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
What a tangled web we weave when we first begin to deceive…..Morris is too smart by half it would seem.
Tis a Fool that has himself for a Lawyer rings so true here.
If the State of California was to conduct an Ethics Investigation into Morris, Biden, et al….there would be some folks in a heap of trouble.
Attacking Turley does nothing to change the facts.
Morris is up to his eyeballs in a mess.
A mess of his very own making as his greed exceeded both his legal abilities and his ability to keep his lies straight.
That is the problem for chronic liars…..they ultimately cannot cover their tracks….and instead of remaining quiet and hope the storm blows over…..they run up the main sheet thinking it shall speed their escape.
As in sailing….too much canvas in the existing wind is never a good thing.
It appears that their deception has prompted Jill to go on tour to argue that Joe Biden is human. It never occurred to me that he might be an alien, an amoeba or a blood sucking worm. Who knew!
When their campaign strategy is “He really is human”, you know that they know that we know that his very existence is a Big Lie, and that Jill is less honorable than Hunter banging his dead brother’s widow. What a family! Naturally attorneys like Kevin Morris and Bryan Sullivan are worse than scum
Hi Bryan! 🤘
How Jill Biden can ‘humanize’ her husband and remind voters ‘he’s human’ as she hits the campaign trail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13001717/Jill-Biden-south-carolina-campaign.html
👍
In football when you error your penalized yardage, in golf it’s a stroke, in horse racing its disqualification or loss of position, now in tennis you get two bites at the apple before a double fault and loss of a point. In law-fair the rules are so diverse it’s hard to count how many attempts you have until you’ve reached the ultimate referee or umpire to determine whether you’ve faulted or not, and what the penalty may be if any. If you throw enough crap on out, you may be able to scare your opponent into surrender, OR NOT! This is what this threat appears to be, THROWING CRAP, and it sure does stink.
Joseph Biden: “nobody f**** with a Biden”
In a scene that serves as a warning of the kind of power Don Corleone (Brando) wields, a film producer by the name of Jack Woltz (John Marley) wakes one morning to find the bloodied severed head of his prize thoroughbred in his bed. Earlier in the film, Woltz had made the unwise decision to refuse Don Corleone’s request that he cast Johnny Fontane (Al Martino) in his latest film.
The work ethic and training behind the mental gymnastics that apologists for the Biden go through is herculean. Not once during their Olympic-like training regimen, do they ever even hint of fairness through the lens of if the Biden family transgressions were done by the Trump family. Like a (mental) gymnast stepping out of bounds 30 seconds into their 1st event, they may have to wait four more years to be relevant or heard…instead they are the fat could-have-been boring everyone in the bar with over inflated stories of their past glory.
It’s a good thing msm is covering these developments, so their readers are aware of the whole story…
OT, Biden is now prostrating himself in worship to the goddess of the green cult, and making everyone else poorer, colder, and hungrier. He is stopping American companies from exporting LNG because “climate change.” We know whose pocket he lives in. And we know he’s anti-human.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-hits-pause-approvals-liquified-natural-gas-exports-rcna135831
This is foolish on many levels:
1. It empowers and enriches other producers and exporters of natural gas, including Russia and Iran;
2. It reduces the energy security, and ties to the US, of Europe, Japan and South Korea;
3. It reduces the extent to which natural gas will replace coal, so may actually hurt the environment and increase carbon emissions;
4. It hurts US producers and exporters of natural gas, as well as those who build the LNG facilities; and
5. It will tend to increase the price of energy by reducing supply.
It may help Trump in the election by highlighting the extent to which this administration is hostage to the rabid climate catastrophists.
Exactly, Daniel. The regime’s apologists will never admit that, though (see above – the claim that it’s just “temporary”).
OT,
Long but good read by Matt Taibbi,
Is the Electoral Fix Already In?
https://www.racket.news/p/is-the-electoral-fix-already-in
Great journalism, and scarier than any horror movie.
A great article on the corruption so rampant in the Biden Cabal. You are one of only two legal scholars that have credibility with me. Please continue the fight against these sycophant criminals. Regards
Well one thing that we haven’t seen is Joe Biden saying that he doesn’t even know Hunter’s attorney. There sure are a lot of loans being made to members of the Biden family without any documentation concerning the amount of the loan or any payment schedule to satisfy the loan. Let’s see, you buy a car or a house and you are required to make monthly payments. With the Biden’s it’s don’t worry about that million bucks just pay it back whenever you get a chance. If you want to you can just slip it under the table. No buddy ain’t gonna no no betta.
It is not illegal to have undocumented loans between family members.
It is not even as a rule illegal to have undocumented loans.
That does not mean it is wise.
Nor does it mean that in specific circumstances it may be illegal, or evidence of illegality or as in Morris’s case ethical violations.
In the instance of inter family loans among the bidens – the absence of records and documentation leads to valid questions, and to allowing prosecutors and juries to conclude the loans were not actual loans but means to hiding the transfer of bribes.
In the context of Taxes undocumented loans car create serious tax problems and even result in prosecution for tax evasion.
Influence commerce, corruption, bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, oh, and hold the Mayo!
I think it’s reasonable to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard. Can I, as a regular citizen (not a government employee or appointee) be impeached? No. Why is that? Because the President should be, and is, held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability. The man has the nuclear codes for gawd’s sake. Let’s make sure he’s not a crook or selling us out to our adversaries. Not saying he is, but saying we should know for sure. Seems imminently reasonable to me.
“It is not illegal to have undocumented loans between family members. It is not even as a rule illegal to have undocumented loans. That does not mean it is wise.”
Once the loan is above $10,000 it is of interest to the IRS. It is best to charge the borrower interest at least as high as the fed interest at the time the loan was provided.
I hope JT has enough cash and resources to defend himself when HB’s attorneys come calling with various lawsuits. If this goes to trial in either DC or CA with a Biden- or Obama-appointed judge and a left-leaning jury, then I doubt whether JT’s arguments will have much weight. Other commenters have placed JT is the “Trump camp”, and this will be HB’s narrative logic re: defamation (i.e. to politically attack The Big Guy) going forward.
Turley jumped into the swamp of bile and slime when he choose to defend Trump, now he’s shocked, shocked that he would be pointed out. Like most Trump lawyers that decide to defend Trump, Get a lawyer Turley………
When has Turley ever defended Trump?
Iowan2,
That is part of the leftist non-thinking skill set.
They automatically presume if you are critical of the Biden’s or the Biden admin, you are a Trump supporter.
iowan2: Practically every day of the week! It goes back a long time. JT was quick out of the box to declare that Jan. 6 was just a “riot” and DJT was just exercising his 1st Amendment rights in that speech before the assault on the Capitol. Now it’s JT’s attempts to find some reason to impeach Biden and his claim that keeping DJT off the ballot in Colorado is “dangerous and ant-democratic”. At almost every point JT has defended DJT. Where have you been all this time? Asleep!
“JT was quick out of the box to declare that Jan. 6 was just a “riot” and DJT was just exercising his 1st Amendment rights”
That is a conclusion and evidence that has held up over time. The left has prosecuted – in corrupt courts,
But through to this moment it has NOT introduced actual evidence to refute JT’s claim.
Even the J6 was a just a riot narrative is slowly coming apart. The evidence is that the media and democrats cheery picked a tiny portion of what happened to mischaracterize a peaceful protest as not just a riot – but an insurrection.
And that mischaracterization is coming back to bite them.
Numerous people in law enforcement in DC have asserted that the events at the WH in June 2020 were MORE violent, with far more damage and demonstrable effort to actually disrupt government.
While the area outside the WH is a legitimate public forum where free speech is unrestricted, the WH grounds themselves are NOT public, and have never been a free speech forum.
Conversely the Capitol has ALWAYS bee a free speech forum. – including a substantial portion of the inside.
We have all been patiently waiting for the actual proof of criminality.
We have been looking for the evidence that those involved in J6 deliberately instigated violence – yet nearly 4 years later none exists.
We are waiting for evidence of something beyond trying to legally and constitutionally overturn the results of a rigged election.
None as emerged.
You have confused evidence that people deliberately chose to come to DC with planning to overthrow the government.
We learn that Pelosi rejected the NG and that she did so because she thought the NG was part of some Trump coup.
In instance after instance the gist of your J6 narative is YOUR paranoid delusions.
At the pussy hat capitol riots of 2017 – there was arson and bricks and rocks and frozen water bottle and violence.
At the Kavanaugh protests, rioters attacked a senators Desk with an Axe.
At he June 2020 riots at the WH St. Johns church was burned. there werre frozen water bottles and rocks and secret service and park police were seriously injured, the 18ft high security fence arround the WH ground designed to stop protesters from getting onto the WH grounds was damaged and in some places broken away. Hours later when the MPD and Park Police sought to remove protestors so that the events of the prior night could not be repeated, Police were injured, frozen water and rocks were through and lies were told about Tear gas.
Ultimately everyone arrested was released all charges were dropped and protestors were paid money.
At the Portland Federal courthouse in 2020 for 100 nights straight there were riots, frozen water bottles and rocks hurled, Fireworks shot at police, Molotov cocktails thrown, Arson on several occaisions. lasers used to blind police and protestors showed up in riot gear.
And a proud boy was murdered with a gun by an antifa protestor.
In Seattle rioters used Bombs engaged in arson, more frozen water bottled, used AR-15’s. Took over a police station as well as several blocks of downtown seatlle, extorted shop owners for money, proclaimed an independent state, murdered and raped several of their own.
At J6 0 there were no lasers, no guns, no frozen water bottles, no protestors in riot gear. So fireworks, no arson.
There was arickety gallows with a sign – “This is art”.
There was absolutely no indication of any kind of premeditated violence of any kind. There was very little evidence of protestors making defensive prepartations against violence – that despite the FACT that Antifa has routinely tried to sabotage any protests they disaprove of and Antifa without doubt plans to do violence wherever the go. Further there was without any doubt an antifa presence on J6 – we KNOW that the person who provided the first video of the Alishi Babbit murder was a member of Antifa.
Because therehas been no investigation of that – we have no idea how significant Antifa presence at J6 was.
Regardless we DO know that the protestors came with no plans for violence – how do we know that ?
Because unlike every left wing protest above they did NOT
Bring riot gear, frozen water bottles, guns, lasers, molotov cocktails engage in arson.
Either J6 Protestors are the stupidest insurrectionists ever born and beleived though sheer force of numbers – which were not all that large they were going to overpower the 2200 CP officers who had riot gear and tear gas and guns – some had rifles and automatic weapons,
and they were going to do this with 10,000 national guard close by.
Recently we have learned much from Sargent at Arms Sund – certainly no MAGA proponent, who beleives that certain aspects of this were planned – Not by Trump and MAGA, but by Pelosi. Sund who was responsible for security – was deprived of intellegnece – both by superiors (Schumer and Pelosi) and subordinates – who were in Pelosi’s pocket. His requests for the NG were repeatedly denied. Sund revealed for the first time that he sent requests to Pelosi repeatedly for the NG while the event was taking place – and was repeatedly denied.
That he was in constant comminication with the NG who were ready to come and fully authorized to do so EXCEPT by Pelosi.
That contra prior claims – the NG was NOT all at the armory, that Sund and the MPD had managed to get substantial numbers of NG positioned NEAR the capitol – mere minutes away, but these going not be deployed to capitol grounds without Pelosi’s permission,.
And that when the NG was finally called up, that instead of sending forces within a few hundred yards of the capitol, they were ordered to Return to the Armory. And that by the time the NG finally arrived at about 6pm, the CP had already restored order.
Sund beleives this never would have happened had his request for the NJG been taken seriously, that the protest would have remained peaceful, if he had been proved with sufficient forces to secure the capitol.
Send separately confirmed that throughout the protest he was dealing with a very complex situtaiton – that the east side of the capitol was entirely peaceful, that protestors were coming in and proceeding quietly and peacefully through the capitol and leaving, when a much smaller group was engaged in proactically combat with the CP at the west Tunnel entrance.
You talk about what people have been convicted of by Biased DC juries and Judges.
But you refuse to talk of evidence.
What evidence do you have that anyone involved in J6 protests planned violence of any kind ?
There is not even evidence that J6 protestors made DEFENSIVE preparations – such as the alt-right protestors at Charlotte did.
There were no guns – but there were also no frozen water bottles. Frozen Water bottles are significant because they are simple, deliberately deceptive and most importantly premeditated. Bringing a cache of frozen water bottles to a protest is a clear demonstration of an intention to instigate violence AND to avoid getting charged. Yet none at J6. Nor did protestors bring Milk – which is used to mitigate the effects of tear gas – so they were not even expecting to be tear gassed.
There was a handful of weapons at J6 – one canister of Bear Spray and a nadful of hunting knives.
No evidence that any of these were ever used. The only gassing of Police was self inflicted. No one was stabbed.
You claim Trump orghanized an insurrection – there is massive amounts of Proof that Trump wanted the NG present – and that Pelosi was deeply concerned that the NG would stand behind Trump in a military Coup. Pelosi had even contacted Miley to try to prevent that.
Yet therte is no evidence at all of any direct contact between Trump and any in the military for the purposes of staging a coup.
Trump wanted the NG at the protests because he though they would protect MAGA protestors from the CP getting out of hand – which is what did happen. The evidence that Trump wanted a peaceful protest is overwhelming.
I would note that Sund also testified that the failure to provide the CP with intelligence that they had was highly unusual.
And that while he was unaware of FBI informants or undercover agents at J6 that if they were NOT present in large numbers that would be unusual.
The relevant question has NEVER been “Were FBI Agents and informants at J6”.
The only question is what was their role. Were they there to entrapp protestors – as they did with the Michigan Wolverines.
Or were they there to keep the peace.
There is ZERO evidence that they were present to keep the peace. There are people thought to be undercover FBI or informant in the crowd who were egging things on – none of whom have ever been prosecuted. The few people seeking to restore order have actually been prosecuted, so they are unlikely to be FBI agents or infomants.
Regardless, no one has been able to question the FBI agents and informants that without any doubt at all were involved to determine what there role was.
Excellent summation John Say. Thank you.
JT was quick out of the box to declare that Jan. 6 was just a “riot” and DJT was just exercising his 1st Amendment rights in that speech before the assault on the Capitol.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem is nail.
Your TDS blinds you, and turned your brain even more mushier.
Turley was never defending Trump. Your example shows Turley examined the facts and determined that Jan6 was in fact nothing but a protest gone violent. Since then we know the Capitol police instigated violence by shooting rubber bullets into the crowd and deploying flash bang grenades. Turley was doing nothing but applying the law to the facts.
And of Course Trump has 1st amendment rights. To repeat. Turley is defending the Constitution, Not Trump.
What drives you leftists nuts, is the rule of law and Constitution are conservative.
But it was a genius plan by Soros, Pelosi, Schumer and Trump to draw all those people to Washington DC for a rally and then lock down the halls of Congress after bussing in BLM and Antifa to riot and then blaming it on right wingers in order to invoke a different set of rules the day Mike Pence was scheduled to cast the tie breaker vote. The globalists stayed up all night figuring out how to make that happen. What? You don’t think Trump is working with the globalists on this deal? Their all in on it together.
@iowan2
This is the new left. If you dare to disagree with them, you are automatically far-right, you are fascist, you are MAGA, whatever the h*ll that even means. These people have been trained, not unlike Pavlov’s dogs, to salivate and bark when they hear certain words or phrases. Critical or original thought is simply an impossibility, it this isn’t the kind of thing that just goes away on its own. Yes, modern people under the age of 40 are basically trained dogs. Objective facts, logic, those fry the circuits, and there is no emotional resilience there to deal with that eventuality. If the recently revealed fact that 28 year-olds were running major media platforms and simply hiring all of their idiot friends to write the stories isn’t convincing enough – I don’t know what to tell anyone. Stop voting for these clowns. Boycott their businesses and ventures, because that is the only language they understand. Get these dynasties the eff out of our lives. And then keep doing it. Speech may not get their attention, but the bottom line sure does. It is idiotic beyond belief that any leftist clown things they are ‘anti’ corporation or some kind of free spirit. Pbblt.
‘thinks’
James,
Well said.
A Fish rots from the head down. Obviously.
FW – Turley is defending the rule of law – Not Trump. As BTW are many of us here.
Regardless, your lawfare against Trump is crashing and burning
Because it never had any merrit
Because it is increasing evident that the conduct Trump is being prosecuted for is being secretly engaged in By those prosecuting.
It is now evident that the Biden WH has its fingers in not only the Willis case – but all the Trump cases.
It is also emerging that Smith ALSO has his fingers in all the cases that are not his.
While this is generally frowned on – and can be grounds for impeachment or for dismissal of charges where this meddling occurs,
That is not the big issue – it is also inarguably The president and/or government meddling in the official conduct of states.
The Biden WH seeking to advance the GA prosecution of Trump or the NY case against Trump is no different from Trump asking Raffensberger to find more votes.
While the Willis case has brought to the spotlight the active efforts of the WH and SC to meddle in this cases, in the FL case even more is coming out. Trump’s legal team as a result of FOIA documents is finding lots of evidence – both of further collusion between the WH and various efforts to sue or prosecute Trump. But also significant evidence that DOJ as an example resisted these efforts – including some Internal efforts by DOJ Biden apointees, Because – “THERE WAS NO CASE”. We are also finding from these FOIA requests that contra the public narative – Trump was actually cooperating all along. In fact he was actually cooperating more than Biden was regarding his Classified documents – as the Biden docs at Penn Center were discovered more than 6 months prior to providing them to NARA and were sent from Penn Center to Boston and that the WH Counsel was part of this.
Much of this is coming out in a Trump motion that is accusing Jack Smith of failing to meet his discovery obligations – and particularly his failure to turn over exculpatory information. Smith has serious problems in Florida.
He has failed to turn over Brady material that Trump has acquired by other means.
We have recently learned that the movement of boxes at MAL which Smith has portrayed as obstruction was actually to allow Lawyers to review boxes to determine what needed to be turned over to DOJ or NARA .
We have recently learned that Trump maintained a TS/SCI through the Department of Energy through to June 0f 2023. and that the termination of the clearance – AFTER this case started appears to have been done to hide the fact that Trump had legitimate access to the material.
We have FOIA material that exposes the WH and NARA conspiring to go after Trump- with DOJ essentially telling NARA that they would not get involved because Trump could legitimately posses these docs.
Trump’s motion accuses Smith of Brady violations and demands Full discovery – he is asserting to the court – with evidence, that Smith’s claim that his discovery obligations are limited tot he SC’s office is false, that there is already plenty of evidence that parties far outside the SC’
s office were active participants in the investigation and therefore are discoverable.
Further these FOIA requests are exposing even more Biden WH meetings with DOJ. NY AG, GA DA, the SC office and private attorney’s suing Trump.
There are so many problems with this.
It is interferance in prosecution.
It is Worse that what Trump is accused of.
It is prosecution failure to meet discovery obligations.
It is election interferance.
It is bringing to the surface a growing body of exculpatory evidence
It is exposing that many Democrats in positions of power within the DOJ rejected the claim that Trump’s alleged conduct was criminal.
Right down to the fact that there was nothing improper about Trump’s posession of the documents he had at MAL.
This is not Trump’s attorney’s arguing this – this is ranking lawyers in the DOJ.
Fish knows bile and slime.
“pointed out”? Don’t you mean “threatened”?
That was literally dumbest thing I’ve heard today other than Joe’s idiotic mumblings at the brewery.
https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0?si=QMZZDdpks6obd81Y
Dave,
I dunno, the one the other day, something about teaching Trump a lesson, then something totally unrecognizable and ends with “benefit.”
What the transcript says and what was said on the video were two totally different things.
As I was reading through all this lawyer talk, I couldn’t help but think of the Clinton’s. And then it popped into my mind, what will the Biden Library be like? Will there be a Biden Foundation? Will Hunter become the Senator from Delaware, and then Presidential candidate?
Delaware is an infinitesimal nothing with a population of one million.
Why do corporations flock there?
You guessed it.
_________________
Here’s why more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware
– More than 60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware, according to the state, including Alphabet, Amazon, CVS, and CNBC parent company Comcast.
– Delaware has cultivated a reputation as being business-friendly due to its tax law and unique court system specifically for corporate legal cases.
– There may be some complications for small businesses hoping to call Delaware their legal home, though.
Delaware is the second-smallest state in the U.S. But it’s home to more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies, the state says, including Google parent company Alphabet, Amazon, CVS Health, and CNBC parent company Comcast. ″[Delaware] has a lot of appeal for basically three main reasons: convenience, flexibility and predictability,” Roey Gilberg, corporate counsel for LegalZoom, told CNBC. One of Delaware’s major advantages is its Court of Chancery, which is a separate court system specifically for handling corporate cases. The court is “widely respected as an authority on business matters trusted by both business and legal communities, honestly, all over the world, as a place where the rules are well developed,” Gilberg said.
The predictable case law also gives investors peace of mind. More than 90% of U.S.-based companies that went public in 2021 were registered in Delaware, according to the state.
– CNBC
I’m hoping the legal process to investigate Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling biz is fully exposed to the public before Election Day. In the same breath, I want to see a complete unraveling of Trump’s cover-up of the plots to hold onto the Presidency hatched in 12/20.
I’m prepared to accept whatever the voters decide in Nov., but only if these political cover-ups are burst open and the voters equipped with all the facts — BEFORE votes are cast. The consent of the governed demands that such consent be well-informed, not obtained through opaqueness and deceit.
Only the Courts-of-law have the power to blast through the wall of opaqueness and cover-up. And these Court processes are worthless to democracy if they cannot produce truth in the timeframe when it matters most.
” I want to see a complete unraveling of Trump’s cover-up “
PbinCA, specifically, what are you hoping to find? What law was broken? We had J6 which was a farce and we are now seeing videos demonstrating how much of a farce it was. We have all sorts of claims against Trump, but no one is charging him with insurrection. Should we charge Nancy Pelosi for refusing the troops?
I ask again, specifically what charge to you think should be made against Trump and what is the evidence?
10 House Republicans & 7 GOP Senators voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection in the 2nd impeachment trial. Romney said some Republican Senators told him they wanted to vote to convict but feared for the safety of their families.
140 law enforcement officers were assaulted during the J6 storming of the Capitol. 4 Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their J6 activities. Trump supporter, Ray Epps, is suing Fox News for defamation after they falsely claimed he was an FBI informant who instigated the J6 attack.
This week, Trump claimed Nikki Haley was the one who refused the offer of 10,000 troops. Incredible.
Did you care for the hundreds of injured cops during the 2020 riots? Did you care for the injured cops and Secret Service agents injured when the mob attacked the WH in May 2020? Did you care when the mobs burned Federal court houses> Did you care when the leftist goons burned down a POLICE STATTION? Did you care when two IVY LEAGUE LAWYERS tossed a Molotov Cocktail into a cop car?
You are pure stupidity with your partisanship.
Since you asked, I did condemn rioters who injured cops during the 2020 protests & protestors who injured Secret Service agents near the White House in May 2020. I also condemn rioters who injured 140 officers on J6.
Duly noted your reflexive yet predictable response about pure stupidity & partisanship. Americans like me condemn violence instigated by the left & the right, hullbobby.
One of the prices you pay for posting anonymously is that you have no claim to history and no reason to be trusted regarding your claims about the past.
I do not recall any of those opposed to Trump criticising the rioters at the WH in 2020.
Do you have evidence to demostrate that you did ?
What I recall is lots of left wing nuts claiming there were no riots at the WH, or that what Riots occured were only at nigh and there were different protestors durring the day when the Park Police sought to remove rioters from in front of the WH so they could fix the damage security barriers and create a buffer to protect those working on the fences as well as to have space to protect the WH at locations where security had been breached and could not be repaired quickly.
That no one was throwing frozen water bottles or rocks – despite video of forzen water bottles and rocks being lobbed at Barr.
That the Barr had allegedly used CS tergass against protestors – when he had used smoke, and when the actual use of teargas was by MPD blocks away.
What I heard from those on the left was the defense of violent protestors because …. Trump.
“Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.”
Chris Cuomo
“A riot is the language of the unheard”
CNN quoting MLK.
John Say, thanks for making my point better than I made it myself. When they stay as Anonymous they cannot claim that they said this or that previously.
John Say, since you asked for evidence of the left condemning violence, here’s what Biden said about the violence during the George Floyd protests :
Joe Biden, May 31, 2020: “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not.”
Joe Biden, June 2, 2020: “There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses….we need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest and opportunistic violent destruction.”
Joe Biden, August 30, 2020: “The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable…as a country we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight.”
And Joe Bidens running mate said the riots should continue after they were installed. All the while sending money to bail the rioter out of jail.
Joe’s mouth is moving he’s lying
Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, Aug. 27, 2020: “It’s no wonder people are taking to the streets and I support them. We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”
Why so reluctant to acknowledge Kamala’s entire quote about rioters, iowan2?
Because the riots were not protests.
The people she bailed out were in jail because of acts of violence
Why to you pretend?
Hey Analonymous, did any of those charged with the injuries cops suffered in 2020 go to prison? Did any of them get multi-year sentences?
We don’t know if you actually criticized those rioters because YOU ARE ANONYMOUS. Pick a name loser.
One Molotov lawyer went to Princeton and NYU law school. The other went to Fordham.
Where they didn’t go to is prison for a long time.
And it is likely in light of the growing body of evidence that the House Democrats LIED about J6 and have not only hid the truth but have been hiding it since that those Republicans are likely to change their minds.
There are almost 50,000 hours of video of J6. If you have cideo to corroborate each and every one of these assault claims – I will be glad to convict those involved and through away the key.
But as we see more and more of this – those naratives do NOT hold up.
We have video of peaceful protests at the West Tunnel that turned violent when CP lobbed tear gas into the midst of peaceful protestors who were NOT trying to cross baricades. and that after these protestors sought to flea to escape the tear gas, that they were accosted by CP officers and beaten with Truncheons BEFORE they became violent.
We have a growing body of video of CP officers beating protestors who are NOT attacking anyone, who are on the ground covering up or backed into a corner covering up.
While I am sure there must be atleast a little someone, there appears to be almost no video at all of any protestor actuially initiating violence against a police office.
Trump mis used the wrong name. Just as Pelosi did a few days earlier,
But the FACT he was refering to is correct.
Not only does the records establish that Pelosi refused the NG – both prior to J6 and during J6 but that the reason she did so was that she delusionally beleived that the NG was conspiring with Trump.
This is common among left wing nuts – you decide that your enemy is evil, and then you decide that they either will or have done any evil thing that you can imaging, and then when you gain power you do exactly what you have accused your enemy of.
The fact that Trump confused Haley and Pelosi does not change the fact that Pelosi refused the option of getting National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on J6. She told the Capitol Hill Police chief that it would have “bad optics.”
As for Ray Epps, the FBI Director refused to deny in Congressional testimony that he was a government asset. The lenient treatment he received from the FBI supports the view that he was an agent provocateur.
“10 House Republicans & 7 GOP Senators voted to convict Trump”
Your response is your continuous stupidity. Was Trump charged with insurrection? No, even though he was accused of everything else, which is prosecutorial abuse.
“140 law enforcement officers were assaulted”
More stupidity. Police killed two protestors, and two others died, where the cause of death is disputed. No police died.
Your responses are disjointed. It appears you have a mental problem.
pbinCA – it apears you are getting your wish – though it is not panning out as you expected.
What is coming to light is the deep and broad corruption of the Bidens,
The fact that even top democrats at DOJ did not buy the legal claims against Trump and resisted vigorously prosecuting them ontly to be circumcented by often junior political appointees and the WH.
What is coming to light is a conspiracy involving the Biden WH and often Junior political appointees rather than carreer administrators, to “get Trump”
It is increasingly clear that this is entirely political and an effort to force Trump out of the 2024 Election.
This is being Pried out of the government – by FOIA requests, discovery demands, Stupid conduct by people like Willis,
Regardless, I am fully behind your demand that the truth be brought to light.
The TRUTH not left wing nut naratives.
It would be wonderful if the Courts were the force drivingt to expose the truth – but so far they are impediments to the truth.
What is comming to light is DESPITE the courts not because of them.
What is being exposed is the FAILURE of prosecutors to provide exculpatory information that they are constitutionally obligated to do,
and the failure of the courts to compel them to do so.
What is coming to light is NOT coming out as a result of prosecutors and courts meeting their obligations to provide the TRUTH.
But as a result of processes outside the courts – FOIA requests or the exposure of seal records in an unrelated divorce case.
Also coming out more recently is that the violence at the WH in June 2020 was more than an order of magnitude greater than at the Capitol
Not only was there Arson and substantial property destruction, but far more substantial permanent barriers were damaged and breached.
And that large numbers of MPD, Park Police and Secret Service Agents were injured – many seriously.
Rocks were even thrown at AG Barr when he was present.
Not only was everyone arrested eventually released – but they were in many cases actually given Money.
No one has been charged with insurrection – and sedition on its FACE is an unconstitional crime in the US.
With BTW a LONG history of unconstitutional application.
The first US use of sedition as a crime was during the Adams administration. John Adams reluctantly and stupidly signed the Sedition act – KNOWING it was unconstitutional and a bad idea.
Hundreds were prosecuted – all pardoned by the next administration. And the act was repealed.
Later during WWI Wilson passed a new Sedition act – I ebelive the one used against the PB,
Specifically to go after Eugene Debbs for handing out pamplets urging opposition to U involvement in WWI.
Debbs was convicted, imprisoned, Ran for president from Prison getting 6% of the vote, and no one tried to use the 14th amendment to remove him from the ballot, and then he was subsequently pardoned when Republicans took office.
The PRoud boys SHOULD be proud to be the modern posterboys for the unconstitutional abuse of power by the actual totalitarians.
Wilson was …. A progressive Democrat, and now we have Biden – another progessive Democrat – our atleast that is the coat he wears today engaged in the same lawless totalitarianism.
Aren’t you proud of yourself ?
Quit censoring people and jailing people for speech you do not like.
And make your best arguments for your position in public debate – rather than abusing the power of government to attempt to win arguments.
The Trump coverup is unraveling – and as the sunlight moves into the dark corners – Trump is being vindicated and the left is being exposed as conspiratorial tyrants.
Sunlight is NOT working out so well for you.
But if you disagree – then lets bring to light all that is hidden about the efforts to “Get Trump”
See if they hold up to scrutiny.
Comer has a business, provides goods and/or services, what does Hunter do?
Comer is be looked over for some of the same crimes that Comer is accusing Hunter of doing. Look it up, but we know you won’t…
If actual evidence of Comer engaging in influence pedaling emerges – then he should be investigated and prosecuted.
Do you have such evidence ?
I really no very little about Comer. I am in no way trying to defend him. Ifr he is corrupt – whether more or less than the Bidens – Go after him.
But that does not alter the fact that the Biden’s are corrupt and not only lied about that to get elected. but unconstitutionally through govenrment censored the truth from the american people in order to get elected.
That is election fraud – that is more than mere corruption.
I have little doubt that the Biden family is NOT the most corrupt in Washington, or that Corruption is limited to democrats – though there is evidence that more democrats are more corrupt.
I have no problems prosecuting them all for corruption.
So Go for it.
I will completely defend Comer’s quite successful efforts to go after the Biden’s
I will do so as he is fitted for his own orange jumpsuit it is established that he too is corrupt.
So far you have not made that case.
But I have no problem with you trying to
and it will not change anything regarding the Biden’s iff you succeed.
Bravo, Dr. Turley. I hope you and others threatened lead the Sullivan bullies into bankruptcy law.
From your linked bio for BS (Bryan Sullivan)
Bryan implements effective, creative strategies by drawing upon his wide range of business experience and legal expertise, which gives him a unique appreciation of the importance of harmonizing the many varying, and sometimes competing, demands that exist in today’s fast-paced, ever-changing business world.
He is rather skilled at tautologies.
Youve been swatted, insulted by the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the Levi Strauss millionaire Dan Goldman accused you of not having any experience in litigating. You’ve got this!
GW University should double your salary for the free PR they are getting from your public visibility.
So while Professor Turley remains predictably silent about a judge ruling yesterday that Smartmatic can proceed with their unsettling $2.5 billion defamation lawsuit against Turley’s occasional employer, Fox News, JT continues his ongoing 4 year scorched earth campaign against Hunter Biden.
Yesterday, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled Smartmatic “sufficiently alleged that Fox Corp. employees acted with malice by purposely and deliberating publishing knowingly false stories about Smartmatic in order to benefit Fox Corp.’s financial interest.”
The judge also ruled that Fox News can continue their counterclaim allegation that Smartmatic is violating their First Amendment rights, but Fox News attorneys made the same First Amendment allegation against Dominion before Fox News ultimately agreed to pay Dominion $787 billion to settle their defamation lawsuit the day before the trial was scheduled to begin.
Professor Turley has yet to make his case that whatever kind of relationship Morris had with Hunter has anything to do with Turley’s relentless allegations of massive influence peddling against Papa Joe.
“. . . Morris had with Hunter has anything to do with [. . .] massive influence peddling against Papa Joe.”
Someone’s not paying attention:
Morris — Chinese companies (via Hunter).
JB: China policies.
Ivanka Trump: Chinese companies
DJT: China policies
Trump, Feb. 7, 2020: “Just had a long and very good conversation by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus. Great discipline is taking place in China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a very successful operation.”
Not hard to guess why the Communist Chinese government awarded Ivanka with 41 lucrative trademarks while Papa Don was in the White House lavishly praising Xi.
On what legal grounds do you believe China had the authority to reject Ivanka’s trademarks?
Those trademark application had been submitted years before Trump was elected
“The Chinese government granted a total of 41 trademarks to companies linked to Ivanka Trump by April of 2019—and the trademarks she applied for after her father became president got approved about 40% faster than those she requested before Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election.”
–Forbes magazine
What exactly do you think that means. Are you equating trademark approvals to the $10 million cash Hunter got?
“Ivanka Trump: Chinese companies
DJT: China policies”
I thought “but Susie does it” went out in the second grade.
Watching our leftist friends try to smear the good professor and failing is rather fun!
Thank you everyone for your epic take downs! Makes them look oh, so dumb!
Jonathan: I believe this is the first time you have chosen a column to publicly air a private dispute–the threat by Kevin Morris to sue you for defamation. Speculation and insinuation are no substitutes for the facts. Maybe we should just wait and see the outcome of the Calif. Bar’s investigation of the ethics complaint. If the Calif. Bar finds Morris did not violate Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) then we can discuss your potential defamation liability.
I think your dispute with Morris is a side-show. Morris’s loans to Hunter Biden are not the fundamental issue. The real issue is whether Jim Comer has come up with anything to impeach Joe Biden. So far, he has come up with nothing. The latest Comer interview with Mervyn Yan this week was a fishing expedition because there was no proof Yan had any contact with Joe Biden.
Comer is losing support for his investigation even among his House GOP allies. One anonymous GOP House member said: “One would be hard pressed to find the best moment for James Comer in the Oversight Committee. It’s a parade of embarrassments”. Even DJT is frustrated. An unnamed ally of DJT has said: “Comer has cast a wide net and caught very little fish. That’s a big problem for him”. Another Republican said: “I don’t know how Republicans actually impeach the president based on his [Comer’s] clueless investigation and lack of leadership”.
As the 2024 presidential election heats up Comer is hard-pressed to find anything to impeach Joe Biden. His year long investigation is going to die a natural death before the election. And that’s why your dispute with Kevin Morris is just a big distraction!
Dennis: thanks again for an insightful post. Being a teacher of law, it would be far more appropriate for Turley to use his podium to comment on the antics of Habba and Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case instead of a personal beef with Morris and his lawyer–Trump’s disruptive storming out when Robbie Kaplan started her summation, and then returning for Habba’s, plus his arrogant demeanor, talking while witnesses were testifying within earshot of the jury, Habba’s utter cluelessness on the Rules of Evidence and her disrespect for the Judge and the proceedings. The Judge had to threaten to put her in the slammer after she kept ignoring his rulings. Then, there’s the lack of client control–a lesson lawyers need to learn early on in their career–your client doesn’t know what’s best for him or her when it comes to whether to testify, how hard to push the judge, how to behave in the court room, what evidence is admissible and how it is to be presented–but the biggest issue is the fact that he just can’t stop defaming Carroll, plus the damning admissions he made in depositions in other matters–boasting, for instance, that he had $400 million in ready cash and bragging about how valuable he believes his properties are–if these things are true, why is he begging for money from his fans? Trump would have done well to try to amicably resolve the case brought by the NY AG and this Carroll case, instead of duking it out in court. In his twisted way of thinking, he’s getting free publicity, but for sensible people, all of this is just more proof of his arrogance and disrespect for American values.
DM the Morris defense is crumbling. No we need not wait for the CA barr – few beleive the CA barr will be any less politically corrupt than the DC courts
Ordinary people are capable of reaching their own conclusions regarding ethical conduct.
Regardless, The Morris Transcripts have been released, as have many others, and more are getting released each weak.
Your claim that Republicans have been cherry picking and hiding the facts has FAILED badly.
It is taking a week or two to see House Republican transcripts.
We STILL have not seen the transcripts from 2018 hearings on the first Trump impeachment.
Further you do not seem to grasp that almost universally as information is made public – the Harm is not to Trump or Republicans – but to Biden and democrats.
Lots and lots of documents exposed through FOIA requests are showing up in the FL trial, these are building a growing case that Trump coopertaed with NARA and the FBI and DOJ and that the entire case against him is not only a false narative – moving boxes so that lawyers could review them to determine what must be provided in response to a subpeona is not the same as moving boxes to hide them.
That NARA and the WH were trying to conspire to set Trump up from Jan 21,2021 forward and that DOJ was having none of it.
On and on – everything that gets made public is more and more damning to democrats and the left.
The willis trial has proven a disaster. It exposes The corruption of the left in many ways.
We are now getting from numerous sources – including leaks to the media – like WaPo and NYT that Biden and the Biden WH was not only orchestrating the DOJ investigation for Trump, but also the NARA efforts, the FBI and the NY cases and the GA cases.
Your accusing Trump of using presidential power to influence state actors to effect an election
And doing exactly what you are accusing Trump of.
What is the difference ? Trump’s actions in 2020 were overt and his objective was to get Raffensberger and GA to do their job in the beleif that looking into the election would either find more votes for him or find fraudulent votes for Biden.
Trump was NOT seeking to prosecute a political opponent for lawful actions.
The good professor need not have written this post today, nor included text from Morris’ attorney Sullivan, defending Morris’
funds to his client Hunter as “exceptions.”
Why do I think JT need not have wasted his time? Because our friend Dennis McIntyre has already waxed prolix a few days ago, -putting Professor Turley in his place by reminding him (JT) that there was no evidence of an “attorney-client relationship” between Morris and Hunter Biden.
Here is Dennis in his challenging post to Professor Turley:
“Jonathan: So what are the “many faces” of Kevin Morris and why does he deserve a whole column? …That makes Morris automatically a target for a column by you…. Any evidence that Morris is the attorney of record in any of Hunter’s legal cases? Hunter’s messy divorce, the criminal prosecutions or the Comer investigation where Abbe Lowell represents Hunter? Nope. So what is this really all about?”
Maybe Dennis should legally represent Sullivan, who represents Hunter.
(Apologies, small correction: last sentence should read, “Maybe Dennis should legally represent Sullivan, who represents Morris, who apparently does not represent Hunter.” (also, I used wrong quotation marks around “many faces.” ooops)
Oh lawd…. Dennis begets Svelaz begets Wally begets Gigi begets Bob begets elvis bug begets Sealioning anonymous begets Peter Shill begets…… Will there be a cigar included in the interrogation? Talk about a circus show.
Estovir: Haha! By the opening frame in your clip (and its attendant parodies to all the referenced begottens), I can’t tell if our actors are getting too big for their britches, or instead, that the walls are closing in on them….I am hopeful that some of these begottens become forgottens….
As I said yesterday to not-so-old: laughter: the best medicine for these trying times…thanks for your contribution.
Lin,
Great comment!
Always good to see real lawyers chime in.
Good for you professor!
Keep up the good work!