CT Bar Association warns members not to be critical of lawfare prosecutions of President Trump

HARTFORD, CT - Apparently, the group that oversees lawyers in the state of Connecticut has an issue with the First Amendment. 

In an opinion piece, constitutional scholar and GWU law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that he had received emails from members of the Connecticut bar, concerned over a message posted by officials from the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA)–President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto, warning members about criticizing the prosecutions of former President Donald Trump. 

Turley described the message as “chilling” for anyone who might look at the Manhattan “hush money” case as exactly what it appeared to be–”raw political prosecution.” The email was careful not to say directly that any such “criticism will be considered unethical,” the message says that criticism of the cases has “no place in public discourse” while “suggesting” that members publicly support the integrity of the cases. 

Turley wrote that the statement opens by reminding members that “words matter” however doesn’t come out and specifically tell attorneys what the ramifications might be. However, they wrote that some comments might be viewed as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.” 

The not-so-subtle implication is that members of the CBA better play nice and should not allude to the Trump cases as being borderline show trials or otherwise question the integrity of the American legal system, or, as in the case of Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan, the judges themselves. 

Turley interprets the CBA’s letter as implying “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.” 

Many have criticized Merchan for refusing to recuse himself from the case, despite the fact he is a partisan Democrat who contributed to the Biden campaign and his daughter is a Democratic fundraiser and activist. Turley himself wasn’t as critical of the appearance of bias, but noted he was “more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.” 

The CBA, however, implies not too ambiguously that such comments may cross the line. The email suggests that members are free to criticize, noting “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.” 

However, it includes a warning that “headlines’ grabbing, baseless allegations made by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in public discourse.” 

Turley wrote that he has also warned about “overheated rhetoric,” and acknowledged that such commentary “can encourage violence.” Turley noted that he believes the verdict may be overturned, and warned that anger should not be directed at the jury, but rather Merchan, Bragg, and the prosecution “for an unfounded and unfair trial.” 

Turley also noted that “rage rhetoric” isn’t only restricted to the political right, but also the political left. He cited Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz who said, “...when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” 

Indeed, Trump received sharp criticism for slamming Merchan, Bragg, and the prosecution in what he called a “sham” prosecution in the “hush money” case. Among those criticizing Trump was Joe Biden. Yet last week, when the Supreme Court overturned ATF’s regulation banning “bump stocks,” it was Biden who slammed the high court for their decision. In other words, Biden is an abject hypocrite. 

Turley noted the recent attacks on Justice Samuel Alito have not received the same level of attention from the CBA. 

“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.’” 

Just this week, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said on a Sunday morning program that the Supreme Court was “becoming brazenly corrupt and brazenly political.” The CBA didn’t issue a statement condemning Murphy’s violent rhetoric. Nor did they speak out against Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who three years ago stood in front of the Supreme Court and threatened two justices by name:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” 

The CBA, Turley writes, “goes further and suggests that lawyers should speak publicly in support of trials like the one in Manhattan, a view that ignores deep misgivings over the motivations and means used in New York to target an unpopular figure in this city.” 

“It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges,” the CBA wrote. 

In other words, the CBA wants Connecticut attorneys to fall in line like mind-numbed robots and tow the liberal line. Turley notes that in dark-blue Connecticut, such a letter from the CBA was likely not necessary, and in fact suggested that “this letter is likely to be quite popular.” 

Yet, Turley wrote that he “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.” 

What the CBA letter did do, Turley opines, is “reinforce[d] 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.” 

The letter further warns Connecticut attorneys that they should not “sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.” Again, all this does, especially for those who believe that President Trump is the victim of Soviet-era show trials, is confirm that the legal system is weighed for one side of the political spectrum, and it isn’t the political right.

All one need do is look at the sentences handed out for January 6 defendants, or those who pray at abortion clinics compared to those who threaten to kill Jews (if they are even arrested) or those who destroyed cities in the name of a dead drug addict in 2020 and that tells you all you need to know. We are in the middle of a two-tiered justice system. The CBA letter affirms that is the case. 

Turley writes that “the Bar Association also has a duty to protect the court rights that define our legal system, particularly the right of free speech.” 

While the Connecticut Bar Association didn’t explicitly threaten action against anyone who criticizes the lawfare cases against Trump, the implication is clearly there, and Turley noted that he has received emails from attorneys who believe just that. 

In closing, Turley wrote:

“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.” 

We agree.