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
Turley didn’t “criticize” Judge Merchan— he outright called him “dishonest”. Turley said that a “honest judge “ would dismiss the case against Trump. That is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys. Turley trades on his “law professorship “ to amplify the ultrapolitical and intellectually dishonest slop put out by the MAGA media that pays him. Attorneys are not free to say anything they want about a sitting judge. If an attorney sincerely believes that a judge is dishonest, he has a duty to report the judge to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The Bar gently reminded Turley of the implications of reckless rhetoric, and Turley, of course, turns it into some free speech in debate. IMHO, Turley already crossed the line. Commenting on the law is one thing but accusing a judge of dishonesty is quite another.
NUTCHACHACHA just can’t decide.
Spin much?
Did the Good Professor Turley “outright call him ‘dishonest’?”
Or did the Good Professor Turley say, “That a [sic] ‘honest judge’ would dismiss the case against Trump?”
Citation please.
NUTCHACHACHA is so —-ed up that she can’t keep the facts straight or otherwise present the truth.
I think she/it/him/her needs more generational public assistance, affirmative action, benefits and entitlements in order to be a “fake” real person in a competitive world that naturally excludes her/it/him/she/they.
Says Gigi, the supposed “attorney”, who has outright called SCOTUS justices “dishonest” MULTIPLE time on this very blog.
You are psychotic.
She’s not a lawyer. So she can criticize judges any way she wants. Turley is constrained on what he can say because he IS a lawyer.
She has claimed to be an “experienced attorney” more than once on this blog, ya spastic idiot non savant.
Ignorant Svelaz, speaking out of ignorance again.
I won’t dispute your assertion, however. I think the lying sack of shit lied about that too. That’s why I put it in quotations duh.
She’s not a lawyer.
George, are you calling her a liar? Do you know her personally?
When she was natasha, she was a nurse, so who knows.
She’s a beneficiary of the democrat welfare state and a DNCbot, nothing more, nothing less.
“criticize judges” “constrained”
Dumb! Do lawyers lose their 1A rights? Lawyers must follow specific rules in court, and all people have to follow particular rules, or they can be sued for libel or have difficulty in the venue they are commenting. In this case, Turley has no specific constraint on what he says other than that of any ordinary person.
Meyer, I hadn’t even gotten around to that yet…
On that point, George, how about citing the precise regulation that prohibits Turley from saying that Merchan acted dishonestly. Include, if you will, what sanctions that might entail as well. I believe he is licensed in DC and possibly Illinois.
Commenting on the law is one thing but accusing a judge of dishonesty is quite another.—Gigi the spastic idiot non savant
Kavanaugh and Barrett lied to Congress regarding stare decisis and should be impeached”—-Gigi the spastic idiot non savant
Alito is a liar and must recuse himself from any Trump cases—Gigi the spastic idiot non-savant
Thomas lied on his disclosures and his income tax returns and should be impeached—Gigi the spastic idiot non savant
Guess this proves that the spastic idiot is not an attorney
That’s a great point Gigi.
UpstateGeorge with a
‘WELL SAID’ Gigi
showing two wrongs don’t make a right
A point for each of their dunce caps!
Here ya go, spastic Svelaz-George
Here is just one of the times Gigi claimed to be an attorney.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/03/trumps-12th-amendment-problem-the-vp-short-list-has-a-residency-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-2394496
And, you wonder why some of us, especially experienced attorneys like me and Dennis, do not respect you.—Gigi the Pathological LIAR
Now, do you have more IGNORANT comments you would like to make?
Waters,
LOVE it when you bring the receipts.
WELL SAID and SPOT ON! Keep up the good work.
Its pretty easy with Svelaz. Its almost like he enjoys playing the fool. This was an example of a time he could have just kept his ignorant mouth shut, instead he chose to stick his foot in it AGAIN.
The game seems to be: I’m going to say something really stupid—How long will it take you to prove it?
Gigi who says criticizing a judge is wrong,
but who comes here to cheerlead for some of them
(the ones doing lawfare) and that’s perfectly fine for her.
KNOW THE ENEMY OR SUCCUMB IN EVERY BATTLE
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
____________________________
President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto of the Connecticut Bar Association have supported the flagrant and egregious crime of commingling federal and state offices—while attempting to conceal and destroy evidence and obstruct justice of such—in a conspiracy to falsely incriminate another and partial, political, and malicious prosecution in the case of President Donald J. Trump.
President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto are direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
If you’re not angry, then you’re not paying attention.
“I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country.”
– Nathan Hale, American Intelligence Officer, Knowlton’s Rangers
Donald Trump is reportedly telling staffers he’s going to make Vivek Ramaswamy, J.D. Vance, and Tim Scott fight to the death in the Thunderdome to decide his running mate.
Connecticut Bar Association: Don’t use extremist, unsubstantiated, and insane language to denigrate the judicial system. Everything else is cool.
MAGAS (frothing at the mouth): HOW DARE THEY ASK THEIR MEMBERS NOT TO BE INSANE! SOVIET STYLE CENSORSHIP! DESTROY THEM ALL!
Just ask Babbitt and the J6 traitors in jail how well being an anti_American piece of shit for them.
“Just ask Babbitt and the J6 traitors in jail how well being an anti_American piece of shit for them.”
Did Joe Biden write that gibberish??
Sammy Metamucil strikes again!!!
I’d rather be in jail than in a liberal $hitho!e city. Imagine trying to educate your kids in a liberal union school system outside the jewish enclaves like tacoma park.
Sammy loves that kind of progress. I’m sure having children non-sexually is the farthest thing from his mind.
Judge Merchan inquired from his administrative judge, the person looking after a multitude of New York City judges in various courts, whether he should recuse. The reply was no.
Jonathan Turley is wrong about New York law. He refuses to uphold our dearly won right to trial by petit jury, the members drawn by lot and agreed to y both the prosecutor and the defense. He just doesn’t like the verdict! How unlawyerly of him…
^^^^Spastic Idiot Non Savant
We also have “a hard won right” to criticize anyone involved in government at any level, incl. petit juries.
Edward, the right to a trial by jury is in the Constitution twice: once in Article III and once in the 6th amendment.
So you’ll hafta criticize twice as loud and long, or something like that.
Beyond the Pale.
Benson is a douche
” the members drawn by lot”
David, are you showing your support for 12 white racists convicting an innocent black man who was then hung for his non-crime?
He had the right of appeal (except in Virginia, West Virginia and one other state).
Also, such cases show one of the reasons why the death penalty is wrong. Sorta abolished here in Washington state.
David, based on the blog, it appears you are responding to me but I can’t seem to get what you are saying.
let me restate my response.
David, are you showing your support for 12 white racists convicting an innocent black man who was then hung for his non-crime?
S. meyer — My response is what you replied to.
Of course I am opposed to convicting the innocent!
I also oppose the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime.
However, no matter its defects, trial by petit jury is better for determining outcomes than the medieval trial by combat.
“Of course I am opposed to convicting the innocent!”
David, that is why the suggestion of bias taking control of the judgment of the jury or judge calls for the trial to be moved. If a black were charged with a crime, are you happy with 12 white racist jurors, a white racist judge and a white racist prosecutor who let it be known before that he was going to get that black person?
S. Meyer — Just 8 miles east of here there is a nationally known, if not famous, multiple murder case in which, now, the defense attorney has appealed for a change of jurisdiction due to the claimed impossibility of impaneling a jury in Latah County of people without prior opinions, so-called convictions, about the accused murder’s guilt. Of course it can’t be moved over here, wrong state, but I’m convinced he did the deeds with his Kay-pro knife!
I don’t know if the trial will be moved, but the taxes in Latah County have to go way up, temporarily, to pay all the expenses associated with the trial, even if moved to another county (although just where in Idaho an unknowledgeable jury panel is to be found is beyond me.)
For Trump’s New York County trial, the defense attorneys agreed to the jury panel and alternates without exhausting (maybe not even using) their peremptory challenges.
David, you did not respond to the question. The jury pool was hyperpartisan. The judge was partisan. Last but not least, the prosecutor promised to get a conviction for Trump if he was elected. That is where the jury pool came from.
From your reluctance to respond, one can only assume that you support a black man being lynched when a jury convicts, even if the jury was composed of white racists, a judge who hates blacks and a prosecutor who promised to hang blacks. That seems to be the Democrat mindset of yesteryear and today.
do a cursory search on the internet about white jurors and a black defendant. As you noted, the cry would be deafening. Benson as usual suspends his thinking so that he can arrive as his preferred conclusion. Happily some of us suspend our conclusions until intellectual analysis leads us to the proper conclusion. yes, jurors can be racists, biased, corrupt and partisan.
Most people have a moral and ethical compass, and I believe David also has that. But David has been a committed Democrat his entire life. He probably voted for JFK and cheered him in later years. The Democrat Party changed. Today it would consider JFK a right-winger and would do to him what they are doing to Trump should JFK been the Republican nominee.
David likely protested the wrongful treatment of black people and some of the harsh sentences that were not just. However, today, he is at a crossroads where his prior beliefs conflict with the far leftist and totalitarian swing of the Democrat Party, which regards their former great civil libertarians as backward people who need to be separated from the flock.
David is caught. My question represents some of the former beliefs of the Democrat Party, but today, Democrats have taken the opposite position. That is why David doesn’t answer the question, deflects, or runs away.
Estovir, yes, jurors can be those things. But still trial by jury is preferable to your longing to return to trial by combat!
“trial by combat!”
David, no one is asking for a trial by combat. You don’t want to answer a simple question regarding your values, so you deflect and run away. All that is wanted is a jury pool that doesn’t hate Trump for ideological reasons, a fair judge, and a prosecutor who didn’t get elected based on finding a crime to convict Trump for. Beria did that for Stalin. Are you asking for another Beria?
You are unsuccessful in convincing anyone that your change of subject or deflection is anything but an attempt to hide and run away.
S. Meyer, I did respond, earlier. You choose to ignore it.
Instead you ‘assume’, and do so completely incorrectly.
That was me.
“Of course I am opposed to convicting the innocent!”
David, your quote above provided earlier needs to be more responsive because it indicates you believe that a jury of 12 can’t convict the innocent. Trump was convicted based on a biased jury and judge. The prosecutor campaigned on a pledge to convict Trump of some crime, much like Beria obtained convictions under Stalin.
That is why I tried to get you to focus on the problem by saying you are showing your support for 12 white racists convicting an innocent black man who was then hung for his non-crime.
David, you demonstrate a double standard and that proves you wrong based on your bias. You further prove to be wrong based on your inability to directly answer the question.
David; thank you. When someone like Turley, who holds himself out to be an expert in the law, makes outrageous comments like accusing a judge of dishonesty, despite knowing that Judge Merchan sought an ethics opinion, he gives license to the unsophisticated MAGAts to believe Trump is a victim. Some of these people are dangerous— which was the point of the letter from the Connecticut Bar.
The evidence against Trump was strong and mostly incontrovertible, coming from Trump insiders. His conduct did harm—he deceived the American people by concealing facts about his character that he admitted could sink his chances.
The reason was purely selfish— he craved power and attention. It is illegal in New York to falsify business records and if the reason is to commit another crime, it is a felony. Trump’s cavorting with a porn actress and nude model is not admirable behavior— he was married at the time. His bragging about assaulting women is not admirable behavior either.
So, Trump gets indicted, tried and convicted. Your points are well- taken. Trump was represented by counsel, who participated in selecting a jury of his peers. The trial was fair. Trump lost because he was guilty. As a teacher of law, he should promote respect for the law— especially when the evidence was there. Instead, Turley has chosen to be a partisan hack, echoing the partisan Republican swill pumped out by MAGA media. Turley has every right to disagree with the judge’s rulings but no right to use his credentials to amplify attacks on the Judge , his family or the New York legal system, especially since he knows that the audience is legally unsophisticated.
Gigi, you are welcome.
And I reciprocate, but ordinarily just push the ‘like’ button.
When you have gigi thanking you, you know you are full of shit
Dissent by doctors about Covid policy has “no place in the public discourse.”
Dissent by lawyers about the Trump prosecutions has “no place in the public discourse.”
I don’t think the Left cares for either dissent or public discourse.
“Let us have the original recordings, not the doctored transcripts.”
“No. They have no place in the public discourse.”
Meaning: Someone might use the facts against us/our narrative.
WHO says the transcript is “doctored “? Hur? Nope. More MAGA media lies. Republicans want the audio so THEY can doctor it— just like MAGA media did with the video at the G -7—trying to make it appear that Biden wandered off when he turned to speak with paratroopers.
He didnt speak with anyone, douche. He gave some goofy thumbs up like a 4 year old.
EVERYONE saw the parachuters, spastic. That changes nothing.
Sam: dissent is one thing— attacks on the character of a sitting judge and the rule of law are quite another. Turley uses his credentials to amplify partisan attacks on the prosecutor, the judge and the legal system in New York.
Where do you stand on buring down the city?
If the judge is trash, and lately they have been, thgey should be tough enough to deal with it. They are the ones undermining the court, not those pointing out their dereliction to the nation.
The only reason the attacks are partisan is because democrats are scum and would never tell the truth if it hurt their position, which is just about always.
GIGO
You do it all the time, ya spastic kunt
Democratic mayors of big cities in swing states have formally invited Donald Trump to come and insult their constituents like he insulted everyone in Milwaukee.
Trump “insulted” the murderers in Milwaukee — which has the third highest homicide rate in the country. And by implication, he “insulted” the public officials in Milwaukee whose responsibility it is to protect the innocent.
Trump said the crime in Milwaukee was bad. Only the modern day Democrat party would find it controversial to say something bad about crime. With their soft on crime DA’s and their letting violent criminals out on bail to victimize again, they seem to love crime. Then again it’s how they make a living so why wouldn’t they love it?
The Founding Fathers also felt that “words matter.” But they reached a far different conclusion.
Being a Democrat has become like being a Catholic to some people. It is their substitute for religion, and they bitterly cling to the Democrat Party as much as they would any religion – as a matter of faith. As a result, you see a lot of quasi-religious acts on their part, such as shunning people and excommunicating people (cancel culture), original sin (white people are bad from birth), transubstantiation (trans women are real women), and our sins will destroy the world (climate change.) There are others, but one, in particular, is at play here – HERESY!
Maggie Castinado, James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Emily A. Gianquinto have the same mindset as the Old Catholics who burned people alive if they varied from the Church’s official position on a topic. Remember Galileo? In effect, the Connecticut Bar Association has set itself up as The Inquisition.
I used to wonder how people could be so stupid and low, but I learned as I got older, that certain mindsets continue to manifest themselves from generation to generation. We are even seeing Mengele-like child medical butchery re-emerge through the Democrat party scum.
Democrat Plantation leaders feel it’s important to “instruct” us all.
Steve Bannon has reportedly decided to pledge to the Aryan Brotherhood for his prison protection.
BREAKING:
As a gesture of political unity following Donald Trump’s criminal conviction. Joe Biden just signed an executive order mandating all state prison systems treat incarcerated former presidents to “McDonald’s Mondays”
^^^Spastic Idiot Non Savant
How could Joe Biden enter an Executive Order binding state prisons? But he could instruct federal prisons to start “Freebase Fridays” in anticipation of Hunter’s visit.
The lack of self-awareness in people like those in the CT bar are truly stunning. When one no longer pauses to question the narrative or ideology, they have pretty much been fully captured; it isn’t the opinions or directives that necessarily concern me with the modern left (though they are plenty concerning), it is the utter lack of hesitation of any kind, and at worst, the calculated machinations behind it all. Not good. Not for anyone. 😐
The Supreme Court is intentionally arming the Confederacy with machine guns before the election.
BREAKING: New poll shows Supreme Court has a 97% approval rating among likely mass shooters
The same poll shows Biden with a 99% approval rating among terrorists infiltrating America with plans to commit mass killings.
Breaking: new poll shows Supreme Court with 100% approval among Americans who believe the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The same poll shows the Supreme Court has a 0% approval among Americans who view the Constitution as an impediment to the implementation of their policy preferences.
Right, I’ve seen Supreme Court justices and staff handing out machine guns.
I would hope the Connecticut Bar would see your claims as unsupported and inflammatory and condemn them with all its righteous concern for criticism of the Court.
The wrong side is intolerant.
This article could have been much more concise:
“President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto are fascist vermin.”
OR:
These so-called lawyers caution of “sparking violence”. Oh really? These kinds of traitors to our constitution, specifically the first amendment, are the ones provoking violence, which is exactly what those on their hateful, treasonous side are hoping for. They want a good healthy riot by people who’ve had it up to the gills, so the regime goons can crack down, exacerbating the violence, of course, so they’ll appear to have some justification for declaring martial law and postponing the election “for the good of the country”, of course.
Don’t fall for the bait. Remain patient and hope for the best while preparing for the worse. Violence should be the absolute last resort, as in the only measure available this side of submission to their tyranny.
Between now and November, we are going to see a full court press by the deep state and its alphabet bureau goons to incite and provoke us. You will observe the traitors in their Ministry of Propaganda – some still insist on calling it “the media” – taking it to new, previously unimaginable levels. Do not be angered, it’s just a tactic in this war.
You can be sure that the deep state and our criminal regime, in cahoots with the big tech traitors – Gates, Zucker, etc. – are working right now to insure the 2024 election will be stolen, just as the 2020 was. If by some miracle that fails, you may rest assured they will pull out all the stops to insure DJT does not survive until Inauguration Day. I’ll be moderately surprised if he survives until Election Day.
Buckle-up. Don’t knee jerk react to anything you read, hear, or see. These evil ones will employ every form of deception available to try to achieve their wicked ends. Let’s not make it easier for them.
Yank – you give a good reminder, which I want to repeat: don’t take the bait.
@yank
Agreed. Don’t, DO NOT take the bait, because the baiting is going to be like nothing we’ve ever seen.
Turley– “I also noted that I do not blame the jury but rather the judge and the prosecutors for an unfounded and unfair trial.”
+++
Blame the jury too.
They are supposed to be a bulwark against improper state conduct.
It wasn’t hard for them to see the kangaroos in that court.
All of it was a disgrace.
The only people selected to that jury were Trump hating lefty libtards. What fair minded person would not have gotten themselves excused and instead risked being the one to hang the jury?
Instantly outed and your family doxxed by Rachel Maddow, you’d have to be a fool to have signed up for that. Fvck justice over a petty crime. Not ONE of my family is worth that.
re bump stocks the right of the people to arm bears shall not be infringed go grizzly.
free tranny transitions for the masses
Ah yes, Jonathan, the legalization of censorship has begun. Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of Connecticut’s Cheka-Light.
Why do we even have a bar association and why do they yield any power at all? Sure, lawyers can organize in a professional organization if they want, but that organization should have ZERO authority to keep someone from practicing law -ZERO. The Bar is answerable to no one – not the voters, not the government. It is like the American Legion determining who can call themselves a veteran. Sure they can endorse someone or determine they are “in good standing” but the absence of either or the fact you hold opinions contrary to “the collective” should not preclude you from working.
Not enough people are asking this question, if any. Jeff’s question has merit.
As a retired attorney here’s how I would answer Jeff’s question: Someone or some entity must oversee attorneys and enforce the tenets and ethics of the profession. There are basically two choices, an association of attorneys or government.
Do you want it to be government? I do not. Yes, bar associations are subject to the biases and opinions of their governing bodies. The Ct bar letter highlighted in the column is certainly an example. Ultimately members of the bar are free to take “guidance” from the bar with as many grains of salt deemed appropriate. If the bar takes action against a member, court (govt) oversight is available. This system is flawed, as are all systems created by man. But it is vastly superior to having govt as the sole and initial overseer of attorney behavior.
Garyesq2k2-every state in the union has a governmental entity regulating physician, dental and nurses licensing. I have dealt with hospital boards and governing boards and medical licensing and medical board are far more unbiased than any loose physician association, hospital association, health insurance group et al. Physicians form cartels in many areas and are a detriment to cost control and often to efficient utilization and efficaceous treatment. On their own they govern by their pocket book.