Jonathan Turley on Jack Smith’s attempt to impose a gag order on Trump
Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.
Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.
The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”
I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.
How many people are confident in the Court, the jury pool, and prosecutors in this DC case? I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “confident” is. Democrats are probably quite confident that Trump will be found guilty no matter how weak the evidence in the objective sense, or how convoluted the legal theories employed to charge him. And Republicans are probably quite “confident” of the pro-left bias of those institutions.
Another thing: it’s the trial itself that involves a blatant attempt to “prejudice” the 2024 election – against Trump. That is also glaringly obvious.
Turley says:
Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.
Ya think?
You may recall that Turley is not a Trump fan at all, but he tends to be one of those people who tries to apply the same standards to both sides. Quaint.
It is also rather quaint that Turley follows up that statement about the perception of intentional election interference by the Biden administration with this:
I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.
If Turley doesn’t view this lawfare as intentional election interference, then what is Smith’s “lack of restraint” about? It seems to mostly or only be directed at GOP targets – does this not arouse Turley’s suspicions?
More:
More importantly, this is no typical case.
Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.
Doesn’t seem all that “inexplicable,” if you imagine that it’s deliberate election interference.
The Democratic Party activists (regular Dems are drones) are the neo-Bolsheviks, intending and succeeding in transforming the USA into the USSA, the United Socialist States of America. With more than 3 million Federal bureaucrats, all Dems, a governing army.
I fear we are done for. This has been going on since Woodrow Wilson; we cede an inch, they take a mile. And so it goes. The voters and state legislators put an end to the great USA when the 16th Amendment was passed, to tax the incomes of “only” a few very wealthy. Where have you heard this notion before? Recently? The Dems are still at it!
Turley is one of those seemingly well-meaning people who simply lives in a world that no longer exists. No matter what happens in the 2024 election, we are already living in a post-Constitutional order. Roughly half the country no longer believes (if they ever did in the first place) in the Constitution or the concept that people should be able to choose their government through free and fair elections. It’s possible that we might be able to return to the principles on which this country was founded, but it will be a long uphill battle
For Smith and the leftist government/media complex, Trump is guilty unless acquitted, rather than innocent unless convicted — and they would not accept an acquittal.
Itbs a Kangaroo Court set up, judge, prosecution and jury are all on the same page, Jack doesn’t want his Kangaroo to get out.
American’s rights are under constant attack.
I have a minimal understanding of precedent with respect to how courts gained the ability to infringe on constitutional provisions; but how can a Court dictate what a defendant says in public? Never mind that the Prosecution, and their shills, typically say whatever they please. Keith Ellison vs Derek Chauvin is one glaring example. So, the standard is that a defendant, who is presumed innocent, can be gagged if their public statements might impact the prosecution’s case? This suggests that Prosecutors intend to try their cases in Public, but fear defense rebuttal. All else aside, it must be a weak case. I wonder if this only applies to defendants of a particular political persuasion.
While I am at it, the the currently common practice of bringing both state and federal charges for the same crime seems to me a blatant case of double jeopardy; and another violation of basic rights. If nothing else, it supports the current fashion of punishing a defendant financially, perhaps ruinously, even when a conviction is not attained.
Despots from across the ages would admire the travesty that we call a legal system.
That one man could create such fear and loathing among the Democrats is a vote of confidence for that man, Trump. It’s something that the Democrats are blind to. Can they read the polls? Don’t they notice that every new indictment brings greater support for Trump.
How they would love to jail him on contempt charges -thinking it would frighten his supporters. I don’t think so.
It’s early, but Jack Smith is so obviously vindictive and underhanded, that even LIVs will notice. It won’t help the Ds come election day.
JJ they don’t care about what support for Trump is. The plan is to get him through technicalities, or at least put him in a position where the never trumpers/GOP can take him out.
i.e. make it so that he can be taken off the ballot in states via 14th amendment argument and then drag their heels so its not corrected in time for the election.
Bring up so many legal cases that the GOP feel compelled to replace him as the candidate.
If all else fails – cheat cheat cheat.
There’s zero intention of letting this election be determined by the vote of the people, hence his popularity doesn’t matter to them.
I think both Turley and Dersh feel some need to maintain their liberal bona fides by throwing in statements like, “I don’t see it that way, but I can understand why his supporters would” and the like. The leftist commenters over at Turley’s site are constantly calling him out for appearing on Fox and in the Post and so forth, calling him a shill and a Trump-lover.
Call me cynical but I think in the end Jonathan Turley will vote democrat across the board as always.
The parallel story is the Dem’s attempt to suppress RFK, Jr.’s campaign. They have gone so far as to deny him Secret Service protection. There was an incident a few days ago where a heavily armed man attempted to approach Bobby Jr. He was intercepted by private security.
But what if RFK, Jr.’s campaign takes off? Will the Dem’s kill him, too? And then what?
Agent Smith, no soul.
The Dems ALWAYS want a sure thing. The idea of win some, lose some is alien to them. If they were facing a judicial duel they would poison their opponent.
What is the end game?
Trump will not be silenced, anymore than the scorpion will not sting.
What ever gag order is placed, will be violated within the hour.
What then? Arrest the defendant? Who will bell that cat? Assuming Trump stays out of the Judge’s immediate physical jurisdiction, will there be a standoff between the Secret Service, Trump’s private security, and whatever local sheriff deputy is tasked with bringing him in? He presumably will not miss whatever bail he forfeits. It could get interesting.
The fact of the matter is that Trump will be convicted by a DC jury regardless of the evidence or the decision on this motion.
I doubt that any of the Dems appreciate how much of an appetite is building for a “revenge Presidency”. It almost doesn’t matter whether Biden is impeached or not – the Republicans might be smart to just let the inquiry run it’s course slowly and deliberately – the Biden crime family isn’t going to start looking any better.
The Dems are so used to living on contrived grievance that they are unlikely to recognize the real thing when it hits them!
Call me cynical but I think in the end Jonathan Turley will vote democrat across the board as always.
==
I was a regular on his blog (until his moderator banned me for some baffling reason). I’ve never seen him endorse a candidate or discuss voting choices.
The leftist commenters over at Turley’s site are constantly calling him out for appearing on Fox and in the Post and so forth, calling him a shill and a Trump-lover
==
I think you could make the case that two of the three principal leftoid commenters currently operating on Turley’s boards are ActBlue recruits.
You can make the case that a large proportion of left wing commenters on any blog other than those that toe their line are paid trolls.
Hillary had an outfit called “Correct the Record” which was essentially an organization trolling the internet on her behalf. Soros could fund dozens of these characters for a fraction of the cost of a single DA race.