Connecticut Bar Association leadership has threatened lawyers who are brave enough to criticize the rigged court case and prosecution of former President Donald Trump in an extreme example of censorship.

This is according to attorney and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who said several members of the Connecticut Bar Association have shared messages with him from President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto with the unsettling warning. The message can also be found on the Connecticut Bar Association’s website.

The letter is careful to avoid stating that criticizing the case, judge or jury would be considered unethical conduct, but it does clearly state these criticisms have “no place in the public discourse” and that they consider them to “cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”

The letter even identifies specific criticisms lobbed at the trial and judge, including “sham”, “rigged”, “corrupt”, “unethical” and “hoax.”

It also goes one step further, calling on its members to speak out publicly in supporting the integrity of the proceedings.

“It is up to us, as lawyers, to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort,” the letter states.

Many believe the subtext here is that those who criticize the case or those involved in it could be disbarred.

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity’s knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

Trial’s many flaws are attracting plenty of criticism

In the case, a Manhattan jury convicted the former president of all 34 counts in a falsified business records case brought by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

However, there were a number of questionable aspects of the case, prompting a slew of criticism. Much of the controversy surrounds the judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who had several conflicts of interest big enough that he should have recused himself from the case.

In addition to making political contributions to Biden and several Democratic causes, which means he financially supports the political opponent of Trump, his daughter is a political consultant who has worked for both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. This means that has family has directly benefited financially from their business relationship with Biden.

Some have also cast doubt on the instructions he gave to jurors, telling them that even though they have to decide unanimously that Trump used unlawful means to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, they did not need to reach a unanimous agreement on which specific unlawful means he used.

Turley, who has gone on the record criticizing the indictment, said that he has a problem with the bar’s suggestion that lawyers are being unprofessional for denouncing the politicalization of the American legal system. He called the letter “chilling” and characterized Trump’s conviction in Manhattan as “a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers.”

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.”

He went on to point out that while they may be quick to censor lawyers critical of Trump’s trial, the Connecticut Bar Association does not seem nearly as concerned about attacks on jurists when they are conservatives, such as those who attack the religion of conservative Supreme Court justices or attack Justice Samuel Alito.

Sources for this article include:

JonathanTurley.org

DailyCaller.com

CTBar.org