Jonathan Turley Just Gutted the Jan 6 Indictment Against Trump

Townhall ^

[Tench_Coxe]

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley has posted at length about the perils of indicting Trump, namely that most of the charges he could face would be protected by the First Amendment, though he added that the temptation to indict Trump in DC—an anti-Trump bastion—might prove “irresistible” for the Justice Department. He was right, along with the free speech concerns, too.

[Robert357]

it was not about free speech...it was about his actions...What action would that be??

His criminal action is being Trump, who scares Democrats and the Deep State. His very being is too frightening for the Deep State to allow. This has been going on in various forms for years.

[Fireone]

Levin and Trump are friends, they talk frequently. No need for public fanfare, it just complicates things.

[joesbucks]

We Levin keeps talking, so the fanfare continues.

[joesbucks]

Well I’m not deep state and Trump concerns me. He will normalize these actions. So that brings up 2 things. First we’ll have some dem like AOC win the White House and they will use Trump’s actions as precident to do their brand Trump actions for liberal uses. Second, Harris is now VP. Let’s say she doesn’t like the election results and she’s willing to do what Pence wouldn’t.

[joesbucks]

You would. Did those who went to the Capitol ? Trump has to a degree cozied up to those actions by those who did take his words a bit more seriously as time has gone by. His pardon talk is but just one way.

[Political Junkie Too]

You would.

Of course I would. I just told you so.

Are you trying to make some kind of disparaging remark about me?

-PJ

[joesbucks]

Nope. Just pointing out what you “heard” wasn’t “heard” by those who breached the Capitol.

[Political Junkie Too]

You used the word "heard" in quotes, twice, as if I wrote it somewhere. Why? Can you show me where I wrote anything about hearing something?

Why are you putting words into my mouth when my own words stand on their own? What is it that you thought I heard that those in the Capitol did not? Please enlighten me about why, whatever it was, you are right and I am wrong about who "heard" what in the Capitol.

-PJ

[joesbucks]

I’m not generally into name calling, but you must be nuts or playing games.

[antceecee]

Exactly!

[Political Junkie Too]

Nice deflection. You won't explain your post, so I'm the one who's nuts and playing games. You say you know what "wasn’t “heard” by those who breached the Capitol" but you won't share it with me, because I'm playing games.

Got it.

-PJ

[antceecee]

There was NO PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER WHEN TRUMP WON IN 2016!

[joesbucks]

Exactly.

[Political Junkie Too]

And yet, you still won't defend your own post.

-PJ

[joesbucks]

It needs no defense.

[Political Junkie Too]

You debate like a child.

Good-bye.

-PJ

[joesbucks]

What was the debate? You being obtuse?

[joesbucks]

I’ll let him sort it out.

https://i.imgur.io/BmJzmda_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium