I will confess that there are at times a level of contempt expressed in my columns. However, today will be the first time that a column becomes a legal matter for contempt. Among the ten postings by former president Donald Trump being raised by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in his contempt sanction is the use of a quotation from one of my columns.
In a hearing on the gag order Tuesday morning, Judge Juan Merchan reserved any final decision.
On April 15, Trump quoted my New York Post column from the day before titled “A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system.”
Trump posted the title while attaching a link.
There is an interesting aspect to this controversy that captures the problem with Judge Merchan’s gag order.
In addition to continually appearing on television to oppose Trump’s election and to discuss his testimony in this case, Cohen has also lashed out against critics and coverage, including my own columns. I have been a critic of Cohen since the time when he was still working as counsel for Trump. Cohen has continued to attack some of us with vulgar postings while posting mocking pictures and attacks on Trump, including running commentary on the trial.
In one posting, Cohen posted an insulting attack on myself and others who have raised questions about the Manhattan case while objecting that he is entitled to the protection of the gag order because he is a witness. Only Michael Cohen would portray himself in terms of a witness simply trying to share evidence of a crime.
Cohen has raised money on being the antagonist of Donald Trump. He has cultivated his professional wrestling style as a type of trash-talking, chair-throwing thug to liberal cable programs. Judge Merchan has allowed him to use the gag order to shield him from criticism as he heaps abuse on Trump both as a candidate and a defendant. That includes, like Trump, responding to these very columns, including my own, on the case.
I have previously criticized these gag orders on constitutional grounds.
“I think the real danger to the country is the progressive agenda.”
“A continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide.”
“I will vote the Republican ticket. I will support the Republican ticket.”
– Former Attorney General William Pelham Barr
Trump Stiffed David Pecker Over McDougal Payment
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker said he reached an agreement with Donald Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which a shell company created by Cohen would pay $125,000 for the rights to Karen McDougal’s story. Pecker created an invoice using a phony company of his own, Investor Advisory Services, which billed Cohen’s shell company, Resolution Consultants, for the cost of McDougal’s life story rights.
But in late September 2016, after discussing the transaction with American Media Inc.’s general counsel, Pecker said he changed his mind and decided against selling the rights to Cohen.
“I called Michael Cohen,” Pecker testified, “and I said to him that the agreement, the assignment deal, was off. I’m not going forward. It’s a bad idea, and I want you to rip up the agreement. He got very angry, very upset, screaming basically at me.” Pecker said Cohen told him, “ ‘the boss is going to be very angry … I can’t believe it, I’m your friend, I don’t understand why you’re so concerned.’ ” Pecker said he was very concerned, without saying why, and squashed the deal.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked: “Did American Media ever get reimbursed for the money it spent to acquire the rights to Karen McDougal’s life story?”
“No we never did,” Pecker replied.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates-david-pecker-testimony/
Which is it?
you have 2 stories, of the exact same event, with 2 opposite outcomes?
Did you happen to hear testimony about the action taken by Trump that was unlawful?
Aparently you were not paying attention. Pecker testifies that Trump was NOT invoved in the Catch and Kill operation – that was entirely Cohen. As YOU noted – Pecker invoiced Cohen.
Separately creating a business is trivial – you register the name with the state. Takes a few minutes and costs little or nothing.
What you end up with is a DBA – Pecker Doing Business as Investor Advisory Services. With alittle more complexity you can create an LLP or an LLC and get SOME liability protection. If No one else owns any of the business, Then it is just another Schedule C on your taxes.
You can also do business under your own name without registering – Joe Doe, investment advisors. As long as your name is part of the busineness you usually do not have to register it. Again – you file a schedule C for it on your taxes.
A schedule C business means you take all the business receipts subtract all the business expenses and the balances gets added to your Adjusted Gross income on your 1040. So if your business took in 100K, and had 80K of expenses, your AGI would increase by 20K.
That is what you would owe taxes on.
Of Course Pecker created a business, and I would be shocked if he did not pay taxes on the revenue.
If he paid McDougal and Cohen Stiffed him – that is an expense with no income and he could get a large tax break as a result.
Though actually getting paid would be better.
Trump did not stiff Pecker – Cohen did. Though Trump and Pecker were both involved in other things – such as the Cruz story,
Only Coden was involved in the McDougal matter – according to Peckers testimony – Pecker invoced COHEN – not Trump.
Pecker testified that Trump did not Know about the McDougal matter.
I beleive Peckers testimony barely touched on Clifford, but to the extent it did Pecker did not seem to think Trump was aware of that either.
Put simply Peckers testimony is that the efforts to get NDA’s were PURELY Cohen acting on his own.
I would note this is consistent with the Actual Clifford NDA – it is between Cohen and Clifford, and Cohen paid Clifford.
My Guess is that Trump told Cohen that there might be stories like this, and told him to make them go away and agreed top pay Cohen 430K after the election on retainer to do so. That Trump was unaware of the details of any of these. That he made no specific agreement with Cohen to pay Daniels or McDougal or anyone else. That Cohen negotiated the NDA’s with Trump NOT a party – because he HOPED that Clifford would violate the NDA – then he would get his retained from Trump AND the punative damages from Clifford for violating the NDA.
Cohen was looking for a big payday from Clifford.
Trump directed Cohen to make any and all similar stores go away.
This would also explain why SDNY made Cohen plead guilty to an election violation.
Jonathan: Are you expecting some sympathy? Outside the courtroom on Tuesday DJT called you one of the “leading legal experts” who agreed with him that DA Bragg should have never brought the case against him. You got your 15″ of fame. What are you complaining about?
Michael Cohen and DJT have been trading insults for years–after Cohen went to prison. But you are upset that Cohen “has continued to attack some of us [who are the “us”?] with vulgar postings” and “posted an insulting attack on myself…” You have trashed Cohen for years and you now refer to him as “a type of trash-talking , chair throwing thug…”. Isn’t turn about fair play?
Then you complain that “Judge Merchan has allowed him [Cohen] to use the gag order to shield him from criticism…” What you ignore is the gag order ONLY applies to criminal defendant DJT. What a potential witness says about another potential witness is not subject to the gag order. And the gag order certainly doesn’t prevent any nasty things Cohen might say about you–as a non-party.
Now if you expect any sympathy you will have to look elsewhere!
What you ignore is the gag order ONLY applies to criminal defendant DJT.
Dennis can you cite a few cases where ONLY the defendant is subject to the gag order?
The gag order strips a person of the Constitutionally enumerated right to speak. Judges issue gag orders to PROTECT the defendants Constitutionally protected right to a fair trial.
But, we are all witness to your contempt for the founding document of our Nation. You only care about team politics, damn the rule of law and Constitutional protections.
Another swing and a miss by Dennis.
Cohen is free to attack whoever he wants – first amendment.
Judge Merchan is not free to prevent those he attacks from responding in kind.
It is that Simple.
This is not about Cohen per see. It is about the constitution, the bill of rigths and the rule of law.
This is the most absurd argument I have ever heard of and completely illogical.
Existing Criminal law protects witnesses from intimidation with the intent of getting them to lie or refuse to testify. If Trump breaks that or many related law – bragg can charge him and he will likely go to jail – ex president or not.
BTW the same is true for Cohen or Bragg or anyone else – you can not intimidate a witness. Unfortunately prosecutors do it all the time.
And Judge Merchan did it with Weiselberg. As a judge he told him to plead guilty to perjury or Merchan would sentence Weiselberg the rest of his life in jail.
Then realizing he had stepped in it, he made a different judge sentence Weiselberg.
This is actually a violations of the rules of judicial conduct.
It is also a conflict that requires him to recuse himself from any case where WEisleberg is a party or a witness – and he is a witness in this case.
Regardless, Trump is as much a witness in this case as Cohen.
There is not some absurd rule that witnesses can intimidate each other, but the defendent who is always a potential witness is separately barred.
In FACT the opposite is usually True.
The Jury may not discuss the case outside the courtroom.
The prosecutor – without any gag order is severely limited in what he can say outside the courtroom – Fanni Willis got in trouble twice over that.
The defendant and to a lessor extent the defendant are free to say what ever they please.
While Jurors are essentially drafted, they take an oath and they are paid, they are essentially employees of the government for the duration of the trial and thus they are subject to whatever rules the government makes for them.
The defendant is not in court voluntarily. They take no oath unless they testify. They continue to have all the constitutional rights that each fo the rest of us have until they are convicted – after which they STILL retain first amendment rights.
Until the left started this idiotic political lawfare with trump – any gag order that had survived to appeal was put in place persuant to Rules driven by the Shepard case specifically to PROTECT the defendant from being tried int he press prior to and during the trial.
The shepard cas is also why this trial can not take place in manhattan.
OT:
The Leftist Pro-Hamas “students” inciting violence and promoting anti-semitism on America “elite” universities are paid protestors just like the paid trolls. These antisemites are funded by George Soros Open Society Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Consequently no one should expect a Soros funded DA to go after those universities for enabling violence against Jews. Columbia University president has no need to worry in losing her job.
Some Anti-Israel Protesters Are Paid: Rockefeller and Soros grants are subsidizing those who disrupt college campuses
George and Alexander Soros’s Open Society Foundation has put $700,000 into Education for Just Peace in the Middle East since 2018, most recently with a two-year grant in 2022, according to the Open Society Foundation’s website. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given Education for Just Peace in the Middle East $515,000 since 2019, most recently with a three-year grant for $225,000 awarded in August 2023.
Wall Street Journal
I am trying to find out more about this, but the internet has not yet given up more of the story. This is ABC
“Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass alleged that defense attorney Emil Bove used a “totally improper line of questioning” during Bove’s cross-examination of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
Judge Juan Mechan, addressing Bove, at one point raised his voice slightly, saying, “Are you missing my point? Because I don’t think you are responding to what I am saying.””
This objection was raised AFTER the Jury was removed from the courtroom for the day.
Judge Merchen stated he would clean things up with the Jury Friday morning when court reconvenes.
Question to the lawyers here, Why did the Defense complain AFTER the jury left, instead of objecting at the time? Is this usual?
These radical lefists warfarers with no boundaries are in ascendancy right now but things have a funny way of reverting to the mean once passions cool and clearer heads prevail. Put another way, a reckoning is sure to follow this blantant rejection of tradition, values and culture. As that philosopher, General Johnson stated it:
mez—-great song! It got these old bones of mine movin’! (but glad we’re not doing Face Time” cause it sho ain’t pretty…LOL)
Here we are.
Three days of NYC kangaroo court. Opening Statements , and the most important witness always leads to prosecution as first witness. Three days total.
Two posts from our host over the last 2 days. Closing in on 400 comments.
All of that, and I am still waiting for the ACTIONS taken by Trump, that are criminal. What action has violated the law.
.
After the Prosecution rested their direct questioning of their Star Witness, it is confirmed that the tabloids are just as sleazy, as we have know forever. We have also learned that NOTHING in the Star Witnesses Testimony, is a crime.
It got much worse for Bragg on Cross. Pecker was essentially a Defense witness.
At one point the defense made a stab at challenging Pecker’s memory – Turley and others noted this was a mistake.
During Cross the defense had made Pecker into a defense witness, and you do not challenge the credibility and recollection of your own witness.
Congress or the States must propose and ratify a constitutional amendment in order to provide immunity from indictment and criminal prosecution to the president.
Commets To Turley’s New York Post Column
Jerry London
1w ago
Donnie could have withdrawn $130,000, paid Stormy Daniels and not looked back.
Instead, he had his lawyer pay her, then had the lawyer bill him as a “business” expense (loan repayment for a mthical loan). A business expense then written off at the end of the fiscal year, where he was paying zero or close to zero taxes already.
Donnie made this a case were there was not one except for his actions.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/14/opinion/a-serial-perjurer-will-try-to-prove-an-old-misdemeanor-against-trump-in-an-embarrassment-for-the-new-york-legal-system/
……………………………………
This was one of the few comments by non-Trumpers. About 80% are from MAGA types and a few praise Turley’s arguments. Even Trump himself praised Turley on Truth Social.
But what makes this New York Post thread interesting is that ‘none’ of the commenters sound like Floyd. In fact, this was the first time in years that I read comments to a Turley column where most of the replies sounded like they were written by real individuals.
REGARDING ABOVE:
The comment was made by a rejected LGBTQIA+ furry who can not get any attention while at a bathhouse in West Hollywood California. This is why said LGBTQIA+ furry posts here to get attention from Floyd. Yet Floyd has stated he is a retired elderly man who lives with cats. LGBTQIA+ furry is tweaking on crystal meth!
Memo to George Soros troll farm: send trolls that arent tweaked out LGBTQIA+ furry types 🚫🏳️🌈🐻
People employ attorneys to take care of unpleasant things. Trump probably considered Ms. Stormy to be an unpleasant thing when hired Cohen.
The above is spin and misinformation – with a vague resemblance of the actual facts.
Pecker is not being accused any anyone of lying. He has never been convicted or to my knowledge charged with lying.
He has told the same story consistently to Mueller to SDNY to Bragg and to the court.
His full testimoney will be available online within 24 hours of his being released.
I would suggest that you read the actual testimony – It contradicts much of what you are writing.
Perhaps get down withe Mike in a cage match, Jon? Sharpen up the elbows a bit? Party on!!
which bathhouse you renting a room? can i cum over cuz my bathhouse is dead! bottom, top, pnp? lets party 🎉
The judicial branch has the power to judge.
To judge consists of the “careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises,” according to Merriam-Webster.
In this case, the evidence to be weighed and the premises tested are whether speech comports with law – whether the speech of the defendant comports with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States.
The predominant law that relates to the so-called “gag order” in this case is the 1st Amendment, including its absolute freedom of speech.
The judicial branch is legally obligated to support the clear meaning and intent of statutory and fundamental law.
The judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify legislation, amend, or otherwise or variously alter or misapply statutory or fundamental law.
That a court does not enjoy the law, does not bear.
The defendant is a citizen, has not been proven guilty, is not under the power of the court, except to keep general order, and is not subject to penalties.
A “gag order” is an unconstitutional denial of a constitutional right and freedom and must be struck down.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
judge
verb
judged; judging
transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
A sitting president is not immune and is amenable to indictment and criminal prosecution.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT provide the President with immunity from indictment or criminal prosecution.
The Department of Justice has no power to legislate, modify legislation, amend, or otherwise or variously alter or misapply statutory or fundamental law.
The Department of Justice’s position on “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” has no legal power, force, or weight and is illicit and unconstitutional.
A “careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises,” per Merriam-Webster, reveals that the actions of the Department of Justice do not comport with the Constitution in the case of presidential immunity.
__________________________
Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
M e m o r a n d u m O p i n i o n f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l
“In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office o f Legal Counsel
The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT provide the President with immunity from indictment or criminal prosecution.
The constitution does NOT provide any immunity from prosecution. It is an invention of the Judicial Branch. Which is NOT a power enumerated in article III of the Constitution.
The judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify legislation, amend, or otherwise or variously alter or misapply statutory or fundamental law.
Agreement on impeachment and conviction is impossible; much of the government must have been impeached and convicted.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
If America is, then, bound for lawlessness, the next President Trump should pull a full Lincoln, seize power, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, and take America all the way back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789, and the restricted-vote republic of the Founders.
This was all addressed in the SCOTUS arguments – Trump’s attorney refered to noted from the constitutional convention and specifically Franklin. SOME of out constitution is modeled after the process in Britian and much of the constitutional convention discussed the british model and then whether we should deviate.
British monarchs have absolute immunity.
Congress discussed by refused to give presidents absolute immunity.
In britian various members of government have immunity and must be impeached, removed and tried.
In britain that is all in one operation. In the US – the house impeaches the senate has a removal trial,
and AFTER that there can be a criminal trial.
Our founders wanted a lower standard for removal than for conviction of a crime.
What is odd is that today as system that was created to nmake it harder to convict ex presidents of a crime, but easier to remove them.
Has morphed to make it harder to remove them but easier to convict them of a crime.
This is not the only place we have F#$Ked up.
Today it is nearly impossible to remove a teacher. Teachers have sexually assaulted students and remained teachers.
But we have made it easier to convict teachers or anyone else of sex crimes.
So if a 20 something teacher has a consentual relationshop with a 16yr old – they can not be fired, but they can be jailed.
This is about ensuring a fair trial. When Trump attacks people, and in this case it is jurors and witnesses, his MAGA followers go after them in mass. That is a major issue in a criminal trial. The same concerns are not an issue when Trump is the one criticized.
🤡
Provide evidence “MAGA followers” go after them in mass.
If we were given a dollar for everytime Hillary and/or Biden attacked people, we could pay off the US Debt. If we combined Hillary and Biden’s number of attacks on people, and got paid a dollar, we could eliminate world hunger. Alas, Sammy isnt worried about the US Debt and world hunger doesnt bother him given his mommy puts food on his high chair for him to fling across the room because it isnt gluten free
Would these in mass MAGA followers be like the people who protested outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home, with one even going so far as to plot to assassinate him?
And whom was it who decided NOT to provide additional security for Justice Kavanaugh or arrest those protesting outside his residence and those who when his neighbors complained, citing their children’s safety, the protesters threatened them?
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
I must have missed the reports of Trump supporters massing outside Cohen’s house or otherwise attempting to intimidate him.
New York is as corrupt as the day is long, and has been that way at least since the days of Boss Tweed. I know. I live here. About 20 of the counts in this trial relate to records of trusts. The statute President Trump is charged with violating applies to business records. Trusts aren’t businesses. Further, the statute applies only to records of specified types of businesses and other “entities”. A trust isn’t an entity. A trust is a form or property ownership. It’s difficult to conclude that this is a fair trial. The point of a fair criminal trial is fairness to the defendant, not some form of social justice for the rest of the world or fairness to the government. Criminal trials and the power of government wielded by a prosecutor are not the place or tools for novel legal theories, tortured readings of the law, or outright misapplication of the law. That is a gross violation of due process rights. In the current era it might be difficult for some citizens to have an understanding of historical abuses by rulers and government and why we have the liberties embodied in our Constitution, including free speech.
As a matter of law you are not responsible for the actions of third parties unless you actually direct them to act.
This is NOT a major issue at a criminal trial.
I would suggest rewriting your post with more accurate words than attack and threaten.
Criticising others (attacking) is protected speech.
The standard of unprotected speech is set out in Brandonberg Vs. Ohio.
Trump has NEVER done anyhting that has come close to speech that is not constitutionally protected.
It is clear you do not like what Trump says. You are not required to.
But you can not engage in prior restraint of the speech of another except under very very narrow circumstances.
The standard for prior restraint is in the Pentagon papers case – which remains good law.
Fear of what third parties might do as a result of someones speech is NOT even close to justification for prior restraint.
SCOTUS determined that even the potential to LOSE A WAR was insufficient.
Speach that ACTUALLY violated Brandonberg – can be prosecuted as a crime AFTER it is spoken.
It CAN NOT be restricted BEFORE.
The left USED to beleive these things.
From Sotus’s decision
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”
“The government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.”
The right to a fair trial is a right of the DEFENSE.
Government has no rights. It is perfectly constitutionally acceptable for a trial to be “unfair” to the government.
While the court IS allowed to do everything in its power to ensure that the prosecution also gets a “fair trial”.
That is NOT a constitutional requirement and it does NOT take priority over protecting a criminal defendant (or any other individuals) constitutional rights.
BTW the concern for a fair trial is GREATEST regarding public statements criticizing the defendant.
” Sheppard v. Maxwell. On June 6, 1966, the Supreme Court, by an 8-to-1 vote, struck down the murder conviction. The decision noted, among other factors, that a “carnival atmosphere” had permeated the trial, and that the trial judge, Edward J. Blythin,[32] who had died in 1958, was biased against Sheppard”
Sheppard is probably the core case that allows judicial gag orders – but not of the defendant. But those attacking the Defendant.
Though SCOTUS prefers that juries be ordered to disregard the press, to be sequestered, for venue to be changed and for biased judges to recuse themselves.
We have every element that resulted in SCOTUS reversing the Shepard conviction – on steroids in this case.
You have the law completely backwards.
This is not me saying this – it is the supreme court of the united states.
We do see courts frequently imposing gag orders on defendants and getting away with it.
Not because it is constitutional – but because the courts as a whole are arrogant and corrupt – not just with respect to Trump but generally,
Often appelate courts uphold gag orders – as has occured with Trump.
Almost always gag orders are imposed on defendants that the courts do not like.
And if you think that courts – including appeals courts do not act outside the law to punish people they do not like you are stupid.
It is often remarked that the process is the punishment.
My wife – a criminal appellate attorney has had defendants languish in jail for years on dead bang winner cases.
Eventually the state supreme court gets around to reversing but often not until a substantial portion fo the sentence is served.
This is not accidental.
If Trump appeals the gag order – it will likely have to go to the US supreme court to win.
And by then the trial will be long past over.
Nor will the gag order likely be used successfully to appeal a conviction – the courts even the supreme court will find the error harmless.
None of this changes the fact that gag orders are nearly always unconstitutional. And this is not even close to a case where one would be constitutional.
The DNC/ MSM are focusing all of their campaign strategy on Donald Trump. Just like 2020, their only talking point is “but Trump”, and this from my never ever voting for Trump or a Republican. Although it makes complete sense that Biden’s Handlers / MSM are laser-like focused on retaining power to push their Marxist agitprop on America, it is a travesty that Americans concerns are being ignored, gaslit (gaslighted?) and seen as suckers.
Mendacity comes to mind although America is more like a hot tinderbox than a cat on a hot tin roof.
About one-quarter of U.S. adults age 50 and older who aren’t yet retired say they expect to never retire and 70% are concerned about prices rising faster than their income
Everyday expenses and housing costs, including rent and mortgage payments, are the biggest reasons why people are unable to save for retirement…..The AARP’s study, based on interviews completed with more than 8,000 people in coordination with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, finds that one-third of older adults with credit card debt carry a balance of more than $10,000 and 12% have a balance of $20,000 or more. Additionally, 37% are worried about meeting basic living costs such as food and housing.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2024-04-24/more-than-1-in-4-us-adults-over-age-50-say-they-expect-to-never-retire-an-aarp-study-finds
When those in power are poorly educated and driven by ideology, it’s very easy for them not to understand how runaway government spending and inflating the money supply bring high inflation. Fifty years ago a college freshman enrolled in an introductory economics course would know this.
New York Court of appeals just vacated the conviction of Weinstein because the court allowed evidence of alleged crimes that he was not charged with.
This Trump trial is rife with evidence of Non-Crimes that Trump is not charged with.
Colangelo is trying Trump for winning the 2016 election.
I can not think of a less sympathetic defendant than Weinstein..
I would hope that New Yorkers actually despise Weinstein even more than Trump.
Weinstein is a heavy mass media exec and he knows where the skeletons are. His friends are the same kind of offender as he is. He probably kept a few arrows in his quiver to use once he was locked up. It looks like he’s used them. System is corrupt.
Anonymous said: “He probably kept a few arrows in his quiver to use once he was locked up. It looks like he’s used them. System is corrupt.”
Your conclusion that the “system is corrupt” in a current, general, sense is pretty much sofl-evident. However, your assertion about the reason for the finding on Weinstein is implausible. No doubt Epstein also had burial information about a crapload of skeletons concerning highly influential people. He got released from prison, all right – in a box. Also, Weinstein has been incarcerated for about four years, total, during which time he has been unable to ply his trade. or indulge his excesses. If it was behind the curtains power players who made this happen, they certainly seem to have taken their sweet time about it. Most likely, the prosecution was over-confident, and made several legal errors, which Weinstein’s attorney was smart enough to get presented to a receptive judge. If you want to blame a particular aspect of the “corrupt system” for this, sloppy prisecutirs might be a valid target.
I doubt that is the case. WEinstein is still in jail – he was also convicted in CA. He will be retried, and he likely will be convicted on retrial.
Though likely of LESS crimes than before. The prosecution will be restricted to trying him for the crimes he is charged with.
We saw something similar with Bill Cosby – though cosby was released.
After a long drawn out appeals process that took years Cosby won his appeal.
The PA supreme court hated to release him. But the trial was thoroughly improper.
He had already served about 5 years and was old decrepit and near death.
So was the E Jeanne Carroll trial full of proof of “other bad acts”, noted here as extremely prejudicial. I’m surprised the vote for reversal was only 4-3.
The fundimental problem with the Carrol case was the state of NY’s one time suspension of the statute of limitations,
followed by the Court allowing a case that did not come close to having sufficient evident to proceed.
Statute of limitations exist for a reason.
When a civil plantif can not name the date to within several years that something took place – over 25 years ago,
the defendant has no ability to defend themselves.
Can you produce an alibi for a date 25 years ago ? Now go one step futher – can you produce an alibi for every day in a 5 year period 25 years ago ?
There are many other problems with the Carrol Case but that is #1.
The long passage of time as well as the lack of specificity in the claim deprives the defendant of the ability to defend themselves.
Even in cases where the statute of limitations has not passed – a civil plantif that can not be specific enough in their allegation to give the defendant meaningful opportunity to defend themselves is never allowed to proceed.
This was also True in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Kavanaugh (and even more likely Trump) have very detailed dairies of what he was doing at that time period.
But Ford could not name a month of the year, or even the year of the assault, the place of the assualt, the people present – and every single person she was able to name said under oath that the party this all occured at never happened – nor any party like it.
There are many other problems with the Carrol case – but that is the big one.
The question is not IF that case will be reversed – only when.
The Example you cite provides evidence that not only this Gag order is unconstitutional generally, but As applied.
It is absolutely absurd to order one and only one person Not only not to comment on his own trial.
But not to refer people to the criticism of others.
All this does is prove the bias of the Judge the prosecutor and ALL the people who think this is reasonable.
But this goes well beyond Trump.
This is about the power of some of us to control the speech of the rest of us.
There is no justification for this gag order that does not extent to pretty much everything.
First amendment “balancing tests” are only appropriator where the actual rights of another individual are in conflict.
It is almost NEVER appropriate to balance the first amendment rights of an individual against the interests of government.
Frankly balancing tests – are an extremely bad idea. A balancing test ALWAYS allows a judge to reach the outcome they want.
We have major problems with our judicial system today – as so many people see judges vigorously abusing their power as heros because they are happy to see those being abused disempowered.
Speculation: if you have no typos or inadvertent malaprops, you are likely sitting at a computer when you comment. Smartphones and Pads seem responsible for most posting errors that I see, except on the occasional poorly educated anonymous poster on an ideological word spew.
Well said.
Regime, regime, regime.
Far too many of us are asleep at the wheel, and it’s at a time when sheet is getting real. No poetry intended. 😉 Being a free human is rapidly becoming to the mainstream a silly ideal when they are so comfortable and their credit cards that still work; and the gap between the generationally wealthy and the rest of us is so wide now it couldn’t ever possibly be bridged. WAKE UP, as opposed to WOKING up.
We are on a crash course to destroy all of the progress of centuries at this point, not just decades, and it took our malfeasant American Dem party all of three years to do it after their tyrannical covid boosheet.
It turns out, given that she is just a representative of ‘The Soros Party’, Hillary *didn’t* lose. We stop this in its tracks or we fight. That is all that is left. And the sooner we tell the UN and all of their associations to f*** off, the better. Do not tell me how we handled Afghanistan was an oopsie when now the UN is inviting the f***ing Taliban, the same one that said they will soon start stoning women in public again, to participate in ‘climate’ talks. Accept that the left is completely lost, it is a globalist regime, it is very nearly quite literally the fascist movement of the 30s, and if you still vote for it, you are supporting that stoning by proxy. You. Are. an. Idiot.
For kids who have never known anything but propaganda, those born during the Obama years, I understand; yet it is inconceivable to me that the people who should know better are so addicted to their phones, their meds, and their own narcissism, comfort, and entitlement can’t see exactly where we are headed, and that right soon.
It makes me weep, it keeps me up at night at times. This is sheer and utter madness, the likes of which the world has never seen. This time it isn’t a faction in a small country seeking allies, no , it is the global organizations that purport to have our best interests in mind, and it is global. It is the aristocracy not of even the 17th century, but of the medieval days of actual and boosheet royalty. Let’s show them that we are all, in fact, actually human, and protect our 1A and 2A with everything we’ve got. this is a tipping point, one way or the other.
Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels’ EXTORTION Scheme is not going to make them 1-Dime in the long run.
5 years from now People will have to Google their names to read a blip of what happened.
Shame, what a way to waist your life.
waste
@Anon…
Huh?
Stormy owes Trump over 300K plus interest.
Cohen is disbarred and a convicted felon.
So get w the times…
-G
Oh -G I didn’t know.
So owing Trump 300K and being a disbarred and a convicted felon,
is the reason to go after Trump with incriminating testimony.
That may be so … lets see
She’s a Professional Actress (Her Agent: Sharron Elkabas)
She’s making Bank, but she doesn’t have 300K for the Don.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1317917/
He’s a Former Attorney with a long and nefarious CV of activities,
He was estimated to be worth 100M, that He and his wife Laura Shusterman have tucked away somewhere.
https://www.biography.com/legal-figures/michael-cohen
So hey! For Extortion leverage, Let’s put Em on the the Stand and see what they have to offer.
Maybe they can make a Dime off it – at least another Book Deal – They need it so badly.
Hummmm ???
Maybe we should put Cohen’s Wife & Kids on the stand to, because we need to get the bottom of this.
A “disbarred and a convicted felon” Yes, but seems like plenty of money floating around somwhere.
Hummmm ??? WHy didn’t they pursue Laura Shusterman – Deal-No Deal, Hummmm ???
Here -G read for yourself, Newsweek doesn’t publish anything that’s not vetted and less than a week old,
This is what was print in December 2018.
Who is Michael Cohen’s Wife? Laura Shusterman Never Charged Though Prosecutors Had Evidence Implicating Her, Report Says
By: By Jessica Kwong ~ Published Dec 03, 2018
https://www.newsweek.com/who-michael-cohen-wife-laura-shusterman-1242311
So given the cited evidence -G, do you still think “owing 300K to DJT and being disbarred and a convicted felon” in the reason that Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen are going to place their incriminating testimony in the record?
This is purely an EXTORTION Scheme pressured by the Government (Shadow State et.al.) through the ‘Actors’ (Daniels & Cohen), I am certain that the FBI has something to motivate both these ‘Actors’ to testify in a manner that benefits the Government. Even Judge Juan Merchan isn’t that clueless, he knows how this is to play out.
– Really think I’m the one “behind the Times”? -Guess Again-
Dear Prof Turley,
(imo) Your most famous quote, spoken out of an abundance of caution no doubt, was ‘there is not enough evidence’ to impeach Joe Biden. Utter nonsense (then & now) of course .. . but Biden’s surrogates in the media are hanging on to it for dear life.
If you can’t impeach Joe Biden, they will have to gag Trump .. . is such a thing is possible.
*”Cohen will soon go on the stand and tell the jury that they should send his former client to jail for following his legal advice.” ~ Alvin Bragg, for the prosecution
*dgsnowden
Too bad they didn’t include quotes by Alan Derschowitz, who leaves plenty of comments online and on Fox News. I followed your public comments about various matters for years. I also follow legal briefs and publications relevant to important cases just for my own satisfaction. I don’t need to read or listen to the legal comments from 3rd rate people who somehow managed to drag themselves thru law school for lack of a better idea. Trump’s problem has always been his inability to hire the right lawyers. I worked for the biggest law corporations in the world for 35 years, I’ve seen the good snd the bad. I’ve seen lawyers rid themselves of nuisance prosecutors and unqualified judges with nothing more than a few visits to chambers. Case dismissed. I did some checking on the illustrious Michael Cohen. He went to what is essentially a law school staffed with personal injury lawyers with no remarkable ranking or notable credentials. My one big criticism of these fly by night Las schools is they hand out law degrees like toilet paper. All one needs is an apartment in Manhattan and a few rich friends for referrals, snd of course a golf membership. That’s how you schmooze yourself into Donald’s inner circle. In fact, this tactic was recommended by Robert Ringer in his now forgotten classic book, Winning Through Intimidation”. Get the right connections, impress the rich, and join a golf resort. The rich, he felt, were easy pickings. Ringer had a business degree from USC but no lucrative offers on graduation. He got a real estate license and made some impressive brochures, and simply distributed them. Easy to follow. In fact, I worked for so many scheming attorneys, I could venture to say that Trump always had a target on his back. He just wasn’t street smart enough to recognize it. They swarmed him like flies on butter. People like Cohen, do this to hundreds of wealthy people. It’s called a shakedown in layman’s terms. They can’t compete with the Big Dogs, they don’t have the ingenuity. Do they prey on them, like Parvovirus. They wear them down. Although I think his current representation is slogging their way through the snake infested jungle and doing remarkably well, the fact that they have to read and quote selected authorities from you to maintain any sense of dignity, speaks for itself. The case has no preparation. There appear to be no citations from the wealth of books and publications that stack the law libraries, where young interns sit and read for months on end. This case could have been dismissed simply by hitting the books. But I have seen hundreds of fortunes go down in flames. I once worked the Bankruptcy desk where clients left the keys to their yachts securely stored under lock and key. Some recovered, some didn’t. But in the case of the President of the United States, and former President, the case is more of a challenge. Having also worked for what is typically known as “mob” attorneys in California and Vegas, it takes a little more tenacity to take down someone in politics. I’ve seen that done as well. I will be quite blunt. I was once hired by the former Carter Administration in their offices in Los Angeles if all places, to transcribe some hidden wiretaps they planted on Gray Davis. Davis was threatening at the time, to run against John Van DeCamp, the chosen Dem candidate and current California AG. Davis was the Lieutenant Governor, allegedly campaigning in his office. They planted wiretaps in his office trying to eliminate his campaign. I was a confidential source, having worked for the Sacramento DA, who used wiretaps routinely. (Such is the nature of law and politics, right?). It takes a little extra to go all the way. Kamala can tell you all about it. I was there when she was with Willie Brown. California has always been a seat of power for the Democrats, that’s why they just love and adore Stanford University. To Trump and his lawyers, I sincerely hope they pull this off. To Alvin Bragg, he should have studied harder in school to look less like a fool.
I apologize for all the typos, I’m old and type with my thumb. S often becomes D, you get the idea.
ME To – pregnant with Parkinson (3.3 out of 4.0) but still kicking it!
Thank God for computers and the internet, you can still get out there.
Do what I do. Proof-read it before hitting “enter”. Now, there’s an idea.
There’s also voice to text as an option.
I use that to dictate papers.
One problem is that autocorrect changes entire words after they have been typed and if you don’t proof read before sending many sentences will make no sense. What’s weird is that autocorrect changes a legitimate word with some fictional word. You type “I’m going to the store” and it will be rewritten to say you are going to the stirruo. Remember it’s these same people who programmed autocorrect who are now pimping AI as the answer to all our problems in the world.
The typos are OK; the nearly incomprehensible, rambling, keyboard diarrhea, word salad, not so much…
No apology needed Anonymous. Thanks for the history lesson.
Do you honestly think there is a lawyer on the Planet that can go into Kaplan or EnMoron, or Merchan or Chutkan’s chambers and get a garbage case against Trump dismissed ?
Do you honestly think it is an accident that lawyers that defend Trump are not facing constant bar complaints that are taken far more seriously than they should be ?
You say Trump should get better Lawyers. Prior to being elected President Trump had a stellar Track record in court.
What changed ? The lawyers did not change.
I am surprised that the left wing nut lawfare squad has not come after Turely. They certainly have gone after Derschowitz.
The circus down in Georgia wreaked havoc on the Trump hires bad lawyers argument.
Ashley Merchant successfully put the prosecutors on Trial, and while the Judge was not able to excercise a profile in courage and do the right thing – he did recognize “The odor of Mendacity”. But more Damning was that Bradley, Wade and Willis were exposed as incompetent Fools.
After that hearing no one in their right mind would hire any of them to fight a traffic ticket.
Jack Smith has had a long long reputation for somehow failing up. It is almost as if Garland deliberately appointed an idiot to go after Trump.
Regardless, he is proving incompetent and foolish repeatedly in Florida. I doubt he is better elsewhere. But courts elswhere have been too kind to him.
None of these Trump cases ever should have seen the inside of a courtroom – they are total BS.
But the FACT is that the best of lawyers can not get them dissmissed and the worst of lawyers can not lose them.
The problem is not the lawyers Trump hires. It is the corruption of the courts.
While Universally the power of courts – left and right should be reigned in. There are plenty of petty tyrants on the bench in deep red counties. There is a very specific problem we are seeing today – the venue shopping for hyper political cases.
It is pretty clear that Trump successfully engineered the FL Case in front of Cannon – as there are several 11th Circuit Judges that are little better than Chutkan or Howell.
As I noted before MacAfee in GA is no profile in courage. He is unwilling to do what is right. But he is also not so deeply biased that he is way over his skis legally.
Conversely Kaplan, EnMoron and Merchan do not give a schiff about the law, and it makes absolutely no difference how Good Trump’s lawyers are or how bad the prosecutors are, when the judge is prosecuting the case.
The left is enraged because Cannon is proceeding in an orderly fashion.
Though even there I beleive there is plenty of politics in play. If this case was being adjudicated honestly – it would have been thrown out long ago. There is no consequential difference between this case and JW v NARA.
But Canon is not tossing this case and Trump does not want it tossed, because if Cannon tossed the case the corrupt 11th ct of Appeals would reverse and possibly give it to one of the Chutkan or Howell clones in the 11th cir.
It is better for Trump to have Cannon force Smith to dot his eyes and cross his t’s while making sure that Smith has no interlocutory appeal issue that can get Cannon tossed.
So what we have is Cannon NOT doing the right thing and tossing this case, because doing the right thing would likely result in here removal.
Our judiciary is heavily politicized and in fact often corrupt. Not the kind of corruption like you had in Chicago during the FBI stings of the late 1980s where you could buy off DUIs and such, but I mean the deeper more invidious kind, which comes from all the heavies thinking alike.
I would sign this but under RPC lawyers are gagged themselves, from criticizing the judiciary. Don’t believe it? Ask Turley, he’s very careful in what he does to criticize them and could probably write a textbook about all the lawyers who failed to tiptoe carefully enough and ended up with their wings clipped.
!st amendment be damned where courts are concerned, figure that out guys!