Michael Cohen was back in court this week and it did not go well. The former fixer for Donald Trump was in court seeking a reduction in his federal sentence and to answer for his use of Google’s AI chatbot to submit arguments with fake case authority. However, things went off the rails when his counsel cited his prior testimony as evidence of his rehabilitation. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman called the argument “perverse” and noted that Cohen is clearly a serial perjurer and cited the need for continued “deterrence.” That is hardly a promising review before Cohen appears as the star witness for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in the prosecution of former president Donald Trump.
If lying were an art form, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen would be its Rembrandt.
Throughout his career, the disbarred lawyer has found powerful clients who valued his reputation for supporting any side that offered the biggest payback.
For full disclosure, I have been a critic of Cohen for years, including columns when he was still representing Trump.
Cohen has been repeatedly accused of perjury. For example, after Cohen turned on Trump, he went from being a pariah to a hero for many Democrats. Yet, he continued the same pattern. When he was called before the House to testify against Trump soon after his plea agreement with the Justice Department, Cohen was again accused of perjury:
The House Oversight Committee chairman, Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, began his questioning by noting that he told him that he had better testify truthfully this time or be nailed to the cross. “Didn’t I tell you that?” Cummings asked. “Yes, you did, more than once,” Cohen replied.
Then Cohen went forward and claimed he had cared nothing about jobs or pardons from Donald Trump. However, a number of news organizations reported that Cohen was upset after lobbying for the White House counsel, chief of staff, or other jobs in the administration. Despite a multitude of such sources, Cohen has insisted, “I was extremely proud to be the personal attorney for the president of the United States of America. I did not want to go to the White House. I was offered jobs.” There is little ambiguity here. Either multiple witnesses lied or Cohen once again lied to Congress.
Then Cohen stated, “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump.” That also directly contradicts multiple sources who say his lawyer pressed the White House for a pardon, and that Cohen unsuccessfully sought a presidential pardon after FBI raids on his office and residences last year. (Roughly a month later, he decided to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller.).
Even after being stripped of his bar license and sentenced to three years in prison, Cohen continued the pattern. In 2019, Cohen failed to appear to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing the inability to travel due to a medical surgery. However, he was seen partying before the hearing date with five friends with no apparent problems.
Even in jail, Cohen was accused of lying to a court in violation of an order for early release due to medical problems. He was ordered back into custody after being spotted at a high-end restaurant.
After Cohen admitted to various criminal acts in federal court to secure his plea agreement, he then declared that he lied. In his 2018 guilty plea before U.S. District Judge William Henry Pauley III, Cohen admitted to this conduct under oath.
Cohen was later asked by Trump counsel “Did you lie to Judge Pauley when you said that you were guilty of the counts that you said under oath that you were guilty of? Did you lie to Judge Pauley?”
Cohen matter-of-factly responded “yes.” He was then again asked “So you lied when you said that you evaded taxes to a judge under oath; is that correct?” He again responded “yes.”
Despite just admitting to a federal crime of perjury, the Justice Department and specifically the Southern District of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office declined to prosecute.
Cohen was useful again and had found powerful allies who valued his curious skill set of being able to say anything at any time to help his patrons.
One judge, however, had had enough. In his court order, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman stated:
“It gives rise to two possibilities: one, Cohen committed perjury when he pleaded guilty before Judge Pauley or, two, Cohen committed perjury in his October 2023 testimony. Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law.’”
He went on to criticize Cohen’s other lawyer, E. Danya Perry, in trying to excuse his perjury:
“These efforts to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse fall flat. Cohen’s testimony was not, as Perry contends, a ‘clumsy’ or ‘poorly worded’ attempt to argue that… the government abused its prosecutorial discretion in charging those crimes. To the contrary, he unambiguously testified that he ‘didn’t’ commit tax evasion and that he ‘lied’ to Judge Pauley when he said that he had…Moreover, when given multiple opportunities to retreat from or clarify that testimony later, he stuck to his guns.”
He added that
“Specifically, Cohen repeatedly and unambiguously testified at the state court trial that he was not guilty of tax evasion and that he had lied under oath to Judge Pauley when he pleaded guilty to those crimes…This testimony is more troubling than the statements that Cohen had previously made in his book and on television — statements that the Court had specifically cited in denying Cohen’s third motion for early termination of supervised release… because it was given under oath…Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law.'”
Indeed, that is the unique perversity of Michael Cohen. He has continued to game the system and play the media to his own advantage. Even admitting perjury on the stand did not produce a criminal charge. He has found new allies who need his unique ability to support their cause without the burden of accuracy or veracity.
What will be truly amazing is to see Bragg call Cohen to the stand in light of this record. Bragg’s weak criminal case will turn in great part on a serial liar and disbarred lawyer. Defense counsel need only read from past transcripts to establish a self-impeaching record of contradictions and lies. For Bragg to present Cohen as credible is incredible, particularly given this latest finding in 2024 by a federal judge. It is hard to present a witness as a redemptive sinner when he does not have a single redemptive moment to show a jury.
None of this may matter to a New York jury. Cohen learned long ago that you need to know your audience. No one looks to Michael Cohen for the truth. They look to him to say what needs to be said to rationalize a result. What is most perverse about Michael Cohen is the continued perverse need for Michael Cohen.
N.B.: Cohen responded to a tweet yesterday where I incorrectly referenced Judge Pauley rather than Judge Furman. I later deleted the tweet. Cohen however objected “Wrong you idiot (@JonathanTurley). Judge Pauley didn’t make the statement, Judge Jesse Furman did.” Indeed, you are right Michael, I did confuse the two names on X. It was Judge Furman who called you a perjurer. Of course, I have long admitted to being a serial offender of “Twitter” typos. That is bad but it is not quite as bad as being accused of being a serial perjurer.
Don’t you just love all the free speech X/Twitter gives us? Neo Nazis, racist A holes,
Musk just loves his nazis.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/after-appeal-to-musk-x-suspends-accounts-that-outed-neo-nazi-cartoonist/
And JT loves his Musks. Is JT a Nazi?
Sometimes I wonder by how he ignores facts in evidence, jumps at the least bit of evidence (that is frequently proven wrong) when it goes against someone he does not like.
How’s that Biden impeachment going with your star witness JT?
Musk just loves his nazis.
Just like the America Civil Liberties Union, loves their Nazis
When everyone is a Nazi -= no one is a nazi.
Outside your left wing nut bubble – no one is paying attention.
Does that means that mean that sometimes we falsely assume that a few of the multitudes you accuse of being nazi’s are actual nazi’s – probably.
But that does not matter – they are still free to speak and the rest of us do to them exactly what we do to you – ignore them,
I have never seen a Nazi on Twitter/X or here.
Does that mean there are none ? No. But it certainly means they are NOT A PROBLEM.
Conversely there are accusations of Nazi’s everywhere on Twitter/X all the time. Is that a problem ?
Not really we just ignore you.
Most of us are ignoring the house impeachment.
Why ?
Because long ago we saw more than enough evidence that the Biden’s were hopelessly corrupt.
Because the house is unlikely to impeach Biden – which does not mean that he is not guilty.
Because even if they did the senate is not going to convict.
Nor frankly should they. Again that is NOT because Joe Biden is not corrupt.
It is because there is an election in 8 months and the people will get to decide.
That does not means the impeachment hearings serve no purpose.
They serve many important purposes.
One of those is preventing he successful left wing nut censorship/election interference that occurred in 2020.
From what I have seen – the impeachment hearings are going well. Democrats are going nuts.
Hurling accusations at everyone.
It was inappropriate for Bobolinsky to call Raskin and Goldman liars.
But turn about is fair play – and they accused Bobolynski of lying, so they should not be surprised
that Bobolynski responded in kind in a huge public forum and that most people think that is acceptable.
Turn about is fair play.
As to the rest – if the GOP had video of Biden taking a Million in cash from Burisma,
those of you on the left would find a way to claim “that is not evidence”
Your trapped inside your bubble and nothing gets in.
As I said at the start – these hearings are important,
But I am not paying attention.
I do not need to.
I saw more than enough evidence already to impeach and remove Biden if I was a representative or Senator.
John Say said: “It was inappropriate for Bobolinsky to call Raskin and Goldman liars.”
Why in Hell would that be inappropriate? Raskin, at least, has consistently deliberately misrepresented testimony to the media. “Deliberate misrepresentation” = “lying” in my lexicon. Since when is it inappropriate to accurately publicly finger a public liar?
Who is paying for trumps escapades? Russia, China, Bolivia? Venezuela?
No matter who it is, what do they want in return for letting trump use half a billion dollars?
It’s a good think the TDS trolls are saying “whatabout Trump,” otherwise there would hardly be any comments today.
Don’t worry Ivan, Turley’s team is busy censoring comments that will upset the Trump cult at alarming rates today. At this rate only comments from the Cult will be allowed.
@Ivan
Ignore Gigi. She has not had a single asinine comment of hers ‘censored’; no, she’s here every day in her full glory to annoy the rest of us. She is the online embodiment of a lie. Proceed as you must, but no one will ever take your comments away unless you are truly and irrevocably hostile. People are free to be as stupid as they like; Gigi, (bad) Anonymous, Sammy, Bob, Enigma, a few others prove that virtually every bloody day. Said it before: amazingly, it turns out clowning is still a vibrant profession in the 21st century.
Sometimes my own comments are stupid, incoherent, made in haste, but what they never are is dishonest, no matter how harried/unconsidered they may be. The Professor does this for us literally *every* single day, for free, in addition to all of his other responsibilities, nobody gets censored (see the d*** ‘bad’ Anonymous posted recently), and it is very much safe to ignore the trolls.
James – Gigi just needs a backrub and some tender loving care. That will calm her down and then she’ll be a pleasant little girl when she shows up here.
Ivan
@Ivan
I’d like to think so. Doesn’t seem to make a difference. We will see her more today and more tomorrow, and then the next day, and nothing of hers will be deleted, and that is just a fact. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to attempt to have a conversation because these issues actually interest/matter to us. Nobody here of a sound mind is particularly partisan; we are talking about the intricacies that will permit our society to survive, and for everyone, and that is certainly open to honest debate. I don’t presume to speak for the folks that run this site, but on behalf of other participants in the dialogue – free thinkers are most welcome; the more the merrier.
And yet you are still here ?
A significant portion of the comments are anti-Trump.
Many are personal attacks on Turley.
Given what IS posted – what is it that you have to be saying to get Banned ?
Must be incredibly bad.
, but totally ignored Kavanaugh’s similar sentiments.
Jackson, from the Obama school of Constitutional ignorance, finds the 1st amendment off putting, because it “hamstrings” the govt. Jackson, lacks the most simplistic function of the Bill of Rights, is written with the purpose to not just hamstring the govt. But to outright Bars the govt from taking specific actions.
Kavanaugh is correct in a pedantic sort of way. What Kavanaugh does not examine, is exactly what constitutional power is the Federal Govt accessing in their attempt to censor speech?
Of course, you are absolutely correct.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government itself is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and basic infrastructure, or “general Welfare,” per Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment absolute right to private property.
___________
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Wonderful Jefferson quote.
iowan2 said:
“to outright Bars the govt from taking specific actions.”
Even that is too weak a statement. The Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, was intended to restrict the government from taking ANY actions except those that it specifically authorizes.
“What Kavanaugh does not examine, is exactly what constitutional power is the Federal Govt accessing in their attempt to censor speech?”
Was that question put by any of the parties claiming 1st A repression? I haven’t followed Kavanaugh’s opinions closely, but some justices are reluctant to go very far afield from the arguments made by plantiffs and defendants.
There are excellent videos by Taibbi and Greenwald on this – not right wing nuts.
Taibbi points out that what he and others found, what the lower courts found was much more than government SUGGESTIONS to social media. That there was an enormous amount of THREATS both explicit and implicit.
Further that those in Government did not Relent.
That if they gave SM a list of people they wanted banned – they had better be Banned in a few hours.
Otherwise they would be back hounding and harrassing again.
That the Govenrment explicitly threatedned the advertising revenue streams of these companies if they did not comply
And that even the falling off the left edge of the world nutcases on Twitter – on occasion Balked at the demands by government for censorship and after further browbeating complied – either because “government must no best” or because they were terrified.
What do so many of Trump’s attorneys, advisors, & associates have in common? They’ve been convicted of a wide assortment of crimes. Trump’s attorney, Giuliani, was convicted of defamation, ordered to pay $148 million & faces disbarment in NY & Washington DC. Trump’s CFO, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 counts of tax fraud & 5 counts of perjury. Roger Stone was convicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction of justice & witness tampering. Trump’s campaign manager, Manafort was convicted on 8 counts of tax fraud & bank fraud & was ordered to pay $24.8 million in restitution. The list goes on & on.
And let’s not forget that the first thing Trump did after the 2016 election was to agree to pay $25 million to hundreds of Americans who were conned & in some cases bankrupted by his Trump University scam. Trump’s company was found guilty of criminal tax fraud in 2022. Trump is the only president in US history who has been convicted of defamation & found liable for sexual abuse.
Of course, Trump granted a presidential pardon to Stone. Hey, what’s the big deal about being convicted on multiple perjury charges in federal court, right?
Yep, Trump only surrounds himself with the best & the brightest.
“What do so many of Trump’s attorneys, advisors, & associates have in common?”
They have been mercilessly and relentlessly targeted by left wing nut lawfare.
You rant that Trump attorneys are incompetent or Crooked – have you paid the slightest attention to James or Willis or Smith or Bragg ?
Regardless, the objective of this relentless lawfare is to prevent actually competent people from representing Trump
OR ANYONE that challenges the left.
This is actually extremely important.
I regard as hero’s the attorneys’ in the ACLU who defended Nazi’s.
Those who defended OJ.
Those who defended the Chicago 7.
Those who defended McVey or the Bundies or Randy Weaver.
Those who defended prisoners at Gitmo.
Those who go after the attoney’s of people they do not like
ARE SCUM !!!
It is funny how so much of what those on the left do today is what a tiny portion of those on the right TRIED 50 years ago.
The left today has nothing on the Evil of Sen. Joe MacCarthy.
“At Long Last, have you no shame ?”
The answer is NO.
RACISM ALERT!!! Racist xenophobes in Illinois do bad stuff to undocumented guests! Rich white man behind it all!
Illinois officials are moving to stop providing taxpayer-subsidized health care to thousands of non-citizens, including many illegal immigrants, in a bid to rein in soaring costs.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/illinois-moves-cut-thousands-non-citizens-taxpayer-subsidized-health-care
Floyd,
I read an article recently about how much the illegals were costing Medicare as they use the ER more often then citizens for their health care and any health care facility that accepts Medicare has to treat illegals.
Some wonder why health care costs are so insane? That right there.
Hello Upstate-according to Newsweek:
“The FAIR study, released in March last year [2023], documented the financial toll of illegal immigration on the U.S., taking into account factors like emergency medical care, incarcerating illegal aliens in local jails, and federal budgets that pay out billions in welfare every year, pegging the net annual cost at $150.7 billion.”
https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-costs-us-billions-biden-administration-policy-impact-taxpayer-burden-1866555
Tax the wealthy who are leaving, to pay for illegals (and grateful future voters) coming in. Sounds like wealth (and political) redistribution to me.
Lin, that number is probably the tip of the iceberg!
@Upstate @Floyd
This is tangentially related, but RE squatter laws: my in-laws had an incident a few years ago, living in a plce with very lax squatter laws, where they almost got defrauded out of their house. These people are first generation immigrants that worked their little behinds off to escape real tyranny, traversing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the finally the United States to have what they have; and one worthless, liberal, American woke-tard from the Bay almost took it all from them (a white, single, ‘liberal’, female with no kids and no comprehension other than entitlement and what she is owed by the mere fact of her existence). Thankfully we all caught on before it was too late and kicked her little sociopathic butt back to whence it came.
Do not think this is not happening. Think what you will of the woman in Queens who had a million dollar home; this absolutely impacts everyone else in equal measure. I have a dear friend who is a DA in Manhattan and remains blind to all of this; I pray it doesn’t have to be this extreme for him to wake up and stop with the Orange Man Bad. The fact that we have worked so, so hard for what we have could be taken away in 30 days by an interloper- unacceptable in the extreme. Stop. Voting. Dem. To the wealthy among us – your estate on the cliffs of Malibu isn’t safe, either, unless your last name is Biden or Pelosi, when there are people posting on Tik-Tok describing precisely how to enact this scam. It. Is. Insane. We can NOT do this another four years, period.
I absolutely support building a wall – though aparently there is now some nonsense going on at our northern border too.
If you can not get in from TX, then Vermont works too.
However, I also support “open borders” – but that does not mean willy nilly lawlessness.
I would end medicare and medicaid – those that have actually paid in should be bought out
I would end Social Security – in the same way.
None of these are the business of government and they create massive moral hazard that will ultimately either destroy the country or result in the failure of these entitlements and harm to those who relied on them and EARNED the right to do so,
Politicians can say they will not touch SS and Medicare all they want.
When Treasury offers bonds and no one will buy them and the government runs out of money Politicans will hack Medicare and SS without batting an eye.
The good news is that is a ways off – I will probably be dead.
The bad news is it is getting harder and harder to avoid that.
That aside is because – No immigrants legal or otherwise should not be getting government benefits.
NO ONE SHOULD.
We all should get what we have earned – including immigrants legal and otherwise.
But we are not getting rid of entitlements. We made a huge dent in Welfare and the stupid antipoverty programs that trapped people in poverty under Clinton. But Obama erased all of those gains through executive orders.
The Clinton “ending Welfare as we know it” – resulted in the movement of millions of minorities from poverty to the working class,
It both saved money and was incredibly successful at REDUCING poverty.
But give that we are stuck with entitledments – my “open borders” is
The people, the churches, families, businesses political groups, successful immigrants, can sponsor anyone from anywhere to immigrate to the US (subject to vetting for terrorism and criminal conduct) so long as sponsorship has teeth. You are REALLY responsible.
This ends all quota systems. This ends govenrment involvement in decisions as to Who can come here (aside from criminals),
The choice and the vetting – beyond criminal and terrorism is up to the sponsors.
The responsibility rests with the sponsors.
100,000 ? 1M ? 10M? that is up to the people of the country INDIVIDUALLY.
Nor do I have a problem with successful immigrants sponsoring their families, extended families, …
That whoudl be what we want – people who want to come here and who succeed when they do.
I do not care what color you are.
We should structure US immigration to be self selecting for success.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”
Way too many upper middle class entitled white children in this country not only take freedom for granted but want to take it from anyone who disagrees with them.
Asbolutely we should allow into this country the people who has seen how left wing nut ideology works in the real world
We should want people fleeing China or Haiti or Venezeula or Cuba or other hellholes made by the left.
We should be happy to see 10M immigrants coming here for FREEDOM and OPORTUNITY.
And we should be ecstatic about those who succeed.
But if you come here and you become a burdern – you get a one way ticket home.
If you come here and commit crimes – a one way ticket home.
The left is right that we should not demonize those who wish to come here.
My preference for deporting people would start with the many people who have been here for centuries and have lost sight of what this country is about.
Putin is teaching Russian children to be proud of a country that has been a bad actor far more often than not.
Yet the children of the nation that has been the beacon of freedom for the world hate this country and should be free to go to the places they idolize.
“I would end medicare and medicaid –
I would end Social Security – in the same way.”
Yes.
It is impossible to have an extensive welfare system AND open borders.
This mass immigration of the past happened before the welfare state.
Professor Turley,
If you really cared about perjury, why do you not consider Trump a perjurer?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.372.0_5.pdf
In Judge Carter’s opinion (linked above), he quotes an email from Trump’s attorney, John Eastman, in which Eastman wrote:
“Although the President signed a verification for [the state court filing] back on Dec. 1, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”
(The text in brackets was inserted by Judge Carter for clarity.)
The Court concluded that the documents showed that “President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public.”
Carter’s opinion points us to a federal lawsuit that Donald Trump filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on December 31, 2020. The complaint restates unsubstantiated allegations made by Trump in state court filings that the votes of deceased individuals, unregistered persons, and defendants disenfranchised while serving a felony sentence were permitted to vote in Georgia. Although the federal complaint avoids repeating precise figures listed in the state complaint, the state allegations are attached as Exhibit 1 to the federal complaint.
Appended to Trump’s complaint in the Georgia federal court is a statement, witnessed and signed by a notary public, in which it is represented that Trump
“[o]n oath says he has reviewed the Verified Complaint for Emergency Injunctive And Declaratory Relief and with regard to the facts contained therein, states that to the best of his knowledge and belief, and relying on the representations contained therein, the facts are true and correct where derived from his own knowledge and are believed to be true and correct where derived from the knowledge of others or from documents that are maintained in the course of business or are public records.”
An analysis of Trump’s verification, the complaint, and surrounding facts and circumstances suggests that all of the elements of the crime of perjury are met:
(1) A false statement — Eastman’s emails acknowledge that the information Trump verified was false.
(2) Under oath or in a court proceeding — this one is clear that Trump made the statement under oath and in a court proceeding.
(3) Made knowingly or willfully — Eastman’s email clarifies that Trump “had been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. Eastman advised that “for Trump to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.” Yet that is precisely what Trump did.
(4) Materiality – The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clarify that requests for emergency relief must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit or verified compliant. Trump’s knowingly false verification was capable of influencing the Georgia federal court to rely on false allegations to grant Trump emergency relief. Thus, it was material.
This is a clear example of perjury from 2 years ago, and yet, you aren’t banging the same drum…
“B b b b but what about that other guy?” isn’t an argument of a mature adult. The issue that Turley chose to write about, in HIS column, is N.Y. District Attorney Alvin Bragg selecting Michael Cohen, a disbarred lawyer and perjurer, as a witness in a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. It doesn’t matter who the defendant is. The actions of D.A. Bragg are reprehensible and should warrant an investigation by the State Bar.
Tell that to Turley:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/us-legal-system-devolving-amid-trump-law-fare-jonathan-turley
Literally two days ago, he went on Fox bemoaning “selective prosecution” of AG Letitia James with respect to Trump.
And here he is again on March 16, 2024 banging the same drum of “selective prosecution:” https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4535603-from-georgia-to-new-york-2024-could-turn-on-the-odor-of-selective-prosecution/
Is Professor Turley a “mature adult” if argues that Trump is being unfairly singled out by prosecutors when they have not taken similar decisions against others?
Come on, man.
I used to think the same as you. It’s JTs column, he can do as he chooses. Your right. It is also true that JT rants about a crime some people do while ignoring the same crime others commit. JT has a habit of jumping on a piece of evidence that proves his right wing racist misogynistic views, then when the “facts” are proven false, he ignores the new evidence.
Hows that Biden impeachment going with their star witness? Oh wait, he has been charged with lying to the FBI, oops.
How many trump lawyers are in legal trouble? I’ll let you look that one up.
How many Trump lawyers are in trouble for things that their legal oponents are doing all the time ?
100% of them.
Come november – Turnabout is fair play.
You should be thankful that Trump has promised he will be too busy to seek vengeance.
But Do not bet that the small army of US Attorney’s that Trump appoints – many the people you have been persecuting, will feel the same way.
Here is Alan Derschowitz on Trump’s lawyers.
https://youtu.be/wmgxBvwS2-M?list=PLOhPOwZEWwMEAzX2QR2M4FS_3xMshkA4h
TIN said: ““B b b b but what about that other guy?” isn’t an argument of a mature adult.”
Generally correct, with the possible exception of systemitized selective prosecution. However, where your admonition does apply, it should be clearly remembered that it necessarily cuts in both directions.
ATS – you do not seem to grasp what actual perjury is. Now does Carter.
With all of these election cases – the Left CONSTANTLY equates Oppinions with Facts.
If there are absolutely no allegations of fraud – that does not mean there is no Fraud in an election.
It merely means there is no consequentiual fraud we KNOW of.
You can ALWAYS claim that elections are fraudulent without lying – much less committing perjury.
Further we NEVER prosecute people for perjury for what they Believe to be true – even if they are wrong.
\
The issue you address with Judge Carter is garbage.
Willis and Wade signed verifications that were KNOWINGLY fraudulent.
Absolutely that is a crime. And absolutely if it were prosecuted – 90% of the Bar in the country would be in jail.
I have dealt with myriads of briefs and pleadings in court cases that are rife with blatant lies.
These are never ever prosecuted.
They are not even subject to discipline unless they are egregious and clearly knowing.
The argument that you and Carter are making – that someone knows something is untrue – because they have been told it was untrue many times, Has absolutely no place insiude of a court.
We were told Russia colluded with Trump – That was a lie – yet you would jail those who did not go along with the lie as perjures – because they were told many times it was True.
We were told The Biden laptop was Russian disinformation – yet you would jail those who did not go along with the lie as perjures – because they were told many times it was True.
While many of Cohen’s statements are absolutely perjury.
Some of Turley’s example can not and should not ever be prosecuted as perjury.
No one should EVER be prosecuted for perjury for protesting their own innocence.
Nor BTW should they be found to have defamed someone for asserting their own innocence – even in the face of incontrovertable evidence.
“The argument that you and Carter are making – that someone knows something is untrue – because they have been told it was untrue many times, Has absolutely no place insiude of a court.”
Do you have a citation to a case to back that up?
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-fornaro
I’ll give you one to show why the required men’s rea is “knowingly” rather than a more heightened willfulness standard. Under 18 USC 1623, US v Fornaro clarifies that mere knowledge is sufficient. That lower standard requires that the defendant know or should have known that the statement under oath was false.
Do you have case law to suggest otherwise?
You keep trying to turn the law into a weapon to use against your political foes.
By your very intention – it is YOU that is wrong, not those you go after.
Everything you think it a lies – is not a lie, and certainly not perjury.
Your examples – are all examples of the instances we should NEVER use the law as a sword.
No one should ever be sanctioned by the law for sticking to a claim that others claim is false.
Truth is not decided by opinion or consensus.
For my entirely life I have been alone or nearly alone on controversial issues.
I have nearly always been right.
One of the problems with “the majority rules” – is the majority is quite often wrong – especially when there is a counter view.
You are among those who would imprison Galileo.
Regardless, being told – repeatedly you are wrong about something and continuing to assert – even under oath otherwise – is not perjury.
Perjury requires proving that you are KNOWINGLY wrong about a statement of FACT, not opinion.
Not that you SHOULD have known. Not that you disagree with prevailing opinion.
I would further note – that even the things you claim Trump lied about.
Why are you to be beleived ?
Is Trump unable to claim election fraud – so that he can get into court and get the power to engaging in discovery to find the compelling evidence – unless he can prove beyond any doubt exactly the fraud that occured FIRST ?
Over time we have learned that SOME of the Trump allegations of Fraud in 2020 are weak – maybe even false.
Whether you like it or not – that is NOT a crime.
They were plausible enough at the time.
There appears to be no evidence supporting the claims that Voting machines were hacked from oversees.
There appears to be no evidence that in the US voting machines were engaged in weighted vote counting.
There is plenty of evidence that voting machines are trivially hackable, but none that they have actually been hacked.,
The maricopa country Audit – though revealling MASSIVE problems – only slightly more than half of the ballots met the reqirements of the law to be counted as valid. Most of that is just error. But some of it is indicia of fraud – and contra the left – the AZ audit reveal actual fraud large enough to flip the election. But there is also a reason the enormous degree of error is important.
The voting laws that were breeched resulting on those errors exist to prevent fraud. Where there is high rates of error that either hides current fraud or allows further fraud.
Regardless, though the Maricopa audit disproved SOME Trump claims – it amplified the probability of others.
Are you prepared to prosecute those who filed pleadings challenging Trump – because their pleadings were in many cases FALSE ?
Probably even knowingly so.
The Windham country audit – a small audit – found no fraud, but it found enough error that it almost tipped a house seat.
Worse still the error was something that DVS had know about for a decade.
The Antrim country audit found no fraud – but it found miscounting of ballots that added thousands to Trump’s totals.
These are the ONLY three actual audits that were conducted in 2020.
While they did not mostly help Trump.
They did not help Democrats either.
Again. See above. Case law please or we are living in your world of make believe.
Your case, you cited, was a rabbit hole, as I suspected. I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to dissect it for you. Now, that I have told you that you are wrong, quit saying it, or you can be held for perjury, in your fantasy world.
False.
#1 – ATS/you have NOT provided the evidence – the case law or the FACTS to support your claims.
#2 this is a legal blog – one in which YOU are making Stupid and demonstrably false claims.
You have made arguments as to what constitutes perjury. Yet, you do not even know the difference between different forms of illegal false misrepresenation – pleadings and their verifications are NOT statements under oath in a court or proceeding.
They are not subject to the same standards and they do not have the same punishments.
Even Perjury is almost never charged absent a willful and knowing lie AND a clear oportunity to correct.
You want caselaw ? Start with any lawschool text on Civil procedure – Chapter 1.
I would be shocked to find that you have ever gone to a lawschool or read a law text,
That you have any familiarity with actual civil or criminal proceedings, or common law, or ….
Have you ever had to represent yourself or anyone else in a court proceeding ?
Have you ever had to write a discovery request or comply with one ?
Have you ever had to respond to a pleading or write a pleading ?
Have you ever written a motion or responded to one ?
Not only are you ignorant of the basics of civil and criminal procediure – you are ignorant of the basisc sof logic on which they are based.
BTW My answer to all the above questions is YES.
I have done those things. I have been on both sides of those things.
I have had to deal with opposing counsel and clients that lied on every element of a pleading except their address.
You can raise that with the court – you will get nowhere.
You can raise it with the bar – you will get nowhere.
I have had lawyers admit in court that claims in their pleadings were false, then make them again in closing arguments, and then have the court decide they were true.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Regarless YOU are making the claim that something no one has so far tried to prosecute is a crime.
The BURDEN is on YOU – to provide caselaw – and frankly far more FACTS than you have.
“Experts told Trump something” is not evidence.
What EXACTLY did they tell him ?
Was what they said an opinion – or a fact ?
Or an opinion presented as a FACT?
We all know that those on the left continue to BELEIVE that the 2020 election was fraud free.
But that is a BELEIF – and the ACTUAL standard of proof – is that those conducting the election must prove – not only that there was no consequential fraud – but that they conducted the election such that Fraud was not possible.
Proof of error – and the errors in 2020 are MASSIVE is not proof of fraud.
But it is proof that Fraud was possible.
To be a lie (a lower standard than perjury), a claim must NOT be one of opinion, and it must have an incredibly low probability of being true.
“This is a clear example of perjury from 2 years ago, and yet, you aren’t banging the same drum…”
It is ? How so ? You conflate your opinion as to what is and is not true with what is provably true and what is not.
“An analysis of Trump’s verification, the complaint, and surrounding facts and circumstances suggests that all of the elements of the crime of perjury are met:”
That is false – regardless the standard is not “suggests” – it is proves.
You can not prove perjury with Truly circumstantial evidence.
“(1) A false statement — Eastman’s emails acknowledge that the information Trump verified was false.”
As is typical of the left – you constantly claim things – with out actually providing the evidence to support the claim.
Those of you on the left has lied so many times – including PERJURY in the courts that few buy anything you say – absent evidence.
If you wish to claim something based on Eastman’s ILLEGALLY obtained emails – then provide the content of the email in context to prove it.
Very very few people will take YOUR word for pretty much anything.
You really do not seem to grasp how little credibility YOU have outside your bubble.
You rant about Turley – it is absolutely true that Turley beleives the claims of the left LESS AND LESS.
Why – because over and over you have been exposed as LYING.
Willis and Wade and numerous witnesses lied over and over in GA recently.
Why ? To attempt to stay on a case to “Get Trump”.
Had Willis and Wade admitted to an affair going back to 2019 – The Judge would have been correct in bumping Wade and keeping Willis.
But inarguably they LIED They lied first about the existance of the affair and the duration of the affair.
Regardless, outside the bubble – everyone – even the judges who despite reaching the wrong result was absolutely Damning to Willis and Wade.
“The Odor of mendacity” is not something a court should EVER find with regard to a prosecutor.
Regardless, the point is that those of you on the left LIE constantly – about big things about little things.
You lie about almost everything.
So when you make a claim – you should ASSUME that few beleive you – because we JUSTIFIABLY dont.
If you wish to make a claim regarding Eastman’s email – we need more than your Say so.
Prove the Damn email – in context – preferably with a link beack to the entire original.
Because YOU are not trusted.
Whenever anyone checks what you claim – it is always Spin and narrative or just flat out lies.
“(2) Under oath or in a court proceeding — this one is clear that Trump made the statement under oath and in a court proceeding.”
It is clear – how ? First – pleadings are not court procedings and Trump has not testified.
There is a realitively minor crime of false verification of pleadings – I am not aware of it EVER being prosecuted, and very rarely even disciplined by the court.
“(3) Made knowingly or willfully — Eastman’s email clarifies that Trump “had been made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate. Eastman advised that “for Trump to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.” Yet that is precisely what Trump did.”
This is your evidence ? BTW it is not knowingly or willfully it is knowingly and willfully – they are both required elements.
Regardless as I stated in a prior post – the existance of views contrary to your own is not evidence that you KNOW you are wrong.
It is merely evidence that others disagree. Hundreds of “experts” disagreed with Galileo.
Or more recently myriads of “experts” told us that masks work, that lockdowns work, that social distancing work, that lockdowns work, that closing schools work, that the virus came from a wet market, that the vaccine works.
All of these and many many other expert OPINIONS have ultimately proven FALSE.
Fact is not decided by the number of experts you can get to agree with you.
Facts are proven using other facts and using the rigid rules of formal logic.
Anything else is OPINION. IT may well be plausible opinion – it may even meet the requirements of the court – which are NOT those of science, mathematics and logic, or it may meet the requirements of congress or the executive or businesses in majking a variety of decisions
It may VERY PROBABLY be true. But it is not incontroveratably true.
And perjury is NOT disagreement with alleged experts.
“(4) Materiality – The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clarify that requests for emergency relief must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit or verified compliant. Trump’s knowingly false verification was capable of influencing the Georgia federal court to rely on false allegations to grant Trump emergency relief. Thus, it was material.”
Gioven that you have already lost the FACT vs., opinion argument you are already DOA
ATS – do you think before you post ?
Consider your own arguments ?
The framework you have concocted and claimed is the state of the law would preclude ANYONE ever from challenging an election.
Most of the allegations of Fraud that Trump made can not be determined without access to the ballots, ballot envelopes, CCTV of ballot boxes, or counting fascilities.
Your standard – What you have just argued is that without access to the most critical evidence – because that is controlled by govenrment and it is not going to share it short of a court order – which requires getting into the door of a courthouse – which YOU have just claimed – can not be done without the proof that you can not get without getting into the courthouse.
As a separate matter – challenges to an election that have any evidence at all – meet the “materiality” Standard.
Finally I would note that election challenges are little different from myriads of other lawsuits.
By the standard of what you claim regarding pleadings and getting to a hearing – almost no civil cases would ever get to discovery, and most plantiffs would be jailed.
The typical language in pleadings – ROTE language that is hundreds of years old is
“on beleif and information”
Your idiotic argument would have the courts and prosecutors going after people for perjury based on whether they claimed Trump lived at MAL, or Trump tower in a pleading.
There is a difference between making a statement that is WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY false.
And disagreeing with YOUR opinion.
The standard for a pleading is not –
Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not “more likely than not”
it is not “by the consensus of experts”
Otherwise no one would ever get their day in court.
You said, “Most of the allegations of Fraud that Trump made can not be determined without access to the ballots, ballot envelopes, CCTV of ballot boxes, or counting fascilities.”
That is the epistemological rabbit hole that Anonymous sent you down, with the case he cited. And the distinction, and why that case is not relevant to Trump’s situation. I would not waste my time pointing that out to him, because nothing that you say to a shill will ever convince them of anything. One can be charged with reasonably knowing that they rented an apartment to someone, and charged with lying, should they dissemble about it. But like you said, one can be told many times that no evidence can be found of voter fraud, without a requirement that those statements must be believed.
Personally, I believe the 2020 election was stolen, in a big way, but it would be bloody hell trying to prove it, without people flipping, and even then, difficult. That is why a tight voting process needs to be followed. Which our country does not have. I have previously posted cites to instances of massive voter fraud, and on with 100,000 fraudulent ballots, and the scheme would have never been discovered if one of the 63 people involved had not flipped.
But yes, Anonymous’s case was not relevant.
Floyd,
There are two perjury statutes. With respect to 1623, knowledge rather than willfulness is the men’s rea requirement.
That lower men’s rea means that constructive knowledge is sufficient. This is Criminal Law 101. There is no actual knowledge requirement for 18 USC 1623.
That is what differentiates it from 1621. Further, the legislative history of 1623 supports the intentional choice of “knowingly” in 1623 as a way to lessen the scienter requirement when compared to 1621.
If you are a fan of textualism and limiting judicial activism, this is the only way to interpret this federal law.
“There is a difference between making a statement that is WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY false.”
Yes I agree!
The lesser “knowingly standard applies for 18 USC 1623. That means constructive knowledge is sufficient.
See for yourself:
“Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
“Your idiotic argument would have the courts and prosecutors going after people for perjury based on whether they claimed Trump lived at MAL, or Trump tower in a pleading.”
.I’m not sure you can understand what an affidavit under penalty or perjury is.
If someone has constructive knowledge that Trump lived in Trump tower (let’s say… His mailman) but then claimed in an affidavit under oath that Trump didn’t have a residence there, then YES that would be perjury even if he truly thought in his heart of hearts that Trump didn’t live there. That would be perjury.
Remember this? When it comes to dining out in NYC, Michael Cohen doesn’t hold back. Hot chicks, Champaign & caviar.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. Is Prof Turley saying that pleading guilty to a crime that you are not guilty of is perjury?
Yes. To plead guilty, the defendant has to have a “plea colloquy” with the judge. The defendant takes the oath to testify truthfully, and then has to claim that he really did commit the crime. So, if he did that – which we can assume he did based on the fact he pled guilty – and now he’s saying he didn’t commit the crime . . . that means that he perjured himself during the plea colloquy.
While you are legally correct, I am not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for perjury in a guilty plea.
While it is difficult – guilty please CAN be withdrawn – it is rare meaning it does not happen 50% of the time.
But it probably happens about 1% of the time, and defendants who have plead guilty try to withdraw guilty pleas – about 50% of the time.
Further, though I am less sure of this – But I do not beleive that a guilty plea colloquy can be used against a criminal defendant after a successful withdraw of the plea in a later trial on that crime.
It CAN however be used as Turley is doing here to Bar testimony.
Cohen has plead guilty – that is SWORN testimony.
He has SWORN under oath that he was NOT guilty.
It would be misconduct for Bragg to use him as a witness for matters related to the conduct he has plead guilty to and then denied.
That would be presenting testimony that you KNOW is likely to be false.
The FACT that Cohen has been convicted of perjury is not sufficient to bar his testimony – though it will REQUIRE a jury instruction that essentially says – this guy is a KNOWN liar.
But contradictory statements under oath about the same event by someone that is convicted of perjury are not admissible.
When a defendant enters a plea he is placed under oath. Pleading guilty in front of Judge A then pleading before Judge B that you lied in your prior pleading constitutes perjury. The question then is, which plea was perjured? In a way if your pleading both ways you are perjuring yourself twice. That alone should make a prosecutor refrain from using a perjurer as a witness.
The Cohen situation demonstrates that the lack of prosecution regarding perjury before a federal judge is indicative of a judicial double standard. Perjury does not impeach you as a witness if you are putting Trump or any other conservative on trial.
Cohen is in so many ways an example of selective prosecution.
Navaro – who asserted executive priviledge – and unlike everyone else who has aever done so – was not allowed to defend that priviledge claim outside of a criminal trial where if he lost he was going to jail – rather than if he lost he had the oportunity to comply with the subpeona is now in jail – just about the only person I can thinkl of in my lifetime who has been jailed for failure to testify in congress.
Conversely Cohen simply refused to testify – and has never been charged – Cohen is possibly the most egresious counter example.
But there are oh so many
ATS above cited Judge Carter – But Carter is the bias idiot who Jailed Navaro without a privildge hearing FIRST.
There are TWO possibilities moving forward – either the prosecutors and judges on the right start doing the same thing that those on the left are doing – until everyone understands how bad an idea this is,
Or the left wing nut judges and prosecutors who bend the law to suit politics are removed.
Trump is merely the most glaring example of this lawless conduct.
I believe he is. But he is incorrect.
We almost never charge people with perjury for asserting their innocence – even after they have been found or plead guilty.
This is true more broadly – and it is one of the problems with the E Jean Carrol Case.
Kaplan has created a fraudulent legal box, where Trump purportedly can not say almost anything about the Caroll case without being found to have defamed her.
That is NOT how defamation works. We virtually never go after people for defamation for defending themselves against allegations – even if we subsequently decide they are lying.
As a rule – a defamatory statement must be initiated by and published by the defendant.
OTOH, perhaps Cohen, Biden and the Resident DNC Shills on this website, are not actually liars after, but victims of a disorder known as:
Fantasy-prone personality (FPP) is a disposition or personality trait in which a person experiences a lifelong, extensive, and deep involvement in fantasy.[1] This disposition is an attempt, at least in part, to better describe “overactive imagination” or “living in a dream world”.[2] An individual with this trait (termed a fantasizer) may have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality and may experience hallucinations, as well as self-suggested psychosomatic symptoms. Closely related psychological constructs include daydreaming, absorption and eidetic memory.
American psychologists Sheryl C. Wilson and Theodore X. Barber first identified FPP in 1981, said to apply to about 4% of the population.[3] Besides identifying this trait, Wilson and Barber reported a number of childhood antecedents that likely laid the foundation for fantasy proneness in later life, such as, “a parent, grandparent, teacher, or friend who encouraged the reading of fairy tales, reinforced the child’s … fantasies, and treated the child’s dolls and stuffed animals in ways that encouraged the child to believe that they were alive.” They suggested that this trait was almost synonymous with those who responded dramatically to hypnotic induction, that is, “high hypnotizables”.[1]
The first systematic studies were conducted in the 1980s by psychologists Judith Rhue and Steven Jay Lynn.[1] Later research in the 1990s by Deirdre Barrett at Harvard confirmed most of these characteristics of fantasy prone people, but she also identified another set of highly hypnotizable subjects who had had traumatic childhoods and who identified fantasy time mainly by “spacing out”.[4]
Regarding psychoanalytic interpretations, Sigmund Freud stated that “unsatisfied wishes are the driving power behind fantasies, every separate fantasy contains the fulfillment of a wish, and improves an unsatisfactory reality.” This shows childhood abuse and loneliness can result in people creating a fantasy world of happiness in order to fill the void.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy-prone_personality
+++++++
There is a lot more stuff at the link, but that stuffed about stuffed animals does NOT apply to my 67-year-old teddy bear, or Harley, the Magic Dog, or his big brother Harlan, who was in the Merchant Marine, or the Chip, the Monkey, who is the boss of all of them, except Teddy, because Teddy had a shirt, or the Bongo Brothers, the two monkeys. They are some of my best friends. I was a strange child, and preferred to not be around humans unless necessary.
Cohen is one of the main reasons I lost faith in Trump. He was going to drain the swamp and instead had people like this at his side.
Yup, Cohen is a bad apple, no doubt about that. And Trump’s decision to trust him (for a while) was certainly a lapse in judgment. But would you really rather have a died-in-the-wool swamp creature like Biden for the next four years, than Trump? It’s a binary choice: either Biden or Trump. If you choose Biden solely because Trump “had Cohen by his side” for while, well, I can’t fathom the weirdness of that reasoning.
Oldman, Cohen didn’t work in the Trump administration. He did a set of odd jobs. Not every attorney one hires is good. Look at Avenatti (not an appointee) with all his credentials. One cannot hold that against Trump.
His appointments could have been better. He didn’t have a Washington Rolodex and relied on honesty. He chose many Bush people who hated him. The Bush family liked the Clintons a lot and hated him. He hired those suggested by other Republicans, but now we know many Republicans wanted to sink him. Hirers come from the bureaucratic pool in Washington. Almost all hate him. What does anyone expect?
Did the Republicans fight to get his nominees appointed? Sometimes, but too frequently, they were absent.
How does one clean up a hornet’s nest when everyone around incites the hornets? You see what we saw. The alternative is to do nothing and comply with the deep state.
Meyer – I feel fortunate that arguably the biggest exception to his not-so-great judgments in the appointments arena were: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
The Bush family liked the Clintons a lot and hated him.
The evidence of the truth of that is all around, and has been for a long time. It debunks the claim that there is no uniparty. Trump and Reagan were both anti-establishment Republicans, and they were both deeply hated by the swamp for that.
The Bushes were also hated in their time, but after their term was over they were loved . . . welcomed back into the swamp fold. Trump is different in that he cares deeply about the direction America is headed, and prioritizes that concern over being comfortable in the “swamp of power.” He’s been a billionaire for as long as anyone can remember, and if he just cared about personal comfort he never would have challenged the uniparty.
I like Trump, and voted for him already in a primary, but he had some lousy appointments – Cohen, Scaramouche, that black chick, Armageddon or something like that, and others.
Didn’t Trump say repeatedly he only hires the best. His cabinet was a joke of incompetency as was Trump himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krf0Cm-FKro
The Trump presidency remains the best in the 21st century – admittedly a period of really bad presidents.
The Biden presidency remains a contender for the worst in US history.
There is no comparison.
I have no major qualms about Trump’s cabinet.
But Biden’s IS a “joke of incompetency”
People who live in $hit hotels should not be throwing dung.
Trump is far from perfect.
But as Lincoln said of Grant.
I can not do without the man – He fights.
Trump’s association with Cohen righting throws shade on Trump.
At the same time Trump has had many lawyers – then and now.
Cohen was only one dealing with a small part of Trump’s legal work.
Further when Trump went to the WH he completely cut Cohen off.
Fully grasping that Cohen was not someone who should be affilliated with a president.
Overall though Cohen’s conduct is only marginally more reprehensible thatn we saw in the Willis DQ hearings.
Was is proven to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard that Willis was actually corrupt – that she was stealling federal Grant money and engaged in all kinds of fiscal malfeasance – NO! But the standard to DQ was easily met.
And as Merchant has said – and testified – she has gotten LOTS of evidence of misconduct on the part of Willis that she did not use.
Because that Hearing was about the Trump case. It was not broadly about Willis’s corruption as DA.
Arguably Willis is WORSE that Cohen – Cohen was NOT abusing public power.
With respect to your remarks.
I have NOT voted for Trump – not in 2016 not in 2020. I doubt I will in 2024.
If I do it will be solely voting against 4 more years of Biden.
I did not vote for GHWB – because he knowingly lied to the UN about the Vincense.
over the shooting down of the Iranian airliner.
I do not vote for people who tell big public lies or cheat on their wives.
The access hollywood tape was pretty damning for me.
At the same time – Bill Clinton is inarguable far worse than Trump
Biden is arguably worse.
Inarguably Trump has been a playboy in the past.
Though I do not beleive E Jean Carrol.
At the same time – I probably do beleive Tara Reade.
More importantly – the many other reports of Bidens bad conduct,
Are NOT that of a playboy, they are that of a pervert.
If the standard is lying – Biden is a bigger lying.
If the standard is treatment of women – I am more concerned about perverts than playboys.
If the standard is public corruption – Biden takes the cake.
If the standard is guilt by association – Cohen is small potatoes compared tot he people Biden has associated with.
If the standard is performance – Biden is giving James Buchannon a run for the money as the worst US president.
I agree with Trump more than I disagree with him.
But I still have lots of disagreements with him.
I am ultimately libertarian – not MAGA.
But MAGA is an imporvement over the social conservatives and neocons that held sway in the GOP.
And the democratic party has gone Bonkers.
So the Bagman (Cohen) in the “Most Expensive One Night Stand” Case of porn actor Stormy Daniels (a.k.a.: Stephanie Clifford), who was paid $130,000 made by Michael Cohen via wire transfer in exchange for her silence about a sexual encounter with Trump at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, in 2006. Is a mendacious conniving pathological indignant imbecile whom is the complete and utter Mephistopheles of the The Order of the Coif, now poised to testify against his former employer Donal Trump.
Why bother? Hillary got Her TV series, Her War, Her Husband Cock-Blocked, and Her Revenge of Home Wrecking the Trump Family.
“The Perversity” runs far and wide throughout the abyss of the Swamp. Cohen, Daniels, Clinton, … are all yesterdays news.
In a little more than 7 months, We begin the New Season Premier in America.
Wow!
“If lying were an art form, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen would be its Rembrandt.”
Really JT? What does that make trump, dear leader DJT? They guy spout lies like blades of grass on one of his immaculate golf courses.
please show us where (1) DJT is a lawyer/officer of the court, and (2) lied under oath.
Do you have reading compression difficulties?
Did I say anything about DJT being a lawyer?
How many of trumps lawyers are in trouble.? IMHO trump is an idiot with an IQ well below 80. But he learned one important skill from his father. Be a bully to the bullies and never back down from anything you say. trump has employed hundreds of lawyers over the years, in including Michael Cohen. Those lawyers now employ lawyers to handle the crimes they have committed in front of the court.
It’s not too hard to do a search to find out how many trump lawyers are in trouble. I’m sure even you can figure out how to do that. Why don’t you do that as an exercise, see how many trump layers you come up with that have been sanctioned by the courts.
The Trump cult plays wack-a-mole, if they can’t answer, they just move on in their own muddled mind.
“How many of trumps lawyers are in trouble.? ”
That would be zero but for selective prosecution.
Do I need to citge those like AG Eric Holder who refused multiple congressional subpeana’s
Or the whole army of left wing nuts like Clapper and Brennan who lied under oath before congress (multipl times) without prosecution. Or the US Attorney from Massachuesets that was the subject of a recent Turley post.
Why are you still listening to the idiots who were Biden slapped by Scotus 9-0 over the stupid A14 claims ?
Trump is NOT going to get what he wants from Scotus on Presidential immunity – but 100% guaranteed the DC Pannel oppion will be tossed.
Cannon should not have given Smith a choice recently – she should have just tossed the case On BOTH grounds.
“IMHO trump is an idiot with an IQ well below 80.”
Your entitled to your opinion. But the norm is that people who are successful in Business have IQ’s of about 110.
Trump has been successful in Residential realestate in NYC, commerical realestate in NYC, Comercial real estate throughout the world, Golf, Hospitality. Entertainment, Beauty Pagents and Politics.
Peopel who succeed in ONE domain have high IQ’s – People who succeed in MANY have Stellar IQ’s.
It is likely Trump’s IQ is comparable to Musks – though Elon has “made more money” and succeeded in more unusual and groundbreaking feilds. Trump has succeded in existing domanins that are highly competitive, and he has succeeded in many more and more divergent ones than Musk. I would further note that of all the other Billionairres out there – aside From Musk there are few if any with the same muiltidomain success rate.
Success in multiple domains has the strongest correlation to IQ of anything we have.
Still there is maybe a one in 40 trillion chance that Trump is just lucky.
“But he learned one important skill from his father.”
I have no idea what he Did learn from his father – no doubt at all he was born with a silver spoon – but he turned it platinum all by himself. His Father Might have given him a giant step up in residential Real Estate in NYC. But the rest is all on Trump.
“Be a bully to the bullies and never back down from anything you say.”
Is that an insult ?
“trump has employed hundreds of lawyers over the years”
As has anyone operating at Trump’s level.
“Those lawyers now employ lawyers to handle the crimes they have committed in front of the court.”
Or maybe those lawyers are being selectively prosecuted for challenging the left’s dominance of the legal sphere.
When you start holding your own to the same standards you hold Trump’s – I will listen.
Cohen is a poor example of a lawyer – Frankly Turley overstates Cohen’s malfeasance.
He is remarkably Bad at what he does. Willis and Wade are far more reprehensible they are engaged in abuse of the public trust and self dealing with public money’s.
While they will be tied up in court for a few years – do you want to bet that neither ever sees the inside of a jail – despite being far more damaging to our system than Cohen.
“It’s not too hard to do a search to find out how many trump lawyers are in trouble.”
It is trivial to find democrats that have done the same things at those Trump lawyers often to alcolades.
You do not make a successful argument by saying – See we have waged pollitically weaponized lawfare against Trump and anyone who would defend him and been very successful.
What that does is proves how corrupt YOU are.
Return to the rule of law.
I would note that Biden DID lie under oath – multiple times in his deposition with Hur.
He also confessed under oath to Willful and negligent possession and sharing of classified information
Good thing Biden, the Puerto Rican Jew, doesn’t lie.
HullBobby,
Seems to me, our leftist DNC paid trolls are out in force this morning.
Their desperation to change the subject, deflect from another one of their failing narratives is quite obvious.
How marvelous!
UpstateFarmer said: “our leftist DNC paid trolls are out in force this morning.”
I’ve wondered on several occasions if some of the troll activity here (and elsewhere) could be the product of ChapGPT or some other AI tool. Assuming that the assertion that paid trolls exist is true, that would be a great racket, would it not? Feed some leftist propaganda manifestos to the AI tool, along with some applicable pejoratives, assign email addresses that you control, target it at some selected sites, and just sit back and collect commissions.
Really ?
First – Cohen is not the rembrant of lying – he is a finger painter. he is NOT good at it.
As to Trump vs. Biden – Biden is the Liar in cheif – hands down. Of course he can be forgiven – in the past he probably knew he was lying.
Today he is just reading the telepromter.
Regardless, cite consequential provable lies of Trump.
None of this Pansy ass crap that he did not get the Mexican’s to pay for the wall,
or the Ann Coulter garbage that 460 milies is NOT the whole southern border as he promised.
If you want to adopt that Ann Coulter model of Trump is a liar – then you had better actually share Coulters standards.
The FACT is that on all the major issue – Trump was correct.
The collusion delusion WAS a hoax.
The Hunter Biden laptop WAS real.
They WERE spying on him.
Covid DOES appear to come from a lab in China.
There is an actual treatment involving bleaching (oxygenation) of blood that had a good track record against Covid.
HCQ does not appear to be very effective – but it WAS actually the best treatment we had at the time – and we have NOT done better, and unlike the Vaccine it has been on the WHO’s list of safe and essential drugs for decades.
Biden is corrupt.
Biden is an incompetent boob.
E Jean Carrol is Nuts – Truth is supposed to be a defense.
and on and on.
Most of us are TIRED of this garbage where if the word Bloody appears in a sentence by Trump – those of you on the left go all ape$hit and decide that Trump has a batallion of assault riffle weilding white supremecist nazi’s ready to come after you.
If you do not want to be vied as NUTS – don’t say stupid things.
“Bragg’s weak criminal case will turn in great part on a serial liar and disbarred lawyer.”
Whatever happened to the principle that a prosecutor is “an officer of the court?” Or to the principle that a lawyer should stay a country mile away from suborning perjury?
Since when did a courtroom become the theater of the absurd?
This brings to mind a episode from Star Trek titled “The Lie Paradox” https://www.startrek.com/videos/q99bm85reoki
Most dictionaries also have a definition of the word “woman.” So it’s been clear for a while that she doesn’t consult one.
I think Mr Navarro was convicted of contempt of congress for failing to appear after a subpoena. Not for perjury . Actually I have respect for Mr Navarro for sticking to his refusal to appear. Just another notch in the democrat 2 tier justice system. Mr Cohen, on the other hand seems to a be an amoral individual who has concept of truth or ethics, that I can see, and I would agree with the comments and sentences he has accrued from the federal judges. If I had to compare Mr Cohen to anyone in politics I would compare him more to Joe Biden and his family of serial liars and influence peddlers.
As far as being a “Fixer” for Mr Trump, he is just another “fixer” for presidents down through history. They are legion. Powerful men, whether President’s or kings or revolutionaries have all had their people who will do the dirty work that has to be done or the work that they would rather not have a light cast upon. Julius Caesar had Mark Anthony, Augustus had Agrippa (probably the most talented of all-faithful and extraordinarily gifted.) Castro had Che, Stalin had Beria and others (their lifespan was often tenuous). The list goes on. They are drawn to the power center like moths to a flame and often get consumed by the flame they so seek to be near.
Cohen, on the other hand, is one of least successful simply by making his light too bright and his incompetence too great and the fact that he does not stay bought. That means he simply has about everybody wanting a piece of him. Better to have been ethical and somewhat boring. Tends to keep you on the right side of the bars.
GEB,
Well said.
It’s interesting that while virtually the entire legal world in America is talking about Monday’s long-awaited SCOTUS hearing concerning First Amendment freedom of speech and/or freedom of the press, and the bizarre suggestion of one of the justices — Brown-Jackson — that she didn’t understand what that Amendment MEANS, Professor Turley has opted instead to address an issue that virtually nobody cares about — that of convicted local felon/lawyer Michael Cohen continuing to lie — LOL, surprise surprise.
But for readers more focused on things that matter — such as the Law of the Land (aka the US Constitution) — there’s Margot Cleveland’s article at The Federalist pointing out the previously-unheard-of level of ignorance in a SCOTUS justice as concerns the actual language and MEANING of the First Amendment when it prohibits our government “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/20/justice-jacksons-comment-about-free-speech-hamstringing-the-government-wasnt-her-worst/
Dictionaries are relatively easy to locate, which makes it all the more shocking that a SCOTUS justice can’t find one and doesn’t understand what “abridging” means.
Maybe he’s working on it. You deserve to be called stupid.
Ignorant Turley troll says what? In FACT, Turley has already written about Monday’s SCOTUS hearing, but for Garbage Fox, not for his own website. You’d know that if you weren’t an ignorant Turley troll here to attack people instead of making reasoned statements, Gomer.
Sounds like he has the qualifications to have a show on any number of media outlets. He would be a natural.
E.M.
MSNBC would be the favorite to have him.
He would fit in with the rest of them without even having to try.
Dang it! You beat me to it! That was my first thought too. Good ol’ Michael Cohen as co-host with Rachel Maddow!
Little by little we are beginning to understand the personas of those seeking to derail Trump and his campaign. They all seem to lack credibility. Cohen, like Fani and her boyfriend, are liars and perjure themselves with ease. They are oblivious to any concerns but their own ideological and often pathological hatred for the former president. Bragg and James in NY, likewise, are consumed with similar afflictions. The Justice system is slow but effective and eventually these oddballs should self-destruct as their perverse dreams take on the growing odor of mendacity.
“If lying were an art form, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen would be its Rembrandt.”
Actually, one might argue that Cohen is a horrible hack when it comes to the art of lying, and a much better candidate to be called the Rembrandt of Lying would be Professor Turley’s multiple-felon cohort, Michael Avenatti:
Turley and Avenatti To Appear At GW Event
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/04/18/turley-and-avenatti-to-appear-at-gw-event/
Cohen’s “talent” (for lack of a better word) at lying was quite local and was never really intended to fool anyone, until he began lying under oath in court while testifying AGAINST Trump. And even THAT was mere childish finger-painting by comparison with Avenatti’s worldwide media tour that took in EVERY Trump-hating DEMOCRAT ON THE PLANET, including many that SHOULD have known better — such as people schooled in issues such as LAW.