Jonathan Turley Weighs in on Michigan AG's Threat of Criminal Charges Against Legislators Who Met With Trump

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

As I reported earlier today, Michigan State lawmakers met with President Trump at the White House on Friday at his request, as his campaign continued to challenge election irregularities in heavily-Democrat areas of the Great Lakes State.

As I wrote in the article, Democrats and their lapdogs in the “mainstream” media were apoplectic about the meeting; certain that Trump would convince (bribe, threaten, beg, you pick) the legislators to sell their souls to the devil — him — then promptly return home and somehow steal the election from the state’s “rightful” Democrat voters.

Despite the innocuous readout of the meeting released by the lawmakers — which should have proven yet again that the Left got its “progressive” panties in a bunch over nothing — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and others have issued threats against those who oppose vote certification, which caught the attention of George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley:

Writing on his website, Turley said, in part:

According to the Washington Post, Dana Nessel ‘is conferring with election law experts on whether officials may have violated any state laws prohibiting them from engaging in bribery, perjury and conspiracy.’

It is same weaponization of the criminal code for political purposes that we have seen in the last four years against Trump.

“Notably, the focus is the same discredited interpretation used against Trump and notably not adopted by the impeachment-eager House Judiciary Committee: bribery.”

Turley then applied the “shoe on the other foot test” — which, by the way, is a good idea for the hopelessly-predisposed-to-bias among us (on either side of the aisle), none of whom will do anything of the kind — and wondered “aloud” how the Left would react if AG William Barr threatened Democrat lawmakers with criminal investigation for challenging Trump votes.

“Imagine if this was U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr threatening Democratic legislators with possible criminal investigation for challenging Trump votes. The media would be apoplectic. Yet, when used against Republicans, major publications and politicians are celebrated for the use of the criminal code for such politically motivated threats.”

The operative word being “apoplectic,” as in: Fredo and Lil’ Donnie (a vague reference to The Most Trusted Name in News™).

Aaand then the hypocrisy — the depth of which, in the case of liberals, knows no bounds.

Turley wrote that threats to the lawmakers who met with Trump are nothing short of bribery:

“In Politico, Richard Primus wrote (in an op-ed titled “Why Michigan’s Top Legislators Should Cancel that Meeting with Trump”) that these legislators should not attend a meeting with Trump because ‘it threatens the two Michigan legislators, personally, with the risk of criminal investigation.’ This ridiculous legal claim is based on the bribery theory:

The danger for Shirkey and Chatfield, then, is that they are being visibly invited to a meeting where the likely agenda involves the felony of attempting to bribe a public official.

Under Michigan law, any member of the Legislature who ‘corruptly’ accepts a promise of some beneficial act in return for exercising his authority in a certain way is ‘forever disqualified to hold any public office’ and ‘shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years[.]’

“We repeatedly discussed this theory during the Trump presidency […] The theory was never ‘exactly’ or even remotely right, as evidenced by the decision not to use it as a basis for impeachment. And yet, it’s back.”

“What is most disturbing, is that,” Turley wrote, “if there was an objection to voting irregularities or fraud, these legislators would be acting under their state constitutional authority.”

The notion that Michigan lawmakers who met with Trump — or any lawmakers in a similar situation with any president — would be investigated for carrying out their official duties under state law, as Turley said, is nothing short of bribery — which I prefer to call blackmail.

In closing, the good professor wrote:

“As with the attacks on Republican lawyers, the threats against Republican legislators has been met with utter silence in the media. Just the familiar sound of crickets.”

Jonathan Turley is a liberal. Not a crazed “progressive,” or worse; a true liberal. A liberal who successfully argued for Trump during the sham impeachment trial in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Schiff (pun perhaps suggested), in this case. A liberal who’s integrity rises above his personal political proclivities. That is a rare bird in today’s world of bitter partisan politics, on either side of the aisle — even if the other guys started it.

H/T ~ Twitchy