Holdout juror on Clancy case drops legal bombshell

Holdout Juror’s Lawyer Files Bar Complaint After Defense Attorney Treats “Following The Evidence” Like A Capital Offense

The attorney for the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s mistrial has accused defense lawyer Kevin Reddington of unconstitutional overreach and announced plans to file a bar complaint, because apparently the Sixth Amendment is now optional if the verdict isn’t cute enough.

Reddington has spent the days since the September 4 mistrial attacking Michael Péguy Desronvil, the juror who declined to declare Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Reddington branded him an “obstructionist juror” who refused to follow the law. Desronvil has declined to recant.

Edward Paltzik, Desronvil’s attorney, said Reddington created a “nightmarish precedent” by accusing his client of breaking the law based mostly on what other jurors who wanted a different outcome claimed happened in the jury room. Desronvil rejects that account. He has said he has no doubts about Clancy’s guilt based on the evidence and simply refused to fold under pressure from fellow jurors.

“If the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye,” Paltzik wrote in a post on X.

“That is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in almost 20 years of practicing law. It is categorically false,” he said about the claim that Desronvil broke the law.

“You can’t investigate a juror because the juror followed the law and the evidence and came to a different conclusion than the one that you wanted, Kevin Reddington,” Paltzik added.

Reddington has asked Judge William Sullivan for permission to inspect Desronvil’s phone records, courthouse surveillance footage, juror questionnaire, probation records, and any entries in the state’s domestic violence registry. Because nothing says “I respect the jury system” like a post-trial fishing expedition into a citizen who voted the wrong way.

Paltzik, who has nearly 20 years of experience as a defense lawyer, said he would never publicly criticize a juror or file a post-trial motion seeking to investigate one. “Kevin Reddington was doing his job but the problem is it’s off the rails now,” Paltzik said.

“Kevin Reddington wanted this for his legacy,” he added. “He wanted so desperately to win this trial.”

Legal analyst and law professor Jonathan Turley has also called the request for phone records, surveillance footage, and criminal history “highly unusual,” warning that publicly attacking a juror and then trying to investigate him could send a “chilling” message to anyone asked to serve in a high-profile case.

Sources first told TMZ on September 24 that Desronvil and his legal team planned to seek discipline against Reddington, arguing he should be “suspended, disciplined, or even disbarred” for targeting the juror after the mistrial. Paltzik confirmed the planned complaint on Monday.

Clancy has admitted killing her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, in January 2023 by strangling them with exercise bands after sending her husband, Patrick, out on two errands. She pleaded not guilty and claimed postpartum psychosis made her not criminally responsible. One juror looked at the evidence, declined to play along, and is now the one being treated like the defendant.

Hey folks, please take time to give a click to the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Jonathan Turley Torches Lindsay Clancy Lawyer Over ‘Utterly Reprehensible’ Attack on Holdout Juror

Law Professor Jonathan Turley had some choice words for attorney Kevin Reddington after the Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended in a mistrial.

"The attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency."

Frankly, they were deserved.

Reddington represented Clancy in the trial over the murders of her three young children. He did not merely express disappointment with the hung jury. He went after the lone holdout juror in a manner Turley described as "utterly reprehensible." 

There is a reason lawyers are expected to exercise restraint when discussing jurors. Those citizens are not political opponents, punching bags, or convenient targets for public humiliation. They are ordinary people who have been entrusted with one of the most serious responsibilities in American society. 

Apparently Reddington decided that responsibility went out the window the moment one juror refused to give him the verdict he wanted. "For Reddington and others, the hung jury was less ‘Twelve Angry Men’ and more ‘One Angry Man.’ Yet, what he did in front of the courthouse was utterly reprehensible …" Turley wrote.

Turley went even further, arguing that Reddington knew precisely what could happen when he publicly singled out the juror."…The attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only the three men on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet…"— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 5, 2026.

"But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only the three men on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths," he added. 

"He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments." That is the truly ugly part of this episode. Reddington had every right to argue his client's case. He had every right to be disappointed by the verdict, or lack thereof. He had every right to challenge legal rulings through appropriate channels.What he did not need to do was publicly demonize a juror who simply refused to agree with him.

But Reddington apparently wasn't finished.

Just before the judge officially declared a mistrial, Reddington made a Hail Mary attempt to have the lone holdout removed and replaced with an alternate. The effort failed. But not before Reddington used his filing to accuse the juror of having an inherent bias against people with disabilities or those suffering from mental illness. 

Then, after the mistrial was declared, Reddington went after the juror again. He claimed that Clancy and the other jurors had been "robbed by one man," Reddington made sure the public knew that the supposed villain was one of only three men on the jury. "They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful," he said.

Think about that for a moment. One citizen disagreed with the other jurors. Rather than recognizing that a jury is supposed to deliberate and that disagreement is an essential part of the process, Reddington portrayed that citizen as someone with some mysterious "agenda" who had supposedly stolen seven weeks from everyone else.

That is not an argument for justice. It sounds more like the tantrum of a lawyer who cannot accept that his arguments failed to persuade someone.Reddington then sneered, "I hope that guy can sleep well at night," while boasting that he had "crushed" District Attorney Tim Cruz and accusing Cruz of not caring about the murdered children.

There is something particularly grotesque about turning a murder trial involving three dead children into a courtroom version of a personal score-settling exercise.

Outside the courthouse, women supporting Clancy's murderous acts shouted at Cruz that he "only cared about the [murdered] children" and had no compassion for their mother, who never denied that she was the one who killed them.

Turley correctly invoked the classic 1957 film "12 Angry Men" to make the point that Reddington appears to have forgotten one of the most fundamental principles of jury deliberation: jurors are not required to surrender their consciences simply because everyone else disagrees with them. "The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another."

"Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant," Turley continued. "But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability." 

Exactly. The hero of "12 Angry Men" is celebrated because he refuses to cave to the majority. He doesn't demand that the holdout be removed. He doesn't publicly brand his fellow jurors as villains. He doesn't suggest that someone should be replaced because that person refuses to go along with everyone else. He stands his ground. That is precisely what makes Turley's criticism so important.

Imagine if the logic Reddington appeared to embrace had been applied to Henry Fonda's character. The lone holdout could simply have been tossed aside and replaced by someone more agreeable. The deliberation would end when the majority got tired of hearing dissent. 

That might make for a convenient legal system. It would also be a terrifying one. And this is where Reddington's conduct crosses from merely being aggressive advocacy into something far uglier. A lawyer can fight like hell for his client without treating a citizen who disagrees with him as a human punching bag. The holdout juror did not "steal" anything. 

He did his job. 

He deliberated.

He listened.

And he refused to convict or reach whatever conclusion the other jurors wanted simply because they had the numbers. That is not a failure of the jury system. That is the jury system. 

Turley ultimately brought the discussion back to another classic work, "To Kill a Mockingbird," quoting the principle that should have been obvious throughout this entire episode: "‘The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience,'" 

There it is. 

A conscience does not require permission from a lawyer. It does not require approval from a prosecutor. It does not require agreement from eleven other jurors. And it certainly does not disappear because an attorney is furious that his case did not produce the verdict he wanted. 

Reddington may believe he "crushed" the prosecution. He may believe one juror ruined seven weeks of deliberation. He may believe the juror was biased. But none of that gives him license to publicly put a target on that citizen's back. 

Jonathan Turley was right to call it out. A lawyer's job is to advocate for his client. It is not to publicly vilify an ordinary citizen for having the audacity to exercise his conscience. 

If Reddington cannot tolerate a juror who refuses to fall in line, perhaps the problem is not the juror. Perhaps the problem is the lawyer.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Seattle socialist mayor mocked for ‘irony’ as residents build walls to stop out of control shootings

Seattle democratic socialist Comrade Mayor Katie Wilson is being mocked online over the "irony" of residents in the blue-run city erecting barrier walls in a desperate attempt to stop out-of-control shootings.

Just months after Wilson took office in Seattle, terrified residents in the city’s Aurora Avenue corridor decided to take matters into their own hands to address near-nightly shootings believed to be connected to criminal turf wars, prostitution and illegal trafficking. After weeks of gang-related shootings and high-speed car chases, some residents spent Memorial Day weekend blocking off their own streets using metal planters, dirt, gravel, logs and chunks of concrete. The barricades were set up to block at least three streets leading into the neighborhood.

Though such artifices could incur fines, one resident named Peter Orr told KTVB 7, "It’s either this, or bullets in my neighbor’s houses."

News of the neighborhood barricades in Seattle has garnered scorn for Wilson’s policies online.

Among these was conservative commentator Paul Szypula, who wrote on X, "The Irony is Undeniable."

"When progressive policies result in neighborhoods literally barricading themselves off… that says everything," he wrote, adding, "What should Seattle leaders be doing so residents don’t feel forced to do this?"

Popular conservative account Libs of TikTok mocked, "Seattle residents are now building WALLS on their blocks to keep out criminals."

Commentator Eric Daugherty posted, "Furious blue city residents in Seattle are now building their OWN BARRICADES to BLOCK streets because shootings are so high Omg. This is MADNESS."

"The socialist mayor is IGNORING IT," he added. "BLUE CITIES ARE COOKED!"

Constitutional analyst Jonathan Turley wrote, "Nothing says socialism more than citizen barricades."

He mocked, "In this case, Les Miserables are seeking to protect their property. After electing a mayor who once called for the defunding of police, Seattle neighborhoods are reverting to self-help measures."

Wilson, who was sworn into office this January, wrote in a 2020 opinion piece about the defund the police effort that "there’s never been a better time to try."

In the piece, Wilson posited "there’s a strong argument for simply disbanding police departments and starting over," reasoning that "institutional culture change is hard."

"Leaving aside debates on the left about whether police abolition is possible under capitalism, or at all, let’s stick with the current movement demand of cutting the SPD [Seattle Police Department] budget by half. That’s a lot of officers. It may sound alarming, until you realize that U.S. police perform numerous functions for which armed personnel, trained for violent conflict, are unnecessary or unsuited — and often, unsurprisingly, cause harm," she wrote.

As mayor, however, Wilson has not moved to cut the police by half. She has responded to recent shootings by launching a "multi-pronged gun violence strategy," in which she convened a panel of experts to help the city reduce retaliatory shootings, address youth violence and coordinate efforts between police, schools and community groups. Somehow they need to stop those nasty guns to stop shooting people.

Wilson has paused expansion of the city’s CCTV surveillance and license plate reader programs pending a privacy audit, while maintaining existing police camera systems in high-crime areas, including the Aurora Avenue corridor.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Justice Alito rips Jackson a new one over 'utterly irresponsible' solo dissent

Justice Alito and DEI appointee Jackson

Justice Samuel Alito just unloaded on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's latest solo dissent, and he didn't hold back on Biden's autopen D.E.I. appointee.

Alito's concurrence, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, said Jackson's rhetoric "lacks restraint." He torched claims that terminating temporary protected status for Haitian migrants was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants. 

No, wait, this time it was even better: Alito ripped into Jackson's lone dissent in the high-stakes Louisiana redistricting fight on Monday, labeling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Court moved to fast-track its recent ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Writing in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Alito directly slapped down Jackson, declaring that her "dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered."

"The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power," Alito wrote, adding that that was a "groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

This latest clash just underscores how isolated Jackson has become on the bench, mainly because she isn't the brightest woman, [whatever that is, I'm not a biologist] on the SCOTUS bench. She didn't just split from the conservative majority; she went rogue from her two liberal colleagues too, who refused to sign on to her rant. Jackson unloaded on the Court for supposed overreach, continuing her habit of solo dissents where the Biden pick blasts every big majority decision that happens to go the way of President Trump and the Republicans.

In Monday's unsigned order, the Court cleared the way for Louisiana officials to quickly redo their congressional map, a move expected to boost Republican representation in the state ahead of the midterms.

Alito pointed out that dragging out the 6-3 ruling from last month, which tightened up Section Two of the Voting Rights Act by calling out Louisiana's map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, served zero practical purpose. Jackson's excuses for delaying the landmark decision were "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting," he said.

"The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints,'" Alito wrote. "It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint."

Jackson had clutched her pearls, warning that the Court's action risked meddling in an active election and creating the "appearance of partiality," all while ignoring the voting and legal mess already happening in Louisiana.

Legal watchers noted the unusually sharp tone from Alito, figuring it showed some real internal tension boiling over. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley put it plainly: "Justice Alito had had enough." Professor Turley explained that Alito shredded Jackson's lame 32-day procedural objection, calling it a "trivial" nitpick that put form over substance, especially since nobody asked for reconsideration. It would have meant waiting around for no reason while the other parties had urgent need to get the map finalized.

He added that Alito was particularly fed up with Jackson's "unprincipled" smear against the Court. The whole thing stems from the standard 32-day procedural window before a judgment drops to lower courts. Alito made clear that rule is flexible and mainly exists for rehearing petitions, which weren't coming here anyway.

Now Louisiana is in full scramble mode to roll out the new map, with ballots already mailed and the primary on pause. 

This decision will ripple across the country as other states scramble to get their own maps in order for the upcoming elections.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

FBI serves subpoenas asking for records and communications, source says

The Department of Justice has dropped the subpoena hammer on some Minnesota Democrats who apparently thought obstructing ICE was just another day at the office. Grand jury subpoenas went out Tuesday to five state and local government outfits, including the Governor's Office, the Attorney General's office, and the Minneapolis Mayor's Office, in a federal probe into what sources describe as a possible conspiracy to mess with or straight-up obstruct federal immigration enforcement during ICE ops in the Land of 10,000 Lakes (and apparently endless sanctimony).

The FBI handled the deliveries, demanding records and communications. The DOJ, in classic fashion, had no comment, because hey, why spoil the surprise?

Late last week, Fox News got the scoop that federal prosecutors were eyeballing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for allegedly throwing sand in the gears of law enforcement. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche didn't mince words when he chatted with Fox:

"When the governor or the mayor threaten our officers, when the mayor suggests that he's encouraging citizens to call 911 when they see ICE officers, that is very close to a federal crime," Blanche said.

Walz, never one to let a federal investigation pass without a dramatic pivot, immediately cried foul on X, accusing the Trump administration of "weaponizing the justice system."

"Two days ago, it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly," Walz wrote in an X post. "Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic. The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her."

Frey chimed in with his own brave stand on social media, vowing he "will not be intimidated.""This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this Administration has brought to our city," Frey wrote on X. "I will not be intimidated. My focus remains where it’s always been: keeping our city safe."

Sure, Jake. Because nothing says "keeping our city safe" like turning a blind eye—or worse—to federal officers doing their jobs while your rhetoric gets people whipped into a froth.

The White House wasn't having any of the chaos theater. After a mob of anti-ICE agitators reportedly barged into the Cities Church in St. Paul on Sunday, right in the middle of services, no less, disrupting worship because they decided the pastor was secretly an ICE honcho, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson unloaded on Fox News Digital.

"There is no low these radical leftists won’t stoop to," Jackson said Monday morning. "Jacob Frey and Tim Walz have whipped these rioters into a frenzy and turned them loose to wreak havoc on Minneapolis."

"Frey and Walz should be ashamed for inciting such chaos, but the Trump Administration will continue enforcing the law," she added.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Sunday that the DOJ was launching an investigation into the church disruption, zeroing in on potential federal civil rights violations for "these people desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshipers."George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley weighed in on the legal side of things, breaking down the potential ramifications of the Justice Department’s look into the agitators who targeted that Minnesota church they thought housed an ICE official.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, and check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

All in all, it's another chapter in the ongoing saga of blue-state officials discovering that federal law doesn't come with a "sanctuary" opt-out clause. The subpoenas are out, the whining is predictable, and the left is once again shocked—shocked!—that there might be consequences for treating immigration enforcement like an optional suggestion. Stay tuned; this one's got legs. Or at least grand jury intrigue.

Tweet

Trump admin refers NY AG James for possible prosecution over mortgage fraud

You know what they say about payback that it's something that sounds like beach. This may be what is happening with New York Attorney General Letitia "Get Trump" James.

AG James has been punched with shocking allegations by the Trump administration, having accused her of mortgage fraud. That's bigger than Watergate!

In documents obtained by Fox News Channel's The Ingraham Angle, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, accusing James of mortgage fraud.

Holy moley!

FHFA Director William Pulte dropped a bombshell in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Letitia James of cooking the books to game lending requirements and snag sweeter loan deals. Pulte’s pointing fingers at a Virginia property James allegedly claimed as her main crib—despite being a New York elected official—and a New York building she called a four-unit structure when it’s supposedly five. Why? To score a cushier loan, that’s why.

Fox News contributor and GWU law professor Jonathan Turley, who’s never short on sharp takes, told Laura Ingraham the irony here is “perfectly crushing.” 

He didn’t hold back: “This is a person who prosecuted Trump for everything short of ripping a label off a mattress, and among the charges that were brought in New York, in just the civil but the criminal case, was making false or misleading statements to financial institutions.” 

Turley’s basically saying James is hoisted by her own petard. “As for James, if we apply the Letitia James standard that she created, there’d be little question here. This seems pretty straightforward.”

It gets weirder. James allegedly listed her dad as her husband to file as a married couple. Yeah, you read that right. Turley’s like, “The Supreme Court just stated earlier in March, in a case called Thompson, that they want to see knowing false statements under sections like 10-14, not just misleading statements. These are misleading statements: either it’s your principal residence or it’s not. Either you’re married to your father or he’s your father.” 

Mic drop!

The New York Post dug up documents showing James and her dad listed as “husband and wife” on a property buy in 1983 and 2000. Pulte’s not letting that slide, writing, “While this was a long time ago, it raises serious concerns about the validity of Ms. James’ representations on mortgage applications.” 

James, who’s been Trump’s legal kryptonite, led the 2022 civil fraud suit against him and his crew, gloating through the courtroom drama and cheering when Trump got slapped with a $454 million judgment (now on appeal). In 2025 alone, she’s unleashed at least five legal assaults on the Trump admin, including a push to block DOGE from Treasury systems and another over slashed research grants. Busy lady.

But now? The tables have turned, and the DOJ and James are dodging Fox News’ calls. Turley, back on Ingraham Angle, called the documents “quite damning.” This isn’t the first time someone’s been prosecuted for this kind of thing, and if James’ own standards are applied, she might be in deeper than she’d like. 

Stay tuned—this one’s got legs.

Loving the blog? Toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee if you’re feeling generous – it’s like a high-five with caffeine! No pressure.

Tweet

Israel's top diplomat says VP Harris is clueless about judicial reform 'won't be able to answer anything'

At an event celebrating Israel's 75th anniversary of their founding, Vice President Kamala Hahahaharris opposed Israel's potential judicial system reforms and implied that the current Israeli court should remain in its current form. The problem is, however, Harris has no idea of how the Israeli judicial system works, nor any clue as to what reforms have been proposed because she hasn't read them. 

[H/T World Israel News]

But why should a little thing like knowing what you're talking about stand in the way of your opinion?

“Under President Joe Biden and our administration, America will continue to stand for the values that have been the bedrock of the U.S.-Israel relationship, which include continuing to strengthen our democracies, which… are both built on strong institutions, checks and balances — and I’ll add an independent judiciary,” Harris told a crowd of thousands in Washington, D.C. on Monday night.

Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman, [Israel's equivalent to Jonathan Turley] had drafted most of the framework for the reforms attended the celebration when Harris said words. Unlike the clueless seals in the audience, Rothman did not applaud after Harris' statement about the independent judiciary. 

In an interview with radio station Kan Reshet Bet on Wednesday morning, Foreign Minister Eli Cohen responded to Harris’ comments. “I can tell you that if you ask her what she’s actually opposed to in the reform, she won’t be able to answer,” he correctly pointed out.

He said that Harris “would not be able to quote from a single clause” in any of the judicial reform bills. And it's highly doubtful she could do the same with the U.S. Constitution, but that's a horse of a different gender.

Cohen said during a recent trip to Washington, “I heard comments from [Biden administration] officials [against the reform.] I asked them, ‘What exactly bothers you [about the legislation]?’ And no one knew what to tell me.

“I don’t know if [Harris] actually read the laws. My assessment is that she did not.”

If you would like to understand the judicial reforms, click here.

It's like a Democrat bill on Capitol Hill: they are 10,000 pages long and Congress has five minutes to read it before signing it. "You need to pass the bill to know what's in it," former Speaker Nancy "Dancing Hands" Pelosi said about a similar bill proposal.

The Biden administration has repeatedly expressed its disapproval of the floated changes to Israel’s legal system, much to the chagrin of some American lawmakers and Israeli politicians.

Biden told media that he was “very concerned” about what just happened in his skivvies and, oh yeah, the reforms. He insinuated that he was refusing to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House due to the ongoing legislation, but, like Harris' word utterances, he had no idea what the teleprompter was referring to.

The U.S. government has also reportedly attempted to interfere with Israel's self-governance and funded numerous protest groups involved in organizing the ongoing demonstrations aimed at stopping the reforms and bringing down the current ruling coalition.

Tweet

Jonathan Turley destroys Debbie Wasserman Schultz's dumb hearing questions

Unfortunately, she gives blonde jokes credibility

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Duh) went head-to-head with George Washington Law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley and showed the nation that she was completely out of her league, over her head, and in deep poo. Sadly, she gives dumb blonde jokes credibility.

Debbie Downer tried to discredit Turley in the House hearings on the weaponization of the federal government. That's like taking a rubber knife to an AK47 fight.

Debbie's questioning began with this gem: "So essentially your answers to questions yesterday were your own opinion and pure conjecture."

Professor Turley politely responded, “No, I wouldn’t say that, I try to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files—” 

Then Debbie interrupted him with the same BS premise: “But this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?” 

Turley tried once more to answer the cretin's question: “No, I’ve come to give legal advice based on facts that are in the public domain and I would really refer to—” 

True to form Wasserman Schultz didn't allow Turley to complete a sentence saying that his answers were using up her time to question him [I paraphrase]. Since she couldn't discredit his answers nor compete with his intellect, the only thing she could do was to try to keep him from responding to her questions. She is an obvious idiot and a rude one to boot.

Subsequently, during a Friday morning appearance on “Fox and Friends,” Professor Turley immolated Wasserman Schultz's insistence that he was merely offering "opinion and conjecture" about Twitter working with the FBI, but that he had no “specific or unique knowledge” to speak about the issue. 

Professor Turley responded to the idiot congress-cretin:

"The congressman was asking if I’ve ever worked at Twitter as a condition for my talking about what the Twitter files. It’s like saying you have to work at the Pentagon if you want to testify about the implications of the Pentagon Papers. The point of witnesses before committees is often to give legal analysis based on what is known and what could be found in this investigation.

"The exchange she was referring to was a member who expressly asked me about the Twitter files and what this suggests about what I’ve called ‘censorship by surrogate.’ And then she went into this issue of, ‘Well, you’ve never worked at Twitter. How do you know what goes on at Twitter,’ which is completely absurd.

"The whole premise of my testimony was that Twitter has now authenticated and confirmed these facts. These facts are coming from Twitter. These are Twitter files. And the facts indicate that they had weekly meetings with the government.

"They indicate that the government would send long lists of citizens and others to be targeted, censored, to be in some cases, banned. Those are very serious allegations that raise constitutional questions, which is why I was there to discuss it."

Evidently, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clueless about the role of an expert witness and not very bright. She is the embodiment of the Democratic Party, which has half the country fooled by their false promises about the future, and their lies about the love of the country they can't wait to change.

If the Democrats could have their way, there would be no free speech and no Constitution as we know it.

Tweet

Trump threatens to have Pelosi, Shiff and the Bidens testify if House impeaches

President Trump told House Democrats to pull the trigger and get the impeachment process over "fast" so that he can go ahead and have Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, the Bidens and other Democrats testify before the Senate.

The President tweeted on Thursday just before Pelosi's announcement that she wants the Judiciary Committee to go forward with articles of impeachment:

“The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House. They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country. But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy."

He then continued:

“Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is.”

“I was elected to ‘Clean the Swamp,’ and that’s what I am doing!”

It is unclear as to why he capitalized the words "Country," "Clean" and "Swamp," but he is unpredictable when it comes to punctuation and that's why He Is President!

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing that prefixed the next state of the Democratic-majority House inquiry, with useless law professors three of whom worked for top Democrats and have previously voiced hatred for Trump. The fourth, Democrat, professor Jonathan Turley [no relation to my fictional character Flopwood Turley, from my novel "Queen of Charts"] voiced his opinion that countered grounds for impeachment and warned of the future repercussions if the Democrats went ahead with the proceedings.


"The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power," Pelosi said on Thursday morning as her hands flew in all directions in a frenetic dance. "The president's actions have seriously violated the Constitution," she falsely claimed.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold "The Eyebrow" Nadler, (D-NY) along with the other chairs of committees involved – Adam Schiff, (D-CA), and Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY) – will now draft articles of impeachment. Should the House pass those articles, the impeachment inquiry would transform into a and full-fledged Senate trial that will be led by the Republicans and will call actual witnesses. [A witness is defined as a person who saw or heard something first-hand. The Democrats had only one witness at the House inquiry, Gordon Sondland, and he did not believe anything he heard was factually impeachable, but he FELT it was. Everyone else who testified was useless fluff.]

In spite of Trump's threats to the Democrats, he does not have the power to actually call witnesses to testify in the Senate proceedings. The input will come from Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats and the White House.

Once the Senate receives articles of impeachment. they will begin working on two resolutions — one that governs the trial timeline, and the other that sets up witnesses for closed-door depositions, as well as which witnesses will be required to testify on the stand.

And while the House inquiry was as interesting as watching paint dry, the Senate hearing should have significant drama if Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower are called upon to testify.

Adam may be schiffing in his pants.


Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   You can also see my other blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Comey and all the possibilities

I don't know if fired FBI director James Comey ever had a sexual relationship with former President Barack Obama's dog Bo, it's possible, but I don't know for sure and I'm not going to speculate.

Some may think that Comey beats his wife--nobody knows for certain and she isn't saying anything, but it's possible--I just don't know.

When he was in college, women failed to come forward accusing him of rape, but who knows, he may have been the campus rapist. 

Lordy, we may never know, and I doubt he'll admit to it.

Insofar as Comey giving FBI information to a friend in order to leak it to the media, well I, in fact, do know he did because he admitted that he did, but that it was unclassified.

I know that leaking any information, both classified and unclassified, concerning the FBI is illegal, and I know that the law, if followed scrupulously as Comey says it should be, would dictate that Comey be tried in a court of law.

Jonathan Turley writes in The Hill: "The FBI has already indicated that these were FBI documents and nonpartisan Justice Department officials has indicated that they should have been treated as privileged or confidential and not disclosed. Moreover, as discussed below, even the Post recognizes that they "could have been illegal" depending on the outcome of any investigation."

Law Professor Turley was referring to the Washington Post which gave White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders 2 Pinocchios for stating that she believes what Comey did regarding the FBI memos was "possibly illegal."

I also know that it is not the job of any FBI director to decide how the evidence of an investigation should be handled, yet in Hillary Clinton's illegal email server, he decided to interpret the law in her favor, perhaps because his wife and daughter both voted for Hillary Clinton, but I don't know for sure if that's the reason. 

It's possible.

Comey has bags under his eyes that suggest he has aged well beyond his actual 57 years, perhaps due to fabricating stories that put him in the center of events. Perhaps the bags come from tanning goggles that were too tightly fitted. I don't know, but it's possible.

Comey's hands are large, but it's possible they are no reflection on another part of his body that is quite small.

His brain--what were you thinking?


Tweet