- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jonathan Turley — DC AG looking to charge Trump, Mo Brooks, Trump Jr and Giuliani
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:08 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:08 am
District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine has declared that he is considering arresting President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks with inciting the violent invasion of the U.S. Capitol.
He noted that, while the Justice Department does not believe you can charge a sitting president, he can do so in a matter of days. Ironically, I believe Trump can be indicted immediately as a constitutional matter but that his prosecution would ultimately collapse on free speech grounds.
The Justice Department itself concluded during the Clinton administration that “[n]either the text nor the history of the Constitution” is “dispositive” on this question but has rendered an internal opinion against indictments of a sitting president as a matter of “considerations of constitutional structure.”
I have long disagreed with the view that there is a constitutional barrier to indicting a sitting president.
My problem with this criminal case is not the timing of an indictment but the basis for the indictment. As I wrote earlier, the governing legal standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
As a free speech advocate, I have long criticized that 1969 case and what I consider its dangerously vague standard. However, even Brandenburg would treat Trump’s speech as protected by the First Amendment. Under that case, the government can criminalize speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
jonathanturley.org
He noted that, while the Justice Department does not believe you can charge a sitting president, he can do so in a matter of days. Ironically, I believe Trump can be indicted immediately as a constitutional matter but that his prosecution would ultimately collapse on free speech grounds.
The Justice Department itself concluded during the Clinton administration that “[n]either the text nor the history of the Constitution” is “dispositive” on this question but has rendered an internal opinion against indictments of a sitting president as a matter of “considerations of constitutional structure.”
I have long disagreed with the view that there is a constitutional barrier to indicting a sitting president.
My problem with this criminal case is not the timing of an indictment but the basis for the indictment. As I wrote earlier, the governing legal standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
As a free speech advocate, I have long criticized that 1969 case and what I consider its dangerously vague standard. However, even Brandenburg would treat Trump’s speech as protected by the First Amendment. Under that case, the government can criminalize speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
jonathanturley.org
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:10 am to cajunangelle
You cannot indict a sitting president. They’ll have to handle the matter through impeachment proceedings.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:11 am to cajunangelle
If Trump winds up in jail I don’t know what I’d do. Probably never stand for an anthem or love our country ever again. The demoralization would reach an entirely new level.
This post was edited on 1/13/21 at 9:12 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:11 am to cajunangelle
This is exactly what the media needed to keep Trump in the limelight for the next couple years to keep their rating from falling off a cliff.
This is gonna be muh Russia x3
This is gonna be muh Russia x3
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:12 am to cajunangelle
Why is it that only one side has to play by the rules, yet when they do are still persecuted (and now maybe prosecuted) for it?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:12 am to cajunangelle
IIRC: the NY AG is also gunning Trump and any and all members of Trump's orbit they can.
Plus a grand jury for Trump at SDNY.
No one could survive this. How does Cruz get a pass? Not saying I want him in any trouble.
Did the 'storming' riot break out to save Cruz from objecting?
Plus a grand jury for Trump at SDNY.
No one could survive this. How does Cruz get a pass? Not saying I want him in any trouble.
Did the 'storming' riot break out to save Cruz from objecting?
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:12 am to SirWinston
quote:
If Trump winds up in jail I don’t know what I’d do. Probably never stand for an anthem or love our country ever again. The demoralization would reach an entirely new level.
No need to be demoralized. If they have to charge him, they’re more scared than we think.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:13 am to SirWinston
quote:
The demoralization would reach an entirely new level.
Which is exactly what they want.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:13 am to cajunangelle
Just another dem wannabe tyrant dreaming of building gulags for opponents.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:14 am to Deuces
On Jan 20th even honest Bob said Trump could be charged.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:15 am to cajunangelle
Charge them for what?
This is why Republican politicians suck. Democrats weaponize law enforcement very efficiently, and Republicans stand there with their tongues hanging out.
This is why Republican politicians suck. Democrats weaponize law enforcement very efficiently, and Republicans stand there with their tongues hanging out.
This post was edited on 1/13/21 at 9:15 am
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:15 am to cajunangelle
I hope they try that and every other crazy idea they have. Keep showing the divide. Make it wider. All of this has to come to a head sometime and it may as well be sooner rather than later.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:15 am to SirWinston
quote:
If Trump winds up in jail I don’t know what I’d do.
If 10-20k people show up and do not allow him to be persecuted, that should send a decent message.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:16 am to cajunangelle
The Dems are overplaying their hand.
Posted on 1/13/21 at 9:16 am to cajunangelle
Would any country give him and Melania sanctuary? Israel seems unlikely. Japan? Slovenia?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News