Latest News

August 23, 2023

Of the latest legal strategy intended to keep President Trump off the ballot in ‘24, law professor Jonathan Turley said this:  “Quite frankly, I think this is the single most dangerous constitutional theory I’ve seen pop up in decades…”

He was speaking of the argument that under the 14th Amendment, Trump can be barred from running for President again --- and from ever holding any office in the federal government --- after supposedly violating his oath of office and supporting an “insurrection” or “rebellion” against the United States.  Keep in mind, the 14th Amendment was passed to deal with the political aftermath of the CIVIL WAR.  Now THAT was an insurrection.

As Turley said Tuesday night to Laura Ingraham, “That brings you to the original question:  what was January 6?”  Many citizens, including Turley personally, characterize it as a protest that became a riot.  And that’s what it was.  “It was not a rebellion or insurrection,” Turley said, while acknowledging that some disagree.  The problem, he said, is that Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection or even incitement.  Special counsel Jack Smith notably did not charge him with either.

So, why didn’t he?  We all know he would’ve charged Trump with insurrection or incitement in a heartbeat if he’d had even the slightest evidence to make those charges stick, and that’s with the low bar required by a highly partisan DC court.  Consequently, if Trump can’t even be charged with incitement, how does the 14th Amendment come into play?  It defies reason, but since when has that mattered to the left?  This plan is a shameful abuse of the 14th Amendment for no other purpose than election interference.

Taking Trump off the ballot would disenfranchise many millions of people who would have chosen to vote for him.  It just shows that with all the lip service Democrats pay to claims of “disenfranchisement,” they doesn’t really care about that principle.  If it helps them win, they’ll gleefully disenfranchise as many Trump voters as they possibly can.

If there are any leftists reading this --- and I know there are --- just admit it, because you know it’s true.

Turley noted the irony when he said, “It’s a curious way to support democracy, by keeping your opponent off the ballot.”  He condemned the violence of the J6 riot just as we have from the beginning, though he was more critical of Trump’s speech.  “But that doesn’t mean it was a rebellion or insurrection,” he said.  There was no plan for it --- the rioters weren’t even armed --- and it obviously would’ve gone nowhere, as every force in government would’ve been aligned against it.

Since Trump was not charged with insurrection, he said, “this is a considerable reach in my view, and it’s dangerous.  And it could not have come at a worse time for our country.”

Contrast this treatment of Trump with what Turley calls the “theatre of the absurd,” the ‘Justice’ Department’s kid-gloves handling of the Hunter Biden finance case.  Newly-appointed Special Counsel David Weiss has really dug himself into a hole.  He’s now the most controversial person Attorney General Merrick Garland could have picked to be special counsel, and yet somehow he is it.

Turley’s piece goes over some familiar territory, because our newsletter readers are already extremely well-informed on this case, but it at least tells you you’re not crazy in your assessment of it.  The big question now for Turley is “why, knowing the distrust over the past handling of the investigation, Garland would make an appointment guaranteed to further deepen that unease.”  Maybe the most openly partisan attorney general we’ve ever seen just assumed we’d sit back and take it.  Sorry to disappoint him.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham is calling for the removal of Weiss as special counsel, citing the revelation that it was only after two IRS whistleblowers came forward that he chose to indict Hunter Biden for ANYTHING.

“An independent special counsel is needed in this case,” Graham tweeted (I mean, “posted on X”).  “It is abundantly clear Mr. Weiss needs to be removed from the investigation of Hunter Biden.  To say this has been botched is an understatement.”

Even some Democrats are concerned about the political fallout from the “special handling” of Hunter’s case.  And after getting no response from AG Garland, the GOP chairmen of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means Committees, who together are doing the job of the DOJ in the Hunter investigation, have subpoenaed four IRS and FBI officials who were present at the meeting that proved to be the last straw and caused lead investigator Gary Shapley to blow the whistle.

“[The whistleblowers’] testimony raised serious questions about the federal government’s commitment to evenhanded justice,” they wrote.  “The DOJ [Office of the Inspector General] acknowledged they received information from the whistleblowers but have not indicated whether their office is meaningfully investigating the disclosures.”

If Weiss is replaced, it won’t be the first time more than one special counsel has handled a case.  John Yoo pointed out Tuesday night that Ken Starr was not the first special counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton and Whitewater.  After the first special counsel, Robert Fiske, was seen as not doing a thorough or sufficiently timely job, political pressure led to his replacement.  That could happen again.  From the archives…

But nothing is simple:  DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has informed the congressional committees that a “potential jurisdictional issue” might prevent him from investigating the IRS whistleblower claims.  His letter to them was light on explanation, so they wrote back asking for him to clarify.  “Based on your statements and the DOJ’s pattern of politically motivated actions,” they wrote, “we are concerned that the DOJ is limiting your office from fully investigating the disclosures provided to your office.”

To help them understand the scope of his investigation, they asked for specific documentation about the limitations he thinks he will have.  Horowitz needs to cite chapter and verse (well, law and/or regulation).  They want this by September 6.

Wouldn’t it be something if after the whistleblowers came forward because they were blocked in their investigation, the inspector general was blocked in his investigation of whoever blocked THEIR investigation?

Finally, try not to be too surprised, but at least seven prosecutors in Weiss’s office over the past several years are apparently Democratic donors, and one of them even appears to have a previously unreported relationship with the Biden family, at one time referring to Hunter Biden as “a good friend.”  The WASHINGTON EXAMINER has taken a closer look.

Hunter’s finances should never have been investigated out of the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s office.  For crying out loud, Hunter’s father was a VERY longtime U.S. Senator from Delaware before becoming Vice President, and his brother Beau was attorney general in Delaware before he passed away in 2015.  And now we learn that Hunter apparently had at least one good friend in that office (though, to be fair, he seems to have had friends in many places!).  The Delaware office simply should not have been handling this.  But I guess that’s just “the Delaware way.”


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Once and for all, is Jack Smith a legitimate special counsel?

Closing statements Tuesday in Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom

Comments 1-1 of 1

  • Dave Hiegel

    08/23/2023 05:30 PM

    Biden and most of congress and senate should hang for treason and any other alphabet agencies employed to corruption against our Constitution. Trump is our president.