Law Prof Jonathan Turley Suggests Trump Can’t Get a Fair Trial in New York
“The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors, those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury, many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so.”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley suggested on Monday that it won’t be possible for Trump to get a fair trial in New York. Turley was commenting about the jury selection process and said that even though the court will try to find objective jurors, that Trump haters will lie just to get on the jury.
He pointed out that this has already happened in other cases.
Real Clear Politics provides a partial transcript:
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That’s based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it’s not a reach in the sense of this case.
This case is, creating something, it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime, this wasn’t a campaign contribution.
None of that appears to matter. And that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be. New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney putting together what many consider to be an absurd indictment…
The problem is that courts don’t feel comfortable asking who did you vote for, and so they are working around the edges to try to show bias. The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors, those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury, many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so. What the defense counsel has is not their veracity on these forms but their names. Even though we won’t see them, defense counsel can look at social media and see if they are lying.
Watch the clip below:
Jonathan Turley on why Trump's Manhattan trial WON'T be fair: "The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors, those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury, many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so." pic.twitter.com/NbkRac8GaX
— USA Features Media (@UsaFeatures) April 15, 2024
Here’s an excerpt from Turley’s column in the New York Post which he references in the video:
A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system
The famous Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “The more laws, the less justice.”
This week, New York judges and lawyers appear eager to prove that the same is true for cases against Donald Trump.
After an absurd $450 million decision courtesy of Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to former porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Anybody who is paying attention could have told us that. We know. When have Progressives EVER cared about real fairness?? They are selfish, egotistical idiots who think they are smarter than everyone else.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. We even have a few resident trolls here who represent this scorn-worthy persona on the regular.
Projection
Fact, retard.
No lol, I mean seriously think about it Progressives policy platform is about measures that inherently are about fairness – fair taxation for the rich, giving more to poor people, strengthening the unions so that people cant get fired for wanting reasonable working conditions, rights that protect people from the state. It’s just a silly thing to say.
What color is the sky in TardE’s clown world?
Progressives aka communists are actively trying to eliminate fossil fuels which increase the cost of energy and hit poor people the hardest.
You dipshits also support an open border which hurts poor people the most because they have to compete with illegals for jobs.
And EL OH EL at protecting people’s rights from the state. Your comment may be your dumbest yet under any of your LI handles.
Socialism always sound great in theory. It’s the reality that screws everything up.
There is nothing “inherently” fair about anything you’ve said 😂 Taxing the rich is basically screwing more out of the few people who still have jobs, giving more and more to people who do nothing for that government hand out only encourages less engagement in the work force (why work when you can be given shit for free), national teachers union has done absolutely NOTHING for children and their education while extorting billions from people forced to be members, but as you say, and this is something we finally have common ground, your words are silly.
@paddy m
Green energy sources reduce the cost of fuel supplies generally. Your just factually wrong on this point.
Lol and yet you seem unable to respond with any substance, projecting your own inadequacy isn’t much of an argument
@txvet2
On many metrics the countries that use socialism to some extent do much better than the US
@mailman
What lol, your comment makes little sense, you think the majority of people don’t have jobs. I think maybe you’ve read a little too much of the daily mail. Maybe look up soem facts before commenting your position is at odds with reality.
“It’s just a silly thing to say.”
Your ENTIRE POST was a silly thing to say, yet here you are.
Why are you here?
“On many metrics the countries that use socialism to some extent do much better than the US”
Name 6 metrics and the countries that are “much better” that the US?
And right on cue, there’s the troll! Well done, BartE, have a cookie.
Loser.
Katie Couric.
Did you mean that as a good example or a bad example?
The unethical sandbagging she gave VCDL showed her to have no morals whatsoever.
Classic case of “No $#!t, Sherlock!”
Prof Turley is correct. The jury will want to render as whopping a guilty verdict as possible, as quickly as possible. The actual evidence won’t move the needle, one way or the other. The prosecuting attorney will be celebrated at next month’s socialist workers’ meeting.
Fair trial isn’t even the problem. It’s bogus charge.
Yes it’s a bogus charge but this is what the Democrats need as they have absolutely nothing of value to America to run on.
They need a criminal conviction and nothing else will be acceptable to Democrats.
Trump can’t get a fair trial in NY
in other news water is wet.
Has anyone read why the self-evident statute of limitations infirmities in the government’s case haven’t been litigated prior to the trial beginning? It’s always been my understanding that statute of limitations challenges are one of the few challenges in a criminal case that are generally heard and decided prior to trial and can be appealed before trial because of the obvious problems in making someone endure a trial on a charge that shouldn’t have legally been allowed to be brought. And yet, I can’t find any information on this issue even being raised…yet. Is NY law different in this regard?
I’ve been wondering this myself. You would think there would be a good argument that extending the statute of limitations on a crime where the statute has already run would bar prosecution on that crime. It totally defeats the purpose of the statute of limitations if it can be extended once it’s already run.
In this specific case, they haven’t even done that. The misdemeanors Trump is alleged to have committed still have statutes of limitations that expired several years ago. What Bragg is attempting to do is to bootstrap those misdemeanors into felonies by alleging that they were committed in furtherance to another crime…a federal crime which he doesn’t even name. It’s insane.
This would be like Greg Abbott arresting illegal aliens for misdemeanor trespassing who haven’t been charged by the feds with ANY crime, much less convicted of any crime, and then prosecuting those misdemeanors as state felonies because they were committed in furtherance of a federal crime…which they have been convicted of or even prosecuted for.
If Abbott did that, would ANY of those people actually make it to trial or would their cases all be dismissed by a court LONG before?
1. I don’t know what you’re talking about. There has been no extension of the statute of limitations.
2. Statutes of limitations can be extended. This one hasn’t been, but nothing prevents the state legislature from doing so. That doing so would “totally defeat the purpose of the statute of limitations” is the legislature’s concern, not anyone else’s.
Statutes of limitations are not some legal doctrine. They’re statutes that legislatures make when they think it’s a good idea, and change or repeal when they think that’s a good idea. That’s how statutes work.
What “self-evident statute of limitations infirmities”? There aren’t any. If Trump is guilty of committing business fraud in furtherance of “another crime”, in this case a federal campaign finance violation, then it’s still well within the statute. But if he’s only guilty of plain business fraud, not in furtherance of any other crime, then as I understand it the statute will have already run, and he could not be convicted.
Trump hasn’t been charged with much less convicted of ANY campaign finance violations and it’s beyond the constitutional capacity for a municipal court to be the trier of fact in a federal criminal case because of a little thing called the Supremacy Clause.
THAT is the statute of limitations infirmity. It’s not complicated.
Irrelevant. The statute under which he’s charged does not require him to have been convicted of the “other crime”. All it requires is that “his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” That means he doesn’t even have to have actually committed the other crime; he could merely have falsified the business records with an intent to commit it.
There is no federal criminal case. The court is being the trier of fact in a state .criminal case. The alleged federal crime is an element in that crime, and as such the state court has every right to determine as a matter of fact whether it was committed, just as it has every right to determine any factual matter.
What has anything you wrote got to do with the statute of limitations? Do you even know what a statute of limitations is?!
NY Law Requires of the indictment:
7. A plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature,
(a) asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s or defendants’ commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation; and
This indictiment specifies neither whom DJT defrauded, what he defrauded them from or any manner of fraud having taking place; nor does it specify what crime he intendended to commit, federal or otherwise.
Not to mention there is some controversy over the “supposed” federal election he may have violated. Whether or not his actions were indeed criminal under the statutes.
What you suggest is that the New York State court may get involved in federal statute interpretation issues? That would be at the heart of any campaign finance violation just as it was for the J6 supreme court hearing the other day (c.f. the Kavanaugh questioning)
Yes, for the limited purpose of determining, as a matter of fact, whether a crime was committed (or contemplated).
It’s a huge stretch in this case, but it’s allowable in principle. This entire case is a huge stretch, and there’s no doubt that the charges would never have been brought if not for the Dems’ hatred for Trump. (I saw some Dem stooge claim that this is disproved by the fact that Michael Cohen was also prosecuted; but of course this only reinforces the point, because he was only prosecuted because Trump.)
There’s a new case coming down the pike where Trump jaywalked 10 years ago to hurry to his office in order to earn the extra money, which would in turn be used to silence Stormy in furtherance of federal campaign finance law.
This case is not about winning or losing, it is about keeping Trump from campaigning. It is also to smear his image a little more. Biden’s man is in the DA office running this case so everyone klnows what it is about.
You’re wrong. This case is about Democrats getting their criminal conviction so they can campaign on Trump being a criminal.
Neh mind that this will get over turned in a year or two as the Democrat media will have moved on and the criminal conviction served its campaigning purpose.
I see the FBI is investigating the collision that damaged the Francis Scott Key bridge so we should be seeing an indictment for that shortly.
They are insisting that rumors that what hit the bridge was a ship is Russian disinformation. Current theory is that the bridge was struck by a wet market.
Only if they can figure out some way that Trump was responsible.
“Jonathan Turley suggested on Monday that it won’t be possible for Trump to get a fair trial in New York.”
Considering 2020 Trump received only 12% of the vote in Manhatten, we kinda figured that one out all by ourselves, Mr. Turley.
It is not just people trying to get on the jury deliberately. Everybody in NYC knows that the Democratic Party wants Trump convicted, and everybody knows the Democratic Party will retaliate against its enemies. NYC is totally run by the Democratic Party at all levels. Would you want to be a holdout juror knowing that your identity will become publicly known after the trial is over? Especially if you have kids in a city school? Would you be a holdout juror if your work for the City of NY, or for a direct contractor of the city?
Despite the imbalance, would not be surprised if there is a hung jury.
The jury knows that if it is hung, it will be hung.
Cut the judge and prosecutors some slack, they are defending their precious democracy.
As an aside I tuned into Netflix’s “Three Body Problem”. You will get a superbly excellent played out reenactment of China’s Cultural Revolution Red Guard is action. Chillingly real. Whoever choreographed those scenes knew quite a lot. All that is takes is a few more years to transpose that from CCP to DNC. The CCP is slicker now but the foundation is still the same.
So Colorado joins the race to see which blue state can impose as many gun control laws. The main push is that semi-autos such as the AR-15 are only designed to kill as many people in the shortest time. Yet, all of the law enforcement branches up and down the country have them which brings up the question… “what are the plans for these agencies to kill as many American citizens as possible in the shortest time?” Oh… they are better trained in safe handling. That means they are better trained to kill more sooner. Refer back to my first paragraph.
We will see. The biggest question may be if they will ever get to trial.
er…third paragraph.
Trump won’t get a fair trial from the corrupt judge to a biased jury, what Trump’s lawyers should do to expose some of the corruption is to call the judge’s daughter as a witness for the defense and have her explain herself regarding her money making off of the persecution of The Donald
On what basis do you make any of those statements
Won’t see the light of day, firstly it won’t get past her father and secondly she is irrelevant to the case.
She isn’t making any money off his prosecution. I don’t even know of anyone significant who has alleged that she is.
Turley “suggests “ President Trump can’t get a fair trial in NY
You’re kidding right ?
Of the many flaws in this case, the biggest is that these are NOT business records. The checks were written by Trump’s Trust (not a business) and his personal account. Just because he used professional accounting services provided by his organization does not turn personal into business, and thus it’s immaterial how the expenses were “classified”. Using a professional accounting firm to prepare your taxes doesn’t turn them from personal to business documents either. This seems obvious to me, but I hardly ever see it mentioned.
I also highly doubt Trump deducted the expenses on his personal taxes, as this had already been raised as an issue before he would have filed his returns for 2017 or 2018.
The insane tortured logic is that because his payments were to keep her from embarrassing his campaign, they SHOULD have been paid by his campaign and publicly declared, so him not doing that is a ‘campaign finance violation’.
Yet even if they had been, it still wouldn’t have been public until AFTER he beat that ugly whore Hillary.
A motive is in the eye of the beholder. How about he paid Stormy off all those years ago so his wife and young son would not find out?
the FEC already said it was not a campaign finance violation
No, it didn’t.
crawl up his ass with a microscope and throw the book at him.
This appears to be malarkey based on a 45 rpm record Corn Pop played at the pool where Biden was a lifeguard for the cliches floating around.
Curious, Turley seems to know what crime is being used to elevate the misdemeanours to felonies. When was that announces
He doesn’t. While he doesn’t discuss that very point in this specific exchange, in other interviews, he usually says something like: ‘presumably the federal crime Bragg is alleging is a campaign finance crime of some nature. But, Bragg hasn’t named the specific crime yet.’
“This case is, creating something, it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime, this wasn’t a campaign contribution”
He doesn’t in this case, he directly asserts its a campaign finance violation.
The FEC, the people who ACTUALLY DECIDE that and take legal action on such things, decided it wasn’t a campaign finance violation. They never even so much as fined him on it. The US Attorney decided it wasn’t worth pursuing. The NY State attorney decided it was a big nothing and a waste of time to pursue. Bragg’s predecessor, Vance decided it wasn’t worth pursuing and until Trump actually became a candidate Bragg himself also found it not worth pursuing
Get the f*ck lost, you lying piece of shit.
No, they didn’t.
Even if they had, that would just be their opinion. Bragg would remain free to argue they were wrong, and try to convince a jury of it beyond reasonable doubt. But the fact is the FEC never expressed such an opinion in the first place.
Per the FEC: “When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns.” Bragg presumably is asserting the purpose was for his campaign. Therefore, his personal payments should have been reported as a campaign contribution and the payments to Stormy reported as campaign expenses.
We don’t actually know as far as I’m aware what law Bragg is referencing. It will be interesting to find out for certain
What you are missing is payments that help a campaign are not always campaign related, An expense that has personal merit and personal reasons for paying, even if it helps a campaign, is not considered a campaign expense.
Use buying a suit for example:
If JB4 is running for dog catcher and and realizes that his Sunday go to church suit is getting worn out and goes out to the local good will and buys a “new” suit. because he wears that suit to church makes it a person expense not a campaign expense. He may ware it on the campaign trail while shaking hands and kissing babies. but it still is not a campaign expense. Also JB4 can contribute as much money into his campaign as they want to there is no limit, it just has to be reported. (Sorry JB just using you as an example not saying anything about you)
Wrong again. But keep trying!
The fact that it hasn’t been named is enough to know this is all complete bullshit. They don’t get to keep what crimes you’re charged with sealed from the defendant.
That’s the beauty behind Bragg’s novel approach: He’s named the laws that he claims Trump violated, but he claims they were felonies in pursuit of violating federal laws that Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted. He hasn’t named the federal laws that Trump supposedly violated, he’s just proceeding as if Trump has already been found guilty of violating laws outside of Bragg’s jurisdiction.
He’s not “proceeding as if Trump has already been found guilty” of the “other crime”. There is no requirement that he have been found guilty. The only requirement is that he falsified the business record with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”.
But that’s an element of the crime he has actually charged, so like any other element he has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. He can’t just allege it to the jury and have them assume it.
They haven’t kept it sealed from the defendant. They just haven’t yet told the whole world about it. They will have to do that at trial, though. Not only will they have to name it, they’ll have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise a key element of the offense charged disappears.
Really? No kidding? No sh*t Sherlock. Who gave you the clues, Inspector Gadget?
We have been hearing these complaints and analyses about the legal absurdities and injustices faced by Pres. Trump and his legal team (s). We have even seen how lawyers, by having the temerity to represent him, and advance legal arguments on his behalf, put their legal careers in jeopardy…to the extent that he has experienced difficulty in retaining the best legal counsel.
But what we have not heard is the answer to this question: what is the remedy?
Because, for all the compaints I hear/read I never hear any solutions. It seems that there is no way out, for Pres. Trump or other citizens of this republic.
There is only one. We as a people have to stand up and completely shut down New York city, New York State and Washington DC. If that doesn’t work and elections again get stolen…… Well maybe the tree of liberty needs to be watered again.
“suggests”
“suggests”???
he didnt even get a fair counting of the 2020 on time votes
if america wants to avoid a “Civil” war
the good people better start to get uncivil asap
A Space Oddessey: 2024
https://ak2.rmbl.ws/s8/2/z/K/t/1/zKt1q.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
Turley is Captain Obvious here but the real story is that the prosecution does not care if the trial is unfair. The goal is to keep Trump off the ballot. The same thing was done to Senator Stevens in Alaska.
Even if found guilty, Trump cannot be kept off the ballot. There is ample judicial precedent for this. We’ve had House members elected from prison. The only thing that can keep a person off a federal election ballot is failure to meet the criteria already established in the US Constitution.
If he’s the correct age, a natural-born citizen meeting the stipulated residency requirement and has never been convicted of Treason or Impeached and removed from office by conviction in the Senate, he cannot be kept off the ballot.
That is 100% correct.
Stevens wasn’t kept off the ballot either. He was on the ballot, and he lost because of his false conviction. By the time he was exonerated the election was over, and he was dead.
Cf Jeremy Thorpe, who had to fight an election while he was on trial for murder; naturally he was defeated. Then was he acquitted, so he didn’t have to go to prison, but the electoral damage was already done. There’s no provision for a do-over of the election just because the result was unfair.