The Return of Michael Cohen: A Disbarred Attorney Takes Center Stage in a Dubious Prosecution

C-Span/YouTube Screenshot

Below is my column in USA Today on the expected indictment of former President Donald Trump and the prospect of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg putting Michael Cohen on the stand as his star witness. Yesterday, I wrote about the early skirmish between Cohen and his former counsel. That is only a taste of what is to come in the target rich environment of a Cohen cross examination.

Here is the column:

If former President Donald Trump is indicted, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would be prosecuting a case that has been widely criticized as long on politics and short on the law.

The courts would have to address a controversial case in which a city prosecutor attempts to prove a federal crime long ago declined by the U.S. Department of Justice. They also would have to deal with a charge brought seven years after the alleged offense, despite a two-year statute of limitations for the underlying misdemeanors (or a five-year period for a felony).

And Bragg would have an even more unpalatable prospect in putting two key witnesses on the stand embodying a case that borders on the legally indecent: a former porn star and a disbarred lawyer.

Michael Cohen worked for Trump

The star witness is one of the most repellent figures in New York. It is only the latest reinvention of Michael Cohen – this time from legal heavy to redemptive sinner. Cohen spent much of his time when he worked for Trump threatening critics, journalists and even students.

In 2015, students writing for The Harvard Lampoon played a harmless prank on Trump by having him sit in the stolen “president’s chair” from the Harvard Crimson for a photo. In response, Cohen used his signature bludgeoning style against the students. He was quoted by a student on the Lampoon staff as saying: “I’m gonna come up to Harvard. You’re all gonna get expelled. If this photo gets out, you’ll be outta that school faster than you know it. I can be up there tomorrow.”

On another occasion, when a journalist pursued a story he did not like, Cohen told the reporter that he should “tread very f—ing lightly because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f—ing disgusting. Do you understand me?”

After he was arrested and Trump refused to pardon him, Cohen proved that when you scratch a lawyer, you can find a foe.

Cohen may be joined on the stand by Stormy Daniels, who agreed to a $130,000 payment to hush up an alleged affair with then businessman Trump. Bragg would have to show that Trump made the payment only with the election in mind, which would have made the money an undeclared campaign donation to himself. But there are a host of other reasons why a married celebrity would want to hush up a one-night stand with a porn star.

Case is similar to failed prosecution of John Edwards

In John Edwards’ prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also sired a child with her. Edwards denied the affair, and it was later revealed that Fred Baron, Edwards’ campaign finance chairman, gave money to Hunter.  Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, also obtained funds from heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon to pay to Hunter.

The Justice Department spent a king’s ransom on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws, because the payments were designed to bury an election scandal. Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.

The jury clearly believed there were ample reasons to hush up the affair beyond the election itself.

Despite legal flaws in the case, Bragg is counting on favorable judges and jurors in New York City. Win or lose, he would reap a huge political reward in being the first to charge Trump.

Ironically, Trump also could come out ahead politically. Of all the possible charges he could face, this is the one he would likely invite. Bragg would give Trump strong evidence that Democrats have politically weaponized the criminal justice system against him.

However, it’s Cohen who might profit the most. He already has tried to cash in on the burgeoning market of liberals obsessed with Trump, even hawking a T-shirt with the image of a jailed Trump as a way to “celebrate the fall of the Mango Mussolini.”

Cohen’s cross examination will be the most target rich environment since the Battle of Thermopylae. Of course, prosecutors often put dubious figures on the stand, but Cohen is someone who has shredded legal ethics and the criminal code in pursuit of his own interests.

Cohen’s primary talent has been an impressive moral and ethical flexibility. He gladly did the dirty work for Trump until it became more beneficial to turn against him.

One could say that Trump and Cohen deserve each other, but the legal system does not deserve what may soon unfold in a New York courtroom.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley


300 thoughts on “The Return of Michael Cohen: A Disbarred Attorney Takes Center Stage in a Dubious Prosecution”

  1. As I congratulate you on you hitting milestone after milestone in your blog, it is just amazing how you seem to think the rules don’t apply to Donald Trump–Sorry if you’re offended, but that’s what its’ like and being an echo chamber for the MAGA crowd underscores any credibility you may have–Cheers.

    1. “[Y]ou seem to think the rules don’t apply to Donald Trump.”

      Here’s the Left’s notion of “rules:”

      `I’m not a mile high,’ said Alice.

      `You are,’ said the King.

      `Nearly two miles high,’ added the Queen.

      `Well, I shan’t go, at any rate,’ said Alice: `besides, that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now.’ (_Alice In Wonderland_)

  2. “One could say that Trump and Cohen deserve each other, but the legal system does not deserve what may soon unfold in a New York courtroom.”

    Or one could say the Legal System has become a Star Chamberesque travesty of justice and deserves all the criticism leveled at it.

  3. Trump, an authoritarian-wannabe, is now calling for the outright removal of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Fulton County DA Fani Willis and NY AG Letitia James. He should not be above the law. The 3 who are considering criminal charges should be allowed to continue presenting evidence to their grand juries, and James’s civil trial against Trump will start in the fall. He’s also facing a civil trial in April, and there are other civil suits progressing.

    1. And today Trump referred to Bragg as a “Soros backed animal,” a nice racist two-fer. Then he posted two photos, one of Bragg and one of himself with a baseball bat held up as if to hit someone.

      “Nice DA you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to him” call to violence.

    2. “Trump, an authoritarian-wannabe”

      But you can’t name where Trump is proven to be authoritarian. The ones you praise forget the rule of law and the Biden administration is filled with authoritarian despots. Bragg is performing political prosecutions and Smith is a political hatchet man.

      ATS, you always put yourself in a bad light as a Stalinist, so your support of Political hatchet men is understandable.

  4. According to ABC News (, there are six things Corcoran has been ordered to testify about:
    1. “[T]he steps [Corcoran] took to determine where documents responsive to DOJ’s May subpoena may have been located”
    2. Why Corcoran “believed all documents with classification markings were held in Mar-a-Lago’s storage room.”
    3. “[T]he people involved in choosing Bobb as the designated custodian of records for documents that Trump took with him after leaving the White House, and any communications he exchanged with Bobb in connection with her selection.”
    4. “[W]hether Trump or anyone else in his employ was aware of the signed certification that was drafted by Corcoran and signed by Trump attorney Christina Bobb then submitted in response to the May 11 subpoena from the DOJ seeking all remaining documents with classified markings in Trump’s possession.”
    5. “[W]hether Trump was aware of the statements in the certification, which claimed a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago had been conducted, and if Trump approved of it being provided to the government.”
    6. What Corcoran “discussed with Trump in a June 24 phone call on the same day that the Trump Organization received a second grand jury subpoena demanding surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago that would show whether anyone moved boxes in and out of the storage room.”

    News is reporting that Corcoran is expected to testify in the next few days.

      1. I don’t think Mr. Bragg could convict a ham sandwhich of being a ham sandwhich. Nothing like live entertainment.

    1. The perverse bias of our media does great harm to our democracy. Left Wingers stay silent whenever they are reminded just how pathetic they are. Trump? $130,000 is the value of a woman’s integrity, safety, wholeness, her right to justice?

      In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told “Dateline NBC” that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly “turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ‘no.’ . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no.’ . . . He wouldn’t listen to me.”

      “it was a real panicky situation.” She said that “he was just a vicious, awful person.”

      Pressed by Myers as to whether she was raped, Broaddrick said she had been. “It was not consensual,” she insisted. As for her feelings now toward the president, Broaddrick said: “My hatred for him is overwhelming.”

      Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because “I just don’t think anyone would have believed me.”

      1. Lynyard Skinner and Edward Mahl is the same ‘you know who’, parroting the same, stupid points.

        Bill Clinton was impeached and subjected to endless investigations. So Clinton’s a bad example of someone who supposedly got away with something. But it makes a snappy What About!

        And that’s the whole idea. Snappy What About’s resonate with Trumpers. Even if it makes no sense, a snappy What About sounds like a slap-down to viewers of Fox News. And What About’s ending with ‘Clintons’ are like comfortable old slippers.

      2. Trump has a civil rape trial starting in April, filed by E. Jean Carroll. It’s too bad that Broaddrick didn’t have a civil suit as an option against Clinton.

  5. The new lament for Alvin (Bragg) and his Chipmunks in the Manhattan DA’s office. The moneyshot line is, of course:

    “You never see me fall apart

    In the words of a broken heart
    It’s just emotion that’s taken me over
    Tied up in sorrow, lost in my soul.
    And where are you now
    Now that I need you
    Tears on my pillow
    Wherever you go
    I’ll cry me a river
    That leads to your ocean
    You never see me fall apart”

    (Oh yes we have, Al … lol)

    1. mespo—-indeed, one of your masterpiece comments…….But, you are too young to remember the BeeGees!!

    2. Beautiful Mespo!

      Why not everyone keep a hop-n-skip happiness in their walk.

      If only I could get back to look like a young guy, blonde, sunglasses in a Hawaii shirt legally.

  6. Jonathan: In a new Reuters-Ipsos poll, 70% find the allegations against Trump in the Stormy Daniels episode are very or somewhat believable. Even 50% of Republicans agreed. Not good news for Trump facing a potential jury pool in NY.

    And what you have ignored in your attacks on Michael Cohen is that the Bragg case is small potatoes compared to the more serious criminal charges Trump faces in Georgia and Jack Smith’s continuing criminal investigation. In the latter case Smith is methodically following the evidentiary trail. US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Friday that Trump’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, could not assert the attorney-client privilege to prevent him from having to testify before Smith’s grand jury. That ruling is on appeal but it is likely Howell’s ruling will be upheld. Corcoran’s testimony will show that Trump misled his attorneys to hold onto classified docs he wanted to keep. That will be important to show Trump’s “criminal intent”. Another arrow in Smith’s quiver.

    When Fani Willis drops the hammer in a Georgia what will you say about the witnesses in that case? You are going to have your hands full in the coming weeks and months!

    1. DM, it would appear that you just claimed that the so-called “justice” system in New York is entirely biased, corrupt and distinctly not impartial and dispassionate.

    2. Dennis McIntyre says:
      :…”Corcoran’s testimony will show that Trump misled his attorneys to hold onto classified docs he wanted to keep. That will be important to show Trump’s “criminal intent”. ” …

      BS if Trump wanted or intended to ” hold onto classified docs” , all he had to do was use the Copier in Mar a Lago or find a Office Depot OfficeMax – but He DIDN’T, hence he showed a lack of intent to covet the documents. Even so if it is so, Biden will also have to be Criminally indicted on the same grounds.
      Maybe that’s for the best, with Trump and Biden both out of the 2024 Race, we will see some fresh-blood in the Election.

      As for Stormy Daniels, Who cares Who’s rubbing their genitals together. America has caught up with the Europeans with goings on of Affairs and Mistresses.
      Stormy’s not even a A-List Porn Star, just the Bang-Bros.

      I have had a lingering question for years: Was Bill Clinton wearing the Blue Dress when he stained it?

      1. If Trump didn’t care who knew about him having sex with Stormy, he wouldn’t have hidden it. As for the classified docs, my guess is that Trump will be indicted because he obstructed justice, and Biden and Pence won’t, because they cooperated.

        1. DM: ” he wouldn’t have hidden it ” for god’s sake Man, Donald trump has nothing to hide (Total Chic Magnet $):
          1. Candice Bergen · 2. Kara Young · 3. Kylie Bax · 4. Jacqueline “Jackie” Siegel · 5. Gabriela Sabatini · 6. Ivana Trump · 7. Marla Maples · 8. Melania …
          Stormy D. – Who knows (He Does) and Who cares (No One & Sicko’s).

            1. Anonymous – He is not being prosecuted for rape, or “prosecuted” at all. The allegation is that he raped a woman in a try-on room of Bergdorf Goodman in about 1995, and encounter that she says lasted 3 minutes! (Per Wikipedia) For some reason, she failed to report the assault and only brought it to the attention of the public in 2019 – more than 24 years after the alleged assault. Credulity is strained. Unlike Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, Trump has no history of either violence (Clinton) or unconensted-to touching (Biden) toward women.

              1. I didn’t say that he was being prosecuted. I said that there’s a trial. It’s a civil trial.

                “For some reason, she failed to report the assault”

                Many women do not report rapes to police. If you don’t understand why, you haven’t spent enough time talking to women about it.

                “Trump has no history of either violence (Clinton) or unconensted-to touching (Biden) toward women.”

                You’re basing your claim about Clinton and Biden on allegations, and the allegations against Trump are even more voluminous than the ones against Clinton and Biden, so your claim is BS. Not only has he been accused by about 2 dozen women of rape or assault (, he’s on a very public tape admitting that he grabs women by the p*ssy and kisses without waiting for consent. And he’s also been accused of walking in on the changing room in a teen beauty pageant ( And there too, he admitted to Howard Stern that he’d walk in while contestants were getting dressed: “You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

              2. I tried responding, but it hasn’t posted. Perhaps it included an unallowed word.

                I didn’t say that he was being prosecuted for rape. It’s a civil rape trial.

                ” For some reason, she failed to report the assault ”

                If you don’t understand why some women don’t report their rapes, spend some time talking to women about it.

                As for “Unlike Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, Trump has no history of either violence (Clinton) or unconensted-to touching (Biden) toward women,” that’s total BS. Over 2 dozen women have alleged sexual assault or rape by Trump, two of whom will be testifying at the Trump-Carroll trial. Trump is on the Access Hollywood tape admitting to kissing and grabbing women by the genitals without consent, and he’s on tape with Howard Stern admitting that he’d walk into beauty pageant changing rooms without consent while women and teens were undressed.

                It’s allegations for all three of them: Clinton, Biden, and Trump.

            2. Interesting: the judge ruled that there will be an anonymous jury in Carroll v. Trump, citing Trump’s record of attacking “courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters.”

              1. Unfortunately, what ATS quoted is not what the judge said. ATS is not trustworthy.

                Look at how concerned ATS is on unproven issues, but when the conservative Supreme Court Judges were threatened that was fine with ATS.

                ATS supports violence and doesn’t believe in the rule of law.

          1. One or More things are for sure, Democrats are guilty of “Obstruction of ̶J̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ Candidacy” – Trump’s Candidacy
            The Dem’s overriding modus operandi : Get this WW III going to save the Fiat Economy and help George Soros get-even with Russia’s Nuevo-Nationalism.

        2. Trump didn’t obstruct justice but we have seen Biden actively obstructing justice. I don’t understand what having sex with Stormy has to do with obstruction, but people like ATS have sexual hangups that obstruct their growth.

        3. Contesing a subpoena is not “obstruction of justice”. Obstruction of justice is erasing 33k emails sought by the FBI and destroying the equipment that held the emails, but not before hiding the emails on a laptop of an employee without telling the FBI.

      2. Juanita Broaddrick was fully clothed when he violently raped her, biting her lip so hard so she wouldn’t move, and she didn’t move.

        But, that was ok. Illegally turning his back on the Tutsi’s when they cried out for his help, that doesn’t really matter either. Merely 800,000 destroyed–black folks

        Look around you,
        It’s just bound to make you embarrassed
        America sinkin fast
        Truth lost on blatant lies

    3. DennisMcIntyre:
      (1) The 70% that you reference (including half of Republicans), said “it was believable that Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign paid the adult film actress Stormy Daniels for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter.” Yes, we all know he did this with a never-denied NDA. And, so your point was?
      (2) 54% of respondents – including 32% of Democrats – said politics was driving the criminal case being weighed by a Manhattan grand jury.

    4. Dennis – you say “Smith is methodically following the evidentiary trail.” That is what Robert Mueller did. You also have no idea what Corcoran will say. He certainly is not capable as saying that Trump wanted to hold on to classified documents.

      1. “You also have no idea what Corcoran will say.”

        None of us knows.

        “He certainly is not capable as saying that Trump wanted to hold on to classified documents.”

        How would you know what he’s capable of saying? You’re not a mind reader and do not know the details of their exchanges, nor do I.

        We know that Judge Howell told Corcoran to turn over documents and testify under a crime-fraud exception, and the DCCA ruled against Trump on appeal of Howell’s order. The latest news says “Prosecutors in the special counsel’s office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.” ( If Trump lied to Corcoran about the documents, that will be interesting testimony. But we don’t know yet. Time will tell.

        1. ” Time will tell.”

          With time we have found you were wrong about almost everything and that much of what you said was a lie or deceptive.

    5. There’s no real dispute over the facts in this case. I’m surprised that only 70% said they believed it. The dispute is over the law, not the facts. What he did (or what Daniels alleges he did, if you prefer) is simply not a crime, and Bragg’s efforts to turn it into one are pathetic and plainly political, and thus illegitimate.

      The Georgia case is likewise pathetic garbage. The things he’s accused of are not crimes and can’t be turned into crimes. He had every right to make those phone calls.

      The documents thing is more complicated, and there may perhaps be a crime hiding in there somewhere, but it would blow up the rule of law into smithereens for it to be enforced only against Trump when it was not against Clinton, Biden, and so many others.

      1. “What he did (or what Daniels alleges he did, if you prefer) is simply not a crime”

        You misunderstand the case. It is not about what Daniels alleges, but about what Cohen alleges. And none of us knows the details of the GJ testimony, so none of us can tell for certain what the alleged crime is. If you’re simply patient with this and the other investigations (GA, J6, classified documents), time will tell whether he’s charged with any crimes, and if so, what they are and what evidence is presented for them.

        “it would blow up the rule of law into smithereens for it to be enforced only against Trump when it was not against Clinton, Biden, and so many others.”

        Biden and Pence cooperated. Trump did not. If there’s a crime there that’s charged, it’s very likely obstruction. Again, time will tell.

    6. All of this is trying to parley conduct that you do not like into Crimes.

      Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels – the vast majority of us believe that.
      That is not illegal.
      It is troubling. but it is between Him and Melanie.
      It is also true that Daniels asked for and received money in return for her silence.
      Also legal.
      Everything else related is Legal.
      Trump was free to pay for Damiels silence from his Campaign – that is the conclusion of the Edwards case.
      Trump is also free to pay for it outside of his campaign.
      Campaign finance laws can not constitutionally constrain a person from spending as much of their own money as they wish on their own election.
      The records keeping claim is bollocks as anyone who has ever kept business records would know. You can not fraudulently mischaracterize something unless
      what you are mischaracterizing is itself a crime or evidence of a crime.
      If NY’s Law claims what Bragg says it does – then it is unconstitutionally overbraod.

      Those of you on the left NEVER stop to consider why my ludicrously stupid interpretation of the law be constitutional.
      Because if it is not – then you are almost certainly trying to understand the law incorrectly.

      Government does not exist in the US to make laws to narrowly constrain each of us into a tiny box of legitimate conduct.
      The exact opposite is True.
      Anything you wish to do in the US is legal EXCEPT for the few specific things that are illegal.
      And what government makes illegal – when it infringes on your liberty, it must do so with sufficient justification.

      Government may not criminalize imperfect record keeping. Or just records keeping that Some Prosecutor wishes to claim is imperfect.
      That would mean everyone is a criminal. It is ALWAYS possible for a prosecutor to disagree with the way you have kept your records.

      The statue in question requires the record keeping to be fraudulent.
      Fraud does not mean “false” or “lie” or “misrepresentation” it means a deception that causes actual harm to others.

      The statute would only apply to misrepresentations that hide a crime.
      All the actions involved are legal.

      I would further note that it should be OBVIOUS that this application of this statute can not be correct – as it would otherwise be criminalizing legal acts.
      Put differently this application of this statute would mean that you can pay someone to be quite – about an assignation, or about business secrets – such as some special process you have for making a better product, But you would still have to Disclose the thing you were paying to keep secret in your business records or face a records keeping crime.
      That is complete and total idiocy. If NDA’s are legal, then the law can not require their substance to be disclosed in business records.

    7. The GA case is no better than the NYC case.

      Trump is not an officer within the state of GA. He has no power over Election officials in GA.
      They can take his calls or not.
      He can rant at them as he please.
      Short of threatening them with actual violence,
      or a threat that reflects an abuse of executive power he can demand from them whatever he wishes.

      Just as you can go to your local clerk of courts office and rant and rave and threaten to sue or whatever else you want – Legally.

      I am not saying that Trump did that. What I am saying is there is very little that Trump could say to GA officials that would be illegal.
      Trump could order Raffensberger to Burn Biden Ballots – that would be immoral and corrupt, it would not be illegal.
      It would however be illegal for Raffensberger to do so.

      The other Claim is this alternate electors claim.

      Given that the Supreme court is currently trying to determine how broad the scope of a legislatures control is over a federal election,
      and there is a quite credible constitutional argument that State legislatures have absolute control over elections,
      it is ludicrous to claim that efforts to get a state legislature to select an alternate slate of electors is not legal.
      In fact it has been done before.

      You can not conspire to commit a non-crime. This is stupid.

      While I do not expect SCOTUS to decide that the State legislature has absolute and limitless control of elections,
      It was clear during the Q&A that they are PROPERLY disturbed by the 2020 and subsequent Trends of State courts and state executives to do as they please without the authorization of the legislature.
      There is absolutely no doubt at all that a legislature has the primary constitutional authority for federal elections. That is specifically what the constitution says in plain language. SCOTUS is trying to determine if that authority is exclusive or more accurately the constraints to which it is shared with the state executive and judiciary. There is absolutely no possible decision from SCOTUS that would allow Trump’s efforts to persuade a state legislature to select an alternate slate of electors to be a crime.

      I would note that in 2016 Hilary attempted – and in a few cases successfully persuaded electors to change their votes. No one charged clinton with a crime.
      Because though her conduct was immoral, it was not illegal.

      A great deal of the left wing nonsense about the election rests on the false premise that elections are perfect. That there can be no problems and therefore challenging them is illegal.
      That is complete horseshite.
      Elections challenges have been commonplace for the history of this country. Election fraud has been commonplace both in this country and elsewhere in the world.

      All the things that Trump did to “overturn” the elections are attempts to invoke the constitutional checks and balances on the election.

      Trump may have failed to get any court to intervene – but it is inarguable that courts have the power to intervene.
      State Legislatures also have the power to intervene.
      Hillary was correct that Electors themselves have the power to intervene.
      And ultimately Congress has the power to intervene.

    8. Judge Howell erred.
      Quite obviously.

      The Crime Fraud exception to Attorney Client priviledge does NOT mean when there is a crime alleged, that attorney client priviledge is waived.

      That is stupid – every single criminal case alleges a crime. Every single criminal defendant discusses that crime – whether they committed it or not with their lawyers.

      The crime fraud exceptions only applies when the prosecution can demonstrate that the attorney in question is part of a conspiracy to knowingly commit a crime.

      As an example a person can come to their attorney and say “I wish to do X” and the attoney can say – “that would be illegal, but you can do Y legally”.

      That advice would be priviledged.

      To be subject to the crime fraud exception the attorney would have to say “here is how you can commit this illegal act and not get caught”

      To make this clearer – it is completely irrelevant what Trump may have asked his attorney. Trump can have asked how to comitt a crime and get away with it.
      That is still covered by attorney client priviledge. What Matters is the Attorney’s advice. Did the attorney tell their client how to get away with the crime – then the crime fraud exception applies. Did the attorny tell their claient how to accomplish their purpose without committing a crime ? Then it does not.

      Smith can not have a basis for claiming claim fraud exception, therefore Howell is out of line.

      It is this nonsense that has much fo the country upset about the weaponization of or legal system for political purposes. Though I would note that we get bad judicial decisions such as these even where politics is not involved.

      To a small extent my sympathy for Republicans being victimized is limited – because they are complicit in the trend towards court decisions and laws that violate individual rights.
      Just as I am livid at the hypocracy of “liberals” who spent their lives opposing these types of decisions only to now embrace them to “get Trump”

      But that does not alter that these decisons are wrong.

      Regardless, The SC case is atleast as vaporous as the rest.

      As the NARA v. JW decision makes CLEAR – Trump is entitled to whatever WH records he wishes to keep. He is entitled to them – whether they are classified or not.

      The Biden administration was perfectly free to go to court to seek to reverse that precedent. But until they did so Trump was legally entitled to rely on it.
      You can not committ a crime by complying with the current known state of the law.

      NARA did NOT go to court. the WH did NOT go to court. DOJ did NOT go to court.
      They used a DC as an attempt to make an end run arround the law.

      Whether you like it or not failure to comply with a subpoena issued by an attorney is NOT a crime.
      The law can NOT give that much power to a single person without judicial oversite.

      Anyone with a brain would realize that DOJ could then subpeona people – without having to get a warrant.
      A subpeana can not be enforced by FORCE until a court says that it can.

      If DOJ thought Trump was withoulding subpeona’d information they were free to go to court to get a court order.

      They did NOT do so – likely because they would have LOST.

      Subpeona’s do not and can not give the subpoenaing party POSESSION – which is what The Biden Admin was after.
      They can only give them ACCESS.
      Further had DOJ gone to a court – even the likely favorable DC judge associated with the GJ, there would have been an adversarial hearing – i.e. Trump and his lawyers would have been allowed to present their position and in all likelihood the subpoena would have been narrowed in scope.
      The DC GJ was empanneled to investigate specific allegations. Even GJ’s are not free to do whatever they please.

      1. “Judge Howell erred.”

        You are astoundingly arrogant. Her order is sealed. The evidence is sealed. You cannot read her reasoning. You do not know the evidence. Her order has been upheld by an Appeals Court panel of 3 more judges who CAN read her ruling and the evidence.

        Yet you insist that you know better than those 4 judges based on … nothing but your exceptional arrogance.

        1. All kinds of left wing garbage has been upheld by left wing appelate courts.

          What is Arogant is the lawlessness of our courts.

          I addressed in fairly significant detail the Crime Fraud exception.

          You say the evidence is “sealed”
          Why ? There is no national security issue to this.
          It is not classified.

          There is a very limited basis for breaching attorney client confidentiality.
          There are not infinite reasons that are allowed.

          I am hard pressed to think of an example of doing so based on the crime fraud exception.

          That is because the requirements are nearly impossible to meet.

          Even should they actually occur – such as with Mafia Consigleri – proving that a lawyer has helped a client commit a crime – as opposed to helped a client accomplish their goal WITHOUT committing a crime is nearly impossible.

          Attorney client privildge exists for incredibly important reasons.
          We WANT people to discuss what they might do – especially things that MIGHT be crimes, with their attorney’s before doing them,
          so that their attorney can say – “No, You can’t do that, but here is something you can do that is legal”

          The arogance is with YOU and Judges to stupid to figure out the unintended consequences of their idiotic decisions.

          I am not the one who is constantly arguing to abrogate centuries of settled law and practice.

          That is YOU – the LEFT, and LEFT WING NUT JUDGES.

          We have another similar situation in the Current PB case.

          The Defendants are in jail – often in solitary. the only means they have of comunicating with their attorney’s is a department of corrections run email system. That system REQUIRES the defendant to waive Attorney Client privildge to use it.

          And the Department of Corrections has been forwarding attorney client exchanges to the DOJ,

          Which has been using those to thwart defense strategies.

          In my county the State spent a small fortune putting in a vidioconferencing system so that Attorney’s could comunicate with Clients without having to come to the prison. Almost no one uses it – Why ? Because idiots like YOU go through this nonsense.
          Because if they use the system they risk losing priviledge and god knows what stupid thing their clients might say over the video conference system.

          Regardless, lots of money was used for something that is now rarely used because no one trusts the government or the prison officials, Nor should they – because whenever they are given the chance, prosecutors
          “cheat” and courts let them get away with it.

          Aside from all the other arguments – do you understand that violating attorney client priviledge actually causes problems for the STATE. IN my county – that means defense lawyers – usually paid for by the state must travel to the prison to interview clients.
          The prison must go through all the complex hassles of bringing the prisoner to a conference room guarding the prisoner while the lawyer is with them, letting the lawyer in and out of the prison.

          But you morons do not THINK when you play this nonsense.

          While part of this is about Trump – you all lose your brians the moment Trump is involved.
          The FACT is these decisions have implications far beyond Trump.

          I would note that once upon a time – LIBERALS were with me on this – When the Bush DOJ was doing something very similar to lawyers who were defending people at gitmo.

          But you idiots are not LIBERAL – you are statists – FASCIST – and I wish that was only Hyperbole.

          Anyway I will give you a trivially simple way of dealing with peircing attorney client priviledge.

          Charge the attorney with conspiracy. If you have enough evidence to do that – there is no priviledge. If you do not have sufficient evidence to charge the attorney, they you do not have sufficient evidence to break priviledge.

          Most of this is called centuries of solid law that have worked these things out.

          But the rest is called CRITICAL THINKING.

          The Fact that I am able to do something relatively simple – and neither you nor the judges that you fawn over are able to is not my arrogance – it is your stupidity.

          1. That you falsely insist that you’ve correctly countered the rulings of 4 judges, when you’ve only based your conclusion on your very clearly incomplete, faulty understanding of the crime-fraud exception, is YOUR arrogance.

            1. Given that YOUR bar article fairly closely tracks what I said – it seems you STILL have four shitty judges.

              I would further note that your appellate claim is ludicrously stupid, The lawyer was given almost no time to appeal, no time to prepare a solid brief and the appeals court took no time to decide.

              Breaching privilege is not a step to be taken lightly.

              A decent appeal in a typical criminal case takes many months.
              And this would be worse than normal – it is a fundimental issue of law, and should not be decided anywhere near so tricially as it obviously has in this case.

              A quick decision over a matter where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and is quite high is evidence of bias and legal incompetence.

              But this has been the norm in cases where there is the slightest politics.

              In the past it was those on the right who tried – mostly unsuccessfully to pull these stunts.

              Does it make you feel proud to be even more fascist than you accuse the right of ?

              Follow the real law.

              If you are looking to try to change that because you think it is wrong, that should not be done at the trial court level, or even the appellate level. Only the supreme court – usually after years of legal debate from below should be changing centuries old legal standards.

              1. “Given that YOUR bar article fairly closely tracks what I said”

                It doesn’t.

                You omitted significant situations where the crime-fraud exception applies, some of which are discussed in the ABA article, and now you’re pretending that you didn’t. Either you’re purposefully dishonest or too stupid to understand the difference between your and their claims about it.

                “The lawyer was given almost no time to appeal”

                Corcoran didn’t want to appeal, idiot. Trump appealed. You don’t even understand enough about the case to distinguish between them. You’re apparently also too ignorant to know that only part of the case was resolved yesterday and part of it is continuing at least til May and they have plenty of time to file in that part of the case. I doubt you understand what the time limit was about.

                1. The crime fraud exception applies when the lawyer is PART of the crime.

                  That is literally the name of the exception.

                  That is also the entirety of the ABA’s explanation of the exception.
                  The Jusita article is error – and obviously so, Because it mistakes the time line as being critical.
                  Time is relevant – because a lawyer can not be complicit in a crime that has already occurred.

                  I do not care about YOU or recently manufactured exceptions – the exception is CLEAR in the rule itself, and in its name.

                  Again Law that is not logical – Will Fail. You do not get to make it up as you go.
                  Even SCOTUS errs when they deviate from Facts, logic and reason.

                  This is not arrogance – it is REALITY.

                  Get it right or one way or another you will be punished.

                  If you can not make a logical argument for your position. If all you have is relatively bad – and often inaccute appeals to authority.
                  Then you have nothing.

                  Beliving that other people should trust you when you can not logically defend your arguments – THAT is arrogance.

                  I noted in a prior post that the fundamental divide in this country today is not between left and right.
                  But between the growing number of people who have lost trust in government because of its failure,
                  and those with blinders who believe that more power will mean less failure – as if that has ever worked anywhere ever.

            2. Aside from multiple fallacious appeals to authority – atleast one of which – the ABA is very close to what I have said


              And you call me arrogant ?

              You are unable to explain your position beyond claiming that “judges know best”.

              I doubt you have dealt with very many real judges.

              As I noted my wife is a criminal appellate attorney and this issue comes up constantly.

              But more broadly – I doubt that she files a signle appeal in which the appelate court desicions are not filled end to end with decisions of “harmless error” on the part of the judge. And that may well be true. Most of her clients are obviously guilty – though they are still entitled to a defense, still entitled to an appeal and still entitled to advice from their lawyers – even if they make stupid remarks to their lawyers.

              But on a bigger point – nearly ever manufacturer in the US is capable of 6Sigma – one error in 3.4M.

              If minimum wage workers on an assembly line can make 3.4M widgets without making an error, you would think that a Judge with a JD and hopefully years of experience as a lawyer would be capable of condiucting a single trial without “harmless error”

              This country is in the midst of a holy war, and a great deal of that holy war is driven by the modern lefts refusal to give a damn about government error.

              Government can not F#$k up elections.

              You can rant all you want about J6 and Trump and allegedly bogus claims.

              Our elections were not good enough BEFORE 2020.
              2000 was a disaster, even 2016 did not have the level of trust that the left required.
              But we are also supposed to smile ans say everything is honky dory when the 2020 election was a lawless mess, and we are not doing any better since.

              While there are innumerable reasons that Mailin voting is an abysmal idea, no matter how we vote we MUST do it reliably, transparently and with very low error rates.

              If you really want governemnt to be legitimate – you will grasp that we are not anywhere NEAR good enough,
              150M people voted in 2020 matching industry standards that means that an error rate of a bit less than 50 votes in the entire country.
              If Ford and GE can do that – Elections officials can too.

              We saw in 2000 that the presidential election was determined by about 200 votes.
              If you can not get the error rate significantly below the margin of victory EVERYWHERE no one should trust the elections.

              We saw the same mess with Covid – What did govenrment get right ?
              Pretty much nothing.
              Worse still with very few exceptions most of the errors were completely predictable and known wrong by April 2020.

              You want to impose your will on others by Force – you may not be that wrong about everything.

              Further we had massive covid censorship and massive political censorship.
              And once again that censorship was near Universally WRONG – Error.
              What was russian disinformation proved to be truth, what was covid misinformation turned out to be fact.

              There are excellent philosophical and logical arguments that prove that with near certainty you will have more error the more you censor and therefore you should not censor. Not just because it is unconstitutional, but because we are WORSE off with censorship, than with Nazis saying whatever hateful garbage they wish. Once uppon a time those ont he left knew that.

              . But those are likely beyond those of you on the left. A standard easier for you to understand (and impossible for you to meet) is do not censor the Truth. Not what you THINK is the Truth. Not what you claim to KNOW is the Truth. But only the actual truth.
              One of the easiest ways to accomplish that is to have consequences for error. How about a penalty of $100 paid to each of the followers of every post that you censor that proves correct ? In 2020 that would have been billions of dollars.

              We have a similar problem with our courts – no consequences for Error. That creates moral hazard.
              In a post elsewhere I proposed suspending for 6m without pay every judge who is on the losing side of a Supreme court decisions that affirms prior precedent.

              Left/right I do not give a schiff. Frankly lower court judges should ALWAYS be disciplined for being on the wrong side of prior precedent. Changing Precedent should not occur outside the supreme court. Judges who disagree with precedent can not that in their decisions. But lower courts should not be reversing precedent ever.

              I noted the frequency of “harmless error” in the judiciary today. It is far far far too high.

              Frankly, even when politics is not involved the prosecutorial and pro government bias of our courts is unacceptable.
              and it part of what drives error. Brady requires the prosecution to turn over exculpatory materials.
              That is a horrible standard – but most of our standards are equally horrible. Nearly all errors in a courtroom are charged to the defense – if the Prosecutor does something unconstitutional – it is the defenses responsibility to object – otherwise the error is theirs and the consequences are theirs.
              Yet, constitutionally the burder of proof is on the state and the requirement to conduct a fair trial rests with the state.
              Not the defendant. Th eBrady standard SHOULD be the prosecution must turn over EVERYTHING. Only the defense is capable of deciding what is actually exculpatory.
              Justice – especially criminal justice must be conducted in the sunlight. At the barest minumum the Defense should be entitled to know everything even remotely relevant to their case – and the prosecution does not get to decide that.
              Further if a defendant wants information disclosed – it should be made public.

              Your claim that the evidence in the instant case is sealed is a giant red flag.
              We do not have star chambers – or atleast we were not supposed to have them.

              But again the really big deal is that errors must have consequences – otherwise we do not learn.
              We have Moral hazard – a gigantic problem the left is entirely clueless about.
              Most simply it means that when there are no consequences for error, you will get more error.

              The left wants to get rid of qualified immunity – I am 100% behind that. I have fought with some here on the right that want ti.
              But not just get rid of it for the police – but all of government.

              I would suggest gaining some familiarity with the Nobel Prize winning Economics of Public Choice – which is not really economics, but how human nature in the context of free exchange pushes towards improvement for all, but in the context of government leads to all kinds of forms of dysfunction.

              An easy example is who gets the prime parking spaces.
              In a free market – customers, come first. Employees, even the boss, gets the parking spaces that are left – atleast on client facing businesses, But in government – customers are LAST. And it is not just about parking spaces.

              The same attributes of human nature that make markets work well – absent the ability of actors to use force or fraud,
              make government work badly.

              And this pervades EVERYTHING about governemnt.

              Regardless, my point is that we have rising levels of error and failure – throughout government that are exponentially proportionate to the scale of govenrment.

              It is error and failure that is actually dividing the country.

              Few would give a schiff that the left is tyranical – if they actually were successful.
              If net incomes were rising rather than falling.
              If crime was falling rather than rising,
              If anxiety and depression and suicide and drug overdoses were falling.

              1. LOL that you expect me to wade through that long word vomit. You’re not paid to edit your comments, and I’m not paid to wade through your unedited word vomits.

                1. Wait, so you’re saying that George Soros is now putting limits on what he will pay you for trolling with BS crap filled comments? Well, that deserves an emoji!


                2. Perfectly fine.

                  No one has ever obligated you to read what anyone else writes.

                  But you are not free to use force against others willy nilly.

                  If you are going to vote for the use of force – to broaden govenrment – you are morally obligated to hear out those who oppose you OR defer from your use of FORCE.

                  Judges and courts are ALWAYS uses of force – that is why in almost all circumstances they are required to hear from all parties.

                3. ” I’m not paid to wade through your unedited word vomits.”

                  Hmmm, is that an admission from ATS that he is paid to lie and deceive?

        2. I will give you another way to test this – that YOU raise on your own.

          When the government is sealing the evidence – there is a problem.

          The right to privacy in court proceedings belongs SOLELY to non-government actors.

          Nothing about a governments case should EVER be “secret” unless the defense wishes it to be.

          Everytime you here a prosecutor, law enforcement or government official say “we can not talk about an ongoing investigation” – the ONLY right involved is the right of the defendant not to be tired outside the courtroom.

          The defendant can waive that right, government can not.

          When Government is keeping secret its evidence and not at the request of the defendant – Government is up to no good.

          Once upon a time that was a core value of LIBERALISM.

          Today outside of libertarians and Republicans who are only outraged when THEIR rights are being violated, No one cares.

          I find it extremely odd that the left – which roited 570 times over the summer of 2020 over “defund the police, is so incredibly deferential to the two parts of the US criminal justice system that are ACTUALLY systemically racist.

          Numerous studies have shown that with few exceptions – police stops, and arrests correlate very closely to crime reports by private citizens. Oversimplified – there are the same proportion of stops and arrest in any area as there are 911 calls.
          There are more 911 calls in high crime areas, there are more minroities living in high crime areas.

          The one place there is evidence of systemic racism is in the courts. Sentences for minorities for the same crimes are higher – sometimes as much as double.

          Sentences come from either prosecutor driven plea bargains, or by judges.

          So those of you on the left rioted to attack the WRONG target.
          And now that your persecutors are at this moment Targeting Trump – you are prepared to pretend all is well.

          Regardless, do not confuse righteous anger at the stupidity of those on the left – whether judges or YOU who think that the constitution and rule of law are only there when they are convenient.
          You say the judge won at appeal – of course she did, she only allowed the lawyer hours to put together an appeal.

          Regardless, we have an SC looking at the Biden Classified Documents.
          In that instance Biden attorney’s have idiotically conducted documents searches themselves – Making themselves witnesses,
          and creating another opotunity to breach priviledge.

          So are you going to allow it when the Biden SC goes to question Biden attorney’s about their exchanges with Biden ?

          They have opened themselves up by making themselves witnesses and by performing tasks outside of providing legal advice.

          I fully expect to here you screamking about attorney client priviledge should that happen.

          But it is not likely – because the Biden SC is unlikely to attempt stupid legal moves and left wing nut judges will protect Biden.

          Proving to everyone how politically corrupt our justice system is.

          1. Once again, I’m not going to wade through that long word vomit to find the parts worth responding to. Suffice that you’re wrong about “The right to privacy in court proceedings belongs SOLELY to non-government actors.” The workings of a grand jury, and evidence presented to a judge for a crime-fraud exception for grand jury testimony, are routinely kept secret. IDGAF that you disagree with our laws about the workings of grand juries.

            Once again, you have a faulty understanding of the law, but you arrogantly presume that you understand this better than 4 judges who’ve ruled on it.

            1. You talk of arrogance – and your reply is – Your Wrong because I say so.

              BS. Insulting an argument is not argument. It is fallacy.

              Governments have powers.
              Rights belong to people. Privacy is a right. There is no government right to privacy.
              There is a government power to provide national security that sometimes allows government to keep SOME secrets.

              Those on the left like you are always ranting about the right to privacy – of course that ONLY applies to reproduction according to the left. Regardless, you are correct that much of the bill of rest rests on an individual right of privacy – in far more than reproduction.
              Frankly given that there are no rights that require nature to yield, reproductive rights are about the lest protected of rights to privacy.

              I know this is a foreign concept to you – especially as they no longer require lawyers to pass the LSATS to get into law school, but the foundation of law and government is LOGIC. The entire western system of law and government is s[prings fromte concept of free will and about 7000 years of logic and trial and error. We have not goten things perfect, but we have it Dam good over all.

              If as your ABA article claims -things are changing – the odds are heavily in favor of that change being error.

              The odds (not certainty) of change being error derive from the laws of nature – you can not wish that aware.
              Also from the laws of diminishing returns on mature systems.

              Regardless, if you can make a logical argument for your position on – law, economics, government – most anything – then the odds are you are wrong.
              The law is either logically correct, or it is inefficient and harmful.

            2. “IDGAF that you disagree with our laws about the workings of grand juries.”

              Clearly you did not read what I wrote.

              I have no problem with GJ secrecy. It is a RIGHT that belongs to the accused – not the government.

              That is the part neither you nor aparently the courts understand.
              The purpose of GJ secrecy is NEVER to hide what the government is doing.
              It is ALWAYS to protect those who may not be indicted from the invasion of their privacy that comes automatically from investigation.

              A Grand Jury is an investigative body – like the police.
              It is not a judicial body. It merely follows some judicial rules – usually badly, and usually has a judge with some limited management responsibility, but it is typically run by a prosecutor.

              Once again – you blather about things with no understanding of the underlying reasons that they are the way they are.

              Once again – the right to secrecy in a criminal proceeding belongs entirely to the defendant.
              There is no government right to privacy, there are no government rights.

              If you can not understand the fundimentals – how can you possibly understand the law ?

              Do you think law is just made up as we go without any reason or rhyme ?

              That would not surprise me. Those of you on the left seem to think you can make anything you want into law.
              without any thought as to whether what you seek will work.

              That is going to happen by magic – because you say so.

        3. “You are astoundingly arrogant.”

          Why would you say that? We know you are intentionally deceptive and a liar. Explain why the evidence is sealed. Maybe it is meaningless like so much that is sealed by left leaning prosecutors (including exculpatory evidence), judges, the FBI, etc.

          You can’t do that. You pick out half arguments to prove your point, but half arguments are deceptive lies.

      2. BTW, you’re wrong that “The crime fraud exceptions ONLY applies when the prosecution can demonstrate that the attorney in question is part of a conspiracy to knowingly commit a crime.” You should read up on when it actually applies. Here’s a start for you:

        1. I am not interested in a historical left wing nut garbage.

          The Justia article you linked starts off immediately with Error.

          If I come to my attorney and I say “I wish to do X” and X is a crime. That communication is protected, so long as the Attorny’s response is something to the effect of – You can not legally do X, but you can accomplish some of your purpose by Doing Y.

          I addressed that in a prior post.

          The Bar article you linked is significantly better and essentially reiterates exactly what I have said.

          With respect to the instance case – Has Trump’s attorney been charged with being part of a criminal conspiracy ?

          If Not – This is done, and the Judge is WRONG.

          I would note – my insistance that the attorney is actually charged is important.

          We do not what Judges violating privilege on idiot theories of law – as we have with Bragg in NYC or the entire GA nonsense, that something is a crime which requires pretzelising the law.

          An attorney can legitimately advise a client to act in ways that idiot left wing nuts wish to pretend is a crime.
          They can not advise attorney’s to commit an actual crime.
          If you are not so sure that something is a crime that you will charge the attorney for conspiracy – then you have no business charging the crime in the first place.

          And again – this is not a left right thing – or atleast it should not be.

          I would further note that the Bar article itself notes that more and more efforts to breach priviledge are occuring and more and more of them are successful. Or more simply Our Courts are F’d up, and are no longer following the law – my point exactly.

          What I have stated is based on hundreds of years of law – not left wing nut legal mangling in the past decade or so.

          I would further note – though you are not paying attention – that I have been arguing these things for Decades.

          My claims are not based on left/right. As I noted – which you ignored – the Bushies were heavily violating attorney client priviledge at Gitmo.

          I have cited what is centuries of law. Again – not yesterdays nonsense.

          AND I have provided you with the logical foundation for it.

          While there are numerous other issues, the one question I asked – which you have not answered, is


          If you breach privilege without establishing sufficiently that the attorney is part of a criminal conspiracy. then you are telling people NOT to consult their lawyers before acting.

          Is that really what you want ?

          But neither you nor this idiot judge have thought that far.

          But the LAW has over the centuries.

          Generally clients do not approach their attorney’s and say “I am going to murder Bill”.

          Much more freqwuently what occurs is I intend to do X, where X is a crime, but the client does not know that.
          That is precisely why you want them to talk to their attorneys and you want that communication to be privileged.

          While my wife almost never deals with clients who have not yet committed crimes. She is a criminal appellate attorney, and pretty much every single client she has not only has committed a crime, but does not believe that they have – even after they have been convicted.

          Guess what, that communication is STILL privileged.

          She is constantly telling her clients – either Do not do that, or you were not allowed to do that,
          and most of them STILL do not understand.

          The communication is STILL privileged.

          No one with half a brain would want the legal system you are trying to manufacture.

          You do not seem to grasp that whether it is Trump or the local perve who thinks that videos of 10 year olds in their underwear are not child porn – SCOTUS has said otherwise – you WANT them to ask a lawyer FIRST.

          The standard I raised – you can breach privilege when you are prepared to charge the lawyer with conspiracy is near perfect.

          While the ABA does not offer that as a rule, it still reflects close to the same standard.

          I would further note that when Government is rushing and hiding what they are doing – they are doing wrong.
          Atleast that should always be the presumption.

    9. A significant part of what is wrong with all of this is that the positon of the left and the prosecutors in ALL of this,
      Is that Trump had to behave in precisely the way WE demand, But Government was free to act however it pleased.

      That constraints are only for citizens.

      The Bragg case is obvious error as ALL NDA would either be illegal or impossible if Bragg’s application of the law was correct.

      The GA case is obvious error, because the presumption is that GA and specifically Fulton County was fre to conduct its election any Damn way that it pleased and that neither Trump nor anyone else is free to object.
      It is also Bogus because it presumes that no one is free to be upset about the outcome of an election or raise questions about how it was conducted.

      I find it incredibly odd that Trump is being challenged for allegedly asking Raffensberger to “find votes”. While it is patently obvious that the Biden campaign did everything possible to “find votes”.

      Those on the left PRESUME that the democrats efforts to find votes – was above board and legal, But Trump’s mere request was illegal.
      That we must presume nothing improper happened in Fulton county at the same time we presume that Trump’s request of Raffensberger was unambiguously criminal.

      There was LOTS of highly questionable actions that took place in GA before and during the election.
      Most of those have had very little scrutiny.
      But Trump is expected to roll over and accept a very messy election – or face criminal charges.

      We see the same with the SC investigation.
      At absolutely every step in the process the Biden admin Escalated and avoided going to court to resolve the issue with Trump – Until they were able to get an ExParte Warrant.

      Now they are trying to Criminalize Trump for failing to do as government demanded when the Government at EVERY step of the way had the choice of going to court.

      This is an effort to manufacture a crime.
      And that is why recent whistleblower evidence exposed that even the antiTrump FBI refused to get a warrant without a direct ORDER from DOJ,
      Because they felt DOJ was improperly escalating an issue that could be resolved cooperatively.

      The Theme of EVERY “prosecution” of Trump – is that freedom of action is entirely on the side of the govenrment, which may do as it pleases, and is NOT expected to try to resolve any conflict in the narrowest possible way respecting the rights of individuals.
      And convesrsely that individuals MUST act precisely as Government demands regardless of the fact that there may be multiple different options available to government and to the individual. ONLY compliance with the arbitrary choice of government actors is non-criminal.

      And that is why ultimately the left will lose all of these.

      It is honestly embarrassing that you are unable to see that freedom of action – liberty ALWAYS rests with the individual.

      It is GOVERNMENT that is constrained in how it must act.

      Individuals are free to do anything that is not a crime, and where there is a question – the standard is that the action must be beyond a reasonable doubt criminal.

      You may not accept every argument that I have made but if you can not Trivially rebut ALL of them – you have no crime.
      Reasonable doubt applies not only to – did a person commit a specific crime – but is the action of the person actually a crime.

    10. In a new Reuters-Ipsos poll, 70% find the allegations against Trump in the Stormy Daniels episode are very or somewhat believable.

      I have no idea what others consider “the” allegations, That’s an empty bucket the respondents can fill with anything they desire.

      Trump and Daniels entered into a NDA. That’s not an allegation, its a fact agreed to by all. Anything besides that, is meaningless.
      The important part, there is no crime. IF you think there is a crime, name it and identify the elements required to meet the Statute.

    11. “When Fani Willis drops the hammer in a Georgia . . .”

      It’s a Blockbuster!, I tell you. No, really, this time it is.

  7. Jonathan: Wow! Talk about overkill. This is your fourth column on the probable criminal indictment of the Trumpster by Alvin Bragg. Now it is an attack on the character of Michael Cohen who will be the principal witness. You start by saying Cohen is “one of the most repellent figures in New York”. Actually, Donald Trump fits that bill better than Cohen. A New York jury has already found 2 Trump subsidiaries guilty of tax fraud and other crimes. New Yorkers know Trump was behind that criminal scheme. Trump cheated the taxpayers of NY. That will be in the minds of jurors if the Bragg case goes to trial. And putting on a convicted felon as your principal witness is no obstacle to a conviction. Prosecutors do it all the time in RICO cases and they get convictions.

    But your job is to try to impugn Cohen’s character–to show he should not be believed because he is “someone who has shredded legal ethics and the criminal code” and has shown his “primary talent has been his impressive moral and ethical flexibility”–and Cohen “did the dirty work for Trump until it became more beneficial to turn against him”. The only charge you have not thrown at Cohen is that he is also beats his wife and is a pedophile! The real Q is if the case goes to trial and Trump testifies in his own defense who do you think the jury will believe? My bet is on Cohen. Who would or should believe anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth?

    1. No one is above the law!
      Arrest Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for prosecutorial misconduct after hiding hundreds of pages of exculpatory evidence!

      1. Exculpatory evidence only has to be turned over if (after) someone is indicted, and only if it’s in the government’s possession.

        1. Anonymous: None of the empty heads on this blog knows anything about the law of evidence. Thx for pointing out the obvious.

          1. Actually, Dennis and Anonymous, several states require prosecutors to produce credible, relevant exculpatory evidence at the grand jury stage. In New York, it is generally discretionary, with exceptions. CPL 190.50 (6), also see People v. Thompson (2015 case). It is often premised upon whether such evidence could eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution.” (People v. Ramjit, People v. Lancaster, etc.)
            Just joking and with respectful irreverence, but are you part of that group that Dennis calls “empty heads on this blog knows anything about the law of evidence.” ????

        2. Typical Stalinist despot type of response. Hang an innocent man, but don’t tell anyone of the exculpatory evidence until after he is hung.

          You are a real loser ATS.

      2. Mike Nifong

        In spring 2007, Durham County (North Carolina) District Attorney Mike Nifong zealously prosecuted three Duke University lacrosse players- Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans- for the rape and sexual assault of a stripper during an off-campus team party. Despite mounting evidence suggesting that the players were innocent, Nifong seemed to completely discount it (even withholding some of it) and quickly indicted the three players. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper eventually dropped the charges against all three players, noting that “[this] case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor.” In June 2007, Nifong was disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. Appearing at his preliminary hearing for criminal contempt of court, Nifong apologized to the three players and their families, stating his hope that “all of us can learn from the mistakes of this case, that all of us can begin to move forward.” He was found guilty in September 2007.

        – Public Apology Central

    2. Can you imagine what they would find if the Biden’s were put under this kind of relentless persecution, fine-tooth-comb scrutiny of all their taxes, business dealings, drugs, guns, foreign money payoffs in the tens of millions? I know you think they have been “investigated,” but they are getting obvious kid glove protection FROM the law every step of the way. The Biden’s are above the law? Who knew? Why yes, yes they are. The public is being mislead, big time, about the Big Guy’s “innocence.”
      How many of Hunter’s business ‘associates’ — both foreign and domestic — are in prison (quite a few). Yet somehow Hunter has managed to escape the law coming down on him for years now, as he watches his partners in crime be convicted and sent off to prision.
      You know why, don’t you? Because no one is above the law! Except Democrats.

    1. Will our resident trolls declare that this is absolute proof that Trump lied about when he would be arrested??

      “See! He is a liar! He was not arrested on Tuesday! Or Wednesday! It may not even happen till next week! hE Is a LiAr!!!!!!!!!” (flecks of foam gather around the mouth)

      1. With all the foamings at the mouth lately you have to wonder if there is a market for this “all natural” shaving cream.

        “Vitriolis: It’s all the rage!”

      2. Actually yes, he did lie. He claimed there was an illegal leak that he would be arrested on Tuesday. That claim was false. There was no leak, he just made it up to attract attention to himself. That’s not a crime. It’s childish, but we already knew that about him. The amazing thing is that for all his childishness, boorishness, pig-ignorance, and mendacity, he seems to be the most law-abiding person in the country. Try as they might, his enemies haven’t been able to pin anything on him! They’re reduced to pathetic cases like this one. That’s not what one would expect of such a person.

        1. “There was no leak, [Trump] just made it up to attract attention to himself.”

          Are you completely ignorant or just delusional?

          The NYT, among countless other “news” organization, has been receiving and printing those “leaks” for weeks.

        1. I know the phrase “hurry up and wait,” but the context in which it applies is where someone initially tells people to get something done quickly and is then slow in response, which just doesn’t apply here.

          1. Clearly, you do not.
            Do us all a favor, go get vaxxed and double, triple, or more boosted. Improve the gene pool.
            And if you already have kids/grandkids, get them to enlist in a combat MOS and volunteer for the front lines in Biden’s WWIII. Again, improve the gene pool.
            It is your or their patriotic duty.

              1. What does one do when they are dealing with lies? Pound the liar. The liar would be you, ATS.

  8. “CONFIRMATION: Manhattan DA canceled the grand jury proceedings for today after a disastrous hearing where it was learned he had hidden hundreds of pages of evidence clearing President Trump. Bragg asked jurors to be ‘standby’ for tomorrow suggesting he might go ahead and ask them to indict Trump tomorrow.”

    1. @w_terrence

      They didn’t go after the “Big Guy”.

      They didn’t go after Biden’s crackhead son.

      They didn’t go after Pelosi for insider training.

      They didn’t go after the Clintons.

      They didn’t go after Epsteins’ clients.


  9. Many years ago I worked as an Assistant Attorney General doing civil prosecutions of white collar crime. Our goal was to obtain court orders and fines to prevent fraudulent schemes from being repeated. Frequently, I did these cases in conjunction with the local assistant district attorney. I handled the civil side and he handled the criminal. On one occasion, the ADA was out of town when an indictment was needed so I appeared before the grand jury. I told them what the case was about and told them what the evidence showed. I was not under oath. I called no witnesses. With nothing other than my words, the grand jury indicted my defendant. All these many years later, I still take any grand jury indictment with a huge grain of salt, especially in a jurisdiction like New York or Washington D.C. and especially when ADAs in the New York office openly expressed their hatred of Donald Trump.

      1. The root is simple: We do not want Biden/Harris/a Democrat re-elected/elected.

        Their full embrace of wokeism is a threat to this country. They would have us enslaved in a socialistic/communistic society.
        1930s Germany, Mao’s Cultural Revolution are apt comparisons.

        1. “The root is simple …”

          The root of WHAT is simple? Surely you’re not talking about “the root of every effort to destroy the prospect of Donald Trump regaining the White House.”

          What does “wokeism” mean to you?

          1. Voter suppression isn’t the problem. The problem is voter dilution. The left wishes to dilute the votes of honest citizens. You can believe it because ATS is in favor of it.

        1. Democrats will violate all norms…period.

          iowan, I certainly believe that is the root of everything they have been doing, are currently doing and what they will do in the future. Using Mattias Desmet’s numbers from this interview, approximately 30% have lost all connectivity with anything the other 70% consider normal. 65% of that 70% will do absolutely nothing that will put them at risk from that 30%. And only 5% are actively standing between that 65% and that bat$hit crazy 30%. You and several others on this blog are among that 5%. Keep up the great work.

  10. “You bring me the man, I’ll find you the crime.”

    – Lavrentiy Beria, Mass Murderer, Sexual Predator, Rapist, Antisocial Psychopath, Marshall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    Operative phrase of the continuing, Soros-funded, General Secretary Barack Obama Coup D’etat in America against Real President Donald J. Trump.

    It’s not referred to as the “dictatorship of the proletariat” because it is kinder and gentler.

  11. The former Florida Republican lawmaker who sponsored the controversial law critics call “Don’t Say Gay” pleaded guilty Tuesday to committing $150,000 in COVID-19 relief fraud.
    Many politicians break the law, and then get prosecuted and punished. There’s no reason Trump should be treated differently because his job was President and not “random Florida lawmaker.”

    1. the difference is that president Trump has done more good to this country that you and any other politician

      1. Whether one holds that opinion is irrelevant to whether Trump should be above the law. No one should be above the law. Unfortunately, some powerful people get away with breaking the law, but none of us should like that or argue for it.

        1. No one should be above the law and Trump has been mistreated. He is a victim of political prosecution abuse. That has been proven. Stalinists believe in political prosecutions. ATS supports political prosecutions. ATS is Stalinist.

      1. That’s not true either. Some Republicans and Democrats get off, just like some Republicans and Democrats get charged. Why do you choose to make a false claim? Do you think that’s good for the country to pretend that “Only Democrats get off”? When you choose to make false claims, you’re choosing to be part of the problem.

    2. The difference is that Trump hasn’t broken the law. The fact that the dishonest Dem persecutors are scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately looking for something they can call a crime speaks volumes. If he’d actually done anything wrong they’d have found it by now.

      And the fact that he is a person of low character just makes it even more pathetic that they can’t find anything on him.

      1. Whether Trump has broken laws will be determined by investigators and juries, not by your person opinions.

        This isn’t a low-hanging fruit. A low-hanging fruit would have been for FL to charge him with voter registration fraud when he made a false claim on his voter registration form, just as would have occurred if he’d been poor and powerless instead of wealthy and powerful.

        1. “Whether Trump has broken laws will be determined by investigators and juries, not by your person opinions.”

          So far Trump hasn’t broken any significant laws though you would cite him for jay-walking and ask for imprisonment. On the other hand, ATS, you have been wrong about every major issue involving Trump. That should tell everyone something.

  12. Clearly Bragg has corroboration now. So your article would be best to speculate on who is testifying besides Cohen. Odds on favorite is Weisselberg…, but a truly intriguing set of circumstances would have it be Vanks!!

Leave a Reply