He’s also a man destroying the GOP as a legitimate party, as I predicted when he came down the golden escalator. The question is, can the left capitalize on it and use it to build the progressive era for the US like the liberal era we just exited but better?
Yes, thank you for a well stated history which will certainly be stated hundreds to thousands of times in our country’s future history. This is the legacy Trump enables, but does not admit - the reverse Nobel Peace Prize - the American Democratic Recognition of Destruction!
SCROTUS, the 6, ignored that Law, lied about that Law ? They violated it. And many other fundamental American principles and laws. Out !
And it’s not him — it’s the Republicans.
The Republican party has not been the party of Lincoln for more than 100 years. It’s fake, and twisted. It has stolen our wealth and well being and damaged our country every time it could.
It is the Slave Democrat party, garish in Uncle Sam costumes that don’t cover its klan robes, over its loser confederate flag boxers. It’s disgusting. And that is not a new thing.
Not really. A majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. The 2024 election outcome didn’t reflect the will of most Americans, it was the result of a massive misinformation campaign fueled by lies, dark money, and carefully engineered chaos. Voters were manipulated, not empowered.
Trump won with 49.8% of the vote, while Harris got 48.3% in a very close and disjointed race. Third-party candidates took 1.9%. That means 50.2% of voters chose someone other than Trump even after being exposed to Trump’s propaganda blitz. 90M eligible voters sat on the sidelines and didn't even vote in 2024. Watch what happens in the midterms this year.
Yes one third voted for Trump while the remainder sat out or voted against him. It's still a tragedy and made worse by the electoral college and swing state voters, which were known issues since the 2000 elections
Not to mention the government sanctioned murder of US citizens and legal immigrants- remember Renee Good and Alex Pretti - it makes me weep- I love my country. He and his funders do not embody the principles on which this country was founded.
Mitch, thanks for taking the time to write this. While I agree with several of the factual points you raise, I think some of your conclusions go beyond what the evidence actually establishes, particularly regarding due process and the distinction between documented facts and implied guilt.
Rather than debate it point by point here, I wrote a response on my own Substack because I think these issues deserve more than a comment thread. My focus isn't on defending any politician—it's on defending fairness, equal justice, and the importance of separating facts from advocacy.
I appreciate you giving me something worth thinking—and writing—about.
Hi John- Your substack looks great. I like all the horse, riding and cowboy pictures.
I grew up on a ranch outside Tucson, Arizona. We had 25 to 30 head of horses. My dad used to tell me that "the outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man." He even had this on a plaque hanging on the wall behind his desk in his office.
Riding and roping taught me plenty. It gave me confidence and helped me grow into a strong man. But here’s the thing, it didn’t teach me about the law, evidence or burden of proof. Everything I know about these things I learned in law school and over the last 40 years of representing good people in difficult situations. It’s that knowledge that I share with you below.
Reading your post I’m happy to say we agree on most things.
But when it comes to the Carroll case and Trump’s felonies, what I shared were the facts and evidence. It bothers me when people work so hard to discount all the hard work investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses and judges do. It gets under my skin when they give this guy a pass he doesn't deserve.
It’s not easy.
People who dedicate their time to try these cases or who participate in their civil duty as jurors don’t necessarily want to be away from their family and work, but they do the right thing and participate in the process.
Let’s start with E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump civilly liable for sexually assaulting her. That's a fact based upon the evidence presented.
I read the daily trial transcripts. I also read the written motions, oppositions and judge’s orders. Did you?
The jury absolutely came to the right decision.
The trial judge wrote in his own written opinion that Trump forcibly inserting his fingers inside Carroll met the definition of rape.
Judge Kaplan found that “the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm.”
New York later updated that definition. Under today's law, on the same facts, he gets found guilty of rape outright. Back then the statute required penetration by penis. That's the only reason the label reads differently. The Supreme Court let the verdict stand. Nothing left to argue. Trump assaulted Carroll. Case closed. That’s what the facts and evidence proved in a court of law. I wrote about all the details in my post, “A Federal Judge Found That Donald Trump Raped E. Jean Carroll”
Now the 34 felony convictions. This case wasn't that unusual. New York has had other cases like it over the past 20 years. None involved a coverup payment to a porn star by a presidential candidate, but they all included cooking the books to cover up other crimes. Fox News won't tell you that. They feed you the same talking points you just repeated back to me. Here is what actually happened.
A grand jury saw the facts and voted to indict. Trump got a trial in front of a jury of his peers. The facts and evidence were presented. A judge enforced every rule of evidence and procedure. The jury convicted him on all 34 counts beyond a reasonable doubt (not easy to do). He's a convicted felon. That's a fact. It’s not my opinion. It’s a fact based upon the presented evidence. I wrote about the details in my post, “Donald Trump Is a Convicted Felon. That’s a Legal Fact, Not Fake News.”
Supporting these verdicts isn't a political argument. It's what the facts and the law say. That's it.
Believing Trump is unworthy of the office and belongs in jail? That's my opinion. And I own it. But it's built on the facts and evidence presented in these cases and, what I see and hear with my own eyes, almost on a daily basis.
Mitch, first, thank you for the thoughtful response—and for sharing your ranch background. Your dad’s saying about the outside of a horse being good for the inside of a man is one I’ve heard most of my life, and there’s a lot of truth in it.
You also asked me a fair question: Did I read the daily trial transcripts, motions, oppositions, and orders?
No, I did not. You did. And I’m not going to pretend otherwise.
“The concept of guilty or not guilty is not necessarily a search for the truth,” - Hubert J. Santos, Hartford lawyer
“The courtroom never reveals the truth, only what is admissible.”-Eli Whitney DeBevoise http://www.debevoise.com
You’ve spent 40 years in courtrooms. I spent more than 20 years behind a radio microphone interviewing people, challenging arguments, and trying to separate what was said from what was actually established. Different arenas. Different experience.
And after reading your response, I’ll concede something plainly: on the Carroll case, your explanation of the distinction between the jury’s sexual-abuse finding and New York’s then-narrow statutory definition of rape is stronger and more complete than the distinction I made in my piece. That’s a fair correction.
I also don’t dispute that Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts. He was. That is a legal fact.
Where I think we still differ is in the movement from legal fact to broader political conclusion—and in the rhetorical framing used to get the reader there.
A verdict is a fact. A conviction is a fact. Saying a man is therefore unworthy of office and belongs in jail is, as you acknowledge, your opinion. You own that distinction, and I respect you for saying so.
My concern is broader than Donald Trump. I’m wary whenever any of us—left, right, lawyer, broadcaster, or cowboy—packages established facts together with implication, selective emphasis, and political judgment in a way that can make the entire package feel equally proven.
That was especially my concern with the Epstein portion of your original article. Being repeatedly named in files, appearing in flight logs, or having had a social relationship with Epstein may be relevant and warrant scrutiny. But those facts are not, by themselves, proof of participation in Epstein’s crimes. That distinction matters to me.
If there is evidence of criminal conduct, investigate it. If the evidence supports charges, prosecute. I don’t care whether the name is Trump, Clinton, a prince, a billionaire, or anyone else.
You’ve made me reconsider and sharpen parts of my argument. That’s what a good exchange should do.
I suspect we still won’t agree on Trump. But I think we may agree on something more important: facts should be stated as facts, opinions should be owned as opinions, and neither of us should be afraid to have our arguments challenged.
Of course, John. Good convo. For the most part we agree.
Regarding Epstein, what I’d like to see is all of the facts. The DOJ, through both Bondi and Blanche, has gone from suggesting the case is closed and there was essentially nothing to see to releasing millions of pages that clearly show there’s much more to examine. At the same time, millions of additional files are still being withheld.
Why is this important? Because for every victim. There's a perpetrator. Not one, not a single one, has been charged.
The guy in the White House told Marjorie Taylor Greene he was worried about his friends getting hurt. If there's one thing I've learned litigating cases, it's that when there's smoke, there's usually fire. Like Watergate, I believe it's a cover up.
For me, the right approach is simple: comply with the law and release all of the files subject to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405). That would allow everyone including journalists, researchers, and the public, to review the full record and reach conclusions based on complete information rather than partial disclosures.
As for Trump, I personally don’t see a circumstance where I’m comfortable with an adjudicated sexual abuser and convicted felon serving as President of the United States. That’s a line I can’t get past, regardless of politics.
Why then did the DNC not release the Epstein files prior to the election? If there is damning evidence against Trump and other Republicans, they would have ridden that tidal wave and kept them out of the White House.
The DNC never had the Epstein files to release. They were federal DOJ and FBI investigative records, controllable only by the sitting Attorney General, not by any party or campaign. The Biden DOJ withheld them for the same reason every prior DOJ did: active investigative files are locked down by grand jury secrecy, victim-protection law, sealed court orders, and Maxwell's pending appeals, none of which a President can override by fiat. Nothing compelled release until frankly, the smell of a conspiratorial cover-up resulted in massive public pressure for Congress to pass the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025. The DOJ didn't start releasing files until December 2025 and January 2026. No one could have released them before the election even if they'd wanted to. But you're right, if the Biden DOJ did release everything that was eventually released, it would have more than likely prevented Trump from being re-elected. But Biden respected the separation of powers and also the legitimate separation of agencies, especially between himself, the DOJ, and the FBI.
More than 70 million voted him with knowledge of these facts and this evidence. What evidence and what advantages does the other side have to persuade these voters to come to the other side.
Donald J Trump should award a no-bid contract to his donor friend and Mar A LARDO neighbor JJ Cafaro to erect a giant golden statue of MAGA MANNY standing in his "Uncle Sam" costume with his dick in his hand to Memorialize the imperious grandeur, selfish greed and ruthless conciet of the MAGA faithful and their megalomaniac narcissistic leader and cronic liar in chief. It would be a celebration of the malignant narcissists everywhere, and especially to their golden lord and Imperious master who is currently waddling through the corridors of the U.S Treasury conducting a manic smash and grab "ALL You Can Carry" theft of the Nation's tax payers considerable resources before PUMPKIN TIME arrives for the CORPULENT ORANGE BLOVIATING PARASITE and brings his golden orgy of abusive disorder to an end.
He’s also a man destroying the GOP as a legitimate party, as I predicted when he came down the golden escalator. The question is, can the left capitalize on it and use it to build the progressive era for the US like the liberal era we just exited but better?
Thank you sir; This is precisely what I've been trying to assemble and articulate. Much gratitude good sir.
Happy Fourth of July…
We should all celebrate this great nation..
But…
America has been corrupted…
Stolen away from us…
By an ignorant grifter…
He bleeds this country dry of all its greatness…
All the while filling his pockets and those of his cronies…
We have lost our way…our moral compass…
This was once a country of good people…
Those good people are now being crushed…
By the biggest fraudster of all time…
And his billionaire buddies…
We find it challenging to celebrate our nation’s independence this summer…
For we almost lost it all when we allowed an incompetent fraud to run the country…
Nevertheless…America will Prevail…
Happy Fourth…
Yes, thank you for a well stated history which will certainly be stated hundreds to thousands of times in our country’s future history. This is the legacy Trump enables, but does not admit - the reverse Nobel Peace Prize - the American Democratic Recognition of Destruction!
The epitome of the worst America has to offer. SAD.
We do not have a President.
I can read. The 14th is still our Law.
SCROTUS, the 6, ignored that Law, lied about that Law ? They violated it. And many other fundamental American principles and laws. Out !
And it’s not him — it’s the Republicans.
The Republican party has not been the party of Lincoln for more than 100 years. It’s fake, and twisted. It has stolen our wealth and well being and damaged our country every time it could.
It is the Slave Democrat party, garish in Uncle Sam costumes that don’t cover its klan robes, over its loser confederate flag boxers. It’s disgusting. And that is not a new thing.
Out ! All of them ! Now ! — b.rad
ps thanks for this good work
What the people wanted
Not really. A majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. The 2024 election outcome didn’t reflect the will of most Americans, it was the result of a massive misinformation campaign fueled by lies, dark money, and carefully engineered chaos. Voters were manipulated, not empowered.
Trump won with 49.8% of the vote, while Harris got 48.3% in a very close and disjointed race. Third-party candidates took 1.9%. That means 50.2% of voters chose someone other than Trump even after being exposed to Trump’s propaganda blitz. 90M eligible voters sat on the sidelines and didn't even vote in 2024. Watch what happens in the midterms this year.
Yes one third voted for Trump while the remainder sat out or voted against him. It's still a tragedy and made worse by the electoral college and swing state voters, which were known issues since the 2000 elections
Not to mention the government sanctioned murder of US citizens and legal immigrants- remember Renee Good and Alex Pretti - it makes me weep- I love my country. He and his funders do not embody the principles on which this country was founded.
Pedophile
Mitch, thanks for taking the time to write this. While I agree with several of the factual points you raise, I think some of your conclusions go beyond what the evidence actually establishes, particularly regarding due process and the distinction between documented facts and implied guilt.
Rather than debate it point by point here, I wrote a response on my own Substack because I think these issues deserve more than a comment thread. My focus isn't on defending any politician—it's on defending fairness, equal justice, and the importance of separating facts from advocacy.
I appreciate you giving me something worth thinking—and writing—about.
Hi John- Your substack looks great. I like all the horse, riding and cowboy pictures.
I grew up on a ranch outside Tucson, Arizona. We had 25 to 30 head of horses. My dad used to tell me that "the outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man." He even had this on a plaque hanging on the wall behind his desk in his office.
Riding and roping taught me plenty. It gave me confidence and helped me grow into a strong man. But here’s the thing, it didn’t teach me about the law, evidence or burden of proof. Everything I know about these things I learned in law school and over the last 40 years of representing good people in difficult situations. It’s that knowledge that I share with you below.
Reading your post I’m happy to say we agree on most things.
But when it comes to the Carroll case and Trump’s felonies, what I shared were the facts and evidence. It bothers me when people work so hard to discount all the hard work investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, witnesses and judges do. It gets under my skin when they give this guy a pass he doesn't deserve.
It’s not easy.
People who dedicate their time to try these cases or who participate in their civil duty as jurors don’t necessarily want to be away from their family and work, but they do the right thing and participate in the process.
Let’s start with E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump civilly liable for sexually assaulting her. That's a fact based upon the evidence presented.
I read the daily trial transcripts. I also read the written motions, oppositions and judge’s orders. Did you?
The jury absolutely came to the right decision.
The trial judge wrote in his own written opinion that Trump forcibly inserting his fingers inside Carroll met the definition of rape.
Judge Kaplan found that “the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm.”
New York later updated that definition. Under today's law, on the same facts, he gets found guilty of rape outright. Back then the statute required penetration by penis. That's the only reason the label reads differently. The Supreme Court let the verdict stand. Nothing left to argue. Trump assaulted Carroll. Case closed. That’s what the facts and evidence proved in a court of law. I wrote about all the details in my post, “A Federal Judge Found That Donald Trump Raped E. Jean Carroll”
https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/a-federal-judge-found-that-donald?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Now the 34 felony convictions. This case wasn't that unusual. New York has had other cases like it over the past 20 years. None involved a coverup payment to a porn star by a presidential candidate, but they all included cooking the books to cover up other crimes. Fox News won't tell you that. They feed you the same talking points you just repeated back to me. Here is what actually happened.
A grand jury saw the facts and voted to indict. Trump got a trial in front of a jury of his peers. The facts and evidence were presented. A judge enforced every rule of evidence and procedure. The jury convicted him on all 34 counts beyond a reasonable doubt (not easy to do). He's a convicted felon. That's a fact. It’s not my opinion. It’s a fact based upon the presented evidence. I wrote about the details in my post, “Donald Trump Is a Convicted Felon. That’s a Legal Fact, Not Fake News.”
https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/donald-trump-is-a-convicted-felon?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Supporting these verdicts isn't a political argument. It's what the facts and the law say. That's it.
Believing Trump is unworthy of the office and belongs in jail? That's my opinion. And I own it. But it's built on the facts and evidence presented in these cases and, what I see and hear with my own eyes, almost on a daily basis.
Mitch, first, thank you for the thoughtful response—and for sharing your ranch background. Your dad’s saying about the outside of a horse being good for the inside of a man is one I’ve heard most of my life, and there’s a lot of truth in it.
You also asked me a fair question: Did I read the daily trial transcripts, motions, oppositions, and orders?
No, I did not. You did. And I’m not going to pretend otherwise.
“The concept of guilty or not guilty is not necessarily a search for the truth,” - Hubert J. Santos, Hartford lawyer
“The courtroom never reveals the truth, only what is admissible.”-Eli Whitney DeBevoise http://www.debevoise.com
You’ve spent 40 years in courtrooms. I spent more than 20 years behind a radio microphone interviewing people, challenging arguments, and trying to separate what was said from what was actually established. Different arenas. Different experience.
And after reading your response, I’ll concede something plainly: on the Carroll case, your explanation of the distinction between the jury’s sexual-abuse finding and New York’s then-narrow statutory definition of rape is stronger and more complete than the distinction I made in my piece. That’s a fair correction.
I also don’t dispute that Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts. He was. That is a legal fact.
Where I think we still differ is in the movement from legal fact to broader political conclusion—and in the rhetorical framing used to get the reader there.
A verdict is a fact. A conviction is a fact. Saying a man is therefore unworthy of office and belongs in jail is, as you acknowledge, your opinion. You own that distinction, and I respect you for saying so.
My concern is broader than Donald Trump. I’m wary whenever any of us—left, right, lawyer, broadcaster, or cowboy—packages established facts together with implication, selective emphasis, and political judgment in a way that can make the entire package feel equally proven.
That was especially my concern with the Epstein portion of your original article. Being repeatedly named in files, appearing in flight logs, or having had a social relationship with Epstein may be relevant and warrant scrutiny. But those facts are not, by themselves, proof of participation in Epstein’s crimes. That distinction matters to me.
If there is evidence of criminal conduct, investigate it. If the evidence supports charges, prosecute. I don’t care whether the name is Trump, Clinton, a prince, a billionaire, or anyone else.
You’ve made me reconsider and sharpen parts of my argument. That’s what a good exchange should do.
I suspect we still won’t agree on Trump. But I think we may agree on something more important: facts should be stated as facts, opinions should be owned as opinions, and neither of us should be afraid to have our arguments challenged.
Thanks for taking mine seriously.
Of course, John. Good convo. For the most part we agree.
Regarding Epstein, what I’d like to see is all of the facts. The DOJ, through both Bondi and Blanche, has gone from suggesting the case is closed and there was essentially nothing to see to releasing millions of pages that clearly show there’s much more to examine. At the same time, millions of additional files are still being withheld.
Why is this important? Because for every victim. There's a perpetrator. Not one, not a single one, has been charged.
The guy in the White House told Marjorie Taylor Greene he was worried about his friends getting hurt. If there's one thing I've learned litigating cases, it's that when there's smoke, there's usually fire. Like Watergate, I believe it's a cover up.
For me, the right approach is simple: comply with the law and release all of the files subject to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405). That would allow everyone including journalists, researchers, and the public, to review the full record and reach conclusions based on complete information rather than partial disclosures.
As for Trump, I personally don’t see a circumstance where I’m comfortable with an adjudicated sexual abuser and convicted felon serving as President of the United States. That’s a line I can’t get past, regardless of politics.
Why then did the DNC not release the Epstein files prior to the election? If there is damning evidence against Trump and other Republicans, they would have ridden that tidal wave and kept them out of the White House.
The DNC never had the Epstein files to release. They were federal DOJ and FBI investigative records, controllable only by the sitting Attorney General, not by any party or campaign. The Biden DOJ withheld them for the same reason every prior DOJ did: active investigative files are locked down by grand jury secrecy, victim-protection law, sealed court orders, and Maxwell's pending appeals, none of which a President can override by fiat. Nothing compelled release until frankly, the smell of a conspiratorial cover-up resulted in massive public pressure for Congress to pass the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025. The DOJ didn't start releasing files until December 2025 and January 2026. No one could have released them before the election even if they'd wanted to. But you're right, if the Biden DOJ did release everything that was eventually released, it would have more than likely prevented Trump from being re-elected. But Biden respected the separation of powers and also the legitimate separation of agencies, especially between himself, the DOJ, and the FBI.
In all fairness Bondi did say there were CHILDREN on those tapes and they have to track down people who were young children, not teenagers or adults.
Don't forget the SCOTUS and Republicans who've been by his side helping him with all these crimes.
We know Donald Trump is “transactional” so who did he “pay” to bribe those PUTZ?
More than 70 million voted him with knowledge of these facts and this evidence. What evidence and what advantages does the other side have to persuade these voters to come to the other side.
Years ago Albert Einstein gave us the perfect comment to “highlight Trump 2.0”
INSANITY, IS DOING THE SAME THING “TWICE” EXPECTING A “DIFFERENT” OUTCOME.
Donald J Trump should award a no-bid contract to his donor friend and Mar A LARDO neighbor JJ Cafaro to erect a giant golden statue of MAGA MANNY standing in his "Uncle Sam" costume with his dick in his hand to Memorialize the imperious grandeur, selfish greed and ruthless conciet of the MAGA faithful and their megalomaniac narcissistic leader and cronic liar in chief. It would be a celebration of the malignant narcissists everywhere, and especially to their golden lord and Imperious master who is currently waddling through the corridors of the U.S Treasury conducting a manic smash and grab "ALL You Can Carry" theft of the Nation's tax payers considerable resources before PUMPKIN TIME arrives for the CORPULENT ORANGE BLOVIATING PARASITE and brings his golden orgy of abusive disorder to an end.
Share far and wide
Yes,it's all true. I dispise him,his family, and his regime. I've NEVER voted for him.
I love America. The government must change for the sake of freedom. Thanks, Mitchell. Happy Independence Day.