On Wednesday, I received a letter from Bryan M. Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, who is the lawyer of Kevin Morris (who is the lawyer for Hunter Biden). The letter warns that I could face a defamation action if I do not retract (or if I repeat) my criticism of Morris’s representational relationship with Hunter. Putting the personal invectives aside, Sullivan did offer a couple of details on the possible defense of Morris in a pending ethics complaint brought by a conservative legal group.
Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column discussing how Morris and others reportedly met to plan out a scorched earth strategy to attack and threaten critics. The Washington Post reported that the discussion included targeting or threatening critics with defamation lawsuits.
In his letter, Sullivan attacks my reference to ethics rules as unworthy of a professor as well as “blatantly misleading and just bad lawyering.” That tirade about my lack of knowledge and principles is followed by a demand for an immediate retraction and adds “if you repeat your baseless charges, you understand that accusing someone of violating the law is defamation per se.”
I will not issue a retraction despite the threats of Morris and Sullivan. I did, however, publish another column repeating my objections to Morris’s blurry representational claims.
The effort in such threats is to silence or chill critics in their criticism of a wealthy, powerful public figure like Mr. Morris.
Since Morris may repeat such threats against other columnists and critics, I wanted to give a full account of his claims that his transactions with his client are entirely in compliance with California bar rules. For that reason, this is a bit lengthy but it may help others receiving such letters from Morris and Sullivan.
Unfortunately, after I responded to the counter arguments by Sullivan under the ethics rules, he expressly refused to address glaring problems in applying exceptions to the general rule against lawyers paying personal costs of their clients.
The Original Column
The letter was triggered by my column in The Hill in which I criticized Morris for maintaining an array of alleged different roles while serving as counsel. Notably, the letter does not appear to deny the roles, but focuses on a brief reference to the general rule against paying personal costs of clients.
Here is the original graph:
Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients. Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.
Sullivan suggests that Morris is not subject to this general prohibition because he could claim exceptions to the rule against such payment of personal costs or bills of a client. He stated:
“In your Column, you reiterate the inaccurate, uninformed, and frivolous claim made in the recent California bar complaint that Mr. Morris violated California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) by allegedly ‘paying the bills’ for Mr. Morris’ client, R. Hunter Biden. In doing so, you completely ignored the remaining portions of Rule 1.8.5 in which it is expressly provided in subsection (b).”
There certainly are such exceptions or allowances but some of us reject their applicability to Morris or to these payments or loans. Indeed, we believe that Morris’s ill-defined representational relationship is precisely what these rules strive to avoid. As discussed below, those concerns were magnified by Morris’s recent deposition where he seemed to struggle to separate matters falling under his roles as friend, donor, investor, and lawyer.
Rule 1.8.5(b)
Sullivan primarily objected that his client could claim exemption under Rule 1.8.5(b). I disagree, but first here is that second provision.
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may:
(1) pay or agree to pay such expenses to third persons,* from funds collected or to be collected for the client as a result of the representation, with the consent of the client;
(2) after the lawyer is retained by the client, agree to lend money to the client based on the client’s written* promise to repay the loan, provided the lawyer complies with rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), and 1.8.1 before making the loan or agreeing to do so;
(3) advance the costs of prosecuting or defending a claim or action, or of otherwise protecting or promoting the client’s interests, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
(4) pay the costs of prosecuting or defending a claim or action, or of otherwise protecting or promoting the interests of an indigent person* in a matter in which the lawyer represents the client.
I still do not see how this exception would apply to these payments. Again, I sent questions on these provisions and their conditions to ask how Morris could justify his claim for an exemption. Sullivan refused to supply those answers.
Mr. Sullivan included only the first three provisions. The first provision references a circumstance when a lawyer can pay bills “from funds collected or to be collected for the client as a result of representation.” If reports are accurate, Morris is alleged to have given Hunter millions for taxes and expenses. It is not clear what representation would generate millions to repay such money as a loan.
The second provision refers to a written agreement on payment that can be made, but notes that the agreement must be reached “before making the loan or agreeing to do so.” As discussed below, it does not appear that such an agreement on the loans existed during part of the representational period. As to the later written agreement, Morris admitted that the loan would not be due until 2025, after the next election, and could be excused by Morris. Moreover, as Sullivan acknowledged, any failure to comply with these rules allows Hunter to unilaterally void the conditions under California precedent cited in the letter.
The third provision refers to advancing the costs of the litigation to the extent that they are contingent on “the outcome of the matter.” Again, it is not clear what matter that would be and whether the costs paid were indeed in the millions.
Sullivan’s letter omitted the fourth provision, which refers to the applicability to an indigent person. While Hunter was in debt, it is hard to see how he was indigent given his various assets and holdings.I specifically asked Sullivan if Morris treated Hunter as an indigent person despite his assets and lavish lifestyle. The rule was changed around six years ago to remove barriers for clients who could not afford to face litigation. This rule has been subject to considerable discussion by California bar members and experts. However, analysts at the time warned that this applied only to the indigent and not even to pro bono clients.
Finally, the rule also has a provision that expressly states that:
“Costs” within the meaning of paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) are not limited to those costs that are taxable or recoverable under any applicable statute or rule of court but may include any reasonable* expenses of litigation, including court costs, and reasonable* expenses in preparing for litigation or in providing other legal services to the client.
Note that this provision specifically refers to the third provision specifically cited by Sullivan. The amount of money that has been attributed to Morris would seem to exceed any “reasonable” cost under this rule. I also asked Sullivan if Morris was claiming that supporting Hunter’s expenses and paying his taxes fell into this definition.
Sullivan simply states that “in California, there is no prohibition on an attorney lending money to their client despite your misguided attempt to give the appearance of some sort of prohibition.” In reality, Rule 1.8.5(a) does state the general bar on such payments. There is also an exception, but I disagree that the exception would apply to Morris’s payments and loans.
Rule 1.8.1
That may explain why, after citing Rule 1.8.5, Mr. Sullivan’s letter also refers to Rule 1.8.1 providing in part: “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client, or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client.” Sullivan notes that the rule allows for such business transactions with clients with informed written consent.
It is important to note that this rule does not deal with giving clients money to cover personal expenses or taxes. It concerns business transactions with a client under very specific conditions. It is not clear if Sullivan is arguing that the loans to Hunter Biden are a business deal made for the pecuniary benefit of Morris. As discussed below, there appears to be a mix of loans and acquisitions related to his client.
Sullivan stresses that any arrangement was not adverse. Of course, it presupposes that some or all of these payments were business transactions under Rule 1.8.1 and not a cost under Rule 1.8.5.
The use of Rule 1.8.5 raises other concerns. Morris reportedly was introduced to Hunter at a Democratic fundraiser and later started to give him money while serving as his counsel. If he also did business with Hunter, the question is whether he acquired any assets of Hunter that were the subject of federal or congressional investigation. It would raise concerns if he saw a good business opportunity in any distressed assets of a client. However, Sullivan would not confirm whether they attributed most of the payments to business dealings with Hunter.
In the House transcript below, Morris admits that, after he started his representation of Hunter, he did not have any written agreement dealing with the loans and payments. Despite being told that he was going to be asked about the loans, Morris could not recall how much money he has given Hunter in loans. Then they had this telling exchange:
Q Was that loan agreement, that [sic] in place in January of 2020 when you first began giving loans out to Hunter Biden?
A No, we documented it a little later.
Q When you say “a little later,” what’s a little later?
A I don’t remember, counsel.
Q A year later? Six months later?
A It might have been.
Q …So, again, just to clarify, because your attorney asked, but I want you to answer the question again. It’s your testimony that in January of 2020, when you first began giving loans to Hunter Biden, there was no written loan agreement in place at that time, correct?
Mr. Morris. Correct.
So Morris did not secure a written agreement before making these loans and was not even sure when the agreement was eventually crafted later in the course of his representation.
Morris and Sullivan insist that this is all in compliance with the rules. They are suggesting that a lawyer can just give massive amounts of money to a client to cover everything from taxes to personal expenses without any written agreement detailing the conditions and expectations with the client. Morris could not remember if that agreement came as much as a year later.
Finally, the transcript refers to Morris investing or assuming interest in entities associated with Hunter’s foreign partners or businesses. It is not clear what financial interest Morris assumed with regard to any real property owned by Hunter. I specifically asked Sullivan about such transactions. These business interests appear to have arisen after Morris delved into his client’s finances as his counsel. His client was in obvious financial distress at the time. It is important to determine if Morris assumed interest or purchased assets due to his knowledge of Hunter’s past dealings.
Again, there is a telling exchange with Morris of his ownership of 10% of Bohai Harvest RST LLC (BHR), through his acquisition of interest in Skaneateles LLC. Those are business interests associated with Hunter Biden. Note the apparent confusion of Morris in his knowledge and claims of privilege (emphasis added):
Q What kind of company was Skaneateles?
A I mean, I don’t know. An LLC, I think.
Q But did it sell shirts? What was it? I mean, what was the purpose of the company?
A I think it’s — again, I’m not — you know, I’m not to the point sure, but it was an LLC and — you know, I think it — Hunter actually had a very simple corporate structure personally. I think this was one that was for some purpose that I can’t remember. I — you know, anyway.
Q Do you know what Hunter Biden’s role was with Skaneateles?
A No. I think he was the sole, sole member of an LLC.
Q And are you aware of an investment fund Bohai Harvest?
A Yes.
Q What is that? It’s a Chinese — it’s a hedge fund of Chinese Nationals, I believe, that raise money to make investments in public-private, and infrastructure programs.
…
Q And do you know what kind of investments that BHR makes?
A I knew better at one time. I remember going through them. I don’t remember exactly what they were. I think they were — I don’t know. I think they were infrastructure.
Q But at some point, you were aware of the different types of projects that the Chinese National fund was investing in?
A Oh, well, yeah. When I was reviewing the investment I was going to make, I did it in — as part of my diligence on evaluating that transaction.
Q Did there come a time when you took over the interest for Skaneateles, which held BHR, the investment in BHR?
A The way I think it was, counsel, that I acquired, I acquired Skaneateles, which as I understand it owned the BHR piece.
Q What else did Skaneateles own?
A I don’t know.
Q Does it own anything else?
A I don’t think so.
Q But sitting here today, you’re not exactly sure what Skaneateles —
A I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have anything else.
Q And does it sound right to say that Skaneateles held a 10 percent stake in BHR?
A It sounds right.
Q So you currently own that 10 percent stake in BHR?
A Correct, through one of my corporate entities.
Q Which purchased Skaneateles, which held the BHR investment?
A Uh-huh.
Q Do you know when you — when did you purchase Skaneateles?
A Was it — I — you know, in 2021.
Q How did it come up that you were going to purchase Skaneateles? Or why did you buy Skaneateles of all the companies that Hunter Biden was involved with? Why that one?
A That’s privileged. I am not going to answer that because of attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Sullivan. No, no, no, why did you buy it? Like what?
Mr. Morris. I’m not going to answer it.
Q No I am going to ask about your communication —
A The —
Q The communication is privileged.
Mr. Sullivan. Can we go off the record for 2 minutes of the —
Mr. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.]
…Q You’re fine. Back on the record. Why did you buy BHR?
A I did the transaction because, you know, I evaluated it as a businessman, and I thought it was something that could be a very successful investment. I — you know, but I did diligence on the assets. I knew what — I knew what Hunter paid for it in the beginning, and I saw, and I still see upside.
Q What did you pay for Skaneateles?
A I think. 157K.
…Mr. Liner. You don’t know when. Do you know when you actually bought this interest?
Mr. Morris. No….
Q Did you have a written agreement with Hunter Biden regarding the sale of Skaneateles?
A I don’t know. I don’t believe so. Or — I don’t know. Probably, yeah. Probably, it was the — I would imagine I had to — okay, yeah. The answer is yes.
Mr. Liner. You had legal counsel as well.
Mr. Morris. Correct. A lot of them.
Q Does that contract allow for Hunter Biden to purchase back BHR at a certain time point?
A That I don’t — I can’t tell you, Counsel.
Mr. Liner. Meaning you don’t know?
Mr. Morris. Meaning I don’t know.
This is an exchange after Morris was told weeks in advance that he would be asked about his payments, loans, and agreements with Hunter Biden. Yet, Morris is still not clear on what agreements he had with his client or key details on those transactions. He is not even sure if he is holding an asset (that is the subject of congressional inquiry into his client’s dealings) that he might just give back to his client at some point.
Summary
Mr. Sullivan also insists that, under California Rule 1.7, there is no conflict of interest in any of these dealings and that they are certainly not adverse to Hunter Biden. That will require more information on the full array of business, personal, and legal arrangements that Morris maintained with his client.
In the end, we are left with more questions than answers, even after Morris’s long deposition. The six basic questions on the applicability of claimed exceptions for payments or loans to clients may have clarified some of these points. However, Sullivan refused to answer and accused me of trying to trick him and his client. He objected that I was “clearly engaging in that old trick to pry into alternative matters and misconstrue my letter, which we will ignore.”
There is no trick — new or old. Mr. Sullivan is contesting the application of the cited rule to his client. There is a general rule stating lawyers “shall not” pay personal expenses as quoted in the column. California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) (“[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.”). There are exceptions, but I fail to see how they would cover Morris’s payments or loans. Indeed, the applicability of exceptions requires underlying conditions that could add to the concerns for some of us on the multifaceted relationship between Morris and Biden.
The assertion of Sullivan and Morris that any of this is defamation is itself unsettling. They are now suggesting that exceptions to a general rule against paying personal costs of clients are applicable to these payments. I disagree. While his public figure standing under New York Times v. Sullivan requires satisfaction of the actual malice standard, that higher standard is not necessary to discard this claim. This is an interpretative disagreement in a matter of great public interest and columnists are allowed to express their opinions on Morris’s conduct.
The original column only made passing reference to this rule, but the threat has allowed for a more comprehensive discussion of the rule and possible counter arguments. For those who might be targeted next by such letters from Sullivan or Morris, I hope that this analysis will reinforce your own position in discussing these issues. Morris would be better served by offering answers rather than threatening lawsuits.
Obviously, as we learn more, this will be an ongoing discussion on the ethics of this relationship. This is an issue that has come up in practice for many of us under different variations of this rule. However, given our California lawyers who are regulars on this blog, I look forward to discussing these issues further in whether Morris’s relationship is consistent and compliant with California bar rules.
Here is the transcript so that you can read Morris’s own words explaining his representational arrangement with Hunter Biden: Morris_Redacted
This lawyer reminds me of a piss-ant crawling up an elephant’s leg with rape on its mind. Ain’t gonna work.
Which lawyer you mean? There are so many being discussed.
“The law is reason free from passion . . . Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.” (Aristotle)
The event behind E. Jean Carroll’s civil suit against Trump allegedly occurred in *1995* — some *18 years* before she filed suit. Under NY’s previous law (which is now the law again), such suits were subjected to a reasonable 1-5 year statute of limitations.
Then in the fury of the “Me Too” movement, NY passed the “Adult Survivors Act.” That Act created a one-year window that magically wiped out the statute of limitations — completely! And it applied *retroactively*. Carroll slithered through that window.
Thus the passion over reason that created the abomination of a civil suit based on an alleged event that took place 18 years ago.
“Abomination” is the right word.
This suit shows how thoroughly corrupt American law has become in some politicized jurisdictions.
“18 years” = 26 years (which makes the case even more horrific)
Sam (and Edward Mahl): Your points are so.well.taken. And Sam’s Aristotlean quote is so apropos.
I immediately think of remittitur or new trial (“passion or prejudice” being one of the potential elemental qualifiers?).
I also note that it appears there was a different jury established for the damages phase?
Having nothing to do with Trump, I have found this case silly from the getgo. Even arguendo, accepting her story as true, and based on a jury verdict, we are nonetheless dealing with a woman who flirted with the defendant, invited him into her dressing room, made sexual innuendos to him about ‘why doesn’t HE try on the intimate underwear,’ -NOT CALLING OUT FOR HELP when he allegedly started to “abuse” her, and laughing about it/not doing anything about–until years later when he became famous and wealthy—really really really calls into question/consideration Sam’s good point about what reason should mean under the law. If Trump had simply become an average/nobody in NY, I doubt the legal system would have heard from her at all, irrespective of the new “enabling” laws that Sam references.
Thanks guys for your good thoughts.
(Apologies in advance for going OT from Kevin Morris)
“. . . a woman who flirted with . . .”
Exactly. There’s morning-after regret. But 26-years later regret?!
The whole case is a travesty, driven by the never-ending desire to “get Trump.”
Not that anyone is going to read this, but………I would not want to take on Professor Turley in a case such as the one Kevin Morris has instructed his lawyers to threaten.
And in a presidential election year to boot! If the Trump campaign gets a hold of this, they will lay it at the doorstep of Joe Biden, claiming he orchestrated the threats — whether Joe did or didn’t won’t matter —
I propose a new game here in Turleyville, where people guess at what increasingly-early time Happy Hour began on Fridays, leading to the comment section going off the rails with apparent drunken idiocy having little or nothing to do with the Professor’s selected topic.
No prizes awarded because just having the necessary sobriety to recognize the accelerating level of inebriated moronitude in the Friday comment section is its own reward.
Happy-Hour: a period of venting for Members of the Moronic Community who purge themselves of the work week’s mountain of B.S. with; Humor, Satire, Conjecture, and some plain old Country-Time Bitchen.
It’s a healthy exercise to get a load off your shoulders and start to breath Freedom again (Hence the term ‘venting’).
Alas this coming Sunday brings us to Our day of rest and as a added plus the NFL Semi-Final Playoff Games – GO Detroit, GO Baltimore, GO Chiefs, GO 49ers 🏈
Let the record show that on the day a jury rendered their verdict in a defamation lawsuit filed against Trump & ordered him to pay $83.3 million to the woman he relentlessly insulted & defamed after he was found liable for sexually abusing her, Fox News legal contributor, Jonathan Turley spent the last few days laser focused on Hunter Biden & “the curious ethical case of Kevin Morris.”
Look forward to more of the Professor’s carefully crafted musings about ethics & compliance with our judicial system.
You honestly expect the verdict to survive ?
Carroll falsely accused Him of Rape. She got the insults she deserved.
Regardless, all you are doing is successfully proving that are courts are F’d.
Few take note of the fact that Times V., Sullivan was a 5-4 decision – with 4 justices prepared to completely eliminate Defamation claims
Those of you on the left have so weaponized the courts your are demanding that SCOTUS obliterate defamation entirely.
A good reason for Turley ignoring Kaplan/Carrol is that it was a farce.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report definition of rape: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
What he did meets this definition. He raped her.
Were you there? I have seen no real proof it happened.
According to your words, Joe Biden “raped” Tara Reade.
Have you paid the slightest attention to E Jean Carroll – no one needs to insult her – she defames herself constantly.
Tjhe Carrol case and several others that have occurred int he past several years should terrify everyone – including Turley.
Turley was provided notice by Sullivan that he has Defamed Morris. While that allegation is false – we have had half a dozen large politically motivated defamation cases that have zero foundation in Fact.
I am sure Sulivan can pick a favorable jurisdiction with judges that do not give a schiff about the law and juries that have no problems giving a small fortune to nutjobs and destroy Turley completely.
The fact that Turley has not defamed anyone would be irrelevant.
It has not been relevant anywhere else.
All that matters to win hugely in a defamation case today is that your victim can be painted on the wrong side of politics.
That you can get a favorable Democrat appointed judge who does not give a schiff about the law,
And that you can file the case in a jurisdiction where you can get a nut job Jury – regardless of where anything actually took place.
Regardless, eventually one of these cases is going to make it to the supreme court – which is with near certainty going to hold that our courts are out of control.
Something I watched recently brought to mind an interesting parallel between two people.
The comparison is not perfect – though it is even closer today.
Two people who are charasmatic.
Who lead a movement.
Who were both persecuted by the FBI
Who both lost politically motivated defamation cases.
Who both had issues with marital fidelity.
Who both drew enormous crowds to hear them speak
Who both sought to shutdown racist oppressors.
Who both faced politically motivated efforts to Jail them.
Who both became more popular the more they were persecuted.
Martin Luther King and Donald John Trump.
Need I remind you that Times v. Sullivan – a major Supreme court case limiting defamation arose from the politically motivated defamation case by a biased judge and jury ?
Right now you have a Sumpreme court that is stronger on free speech and any since the Warren court.
She claimed 4th base, but the jury said she lied.
They wouldn’t buy anything beyond 3rd base.
I find that strange. They declared her a liar, yet allowed their derangement syndrome to swoop in for a consolation prize.
She owes Trump 83.7 million for lying defamation, and the jury agreed, though certainly did not mean to.
At least we can be proud of the moronic demoncrats, who finally got their ” He grabs them by the ****y ” moment, literal proof in all fictions sections of the world.
Tucker Carlson
@TuckerCarlson
𝐈𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 (with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott),
Gov. Greg Abbott says ten other states have sent national guard to the Texas border, and others will follow. Abbott says he is “prepared” for a conflict with federal authorities.
By: Tucker Carlson ~ January 26th 2024
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1750943686567834008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Video Link:
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1750943252780371968/vid/avc1/1920×1080/cKkA80ZJ_Y9uqZ_V.mp4?tag=16
OT, the jury in the Trump-Carroll defamation case found that Trump is liable for over $83M in damages to Carroll. And although he claims he’ll appeal, here’s a good explanation of why he’ll lose:
Brian Manookian:
Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn’t have an appeal.
I know the talking heads on TV (who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict) have to mention it. Here’s why it isn’t going to fly.
To have a meritorious appeal, you have to preserve a reversible error at the trial level. This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure.
Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over.
For example, she kept saying “no objection” as exhibits were entered into evidence.
It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that’s something she had heard real lawyers say before.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, what she was doing over and over was waiving his ability to appeal over those evidentiary issues. Because she is a moron who would rather *play* lawyer than do the research to *be* a lawyer.
There’s no appeal here. And because people have asked me in the past, no, there is no such thing as an incompetent counsel defense in civil cases. That’s for criminal matters.
Take this verdict to the bank.
That a carnival barker, orange dyed degenerate like Trump lives in your head rent free makes you the biggest loser.
Its Friday. Go get laid…if you can
Booooooring
Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to this knows that
Manookian is full of Schiff – just off the tope of my head.
Kaplan failed to merge the two defamation cases at the start – that alone should get the 2nd tossed entirely.
There is factual inssufficiently in both cases – Carrol does not know what occured or when it occured.
She has no evidence that Trump every was present
Then there is statute of limitations – SCOTUS finds the NY extension of the stature of limitation unconstitutional – BOTH cases gone.
Next we have There was no actual trial. Kaplan – like Engron found Trump guilty without ever having a trial.
Habba has raised innumerable objection – every single one is grounds for appeal.
Habba has filed multiple motions to dismiss – every one of those is a basis for appeal.
Mr. Manookian needs to seek a refund for his law degree – he does not know what he is talking about,
You don’t know what you’re talking about, perhaps because you don’t have a law degree to begin with.
Mr. Manookian seems to that evidence is the only factor in an appeal.
He also seems to be ignorant of the multiple motions to dismiss filed in this case.
Every single issue raised in every single one of those is grounds for appeal.
The January 6 committee withheld evidence from the American people, and they should all be tried for Treason.
MOST Americans agree.
LOCK THEM ALL UP.
Elect Trump.
FREE Assange.
Prosecute every single member of the Biden Crime Family, lock them up, and throw away the key.
Then tell the loathsome Dr. Jill where to shove it.
is it possible to throw Brandon a lifeline when he is in his basement? Maybe it’s time for Democrats to unleash ANTIFA BLM again and burn more Democrat cities? That worked so well last time.
this comment has all of the elements of a Russian Vodka with a dry olive, straight up, poured in chilled glass
😜
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/26/bidens-third-year-approval-rating-average-second-worst-history/
Joe Biden’s Third-Year Approval Rating Average Second-Worst in History
President Joe Biden’s third-year approval rating average sunk to 39.8 percent, second only to former President Jimmy Carter, Gallup polling found Friday. Biden’s average approval rating is only two points greater than Carter’s (37.4 percent). During his term, Carter faced soaring gas prices, inflation, and the Iranian hostage situation.
====
https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-finds-bidens-approval-rating-underwater-by-whopping-30-points/
New Poll Finds Biden’s Approval Rating Underwater By Whopping 30 Points
A shocking new poll from Pew Research has found that President Joe Biden’s approval rating may be underwater by over 30 points. According to the survey of over 5,000 Americans conducted between January 16 and 21, 65% of the country disapproves of Biden’s performance in office, while just 33% say they approve — and that’s just the tip of the spear of the bad news for the incumbent.
I beleive a recent CBS poll fund Biden losing to Trump by 10pts.
My comment has all the ingredients of a Strong Explosion Tequila!!! 🥃 🌶️ 💣
He doesn’t need the “BLM” or “Patriot Rioters” with open borders IT HAS EVERYTHING
Over the past year, more than 160 individuals with positive matches on the FBI’s terrorism watchlist have been stopped trying to cross the southern border, compared to 100 in the previous year.
Shortly after the Middle East war broke out, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in San Diego warned that military-age men associated with the terror groups
“We know, as well, that terror leaders intentionally cultivate throngs of young men possessing a certain easily-manipulated personality type to carry out atrocities.”
The letter said it must be considered as a “distinct possibility” that large numbers of young men could attack gatherings of unarmed citizens at the behest of a foreign terror group, in a similar manner Hamas terrorists carried out their massacre at the music festival in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
“We would be remiss not to call out this potentially grave threat in the most direct terms. The warning lights are blinking,” the FBI agents advised Congress.
On top of that, the letter said the influx of single adult men illegally crossing the southern border are not just from terror-linked regions but also from China and Russia—“hostile adversaries of the U.S. with aspirations to devastate national infrastructure.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/retired-fbi-officials-to-congress-soft-invasion-of-america-unfolding-at-border-5574475?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=top-news-top-stories-1-large-2
So the Executive Producer 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐝 𝐇𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐦𝐚𝐧 of the Biden B-Movie production pulled his funding off the 𝐍𝐢𝐤𝐤𝐢 𝐇𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐲 ‘𝐁𝐚𝐢𝐭-𝐍-𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡’ project
and applied it to the services of 𝐁𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐌. 𝐒𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐧, 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐆𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐫 & 𝐌𝐜𝐑𝐚𝐞 𝐋𝐋𝐏 to defend the show’s Director 𝐊𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬, as he came under fire. To bad Morris wasn’t working with 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐜 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐰𝐢𝐧, he might have made another lucky shot and solved one of 𝐇𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬.
We’ll now, this has all the fixings of a good Western.
John Wayne would call this part “𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐬”.
[This is a Parody] of course, isn’t it Lorne.
On the way to reach the “California Trail” through its crossing of our historic “American frontier” that runs along the “Emigrant trail”, you can take the opportunity to invite illegal Asian’s walkers people to ride your
(“𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐬”) on his journey through the “Emigrant trail” inviting them to live an authentic “California Gold Rush” experience to see if The sudden influx of gold into the money supply reinvigorate the American economy of the ‘Bidenomics’ ‘family
Dear Prof Turley,
If it’s any consolation, evidently under California rules we can always execute a retroactive ‘attorney-client’ privilege and nothing I say can ever be used against you.
Furthermore, I’ve decided to take you under my wing – like Mr. Morris has taken Hunter under his wing – and prepared to testify you’re like the brother I never knew without collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) .. . not subject to the aforementioned ‘attorney-client’ privilege.
By coincidence, I was recently re-reviewing Devon Archer’s testimony because Reps Raskin and Goldman insist it completely exonerates the Bidens .. . but I’m not so sure.
I fully expect Mr. Morris’s testimony will be characterized as a total vindication of the Biden Brand. .. If not a triumph of good over evil.
I was surprised to learn Mr. Morris’s testimony was not compelled. .. and that he considers himself the ‘quarterback’ of Hunter’s entire legal defense (cc Abby Lowell) and unsecured debt obligations.
*it wouldn’t surprise me if Mr. Morris invented ‘credit default swaps’.
In the forthcoming Hollywood epic “Hunter,” the part of Kevin Morris will be played by Nick Nolte.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1281092695/nick-nolte-mug-shot-glossy-poster
On the prospect of an August (convention-based) substitution of Michelle Obama for JB, the inimitable James Howard Kunstler writes:
And what if the opposition — say, Mr. Trump, or Vivek, or Tulsi, or Tom Massie, or Rand Paul, or a dozen others in that camp — make the case that the “Joe Biden” regime was actually Mr. Obama’s third term, and look what mess he managed to make of the USA while running the puppet-show from his Kalorama redoubt: nine million illegal aliens ushered into the country with lavish benefits, phones, loaded debit cards, free four-star hotel rooms. . . the years-long assault of the drag queens and oral sex instruction for third-graders. . . the preposterous war in Ukraine engineered by neocon catspaws for the benefit of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the rest of the arms-makers. . . big cities full of homeless encampments and their noxious excretions. . . fentanyl killing 1,500 Americans a week. . . an extravaganza of flash-mob looting, shop-lifting, and car-jacking. . . the trillion-plus dollars in annual interest payments on the national debt. . . not a pretty picture. So, it comes down to: do you want another four years of that? And how did America end up under the thumb of an Obama dynasty, anyway?
He then answers his own question:
I’ll tell you how: because the Democratic Party has become a criminal operation now solely dedicated to keeping its dignitaries, office-holders, and their factotums in the executive agencies out of prison for a range of crimes so vast that all the Lawfare specialists ever spawned in the hatcheries of Yale and Harvard would not run out of billable hours defending them in court before the sun turned into a red dwarf. The mighty effort consumes all the party’s energies these days, when they are not attending to the destruction of Western Civilization. The Michelle gambit would only be the party’s final hoax. After that, the deluge.
Yes, but the Republicans are in on it too. Trump is working too closely with the rest of the Democrat swamp to drain it. We don’t really have any good options in this election. The whole bunch of them are crooked as a barrel of snakes.
There are indeed some Republican swamp dwellers. But Trump one of them? Uh, no. He’s the only person in public life who has any ability or opportunity to at least partially drain the swamp.
LOL
you’re funny.
Sleaze begets Sleaze….The entire congressional bunch should be discharged and barred from any further Government duty……Period !!!!!
Jay, your claim begs for further elucidation.
I can not say that I have ever heard anyone claim that Trump was actually working with the democrats who are so agressively trying to destroy him.
Please explain further what you mean.
Good cop bad cop is one of the oldest games in politics. As with any politician, watch what he does, not just what he says. He’s playing both ends against the middle. He promised to drain the swamp and then he hired the swamp and let them lock us down. He claimed he would build the wall at the border and make Mexico pay for it. He claims to support our freedom and then he buddied up with Bill Gates to fast track the vaccines that would lock down and destroy the economy he said he would make great again.
Actions speak louder than words.
The Obama Coup D’etat in America continues unabated by a corrupt executive branch DOJ and feckless judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco et al.
Yet another comment that shows your bias, not in the favor of truth.
Uh oh. Kunstler has now defamed the entire Democrat party by accusing it of being a criminal operation. The Demswill launch its snarling law dogs against him, to bankrupt and imprision him, and drive him from political life. Otherwise Our Democracy will be imperiled!
The reason most people allow crooked lawyers to rule the day is because the justice system has been modified to protect bad lawyers instead of upholding truth, justice and the innocent. They do this with endless twisted words and lies that have been adapted to modern corrupt court procedures using bureaucratic precedent rather than the Constitution and common sense. Judges don’t care about justice. They simply want to get one case out the door so they can start on the next one. Most people don’t have enough knowledge of the bureaucratic judicial process nor the time or money to fight off these crooked lawyers. So lawyers go around threatening people for telling the truth and very often they make it stick in court. Lawyers are often some of the biggest bullies society produces. Some of the harshest words Jesus had were for these evil lawyers who make grievous burdens for others to bear, but will not lift a finger to help the widows and orphans they oppress. May the fires of hell consume them eternally.
The way the courts avoid upholding the constitution is by saying that they rule by “Civil Code.” They openly admit that “Civil Code” is their guide and I have seen judges throw lawyers in jail for using the constitution as an argument in court. The judge will look the lawyer and the defendant right in the eye and say, “if you bring up the constitution in my court again, I will hold you in contempt of court.
The First Amendment, counselor? Really? This is Dering Harbor, NY. What are you trying to pull.
Well . . . this is part of the United States, so the First Amendment . . . applies.
Don’t give me a load of that horse-crap, counselor!
^^ actually happened to a fellow attorney of mine.
I changed the town name to protect the not so innocent.
Apropos of nothing and a layman, I’m gonna take a wild guess that Bryan, ESWGM (esswiggum), and Kevin bit off more than they have the acumen, capacity, and repute to chew.
Jonathan: Newsweek is reporting that you told them in an e-mail: “It is not clear when Morris was acting as a democratic donor, lawyer, or a friend. The specific role can have a bearing on questions such as whether payments to Hunter were de facto campaign contributions for his father. If Morris was acting to protect the [Biden] campaign from what he referenced as political liabilities, it has implications”.
Since you admit it is not “clear” about Morris’s role you nevertheless insinuate that Hunter was acting as a conduit–taking the $5 million in loans and putting the money into dad’s campaign. But Hunter paid all his back taxes of about $1.4 million from the proceeds of the Morris loans. That’s money that went to the IRS–not the Biden campaign.
As to the rest, your allegations are not based on facts but insinuation, conjecture and innuendo. That’s, of course, what Fox pays you to do. But making spurious claims is what got Fox into legal trouble–having to pay Dominion $787 million in a settlement of their defamation lawsuit. Now I would have thought you might have learned a lesson from that experience. You could have also learned from Rudy Giuliani’s massive $148 million judgment. I guess not.
Now you are facing a possible defamation suit by Morris. He has called your bluff. Instead of an apology for making allegations you can’t back up with facts, you now double down. You and RG are the poster kids for “Lawyers having to hire lawyers”. Do you really want to be in that camp? Maybe this will cause you to have second thoughts about eliminating the standard in NY Times v. Sullivan. It may prove to be your salvation–unless, of course, you are acting out of “actual malice”.
“But Hunter paid all his back taxes of about $1.4 million from the proceeds of the Morris loans. That’s money that went to the IRS–not the Biden campaign.”
The DOJ didn’t buy that line of reasoning when it prosecuted John Edwards.
We should not forget that the Edwards case was prosecuted by none other than Jack Smith.
The recent GA election case should have informed you – and FOX that the DVS case against Fox was going to go down the tubes.
The case against Gulliani will be reveresed on appeal. Guiliani was tried in a Biased DC court for speech int eh context of a lawsuit which is protected from defamation, where neither the plantif nor defendant reside in DC,
Where there is no direct harm.
Where the plantif is a government employee and not protected from defamation regarding the performance of her job.
And where the court improperly avoided a trial on the merits.
Dennis – it is clear that Morris violated the ethical rules in CA and elsewhere prohibiting
a lawyer from paying the debts of clients, or lending money to clients, except in limited litigation-related situations which do not apply. Do you dispute that fact?
Further, it makes no sense for anyone to lend $5m to a crackhead loser like Hunter. It would make sense for the Biden White House or the DNC to funnel money to Hunter to avoid heavy felony charges for tax evasion during an election year if they knew that the DOJ would go along with the scheme.
Turley says Morris’s role was unclear – that is gibing him the benefit of the doubt.
There is little doubt Morris’s conduct was unethical – regardless of what the CA barr might decide.
Turley does an excellent job of demonstrating that Morris’s attorneys own arguments do not get what Morris did to within 100 miles of the exceptions in the CA statute.
I would further note that even if Morris’s loans were someone covered by the ethics rules exceptions – even Sullivan is arguing that is true only because he has read those exceptions broadly.
To be clear they SHOULD be read broadly – in the context of Sanctioning Morris, But they MUST be read narrowly in terms of sanctioing others for criticism of Morris. Further while we do not Sanction people who operate in the Grey areas of the rules. We also do not pretend they are ethical and law abiding.
I personally can not see how Morris has managed to get even into the grey areas of the ethics rules.
His conduct is not in the grey areas – it is outside the exceptions entirely.
But I do expect the CA Barr to give Morris the benefit of the doubt – if his conduct is actually in the grey areas.
I do NOT expect the public and the media to do so.
I also do not expect the IRS and DOJ to forego further investigation because Morris’s conduct is found to be in the grey areas.
That is justifaction for further investigation, not total exoneration.
Further this same standard applies to Hinter and Joe Biden.
While the evidence provided so far is sufficient to prove that Joe Biden criminally violated the law – specifically in the Burisma matter.
Much of the rest of the evidence places the Bidens conduct solidly in “The grey areas” Coupled with the clear criminal conduct of Burisma, that is sufficient to conclude that the conduct in grey areas elsewhere was also criminal
But you are free to disagree.
Regardless, not only are you unwilling to admit that in the Burisma affair – evidence of all elements of criminal conduct are present going all the way to VP Biden, but you are unwilling to admit that the massive amount of cvonduct in the “grey areas” – franly increasingly dark grey areas warrants deeper investigation.
You are also unwilling to admit that whether Biden’s conduct can meet YOU version of criminal conduct, that it is absolutely conduct in public office that is not just the legitimate target of congressional oversight, but that it is conduct that voters have every right to be informed about.
At every step of the way you seek to HIDE evidence to do as much as possible in secret or not at all.
You want show trials – where J6 defendants or Guilliani or Trump are barred from discovery and barred from presenting their defenses
you want all exculpatory evidence against those you hate burried as deep as possible – you want to gag and hundcuff your enemies in their own defense such that only their prosecutors can speak and that they can spin and lie as much as they want and hide as much actual truth as possible.
And when defending the misconduct of those you support you want even the suffestion that the conduct is in the grey ares to end investigation – much less prosecution.
“ To be clear they SHOULD be read broadly – in the context of Sanctioning Morris, But they MUST be read narrowly in terms of sanctioing others for criticism of Morris. ”
I think that’s called a double standard.
Your grasp of law and reality are undoubtedly suspect.
John Say’s grasp is exactly correct, and yours is evidently non-existent. This is not even controversial. The law is very obviously as John Say says, and so is common sense. Ambiguity must always be resolved in favor of the defendant, which means that when Morris is the defendant it’s resolved in his favor but when he’s the plaintiff the exact same ambiguity is resolved against him.
You sir are an idiot.
Dope.
I am missing your factual rebuttal to the points Mr. Turley made.
Here is Glenn Greenwald – not even close to on the right. directly addressing the issue of the media.
https://youtu.be/BcO5Zg6iLpQ
Dennis, you sound like you are defending the Biden’s.
Here is the change in net worth of the past 6 presidents. Soon hopefully we will find out how much Biden’s networth has skyrocketted while in office.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R3F_CAGibJg?feature=share
Is describing a series of events as “not clear” now an assertion of fact? Is an “insinuation” an actual defamation now? Asking for lawyer friends who were taught otherwise….
What is most scarry about your post Dennis – is that you are right.
Not about the facts, or about the law,
But about the FACT that if Morris is agreived he can filed a defamation claim without any foundation and shop for a favorable judge and jury and destroy Turley.
All that would be relevant is that Turley is on the wrong side of the politically protected class.
At the same time what you fail to grasp is that the very defamation cases you cite are a scream to the Supreme court to fix defamation cases before they politically destroy the country.
“about Morris’s role you nevertheless insinuate that Hunter was acting as a conduit–taking the $5 million in loans and putting the money into dad’s campaign. But Hunter paid all his back taxes of about $1.4 million from the proceeds of the Morris loans. That’s money that went to the IRS–not the Biden campaign. ” Doofy the lying dunderhead approves of his own stupidity.
FIVE MINUS ONE POINT FOUR EQUALS A ZERO DUNDERHEAD
I don’t quite understand how anyone can be that stupid.