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
These bar authorities should be prosecuted. See 18 USC 242.
Americans Must Criticize Our Corrupt Courts
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/06/12/americans_must_criticize_our_corrupt_courts_1037761.html
Put a fork in Putin because he is done!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Put a fork in Putin because he is done!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
https://youtube.com.com/watch?v=QLncvexyDAI
Where was the Connecticut Bar Association when Senator Schumer attacked certain justices of the United States Supreme Court?
Cheering him on.
Exactly like communists and not like Americans the quacking queefs of the Conn demand compliance with their dictates.
I see there is ZERO opinion on the matters of the case by them, meaning of course, they totally support it, just because, GET TRUMP.
They are so pathetic and two faced and liars and smearing partisan hack jobs.
I hope they all get fired and locked up in prison where they belong.
While they are at it perhaps the Connecticut Bar Association would like to point out another incident in American jurisprudence in which a criminal defendant went to trial without the violations of law with which he or she is charged being specified in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
But in Trump’s New York County case the violations of New York law were specified.
No, actually they were not.
Some fail to understand New York state law despite having it explained to them here, several times.
Is their lawlessness virtuous to you?
Do you honestly believe this prosecution and conviction is simply the justice system working as it should?
It is interesting to notice who can look at this case, actually defend any part of it, and then justify its righteousness as not at all a partisan hit job. Just fascinating to see the brainwashing in action.
And then we have those who see clearly, yet must be threatened (muzzled) not to state the obvious: A biased judge who led a kangaroo court, that convicted Biden’s political opponent of non-crimes in order to interfere in a presidential election.
Yes, the ‘justice system’ worked as it should, as the result of an appeal (after Joly 11) will demonstrate.
David: thanks. The majority of Americans agree with you and the jury.
And the majority of americans say it was politically motivated.
And the majority of americans say the economy isnt working.
And the majority of anericans say biden is not up to the job
C’mon you wouldn’t know a majority if you saw one. All the ‘conservative’ lawyers should take their Bar to court for threatening their 1st amendment rights and jeopardizing their livelihood.The ‘majority’ will speak in November..
I mean, 34 felonies? Really?
Three words: YOU ARE BRAINWASHED.
Yes, really 34. New York laws is particularly stringent on these matters, no doubt due to Wall Street.
Not really. NY is not “stringent on the matters” in the least, unless your name happens to be Trump. Falsification of business records is a misdemeanor for a reason. And in this case, an 8yr old SOL’d misdemeanor. As Eli Honig pointed out in his op-ed, this charge is never brought as a stand alone case, and there have never, ever, been an enhancement of a misdemeanor to felony by tying it to a state campaign violation.
Sure. How many people have been founf guilty of fbr1 in the last 3 years?
What a joke!
No actually they are NOT. Wall Street is PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES.
You do not need a law for publicly Traded companies – the business records of publicly traded companies are PUBLIC.
False representations on those records will result in Shareholder lawsuits and major damage awards.
This is called TORT LAW.
You do not nee a law for privately held companies.
If there are multiple owners of a private company AGAIN they have a tort claim against their partners over substantial misrepresentations.
Finally you have private companies owned by a single individual. You can not defraud yourself.
The ONLY “records” fraud you can commit in a business you own entirely is Lying on your taxes.
Tax returns are SEPARATE documents – they are NOT your private business records
If you lie on forms you provide to the government – that is serious and you go to jail – as Hunter will do unless pardoned first.
New York statue requires the indictment to explain each element of the crime. It neither specified the intended fraud, nor the crime this fraud was perpetrated to conceal.
There is a provision in the NY constitution that bars overly broad and unclear laws.
That NY has read even broader generally that the US constitution in barring nonsense like this.
There are dozens of major problems with this case.
But ONE of those would be that SCOTUS has decades ago established in an oppinion by Sotomayor that Fraud is a PROPERTY CRIME.
It requires a TANGIBLE HARM.
Fraud is NOT hurt feelings.
Someone must have been defrauded of something of TANGLIBLE value.
Black’s law dictionary does not explicitly state Fraud is a property crime – but it DOES require TANGIBLE harm.
Your prefered candidate losing the election is NOT sufficient.
Your desire to know the secrets of someone else’s private life is NOT sufficient.
Even the election claim is absurd – not only is Trump’s conduct with respect to th election of 2016 legal – as the left likes to rant – the right to privacy is in the bill of rights.
That means that any election law that ACTUALLY precluded trying to keep allegages of legal private conduct private would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And some just make shit up and repeat it over and over.
The word another does not mean some other.
It doesn’t matter what might be allowed under NY state law. The 14th amendment through the incorporation doctrine requires that the precise elements of the alleged crime be specified well before trial. The prosecution did not specify NYL 17-152 until after the trial began and did not say until the discussion of charging instructions what were the three potential “unlawful means” referred to therein. Moreover, Merchan instructed that unanimity was not required on any particular unlawful means so long as twelve jurors agreed that at least one of them applied. None of this should survive appeal, though it may have to get to the SCOTUS for Trump’s rights to be vindicated.
Daniel,
Thank you for pointing out those facts.
The 14th ? This case runs afoul of 2/3 of the bill of rights.
The question is not if it will be overturned, but for which of a dozen different reasons.
The other day you said that you would no longer respond to anonymous comments.
If you don’t pay attention to what you say, why should I?
Read the Indictment. They were not specified there.
Then you would be able to specify the predicate crime that Trump allegedly committed that turned two fraudulently prosecuted state misdemeanors into felonies.
Even the base charge was not even lose to proven.
Bragg and Merchan can rant and rave, and th Jury can buy their nonsense, but Trump’s payments to Cohen are validly catagorized as legal expenses, reimbursement and payments for a retainer.
If the State of NY is going to micromanage what are PRIVATE records – records that Trump produced FOR HIMSELF – esentially a business diary, then people are going to cease to do business in NY.
Small and large business people do NOT make up the majority of americans. We do make up 100% of the economy.
If you bought something – it was near certain from a business,
If you are employed – it is from a business.
If you tell those of us that run businesses, that if we do not use YOUR preferred working in OUR private records – many of us are going elsewhere
if you take a clients to Lunch – how do you record that ?
Sales expense ? Marketing expense ? Good Will ? Entertainment ? Meals ?
All of the above and many many more categorizations of that expense are all perfectly legitimate.
Only those of you on the left demand to be able to control the language used by others.
Further the core claim to the 34 counts is itself an OBVIOUS fraud by Bragg on the courts.
Think whatever you wish about the Daniels NDA – it was legal.
Braggs claim is that AFTER the election Trump paid Cohen AND falsely record the payments in order to influence the outcome of the election.
Without a time machine that is impossible.
Not only will Trump prevail on appeal – but it is highly likely there will be serious civil and possibly criminal consequences for those who brought this case.
The actual crime in all these causes is Infringement of rights under color of law – and that is an actual federal crime.
Nor is the NYC case some outlier. It is part of a pattern that permeates the democrats.
Whether it is spying on Cathloics, or parents protesting the rape of their children in school, or pro-life protestors being SWATed, or …
Lie after lie as democrats in power abuse that power for political advantage.
Trump has promised as president that he will not seek revenge – he refused to prosecute Hillary which would have been easy.
He has a track record of actually keeping campaign promises.
But Trump does NOT speak for all republicans on this.
Trump will be president for the next 4 years – then he will be gone.
Nearly all the leaders in the GOP who are backing Trump have decades left in their political careers.
Unlike Trump they can not afford hundreds of millions in legal bills to fight political lawfare.
You can expect that just as with every other breach of the norms by democrats that have kept the country from polarizing for 250 years,
This too will backfire.
The left rants and raves that Trump will be a dicator, or that he will seek revenge.
While false – why should ordinary voters care ? Why should republicans or independents of moderate democrats care if Trump behaves like a more rational Joe Biden ?
Why should voters care if in 2025 Republicans go hunting Democrat scalps ?
This nonsense ends when those on the left grasp how stupid and dangerous it is.
“Has no place” is the emperor’s new clause. It’s the three words the Left uses to censor debate and stifle free speech. Whenever you see these words, you can be sure of one thing: the person speaking them is un-American.
Trump is having a “Black Voters For Trump” rally and it’s just a bunch of white people.
biden always gets his target audience, “45 people paid to be at biden rally”
And this black pastor thanks Trump for coming to the hood, and points out that even Obama never did that … and certainly Biden never has (although the pastor noted that Biden found time to go to the fancy NAACP dinner).
https://x.com/simonateba/status/1802084102880768459/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1802084102880768459¤tTweetUser=simonateba
Obama of the Kenyan elite and American left-wing.
Trump shows up in the hood, and he alone is the draw.
Biden hangs out with the Hollywood elite where George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jimmy Kimmel and none other than Barack Obama are the draw.
See the difference?
Biden’s Democrat party represents the elite class who then talk down to Blacks saying from his entitled perch: “If you don’t vote Democrat, you ain’t Black.”
Message: “The Democrat Party is your Massa.”
Trump shows up in the hood, Biden shows up wearing a hood! You don’t vote for me, you aint black! Be a good Toby!
Trump goes to engage with the people:
Trump goes to Harlem bodegas and draws a crowd.
Trump goes to NYC construction sites and draws a crowd.
Trump goes to Jersey shore and draws a crowd.
Trump goes to The Bronx and draws a crowd.
Trump goes to downtown Detroit and draws a crowd.
Trump goes to the Hood and does a rountable Q&A.
Biden goes to Hollywood to hang with the elite.
Trump also went to San Francisco to meet with Silicon Valley billionaires who were impressed with who Trump actually is when meeting him in person, and he’s not the caricature the fake news makes him out to be:
@chamath says President Trump is completely different from how he is portrayed by the media.
“He is charismatic. He’s intellectually sharp, and he’s funny. And when you put that together, he can engage an audience for a long time and be totally extemporaneous. The other thing I would say is that he is very polite. And he’s kind in a way that was disarming and was not what I expected.”
“And so I felt that I had misjudged him many years in the past. And so I was very glad that I had an opportunity to sit beside him and to actually interact with him one-on-one. It was really engaging.”
“It was not just a pro-America agenda, but it was very clear that he was pro-innovation. So he was really supportive of AI in the details that he talked about, he was very supportive of crypto in those details. And he’s very much low regulation, low taxation. And so when you put that together, it does stand very much in contrast with what the alternative is.”
“So it’s us talking, and he says, you guys are a really beautiful couple. And I said, well, thank you. And then he turns to me, and he goes, well, you must be really rich. And I started laughing out loud. Natalie thought he was hilarious.”
I heard a very different story—that Trump went on one of his usual personal grievance and fake promises word salad rants that made no sense, which stunned many of those attending. Then, there’s all the people from his former administration who say he has a short attention span and is ignorant about history, government and civics. The presidential daily briefings had to be dumbed down and shortened because he just couldn’t absorb the information and/or didn’t care.
You also heard that the 12th amendment prohibits the potus and vp from residing in the same state.
Did you see where Svelaz called you a liar?
I am sure you heard a different story – you hear entirely different stories from the rest of us.
You here that the steele Dossier is real, and that the hunter Biden laptop is fake.
You bring these idiotic left wing conspiracy theories here,
You are debunked – both by people here using weell known facts and fairly basic logic,
But not unexpectedly eventually even the MSM must admit that what they claimed was true is false and visa versa.
People whose IQ is atleast as high as their age stop listening to liars when they have been exposed.
Why do you still listen to people who have lied to you over and over ?
Gigi says: “I heard a very different story…”
The quotes posted are first-hand, primary sourced. It was not the second or third hand fake news typically circulated from Democrats. The comments are the first-hand impression of the lefty billionaire who sat next to President Trump at a Silicon Valley fundraising dinner. He was impressed. He was surprised at how false is the media caricature of Trump….and how sharp, charismatic, engaging, informed, funny, polite, and kind Trump actually is in person.
The shite you “heard” is all lies. Everything posted on the Biden-Harris social media accounts is a lie. It’s remarkable, really, how much they lie, right out of the Oval. Blatant lying to the public. And not a peep of FACT CHECKING! to be heard. But of course not.
@EmeraldRobinson
2024 Election Math:
Trump has the People.
Biden has the CIA.
Biden has the FBI.
Biden has the NSA.
Biden has DHS.
Biden has the Pentagon.
Biden has the NGOs.
Biden has Hollywood.
Biden has Big Tech.
That’s why America is headed for chaos.
Biden doesn’t “have” any of these. Unlike Trump who doesn’t understand or doesn’t care how government works, Biden doesn’t use the power of the government for his own personal benefit. That’s just another MAGA media lie .
“No no no”
——Gigi’s best argument
Scroll down the page and answer for your previous lies, before moving on to your next, ya lying spastic kunt
I think we ALL understand how government works. How does a Senator afford multiple million dollar homes and millions of dollars from foreign countries? If a businessman gets the upper hand on an adversary, it’s business. When an elected official scams the Nation they are stealing from every one of us.
Gigi says: “Biden doesn’t use the power of the government for his own personal benefit.”
LOL. That’s all Biden has used the power of his political office for: Personal enrichment.
It’s the only “job” Joe Biden has ever had. And he thinks HE is our better, not that HE works for us.
It’s the entire Biden clan’s ONLY business: Selling Joe’s political office to the highest bidder.
All of the Biden’s are filthy rich and none of them have “real” jobs or careers. How could that be?
Biden’s Crime Family does “business” in the state of Delaware just like a mafia crime family.
You want a slam dunk RICO prosecution? Go after the Biden racketeering operation.
For 50 years, so-called “law enforcement” officials have overlooked or flatout protected Joe Biden and the rest of his filthy crime family.
From local to state to federal: Biden has been protected for decades. And still is, today.
The obvious illegality, corruption & criminality of the Biden family has consistently been overlooked by authorities charged with prosecuting actual crime and public corruption.
One has to wonder….why?
Where’s the proof? Why haven’t the Republicans been able to get any proof of crimes involving Joe Biden despite years of hearings and witnesses? Why do you believe accusations of corruption and crimes when there isn’t any actual proof? Why do you MAGAts believe the Big Lie when dozens of lawsuits, investigations and audits prove that Trump lost?
The proof is on the laptop that Biden lied about.
The FBI knows all about it. Prosecutors know all about it.
Biden lied on the debate stage, about his son and the laptop.
The debate fake moderators let Biden off the hook and never pressed him to answer any direct questions re his family corruption scandals.
The fake news lied about the laptop, calling it “right wing conspiracy”…
Lying 51 CIA spooks told the public it was “Russian disinformation.”
Biden’s lies and crimes are detailed all over Hunter’s laptop.
Biden knew all about his son’s “business” because Joe is the “business.”
Treasury dept. has nearly 200 SAR’s flagged on suspicious Biden bank transactions they did nothing about for YEARS.
The IRS has whistleblowers testifying to Biden crimes.
Tony Bobulinski has testified under oath as to Joe Biden’s direct involvement in the “family business” of corruption.
The Congressional committee has evidence of illegal shell companies, money laundering, wire fraud, tax evasion, and more. Why they are pulling their punches, we do not know.
MORE than enough evidence to impeach Biden 10x over.
“The Big Lie is that Biden “won” with 81 million “votes”…..no, he did not.
Where are Biden’s 81 million supporters? He can’t draw a crowd of more than a dozen snoozers unless he gets Obama and Hollywood useful idiots to be the draw.
The question is: why do you believe the Big Lie?
Gigi is a big lie because Gigi is Svelaz is Natacha is Wally is… a cartoon troll who just cant quit beating his stick because Gigi just cant get no satisfaction
And even Obama is no longer a big draw. People are on to what an empty suit, total fraud he is. They poll-tested Michelle’s favorability in the public and she also came up short.
The Black community is no longer buying the Obama okey-doke.
The corrupt establishment, deep state, Swamp, the Apparat — whatever you call it — is what props Joe Biden up and keeps him in place. The man is a corrupt, compromised, dangerous authoritarian, a traitor, a liar, a criminal, and a POS scumbag politician who belongs in prison – not the Oval Office.
The 2020 election has never been fully investigated, audited or adjudicated. That is a fact.
They know it was stolen.
The reasons to not fully audit or investigate are obvious.
The propaganda news is fake.
The deep state is real.
If these people looked white to you it’s time for you to visit your eye doctor:
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1802123879227572515
In this case, it’s spelled “integrity”–or connecticut–pure leftist self-glorifying bunk! To look at nyc, they put on heavy blinders, on PURPOSE.
LIAR
I was at the rally. There were thousands of black people there.
Until the state bars and their leadership are made to feel pain directly and personally, they will continue their reign of error and criminality.
Maggie Castinado
President,
Connecticut Bar Association
Emily A. Gianquinto
Vice President,
Connecticut Bar Association
There’s your problem.
I guess this is who you are talking about:
https://www.ctbar.org/about/governance/2023-2024-cba-officers
“Import the Third World and you get a banana republic.”
Can we criticize the Connecticut Bar Association?
They should at least take off their Hakencreuz armbands before issuing ‘advice’ like this.
I have a feeling I speak for many here who implore Prof. Turley to upgrade his comments section to using Disqus or at least what Ann Althouse has. With all the chickenbleep “Anonymous” comments no one can tell Who’s on First. We lose track of the sources of the idiocy—or the brilliance, for that matter. There’s no ability to follow a thread, as there ARE no threads. So…please disallow anonymous comments, and require everyone to use a moniker.
Yes, the bots, shills, and weirdos might hide their Disqus comments, but that’s generally a sign they are bots, shills and weirdos.
There are threads. At least, I can see them, though they’re very subtly marked by a slight indent and it took me a little while to realize that because the indents are so small. As for the anonymous postings, that’s a failure (perhaps intentional) on the part of the posters to log into WordPress and click on the login as they post. Admittedly, it’s rather opaque, but the features are there. (Your post, for instance, is anonymous.) Given Prof. Turley’s stance on free speech, perhaps he thinks that anonymity is acceptable in view of the way many people are treated when they post unpopular views. Or perhaps it’s that he doesn’t want to lose some of his site’s history or back-end features by migrating to a different site host.
“‘No Place in the Public Discourse’: The Connecticut Bar Association Warns Critics of Trump Prosecutions”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Certainly, the stain of the Democratic Party’s conspiratorial, kangaroo court, Soviet-style, show trials of President Donald J. Trump will live forever in infamy throughout American history.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
But one monumental example: Lincoln must have been immediately struck down when he imposed his unconstitutional denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession.
Southern states would have separated, failed, and reunited; slavery would have “withered on the vine” and dissipated, finally providing the long-suffering African abductees with fair, deserved, and compassionate repatriation per extant immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, which, incidentally, was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.
Rather than imposing Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction of a Social World,” the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have retained dominion and prevailed; the communist American welfare state would have never been “Progressively” spawned and would not exist today.
Freedom, private property, free enterprise, free markets, and self-regulation would have persisted to this day.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had the correct impulse when he struck down Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
Unfortunately, Taney’s fidelity was too little too late.
Manhattan Had To Prosecute ⁹
In 2018 Michael Cohen stood trial on various counts of tax evasion and business fraud. Donald Trump’s name came up repeatedly in testimony.
Therefore it was widely felt that Trump was implicated by Cohen’s case. And the Manhattan DA had to decide if Trump should be charged.
From the Manhattan D.A.’s standpoint, it’s a tough decision. ‘Declining’ to prosecute Trump could be seen as chicken sh1t by New York locals. Most of whom felt that Trump had hood-winked all the rubes.
That’s what actually happened! Trump was the New Yorker who conned small town Christians. Those Christians, in return, made Trump president.
Back in New York they’re all saying, “Trump’s got those yahoos believing he’s a ‘business genius’. Let’s show the world how Trump ran his businesses”.
Who gives a shit? Trumps a dirtbag. Biden is a dirtbag.
Those yahoos dont give a rats ass how Trump ran his businesses.
Its the country, stupid.
How did Bill Gates, Barry Bonds, and P. Diddy make their money?
How did Joe Biden?? How did Hunter Biden?? How did the Clintons?? How did the Obamas?? And don’t tell me they all got rich selling their books that nobody bought. They went from broke to richer than they could ever imagine. There aren’t enough books in the world to sell enough to live like the kings and queens in America live today…
“Manhattan Had To Prosecute?”
When the Federal Election Commission didn’t have to prosecute?
In 2016 or right in the midst of the 2024 Presidential Election Year?
Manhattan had to prosecute when, Einstein?
Notice the superscript 9 after the word prosecute, but there’s no footnote to go with it. Clearly it was a case of copy-pasta.
George aka Svelaz,
in order to circumvent the requirement that a POTUS and VP can’t both be residents of the same state,—Gigi, who says she is an attorney, but George says is not
Do you concur with Gigi, that the 12th Amendment prohibits the POTUS and VP from being residents of the same state??
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/03/trumps-12th-amendment-problem-the-vp-short-list-has-a-residency-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-2394496
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
Themselves refers to electors.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but the CT Bar Association is a voluntary organization. It is not the actual CT Bar that governs the behavior of its member attorneys. It can differ from state to state, but the Bar Associations in NY and NJ are also voluntary. They’re basically professional clubs that you can belong to, along the lines of your county bar association. I’m not surprised that they issued a garbage letter like this to their members. Even presuming that many of their governing body were in agreement, I would have been shocked if the actual CT Bar had done so. State bars try to walk an apolitical line for a variety of reasons.
“Shut up,” the CBA explained.
Its not like the CT Bar subscribes to an ethics pledge.
🤡
SITE SEARCH
You searched for: ethics and pledge
No records matched your search criteria
https://members.ctbar.org/search/all.asp?bst=ethics+pledge
I am not a lawyer or even a white collar worker. just a blue collar worker that cuts trees for a living.
I am not a republican or a democrat. I am not a conservative or a liberal.
I am not a Trump supporter or a Trump hater. I didn’t vote for Trump and I didn’t vote for Biden.
I am one of the few actual unbiased, the true independent who has no ax to grind.
I am the Canary in the Coal mine.
And if even I can clearly and plainly see this prosecution was nothing more than a blatant politically motivated abuse of our justice system and probably the worst one I’ve ever seen in my 63 years of living, and a miserably transparent attempt to alter the election and keep the front runner out of the race, … then ANYONE can.
And anyone who can’t is lying to themselves and everyone they talk to.
DEMOCRACY AS A RESTRICTED-VOTE REPUBLIC OR THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION.
__________________________________
Speaking of lying, you are lying to yourself and everyone you talk to.
One may only support the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a conservative.
The sole alternative is to support the Communist Manifesto as a liberal.
There is no such thing as a viable independent.
Independents lose, for good and obvious reasons, and are incoherent, illegitimate, and politically suicidal.
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George W. Bush
You’ve been nonstop running your mouth in this blog for the last 20 years and you still don’t understand the meaning of the word “independent”.
Like the partisan lemming that you are, you try to weasel my statement of independence as being in one of your pathetic categories of partisans.
There may be an independent party son, but I ain’t part if.
Every word in the English language cannot be distilled down to a political party.
Independence means I don’t drink the urine that you call water. And if you’re stupid that you think “winning” overrides free thinking, then that’s why you’ll always be a bootlicker.
Just like both sides, too stupid to stand up for principal and always ready to stick your nose up the rear end of the dumb animal in front of you, as long as he’s wearing your colors.
PS, I wasn’t logged into wordpress so for the record this post is by me, Chris Weber. I sign my words.
Chris Weber: Well said!
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.