Legal advice for Trump from Yale Law professor


The key points regarding why President Trump’s Manhattan convictions are unconstitutional, based on the cited source [1], are:

Altering business records is only a crime under New York law if done to conceal another underlying crime. However, there was no predicate crime that Trump could have been concealing. [1]

The alleged concealment of campaign finance violations does not constitute a crime, as the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. [1]

The graphic testimony about Trump’s alleged affair with Stormy Daniels was irrelevant and improperly tainted the jury. [1]

Trump’s convictions violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as originally understood, by punishing him for non-disclosure of information related to the 2016 election. [1]

A highly partisan jurisdiction like Manhattan cannot be allowed to undermine a federal presidential election through such prosecutions. [1]

The source argues that Trump’s First Amendment claims regarding these unconstitutional convictions require expedited review by the U.S. Supreme Court before the 2024 election. [1]

[1] President Donald Trump’s Manhattan Convictions are Unconstitutional President Donald Trump's Manhattan Convictions are Unconstitutional
[2] American Voters Need Fast U.S. Supreme Court Review of the … American Voters Need Fast U.S. Supreme Court Review of the Constitutionality of President Trump's Convictions
[3] New York’s Civil Lawsuit Against Trump Is Unconstitutional New York's Civil Lawsuit Against Trump Is Unconstitutional
[4] Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law Trump Was Convicted — But Prosecutors Contorted the Law
[5] Trump Verdict Makes NYC “Venezuela-on-the-Hudson”
[6] Can Trump run for president as a convicted felon? - BBC Can Trump run for president as a convicted felon?


Interesting. Sounds reasonable to me, though I am no expert. What is clear though is Trump’s team has to find some way of getting the case to a less hostile jurisdiction.


I think going to an intermediate federal court may be a better idea than trying for a “common law writ”, to the US Supreme Court, as Levin keeps advocating. Jack Smith tried that in the documents case and they wouldn’t take it.
So what would they do, go to the Second Circuit? I have no idea what the ideological composition of that court is.
But please, please, counsel: do SOMETHING!


Rubenfeld acknowledges that “it’s very likely that Judge [Juan] Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing, July 11.”

But Trump’s lawyers can still sue New York City District Attorney Alvin Bragg, said Rubenfeld, “and ask the judge — the federal judge — for an emergency temporary restraining order, halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here.”


Another important point: Merchan donated to Biden Harris in 2020. New York judges are not allowed to donate to political campaigns or candidates, regardless of amount


This guy is married to Amy Chua who wrote the book about tiger :tiger2: moms

Video is 7 minutes


Yes—and everybody knew that from the beginning.

“State actors” of New York and the Biden admin have violated Trump’s rights to freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, right to counsel, freedom from excessive fines, and equal protection of the laws.
(That’s the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.)
This is not an arcane legal contention: we all know it. We all SAW it!

Y’know, The Nine watch TV, read blogs, etc., just like WE do. I wonder if they’re already informally figgering out a way to dodge this (excruciatingly slow-motion) bullet that’s coming their way? I’m SURE they are. They’re surreptitiously trying on “political question”, “exhaustion of state remedies” , seeing which one will look good on ‘em, like an old dowager pulling out moth-eaten finery a couple sizes too small for her present bloated girth.


Jed Rubenfeld, a renowned constitutional law scholar at Yale University, has raised significant concerns regarding the felony conviction of former President Donald Trump in the “hush money” case. Here are the key points from Rubenfeld’s analysis:

Constitutional Issues

Rubenfeld argues that Trump’s conviction may violate his constitutional rights, and the case could face challenges on constitutional grounds. He highlights the following potential issues:

  1. Trump is not yet a convicted felon, as a judgment of guilt has not been formally entered by the judge. This is expected to happen during sentencing on July 11.[1][3]

  2. Trump’s legal team could petition for an emergency temporary restraining order from federal courts to halt Judge Merchan from entering the judgment of guilt until the constitutional arguments are reviewed and ruled upon.[1]

  3. There are concerns about the vagueness and novelty of the charges, with Rubenfeld stating, “You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball [and] it’s not even clear what the charges are.”[3]

  4. Rubenfeld questions the constitutionality of criminally targeting a former president, especially when the prosecutors and judge belong to the opposing political party, calling it “an especially bad look.”[3]

Potential Impact on Elections

Rubenfeld highlights the potential impact of Trump’s conviction on the upcoming presidential election, arguing that an unlawful conviction could interfere with and potentially decide the outcome.[3] He cites surveys indicating a surge in Trump’s popularity since the guilty verdict.

Next Steps

Rubenfeld suggests that Trump’s legal team could file an action in federal court to halt the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts can review the constitutional arguments.[1][3] However, if this fails, he warns of the potential for “irreparable harm.”[1][3]

In summary, Jed Rubenfeld, a respected constitutional law expert, has raised significant concerns about the constitutional implications of Trump’s conviction and its potential impact on the upcoming presidential election, urging a thorough review of the legal issues involved.[1][2][3][4][5]

[1] Supreme Court May Prevent “Irreparable Harm” To Trump, Says … Supreme Court May Prevent “Irreparable Harm” To Trump, Says Yale Law Prof
[2] Trump Guilty Verdict: “There are some serious constitutional … Trump Guilty Verdict: “There are some serious constitutional problems with this case”
[3] Trump not a convicted felon yet, Yale Law professor trashes hush … Trump not a convicted felon yet, Yale Law professor trashes hush money trial verdict: ‘Crime is so unclear…’ - Hindustan Times
[4] kurt lash on X: "Outstanding analysis by Yale Law’s Jed Rubenfeld …
[5] Neven Sesardić on X: "Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale Law School professor …