This week, I have received emails from Connecticut bar members over a message posted by President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto warning them about criticizing the prosecutions of former President Donald Trump. The message from the bar leadership is chilling for those lawyers who view cases like the one in Manhattan as a raw political prosecution. While the letter does not outright state that such criticism will be considered unethical conduct, it states that the criticism has “no place in the public discourse” and calls on members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.
The statement begins by warning members that “words matter” but then leaves the ramifications for bar members dangling on how it might matter to them. They simply note that some comments will be viewed as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”
According to the Connecticut Bar, it is now considered reckless and unprofessional to make analogies to show trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or the judges in such cases.
For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict). I have been more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.
Yet, the Bar is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line. The letter assures members that they are free to criticize but warn that attacking the ethics of a judge or the motivations behind these cases is dangerous and could spark violence.
I have previously denounced overheated rhetoric and share the concern over how such rage rhetoric can encourage violence. After the verdict, I immediately encouraged people not to yield to their anger, but to trust our legal system. I believe that the verdict in New York may ultimately be overturned. I also noted that I do not blame the jury but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial.
Of course, the concern over rage rhetoric runs across our political spectrum. While rarely criticized in the media, we have seen an escalation of reckless rhetoric from the left. For example, Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.”
My concern is not with the plea for lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such “aggressive tactics.” The problem is the suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicalization of our legal system.
Like many, I believe that the Manhattan case was a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers. It is a return, in my view, to the type of political prosecution once common in this country.
For those lawyers who view such prosecutions as political, they are speaking out in defense of what they believe is the essence of blind justice in America. What is “reckless” to the Connecticut Bar is righteous to others. Notably, the Bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.
Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them “partisan hacks” or other even “insurrectionist sympathizers.” Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists “by any means necessary.”
In Connecticut, Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Sunday that the Supreme Court was “becoming brazenly corrupt and brazenly political.” That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
The letter goes further and suggests that lawyers should speak publicly in support of trials like the one in Manhattan, a view that ignores the deep misgivings over the motivations and means used in New York to target an unpopular figure in this city. You have the top Bar officials calling on lawyers to take a public position that is opposed by many lawyers and citizens in defending the integrity of these prosecutions. Imagine the response if the Idaho Bar called on its lawyers to speak out against these cases and declared that it is reckless or unprofessional to defend them.
I expect that, in the very liberal Bar of Connecticut, the letter is hardly needed. Indeed, this letter is likely to be quite popular. Yet, I would have thought that Bar officials would have taken greater care to respect the divergent opinions on these trials and the need to avoid any statements that might chill the exercise of free speech.
Ironically, the letter only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to “sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.” Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecution like the one in Manhattan.
As discussed in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, critics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams Administrations were often threatened with disbarment or other legal actions for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say “well that was then and this is now.” The point is that the Bar Association also has a duty to protect the core rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech.
Again, these officials are not threatening Bar action against critics of these cases. However, as evidenced by the emails in my inbox, it is being taken as a warning by many who hold misgivings over these prosecutions.
Our legal system has nothing to fear from criticism. Indeed, free speech strengthens our system by exposing divisions and encouraging dialogue. It is orthodoxy and speech intolerance that represent the most serious threats to that system.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster, 2024).
Here is the message in its entirety:
Dear Members,
Words matter. Reckless words attacking the integrity of our judicial system matter even more.
In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a “sham,” a “hoax,” and “rigged”; our justice system is “corrupt and rigged”; the judge was “corrupt” and “highly unethical”; and, that the jury was “partisan” and “precooked.” Others claimed the trial was “America’s first communist show trial”—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.
These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless. Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats to those fulfilling their civic obligations by sitting on the jury, as evidenced by social media postings seeking to identify the names and addresses of the anonymous jurors and worse, in several cases urging that the jurors be shot or hanged. As importantly, such statements strike at the very integrity of the third branch of government and sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.
To be clear, free speech includes criticism. There is and should be no prohibition on commenting on the decision to bring the prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in the public discourse.
It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.
Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system.
Sincerely,
Maggie Castinado
President,
Connecticut Bar Association
James T. (Tim) Shearin
President-Elect,
Connecticut Bar Association
Emily A. Gianquinto
Vice President,
Connecticut Bar Association
This column also ran on Fox.com
I assume that a Bar association exists to protect the people lawyers serve. How does promoting a singular ideology protect people? The judge, prosecutor and lawyers can stand alone, but this protection of the powerful means moral and ethical weakness of the legal profession on the left.
S. Meyer said: “I assume that a Bar association exists to protect the people lawyers serve.”
I think that is a very naive view. I don’t doubt that you could find a statement to that effect in many Bar Association promotional materials, but how many guilds can you name that serve primarily to protect the clients of the guild members?
Number 6: Yes, what the Bar is doing and what it should be doing are two different things. I’ve had dealings with the Bar in my state based on a dispute between a lawyer and myself. I made a Bar complaint and communicated with the judge on more than one occasion.
Bar associations and medical associations represent themselves. For example, the AMA is an organization that looks after itself. It has done things against its members and physicians as a whole. A physician doesn’t have to belong to the AMA, but in many states, lawyers must be members of the Bar.
You say that we should trust the legal system. While we await the legal system to slowly grind its way toward reversing this terrible process and decision, much harm will be done.
When a system so greatly demonstrates that a major correction is in order, then we should not trust it. Your car keeps veering off the road. Do you say to your wife, “Trust the steering system. Everything will be just fine, and we’ll have it in and repaired in about 6 months or so”? Of course not. You seek a prompt repair.
The problem is, without extraordinary intervention – by the people angered by this and other injustices created by a legal system dominated by the Far Left – the legal system will continue to grind up people. This must stop.
I like ketchup on my scrambled eggs.
WELL SAID and SPOT ON!
Try Cholula, it’s primo.
People interested in legal matters should have evidence to support their assertions. Most court cases revolve around evidence.
“ Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict).”
No, not “many lawyers”. Just Turley and a couple of “legal scholars” who are just political pundits who are required to criticize Merchan because Trump thinks it’s unfair.
A $10 contribution and his daughter who does not have a major role are not enough reasons to recuse.
Ironically Turley defends justice Alito and justice Thomas for not recusing themselves over much more serious appearance of conflict. Merchan ran the court like it’s supposed to. Turley is only peddling the Fox News narrative and Trump’s complaints. That’s what he’s expected to do. Disingenuously and dishonestly. We already know Trump values those qualities above all else.
^^More ‘Dem talking points as opposing view’ troll BS.
Conservatives are always complaining about the poor state of education in the country and yet suddenly they are all experts and armchair
scientistsProfessors of Law, who think they are qualified to say experts are wrong.—-Svelaz George, Spastic Idiot Non Savant
See below as Dennis the Draft Dodger, while for once being in the ball park (only as pertains to the danger of bump stocks), again shows his disdain for the rule of law, in favor of ideology.
Will Trump enact a law??? Fvck you Dennis, your boy had both houses of Congress and 2 years to make the law right on this. They new damn well what was coming. They were too busy making sure 10 million people could get into the country and spending $6T without bipartisan support in the Senate.
If Merchan’s daughter is just a bit player, why are Democrats sending money to her house? She’s the president of Authentic Campaigns.
And when Merchan is reversed in a humiliating opinion from an appeals court, will you be back to so you were wrong, that he didn’t run his trial “like it’s supposed to”?
No. You people will say any damned thing because you won’t be held accountable.
The President has a duty to safeguard the integrity and independence of Executive Branch law enforcement functions and protect them from undue partisan interference that could weaken those functions in the future.
LMAO where is that duty detailed?
Jonathan: You missed something important yesterday. And the surviving family members and friends of the 58 people, killed by the shooter with a bump stock in Las Vegas in 2017, are probably wondering what the hell Justice Thomas was thinking about in his decision in Garland v. Cargill putting bump stocks back in civilian hands.
Thomas’s decision, joined by the other five right-wing cabal Justices, turned on their interpretation of 26 USC 5845(b), passed by Congress in 1986, which states: “The term ‘machine gun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term also shall include the frame or receiver of any such weapon any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun”.
The ATF used Section 5845(b) to ban bumps stocks in 2018 in response to the massacre in Vegas–something DJT supported at the time. But Thomas bizarrely found that since “bump stocks” are not specifically mentioned in the statute it cannot be used ban them. Of course, bump stocks didn’t exist in 1986 so Congress couldn’t anticipate every possible subsequent invention. But the plain meaning of the statute, particularly the last sentence, includes bump stocks. The only way for Thomas to carve out a loophole for bump stocks was to abandon his “textualist” interpretation of statutes–until the meaning of Section 5845(b) means something different from the plain text. But this is exactly what Thomas just did and leaves it up to Congress to pass new legislation to specifically ban bump stocks. Does anyone think the MAGA House or DJT, if he gets back in office, will back such legislation?
In her scathing dissent Justice Sotomayor said Thomas’s decision will have “deadly consequences” and “hamstring the government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter”. Do we need any further proof that Thomas and the right-wing of the Court are paid for by the gun lobby and will do their bidding? Will there be more deadly carnage as a result of Thomas’s decision? You can count on it–just as the sun will rise in the east!
Dennes,
Thomas’ reasoning is exactly textualist: “by a single function of the trigger.’ A bump stock still requires to pull the trigger for each shot, hence, it does not transpose the gun into a machine gun. Sotomayor, the weakest jurist on the Court, is not applying the law but looks at the consequences. Alito in his concurrence is correct that Congress can change the law if it wants to outlaw bump stocks but that the ATF (which is not a legislative body) cannot do that.
You don’t understand. In Denny’s marxist mind, the ends ALWAYS justify the means.
Sotomayor said that exact thing. As she always does.
DoubleDutch said: ” bump stock still requires to pull the trigger for each shot, hence, it does not transpose the gun into a machine gun.”
Also true of a binary trigger (fires the gun once on pull, and again on release), which I regard in general as a superior mechanism to a bump stock for increasing rate of fire. Unfortunately, the ruling in question appears to be too narrowly tailored to apply to those mechanisms.
That is next.
Double Dutch: Maybe you should read the ATF website re: bump stocks. Under “Final Rule” it states: “The final rule clarifies that the definition of a ‘machinegun’…includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter”.
Sounds like a “machinegun” to me. By the way the ATF is a regulatory agency that implements Congressional legislation re guns. The fact that the ATF is not a “legislative body” is irrelevant! But Clarence Thomas and the right-wing of the Court think they are a “legislative body” by striking down any act of Congress they don’t like!
“shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter”
Not the definition of a “machine gun” Dennis. This is the definition of a machine gun:
a weapon that can automatically fire more than one shot without manual reloading, with a single pull of the trigger.
The “regulating agency” doesn’t get to redefine what a machine gun is. End of story.
What act of Congress would that be Dennis?
The ATF ruling was not an act of Congress.
“Sounds like a “machinegun” to me.”
Says the spastic idiot who claimed that “AR-15’s ruin the meat!”
Dennis, since in your opinion Mr. Turley gets it wrong so often,
and there are so many other things to write about,
what’s the link to your blog? You write enough to do one.
He wouldn’t like the regular commenters who would be saying
“OT, in other news, something you missed yesterday…”
getting paid to do their whataboutisms as he does posting here.
In Denny’s mind, the Las Vegas psycopath was a “gunman”.
“Thomas’s decision will have “deadly consequences””
Thomas’s decision??? Well, there is the extent of Denny’s knowledge.
Oh, well if there are “deadly consequences”, f the Constitution.
“Deadly consequences” is the Republican motto. It is their main goal.
God would that you were first
Its over and done, Dennis. What is your point? That the master statesman Biden needs to get busy? This should be an easy one.
It’s my understanding that membership in the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) is voluntary and is not required to be a member of the Connecticut Bar. This is how New York works as well.
Anonymous said: “It’s my understanding that membership in the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) is voluntary and is not required to be a member of the Connecticut Bar. This is how New York works as well.”
Many associations in the business world (and law practice clearly IS a business, much as some of its practitioners may pretend to a “higher calling”) are voluntary in theory, but indispensible in practice, because some organization or other has used manipulation and coercion to ensure that all of the lucrative business/contracts/clients are channelled through its narrow and well-controlled portal.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
(“just as long as you’re doing so for our team”)
Narrative control. Cult-like behavior.
This is the the build-up to actual civil war. This is not hyperbole, a war is coming. History has shown us that it always come to a head with physical confrontation, it’s the only way to ultimately settles the big issues of the day. Rinse and repeat…
The fascists that have taken over the law have given us, in just the last few weeks, a 75 year old ill woman arrested for praying at an abortion clinic and sentenced to 2 years in prison with the judge admonishing her not to die before her release while hamas monsters rampage in DC destroying monuments and doing much more damage and NOT being arrested.
The law has given us Jan 6 protesters being found through bank records, phone records and every surveillance method possible while last week a man WITHOUT A MASK was on a NY subway train demanding to know if there were any Zionists (read Jews) on board and if so they would need to get off. Somehow there is no DOJ action to go after the guy for a civil rights violation. Maybe it is because the head of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has been shown to have given speeches where she says that she dislikes what white people represent. This is who the Biden team puts in charge of CIVIL RIGHTS.
Imagine if a white guy was on a train demanding to know if there are any Trans people or gay people on board and if so they will have to leave. DO you think said guy would still be free?
HullBobby,
Well said.
If you get a chance, read an actual account of what happened, I Went to Cover a Protest. I Was Surrounded by a Mob.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-went-to-cover-a-protest-i-was-mobbed
UpstateFarmer said: “read an actual account of what happened, I Went to Cover a Protest. I Was Surrounded by a Mob.”
Interesting account. However, it contains one statement that causes me some slight doubt about its complete veracity: “For anyone VISIBLY JEWISH who happens to be near one of these mobs, or anyone like a security guard trying to keep peace, the interactions are often much more harrowing” [MY CAPS]
Now it is possible that Reingold meant anyone not wearing some kind of apparel associated with Palestinians, or, conversely,. anyone wearing a Star of David, or having some other adornment that evoked the Jewish faith or Zionism, but on its face, her statement about being treated differently solely because she was “visibly Jewish” is implausible, at best. Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, and others are all Semitic peoples, whose general physical appearance is virtually indistinguishable. Anecdote: a friend of mine, who is Jewish, met his wife-to-be in a bar. She began dating him because, based on his physical appearance, she thought he was Italian (as she is). I suspect that Reingold was just taking some poetic license in the interests of offering a more interesting account, but to me such embroidery is of dubious value
Clearly, “visibly jewish” means by their garb or their adornment, not by their skin color. Not sure why you would assume that.
Anonymous said: “Clearly, “visibly jewish” means by their garb or their adornment, not by their skin color. ”
I alluded to the possibility that she meant by “garb or adornment”, but that is not at all “clear” to me from her context. Are we to suppose that there was no one else in the area who didn’t sport a keffiyeh or similar garment that identified the wearer as Palestinian, or an ally? Was anyone else not wearing Palestinian garb mistakenly assumed by the demonstrators to be a Jew on that basis, and asked to leave? There are any number of ways that she could (and imo should) have made her meaning clear in nearly as few words as she used. I never mentioned skin color. There are other physical characteristics that have been ascribed, correctly or mistakenly, to Jews. I suppose you have never heard of anyone assuming that another person is a Jew based on certain physical characteristics, such as nose size and shape? That is an erroneous assumption, but at one time it was quite common, and it still is not all that uncommon. If I recall correctly, Danny Thomas (who was of Lebanese descent, and had a formidible nose) once made a joke about being mistaken for being Jewish on that basis. To be clear, I am not accusing here of any intent to deceive, I just think that statement may needlessly leave the reader with some unanswered questions.
Justice delayed is justice denied, it is said, and in the Trump persecution this seems particularly apt. If there are going to be political prosecutions then there should be ways to get such prosecutions through the appeals process quickly and as fairly as possible. Why should such a momentous review potentially have to wait until after the election thus rewarding the prosecutions tactic? Some mechanism must be developed to move such a verdict through every layer of review quickly.
Oh, and yes, the Connecticut bar is threatening their underlings and doing so intentionally but then they sure don’t hold a candle to the bar associations around the country currently involved in disbarring Trumps lawyers one by one. The John Eastman case is prticularly egregious. perhaps the good professor could write about this miscarriage of justice being commited by the left?
I don’t see how our courts and judges are defensible anymore. Or at least, they are often indefensible. It’s been going on a long time – almost all of my practicing years – and has been getting a lot worse. The system has become the arm of a Soviet style administrative state, with jury trials all but disappearing and appeals a grotesquely meaningless exercise, at least for regular people. Remember the oft encountered verbiage that summary judgment was a “drastic remedy”? Then the “Celotex trilogy” comes along roughly 1986 and summary judgment is by far the norm – but almost always in favor of institutional litigants and against the little guy. Then it was deemed just too much to even let the little guy litigate that much, so in 2009 we get Iqbal and Twombley to make is easier for judges to dismiss cases even earlier, on 12(b)(6) motions or whatever. Point being we started down this road a long time ago, it has been uninterrupted by any form of circumspection, and we are now at the point where show trials and naked suppression of dissent are the norm. The only thing the Trump phenomenon points to is the next step on the slippery slope, and it’s the failure of the legal profession and the judiciary – the third branch of government – meaning in turn that the government itself has collapsed. We’re just watching it pan out at this point, and there’s no stopping it. Not so far as I can see, anyway.
JMRJ,
Thank you for your insight and comment.
Thank you Jonathan, for noting this reckless, thoughtless Bar letter in Connecticut. It seems some who should be the brightest among us are enfeebled by their pedestrian political bias.
I can summarize what the Connecticut Bar proves to Americans. The Law no longer represents Justice. The Law is now a proven joke. The Law is a weapon to be used for political purposes. The Law no longer commands nor deserves respect. The Law, as it was intended, is dead to us. We recognize the danger in this situation. But we feel that we have nothing to lose. Rebellion, as sanctioned in the Declaration of Independence, is in the wind. We who still believe in the Founder’s Dream, and in the ethos of Justice, will not go quietly.
This week, I have received emails from Connecticut bar members ….
It is a very good sign, and likely infuriates the CT Bar leadership, that Professor Turley is seen as a colleague and ally for attorneys across the nation, knowing he holds great sway in the public square.
Hopefully he is paying Darren Smith top $$$ to provide personal security. UpState Farmer and I are here to help!
💪🏾
Estovir,
Well said and on it!
Estovir said: “Hopefully he is paying Darren Smith top $$$ to provide personal security.”
Hopefully Darren’s efforts in that regard would be more successful that those he has made to moderate this comment section. Otherwise I would advise Turley to invest in a CCW permit, some home defense weaponry, and firearms training (always a good idea, but one that I suspect Turley might be reluctant to implement on his own behalf).
Was it Estovir who posted a comment that he has Guillian Barre paralysis?
GBS is a well known covid jab side effect, also flu shot side effect.
Are you aware of this?
FYI:
@SharylAttkisson
And…the unadjusted incidence rate of confirmed GBS in the 1 to 21 days after receiving the Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen) vaccine was 32.4 per 100 000 person-years, which was significantly higher than the background rate of GBS.
https://x.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1801641085573197833
_____________________________
Vaccine-Injured Pharmacist Breaks Down Into Tears Testifying Before Ohio State Senate
This is absolutely heartbreaking.
“I was a father, a husband, a pharmacist, and a healthy person prior to being coerced into receiving the COVID vaccine … I would never have taken the vaccine voluntarily.”
Mike Yoha suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a severe neurological disease associated with paralysis, after being coerced into taking the COVID shot.
He says, “My liberty was violated when vaccine status discrimination forced me into taking a medical intervention that almost cost me my life. If we do not have the right to decline a known risk of death without facing discrimination or loss of employment, then we are no longer free. I implore the committee to vote yes on HB 319.”
Ohio House Bill 319, also known as the “Conscientious Right to Refuse Act,” aims to end “no jab, no job” policies for good.
The legislation states that businesses, employers, health care providers, and other institutions CANNOT deny or terminate employment, deny services, or otherwise treat individuals differently based on their refusal of any biologic, vaccine, pharmaceutical, or gene-editing technology for reasons of conscience.
We lost the soap box when Ted Turner created CNN and with the creqation of the internet/social media. We lost the jury box when obama was installed in the white house and weaponized its agencies for political power. We lost the ballot box when the progs decided on revenge for the rejection of their truly despicable candidate hillary and would go to any lengths to insure his re-election attempt would go down in a defeat by brandon. Now we only have one box left…
I would ask JT to comment on why the politically-motivated and petty indictment brought by Bragg wasn’t able to be quashed at the Grand Jury stage. There is so little known about what goes on in GJs. Perhaps these proceedings need to be reformed, for example, allowing a citizens attorney to present an adversarial perspective on the prosecutor’s case. Unchallenged power tempts overreach and self-serving corruption.
A well-run judicial system requires the people involved to be ethical and moral, something that has declined in the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party of today believes in sexualizing our children and performing barbaric operations. Since Connecticut is a Democrat state, why would we expect to see moral or ethical clarity from the leftist-run Connecticut Bar Association?
Zelenskyy is a great leader like George Washington.
The CIA estimates Zelensky and his cronies have skimmed off $400 million in US aid to enrich themselves while sending others to the front lines to die.
I knew that would provoke you from out of the woodwork.
Can you please provide a link to the evidence of this assertion?
Why have you joined the Anti-Zelensky cult?
Au contraire.,Tulip. Like Grandpa Joe and the Biden crime syndicate, Zelensky is a limp-wrist, money laundering con artist. Pure and simple.
Is there evidence to support this position?
If Zelensky were GW, he would get his ass to the front lines.
You’re a spastic idiot non savant.
I see no evidence of this, but I see plenty of evidence of how brave and courageous he is for standing up to Russia.
I look forward to the day the Connecticut Bar Association demands safe spaces, with cookies and coloring books, for their members. They’re going to need them in case they hear any MEAN WORDS!
Law schools have become centers of neomarxist critical legal theory, and are producing graduates who now populate the DA offices of this country, resulting in the plague of not enforcing the law and the resultant rise in crime in this country. The censorship of speech which does not toe the neomarxist politically correct line (in this case, criticism of the patently political prosecutions of Trump), is another pernicious product of this school of thought, resulting in a law which is the legal version of ‘advocacy journalism’.