Our Corrupt Uniparty's Jihad Against Trump Is Trashing Our Legal System
Regular readers know that I value the legal analysis that Jonathan Turley, professor at GWU Law School, daily has on offer. He has done yeoman work in keeping the Hunter case before the eyes of the public, through his articles that regularly appear in outlets like the NYPost, The Hill, and USA Today. He continues to do similar work in the J6 case against Trump, which is a blatant attempt by the political establishment, through the corrupt DoJ, to assert control over political speech in America. To Turley’s credit he distinguishes and distances himself in that regard from other legal types, including “my good friend Bill Barr,” who are enthusiastic about this opportunity to suppress dissent from Ruling Class diktats.
Sadly, Turley professes to believe that his “good friend Bill Barr” and other unnamed lawyers and professors are acting in what Turley terms “good faith”. Anybody with half a legal brain knows that the attempt to criminalize political speech is being done in anything but “good faith.” Turley knows this because he has pointed to the SCOTUS caselaw that makes this issue very clear. Turley surely knows that these “good faith” commentators are also fully aware that the prosecution of Trump was brought with the realization that it flew in the face of those precedents—one of which involved the same corrupt legal hitman, Smith.
Just as bad, Turley continues to claim that the document case against Trump is “strong on the evidence and the law.” Again, anyone who knows jack about classification knows that that case is complete BS. The legal shenanigans that Smith has engaged in—running a Grand Jury in DC to conduct all real business and then presenting a FL Grand Jury with perfunctory indictments—is a pretty clear sign of that, as well.
I get that Turley wants to maintain his standing as a non-partisan legal analyst, but it’s distressing that he should pretend that these cases are legal matters over which there can be “good faith” disagreement. They are not. These cases simply represent lawfare—politics through malign, unjust manipulation of the legal system—to rid the body politic of a foreign body, a body that was not approved for participation by the Ruling Class and its Uniparty: The Orange Man.
Just as distressing was the refusal of the SCOTUS to hear the case brought by TX and other states in the wake of a clearly irregular election. That irregularity was, in no small part, the result of malfeasance on the part of Turley’s “good friend Bill Barr”. My working assumption is that the Roberts majority in that case believed that some semblance of what they considered to be “normality” could be restored to the nation by acquiescing in the removal of Donald Trump from the presidency. The strong evidence for the orchestration of events surrounding the J6 event lends support to the view that the entire removal project was coordinated among all branches of government. Instead of normality, what we have going on is a concerted coup on multiple levels that has the aim of overthrowing the American constitutional order.
As if to rub it all in, we’re now learning of more judicial shenanigans. I’ve seen no comment on this from Turley, but I find it extremely hard to believe he’s unaware of it, given that Turley has shown himself to be fully aware of the possibility that the judge in the case could play a key role in preventing timely review of the constitutional issues—which, to his credit, Turley maintains should be pre-trial in this case:
So even assuming that Smith can prove Trump lied, there would still be constitutional barriers to criminalizing his false statements. That is why the threshold constitutional claims in this indictment should be addressed by the courts before it goes forward.
The problem could come down to the judge. Even liberal pundits admit that Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has used past Jan. 6 cases to vent, is the “worst [judge] Trump could have got.”
That’s a bit of an odd statement for Turley to make. Why does he rely on the statements of “even liberal pundits” without explaining why they’re correct in stating that Chutkan is the “worst [judge] Trump could have got”? Is he suggesting that Chutkan is prejudiced against Trump? Or is he suggesting—more likely, IMO—that she is well known to be an ideologically driven hatchet woman for the Left? Turley doesn’t choose to enlighten us on that score, which on its face casts dubious imputations on Chutkan as a judge. In the final paragraphs he certainly suggests political motives could be at play—a sensible attitude, but not one that reflects well on our judiciary. Perhaps Turley has this in mind:
Chutkan has handed out tougher sentences than the [Justice Department] was seeking in seven cases, matched its requests in four others, and sent all 11 riot defendants who have come before her behind bars."
There were four cases where prosecutors didn't seek jail time, but Chutkan locked them up anyway.
Chutkan could effectively certify the deeper constitutional questions and let the parties seek appellate review. Or she could insist that Trump be tried before the constitutional questions are considered. Although the D.C. Circuit is not a friendly court to Trump, the Supreme Court would likely balk at the criminalization of false political speech.
That would mean that Chutkan could force a case to be tried that should not be tried. And even with a conviction, there would remain a serious threshold constitutional question that is not entirely answered by determining what was in the mind of Donald Trump.
As if to confirm all Turley’s (and everyone else’s) worst suspicions, Chutkan gave Trump less than 24 hours to respond to a motion for a gag order—when the standard practice rule in DC allows for 14 days. But now …
@realDonaldTrump
THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE “ASSIGNED” TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE! WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF D.C.
What’s Trump talking about? Kash Patel has the details, which I lift from CTH:
Kash Patel: “Judge Chutkan, for those who don’t know, represented Burisma, Hunter Biden’s fraudulent consulting firm, she was a lawyer at the same law firm with Hunter Biden. But Seb, let’s put that aside. What other matters are there for her recusal? In 2017 when Devin Nunes and I were running the Russiagate investigation, we figured out who paid for the Steele dossier. Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump. That’s big-time stuff.
Clarification: The money wasn’t what was laundered through the FBI and the FISA court. The false “dossier” claims were what was “laundered.”
On the eve of us winning that disclosure, before the world knew, Fusion GPS took us to federal court and that case landed in JUDGE CHUTKAN’S COURT ROOM. … After a month of heavy litigation where Judge Chutkan knew the ins and outs of Fusion GPS, our proceedings, all possible witnesses, etc., when she could not prevent us from prevailing, she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?”
“We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS. The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”
GORKA: “Boies Schiller Flexner is the same company where Chutkan and Hunter Biden worked!”
PATEL: “You gotta ask yourself, Seb, how come it took Chutkan a month [to recuse herself]? … She wanted to block the bank records.
Imagine if we never found out who paid for the dossier. … She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller.
How could she possibly be allowed to stay on this case? And it wasn’t us, Seb. We got her off because of her own history. That precedent is what Donald Trump’s lawyers must apply this week.”
CTH comments:
Perhaps this recusal issue is why four other district court judges including Boasberg sat in the back of the courtroom for President Trump’s appearance last week. Perhaps the judges were proactively contemplating who would meet the DC recusal threshold.
My legal son tells me:
"It seems crazy to me that in the federal rules of criminal procedure the defendant is not entitled to an automatic substitution of judge. In plenty of states the defendant has the unconditional right to request a new judge one time, as long as he makes his motion before the judge rules on any substantive matter."
The difference being, I suppose, that federal judges are gods.
Mark, you have nailed it. "My working assumption is that the Roberts majority in that case believed that some semblance of what they considered to be “normality” could be restored to the nation by acquiescing in the removal of Donald Trump from the presidency.... the entire removal project was coordinated among all branches of government. Instead of normality, what we have going on is a concerted coup on multiple levels that has the aim of overthrowing the American constitutional order." This echoes eerily what happened in Germany in the early 1930s. Many honorable Germans went along with Hitler as the best possibility for restoring Germany. Fortunately for the world, unlike Germany where the people were solidly behind Hitler, our government is on life support when it comes to popular support. Our future will likely mirror "1984" where the great majority of citizens whom he referred to as 'proles' go about their lives ignoring and being ignored by the government.