# Post ts_113092137553444967 - Post ID: `ts_113092137553444967` - Platform: Truth Social - Posted: 2024-09-06T18:57:51.556Z (UTC) - Deleted: no - Repost: no - Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967 - Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967/analysis - Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_113092137553444967.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording) ## Post text > Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today’s news out of New York… ## What the media says **Video transcript** (9:33), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his: > Um, so we went over this last hour, but we may have an entirely new audience this hour. So give us your thoughts on the prudence of what the judge did in this case. Well, it was the right decision because Judge Michonne might have ended up not just the judge who, uh, imprisoned Donald Trump. He could have been the judge that reelected Donald Trump. I mean, the, if he, if he actually did impose jail, uh, as Carl Rove noted, that could have been just the catalyst needed, uh, to put Trump over the top. Uh, that's an example of how, uh, curious this calendar is for any type of sentencing. It also means that because of the dates selected here, uh, that the election's going to have a huge impact on sentencing. Uh, if Donald Trump is reelected, uh, as president, uh, then it seems very unlikely that Michonne, uh, would sentence him to jail. It's also unlikely that he could succeed in keeping him in jail because of the conflict with his presidential duties. If he, if Trump loses the election, then indeed that might make it easier for Michonne to do precisely that. So the election has really grown in considerable importance in terms of this sentencing. But keep in mind, whatever Michonne does, uh, it doesn't change what he previously did in this case. I think that he has committed layers of reversible error. I think there was evidence at his trial that the Supreme Court would view as privileged and should not have been before the jury. So there is a long, uh, runway between here and there when it comes to any jail sentence. All right. So we are getting a brand new reaction through our own Brooke Singman here who just spoke to the former president following the judge's decision. He tells her the case was delayed. Because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong. He says, he also adds that as a case, it is a case that should have never been brought Jonathan. Uh, the public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it. I greatly respect the words of necessary being used in the decision because there should be no, if necessary, the case should be dead. It says the former president and brand new remarks to Fox, Jonathan. I certainly agree that this case should never have been brought. I think the former president is correct. This is a political case. Uh, it's a case based on rather novel interpretations of the law. I'm not too sure those interpretations will withstand a review, but I think that the case is overtly political. It was the weakest of the cases, uh, in my view, uh, to go forward. So I believe the former president is right on that front. Uh, the question now, uh, is how these appeals will play out. The president has a rather target rich environment, uh, with this trial. Uh, there are a lot of things here that I think could be reversible. Uh, in some respects, I expect that people in the Trump camp, uh, almost quietly hoped that Michonne would continue his record in the case. Michonne, uh, was quite one sided, uh, in his rulings. I sat in that courtroom and I was astonished by how he consistently ruled against the Trump, uh, team. Even when in my view, they were clearly correct in the motions that they were making. But still you got unanimous decision from 12 jurors, maybe not on the underlying predicate crime, but in the overall crime, you got unanimous decisions so that, you know, they seem to agree with what the prosecution was selling. Um, so this is up, so I think it's, no, I think it's also important to remember what they rendered their ruling on. I've been critical of the jurors. I'm critical of the judge. He told those jurors that they didn't even have to agree what occurred in the case. He gave them various possible reasons why acts were committed and he didn't even force them to record how they voted on what really occurred. All of that is part of the novelty in my view of this case that should be reviewed. Yeah. That was the point I was making that they might not have had unanimity on the underlying predicate crime, but they did in the overall aspect of the case. But you understand politics as well as you understand the law. Now that this is off the table, there will be no sentencing between now and November the fifth. Uh, the voting was supposed to start in North Carolina, but because of a lawsuit that Bobby Kennedy has filed to get his name off the ballot, they've delayed sending out those ballots or letting people vote, um, until time to be determined in the future. We don't know when that's going to be, but what do you think now is the overall effect on the election? If there is any at all, well, first of all, these ballot fights are rather curious. The Michigan secretary of state previously tried to get a popular candidate off the ballot and she's now fighting to keep a non-existent candidate on the ballot because I, I, many people view this as a rather political agenda, uh, to pull away votes from the former president in North Carolina. They said they could switch ballots, but it might take a week. Well, they're going to spend more than that in litigation. So there's a lot of question as to why these democratic secretaries of state are clinging on to Kennedy, uh, to keep him on these ballots in very close states. Now this ruling is going to have an impact, uh, in the sense that many people, I think, correctly viewed New York as lawfare, correctly viewed this as a political case, uh, any sentencing that Michonne would have come down with, I think would have not, uh, been particularly welcomed by most of the public. It would have reminded them of this, this, this campaign again against the former president. So in some ways, I think the Harris campaign is probably celebrating, uh, that they won't have that attention on the Manhattan case. Uh, really something here, um, just looking for, for more out of the letter itself and the implications for the case going forward, Jonathan, I'm sure you've had a chance to see it by now, uh, but using the words and phrases like wanted to avoid the appearance of however unwarded that proceeding had been, uh, that this had been affected by the election. Um, that's interesting, right? And not like we have heard that from this judge before. No, I mean, look, I, I support, I, I, you know, it was not one of those that was piling on Michonne, but I have to say after sitting in his courtroom, I was very surprised. And what I thought was a one sided approach to that trial, it reminded me of an old judge who used to say his defense ready to present its case and then say, are the prosecutors ready to present our case? I mean, the, uh, there was, uh, in my view, a lack of balance there. We have not heard this type of language from Michonne, uh, and he, he refused to do things during the trial that could have accommodated the environment in which the trial was occurring, including a gag order that I think was excessive. Uh, and the irony of course was that the president, the former president's polls went up when he was gagged partially, I think, because people saw the unfairness partially because he sort of stayed on script. But that may have weighed in all of this, Michonne actually witnessed how his conduct at the trial, the trial itself worked in Trump's favor. That would have been nothing, uh, in comparison to what would have happened if he sends Trump to home confinement or to jail. I think Michonne was aware of that. You know, it's funny. So many things have happened since this verdict was added up that, uh, I mean, this thing has been so far in the rear view mirror that you almost have to remind yourself of what happened during the trial. But here's what the spokesperson for, uh, DA Alvin Bragg's office said. A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump with 34 felony counts. The Manhattan DA's office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court. Of course, the new date is the new date for the moment, but that could change too. It can, because remember there are a lot of appeals, uh, that are, are going forward. Uh, the Supreme Court, his decision on immunity does hit this case. It's true that much of the conduct in this case did not involve the president while he was in office. But some did. In fact, the critical payments that occurred, uh, occurred while he was in office. The prosecutors came back to that over and over again about his multitasking, paying these things off while he was president of the United States, the testimony of Hope Hicks. All of that can contaminate the trial. Now all of our expectation is that Michonne is the least likely judge, uh, to say, you know what, I can't really unravel all of that, let's have a new trial. Uh, but he's going to have to make a very convincing case for the appellate court because you know, the Supreme Court made very clear that they wanted breathing room for presidents. They did, they did not want these to be close questions as to when your former aides could pop up in court and testify against you in cases like this. All right, Jonathan, thank you very much for joining us via phone and then on camera, we We really appreciate you joining us here. He's everywhere. ## Media - video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/113/092/137/196/846/532/original/b490201c35e105fb.mp4 ## Engagement - Likes: 7,755 - Reposts: 2,422 - Replies: 299 - Views: unknown - Metrics collected: 2026-02-01T01:19:51.336Z (UTC) # Analysis _Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-03-26T14:49:07.485Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._ ## Summary This minimalist post — a single attribution line plus video clip of Fox News legal commentator Jonathan Turley — functions as a **validation-by-proxy** unit within a coordinated same-day posting cluster responding to the postponement of Trump's hush money sentencing. Aide authorship is highly probable: published at 2:57 PM Eastern during Trump's travel day to Charlotte, the post exhibits professional formatting, complete grammar, and controlled emotional register absent from Trump's authentic companion posts. The post's primary psychological function is supply delivery through credentialed transfer: by leading with Turley's academic title before his name, then allowing an ellipsis to invite followers to complete the favorable conclusion, the post converts a procedural court scheduling decision into what the in-group epistemology encodes as objective confirmation of innocence. This is consistent with narcissistic dynamics in which external validation from authority figures carries special weight — not merely being innocent, but having a Constitutional Law Professor confirm it. The post is unremarkable in isolation but contextually significant as the institutional-legitimacy layer atop more emotionally raw companion posts asserting "BANANA REPUBLIC" persecution. No danger indicators. No clinically significant cognitive markers (insufficient text). The reality distortion present is soft but deliberate: procedural relief reframed as substantive legal vindication. ## Post Analysis: ts_113092137553444967 **Platform:** Truth Social | **Date:** 2024-09-06 18:57:51 UTC | **Subject Age:** 78 --- ### Post Overview This post is minimalist in direct content: a single attribution line ("Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today's news out of New York…") paired with a video clip. The post itself contains no original Trump text beyond the framing label. Its meaning is entirely contextual — the "news out of New York" is the postponement of Trump's hush money sentencing from September 18 to November 26, announced by Judge Juan Merchan earlier that day to avoid the appearance of influencing the election. The post functions as **validation-by-proxy**: rather than asserting his own legal vindication, Trump (or his aide) deploys a credentialed third party — Turley, a Fox News–affiliated George Washington University law professor and reliable Trump legal commentator — to deliver the favorable interpretation. This is a common rhetorical pattern: outsourcing the grandiose claim to an authority figure who can carry it with institutional credibility. --- ### Level 1: Dispositional Traits (Big Five) Given the post's minimal direct content, trait inference is heavily constrained. The act of selection — curating a sympathetic legal voice rather than making direct claims — suggests: - **Low Agreeableness facet (modesty absent):** The selection of Turley over neutral legal commentary is characteristic; Turley reliably frames events favorably. The implied message ("even a professor agrees with me") is self-aggrandizing without self-exposure. - **Neuroticism (angry hostility) — muted here:** Strikingly, unlike the companion post from the same day ("STRICTLY THIRD WORLD, BANANA REPUBLIC 'STUFF'"), this post is emotionally regulated and calm. This suggests **aide mediation** or a deliberate rhetorical cool-down strategy after the more emotionally raw companion post. - **Low Conscientiousness (deliberation):** The content is thin and outsourced — no original legal analysis or argumentation. This is consistent with baseline patterns of delegating complex framing to trusted surrogates. --- ### Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations **Trigger:** Narcissistic supply-seeking following a favorable legal development. The sentencing postponement is objectively a procedural relief, but the psychological imperative is to convert it into complete vindication — which Turley's framing likely accomplishes. This is a **maintenance/supply-seeking** post following what the subject's narrative requires to be a "win." **Agency motive (status/power):** Amplifying Turley positions Trump within the legitimizing frame of constitutional law scholarship, elevating himself from defendant to misunderstood legal principle. **Schema — persecutory world partially confirmed reversed:** The postponement is processed not as procedural accommodation but as systemic recognition that "there was NO CASE" (as the companion post states explicitly). Turley serves as the authoritative validator of this schema. --- ### Level 3: Narrative Identity **Protagonist role:** Vindicated victim / persecuted but righteous fighter. The Turley post functions as the "expert witness" scene in Trump's ongoing persecution narrative. He is not just claiming innocence — he is having a professor confirm it. **Redemption sequence:** Legal system (contaminated by political opponents) → objective legal scholars see the truth → vindication is imminent. This is a micro-redemption beat in the larger ongoing arc. **Contamination sequence (inverted):** The contamination (witch hunt, banana republic) has been temporarily interrupted by this favorable development — which is why the companion posts from this day are unusually ebullient. **Contrasting other:** The "political" prosecutors/Comrade Kamala (explicit in companion post) vs. the objective "Constitutional Law Professor" — partisan attack vs. principled scholarship. --- ### Level 4: Clinical Indicators **Malignant Narcissism Assessment:** - *Narcissistic features:* The use of Turley as proxy validation is consistent with the need for external admiration delivered through authoritative channels. Rather than merely claiming innocence, Trump requires credentialed confirmation. (Moderate confidence.) - *Paranoid features:* Not directly expressed in this post, but the day's posting pattern shows significant paranoid ideation in companion posts ("Election Interference," "Radical Left Opponents"). - *Antisocial/Sadistic features:* Absent in this specific post. **Narcissistic state:** Grandiose — the legal postponement is being processed as external confirmation of his specialness and the injustice of the prosecution. **Defense mechanisms:** - **Rationalization (neurotic):** Converting a procedural delay into legal vindication through the authority of a named law professor. - **Idealization (immature):** Turley is deployed as an idealized expert whose credibility transfers to Trump's cause; the full complexity of the legal situation is omitted. - **Denial (pathological, mild):** The companion post asserts "there was NO CASE, I DID NOTHING WRONG" — the Turley post is the softer institutional packaging of the same denial. --- ### Authorship Attribution **Assessment: Aide-written (Scavino or communications staff). High confidence.** UTC 18:57:51 = **2:57 PM Eastern Time** on September 6, 2024. Trump was in New York earlier (press conference at Trump Tower) and traveling to Charlotte, NC for the 4:00 PM Fraternal Order of Police event. This post dropped just before or during the Charlotte appearance — squarely within business hours. Supporting aide-authorship indicators: - **Business hours** (2:57 PM ET) - **Polished, complete attribution format** — "Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today's news out of New York…" is grammatically structured and professional - **No ALL CAPS** (contrast with companion post which has multiple ALL CAPS passages) - **No typos or misspellings** - **Media curation** — selecting and packaging a video clip is a staff function - **Controlled emotional register** — unlike the viscerally authentic companion posts from the same day This post is consistent with a communications team monitoring cable news/Fox, clipping favorable Turley commentary, and posting it during a busy travel/event day. It serves a clear strategic function: providing the legal credibility packaging that Trump's raw companion posts ("BANANA REPUBLIC") cannot. --- ### Rhetorical Techniques - **Appeal to authority:** "Constitutional Law Professor" front-loaded as credentialing device. Turley's institutional affiliation lends academic legitimacy to what is substantively partisan legal commentary. - **Implicature:** The ellipsis ("…") and the video attachment perform the rhetorical work — Trump says almost nothing directly, allowing Turley to carry the argument while Trump signals endorsement. - **Guilt by omission:** No acknowledgment that the postponement was procedural rather than substantive legal vindication. - **Third-party validation as supply delivery:** The post is structured to deliver admiration/vindication through a proxy — insulating Trump from the appearance of self-promotion while achieving the same psychological effect. - **Brand association:** Attaching Trump's legal situation to "Constitutional Law" elevates a criminal case to a matter of constitutional principle. --- ### Gaslighting / Reality Distortion Mild. The post implies (without stating) that Turley's commentary confirms there "was no case" — a framing the companion post makes explicit. The actual event (sentencing postponement to avoid electoral influence) is reframed as objective legal recognition of innocence. This is a **soft gaslighting** move: not a direct denial of documented reality, but a selective framing that allows followers to conclude the prosecution has been discredited. --- ### Epistemic Closure **Present.** The choice of Turley — a commentator reliably aligned with Trump's legal framing — forecloses alternative interpretations. No neutral or contrary legal voices are entertained. The post reinforces the in-group epistemology: constitutional scholars (the right kind) agree with Trump; critics are political operatives. --- ### Danger Assessment **None.** No eliminationist language, no dehumanization, no mobilization rhetoric. This is a supply-seeking validation post with institutional packaging. --- ### Fact Verification | Claim | Verdict | Evidence | |-------|---------|----------| | "Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional Law Professor" | **True** | Jonathan Turley is a tenured professor at George Washington University Law School, specializing in constitutional law, civil liberties, and legal theory. He is a recognized public legal commentator. | | "Turley commented on 'today's news out of New York'" | **Mostly True** | Given Turley's documented pattern of Fox News commentary favorable to Trump, and the major legal news of the day (sentencing postponement announced by Judge Merchan), it is highly plausible Turley provided commentary. The specific content of his commentary is in the attached video, not verifiable from text alone. | Overall Veracity: 90% ## Authorship Analysis **Aide-Written** (score: 15%) ### Indicators - 2:57 PM Eastern time — mid-afternoon business hours, well outside Trump's authentic late-night/early-morning posting window - Professional attribution format: 'Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today's news out of New York…' — grammatically complete and polished - No ALL CAPS passages (contrast with same-day companion post using multiple ALL CAPS passages) - No typos or misspellings - Media curation (video clip selection and packaging) is a staff function ## Psychological Profile ### State **Grandiose State** **Trigger:** Supply Seeking (Sentencing postponement reframed as legal vindication) Sentiment: +0.35 ### Clinical **Malignant Narcissism:** - Narcissistic: 40% - Antisocial: 5% - Paranoid: 10% - Sadism: 0% **Defense Mechanisms:** - rationalization (neurotic) - idealization (immature) - denial (pathological) **Cognitive Complexity:** - Complexity: 20% **Parasocial Techniques:** - Proxy credentialing — allowing followers to feel they are receiving authoritative legal analysis rather than partisan framing - Implicature via ellipsis — the '...' invites followers to fill in the favorable conclusion - Brand association between Trump's legal situation and 'Constitutional Law' as a principle ## Danger Assessment **NONE** ### Gaslighting - Implicit reframing of a procedural sentencing postponement as substantive legal vindication — the 'news' is presented as if it constitutes recognition of innocence rather than a scheduling accommodation - The companion post makes the gaslighting explicit ('there was NO CASE, I DID NOTHING WRONG'); this post provides the institutional credentialing for the same distortion - Selective expert deployment: Turley's commentary is presented as representative legal opinion rather than as one ideologically aligned perspective among many ## Fact Checks (2) _The model's verdicts from 2026-03-26._ > Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional Law Professor **TRUE** Jonathan Turley is a tenured professor at George Washington University Law School, specializing in constitutional law, civil liberties, and legal theory. He is a recognized public legal commentator. Sources: General knowledge — GWU Law faculty > Turley commented on 'today's news out of New York' **MOSTLY TRUE** Given Turley's documented pattern of Fox News commentary favorable to Trump, and the major legal news of the day (sentencing postponement announced by Judge Merchan), it is highly plausible Turley provided commentary. The specific content of his commentary is in the attached video, not verifiable from text alone. Sources: Known events: Trump Hush Money Sentencing Delayed Until After Election Overall Veracity: 90% ## Tags - aide_authored (90%) - proxy_validation (85%) - legal_commentary_amplification (90%) - sentencing_delay_response (95%) - epistemic_closure (70%) - rationalization_defense (75%) - supply_seeking (70%) - reality_reframing (60%) - turley_jonathan (95%) - hush_money_case (95%) ## That day _From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._ **Legal Relief and Police Endorsement Fuel a Grandiose Day, Until Cheney's Betrayal Pierces the Armor** Trump spent most of the day celebrating two pieces of good news: his hush money sentencing being delayed until after the election, and receiving an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police at their Charlotte conference. He framed the sentencing delay as proof of total innocence, and flooded his feed with links and quotes amplifying the police endorsement. The mood turned sharply hostile in the evening when he learned that Dick and Liz Cheney had endorsed Kamala Harris, triggering a long, angry post demanding investigations and calling them irrelevant. Throughout the day, he repeatedly branded Harris as "Comrade Kamala" and pushed false claims about immigrants accessing Social Security and Medicare. Full digest for 2024-09-06: https://trump.fm/date/2024-09-06/analysis ## Citation - APA: Trump, D. J. (2024, September 6). Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967 - MLA: Trump, Donald J. "Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today’s..." Truth Social, 6 Sep. 2024. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026. - Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley on today’s...," Truth Social, September 6, 2024, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967. ## For agents - Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt - API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json - MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth) - This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_113092137553444967 - Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_113092137553444967 - All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_113092137553444967 - Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2024-09-06 - The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_113092137553444967.md?analysis=false _Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._