A Clinton-appointed federal judge in California ruled in a case involving Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Committee’s subpoena requests that President Trump and his legal adviser likely committed federal crimes in attempting to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election.
That’s also likely all you’ll hear about this from most media outlets, but it’s a pretty convoluted ruling that runs to 44 pages. Even the judge himself admitted that his ruling in this case has no direct bearing on whether Trump will face criminal charges. He wrote, “The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit.”
Which begs the question, “Then why would a judge make such an incendiary claim when it’s outside the bounds of the case before him?” Similarly, why would any prosecutor publicly declare that Trump is definitely guilty of multiple crimes, even as he’s quitting because the D.A. reportedly decided he didn’t even have enough evidence to get an indictment?
I’m not a prosecutor or a judge, but if I were, I like to think I’d take the job too seriously to make public statements that someone I disagreed with politically was guilty of felonies without providing any evidence, or bothering with the formality of a trial to prove it first.
Of course, if I were the judge in this case, I would have thrown it out because this Committee was illegally formed without the required participation of Republicans chosen by the Minority Leader, so it shouldn’t have any subpoena power at all. I also like to think I would have resisted adding, “And while it’s not at issue, I’d just like to say that I think what Pelosi did is a felony.”
Here’s more from Bonchie at Redstate.com on why this judge’s opinion is “one of the most insane interpretations of the law I’ve ever read.”