While America Slept

The Wrongdoing Collusion is Wider

In the seven previous newsletters, it has been more than abundantly documented that the United States Supreme Court had no interest in policing the legal profession professional misconduct that was staring them in the face in the illicit prosecution of Donald Trump by New York DA Alvin Bragg. Further, it was also more than abundantly documented that through newspaper publications, video interviews and a tell-all book that DA Bragg violated the rules of professional conduct on an industrial scale in removing Trump’s constitutional legal presumption of innocence in a prospective jury trial.

Moreover, all four of Trump’s lawyers went along with this industrial scale malfeasance. The end result was that Trump was convicted of 34 counts of business record fraud by a 12-person jury that was extrajudicially influenced by this unrestrained extrajudicial publicity against him in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels criminal case (characterized as the hush-money case). (The synthesis of all seven newsletters is in the newsletter entitled: “How Did The Trump Legal Team Weigh in on the Prosecution of Donald Trump under the Rules of Professional Conduct”). (It is here:

https://therunnymedereport.substack.com/p/how-did-the-trump-legal-team-weigh)

Yet many others were involved in this wrongdoing collusion. To see a root cause as to how this happened and why so many others are involved is to learn what governs and what doesn’t govern.

What Governs

A key reason why this unrestrained malfeasance was allowed to occur was because of a false doctrine that the legal community foisted upon the American people. That false doctrine is exposed by identifying the correct choice between two alternatives. Does the state bar association govern the disciplining of errant private lawyers and public prosecutors, or do the rules of professional conduct govern this disciplining function? The false doctrine is the first choice. The right doctrine is the second one.

Leaving aside Senior Legal Adviser Alina Habba’s own proven professional misconduct in the DA Bragg prosecution against Trump in the Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels criminal case (characterized as the hush-money case) as documented in the above linked newsletter, she made a statement that showed how this false doctrine is promulgated. As also documented in the above linked newsletter, Attorney Habba had this to say when describing what Trump advocates can and cannot do for Trump: “If it is done by one of his lawyers we’d be disbarred, put in jail as they’re trying to do now for nothing.” And then this: “If you’re his lawyer you’re immediately going to get disbarred. All these things. This is sickness that is poisoning our culture.”

Notice that Attorney Habba does not even indicate that doing wrong had anything to do with disbarment punishment.  It was merely the fear that those who can disbar (the state bar association) will disbar irrespective of any wrong being established. That is a false doctrine. The state bar association has no reason for existence if it is not bound by the rules of professional conduct. Yet, as long as that false doctrine is unchecked it gives the state bar association free reign to do whatever they want without a standard that defines right and wrong.

Pursuant to that false doctrine, the only motive for the state bar association to take disciplinary action is by means of politics. Thus, if Attorney Habba was politically connected with the state bar association she would have nothing to fear. And if she was not, she would have everything to fear.

It is exactly that kind of false doctrine teaching that gave DA Alvin Bragg free reign in his illicit prosecution of Trump and that allowed the United States Supreme Court to get away with looking the other way when massive professional misconduct stared them right in the face.

What Others are Involved

This false doctrine engulfs the entire judiciary, the law school academia and the highly esteemed legal commentators. Notably, all of them knew what happened in the DA Bragg professional misconduct prosecution of Trump and looked the other way as it came down.

Jonathan Turley

Of all the highly esteemed legal commentators, there is one that seemingly stands above the crowd. That would be Jonathan Turley. He has an online column, entitled: “Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.” He is widely esteemed as a law professor, constitutional law expert and often is before Congress to give both sides of the aisle the constitutional take on leading issues of the day. In addition to all that, he is a frequent contributor on Fox News. His major subject is the importance of the first amendment and free speech.

Though free speech is his main topic, he does occasionally dabble in the field of professional ethics. In his October 2, 2024, article entitled: “Court Refuses to Throw Out the Defamation Lawsuit Against MSNBC Legal Analyst Andrew Weismann he comments on the defamation case of Passantino v. Weismann. (The citation for the article is here: https://jonathanturley.org/2024/10/02/court-refuses-to-throw-out-the-defamation-lawsuit-against-msnbc-legal-analyst-andrew-weissmann/)

In it, he notes that if Passantino (being a lawyer) did tell his client to lie to Congress “the allegation against Passantino would not only constitute criminal conduct but also unethical professional conduct.”

There is nothing unusual in Law Professor Turley making that “unethical professional conduct” assessment. The problem is that it presumes that everything is otherwise above board in the legal profession about other “unethical professional conduct” matters that he obviously knew about. Here we have a Stephanie Clifford/Stormy Daniels criminal case (characterized as the hush-money case) that for upwards of two years was constantly in the news in illicit extrajudicial publicity perpetrated by DA Bragg and his former lead prosecutor Mark Pomerantz against Trump. Specifically, the DA Bragg led professional misconduct publications in the New York Times, CNN and a tell-all book against Trump not only removed Trump’s constitutional legal right to be presumed innocent in Trump’s prospective jury trial but such publications were obviously known to everyone in the legal community. Yet, Law Professor Turley had nothing to say about any of this.

By looking the other way, Law Professor Turley is the embodiment of the false doctrine that state bar associations govern and not the rules of professional conduct thereby making possible corrupt cases like the New York DA Bragg prosecution in his case against Trump. This assessment pertaining to Passantino goes on while Law Professor Turley puts aside the professional misconduct not only of New York DA Alvin Bragg but also the state bar association (the grievance committee of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court).

Jonathan Turley is One

There are many other enablers for the corruption among prosecutors, the state bar association and the entire judiciary. It comes next as the unfolding of the desecration of the rules of professional conduct continues.