all incredibly well documented – but then you left wing nuts are driven by lunatic claims in the media and “feelings” rather than facts, and documents.
“had committed election subversion crimes”
ROFL – there is no such crime as election subversion – challenging an election is a RIGHT.
“including concocting a fake electors scheme to submit false election results”
All of those cases – even in the deepest of blue states eventually died – laughed out of court – even by deep blue state supreme courts.
Why – because alternate electors are the constitutional and federal law required way to challenge an election in congress.
There is no such thing as a fake elector. There are electors for EACH candidate – the vote in each state determines which electors get certified by the state but both sets are REAL. Any successful challenge to the vote is supposed to result in the decertification of the certified electors and the certification of the alternates – this has been federal law for 2 centuries. This was a totally ignorant claim. Further even if the state never corrects certification – congress has the power to chose which set of electors to use. They have not piicked alternates since 1960 – but they did exactly that in the 1960 election. Hawaii miscounted their votes and VP Nixon rejected the slate of electors that had voted for him and certified the slate of electors that voted for JFK in Hawaii.
If you have been on this blog long – you should already no this. But one of the defining attributes of left wing nuts is the law and constitution say whatever they FEEL it says – not what it actually says and past history is irrelevant. Trump is a criminal for challenging your fraudulent efforts to rig an election.
We can debate the scale of the fraud and lawlessness in the 2020 election – but we are lightyears past 2020 was a well conducted election. Unfortunately it was NOT the most lawless election in US history – Contra the left the US has a long long history of election fraud almost back to the founding.
Regardless you have alternate electors because if at any stage in the process right up to congress certifying the election it is determined that the results were in error it is the alternate electors that must be used or that state loses its vote in the electoral college. Neither the courts nor congress can manufacture EC votes from thin air. Congress can reject the certified electors, it can also reject the alternate electors. But ONLY congress can do that. Congress can not accept the alternates if there are no alternates. Without alternates there is a risk that the election gets completely tossed and Congress decides the election – with each state getting one vote and the vote of each state being decided by the majority vote of the senators and representatives from that state. Presuming – which is unlikely that all republicans voted for Trump and all democrats voted for Biden Trump would have narrowly won if the election was determined by congressional vote.
Regardless the “fake electors” claim was absolutely absurd and displayed incredible ignorance of the constitution from the start.
And no you are not going to convict Trump for following the constitution.
“pressuring state election officials to find him more votes or not certify results.”
Which ANYONE may do – and which happens all the time – often openly.
The President has no authority over state election officials. He can yell at them but he can not fire them.
The most he can possibly do is arrange to have them primaried int he next election.
Regardless you are talkign about Georgia and Georgia was illegally certified beyond any doubt.
Fulton County had 315K ballots with no chain of custody. By law election officials are prohibited from counting ballots without a chain of custody.
There are not supposed to be chain of custody failures – a lack of chain of custody is an excellent indicator of Election Fraud.
The CORRECT and LAWFUL thing to do is to go to court to request permission to certify ballots without chain of custody.
The court will get to hear from both sides, and make determinations based ont he evidence and the law about which ballots can be counted.
The odds are MOST will likely get counted – those with atleast a partial chain of custody and where the gap is not likely evidence of fraud.
But some ballots will likely be determined by the court to be uncountable.
But that did not happen because FC certified illegal ballots – something outside of their power to do.
This was all done because the left was desparate to avoid any election challenge actually getting a court hearing.
The left claims that Trump lost all election challenges in court – which is loosely true. But NONE of those challenges actually involved hearings where evidence was presented. While SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to that, subsequent to the 2020 election SCOTUS did actually lay down the law.
The established in LATER cases that any candidate and any citizen of a state has standing to challenge an election.
Had SCOTUS not ducked the issue in 2020 and addressed it later – there would have been 60-70 court hearings examining the evidence of fraud in 2020.
One of the many reasons that Democrats have NOT been able to repeat their 2020 performance is that doing so WOULD result in lawsuits that WOULD result in court hearings.
The most critical fraud prevention measure that we have is called SUNLIGHT. Contra those of you on the left Election fraud – and especially election fraud in states with Mailin voting is TRIVIAL. Worse than trivial – with unattended Ballot boxes massive scale fraud can be accomplished with as few as ONE person. What prevents Fraud ? Scrutiny – observers, poll watchers, people with trail cameras or cell phones watching ballot boxes. Actually getting evidence into court rooms with hearings when suspicious activity is found. Republicans were not prepared for the lengths democrats would go to in 2020. They were in 2022 and have been since. While we need the SAVE act so that we do not have to have 20’s of thousands of election observers. The means of committing fraud in 2020 MOSTLY still exist, but the oportunity to do so without being seen do not.
Getting caught engaging in large scale fraud is the kiss of death for any political party.
“Republicans, however, had no interest in holding Trump accountable.”
They have no interest in holding mother Theresa accountable.
Orange man bad is not a crime.
Nothing you listed was an actual crime.
“They chose instead to paint Smith’s prosecution as a witch hunt. “
No it was worse – it was an unconstitutionally conducted witch hunt by someone who did not have the legal authrotity to do anything he did.
While a good prosecutor proerly apointed would not have been able to convict Trump of anything – because tere was no crime.
If those of you on the left had actually followed the law and the constitution instead of going massively lawless to “Get Trump” – you would not have contributed to getting him relected.
“And, unfortunately, they had allies in the judiciary who were more than willing to do what was necessary to make the cases go away. “
ROFL.
“The first blow to Smith’s prosecution came from Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon in Florida. She was unable to dismiss Trump’s classified documents case on its merits, “so she instead let Trump’s lawyers play every game they could to delay it from going to trial. “
so why didn;t the SC case with not only a trump hating Judge but an entire DC circuit that stacked the decak against Trump able to get to trial.
The MAL case should have been dismissed at the start. It was fraudulent from the start.
But the fact is that absent lawlessness such as that from Judge Merchan in NYC – these cases DO NOT procede quickly.
“Then she dismissed the case under the false pretense that Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed.”
He was illegally appointed – he appealed and he lost.
AGAIN – this was a trivially avoidable huge mistake on Garlands part.
Garland could have apointed ANY current US Attorney to be SC and had no problem – Whiel I have a problem with that – SCOTUS does not.
US Attorney’s MUST be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Special Counsels have MORE power than US attorney’s they are inarguably Officiers of the united states.
Numerous Trump appointments have resulted in criminals going free because of far less consequential constitutional issues.
This is not political bias on the part of the courts – it is correctly applying the constitution.
Jury nullification is an “interesting” (as in “may you live in interesting times”) subject. [full disclosure: I am a firm believer in jury nullification, but did not comment on the subject until I aged out of jury service, as I was aware that such public declaration would make impossible my selection for a jury I might want to serve on. [Like strong medicine, a little of it used at the right time and in the right amount can be beneficial – when overused or overdosed it can be as harmful as the ill it would seek to treat.] It is a subject/phenomenon the general populace is not overly well informed about, and is also divided about regarding the utility or virtue of the practice; interestingly, it is also a phenomenon about which the actual players in our judicial system are almost – almost, but not quite – universally opposed to and condemnatory of.
It is my opinion/observation that jury nullification arises primarily under three sets of circumstances: (1) a jury member uses it purposely to frustrate the system as a matter or protest or in furtherance of an unannounced agenda, or (2) is used by a jury member to thwart a prosecutor or other actor (plaintiff?) who is perceived to be acting unfairly or selectively, or (3) rises in rough proportion to the public’s loss of confidence in the court system itself as a seeker of truth and dispenser of justice – i.e., loss of the public’s confidence that the judicial system as “working”.
I am neither a wild-eyed radical nor an anarchist, but I am fully aware of how the “justice” system can be weaponized against an individual or an idea. For those who doubt this please review some of the recent court actions against Donald J. Trump or consider how the January 6th “insurrectionists” were treated.
So what is a juror to do? For me, were I ever to have been chosen (I “failed” voir dire three times) a juror is a protector. He/She stands as a protector of the individual citizen at whom the awesome power and resources of the state can be aimed in causes that would shock the conscience; he/she also serves as a protector of citizens as a group in judging and condemning malefactors who have wronged their fellow citizen leading to incarceration and thereby incapacitation of said malefactor to protect citizens from his repeated frauds, predations, or assaults.
In our judicial system, courts are considered to be courts of law, not courts of justice. This is pretty much the way it has to be, lest we come to live under a government of men, not of law. As an example of court of “justice”, consider some of SCOTUS Justice Ketangi Brown Jackson’s rulings. Unfortunately, that same system, especially in Louisiana gives a wink and a nod to those who lie in court – when was the last time you heard of a perjury prosecution in this state? But citizen fealty to the law extends only so far as the law itself is considered just.
I know I won’t, but I would dearly love to hear Prof. Turley (or any lawyer worth his salt) respond to my comments.
@Carey C. Allison–
I started to read your comment with a great deal of doubt and trepidation, starting with:
[full disclosure: I am a firm believer in jury nullification, but did not comment on the subject until I aged out of jury service, as I was aware that such public declaration would make impossible my selection for a jury I might want to serve on.]
Nevertheless, the more that I read, the more that I found your “premises” (2) and (3) to make some sense to me, viz, wherein “jury nullification” might be legitimately used in the name of true justice (although definition of true “justice” will doubtless vary from person to person):
Much as my sense of we Americans being “a nation of laws and not men” instinctively rejects the notion of jury nullification, I can see your perspective and think that I understand it.
I can only hope that jurors like yourself (and maybe, perhaps, even myself, someday) will use “jury nullification” wisely and with discretion.
Like many of you out there, I guess that I have to say that to some extent, I too, have “lost confidence that the judicial system as ‘working.’“
God help us all when/if we serve on juries.
Tech and defense companies that spent the last two years cozying up to President Donald Trump are now rushing to court Democrats, as they brace for a wave of congressional investigations if the party wins control of Congress in the midterms.
Cooper Teboe, a Democratic strategist based in Silicon Valley, reports that firms that built ties to the Trump administration have been calling him in a panic, asking which Democrats they should donate to or recruit for their boards.
“They essentially made the cardinal sin of forgetting that pendulums reliably do one thing — and it swings back most of the time,” Teboe said. “They’ve got a very rough couple years ahead.”
Donating money in exchange for not being investigated is bribery.
Absolutely !!!
These tech companies poured hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, into Trump’s coffers and vanity projects to curry favor and avoid investigations.
Now the tide has turned and they see the writing on the wall, so they are now falling over themselves to curry favor with Democrats.
“These tech companies poured hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, into Trump’s coffers and vanity projects to curry favor”
Perfectly legal.
“avoid investigations.”
Was Trump threatening to investigate Big Tech ?
DOJ is very busy investigating fraud and corruption, they have no time to waste on public companies.
“Now the tide has turned and they see the writing on the wall”
But it hasn’t – The early numbers are not supporting this blue wave nonsense.
But even if they do – Congress does not award contracts. Congress can not send you to jail.
“so they are now falling over themselves to curry favor with Democrats.”
If true that would not be new – they have been doing that for decades.
But it is only true in your head. Businesses are not stupid.
Every election in history is hyped by both parties as the most important.
They are not, this one is especially unimportant.
If REpublcians Hold everything – little will be done by congress in the next two years.
If Democrats take everything – little will be done by congress in the next two years.
2028 will not be determined by congress – but by the state of things in 2028.
The big question for Republicans is can they get Trump voters out without Trump.
The question for democrats will be can they find a candidate that does not start out horibbly unpopular and bad.
Most pundits on both sides think that as crappy a candidate as she is Harris will be the democrat candidate in 2028.
I woudl say that is Republicans dream – but there really is no decent democrat.
Follow these steps to carefully remove stool with your finger:
You comments reads like you enjoy playing in poo way too much.
Finally !!
We finally have some useful and relevant information posted on this miserable excuse for a legal blog.
It certainly makes a welcome change from the MAGA slop and drivel that Turley puts out daily to inflame the MAGA mob denizens of this completely worthless blog.
Was is the useful legal blog you recommend?
ANON IS FULL OF SH*T TODAY!! Weirdo!
I doubt that he is full of sh*t today as you say.
He obviously knows how to deal with such situations.
In fact, of all the MAGA morons assembled here today, he is the least likely to be full of sh*t, as his detailed explanation indicates.
ROFL
kirk may actually benefit from the detailed instructions given by Anonymous above.
I suggest you follow the instructions carefully to resolve your obvious problem.
And every day!
REVELATION
The reporting offers anecdotes, not proof of wrongdoing. Corporations routinely hedge their political bets; that’s business as usual when government wields enormous power over private enterprise. The real scandal isn’t the pendulum swinging—it’s a government powerful enough to reward friends, punish enemies, and make corporate America court both sides for protection. Investigate evidence of illegality, not political affiliations.
“…a government powerful enough to reward friends, punish enemies, and make corporate America court both sides for protection.”
That is no “revelation” to anyone with eyes, ears, and a functioning frontal lobe. And your solution is woefully inadequate. The only cure for the disease you identify is the radical reduction of governmental authority to the point that it is no longer able to pick winners and losers. Whether or not we as a nation retain the capability to make such reforms (I am sadly skeptical about that) is irrelevant to the truth of that proposition.
ATS – what nonsense.
The only thing that anyone has to fear if Dems win is the possibility of dealing with left wing nut idiots in congress haranging them.
DOJ is not controlled by the idiot left today. We are seeing real investigations of real crimes with real evidence.
They do not have time or interest in what left wing nuts in congress might do.
Further that played out horibly for the left last time they tried it – so PLEASE go for it again.
The left is promising massive investigations – but Congress is a pi$$poor investigative body and frankly can only handle a few major investigations at once.
You have already made a list of people you want to investigate that would consume ten times the manpower and time in congress.
But then again – Congress will not get anything done anyway.
I do not beleive there is about to be a blue wave – but I could be wrong.
But I KNOW that aside from a democrat takeover assuring Pres. Vance in 2028 it will matter very little which party controls congress.
Dems will not be able to get past a filibuster, and if they eliminate the filibuster they will not be able to get past a veto.
If they shutdown the government – that will stall their investigations, and they will get blamed – and even if they do not – Trump won’t care – he is not facing another election.
The greatest threat Congress poses to businesses is NOT calling a few CEO’s to testify. It is changing laws – and that is just not happening.
Do you think before you post this.
Further all this stuff will accomplish is making dems look bad.
No Tech companies are not rushing to Dems. Dems do not award contracts – the executive does.
“Cooper Teboe, a Democratic strategist based in Silicon Valley, reports that firms that built ties to the Trump administration have been calling him in a panic, asking which Democrats they should donate to or recruit for their boards.”
ROFL – first most of Silicon valley is ALREADY in the pocket of the Dems. Next Most major companies in the country contribute to both parties.
Regardless if you really want to beleive this nonsense – go for it.
While I hope for and expect a blue fizzle, should Dems take congress – we can only hope they live up to their promises. Nothing would be better for republicans than if they do.
Please PLease waste the next 2 years on retaliatory investigations.
How do you think this will go ?
First there is not a democratic senator with the intellect to engage Elon Musk – or most of the rest of these people – even the ones on the left.
Next if they decide to fight you – dragging them in to testify is going to be tedious and take massive amounts of time and money.
What are you going to do if Musk as an example says NO ? DOJ is not prosecuting. Congress will have to go to court themselves – and they can not accomplish anything in court beyond civil contempt. And even that in many cases Trump can ignore or pardon.
DOJ and FBI will continue as they are and there is so much democratic fraud to investigate and prosecute.
And unlike Congress – DOJ can send people to jail.
There are about 10,000 people staffing the entirety of Congress. There are 10,000 FBI agents alone. There are 120,000 in DOJ
There are 190,000 in DHS
The purpose of Congressional investigations – regardless of the party doing them is NOT prosecutions, it is politics.
And that only works if people buy what you are selling.
Democrats efforts to “Get Trump” backfired last time – PLEASE do it again.
Regardless if Dems do well I expect lots of fiery exchanges between people who know what they are talking about and democrats.
Again PLEASE go after the people funding Republicans – nothing will drive money away from the democratic party faster.
Do you really want every Billionaire and big company in the country beleiving as 2028 approaches that if Dems take power they are going to jail ?
All you will do is assure that Trump will have billions to pay for his library from the donations in return for blanket pardons for the non-crimes that fill demo-crat fever dreams.
When a political party controls all branches of government – they do not even need to threaten to secure cooperation and donations.
When they don’t – the greatest political leverage is with the executive.
There are only narrow circumstances in which Congressional investigations play well. They need to focus on govenrment corruption and they need to have actual evidence. Democrats suck at that,
Your efforts to “Get Trump” failed – because outside of the left people did not buy what you were selling.
Looking at the discussion around this piece, it is amazing how many readers are falling over themselves to protect big government. People are repeating Turley’s talking points like robots, arguing that regular Americans shouldn’t be allowed to step in when a prosecution feels wrong.
This is not some crazy ‘leftist plot’ to undermine the judicial system.
EXACTLY!
Finally someone making sense.
Something you’ve never done X.
Esquire, exactly correct. Citizens have a duty to step in when ridiculous prosecutions are brought forward.
Look no further than the felony indictment of the Subway sandwich assassin, the Reflecting Pool vandalism charges, the sedition charges against 6 Democratic lawmakers, the absurd assault charges of Sydney Reid where 3 separate grand juries refused to indict.
When we have rogue prosecutors in a rogue DOJ bringing ridiculous charges on orders from Trump, every citizen has a duty to stand up and refuse to indict or convict those being persecuted.
If that were true, “Big Fanny” Willis, “Big Fatty” Lee Sista (First Name’s Ug) James, Jack “Ass” Smith et al. would be in solitary in Supermax.
. . . falling over themselves to protect big government.
Bifurcation fallacy. As if our only two options are “big government” or lawlessness. The article is about the misuse of widespread jury nullification for political ends. People might believe in the rule of law (hence, be against widespread jury nullification) without approving of “big government” in the sense of an overbearing state infringing on civil liberties. Esquire’s comment leaves no room for the middle ground, dishonestly pretending it’s one extreme or the other.
How so ? First I posted a significant comment supporting Jury Nullification.
I am willing to tolerate the immoral and unethical jury nullification that the left rants about to get a bigger voice regarding our law with juries.
Overall jury nullificatin is likely to be very rare – ecen if lawyers can argue for it openly, and when done badly it is a self punishing act.
If jurrors in NYC choose to nullify cases against violent offenders – they will get more violence and attract more violent offenders.
There are only a few instances in which jury nullifications is both likely and beneficial and I am all for those.
There are several right leaning posts pointing out the lunacy of the left here – and those posts are correct.
But I am all for letting left wing nuts screw themselves – atleast when they are not screwing others as well.
Decades ago I read an article in the Atlantic(?) by a DC prosecutor who was warned when he was new to the job that he would sometimes have solid evidence of guilt but the jury would refuse to convict.
He found that to be true with black defendants and juries with black members. The prosecutor was himself black and concluded the article by justifying the jury nullification.
I suppose that still continues but now we seem to be seeing DC juries of bureaucrats refusing to accquit when Democrats or other favorites are on trial but rushing to convict, even on slim evidence, when conservatives are facing trial.
That type of abuse is spreading. Want to strangle your children? Do it in Massachusetts. But it is especially problematic in DC where trials tinged with politics and national policy are concerned.
Abolish the DC courts. Maybe abolish self rule in DC altogether. The rot must be stopped.
Correction: “bureaucrats refusing to accquit when Democrats or”
Should be: “rushing to acquit when Democrats…”
Autocorrect isn’t always my friend.
“refusing to a quit when Democrats…”
Should be “RUSHING to acquit when Democrats…”
Just when you want to be enjoying hobbies, traveling, socializing and more, constipation can put the brakes on. It’s a common problem – especially for older adults who have an underlying illness, mobility issues or take certain medications.
Understanding the causes of constipation and knowing some tips for preventing and relieving it can keep it from affecting your quality of life.
Stick to the days subject ANON!! Start your own health blog. You are FOS!! (full of..)
Ingrown toenails next ANON??
PRESERVE THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT – JURY NULLIFICATION IS REAL
Jury nullification is when a criminal trial jury returns a not‑guilty verdict despite believing the defendant broke the law, typically because jurors view the law, its application, or the potential punishment as unjust. It is a power, not a formal legal right, and jurors cannot be punished for using it.
What Jury Nullification Is
A jury may acquit even when evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if jurors believe:
the law itself is unjust,
the law is being unfairly applied,
the punishment would be disproportionate, or
the prosecution’s conduct is objectionable.
It results in a final acquittal due to the Fifth Amendment’s double‑jeopardy protection.
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts, which makes nullification possible.
What Jury Nullification Is Not
It is not a legal right defendants can demand or a doctrine courts formally endorse. Judges do not instruct juries that they may nullify.
It is not the same as a hung jury. A hung jury produces no verdict; nullification produces an acquittal.
Jurors cannot nullify to convict someone; they may only refuse to convict.
Historical and Modern Use
Historically used to oppose laws seen as unjust, including:
Fugitive Slave Act prosecutions,
Prohibition-era alcohol laws,
Vietnam War draft‑evasion cases.
Colonial and early American examples include the 1735 John Peter Zenger trial and resistance to the Navigation Acts.
Patterns of nullification have influenced policy, such as contributing to the repeal of Prohibition.
Critics argue such efforts undermine impartial juries and the rule of law, while supporters cite Founding‑era views that jurors may judge the justice of laws themselves.
Bottom Line
Jury nullification remains a legally tolerated but unofficial feature of the U.S. justice system: a powerful, controversial mechanism through which juries may act as a community conscience by refusing to enforce laws they deem unfair
There is nothing more American than a jury deciding whether the law itself applied to a given case is just, whether the prosecutor’s motive in bringing the case was motivated by politics, racism, misogyny, xenophobia or other improper reasons, and whether the potential penalty is merited by the conduct. That’s why we have juries–to judge the law and how it is applied in a given case constitute justice.
Nice plagiarism.
“A jury may acquit even when evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”
So, absent members of the jury going on record after the trial with statements that they deliberately ignored the clear preponderance of evidence of the guilt of the accused in order to allow him or her to avoid punishment for reasons superfluous to the law, exactly how do you expect to prove the existence of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”, since the jury is the accepted instrument to measure that guilt?
Though I didn’t realize it at the time, the PD’s closing remarks in a trial I was on 25 years was a pure plea fir jury nullification. A young Vietnamese man (he used a translator) had wheeled a cart containing two cases ofvwine out of a Safeway one day.
The deli man noticed this, and notified store security, which stopped and detained him till police arrived.
The PD didn’t talk about hus client’s guilt or innocence. Just about his youth, and the consequences of a prison sentence. This went right over my head as extraneous. Now I see it was a plea to let him off, despite his guilt.
Not our jury. We matched the facts to the elements of the crime.
Read about the trial of the two men accused of murdering Emmett Till. That social justice door can swing in a way these advocates wouldn’t like.
OT, but related to the law and people’s depending on AI to make their . . . analysis,
‘Botch Job’: After Judge’s Ruling Riddled With AI Errors, Appeals Court Allows Mississippi DEI Ban To Take Effect
https://www.thecollegefix.com/botch-job-after-judges-ruling-riddled-with-ai-errors-appeals-court-allows-mississippi-dei-ban-to-take-effect/
That is right. A flawed legal analysis. Made by a judge. Using AI.
Just goes to show you have have a law degree, even be a judge, use AI and still be an idiot.
*Just goes to show you can have a law degree, even be a judge, use AI and still be an idiot.
You’re the guy who ranted that Maher was a Trump friend. Guess you don’t knwo what you’re talking about. Talk about being a loser eh farmer.
Trump posts 1,300-word rant against ‘loser’ Bill Maher after second dinner,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv-streaming/2026/10/26/donald-trump-rant-bill-maher-white-house-dinner/92440881007/
“Just goes to show you have have a law degree, even be a judge, use AI and still be an idiot.”
I have personally seen judges (obviously with law degrees) make idiots of themselves long before the advent of AI.
Safety Tips for People Living With Dementia
Carry identification with you in case you get lost or need help. If you drive, talk with your doctor about changes in your driving and take seriously family and friends who express concerns. Make minor changes in the home to create a safer environment to prevent falls and injuries. Good balance, a habit of standing up slowly, and non-skid shoes can also help prevent falls.
Home-safety tips:
Great advice. A list of things to remember for those who cannot remember.
calling hullbobby!
That was a memo left behind by the Biden admin staff.
Demented PSYCHO ANON who thinks everyone is Estovir!
Bull Hobby
Bull Hobby
Jury nullification in pursuit of justice is absolutely essential as a check upon tyranny.
I was once on a jury where the defendant was being prosecuted for shooting and wounding an assailant who had forcibly invaded his home. The judge instructed us jurors to reach a verdict only on whether the defendant was guilty of shooting the plaintiff, not whether he was justified in doing so. Yes, the fact was that the defendant was guilty of shooting the plaintiff, but we jurors found him not guilty on the basis of the basic right self-defence, something the legal system increasingly is trying to eliminate. Law and justice are not always the same. Jury nullification is an important defense against unjust law.
Well, numbnuts, that’s the difference between prosecution and defense. Obviously the judge’s instruction was a mistrial on appeal. Disregard the defense?
Send a person to prison on the grounds that, after losing their job, their home, their car, and their family, they had a possibility of getting a new trial on appeal?
Maybe someone in prison decides to kill them. How does the wrongly convicted person get justice then?
Weston, pardon numb nuts. I’m melting down …
OMG! It was judicial nullification of the Constitution that allowed “Crazy Abe” to deny a constitutional right to secession and plunge the nation into the catastrophic Uncivil War.
It was judicial nullification of the Constitution that allowed Social Security and Medicare to survive under the guise of promoting the “general Welfare,” despite their benefits being concentrated among only 18.7% of the population.
And it was judicial nullification of the Constitution that effectively erased the limits of Article I, Section 8, allowing the federal government to regulate virtually everything while eviscerating individual liberty and property rights under the Fifth Amendment. The consequences extend to government control over wages, prices, rents, whom we may sell to or rent to, and zoning, building, and planning decisions.
When the judiciary abandons constitutional limits, enumerated powers become unlimited powers, private property becomes a government-regulated privilege, and individual liberty becomes whatever the government permits. Industries are left to navigate a maze of regulations that, in effect, displace the freedom and self-regulation that a constitutionally limited government was designed to protect.
That is not constitutional government. It is government by judicial permission.
“The Dictatorship of the Majority”
“The Dictatorship of the Poor”
OMG! There is no constitutional right to secession, nor even mention of secession in the Constitution, nor was there ever any right of secession declared among the states ratifying the Constitution. Those states were given several days to amend, suggest, or reject any Articles therein, before signing/ratifying it.
But the Constitution DOES expressly give the Courts and SCOTUS the final constitutional interpretation and declaration of the “law of the land.” (texas v. white did exactly that, regarding secession.)
As to your remaining examples of jury nullification, it does not appear that you understand what jury nullification means? are you confusing it with congressional non-signatories? Please site the captions of the cases to which you allude, thanks.
“cite” not “site.” excuse me, please.
Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
Please note that with reference to the power of secession, the 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please note that multiple state constitution ratification documents state, “…the delegated powers of government could be ‘resumed’ or ‘reassumed’ by the people if the federal government perverted those powers to their injury, oppression, or if it became necessary to their happiness,” or something to that effect.
“Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.”
If you understood the function of our Constitution, your (daily) demand would be: Cite where in the Constitution it permits government to secede.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no such thing as a state’s “right” to enslave blacks.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Is it possible for representatives from a state to enter discussions within congress to leave the union? Perhaps buy their way out?
Carpe: I am in a hurry, but I believe so, with final decision vested in Congress. What the above commenter misses in declaring Lincoln’s lack of powers, is that the Articles of Confederation, signed in the 1770s -WAY before the Constitution, -had already committed states to the formation of a “perpetual union,” later made “perfect” by the Constitution.
Don’t haVe time to look it up, but I am pretty sure of it; correct me if I am wrong, thanks.
Now there’s some law; cite a totally unrelated corpus juris.
At least she didn’t attempt to impeach Article 1, Section 8, by stating that Social Security and Medicare constitute “general Welfare” when both serve a small, individual, and particular portion of the population and not “all or the whole,” as in “general Welfare.”
^^^It’s the clown again. Here, buddy, I’d say that 93% PLUS railroad workers qualifies as “general welfare.”
“In 2023, nearly 183 million workers paid into Social Security. That amounted to roughly 93% of the U.S. workforce, outside of certain federal, state and local government workers. (Railroad workers have their own retirement system, though it is coordinated with Social Security.)”
PLUS
“Social Security’s main funding source is a dedicated 12.4% payroll tax, half of which is paid by workers and half by employers. Self-employed people pay the entire tax. Most of that tax revenue – 85.5% – goes to the retirement and survivors’ program, while 14.5% goes toward disability payments.”
pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/05/20/what-the-data-says-about-social-security
Please cite the Constitution for “interpretation.”
AI Overview
The word “interpretation” does not appear anywhere in the text of the United States Constitution.
Corrupt decisions by corrupt and/or incompetent courts do not amend the Constitution per the prescribed constitutional amendment process.
Article 3—The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.
The judicial branch has the power ONLY to judge. The judicial branch has no power to modify or amend the Constitution or to legislate.
Merriam-Webster
judge
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
Wait! Where’s lame, I mean lin’s definitive rebuttal?
The Confederates took secession to court? I always thought they kicked things off by firing on Fort Sumter.
IFIFY.
For those of you in Rio Linda.
You got that back asswards. His Tyrantess, “Crazy Abe,” declared martial law, seized power, suspended habeas corpus, and maintained an offensive military force of the United States on the territory of the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.
He was good enough to pay the penalty for his crimes, however. I’ll give him that.
Bet you don’t know where Rio Linda is! Lincolns fault for everything?? STUPID
Sacramento.
The Constitution held dominion for only 71 years. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. Lincoln began the “jury nullification” of the Constitution outlined above. America has been off the Constitution and decompensating since 1860.
Sacramento.
The Constitution held dominion for only 71 years. Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery. Lincoln began the “jury nullification” of the Constitution outlined above. America has been off the Constitution and decompensating since 1860.
This is just another scam to get individuals that are not taught to think critically. They unknowingly put themselves at risk while the individuals promoting it get away based on free speech. Then when the individual is charged they can claim to be a victim of the justice system instead of holding the people that told them to do it accountable
The scammers on two fronts.
It should have been The scammers win on two fronts
p.s. I found this posted on internet social media:
hsjung7517
November 11, 2025 at 1:01 PM
For those considering jury nullification for Luigi Mangione, keep your support offline. Public declarations will disqualify you during background checks. Stay neutral to ensure you’re selected, as nullification is his only hope given the damning evidence. He acted against a man who valued profit over lives, committing an ethically right act despite its unlawfulness. It’s just to free him, even if he’s guilty.
I mentioned the above as example of how the parameters of jury nullification could be expanded. Another wary-filled example could be race-based nullification, e.g., “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System.” The Yale Law Journal 105, no. 3 (December 1995): 677-725, or any nullification premised on no more than some sort of identification with a defendant, irrespective of law.
Republicans have made America worse, so now it is up to the Democrats to make America great again.
That is a true oxymoron!
You’re an idiot! The only thing standing between maintaining our Constitutional Republic, and its destruction from the Islamo-Marxists (democratic party) is Republicans. The democratic party INO, has made their agenda and goal crystal clear… to destroy/dismantle every system of govt, and every institution; including the constitution, and implementing a govt controlled by mob rule, eliminating individual rights and freedoms in favor of “the warmth of collectivism,” to ensure they hold permanent power. America is basically the only bastion of individual freedom and prosperity left in the world, as Europe, the UK, Canada, etc., have gone the way of restricting freedoms, and have fallen to the Red-Green Alliance. If America goes the way of the rest of the West, the world is doomed, and all of Western society devolves into chaos and lawlessness, where the violent mob rules. Republicans are far from perfect; they’ve pissed me off plenty, but they believe in our Constitutional Republic. And the alternative is terrifying!
“Republicans are far from perfect; they’ve pissed me off plenty, but they believe in our Constitutional Republic. And the alternative is terrifying!”
I am convinced that *some* of them only pretend to believe, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of your post. I have never agreed with the proposition that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, but when your primary enemy is about to destroy everything you believe in and/or stand for, a temporary alliance with his less evil adversary may well be advisable.
In some states such as Arizona, to avoid mentioning the subject of jury nullification, potential jurors are often asked a general question at the end which goes something like ‘Is there anything else you haven’t told us?’ (i.e., ‘do you support jury nullification?’).
When answering this question, if a potential juror supports jury nullification but does not tell the court so and the case results in a hung jury, he can be required to pay the cost of enpanelling another jury.