Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  April 25, 2019
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Law & Litigation Issues

Message to Sean Hannity: Like President Trump, Lori Loughlin Is Presumed to Be Innocent and Not to Have Criminal or Corrupt Intent and She Should Not Be Mocked for Pleading Not Guilty

Since Dan Bongino substituted as host for Hannity on "Hannity" and ridiculed Loughin and her husband for not taking the plea deal offered by the United States Department of Justice, Hannity should take corrective action.

The people who were so sure that the Mueller Report would bring down President Trump and perhaps put him in an orange jumpsuit were guilty of believing what they wanted to believe and substituting wishful thinking for admissible evidence.

Sean Hannity was right, while the liberal mainstream media was promoting an anti-Trump agenda instead of focusing on the facts and the law.

The thought that Donald J. Trump longed to be anyone's puppet, much less Vladimir Putin's puppet, always was absurd.

People should not be shocked that the Mueller Report reported that no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was found.

Likewise, people should not be shocked that after the Mueller Report did not conclude that President Trump obstructed justice in defending himself against the Collusion Delusion promoted by his political enemies, Attorney General Barr and Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein agreed that President Trump had not obstructed justice. Justice required that the assertion that President Trump had colluded or conspired with the Russians be rejected as baseless because it was baseless.

President Trump was entitled to be angry (for himself, his family and his country) that the baseless charge was being pursued, and that anger is not obstruction of justice.

The Mueller Report did not find that the investigation of President Trump on a bogus charge actually was obstructed.

Why?

Because there was no act of obstruction.

What is obstruction of justice?

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

"Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection." (www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice).

Since the Mueller Report did not find any evidence that President Trump colluded or conspired with the Russians, it follows that President Trump did not have a corrupt or criminal intent.

Bottom line: There was no act of obstruction and even if President Trump thought about obstructing the investigation of him, thinking is not a crime.

President Trump did not take an action that would have constituted obstruction of justice, and even if he had taken an action, it would not have constituted obstruction unless he had a criminal or corrupt intent which he did not have since the just thing to do with respect to the Collusion Delusion was to end it.

Hannity is not a lawyer, but he got all of that from the start, just as he did in the Richard Jewel and Duke lacrosse cases and helped greatly to stop the steamrollers in those matters in their tracks.

Lori Loughlin and  her husband could use some Hannity attention, because they have been pilloried for asserting their legal rights instead of docilely pleading guilty when they apparently believe that they did not commit any crime, are not lawyers, relied on supposedly reputable experts and at least one of them may not have had the criminal intent required for conviction.

On April 24, 2019, TMZ stated as follows under the title "Lori & Mossimo Defense in Bribery Scandal WE DIDN'T KNOW" (www.tmz.com/2019/04/24/lori-loughlin-mossimo-giannulli-college-bribery-scandal-olivia-jade-defense/):

"Lori Loughlin and her husband had no idea college bribery mastermind Rick Singer was going to grease the palm of a USC coach to get their daughter into USC ... sources familiar with the case tell TMZ. Our sources say ... lawyers for Lori and Mossimo Giannulli didn't take a plea early on because they believe they have a solid defense on several fronts. First, ringleader Rick Singer did not tell them how he would use the $500k to get their daughters into the school. Fact ... they were aware Rick Singer wanted pics of the girls on a rowing machine, but they say that doesn't mean they knew the end game.

"It's true ... knowledge and intent are key elements to proving bribery, and we're told Lori and Mossimo's lawyers are making that a centerpiece of their defense ... their only intent is to generally get their daughters into USC by using a 'facilitator' who got hundreds of other students into colleges.

"One big problem ... according to the complaint, Giannulli -- not Loughlin -- sent at least $100k directly to the assistant athletic director.

"And, we're told, they have a more basic defense ... colleges have horse-traded with relatives of prospective students for decades ... e.g., fund the wing of a school building and your child will miraculously get accepted. It's not only been tolerated by many schools ... it's aggressively encouraged by some of the schools, and parents know it.

"A former USC assistant coach is expected to plead guilty to criminal charges in connection with the scandal. The former coach, Laura Janke, allegedly made it appear Olivia Jade was on the rowing team."

Like President Trump, Loughlin and her husband are not lawyers.

Like President Trump, Loughlin and her husband pay experts to do what they want done and rely on them to do it legally, since they are not lawyers or accountants.

It is crystal clear now that Michael Cohen is not the type of lawyer President Trump ever should have hired.

It is crystal clear now that Rick Singer is not the type of college admissions counselor (or facilitator) that Loughlin and her husband should have hired.

Fortunately, picking the wrong expert is not a crime.

Making a bad choice of an expert is all that President Trump, Loughlin  and her husband appear to be "guilty" of doing.

Neither suspicion nor wishful thinking is a suitable substitute for evidence in the United States of America and never should be treated as such.

Since Dan Bongino substituted as host for Hannity on "Hannity" and ridiculed Loughin and her husband for not taking the plea deal offered by the United States Department of Justice, Hannity should take corrective action.

See "Lori Loughlin is entitled to a fair trial as well as the presumption of innocence, and you are poisoning the jury pool, Mr. Bongino" (www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/190413).

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2019 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2019 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved