Jonathan Turley: J6 Panel Failed To Present ‘Credible Criminal Case’ Against Trump

( Exclusive) – This week saw the January 6th Committee vote to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, which included a proposal to indict former President Donald Trump, adding to the nearly constant attacks he’s experienced ever since he dared to throw his hat in the ring for the highest office in the land years ago in 2015. Has there ever been an American president who has been targeted this viciously by the Democratic Party in the history of our country? It certainly doesn’t seem like it.

Jonathan Turley penned a piece that was published on his website where he discussed how the Committee’s finale failed to bring anything truly substantial that would make a compelling criminal case against Trump. They essentially just took the same evidence that they have put forward over the course of the last 12 months, but wrapped in different packaging, hoping that it would, miraculously, bring about the desired results they wanted to see. No doubt one of their goals is to prosecute Trump on criminal charges so he will be ineligible to run for office in 2024.

However, the evidence they have produced is not nearly enough to take this fantasy and make it reality. In fact, the Committee’s reliance on a new videotape featuring former Trump aide Hope Hicks is, as Turley so eloquently stated, placing “hope over experience” in the criminal Justice system.

“While still based largely on the failure to act, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) insisted that ‘if that’s not criminal, nothing is.’ The opposite may be true from a First Amendment perspective. If the failure to act is criminal, it is hard to see what would not be criminal under this standard,” Turley wrote. “After members like Schiff, again, promised new evidence to support criminal charges, the Committee continued its pattern of rehashing previously known evidence with network-quality videotapes.”

Turley then said, “The failure of the Committee to offer any new and direct evidence of criminal conduct was obvious at the outset. Vice Chair Liz Cheney began her remarks by again detailing what Trump failed to do. It was a repeat of the prior hearings and for some likely left the impression of actors who are refusing to leave the stage long after the audience departed.”

The video featuring Hope Hicks stating that she had also asked Trump to issue a public statement calling for peace during the riot at the Capitol building and telling him there wasn’t any evidence of systemic fraud is mostly duplicative. But that has not stopped folks like former acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal from going on MSNBC and hailing the tape as “evidence I’ve never seen before from Hope Hicks.”

He then went on to make the bizarre claim, “I think that tells you all you need to know about premeditation. Call it criminal intent. The House committee’s evidence here is very strong.”

“So all you need for premeditation is the failure to accept the weight of evidence or to act promptly after the start of a riot. Katyal might ‘call it criminal intent’ but many judges would likely call it something else,” Turley asserted in his post. “The fact is that the J6 Committee failed to change many minds largely because of what was on display in the final public meeting. It was the same highly scripted, one-sided account repeated mantra-like for months. There is justifiable anger over these accounts, but this hearing was billed as presenting the case for criminal charges. It missed that mark by a considerable measure.”

Turley explained, “Of course, to raise obvious legal barriers to prosecution today is to invite an Internet flash mob accusing you for being an insurrectionist or fellow traveler. Major media from the Washington Post to National Public Radio routinely refer to the riot as an insurrection despite a deep disagreement over the characterization of the criminal conduct. The media unrelentingly echoes this one view despite polls showing most citizens view that day as a reprehensible “riot” motivated by loyalty to Trump.”

The mainstream media did what they do best, which is bury the significance of the J6 Committee’s failure to produce what it referred to as bombshell evidence of some kind of criminal conspiracy orchestrated by Trump, in an effort to manipulate the narrative and continue to paint up the former president as an evil mastermind attempting to destroy the republic. In reality, it’s the left who are trying to accomplish that goal.

Members of the committee, like California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, have made repeated promises that the next hearing would finally reveal the direct evidence of such a conspiracy, only to go back over the same evidence that has already been presented.

“The Committee was playing to the same audience and knew that they did not have to produce such evidence to make their case. Experts like Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe have previously declared Trump’s felonies were shown ‘without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.’ That included what Tribe suggested was a clear case of attempted murder of former Vice President Pence,” Turley remarked.

Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade made an appearance on MSNBC where she told viewers tuned into the network that Trump could potentially be charged with manslaughter because of the riot. Of course, the only problem here is that a crime needs to have certain requirements be met that cannot be proven by a soundbite or desire by themselves.

“Instead, much of the evidence cited what an official failed to do. Yet the last hearing seemed to focus on a number of things that did not occur, from a draft tweet that was not sent to an executive order that was never signed. There were discussions of appointing Trump attorney Sidney Powell as a special counsel, seizing voting machines or replacing the Justice Department’s leadership. It is a chilling list, but it is also notable in that no final action was taken on such proposals,” Turley elaborated.

However, as Turley pointed out, this is not even remotely close to evidence demonstrating a “guilty mind.” Crimes need both guilty minds and guilty acts. Developing an entire criminal case on the failure to act to stop violence is a pretty hard case to make.

“The most damning evidence concerns what Trump failed to do in those 187 minutes,” Turley noted. “However, while repeatedly omitted by the Committee, Trump told his supporters to go to the Capitol ‘peacefully’ to support Republicans challenging the election. At 1:11 p.m., Trump concluded his speech. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his statement to stop — roughly an hour and a half later.”

Turley says the speech seems to be protected by the First Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent coming from the Brandenburg v. Ohio case from 1969 where the court ruled that calling for violence is actually protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

The speech made by Trump falls below that standard, Turley went on to say.

“Repetition of the same earlier points does little to strengthen the case for prosecution. The Committee has presented a powerful record of Trump’s failures on that day, including his reckless rhetoric and lack of response. Trump may be guilty of all of these failings, but that does not mean that he is a criminal actor. The reason that Mar-a-Lago presents a greater threat to Trump is that it is based on his actions, not inaction, in retaining classified material,” Turley declared.

So yet again, it looks as if Trump will survive an attack made on him by the ruthless left. How many more of these things does the former president have to make it through before people finally admit that the radical progressives are obviously trying to destroy him and his family?

Copyright 2022.

Overturn The Electionhref>