Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has declared that Hunter Biden is allowed to refuse to appear in a deposition before any public testimony -- the very same demand made by Democrats in the prior Congress. That appears the excuse for Democrats to vote against contempt, but...
...it is entirely without legal basis. It suggests that a court would agree that no witness going forward can be required to appear for a closed deposition for questioning by professional staff. Imagine that...
...It would mean that witnesses could simply condition how they respond to subpoenas. Raskin is suggesting that this is a plausible legal basis to refuse to appear and that a court would effectively end compelled depositions. He is also suggesting that the Democrats would have simply shrugged off such contempt by Trump officials who refused their demands for closed depositions. At some point, the costs of covering for the Bidens in this corruption scandal must become prohibitive for the party. This would be a good time to consider those costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sen. Menendez is responding to the latest criminal charges against him related to gifts from Qatar. It is a bizarre scene. He is telling his colleagues that his second federal prosecution threatens all of them...
...It is a glimpse of his defense played out on the Senate floor. He dismissed the gifts as virtual trivialities. Menendez, as in the past, is unlikely to convince many. However, he has shown that nothing says success as much as a hung jury...jonathanturley.org/2023/09/27/the…
...Notably, his litany of actions taken against countries like Egypt is legally dubious. It is the accepting of the gifts as bribes that is the focus, not whether it produced uniform corrupt results. However, Menendez is also raising constitutional concerns over the charges...
DOJ's James Pearse was just questioned by the D.C. Circuit panel. Judge Pan and other judges on the panel are pushing the argument that the appeal should be treated as an improper interlocutory matter and simply dismissed. Notably, the Special Counsel wants a ruling.
...Judge Henderson has pushed the DOJ on the problem of opening the "floodgates" if they allow this prosecution for future presidents. Henderson noted that the DOJ warned previously that such prosecutions are necessarily or unavoidably "political" ...
...Judge Pan just asked Pearce whether the SC is arguing for a case-by-case judgment on when there is immunity. It sounds like that is precisely what the SC is arguing -- a position that could produce unease over the chilling effect on future presidents...
President Biden gave a powerful speech and the lessons that he raised about George Washington should resonate with all Americans. However, his defense of democracy would be stronger if he supported its practice by denouncing the effort to remove Trump from ballots...
...As I just wrote about, Democratic leaders have pushed for years to use the 14th Amendment to block not just Trump but 126 members of Congress. The Democratic party has barred other candidates from opposing Biden in states like North Carolina and Floridajonathanturley.org/2024/01/05/bal…
...I have praised Democrats (including judges) who have rejected this anti-democratic effort, including politicians who (unlike the President) have denounced this effort. It is also true that there are Republicans supporting this efforts...
Anti-Israel protesters just shutdown the California assembly and reportedly required members to flee. Some members denounced the protest as a move to “shut down the democratic process"...sacbee.com/news/politics-…
...The timing of the California protest is hardly optimal for Colorado counsel. The protest occurred just after the Trump team just filed with the Court to object to the ambiguity in how protests are classified as insurrections, citing other violent and disruptive protests.
...Obviously, Jan. 6th was far more damaging to our system and to the U.S. Capitol. However, the appeal to the Supreme Court asks for a discernible and bright line in how disruptive protests are treated for the purposes of 14th Amendment disqualifications, particularly without any prior action of Congress or related criminal conviction.
The office of Secretary of State Jena Griswald issued a statement that, since the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, Trump's name will remain on the ballot "unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling."...
...This statement has appeared on a couple sites and raises a novel question of whether it could effectively avoid review by the Supreme Court by mooting the issue for the primary ballot if the court simply runs out the clock before Jan. 5th...
...At that point, some could argue that it would be moot if there would be no change of the ballot. Yet, it is clear that this issue will only repeat itself for the general election. The Court should rule, but the position could remove the urgency of a ruling before Jan. 5th...
The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: "The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified."...courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file…
...This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of "first impression." My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view...jonathanturley.org/2023/08/21/the…
...It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots