Jonathan Turley Sums Up the Trump J6 Indictment Masterfully

[excalibur]

Succinct. And quite correct. We are seeing fascism in action under Joe Biden, and this is but one example of that fascism.

And recall, Nazi's studied Democratic Party means and methods and implemented their own versions.

 

[skye]

I like and respect Jonathan Turley's legal opinion, he is one of the best out there!

Thanks for posting.

 

[Lastamender]

This is not a good way to prove the election was not stolen. All their reasons have not convinced a very sizable amount of people. They need to accept that. And accept that people are going to try and prove it. It is what one should be able to do in America.

I do not think people will let that happen in 2024.

 

[Magnus]

Succinct. And quite correct. We are seeing fascism in action under Joe Biden, and this is but one example of that fascism.

And recall, Nazi's studied Democratic Party means and methods and implemented their own versions.

LOL. This is an age-old argument that is packaged in new wrappings for the MAGA crowd. Guess, Turley really needs those MAGA dollars to keep rolling in.

The free speech argument goes something like this - It is not illegal to yell "Fire" falsely in a movie theater. It is not illegal because it comes under the clause of free speech.

But here is the nub -So, while it is legal to yell Fire! in a crowded theater but if such a hoax leads to a riot or death, the perpetrator could be charged with disorderly conduct, citing a riot, etc.

So, yeah, Trump had every right to yell anything he wanted. But if he did it knowing it was false and/or that led to a riot - guess what? He can be charged. Hence the indictment.

Even Turley agrees and that is why he includes these words..."Smith could still secure the cooperation of insiders to support a claim that Trump knew. Many of us have noted the sudden silence of former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and a couple of former Trump lawyers who do not appear to be among the six referenced criminal co-conspirators. One of those six could also flip and say that Trump said that this was all an undeniable but useful sham."

If Turley feels so strongly that there is no basis for Trump to be charged, I wonder why he is not rushing in to defend Trump in court?

 

[Lastamender]

LOL. This is an age-old argument that is packaged in new wrappings for the MAGA crowd. Guess, Turley really needs those MAGA dollars to keep rolling in.

The free speech argument goes something like this - It is not illegal to yell "Fire" falsely in a movie theater. It is not illegal because it comes under the clause of free speech.

But here is the nub -So, while it is legal to yell Fire! in a crowded theater but if such a hoax leads to a riot or death, the perpetrator could be charged with disorderly conduct, citing a riot, etc.

So, yeah, Trump had every right to yell anything he wanted. But if he did it knowing it was false and/or that led to a riot - guess what? He can be charged. Hence the indictment.

Even Turley agrees and that is why he includes these words..."Smith could still secure the cooperation of insiders to support a claim that Trump knew. Many of us have noted the sudden silence of former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and a couple of former Trump lawyers who do not appear to be among the six referenced criminal co-conspirators. One of those six could also flip and say that Trump said that this was all an undeniable but useful sham."

If Turley feels so strongly that there is no basis for Trump to be charged, I wonder why he is not rushing in to defend Trump in court?

I wonder why he is not rushing in to defend Trump in court?

You think he wants to be disbarred or his dog shot? As long as criminals are in charge those are very real possibilities.

 

[Lastamender]

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Jonathan Turley is now so out to lunch, such a partisan legal lackey for Republicans, that he doesn’t even mention the White House organized conspiracy to ignore legitimately validated Elector slates and introduce totally fraudulent electors in their place — a central prosecutorial focus in this case.

Turley’s defense of Trump’s own elaborate pressure campaign to “find” in Georgia the precise number of votes he needed, and of Trump’s phone call reminding the Republican Secretary of State there that not to find these votes would constitute a crime for which he would be subject to prosecution … was frankly bizarre.

 

[Lastamender]

Jonathan Turley is now so out to lunch, such a partisan legal lackey for Republicans, that he doesn’t even mention the White House organized conspiracy to ignore legitimately validated Elector slates and introduce totally fraudulent electors in their place — a central prosecutorial focus in this case. Turley’s defense of Trump’s own pressure campaign to find in Georgia the precise number of votes he needed, his phone call also reminding the Republican Secretary of State that not to do so would constitute a crime for which he would be subject to prosecution … was frankly bizarre.

You vomit narrative. Clean up your mess.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You vomit narrative. Clean up your mess.

F*ck you, Trumpster cultist pig!
… short enough for you?

 

[White 6]

Succinct. And quite correct. We are seeing fascism in action under Joe Biden, and this is but one example of that fascism.

And recall, Nazi's studied Democratic Party means and methods and implemented their own versions.

Try to remember. Turley, said the 2nd impeachment was on valid grounds and then declined to defend Trump, for the damage he had done the country. He was correct then. He is not correct now and it probably point to his political stance as a Libertarian and an acedemic more than anything else. Like they say, those who can, do. Those who can't teach.
Here is a different view from one who did.
“As a legal matter I don’t see a problem with the indictment,”
“I think that it’s not an abuse — the Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”
Trump’s attorneys have claimed that the president was exercising his first amendment rights— a defense that will hold in court.
“They’re not attacking his first amendment rights, he can say whatever he wants he can even lie and tell people the election was stolen when he knew better, but that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech,” he said. “Free speech does not give you the right for fraudulent conspiracy.”
“I think there’s a lot more to come, and I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump’s state of mind,” he said.

Ex-AG William Barr says Justice Department has ‘legitimate case’ in latest Trump indictment

Former Attorney General William Barr believes the Justice Department has a “legitimate case” in the latest indictment against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of spreading lies about w…

nypost.com

 

[excalibur]

Try to remember. Turley, said the 2nd impeachment was on valid grounds and then declined to defend Trump, for the damage he had done the country. He was correct then. He is not correct now and it probably point to his political stance as a Libertarian and an acedemic more than anything else. Like they say, those who can, do. Those who can't teach.
Here is a different view from one who did.
“As a legal matter I don’t see a problem with the indictment,”
“I think that it’s not an abuse — the Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”
Trump’s attorneys have claimed that the president was exercising his first amendment rights— a defense that will hold in court.
“They’re not attacking his first amendment rights, he can say whatever he wants he can even lie and tell people the election was stolen when he knew better, but that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech,” he said. “Free speech does not give you the right for fraudulent conspiracy.”
“I think there’s a lot more to come, and I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump’s state of mind,” he said.

Ex-AG William Barr says Justice Department has ‘legitimate case’ in latest Trump indictment

Former Attorney General William Barr believes the Justice Department has a “legitimate case” in the latest indictment against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of spreading lies about w…

nypost.com

LOL Bill Barr.

Same Bill Barr who sat on the Hunter Biden laptop for a year or more.


Bill Barr.

 

[westwall]

F*ck you, Trumpster cultist pig!
… short enough for you?

No, but that’s the best a fascist twat, like you, can muster.

 

[francoHFW]

Turley must need the money really bad....

 

[Lastamender]

F*ck you, Trumpster cultist pig!
… short enough for you?

 

[mamooth]

What a suprise, conservative arch-liar Turley pushing the "IT'S ABOUT FREE SPEECH" BigLie.

The courts will laugh at it, of course. That BigLie is just designed to separate the morons from their money.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This is not a good way to prove the election was not stolen. All their reasons have not convinced a very sizable amount of people. They need to accept that. And accept that people are going to try and prove it. It is what one should be able to do in America.

I do not think people will let that happen in 2024.

He doesn't have to "prove the election was stolen." He said it was stolen, he has a right to say that. Hillary said hers was stolen, and wasn't arrested. Trump was arrested. THAT'S the problem.

 

[airplanemechanic]

What a suprise, conservative arch-liar Turley pushing the "IT'S ABOUT FREE SPEECH" BigLie.

The courts will laugh at it, of course. That BigLie is just designed to separate the morons from their money.

Not about free speech huh? Hillary said the election was stolen and Trump was an illegit president. She wasn't arrested. Trump said the election was stolen and Biden was illegit. He WAS arrested. Difference? Trump is a republican. How DARE he question an election, right?

She NEVER provided any proof to back up her claims and NOBODY went after her because she had the right to say it. But Trump, different set a rules for that ol' boy. He DOES NOT have a right to free speech and no right to claim an election was stolen. Only democrats have that right.

No. Trump has a right, just as Hillary did, to say an election was stolen.

 

[mamooth]

He doesn't have to "prove the election was stolen." He said it was stolen, he has a right to say that. Hillary said hers was stolen, and wasn't arrested. Trump was arrested. THAT'S the problem.

No, dumbass. He wasn't arrested for saying the election was stolen.

What did you hope to gain by repeating such a stupid lie? More status in your fascist liars' cult? Special rewards from the Lord of Lies?

 

[Care4all]

Jonathan Turley is now so out to lunch, such a partisan legal lackey for Republicans, that he doesn’t even mention the White House organized conspiracy to ignore legitimately validated Elector slates and introduce totally fraudulent electors in their place — a central prosecutorial focus in this case.

Turley’s defense of Trump’s own elaborate pressure campaign to “find” in Georgia the precise number of votes he needed, and of Trump’s phone call reminding the Republican Secretary of State there that not to find these votes would constitute a crime for which he would be subject to prosecution … was frankly bizarre.

Yep! Turley ignored the actual crimes and went with the phony free speech claim, which Smith already addressed in the indictment.

 

[toobfreak]

Jonathan Turley is now so out to lunch, such a partisan legal lackey for Republicans

As usual, when you cannot defend against someone's allegations, the communist always seeks to discredit the MESSENGER instead and hope the reader just never notices.

F*ck you, Trumpster cultist pig!
… short enough for you?

^^^ Like I said. The utterings of a dim mind.