Michael Cohen, former President Trump’s onetime fixer and lawyer, has admitted to a federal court that he was the source of fake case citations used to support his effort to end his supervised release from his earlier criminal convictions. He blamed Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the error, he also seemed to throw his own attorney under the bus for not checking his work.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman was a bit peeved when his clerks checked the authority cited by Cohen, including such cases as “United States v. Figueroa-Flores, United States v. Ortiz and United States v. Amato.” None existed.
In fairness, Cohen is not the first person to be burned by AI. Of course, critics have noted that the faux authority is perfectly consistent with Cohen’s legal career, which is a litany of misrepresentations and outright lies.
Cohen now says that the culprit is Google Bard, an AI service, and that he was only the latest victim of AI invention. However, one of the most interesting aspects of the statement is that Cohen asks for understanding that he is only a layperson, not a lawyer. He was, of course, disbarred as a lawyer after pleading guilty various federal crimes.
Cohen told the court:
“As a non-lawyer, I have not kept up with emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology and did not realize that Google Bard was a generative text service that, like Chat-GPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not. Instead, I understood it to be a super-charged search engine and had repeatedly used it in other contexts to (successfully) find accurate information online.”
He then put part of the blame on his non-AI lawyer, David Schwartz, and emphasized that it was in the end Schwartz’ filing, not his:
“It did not occur to me then and remains surprising to me now—that Mr. Schwartz would drop the cases into his submission wholesale without even confirming that they existed. I deeply regret any problems Mr. Schwartz’s filing may have caused.”
Cohen’s current counsel E. Danya Perry, asked that his client “not suffer any collateral damage from Mr. Schwartz’s misstep.”
The problems with AI are well-known, but so is Cohen’s checkered history with the courts.
As I have previously written, Cohen has a long history of alleged lies and half-truths in dealing with the government or courts.
In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to various charges, including tax evasion, campaign finance violations, lying to Congress and several banks to obtain campaign financing and was sentenced to three years in prison.
He unsuccessfully sued Trump on the basis of a verbal contract that again put his own dubious veracity at issue.
As noted in earlier proceedings in Manhattan, Cohen has continued to misrepresent his criminal background and, after assuring the court that he was remorseful for his crimes, was regularly going on the air to deny that he committed tax fraud and suggesting that he was railroaded by prosecutors.
Prosecutors cited his numerous media appearances as containing false accounts of himself and his case: “while Cohen is free to write and say what he wants, he cannot simultaneously distance himself from his conduct on cable news, while cloaking himself in claims of acceptance of responsibility in court filings.”
I became a critic of Cohen long before he broke with the President. He was a disgrace to the bar for years and Trump bears equal blame for retaining such a person as his legal representative.
What Cohen lacked in legal skill, he made up for in a lack of ethical and professional standards.
In 2015, students on 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. Cohen threatened the students with absolute ruination. 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, after 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?”
Cohen remained Trump’s loyal attack dog until he was arrested and Trump refused to pardon him, That is when Cohen proved that when you scratch a lawyer, you can find a foe.
Cohen has been gaming the system his entire career. He claimed urgent medical needs for release from prison. Of course, he previously claimed health problems in failing to appear to testify only to be spotted out on the town for a fancy dinner. Cohen previously (and implausibly) reinvented himself as a redemptive sinner and received financial support from Trump critics. He continued that pattern after his conviction.
Perry told Fox News Digital in a statement: “These filings—and the fact that he was willing to unseal them—show that Mr. Cohen did absolutely nothing wrong. He relied on his lawyer, as he had every right to do. Unfortunately, his lawyer appears to have made an honest mistake in not verifying the citations in the brief he drafted and filed.”
A federal court previously denied early release after prosecutors claimed that Cohen has reformed little and is still misrepresenting facts. Submitting fake case authority is obviously not ideal in claiming the status of a changed man.
The latest controversy is likely to be raised in the prosecution of Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg where Cohen is expected to be a key witness. The lack of authority, however, does not appear to be a detriment in that case which is pushing unprecedented legal claims. Time to call in the Google Bard?
In my opinion, both cohen and the lawyers should be sanctioned. Cohen for providing fraudulent citations. The lawyer for allowing it to go out under his name as the lawyer. I’m not sure if the new lawyer was aware of it but as new counsel, he should have reviewed everything to date and applied close scrutiny of past filings to get ahead of things.
𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩’𝐬 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐑𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬
Democrat speaks on supreme court stepping in to adjudicate Maine and Colorado rulings that removed Trump from ballots
Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential election, a prominent Democrat said Sunday, warning that the leading Republican candidate is seeking to become a “political martyr” as he pursues a second presidency.
By: Richard Luscombe ~ Dec. 31st. 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/31/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-trump-2024-eligibility
LMAO
Did Darren Smith die?
Since Turley only writes to and for the deplorables, turning his blog into a cesspool isn’t hard.
“Deplorables.”
Brilliant!
Simply brilliant!
Fishy, clearly, you deliberated at extraordinary length in order to produce a concept as profound and axiomatic as this.
Congratulations!
Kristin, I think you are still part of the blog team — could you please give us an update on Darren or his possible replacement as blog manager. Thanks.
You’re an idiot
Kristin, could you please tell us which VPN Concerned Citizen / Dennis use, and whether new subscribers to said VPN might get a discount if we mentioned them? Media outlets are reporting a Swiss VPN was used by someone to swat the Commie Maine Secretary of State so perhaps they are reliable too? Thanks
Thanks for your support VPN4Me!! I appreciate the please and thanks — maybe your civility will catch on around here!
-NO- I’m currently alive and well aboard the Koru (Jeff Bezos’ Yacht) at anchor in Port Everglades, South Florida.
Eat Your Heart Out – SUCKERS! 🥂
When is Dennis McIntyre going to apologize for his ignorant comment about sharecroppers prior to the Civil War?
Instead he just moves onto his next lie about the signatories to an amicus.
The results of a search on Professor Turley’s being swatted last night on the usual left wing news sites provided no results
site:cnn.com jonathan turley
site:washingtonpost.com jonathan turley
site:msnbc.com jonathan turley
site:nytimes.com jonathan turley
zero mentions.
After doing the same type of search on the same sites but using a keyword search “swatting”, again, nothing on Jonathan Turley but results on white supremacists and NeoNazi conservatives swatting did appear. But of course
“College student who hosted racist online ‘swatting’ group is sentenced to 33 months”
– WahPutz, March 2021
“Left wing news sites” don’t exist because the phrase is an oxymoron. It’s left wing narrative-pushing sites. Understanding that explains your search results.
Oldman, for you and others. https://luxxle.com is a relatively new site. Google’s algorithm pushes right-wing media to the end of the lists while it repeats the same news sources on the left. Luxxle provides the opportunity to choose left, right, or all, including how you want the data presented. Therefore, if one is missing the data from the right because it takes forever to get to the bottom of Google’s picks, Luxxle might be a better source. Try it using Estovir’s suggestion and compare the data brought to the front.
Meyer – thanks for the tip.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Estovir,
I used Duck Duck Go. When I typed in “Turley,” the first suggestion was “turley gets swatted.”
I clicked on that and the first listed was on MSN.com but a NY Post article.
The rest were non-MSM.
Guys, “Dennis McIntyre” is not a person but a bot programmed to print “Jonathan: “ followed by today’s DNC talking points (i.e., lies).
There is actually a Dennis McIntyre in Rusk, TX. He is an unconvicted pedophile.
Tom/Estovir:
In the last few months you have been relatively disciplined in keeping Old Man sounding fairly mature.
But here the mask slips off. And suddenly Old Man is sniping at McInlyre with all your other puppets.
It’s out of character.
If Old Man From Kansas is really the mild mannered conservative you have strived to develop, Old Man would be appalled by your gay-centric comments.
No one but another creep would look past your homosexual references and criticize McInlyre instead. That wouldn’t be normal for a straight, older man. It wouldn’t be normal, in fact, for most guys over 30.
But you apparently don’t realize how creepy you sound.
Thanks for the slip.
Slow night at the bathz? come over to our place. my husband is well hung but a total bottom. If you do come over, no bltchyness plz. You need to learn how to turn it off when youre not queened out
LMAO
Angelo u are so much better at this than me. I wish u would show up more!
“Thanks for the slip.”
Funny, thats what my ex said when i was doing her doggy style and i accidentally popped that cherry on her bum, and she realized she liked it.
Did somebody give u the slip?? Is that how you got the name “turdrunner”??
I have no idea WTF u even just said. No matter, because i dont care either.
But i think its you slipping. YOU and this old man both spelled it McInlyre.
I dont care what you think is creepy, pedophile. You dont like it, thats all that matters.
Again, since you’re obviously a third grader and a bigot…Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.
The boys that you and Dennis cornhole are just as hairless as the sweet ass young ladies that I fvck, so i’m sure it would be easy to pretend.
But I’ll let Tom and Estovir speak for themselves.
I’ll just go on torturing you and letting you have your paranoid delusions about who is skull fvcking you now. Sorry you’re all creeped out. LMAO
suddenly Old Man is sniping at McInlyre with all your other puppets.
Anon – you missed the point. Sniping at a bot is futile. I was trying to get them to stop wasting their time reading and responding.
ChatGPT is smarter than Dennis
I really love when he comes back for seconds. Its fun watching him flop and flail trying to defend his ridiculous statements. It becomes apparent why he doesn’t do it often.
NPR:
“Michael Cohen says he 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 sent AI-generated fake legal cases to his attorney”
By: AP ~ December 30, 2023
December 30, 20238:20 AM ET
[Link] 2023/12/30/1222273745/michael-cohen-ai-fake-legal-cases
Key Word: “𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲” That implies he had 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭 to begin with. BTW, We’re all supposed to be ‘unwittingly’ also …
𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐃𝐫𝐨𝐩 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐁𝐅
By: Tyler Durden ~ Jul 27, 2023
[Link] zerohedge.com/political/feds-drop-campaign-finance-charge-against-sbf
𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧-𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐃𝐫𝐨𝐩 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬
By: Tyler Durden ~ Dec 30, 2023
[Link] zerohedge.com/political/bankman-fried-dodges-bribery-trial-after-feds-drop-charges
Nothing to see here: Dem’s 2020 Election Covert Campaign Ops Funding, Covert Ops Worldwide, Won’t be any Covert Crypto Campaign Funding in the 2024 Election, keep moving along … Oh Yeah, then there’s that Jamie Dimon JP Morgan thingy … keep moving along, nothing to see here …
𝐉𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧, 𝐖𝐡𝐨 “𝐇𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬” 𝐁𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧, 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐫-𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐓𝐅 𝐎𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐁𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫
By: Tyler Durden ~ Friday, Dec 29, 2023
[Link] zerohedge.com/markets/jamie-dimon-who-hates-bitcoin-will-be-broker-dealer-bitcoin-etf-worlds-biggest-asset
SEC Filing:
[Link] sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1855781/000119312523306025/d507893ds1a.htm
[Link] coindesk.com/business/2023/12/29/jpmorgan-ceos-bitcoin-bashing-is-a-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-situation/
[Link] coindesk.com/business/2023/12/29/blackrock-names-jp-morgan-jane-street-as-authorized-participants-for-bitcoin-etf/
… The Banks are fine … keep moving along …
𝐔𝐒 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐃𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐈𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑, 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜
By: Tyler Durden ~ Friday, Dec 29, 2023
[Link] zerohedge.com/markets/bank-depos
keep moving along, nothing to see here …
Jonathan
Anyone in this blog recognize these names: Fruit of the Loom, Hanna Andersson, Osh Kosh, Lucky and Me, Oddobody.
These are my favorite brands of briefs to peel down from my little friends waists before i poke my micro pen!s into their beautiful bung holes.
Jonathan
Dennis the unconvicted pedophile has never seen a pair of briefs he wouldnt love to take off of his 8 year old victim with his teeth.
Is Dennis soliciting little boys here really protected free speech?
Steaming turd below vvvv
Steaming turd vvvvv
Jonathan: Anyone on this blog recognize some of these names?: Bradford Berenson, Gregory Brower, Tom Campbell, Ty Cobb, Tom Coleman, Patrick Fitzgerald, William Kristol or Phillip Allen Lacovara? They are among 16 former prosecutors, elected officials, government officials and constitutional lawyers who have just filed an Amicus Brief with the DC Court of Appeals which is going to hear an expedited appeal on the issue of whether DJT has an absolute immunity claim from criminal prosecution.
Ty Cobb is probably recognizable because he was the former Republican top lawyer in DJT’s WH. Almost all the rest of the signers of the Amicus Brief are also Republicans. These Republicans argue that DJT is not immune from criminal prosecution: ” Indeed, the alleged criminal activity raises a uniquely dangerous constitutional threat–the Chief Executive using his purported authority to violate the Executive Vesting Clause [of the Constitution]…and remain in power beyond his legitimate term. Such activity threatens our constitutional structure and at its core and, by its very nature, eviscerates one of the primary checks on presidential conduct–rebuked by the people at the ballot box”.
DJT has claimed Joe Biden, his DOJ , Jack Smith and “out of control judges” are out to get him–Democrats one and all! But now comes Republicans who organized and signed the Amicus Brief that echoes the allegations in Jack Smith’s indictment. DJT will undoubtedly call the signers of the Brief not “real” Republicans but “RINOS”. But it was very conservative Federalist Society legal scholars who say DJT is disqualified from ever holding public office. They are not “RINOS”.
My take away from the Amicus Brief is that both Republicans and Democrats agree that when it comes to protecting the constitutional order party affiliation takes a back seat!
The only briefs Dennis is qualified to speak about are his nephew’s undies.
Is Amicus the brand your nephew wears, Dennis the unconvicted pedophile?
None of these people signed this brief. Dennis is lying again.
Steaming turd from turdrunner below vvvvvv
Show is the brief Dennis.
Liar
Dennis – how detached from reality are you? William Kristol? I assume this is the Bill Kristol who says he is now a Democrat, and who is the leading warmonger in Washington DC, always operating behind the scenes to create Republican front groups to demonize Trump. He’s been doing so for years, yet you don’t seem to be aware of it. Are you a real person?
As to your Federalist Society falsehood, I must point out again the two law professors who authored the law review article you refer to may be members of the Federalist Society (anyone can join by paying $50), but their opinion is not that of the Federalist Society. Nor do I know of any reason to call them “very conservative”. I suspect you know nothing about them beyond authorship of the law review article.
Edwardmahl: No, you and your partner in disinformation, Anonymous, are the ones “detached from reality”. He falsely claims none of the people I listed signed the Amicus Brief. He should go look at the Brief first before making his false claims. As to the 3 legal scholars I didn’t claim they were speaking for the Federalist Society. But look at their bios and tell me they are not “conservative”!.
Notice he doesnt deny his favorite boys briefs.
None if them signed it pedophile. Post it here if they did.
Funny those same two guys keep showing up every time the dems need them.
Fed Soc my ass.
Dennis – there are two scholars who wrote the article on which you rely: William Baude and Jonathan Paulson. Like your co-worker BugAnon, when you are challenged on a factual assertion, you simply say “read the briefs” or here “read the bios.” I looked at Baude’s bio on the Federalist Society website, and there is nothing regarding his political associations.
You called these two men “very conservative Federalist Society legal scholars.” This short phase is intentionally misleading. It creates the impression that Baude and Paulson are “very conservative”, a fact that you apparently cannot back up. Then you attempt to create the impression that they are associated with the Federalist Society, which you now admit is not true.
You and other trolls have been associating these professors with the words “conservative” and “Federalist Society” to make an argument from authority: even conservatives want to bar Trump from the ballot. Your characterization of the proponents of this view is not correct and it would not be a persuasive argument even if true.
This is what Dennis likes to do. Just make sh!t up. Notice he never responded to Dick Head calling him out for his previous lie. He just moves on to the next.
Prof. Baude is a member of the Federalist society, and he is a respected constitutional scholar. He is not really a conservative, he is sort of libertarianish.
It would be wise – for Dennis, and others citing him or attacking him to actually listen to his arguments – in particular to listen to the federalist debate on this issue.
Baude has attempted to make the argument for 14th amendment removal. Baude is a good scholar and he has found some valid arguments.
I would actually prefer a public debate where Prof. Tribe or someone who most strongly holds to the 14th amendment claim is making that 14th amendment argument. But Baude is the one who has actually participated in public debate over this.
In the Federalist debate:
Baude LOST the claim that the events of J6 constitute an insurrection.
Constitutional and statutory interpretation REQUIRE reading terms narrowing – especially when you are giving government power or infringing on rights. Any reading of insurection in the 14th amendment broad enough to cover J6 is broad enough to apply to pretty much any protest that has the slightest violence. If Trump is an insurectionist, then so is Rep. Waters, Sen. Schumer, and myriads of other democrats. Arguably what we are seeing at the southern boarder is an “insurrection” . Nor is that the most dangerous part of interpreting the 14th amendment broadly. The 14th amendment has two other removal clauses – including providing aide to an enemy. A board interpretation of those would remove Biden for proving release of funds to Iran.
Though not strictly applicable to the 14th amendment – broad interpretations the breadth of law, combined with rejecting immunity would subject Biden to criminal prosecution by Israel for contributing to the terrorist acts on Oct 7.
This also raises the question of the standard of proof. Dennis is as an example correct that there does not have to be a criminal conviction for the 14th amendment to apply. At the same time he is obviously wrong. LBJ knowingly lied about the Gulf of Tonkin – to Congress to get us into the Vietnam War. Could he have been prosecuted ? By the US ? By Vietnam as a war criminal ? Bush did something similar with respect to the War in Iraq – there were no WMD’s, there was no credible evidence of WMD’s. Was Bush, as well as Colin Powell and numerous others in the NSA and CIA criminally responsible – either int he US or in foreign countries for their actions and decisions ?
We do not have an answer to what constitutes the defintion of an insurrection or what constitutes proof of involvement in one to meet the requirements of the 14th amendment.
While Baude defended his broad reading – he also accepted that such a reading would allow removing lots of people from ballots – and not just over J6.
Another part of the debate was when is this claim that the 14th amendment is self executing and that it applies to allowing candidates onto the ballot.
Baude had one good argument there – but it was NOT a conservative or originalist argument – and that is that if we are going to bar people from office, there is far less harm to doing so by keeping them off the ballot than by refusing them office after they have won election.
But that is a policy and logical argument – not a constitutional one, and as a matter of law and constitution – Baude lost that part of the debate badly. Constitutional grants of power are virtually never “self executing” and S5 of the 14th amendment grants congress the power to enact laws to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.
There are several fatal flaws regarding the way democrats are attempting to apply the 14th amendment
and those flaws ARE consistent with the text and practice of those who passed the 14th amendment.
First it is not self executing – grants of power are not, restrictions on rights are not. And the text only empowers Congress to make laws enforcing the 14th amendment, there is no such law in effect today. There was in the past – though it is debateable whether that would apply. There is not now.
Next, the 14th amendment does not apply to the president. There are multiple different deliberate text choices in the 14th amendment where the text could have easily included the president but did not. This is a pretty pedantic argument as we do not have a good understanding of why the text drafted did not include the president. Perhaps that was because of the unique way in which presidents are elected was presumed sufficient protection, regardless, the text does not include the president. For which Biden should be tankful.
Next, the text is pretty clear – it bars HOLDING Office – not running for office, and it allows congress to remove the disability.
That has taken place historically – and it did so AFTER the person was elected, and that is also how the text of the 14th amendment reads.
This addresses another major constitutional problem that the while “Get Trump” nonsense has. Bother the 14th amendment as well as several other parts of the constitution make clear that the final decision on federal elections rests with CONGRESS.
This not only is logical – it is the actual text of the constitution. By far the NORM is for congress to accept the results of elections – whether of the president or senators or represenatives. but it is inarguable that Congress has the power to deny an elected senator, representative or President office. The “certification” of elections by congress is NOT proforma. It is perfectly legal – whether you are Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or John Eastman or some protestor at the capitol, to rant and rave and demand that congress “overturn” the results of an election. You can not make it a crime to demand that Congress do something that it has the power to do. I would further note that you can not make it a crime to Wrongfully demand that congress do something it has the power to do. In every single legal case that ever was, some lawyer defending the losing side. Further in a substantial number of instances that lawyer knew they were on the losing – even wrong side of the argument. Contra to many o now, both the left and the right – criminal defense attorneys defending clients they know are guilty is one of the hardest and one of the most deserving of esteem tasks for an attorney.
“Nor do I know of any reason to call them “very conservative”.”
You could read their academic writings:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=William+Baude&btnG=
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=Michael+Stokes+Paulsen&btnG=
Or not.
You could lick my scrotum and leave the pedophile to speak for himself.
Why don’t you refer us to a single notable article or writing that you believe justifies characterizng them as “very conservative.” Since you believe the characterization is correct, your opinion must be based on something you have read. Or have you been instructed to make this assertion?
First, Dennis was the one who made the characterization you questioned, I only provided evidence for it.
Second, if you bothered looking at their writings, you’d know that they’ve only written one article together:
Baude, William, and Michael Stokes Paulsen. “The Sweep and Force of Section Three.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 172 (in press).
Here’s a copy: https://theorcasonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SSRN-id4532751.pdf
Personally, I don’t believe that it’s possible to characterize people as “very conservative” based on a single article, any more than I’d do so for SCOTUS justices based on a single ruling. Which is why I gave you info about other articles they’ve written. But you do you.
University of pennsylvania.
Conservative indeed
LMAO
Oh look, ad hom.
I asked for support for the statement that these men are “very conservative.” None was given now or before.
He wont provide you answers to your questions because he needs to keep you engaged. Otherwise he has no one to troll
You got evidence in the form of their publications. If you don’t want to read them, that’s on you.
I’d wish you a Happy New Year but you wouldn’t know what to do with it.
Dennis, you might be interested in this other amicus:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24245907-american-oversight-amicus-brief-in-support-of-dismissal-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-us-v-donald-trump
Their description: “As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.”
It would be interesting if the DCCA agrees, as that would make it a simple case, less likely to go to en banc review, and less likely for SCOTUS to grant cert, thereby allowing the trial to proceed without much interruption to its schedule.
Dennis, you might be interested in this amicus brief…it has a sh!t stain in it too.
The immunity question is complex and many facetted,
The first issue – that you clearly do not grasp, is that to whatever extent presidential immunity exists,
It is overcome by impeachment, and conviction by the house and senate.
The president is not empowered willy nilly to commit crimes as he pleases.
The president has no immunity from prosecution AFTER impeachment and conviction.
There are a large number of question that the court is going to have to resolve.
It is certain that they will rule that those in government have immunity from criminal (and some civil) prosecution while acting within their role as a government actor. Qualified immunity is well established law – is incredibly broad, has been discussed here before, and applies to everyone in government from the dog catcher through the president.
Personally I think that Qualified immunity needs to be completely eliminated – but that is not the state of the law.
And whether you like it or not Trump can claim qualified immunity and there is nothing you can do about that.
There is also little doubt SCOTUS will aford Trump qualified immunity to some extent.
I would note that qualified immunity does not go away because you leave the job, or even because you were impeached and removed.
Absolute immunity is significantly broader than qualified immunity. All in government has SOME form of absolute immunity.
If you doubt that try suing a judge.
The degree of absolute immunity varies with the position held within government, and the president is with certainty going to be afforded the greatest extent of absolute immunity.
While there is legitimate debate to the extent of absolute immunity, and I do not beleive SCOTUS has spoken on the question before.
As to Why would presidents have broad absolute immunity ?
All you have to contemplate is your own fears regarding Trump getting elected in 2024 to understand why the court and our founders might want broad absolute immunity.
Trump has promised to clean house when elected – those of you on the left are presuming that means the concentration camps that hillary promised or the kangaroo courts that the left has concocted.
Regardless, whatever immunity Trump has or does not have – that is what those on the left and Biden will have in 2025.
Separately – presidents undeniably have the absolute and unreviewable power to pardon. That power is so broad that the courts have already ruled that a person does not have to request, or even accept a presidential pardon – it takes effect anyway.
Further there is case law confirming that p[residents have the power to pardon themselves.
When you argue that a president does not have absolute immunity, all you are doing is assuring that future presidents will give themselves broad blanket pardons as they leave office. Most everyone explects that Biden will pardon himself and his family as things get hotter, certainly before leaving office.
So what you are asking SCOTUS to do is decide a Trump specific case. Because if SCOTUS decides against presidential immunity, as noted all future presidents will issue broad pardons on the way out of office.
I would note this is typical of the left – push stupid claims that will ultimately backfire on them.
Historically outgoing presidents have been very cooperative with incoming presidents. It is Obama that broke that tradition.
Not only did he and his staff prove as difficult as possible as Trump and his people moved in, but Obama was actiuvely involved in the collusion delusion hoax – targetting his successor.
Regardless, Trump did NOT go after Hillary – though there was plenty to go after.
Trump did not go after Obama – though again there is lots to go after.
But Obama went after his successor, and Biden has now gone after his predecessor.
it is near certain that SCOTUS will not
I know that you left wing nuts think this is all about Trump – but it is not.
Personally I am not sure that SCOTUS will decide the presidential immunity issue.
I think the most likely action for them to take is to duck the issue. To grant cert, hear oral arguments late int he term and push the case into next term when it will be moot.
But lets presume that SCOTUS rejects Trump’s claim, it is still highly unlikely they will do so fast enough to “interfere” with the election, and in fact they are very likely to deliberately choose NOT to decide until after the election.
So Trump wins, And the Trump DOJ targets Biden and a long list of other democrats.
I fully expect that YOU will be ranting and raving that Biden has absolute presidential immunity.
While I expect Biden will pardon himself ont he way out the door – he can not write a pardon broad enoguh to cover all possible malfeasance he can be charged with. And even if he does – Biden is not going to pardon the entire democratic party on the way out the door.
Come 2025 Democrats are going to be argument FOR immunity.
Is there any of these politically motivated stupid tactical moves that has not resulted in massive “i told you so” after the fact.
Garland is not on the supreme court, and Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaguagh are because of your past political garbage.
Dennis, The immunity of those in government from prosecution while in office comes from 250 years of constitutional order.
No president or political party has ever done anything so stupid as Biden in the past.
Regardless, I do not favor “board absolute immunity”. But there is little doubt that some immunity exists. It MUST we would not be governable otherwise.
Dennis, Democrats are in serious trouble – and it is with near certainty going to get WORSE rather than better.
Whether you like it or not – the majority of Americans have decided Biden is a crook.
They also have rejected this weaponization of law enforcement against political enemies.
As well as the hypocrisy of a party that actually impeached Trump over FALSE claims of weaponizing law enforcement – is now actually weaponizing law enforcement
Regardless, the Biden administration,. the Media, democrats as a whole, have been caught in so much malfeasance and so many lies in so many things, that you have lost not just the peoples trust, but the trust of LOTS of the courts.
You radically overplayed your hand with the collusion delusion, the Biden crime family, 2020 election rigging. and Exaggerated J6 narratives that are falling apart.
Yow have not given people enough time to forget the last whopper you told before offering the next.
Separately – Biden has been a DISASTROUS president – COVID is still around, 3+ times as many people died of COVID under Biden than Trump. Just proof the left will lie about anything.
The collusion delusion narrative has gone down the tubes,
The Russian disinformation narrative is dead.
Inflation may not have hit double digits – but it is still present, and still hurts.
Significant portions of the world are at war. And we face threats of war everywhere else.
Biden promised to be a unitor – instead he is far more divisive than Trump ever was.
You blamed all the chaos of the Trump- presidency on Trump
But Trump was gone and the chaos is still here – people are grasping that YOU are the chaos – not Trump.
The democrats problem is not MAGA republicans – it is the weakness of the support from their own base.
You have cried wolf too many times – no one beleives you.
He’s already been to prison and already been disbarred. What”s left in the way of punishment for Cohen? Fortunately there’s an answer:
LIARS, ONE AND ALL
________________________
KNOW THY ENEMY
“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”
– Sun Tzu
____________
These communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who rule over America, by their tyrannical and oppressive “dictatorship of the hired help,” are the direct and
mortal enemies of the American thesis, that being freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Exactly how long did it take the American Revolutionaries to grasp the imperative?
Boston Tea Party – 1773
Declaration of Independence – 1776
So, three years?
Let’s see:
January 6, 2021
January 6, 2024.
Voila! Three years!
As solely a consideration of history, an historical study, please do check my math.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“It’s time to stop talkin’ and start chalkin’!”
– Chick Hearn, L.A. Lakers Sportscaster
Jonathan
Dennis McIntyre is a goddam LIAR and has absolutely NOTHING on which to base his assertion that “most of the Confederate soldiers were poor sharecroppers.”
Just makin’ sh!t up. Typical. Talk about revisionist history. Just make sh!t up out of the blue.
Prior to the Civil War, sharecropping is known to have existed in Mississippi and is believed to have been in place in Tennessee.[20][21] However, it was not until the economic upheaval caused by the American Civil War and the end of slavery during and after Reconstruction that it became widespread in the South.
Charles Bolton, “Farmers Without Land: The Plight of White Tenant Farmers and Sharecroppers Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine”, Mississippi History Now, March 2004.
Robert Tracy McKenzie, “Sharecropping”, Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture.
Steaming turd below VVVVV
You must admit, Cohen learned from the best when he was trumps lawyer. Unfortunately for Cohen, being a bully like his mentor just isn’t working. Seems the trump supporters only love one bully, and Cohen isn’t it.
Bob Metamucil
We are still waiting to see your wager ticket from the bet you placed on the 2024 election.
You’re so sure Trump will lose, where is your $10k wager? You can get excellent odds right now because of how badly Trump is waxing Biden in the polls.
Coward as well as a liar. Scared? Say scared.
Steaming turd from turdrunner below VVVVV
Hang Cohen and suspend his attorney. They are both guilty!!!