"If the precedent set by Mr. Trump takes hold, America may be entering a period when each new administration takes aim at the last one in a cycle of retaliation..."

"... a what-goes-around-comes-around pattern more familiar in authoritarian countries than in developed Western democracies. Even presidents more restrained than Mr. Trump may succumb to the temptation to follow at least some of his example."

Writes Peter Baker, in "In Going After His Foes, Trump Sets a Precedent That Could Haunt His Allies/President Trump’s retribution campaign risks ushering in a cycle of retaliation in which each new administration takes aim at the last one" (NYT).

"Even presidents more restrained than Mr. Trump"? You mean, like Biden?

But, we'll be told, what Biden did to Trump is different. I mean, it wasn't "ushering in a cycle of retaliation." That's something that can only be done by someone who didn't start it.

ADDED: From a column Jonathan Turley published last Friday:

Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population. Yet, this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about.... Now the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face the same false statement charge. The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump (including obstruction-related charges) will face his own obstruction charge. Whether karma or lawfare, Comey will now have his day in court.

"When asked why he removed classified material on Afghanistan, Biden admitted 'I guess I wanted to hang on to it for posterity’s sake.' That is precisely..."

"... what critics on CNN and MSNBC accused Trump of doing: removing material as types of keepsakes or trophies. One president was indicted for that and one was sent along his way to a second term in office. The real indictment that comes out of these tapes is a type of political racketeering enterprise by the Washington establishment. It took a total team effort from Democratic politicians to the White House staff to the media to hide the fact that the President of the United States was mentally diminished. If there were a political RICO crime, half of Washington would be frog-marched to the nearest federal courthouse...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "'For Posterity’s Sake': Why the Biden-Hur Tapes is a Virtual Racketeering Indictment."

But there is no "political RICO crime," Turley assures us. It's a conspiracy to do politics. In short, politics. Do you agree?

"If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump."

Said JD Vance, quoted by Jonathan Turley, in "Vance rightly excoriates Europe: What values are we defending?" (NY Post).

Turley: "The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech 'a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.' It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism...."

"[Jack Smith] may be right about obtaining a conviction before a D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump. However..."

"... he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this [new] report makes that abundantly clear. Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Trump said 'fight' ten times in his January 6th speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority. The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases.... One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of former president Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Jacksonian Obstruction: Smith Explains How He Was Planning to Circumvent the Decision in Fischer."

"Nearly two years ago, I wrote that Democratic prosecutors’ lawfare campaign against Donald Trump would make the 2024 election the single largest jury decision in history...."

"The 2024 election will come to be viewed as one of the biggest political and cultural shifts in our history. It was the mainstream-media-versus-new media election; the Rogan-versus-Oprah election; the establishment-versus-a-disassociated-electorate election. It was also a thorough rejection of lawfare. One of the things most frustrating for Trump’s opponents was that every trial or hearing seemed to give Trump a boost in the polls.... In the end, Trump read the jury correctly. Once the lawfare was unleashed, he focused on putting his case to the public and walked away with a clear majority decision...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Donald Trump just won the greatest jury verdict in American history" (The Hill).

"These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or..."

"... to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to 'sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.' Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecutions like the one [against Trump] in Manhattan. ... [C]ritics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams Administrations were often threatened with disbarment or other legal actions for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say 'well that was then and this is now.' The point is that the bar association also has a duty to protect the core rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Think twice? Bar group tells members it’s OK to criticize, but don’t dare call Trump conviction 'partisan'/Connecticut Bar Association makes chilling claim that calling the case one of political prosecution has 'no place in the public discourse'" (Fox News).

"So Bragg would use one dead misdemeanor to trigger a second dead misdemeanor to create a felony..."

"... on the simple notations used to describe payments for a completely legal nondisclosure agreement. This circular reasoning is already incredibly creative, but the actual evidence... is even wackier. Bragg decided to start with a witness to discuss an affair that is not part of the indictment. David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, had supposedly been paid to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.... On cross examination, Pecker admitted that had Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money, that he had killed or raised such stories with Trump for decades before he ever announced for president...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "On Alvin Bragg and the art of not taking the law too seriously" (The Hill).

"They are coming after us. You don't need to talk to them about anything about us."

Fani Willis allegedly said to Terrence Bradley, quoted in this tweet from Jonathan Turley.

"The University of Wisconsin-Madison is at the center of another controversy this week over its diversity training program...."

"The controversy could not come at a worse time for the university, which recently agreed (after considerable debate and pushback) to cut down on its diversity-related materials in exchange for $800 million in funding from the state. The board originally refused the money rather than cut back on the training before finally yielding to the pressure. The immediate responsibility for the training material falls on the shoulders of [law school dean Daniel Tokaji] whose staff approved this mandatory training and presumably reviewed the material in advance. If they did not, they are equally at fault...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Wisconsin-Madison Under Fire Over Mandatory Anti-Racism Training."

I've written about this controversy a couple times already — here and here — but I'm blogging it again for 2 reasons:

"The Biden Administration went all in on the false claim as a cudgel to use against Texas for trying to secure the Southern border with its own personnel to stop the unprecedented surge of illegal migrants."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "The Biden Administration and Media Accused of Another False Claim on the Border."

Perhaps you heard: "On Friday night, a woman and two children drowned near Eagle Pass, and Texas officials blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance." 

"The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot...."

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."...https://t.co/Ilwl4e8Wli

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 19, 2023

From the NYT article about the case:

The Colorado Supreme Court is the first court to find that the disqualification clause applies to Mr. Trump, an argument his opponents have been making across the country. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify him. The plaintiffs there have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. 

The cases hinge on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?....

"With a formal House vote on an impeachment inquiry expected next week, President Joe Biden was confronted this week about his knowledge and involvement..."

"... in alleged influence peddling by his son and brothers. An irate Biden seemed to morph into Bill Clinton and — echoing his predecessor’s 'I did not have sex with that woman' denial of an earlier scandal — effectively declared that he did not have relations with 'those people.' As with Clinton, the denial was absurd, even insulting. Roughly 70% of voters (including 40% of Democrats) believe Biden has acted either unlawfully or unethically in the overseas business dealings of his family. More importantly, the House has interviews, documents, photos and even audiotapes contradicting Biden's continuing denial of having any knowledge of his son's financial dealings.... Bill Clinton eventually gave a redemptive-sinner speech and effectively confessed to being a cad. Yet for Biden, after years of categorical denials, it will be a bit more difficult to reveal himself or his family as being corrupt.... Influence peddling... involves the selling of access to or influence on one's public office. Even if you claim the money did not influence your decisions, knowledge of or interaction with such corruption undermines both the office and the public trust...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "'Bunch of Lies': Biden’s Clintonesque Denial Before a House Impeachment Inquiry Vote" (The Messenger).

By the way, the famous Clinton quote is not "I did not have sex with that woman." It is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Does it matter? Substantively, it depends. Formally, yes. The material within quotation marks must be exact, and later in the column, Turley does get the quote right.

If Clinton hadn't lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky — and maybe he didn't (if "sexual relations" meant penis-in-vagina sex) — there would have been no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to accuse him of committing. He just lied about sex. But what Biden is lying about — if he is lying — are distinct crimes that undermine his fitness for office.

"Even though he has opponents in the primary, the party leadership has ordered that only Biden will appear on the primary ballot."

"And if you want to register your discontent with Biden with a write-in vote, forget about it. Under Florida law, if the party approves only one name, there will be no primary ballots at all. The party just called the election for Biden before a single vote has been cast.... In other states, Democratic politicians and lawyers.... are seeking to bar Trump from ballots under a novel theory... that Trump must be taken off the ballots because he gave 'aid and comfort' to an 'insurrection or rebellion.'...  In a recent filing supporting this effort, figures as prominent as media lawyer Floyd Abrams and Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky have told the Colorado Supreme Court that preventing voters from being able to cast their votes for Trump is just a way of 'fostering democracy.'... Some national polls show Trump as the most popular candidate for the 2024 election... Yet, despite 74 million voters supporting Trump in the last election, these Democrats are insisting that voters should not be allowed to vote for him, in the name of democracy...."

Writes Jonathan Turley, in "The Guardians of Democracy: Democrats Move to Protect Democracy from Itself."

"Despite the Bidens’ denials about money, it seems to be everywhere and nowhere — metastasizing and spreading..."

"... throughout the dozens of accounts, banks and family members identified by House investigators. Yet many in the media and most Democratic members of Congress appear to be firmly committed to assuring that all of this remains 'a wonderful life' for Joe Biden and his family."

 
Writes Jonathan Turley, in "Government on Loan: The Biden Family’s Version of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’" (The Messenger).

The "wonderful life" reference is set up in the first 2 paragraphs:

"If Trump were accused of using fraud for pecuniary gain or of lying to federal investigators, there would be no free-speech problem."

"The complaint, however, focuses on the lies rather than any larceny or standalone crime. It is diffuse in saying that raising doubts over the election undermined the value or results of voting. Previous challenges have been made to certification of presidential elections with little basis (including by Democrats) and even alternative sets of electors have been submitted without criminal charges. This criminal intent is based on Trump being told by many people that the election was not stolen and he could not stop its certification.... However, Trump followed the advice of a second, albeit smaller, set of lawyers who told him there was a basis for challenging the election. That is not a crime. It is, in my view, protected political speech...."

Writes Jonathan Turley in "How Donald Trump’s Indictment Could Backfire on Joe Biden" (The Messenger).

"Jack Smith acknowledges in the indictment that Mr Trump, like any American, had a right to challenge the results of the election, and even to falsely claim that he only lost because of supposed voter fraud."

It says in "Four takeaways from Trump's indictment for 2020 election interference" (BBC).

That points me to Jonathan Turley's tweets, which I'm reading here:

Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku... 

"The brilliance of the Biden team was that it invested the media in this scandal at the outset by burying the laptop story as 'Russian disinformation' before the election."

"That was, of course, false, but it took two years for most major media outlets to admit that the laptop was authentic. But the media then ignored what was on that 'authentic laptop.' Hundreds of emails detailed potentially criminal conduct and raw influence peddling in foreign countries. When media outlets such as the New York Post confirmed the emails, the media then insisted that there was no corroboration of the influence peddling payments and no clear proof of criminal conduct.... Now that the House has released corroboration in actual money transfers linking many in the Biden family, the media is insisting that this is no scandal because there is no direct proof of payments to Joe Biden.... [T]he media’s demand of a direct payment to President Biden is laughably absurd. The payments were going to his family, but he was the object of the influence peddling. The House has shown millions of dollars going to at least nine Bidens like dividends from a family business. As a long-time critic of influence peddling among both Republicans and Democrats, I have never seen the equal of the Bidens...."

 
Writes Jonathan Turley in "America’s State Media: The Blackout on Biden Corruption is Truly 'Pulitzer-Level Stuff.'"

Turley illustrates his piece with this fabulous old cartoon:

Here's a discussion of that cartoon at the subreddit r/PropagandaPosters, where we see that it's a 1910 Puck Magazine cartoon by Louis M. Glackens. Here's a page full of work by Glackens (at Wikimedia).

"Reporters who profess to support women and denounce deadbeat dads have either ignored this story or belittled her mother, Lunden Roberts."

"Roberts is widely dismissed as a 'former stripper.' That appears how she met Hunter, but it is often used to paint her in the same way that the media gleefully reported Hillary Clinton denouncing women involved with her husband as mere 'bimbo eruptions.'... " 

Writes Jonathan Turley in "Daddy Dearest: Hunter Forced to Appear in Arkansas in Fight [Over] His Child’s Name and Support."

Making it a crime not to censor.

Here's Jonathan Turley in "The Tower for Twitter? UK Minister Calls for Jailing Social Media Bosses Who Do Not Censor Speech":

[A]fter Musk decided to buy Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European countries to force social media companies to censor Americans. The European Union quickly responded by threatening Musk and other executives. Now, Technology and Science Secretary Michelle Donelan has announced plans to jail social media executives if they fail to censor so-called “harmful” content on their websites. The government, of course, will determine what is deemed too harmful for citizens to see or hear....

The bill focuses on "'all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred' based on various progressive characteristics, including transgenderism."

"The former FBI director, who has been teaching and speaking on government ethics, joined others in celebrating the upcoming arrest of Trump because nothing says 'ethical leadership' like a patently political prosecution."

Blogs — scoffs — Jonathan Turley.

Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her email scandal despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material “carelessly.” He declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” 

Yet now Comey is heralding the effort of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on a pledge of bagging Trump for some unspecified crime....