Last week’s indictment of Donald Trump, engineered by a hard-Left partisan Manhattan D.A. who had made his intentions known when he was running for office, didn’t change any of the ethical calculations here that were recorded when that indictment seemed imminent almost two weeks ago, or in the update, when it appeared that Alvin Bragg might have lost his nerve and decided to be an ethical prosecutor after all, here. I reviewed both posts to see if I would change anything, and I would not, but the final line of the March 18 essay still resonates: “The indictment will remind people of why he won in the first place.” Bragg’s exercise in politically-driven law enforcement will drive far more voters to Trump than it strips away. This makes his actions as politically and pragmatically irresponsible as they seem to be legally and ethically indefensible.
It is necessary to include the caveat “seem to be” because we haven’t seen the indictment yet. Maybe Bragg has legitimate cause (other than “he’s a bad guy and must have done something illegal”) to bring criminal charges against the ex-President, though virtually no unbiased legal analyst with any legitimacy thinks that’s likely. If he does, then his pursuit of Trump may be unwise, and its passion may be fueled by bias, but it is not unethical.
From another perspective, however, even if there were valid and legitimate reasons to charge Trump in this case—and I will be surprised if there are—if there ever were a situation where prosecutorial discretion and restraint were screamingly called for, this is it. The ripples and waves emanating from this indictment and, heaven help us, the arrest and trial will cause so much havoc in our political system, legal precedents, societal divisions, and national discourse that it cannot even be quantified or predicted. They could easily result in Donald Trump being elected again, or arguably worse still, in Joe Biden being re-elected. Whatever happens as a result of Bragg’s conduct, it is certain to be bad for everyone except, maybe, the fanatical Trump Deranged, who have already demonstrated a willingness to destroy the Constitution, the Rules of Law, democratic institutions and ethical standards to get their prey.
Also:
1. Both Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy have written sharp, informative and invaluable explanations regarding why the indictment is—probably—indefensible and a disaster in the making. You should read both; everyone should. Anything I write would be a lesser summary of their more erudite analysis. Turley’s latest is here. McCarthy’s analyses are here and here. McCarthy’s National Review piece is the best of the batch. He writes in part,
Bragg is an unabashed progressive prosecutor whose overarching approach to his job is to minimize resort to criminal prosecution for the resolution of offenses. With defendants who commit serious crimes, Bragg’s practice is to use his charging authority to avoid accusing them of offenses that would require incarceration sentences, and to minimize the number of offenders who are in state custody.
In Trump’s case, though, out of blatant partisanship, Bragg is indicting on a trifling offense that he would never otherwise charge in order to taint the Democrats’ archnemesis as a criminal….
The rule of law hinges on the public’s acceptance of the justice system’s outcomes as legitimate. If the American people become convinced that the justice system is a rigged partisan game in which progressive Democrats exploit their control of law-enforcement processes as a weapon against their enemies — even as progressive prosecutors refuse to enforce the laws against actual criminals who prey on society — then the rule of law is dead.
If that happens, then we’re left with the law of the jungle. A two-tiered justice system is no justice at all.
No one, including a former president and current presidential candidate, is above the law. But no one is below the law either. If a former president is going to be prosecuted, it should only be based on a criminal offense that passes the eye test: a very serious crime that any other American would be indicted for, and that is based on convincing evidence. Maybe a crime arising out of the Capitol riot, the attempted coup relating to the 2020 election, or the irresponsible retention of government intelligence at Mar-a-Lago (and the obstruction of the resulting grand-jury investigation) rise to that level. The Stormy Daniels caper does not.
Alvin Bragg is playing with fire.
2. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz agrees with Turley and McCarthy. ”It really endangers the rule of law for all Americans,” he warned. “Today, it’s Trump; tomorrow, it’s a Democrat. The day after tomorrow, it’s your uncle Charlie, or your niece, or your nephew.” He is also calling the indictment of Donald Trump the “worst case of prosecutorial abuse I have ever seen” and saying that a “a first-year law student could win this case.” Of course, the progressive lawyer who embarrasses the legal profession weekly on “The View” says its a “slam dunk case, so maybe one of the U.S.’s most prominent criminal law practitioners is wrong. Dershowitz also had this to say about Michael Cohen, the disbarred Trump fixer who appears to be one of Bragg’s key witnesses:
Let me tell you about Michael Cohen. He’s not through with his problems. He just tweeted about me, saying that because I had attacked his credibility that I was involved with underaged girls on Epstein’s Island. I’m about to sue him now for defamation… Normally I would not sue someone for writing this kind of nonsense, but this is Michael Cohen, who’s about to try to prevent Donald Trump from running for president of the United States and I’m going to sue him for defamation and not let him get away with that. And when I sue him, I will be able to prove his repeated lies because he can’t refuse to testify in a civil case. So his problems are just beginning. I’m going to make it a little easier for Joe Tacopina to cross-examine him…
3. Wait…is it really ethical for a lawyer to file a defamation suit in order to assist the defense of a defendant in an unrelated criminal case…especially when he says that he wouldn’t sue anyone else for the same statements?
4. The only network that invites Turley, Dershowitz or McCarthy to illuminate such matters is Fox News. If they have any choice in the matter, it is foolish for them not to make their points on CNN, MSNBC, NPR and the rest where the audiences who are being misled and confused on the issues tedn to hang out. I suspect that the three legal experts do not have any choice, and that the left-end of the mainstream media won’t give them a forum. Meanwhile, appearing only on Fox undermined their credibility.
5. I have many reactions to the unethical tweet of the month on the indictment:
- Pelosi’s not a lawyer, but she is a law-maker, and her false characterization of the rights of citizens is signature significance. Her words out her as a leftist totalitarian: in Pelosi’s uncontitutional version of America, citizens have to prove they are innocent, and the burden of proof is on the accused, not the State. This is indeed the attitude she and the political party she led in the House approached their attempted over-throw of an elected President.
- I have mentioned this before: Democrats are ethically estopped from saying “No one is above the law.” Democrats from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton to Eric Holder, James Comey, Lois Lerner and Joe Biden have broken laws, some of them felonies, others enshrined in the Constitution, with no adverse consequences whatsoever. Then, of course, there is party icon Ted Kennedy, for whom “The King’s Pass” in Massachusetts constituted a lifetime “Get Out of Jail Free” card for manslaughter. Anyone Democrat who says “No one is above the law” should be asked, on the spot, to justify Ted or to concede in public, “Yes, Ted Kennedy should have been tried for homicide.”
- Pelosi cannot state that the grand jury “acted on the facts and the law,” as the three lawyers I cited have made quite clear.
6. Ethics Dunce: Asa Hutchinson The two term governor of Arkansas, announced today that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination. Hutchinson also said Trump should drop out of the race, arguing that “the office is more important than any individual person.” Thus Hutchinson believes that a political party should be able to knock out a feared adversary by having dubious charges filed against him (or her). Or does this principle only apply to Donald Trump?
Ethics Alarms 
Nice to see “prosecutorial discretion” finally appear in a piece about the Bragg Fiasco. Another concept that seems to get too little play is “statute of limitations.”
All this insanity following the 2016 defeat of St. Hillary needs to be labeled as something along the lines of “the Trump Affair.” He’s a scapegoat like Dreyfus. My particular favorite insanity is saying it’s all attributable to Trump’s being atypical. It’s all Trump’s fault. If he’d just behave and be normal, none of this would have had to happen.
Classic, “He had it coming.”
It’s like you can’t even pay off a porn star before an election in order to influence that election, lie about it, let your right-hand man get arrested and plead guilty for it, then find out you might still be prosecuted for it, threaten that your supporters will commit violence if you do get prosecuted for it, publicly degrade the prosecutor and then essentially dare the grand jury to indict you…
…Without getting indicted and then having people say you had it coming.
If this can happen to Trump, it could happen to anyone!
None of that is a crime.
So why did Michael Cohen plead guilty to making the payments if that wasn’t a crime?
Some conservative sources have claimed Bragg was funded by Soros. Some leftist sources have said Soros denies contributing to Bragg.
Both may be true to some degree; Soros generally does his dirty work through intermediaries, some of which he has created himself. In this case, he has given $1 mil to this racist, cop-hating organization, which later funded Bragg:
https://twitter.com/votingwhileblk?lang=en
The decarceration movement seems to be based on the belief that every convict must be believed when they say they “didn’t do it.”
What? No it doesn’t. Why would you think that?
I’ll predict that when the indictment is unsealed and the charges read, it will be a breathtaking number of mostly nonsensical charges. The hope being that when you throw you you what against a wall, at least one should stick. Besides, with the prospect of a highly partisan anti Trump jury that will assure conviction despite evidence to the contrary, Bragg will vigorously resist a change of venue.
With a conviction that will certainly be overturned, Bragg will bask in his brief spotlight of infamy pleased he was able to carry out his bosses’ orders.
You say that “virtually no unbiased legal analyst with any legitimacy” thinks it’s likely the charges are warranted, and then you cite McCarthy, Turley, and Dershowitz, showing you have absolutely no idea who is considered unbiased and legitimate in legal circles. All three already had dubious reputations prior to the Trump era, and then utterly disgraced themselves during it with the absurd double standards they employed to defend Trump. (Dershowitz is also an accuse pedophile.) None are considered reputable outside of right-wing, pro-Trump circles, such as this blog .
I’d love to see what you consider evidence of “dubious reputations” by those three. I presume by “dubious” you mean “not inclined to follow the Trump Deranged herd despite basic law and ethics.” Turley inflamed the Left by properly explaining why both impeachments were garbage, which they were by all previous standards and precedents. Dershowitz is a liberal icon who refuses to compromise his integrity. McCarthy is always spot on regarding prosecution matters, and is hardly a Trump fan. I guess if you consider Elie Mystal or Jeffrey Toobin “unbiased,” you have a point in your jaundiced eyes.
Well, since you asked.
Neither impeachment was “garbage”–even McCarthy, who opposed the first impeachment (after arguing for years that Obama should be impeached based on policy disagreements), admitted that Trump committed an impeachable offense on January 6th. He also admitted, after hearing testimony from the J6 hearings, that Trump may have committed incitement and obstruction. Points awarded to him for that, and taken away for now trying to appeal to the crowd who favored this kind of deranged nutbaggery:
“During the presidency of Barack Obama, McCarthy characterized Obama as a radical and a socialist, and authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a “Sharia Agenda”. He authored another book calling for Obama’s impeachment. He defended false claims that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels”, and promoted a conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama’s autobiography Dreams from My Father.[6][7]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
You can’t say the impeachments were garbage based on “all previous standards and precedents” because there was no precedent for any of the charges Trump was accused of. No other president had ever been caught on tape using approved taxpayer funds for military aid as leverage to get his most feared political opponent investigated by a foreign government, and no other president had ever refused to concede his election loss, resulting in a mob storming the Capitol in order to stop that same political opponent from taking office. Many arguments were made that neither of these actions (actions which, at least as I described them here, uncontestably occurred) were not impeachable, but appealing to “previous standards and precedents” to support those arguments is nonsensical. So if that was all Turley had done, he’d be an idiot. But that’s hardly the extent of his absurd arguments: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/what-happened-to-jonathan-turley-really.html
I like Elie Mystal but definitely don’t consider him “unbiased.” All I know about Toobin is the jerk-off story, which should have ended his career. Maybe you’ll find Ken White more to your liking (although full disclosure, that might be my own bias speaking, as Ken has represented me pro bono in a minor legal matter):
https://www.popehat.com/2018/12/18/alan-dershowitz-is-lying-to-you/
https://www.popehat.com/2019/01/04/alan-dershowitz-is-still-lying-to-you/
But Dershowitz hasn’t been a “liberal icon” for a long, long time, and like with Turley, just saying that he is–or pointing to his pre-Trump-era record–is as fallacious as calling Jen Rubin a Republican stalwart. There is an entire cottage industry of “liberals who tell conservatives what they want to hear,” just as there is the reverse. But these appeals to authority don’t work outside the right-wing echo chamber and if you don’t know that, you don’t get out of it enough.
Whew! Well:
1. Both impeachments were indeed garbage, the first because what Trump was impeached for was no different from long established chief executive practices of using financial aid to press for actions that POTUS wants to see a,d it was devised in a clear-cut long-running effort to find something to impeach him on while Democrats had the vote. The second was garbage because of how it was handled, with no real hearings, no witnesses, none of the procedures that had been automatic before, a “snap” impeachment, as Turley called it, correctly.
2. You can’t simultaneously try to discredit McCarthy’s independence and objectivity while citing it, speaking of “seriously?” I think the “incitement” case is really, really weak, and I was shocked that he seems to give it credence. I wrote here that Trump’s handling of his objections to the election was unethical, wrong and dangerous—I don’t think you can impeach on what he did, but at least its a theory that could be debated.
3. Slate is no more of a trustworthy arbiter than Breitbart, in this period of its devolution. Constitutional provisions like impeachment have guardrails set by precedent and tradition. All impeachments are different; that doesn’t mean that established standards don’t apply. Turley’s historical and legal analysis is definitely not based on partisanship, and by my lights as a student of the Presidency since before college, a lawyer and an ethicist, seem spot on.
4. How in the world can you or anyone “like” Ellie Mystal (though I’m sure he’d be a fun bar-hopping companion) , who is, as far as I can see, clinically addled by racial hatred and fury? I also have had pro bono assistance from Ken, whom I admired, recommended and followed religiously until his hatred of Trump—surely for understandable reasons, but I expected him to be able to get beyond it—made him untrustworthy.
5. I’m not a Dersh fan at all. I remember those posts by Ken, which are correct: Dershowitz confused what the law is and what the laws should be. That’s the Professor’s defense attorney bias. Ken’s right, Dershowitz was wrong, not for the first time. He is still a reliable analyst on most legal topics, and not a conservative or Republican in a left-biased profession (two, in fact, academia and the law) that has become frighteningly politicized mostly in one direction since 2016 (hence the rot in the ABA.) There is no benefit to him in defending Trump in this matter: by John Adams’ test—a position is only truly ethical if one knows it will hurt the position-holder–Dershowitz is a trustworthy authority.
6. But my calling him a progressive icon was wrong and stupid; on that, you are right, and I retract it.
“1. Both impeachments were indeed garbage, the first because what Trump was impeached for was no different from long established chief executive practices of using financial aid to press for actions that POTUS wants to see”
“Actions that POTUS wants to see” is a deliberately vague summary that ignores the actual impeachable conduct. This wasn’t a policy move, this was abusing US policy for no other purpose further his political career and hurt the political career of another. That he used Rudy, his personal lawyer, as the point-man in this campaign (it was more than just one call) proves this. Generally, when US presidents do this, it’s to further their vision of the national interest. Not for blatant political gain. That is corruption, in the moral if not legal sense. If there have been other such corrupt actions by presidents that were not impeached, that doesn’t mean this one shouldn’t be, only that the political will wasn’t there to do so at the time.
If another president lies under oath in the future, the fact that Bill Clinton wasn’t ultimately removed for it doesn’t ethically or logically imply that the next president shouldn’t be.
“it was devised in a clear-cut long-running effort to find something to impeach him on while Democrats had the vote.”
See above, re: Clinton. Was his impeachment unethical or illegitimate for the same reason? “We looked for a crime, and then found one” is not an argument that the criminal should get away with it!
“The second was garbage because of how it was handled, with no real hearings, no witnesses, none of the procedures that had been automatic before, a “snap” impeachment, as Turley called it, correctly.”
These are thin excuses. The actions Trump was impeached for occurred in full view of the entire world. More facts have come forward during the January 6th hearings–which I am told you also opposed–but the main issue, that Trump falsely claimed he won an election when he did not, leading to his supporters storming the Capitol in an attempt to get Mike Pence to “overturn the election” (Trump’s words), were not in dispute. That’s why Trump received more votes to convict and remove than any previous impeached president. The reason he didn’t get all of them is because most Republicans cowardly refused to act on what they knew to be true. Extending the trial out would not have changed this. With the way Republicans have created a counter-narrative since, with people like Kevin McCarthy completely taking back their previous criticism of Trump and his culpability for the event, it only would have given them more time to come up with excuses.
The reason it was “rushed” is because Democrats didn’t want to wait until Trump was no longer president to impeach him, at which point the exact same people complaining it was rushed would be complaining it was pointless or unfair to impeach him after his term was over. Tell me, if they tried another impeachment today, and took their time with it–with witnesses and hearings–would you support that impeachment? I doubt it, but maybe you’ll surprise me.
“2. You can’t simultaneously try to discredit McCarthy’s independence and objectivity while citing it, speaking of “seriously?””
I was citing times when he was independent and objective as the exception. The knee-jerk defense of Trump is the return to form.
“I think the “incitement” case is really, really weak, and I was shocked that he seems to give it credence. I wrote here that Trump’s handling of his objections to the election was unethical, wrong and dangerous—I don’t think you can impeach on what he did, but at least its a theory that could be debated.”
Well we know you can impeach on what he did, because he was impeached. You can impeach on anything. He wasn’t convicted, because Republicans didn’t care about the evidence.
“3. Slate is no more of a trustworthy arbiter than Breitbart, in this period of its devolution.”
I don’t agree, but I’d be curious to see what you’d have to say about their specific criticisms of Turley.
“Constitutional provisions like impeachment have guardrails set by precedent and tradition. All impeachments are different; that doesn’t mean that established standards don’t apply.”
There is almost no precedent when it comes to impeachment and absolutely no precedent for conviction and removal, despite loads of impeachable conduct by numerous presidents of both parties. Holding to “precedent” on this issue leads to a ton of unethical conduct, as presidents are safe in the knowledge that they won’t be held accountable for it, going unpunished. This is doubly true now due to our incredibly divided times.
“Turley’s historical and legal analysis is definitely not based on partisanship, and by my lights as a student of the Presidency since before college, a lawyer and an ethicist, seem spot on.”
It’s not based on partisanship, it’s based on what gets him on TV. That’s why he’s appearing on Fox News so much. The exact same thing is true for McCarthy and Dershowitz. They feed off of attention, and putting a respectable gloss on Trumpism to make Republicans feel better about electing a deranged buffoon to the highest office in the land is a really good way to do that.
” I also have had pro bono assistance from Ken, whom I admired, recommended and followed religiously until his hatred of Trump—surely for understandable reasons, but I expected him to be able to get beyond it—made him untrustworthy.”
Can you give an example of when Ken’s hatred for Trump made him “untrustworthy?”
“I’m not a Dersh fan at all. I remember those posts by Ken, which are correct: Dershowitz confused what the law is and what the laws should be. That’s the Professor’s defense attorney bias. Ken’s right, Dershowitz was wrong, not for the first time. He is still a reliable analyst on most legal topics, and not a conservative or Republican in a left-biased profession (two, in fact, academia and the law) that has become frighteningly politicized mostly in one direction since 2016 (hence the rot in the ABA.) There is no benefit to him in defending Trump in this matter: by John Adams’ test—a position is only truly ethical if one knows it will hurt the position-holder–Dershowitz is a trustworthy authority.”
This position doesn’t hurt him in the slightest. You already said he only appears on Fox News these days; how does defending Trump hurt him with that audience? He’s already lost the liberals. This is his lane now. And he’s not reliable on this for the same reason he wasn’t reliable about his false claims on the law regarding Michael Flynn lying to the FBI: because he’s a knee-jerk Trump defender. He’s mad that no one at Martha’s Vineyard invites him to parties anymore, and he shares his anger at elites who are cooler than him with Trump. It seems to be the one universal, unifying factor among Trump and his supporters that I can see: contempt for elites. The “elites” who don’t fit in among the other elites, like Trump himself, are among the most susceptible to this phenomenon. The liberals and the Democrats and the lawyers and judges who academics who all think Trump is guilty must be wrong, because they’re liberals/Democrats/lawyers/judges/academics. Many such cases!
“6. But my calling him a progressive icon was wrong and stupid; on that, you are right, and I retract it.”
Thanks!
And, as the Hunter Biden l;aptop proved, there was far more than enough probab le cause.
It was righteous payback for all the false claims that he lost the 2016 election.
Surely you have heard the concept of payback.
In anty event, tghere is no casuality between these false claims and the Capitol Riot.
So how would you change precedent on this issue, wuthout making sure it is not selectively applied?
“And, as the Hunter Biden l;aptop proved, there was far more than enough probab le cause.”
No, the laptop did not prove that. (Also, “probable cause” isn’t retroactive.)
“It was righteous payback for all the false claims that he lost the 2016 election.”
Who claimed he lost the 2016 election? Quote them. Many said the win was due to Russian interference (likely an exaggeration), and many pointed to the fact he lost the popular vote. But I have never heard anyone say he “lost the 2016 election.” Certainly Biden never said that. (And an ethics blog is a weird place to endorse the concept of “payback” in such a serious matter.)
“In anty event, tghere is no casuality between these false claims and the Capitol Riot.”
Absurd. Now I know not to take anything you ever say seriously again.
The false claims were that Trump won the election and that Mike Pence had the right to refuse to certify the votes on January 6th so that he could stay in power. The Capitol Riot happened because…the rioters believed Trump won the election and were trying to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to certify the votes so that Trump could stay in power.
The connection is obvious and clear. You’re just…lying, right? Like there’s no way you actually believe there was no connection.
I can’t be the only one here who finds Michael’s claim here to be a ridiculous lie, right?
“So how would you change precedent on this issue, wuthout making sure it is not selectively applied?”
I don’t understand this question, largely because it’s meaningless. But anyway, I’m not going to engage with an insane person or a liar, so please concede that you were wrong to say that there was no connection between Trump’s false claims and the Capitol Riot and then maybe we can start afresh. (Probably not, I’ll never be able to forget someone saying something that stupid.)
Look up the definition of “probable cause”.
President Jimmy Carter.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/jimmy-carter-russia-investigation-trump-lost-1387634
Read the full article, so you could be suitably ashamed.
Of course, payback is justified.
Those false claims were payb ack for the Steele dossier and the whole “Trump colluded with Russia®™ to Steal the 2016 Electioon” propaganda campaign.
That is exactly like writing that the riots in Minneapolis, Kenosha, and Portland happened because..the rioters beleived that the police habitually gun down unarmed Black men.
Should Patrice Cullors, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and Charles M. Blow be prosecuted for incitement?
Again, it is like arguing that chanting #HandsUpDontShoot caused the riots in Minneapolis, Portland, and Kenosha.
do you really want to go there?
There was no connection, any more than the attempt to burn down the copurthouse in Portland was connected to the whole #handUpDontShoot defamation campaign.
Falsely claiming that Joe Biden lost the election is justified “payback” because…Jimmy Carter said Trump lost the election? And I’m supposed to be “ashamed” for not remembering that? You know that Joe Biden is not Jimmy Carter, right?
You clearly believe that prominent Black Lives Matter supporters are responsible for riots for bringing attention to police brutality against black people (which is a serious issue that is sometimes exaggerated—unlike the completely false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election)—so why are you pretending not to? You’re just lying. You may be the most politically biased person I’ve ever encountered, deflecting every bad action by Trump toward completely unrelated bad actions by people on the left you’re mad at. Completely clouded by hatred. Get help.
Only the ones who actually rioted.
I too would like to know how Ken White is untrustworthy. Any time I’ve listened or read him, he’s given unbiased and balanced analysis with no emotion and very professional.
Any examples?
I replied to this with quite a few links to back up my criticism of Dersh et al. but that comment isn’t posting, even though a later one did. Just letting you know in case it’s caught in a spam filter.
It is. I just rescued it. Always let me know if that happens.
Thanks, though I still don’t see it.
I’m blowing most of the nonsense you write off because I personally think you’re a biased political hack that trolling this site trying to prove a point that you can go toe-to-toe with people around here. How’s that going for you.
This point I’m not going to allow to fester in this commentary unchallenged by me.
Seriously wrote, “Dershowitz is also an accuse pedophile.”
Maybe you’re too damned busy bashing those you ideologically disagree with, because of your Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), to actually notice that that accusation was withdrawn because the claim was a f’ing lie. At the time the accuser said Dershowitz was doing her, Dershowitz was physically on the other side of the country. Yup, but the leftist social justice hacks made sure that Dershowitz was guilty until proven innocent and you still seem to think he’s somehow guilty because he was accused based on your ignorant smear, it appears that you’re gullible. The entire thing was a lie concocted to undermine the credibility of Dershowitz, and Dershowitz nailed the accuser for the lies using actual facts. In my opinion Dershowitz was far to forgiving of the accuser, he should sue her for defamation because it’s absolutely clear that there are ignorant fools, like you, out there still think he’s a pedophile; Dershowitz’s reputation has been permanently damaged by the pedophile lies and you’re an ignorant TDS parroting those lies.
I suspect that Dershowitz became a demon in your mind, like he did in the minds of other ignorant anti-Trump biased fools, after he defended the United States Constitution in the first Trump Impeachment Senate hearing and it just so happened that the Constitution was the ace in the hole on Trump’s side. The Democrats rammed an unconstitutional impeachment through for political purposes, they’re unethical and immoral hacks, and I bet you were applauding the Democrat’s impeachment. You probably believe all the anti-Trump propaganda that’s been spewed out since 2016.
There is something very, very familiar with your unique discussion tactics, I’ve seen it before. I’ve narrowed down the patterns and now all I have to do is search my commentary database and match that unique set of patterns to the progressive hack that’s behind the facade. Oh don’t you worry, I’m not a person that will unmask the identity, but I’ll know and it could have rhetorical consequences elsewhere.
Sleep well in that ideological bubble you’ve erected around you.
“i>I’m blowing most of the nonsense you write off because I personally think you’re a biased political hack that trolling this site trying to prove a point that you can go toe-to-toe with people around here.”
Heh! Whoever thought a…um…passing observation of ““The last (only?) time you visited EA, you got yer @$$ embarrassingly handed to you in tiny pieces by the estimable Humble Talent would embed such a wild hair SO_UNCOMFORTABLY_FAR up someone’s @$$…..?
Paul W. Schlecht wrote, “Heh! Whoever thought a…um…passing observation of “ “The last (only?) time you visited EA, you got yer @$$ embarrassingly handed to you in tiny pieces by the estimable Humble Talent would embed such a wild hair SO_UNCOMFORTABLY_FAR up someone’s @$$…..?”
That’s a very “interesting” correlation.
“ From another perspective, however, even if there were valid and legitimate reasons to charge Trump in this case—and I will be surprised if there are”
Why would you be surprised if there was a legitimate reason to charge Trump?
Because in this matter, it involves allegations that were already determined to be insufficient by the Justice Department and, previously, Bragg himself; because the statute of limitations has probably run, and because so far, at least, there doesn’t seem to be any there there. I would never be surprised to find that Trump has committed other criminal acts, but Bragg has been focusing on a rich guy paying women to keep quiet about their affair. That’s not illegal. Did you bother to read McCarthy or Turley before writing that comment? I’m guessing not.
If the payments were not illegal, why did Michael Cohen plead guilty to them?
So people never plead guolty to acts which are not crimes?
Ever?
Michael Cohen did. It happens frequently.
Any other examples?
I’ve heard of people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit, but I’ve never heard of people pleading guilty to things that are not crimes. Can you give some other examples?
“So people never plead guolty to acts which are not crimes?
Ever?”
I don’t know, do they? If so, give examples.
I just dont understand how you can make a comment that “there’s no legit reason to charge Trump” without seeing the indictment yet.
But then you say “ I would never be surprised to find that Trump has committed other criminal acts”
Because Trump may be a criminal, but at least he isn’t a Democrat.
Did you read the post? What part of “It is necessary to include the caveat “seem to be” because we haven’t seen the indictment yet. Maybe Bragg has legitimate cause (other than “he’s a bad guy and must have done something illegal”) to bring criminal charges against the ex-President, though virtually no unbiased legal analyst with any legitimacy thinks that’s likely. If he does, then his pursuit of Trump may be unwise, and its passion may be fueled by bias, but it is not unethical” confuses you? I didn’t say there was no legitimate reason to charge Trump. (Please check the Commenting rules regarding my attitude toward putting words in my metaphorical mouth that I didn’t say.) I wrote that in the context of what we know Bragg’s focus to be before seeing the actual indictment, I find it unlikely.
Ok, but then you follow that up with another caveat, essentially negating your previous caveat, by saying “no one thinks that’s likely” for there to be legit charges against Trump.
So you and the other people you’re quoting are passing judgment on a case you can’t even read yet.
You can’t evaluate an indictment without access to it.
And who, like me, have said they can’t be sure until they read it. And neither I nor they have claimed to evaluate the indictment. I, and they, can evaluate what we do know—like the fact that a convicted liar and the worst witness imaginable appears to be linchpin in the charges, the fact that Bragg promised to get Trump on something as a campaign promise (which is promising to engage in unethical prosecution practices) and more–to conclude that a legitimate charge is unlikely to come out of such slime.
“like the fact that a convicted liar and the worst witness imaginable appears to be linchpin in the charges”
For whom was he lying when he was convicted?
What else was he charged with that might be relevant to this case?
“Bragg promised to get Trump on something as a campaign promise (which is promising to engage in unethical prosecution practices)”
It’s not unethical to prosecute someone if you have evidence they’ve committed the crime for which you are prosecuting them. Bragg had successfully sued Trump before, and likely had good reason to know that such evidence existed before now.
Please engage honestly. Cohen is a convicted liar and disbarred lawyer. It doesn’t matter for whom and about what. He’s an untrustworthy witness. As for Bragg, it is unethical to look for a crime to convict a target. Simple as that.
Wait…do you consider all convicted criminals as untrustworthy witnesses.
Does this go for ex-mafia members or gang members testifying against their ilk?
“Cohen is a convicted liar and disbarred lawyer. It doesn’t matter for whom and about what.”
When he was lying on behalf of Trump in the exact matter for which Trump is currently being prosecuted, of course that matters to the question of whether Trump himself should be prosecuted.
“He’s an untrustworthy witness.”
True! His testimony against the person he was originally working for is also worth looking into, and if looking into that bears fruit, it should be pursued. There’s no contradiction here. Prosecutors turn unreliable witnesses on their bosses all the time. Sometimes that produces results, sometimes it doesn’t. There’s no rule against it, legally or ethically.
“As for Bragg, it is unethical to look for a crime to convict a target. Simple as that.”
That is not what I said he did.
You’re not evaluating the indictment?
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
“…Unlikely a legitimate charge will come out of such slime”
You don’t have access to the charges, you have no idea what in the indictment. You have no idea what the charges are.
Shouldn’t you reserve judgment until you read it?
Anonymous \sourc es quoted by the New York Times claim it is about the whole hush money to Stormy Daniels. Bragg’s office did not deny it.
Are you under the impression this is about some Madoff-type scam? Or what happened on Epstein Island?
No one knows what the exact charges are in the indictment.
So it’s impossible to make a judgment on an indictment you haven’t read yet.
Not impossible if the goal is to discredit the indictment before anyone knows the details, so that when they come out, the well will have already been poisoned.
.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t see anything in the AP article to indicate that the indictment is why Hutchinson thinks Trump should drop out of the race. I’ll grant the timing of his announcement seems opportunistic, but the statements he made seemed to be about Trump’s past conduct in general.
Also…does “lock her up” ring any bells around here? Or Trump’s attempt to get a foreign government to launch a dubious investigation against Biden?
The investigation would have been far from dubious.
Nonsense. The allegation was that Biden pushed for the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor to stop an investigation of his son. This never made sense due to a variety of facts: 1) Biden did not have the power to make such a demand unilaterally; it was the official position of the Obama administration that the prosecutor should be removed because 2) the prosecutor was lazy and corrupt, and was not doing the work of pursuing the investigations he was assigned to, including the Burisma investigation which 3) involved a time period before Hunter had even joined the board, which is why 4) reform movements in Ukraine, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the IMF all wanted him removed. Unless you think all of them were also trying to get the prosecutor removed to save Hunter Biden, the conspiracy theory doesn’t make any sense, and you have to concede the fact that Biden was implementing official US policy when he made this demand.
Biden’s demand was an above-board expression of official U.S. policy, done with transparency and supported by Congress and our allies, for the purposes of fighting corruption in Ukraine. Trump’s demand to Ukraine that resulted in his first impeachment was done secretly, for personal and corrupt reasons, in direct contravention of official U.S. policy, and then covered up. Trump did exactly what he accused Biden of doing.
and, the Hunter Biden laptop shows more than enugh probable cause.
That is besuide tjhe point.
There was probable cause for a second look.
There was probable cause it was done for corrupt reasons.
Trump decided official U.S. policy.
There was probable cauise for a second look, and the Hunter Biden laptop confirmed it.
Why don’t you say what evidence on the Hunter Biden laptop provided evidence that contradicts all the facts I pointed out that make the accusation impossible?
(I know: because it doesn’t exist. And it certainly didn’t exist when Trump made that phone call, making it irrelevant to that point anyway.)
“Trump decided official U.S. policy.”
I realize that a substantial portion of my fellow citizens, especially of the red-hat-wearing persuasion, yearn for a dictator, but I’m always taken aback when I see them admit to it so blatantly.
But anyway, you’re just wrong. Trump did not have the constitutional authority to withhold those funds:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/16/trump-administration-broke-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid.html
And in withholding the funds for personal and political motives, he behaved corruptly and unethically.
I was unaware of a court ordering Trump to release those funds.
you see, when a government official withholds funds and you think it is illegal,. you go to court to ask for a writ of mandamus.
That has been the legal remedy when people believer that the executive branch is withholding funds contrary to law. Go to court, and compel them to do so.
Impeachment has never been the remedy of the unlawful withholding of funds, at least asbsent a writ of mandamus from a court.
By the way, you might want to look up the term “writ of mandamus“.
“ I was unaware of a court ordering Trump to release those funds.”
They didn’t need to; he released them as soon as he was caught and the transcript became public.
Weren’t you just saying I should be ashamed for not knowing a certain fact?
Then no harm, no foul.
That’s not how it works. You keep changing the argument because you have nothing. Trump broke the law for corrupt purposes, and thus deserved impeachment. The “harm” was to the standing of our country and the legitimacy of our constitutional system when a president holds congressionally approved military aid hostage to get his political rival investigated on bogus charges (you still haven’t provided any evidence to contradict the facts I pointed out that make the charges impossible)…and then gets millions of Americans to make excuses for him.
“Trump broke the law for corrupt purposes, and thus deserved impeachment. The “harm” was to the standing of our country and the legitimacy of our constitutional system when a president holds congressionally approved military aid hostage to get his political rival investigated on bogus charges.”
Yup, that’s the company line. In my analysis, he did what Presidents have always done in foreign affairs, and because, unlike every other President, he was subjected to new standards and special, negatively-biased scrutiny by an entire party, many with their allies embedded in the intelligence services and the White House itself,so that a House majority could be weaponized to undue the election via impeachment, or at least kneecap his administration.
It was no coincidence that “resistance” lawyers were advocating impeachment before Trump was inaugurated, leader of House Democrats was advocating impeaching him because they had a majority, and a newly elected Democratic House member told her supporters, “Let’s impeach the bastard.” They wee determined to impeach him (or use the excuse of “incapacity”) for something, so they settled on Trump’s dangling foreign aid as a carrot to uncover what (still) looks like a cover-up of influence peddling by the previous V.P of the US—which was apparently fine because a Democrat did it. Based on your standards, Obama should have been impeached for breaking the law when he clearly ignored the War Powers Act in bombing Libya. But he wasn’t, because, as the left-loving ProPublica put it at the time,”he’s following a well-worn path.” So was Trump: he just wasn’t given access to that path, because he’s baaaaad. That path will be blocked now for Democratic Presidents too—tit for tat. Moronic.
Both impeachments were exactly like the Bragg indictment: ‘show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’ The Constitutional structure won’t work that way, as should already be obvious. The result of Democrats using impeachment as a partisan weapon has rendered it useless for what the Founders designed it to be, a tool to remove a President who unquestionably abused his power and office
In your opinion, would Speaker McCarthy be derelict in his duty if he does not lead an impeachment campaign against FJB?
Jack: “what (still) looks like a cover-up of influence peddling by the previous V.P of the US—”
I already explained to you why that’s not possible. Biden was following official Obama administration policy, supported by Congress and our allies, in pushing for the Ukrainian prosecutor to be fired. The notion that this was Biden’s own “influence-peddling” to save his son (who was never personally being investigated, and whose company was being investigated regarding a time when he did not work there, and whose company wasn’t actually being investigated thoroughly at all because the prosecutor was notoriously lazy and corrupt) doesn’t make any sense given these facts.
“In my analysis, he did what Presidents have always done in foreign affairs”
I asked for examples of previous presidents who held congressionally approved aid hostage in return for personal and political gain and you did not provide any. If any exist, those presidents should have been impeached too.
I’ve also asked if Republicans looking for a reason to impeach Clinton means he shouldn’t have been impeached for perjury and I received no answer.
For various reasons, I am certain Trump was not indicted for leading some Madoff-type fraud.
One upside to Trump being elected again is that he will use the instrumentalities of government to go scorched earth against his opponents, regardless of what the Constitution, law, and ethics say.
That is what needs to happen.
Mccarthy claims that Bragg crossed the Rubicon
It is more accurate to write that we were all dragged across the Rubicon.
The next time, it must be a Democrat.
The rules have changed.
Republican prosecutors now have a moral obligation to get indictmetns against Democratic leaders and spokesholes and elected official, regardless of what the Constitution, law, and ethics say, regardless of how creative their legal arguments are, no matter the cost.
those who refuse to do so will be ethics villains.
What crimes do you allege that they committed? Please elaborate further.
Michael T. Ejercito:
“ One upside to Trump being elected again is that he will use the instrumentalities of government to go scorched earth against his opponents, regardless of what the Constitution, law, and ethics say.
That is what needs to happen.”
I remain baffled that you are a participant on an ethics blog and that everyone on the ethics blog seems to be ok with this.
It’s funny that the argument made in the main post is that Democrats are the ones abusing the law for their own political gain…but the only person here explicitly endorsing doing that is a Republican.
The rules have changed.
This is not the first time there was a bullshit indictment for political purposes where the alleged conduct was not a crime. (neither the New York Times nor CNN claim the underlying crime was some sort of Madoff-type fraud, or something related to Epstein Island)
Remember Rick Perry?
Now, I qill quote from another forum about his indictment.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=161693&sid=bf1e964b2d36e629e063999b4953f65a
And here is the money quote
Feel free to click on the link, so you can feel suitably ashamed.
The beliefsof the forum posters I quoted are the rules now. I wish this were not the case, but it is.
Republicans either have to play by the new rules, or march meekly into the gas chambers. There is no third option.
Sadly, Magneto was right.
We could have avoided this, buty we were dragged across the Rubicon.
I’m supposed to be ashamed because some guy on a message board I’ve never heard of made a shitty argument to you eight years ago, and that makes you think you’re about to be “marched into the gas chambers” for being a Republican?
You’re a completely deranged individual.
The ideals of the people on that message board became the rules.
Now here is what Jack wrote about the Rick perry indictment.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/08/17/ethics-dunces-abc-news-jonathan-karl-and-the-sunday-morning-roundtable/
I wish the rules had not changed, but they did. And they had been changed back in 2014.
Michael McCrum, the prosecutor who brought this bullshit indictment, was not disbarred for this travesty.
The need for Republicans prosecutors to go after Democrats, regardless of what the Constitution, law, or ethics says, regardless of how creative their legal arguments need to be, no matter what the cost, was already in existence by 2014.
Rick Perry should have been avenged. There is no excuse to not seek retaliatory indictments to avenge him.
By indicting him, these people dragged us across the Rubicon.
I’m sorry that you think that lawyers should be disbarred for having a reasonable disagreement with you and Jack about how an obscure law should be interpreted. This obviously makes you similar to a Holocaust victim and you have no choice but to, as Trump said, “terminate the Constitution.” Certainly not a flimsy excuse for what you already wanted to do at all.
To merely state what Rick Perry was accused of doing would be to refute the indictment.
Almost all prosecutors at least allege conduct that are actually crimes.
McCrum should have been disbarred.
“ This is not the first time there was a bullshit indictment for political purposes where the alleged conduct was not a crime. ”
Again, you haven’t read the indictment so you have no idea if this is true or not.
OK, I’ve heard enough of that “gotcha!” It is stipulated that statements like ME’s are based on what is reasonably presumed about the indictment based on what we do know, like the fact that states can’t indict citizens using federal laws, and that the SOL has probably run. The damn case has only been in the news for almost five years.
Surely we can agree that statements like ME’s–which compare Republicans to Holocaust victims and posit that the only way for them to avoid a genocide is to tear up the Constitution, strip people like me of all rights, and fabricate charges against Democrats–are not reasonable inferences from what we know about this indictment. Right?
Okay again, this is all speculation correct? Based on an incomplete picture of the contents of the indictment.
Obviously the DA didn’t indict on a federal law.
If you decided to give a more balanced analysis, you could have mentioned the indictment is possibly some combination of the undisclosed campaign money going to pay Stormy Daniels mixed with fraud, which CAN be used by the Manhattan DA.
You didn’t mention this possibility at all. And you still have no idea if this isn’t want happen since you don’t have access to the actual indictment.
Stormy Daniels was actually paid with campaign funds.
funny how the FEC never cauight that…
Re: Seriously and Terri, https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=butch+cssidy+and+the+sundance+kid+%22who+are+those+guys%22+clip&view=detail&mid=8E9396BCD06A834834FF8E9396BCD06A834834FF&FORM=VIRE
Michael Ejercito is explicitly arguing for a right-wing dictatorship as “payback” because a) Jimmy Carter said something stupid four years ago and b) some dude on a message board said something stupid eight years ago, but sure, Terri and I are the problem.
I just asked, “who are these guys?” Where do you get the energy to write such lengthy, inhumanly manic comments? Are you paid professionals? Are you AI robots?
Yes
How are they manic? Everything I’ve written engages directly with the people I’m replying to. I’m not going on tangents, and I have stayed on topic. I remain puzzled as to why my and Terri’s comments (which are much shorter than mine, not long at all) are a problem for you while Michael’s endorsement of terminating the Constitution in order to stop an imaginary genocide of Republicans are not.
Here uis a comment I read on another blog.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/02/comeys-good-day-how-political-prosecutions-became-ethical-leadership-in-the-pursuit-of-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-2275739
If Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody refuses to seek a capital murder indictment against President Obama, she shopuld resign in abject remorse and shame.
LMAO. You’re crazy.
No doubt about it, a GOP majority in the House of sufficient size could have “reasonably” impeached Obama for killing American citizens on foreign soil using drones. It didn’t, because a President needs more room to maneuver than that—just not if he’s Donald Trump.
That’s…not at all why. In fact I am sure you don’t believe that Obama-era Republicans didn’t impeach Obama because of some high-minded principles that they believe should apply to all presidents regardless of party. You’re too smart to think that. They didn’t impeach Obama because there wasn’t enough political will to do so. Democrats impeached Trump because there was enough political will to do so (but not to convict, unfortunately).
And of course there’s a rather large distinction between impeachment, which you can argue would have been justified for Obama in the al-Awlaki matter, and a criminal charge for conspiracy to commit murder
That was before the rules changed?