Law Professors File Ethics Complaint Against Kellyanne Conway

A group of 15 ethics law professors from around the country has filed bar charges against  White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.  For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at  George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995).   The letter from 15 professors alleged ethical violations of government rules as well as  “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  Most of the allegations in the letter are, in my view, without merit and seem overtly political.  The one issue that has already been raised in Congress and has a legal foundation is the alleged endorsement of Conway of the product line of Ivanka Trump.  That is a technical violation of federal rules, but the question is whether it was a venial rather than mortal sin.  The “violation” was the result of a side comment by Conway on television criticizing the decision of Nordstrom to drop the line.  The White House Counsel’s office let it be known that Conway had been “counseled” over the infraction.  However, ethics charges should not be a form of politics by other means and, with all due respect to these accomplished academics, this letter strikes me as raising largely political objections to Conway’s work as a spokesperson for the Administration.

 Some of the allegations are highly suspect as the basis for an ethics charge. Focusing on prior misleading or false statements, the professors accuse Conway of violating Rule 8.4(c) which states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
For example, the professors  take  Conway to task for her false statement that there was a “Bowling Green Massacre.”  However, Conway soon thereafter apologized for misstatement.  The professors however suggest an intentional lie:
On several occasions, including in an interview on MSNBC in early February, 2017, Ms.Conway referred to the “Bowling Green Massacre” to justify President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Not only was there no “massacre” in Bowling Green, Kentucky (or Bowling Green, New York, for that matter), but Ms. Conway knew there was no massacre. 

Although Ms.Conway claimed it was a slip of the tongue and apologized, her actual words belie her having misspoken: “I bet it’s brand-new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country,
were radicalized, and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green Massacre. Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.” See generally Clare Foran, The Bowling Green Massacre that Wasn’t, THE ATLANTIC, February 3, 2017, at Moreover, she cited the nonexistent massacre to media outlets on at least two other occasions. See Aaron Blake, The Fix: Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Bowling Green Massacre’ wasn’t a slip of the tongue. 

She has said it before.
WASH. POST, February 6, 2017, See Here 
The inclusion of such a controversy in my view wholly undermines the credibility of the ethics charge.  The professors are asking that the bar presume that Conway intentionally lied eve though such a lie would be immediately challenged and she later apologized.  Moreover, she was acting not as a lawyer but as a political spokesperson in such a capacity.
The letter also charges that Conway lied about the record under the Obama Administration.
Compounding this false statement, in that same MSNBC interview Ms. Conway also made a false statement that President Barack Obama had “banned” Iraqi refugees from coming into the United States for six months following the “Bowling Green Massacre.” Id. However, President Obama did not impose a formal six-month ban on Iraqi refugees.
He ordered enhanced screening procedures following what actually happened in Bowling Green—the arrest and prosecution of two Iraqis for attempting to send weapons and money to al-Qaeda in Iraq. 

The two men subsequently pled guilty to federal terrorism
charges and were sentenced to substantial prison terms. See Glenn Kessler, Fact Checker: Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011, WASH. POST, January 29, 2017, See Here.

This was not the first time Ms. Conway had engaged in conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” On January 22, 2017, on the NBC television show Meet the Press, Ms. Conway said that the White House had put forth “alternative facts” to what the news media reported about the size of Mr. Trump’s inauguration crowd. She
made this assertion the day after Mr. Trump and White House press secretary Sean Spicer accused the news media of reporting falsehoods about the inauguration and Mr. Trump’s relationship with intelligence agencies. See Nicholas Fandos, White House Pushes ‘Alternative Facts.’ Here are the Real Ones. N.Y. TIMES, January 22, 2017, at As many prominent commentators have pointed out, the phrase “alternative facts” is especially dangerous when offered by the President’s counselor. Moreover, “alternative facts’ are not facts at all; they are lies. Charles M. Blow, A Lie by
Any Other Name, N.Y. TIMES, January 26, 2017.
Once again, this reads like a political retort.  Are these professors seriously arguing that a White House aide inartfully discussing “alternative facts” is an ethics violation or misstating the Obama action is a punishable violation for an attorney?  The point of the Obama reference is that the prior Administration based such special measures on the basis of nationality, which is the central controversy in the Immigration Act.

These allegations destroy the legitimacy of the complaint.  The professors do raise one viable issue of improper conduct, but not one that ai view as suited for bar resolution.  During a Fox interview, Conway reacted to Nordstrom’s recent decision to drop Ivanka product line.  She clearly viewed the decision as political and struck out with what I took as a fairly tongue in cheek comment: “It’s a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully — I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”

That was a clear mistake and a violation of federal rules.  The law is clear about barring such an endorsement under 5 C.F.R. 2635.702 barring the use of public office for private gain:

An  employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or  persons with whom the  employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the  employee is an officer or member, and  persons with whom the  employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

While Conway can claim that this was an effort at being cheeky or humorous, she expressly endorsed a product line and, in light of the ongoing controversy over conflicts of interest in the Trump Administration, it was remarkably ill-considered and reckless.  However, this is a matter for investigation in the Executive Branch.  I assume that there is some discretion in distinguishing between violations that are substantive efforts to endorse a product and a passing statement like Conway’s.  I would expect that such a comment would generate at least a formal reprimand and the Administration has already stated obliquely that Conway was “counseled.”
The question is whether the Bar is the proper forum for such transgressions but a staff member who is new to executive service.  There are a host of such problems that arise in new administrations but one can make logical distinctions.  Again, I fail to see the basis for a formal ethics charge based solely on the product endorsement and view the other references as bordering on frivolous as the foundation for an ethics complaint.
What do you think?


229 thoughts on “Law Professors File Ethics Complaint Against Kellyanne Conway”

  1. Is it inevitable that this once readable blog turns into a nasty-fest on every subject? Everyone’s so funny.

    1. Sure…. We are now ruled by King Trumplethinskin of Orange and the kingdom is very divided. More than half of the citizens and the media are considered to be enemies of the authoritarian state.

      1. Have you noticed that the ones supporting Trump and his agenda are all thin skinned. If Obama was always subject to media and personal attacks what the issue here, the Fascist GOP won. They cannot accept partial wins, unless there agenda is forced on everyone and the ones that did not win tow the party line, then they are be said to be sore losers.

        Rarely do you see sore winners unless you are in a fascist state, then they expend the dissent. Oh yeah.

          1. Trump does not want the media looking into his connections with that crook Felix Slater.

            1. anon – they are just butt-hurt that Spicer didn’t allow them into the gaggle with everyone else.

        1. No the sample of the three main reasons right in a row was perfect and it’ continues ….stupid is as stupid does. Fascist invented by the leader of the Socialist Party and adopted by all forms of socialism. To take control by any and all means possible. When in doubt look in the mirror and describe yourself and yes they expend the descent . Stupid is as stupid does – count on them every time.

          Now back to the important issues and literate discussions.

  2. Bedtime for Bonzo is a 1951 comedy film directed by Fred de Cordova, starring Ronald Reagan, Diana Lynn, and Peggy as Bonzo.[2] It revolves around the attempts of the central character, psychology professor Peter Boyd (Ronald Reagan), to teach human morals to a chimpanzee, hoping to solve the “nature versus nurture” question. He hires a woman, Jane Linden (Diana Lynn), to pose as the chimp’s mother while he plays father to it, and uses 1950s-era child rearing techniques.[3]

    This movie is one of the most remembered of Reagan’s acting career and renewed his popularity as a movie star for a while. Reagan, however, never even saw the film until 1984.[4]

    A sequel was released entitled Bonzo Goes to College (1952), but featured none of the three lead performers from the original. Peggy died in a zoo fire two weeks after the premier of Bedtime for Bonzo;[2] another chimp was hired for the second film whose name really was “Bonzo”. Reagan did not want to work on the second film; he thought the premise was silly.[citation needed]

    1. Of course but he left it to you and me to think and reason it out as to why? This applies to both the side by side posts which might be entitled the 15th Bonzo Circuits.

      When you are an outsider but have full power you are not expected to act like an insider (expect to really stupid people) and you should not act like something you are not. So you take full advantage of the built in leverage.

      How long did it take that first immigration ruling attempt to draw fire, discussion etc. hit the courts nationwide and they in turn responded. Fast. I’ve never heard of any court responding that fast except the judges in the Utah Winter Olympics.

      Mean while feed in a bit more of the other component parts of the upcoming, ineveitable changes. Little whiplash and vertebrae twisting on the far left wouldn’t you say?

      So dash of border and bit on military enhancement, a sprinkle of income tax reduction a large scoop of OBC/ACA and then back to this second version, this time all nicely written with all the court rulings addressed and the Presidential perogatives intact.

      But but but that’s not the way its done!!!!!!!!

      It is now – especially since the doofus left left all those neat little tricks of the trade intact.

      Tha’ts not politics the way it used to be but i’ts politics the way it’s going to be….and IS.

      THen hit them with about five or ten more fast balls such as dismantling a good deal of the fourth branch bureaucracy, and dabbling in the bathroom door controversy which ended up ‘it’s really a state issue.’

      I only wish I had had opponents on the battlefield come waltzing in fat, dumb, and stupid and from what I read today they haven’t changed a bit.

      Super PACs and collectives are on their way out the door.

      and they still have the nuke option – more than one.

      and a list of those ready to jump parties.

      What does the left have? Bacon and Yeggs?

      Now for all the doofus yelling impeach have you looked up the first step yet? No? Figures. Stupid is as stupid does.

  3. No doubt her administrative suspension for failing to pay DC Bar dues aside, she was not engaged in the ‘practice of law’ but a new Trumpian ‘practice of lore’ instead. Lmao

  4. I ran a test on WaPo using another name and then a posting name. They lied about there security and immediately used the trap name. If you don’t want your entire life in their hands steer clear of WaPo they have no ethics.

  5. I think that America needs to go back to a previous time when lawyers “read for the law”. They did not go to law school. They were apprentices in law firms, sometimes with just one solo lawyer for a teacher. Abe Lincoln read for the law and was a great lawyer. The law professor tribe is the most snot nosed group of people on planet Earth. This Gang of 15 need to be scrutinized.

    1. Quite the other way around. As usual you got it bass ackwards. There is very little if any independent media. The vast majority are bought and paid for propagandists. You can’t value what doesn’t exist and using the Clinton News Network as your source shows how little you value an independent and honest media which is to say at the value of zero.

      Value received for value given and only the very stupid would pay out good money for the scribblings of a modern day Goebbelist much less mouth it as if it wee some kind of holy writ.

      Diogenese is still searching.

      The other problem is in characterizing someone as a counsel or council and under which set of definitions. The KEY is the words AT LAW such as attorney at law.

      One who gives advice but not legal advise or devoid of legal advise. is quite different from the other.

      Therefore what is the definition used for her appointment. That turned out to be

      Counselor to the President of the United States. inthe words of the Counsellor To The President. The words at law or legal advisor are not mentioned. Therefore she was not acting as a legal adviser

      Next are they laws, real laws, defining the status of the job. Nowhere could I dig up any version that added ‘ legal councillor or even ‘at law.’ but she is a lawyer and member of the bar as they call it.

      Does that code of ethics hold sway at all times? What if they are coaching a little league team which is a form of counseling?

      I fear the Gang of Fifteen jumped the gun and left out some key information for striclty political purpose an then HOW will they be treated?

      Diogenese is still searching for an hones descendent of Plato. Sorry… you don’t qualify.

  6. This tells you how wrong things are going in the US. We have attorneys who not only recommended torture but ways of committing torture. The bar didn’t censor them. They all have prestigious jobs. Well the heck were these academics when this went down? Where was there outrage? Their letter? Their “resistance”? Up their you know what! That’s where they were!

    Kellyanne is a political shill. She deserves to be criticized for her various lies and attempts to disseminate “alternative facts”, etc. in that capacity. She should act with integrity and she isn’t. But she most certainly isn’t the only person who should be criticized for lack of integrity.

    “‘If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?’, to which Yoo replied ‘No treaty.’ (wikipedia)

    I am getting really sick and tired of hypocrites. Where have these people been when Obama said he would be looking forward, not back with regards to torture. Put in perspective, Kellyanne’s crime of pushing Ivanka’s clothing line isn’t really on the same (Jeppesen Data) plane as torture. Sure, write the letter but no one except devoted Democrats will take that letter seriously. Until these hypocrites take an oath to write a letter concerning torture, they have nothing to say to me or any other person who cares about justice.

  7. That was weak, even wrong, Turley. Is not Conway a counselor to the Prez? If so, on duty every time she speaks.

    Oh yes, after this I’ll certainly advise prospective law students to stay far away from George Washington University.

      1. It was only last week that a Georgetown ethics professor was indicted for running a meth distribution ring. Apparently these 15 ethics professors don’t have an issue with that, as they didn’t bother to send a complaint to the Bar. Too busy with writing a political attack disguised as an ethics complaint, I suppose…

        1. Did you notice that none of the other legitimate media are even carrying the story? I’ll say one thing for our Libertarian Host .. the opportunities to be prepared before the lame streamers get ahold of this are mind boggling. Here we are, problem solved I’m wondering. Do we get college credits? Or was the calendar flipped to April First?

    1. Ahhh I found the right post again. Counsellor To the President is not the same job as Legal Councillor or Counsel at law. Her job is the same as a big league coach. She’s Mike Ditka and Trumps the Bears! The complaint is not valid.

    2. That’s true but as Counselor To The President she is not acting as an attorney nor paid to do that job. . Compare Bowling Green to Benghazi or Clinton foundation or ……etc. Best go clean up your hole before you cast stones at others. All we are getting out of this is a feeling of immense pride for running you out of town..

  8. If you look at individual comments she has made, then for most of her questionable comments, no sane person would infer that she is intentionally misleading the public; however, when you look at her behavior the last 9 months in its totality, I think reasonable people can and should easily infer that she has intentionally lied on multiple occasions. Also, calling it the Bowling Green Massacre was not a slip of the tongue. She repeated it several times. Nor is that something that a reasonable person should attribute to her merely being negligent. There simply is no way that someone could make that mistake. She invented a terrorist attack and gave it a moniker. Why, you ponder? To “win” that interview. Trump and his folks have been in a constant struggle trying to control the news cycle and Trump has proven that you can get away with lying. There are so many more lies, but I won’t waste my time on it.

    1. Good and we won’t waste our time on you ….in future have some facts, sources, cites and sites to back up the blather.

      1. The standard for posting on here is on par with that of an academic journal of some sort now? Funny, I couldn’t tell. Either you hold those with opposing viewpoints to unreasonable standards of production and proof, or you hold yourself and your fellow posters in too high esteem – almost to the point of being delusional.

    2. My take on the bowling green massacre was that she meant the “planned” Massacre. I don’t attribute premeditation to that. I am not trying to absolve her of all, but that particularly example doesn’t ring true for me.

      1. Even if she said referred to the refugees who “*planned* the Bowling Green Massacre,” it would still be misleading because no one was hurt or injured – there was no actual event for goodness sakes! The word massacre is one of those scare words. It has been used in highly propagandized ways earlier in history for political purposes (e.g., the Boston Massacre). This was a pollster using and abusing language for political ends by being intentionally misleading. You simply cannot refer to it in any way as a massacre when zero people are hurt or injured. You cannot refer to an event that never occurred in this way without your credibility and judgment being called into doubt. And if you disagree, then perhaps you should start referring to all averted terrorist attacks as massacres and consider how the word would be rendered meaningless if it was used that way. You should talk about the guys who planned the shoe-bomb massacre. The underwear bomb massacre. The paintball massacre. Absurd. Perhaps we should save that word for actual massacres, like in San Bernardino, or hell, like in Aleppo. And of course, all of this assumes she used the word “planned,” which she did not use. She referred to the Bowling Green Massacre several times in more than one interview without ever using the “planned.”

        1. So? is there a point to all this except try once again to cover up something. Maybe a little more digging is wha’ts called for. After all there must be dirt. You are regressives are you not?

  9. Turley has dialed in on the meat of the matter, the petulant hacks whose only use for the law is to use it as a stick to beat out their own, very limited, agenda.

    The Democrat Party needs to do some housecleaning and see if after that, they are still viable at all.

    1. What Democrat Party. They very clearly and distinctly said last year they had changed their names to the Socialist Party.

        1. In the Newspeak dictionary fascist = a person or idea we don’t like. No, I did not vote for Trump and no, I do not support most of his agenda. I do think sloppy use of the term fascist devalues to some extent the very real horror experienced by victims of the Third Reich.

  10. Would the same complaint apply to H Clinton as Sec’y of State? and her chief of staff Cheryl Mills?
    Both seemed to alternate between State Dept and Clinton Foundation, is the statement by Conway more public because it was made on tv instead of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

    1. Or Huma Abedin how long can this list be made if everone added just one name.

  11. Many ethics rules are designed to restrict what lawyers say and do, even if the speech or conduct has no direct relationship to one’s practice of law.

    This will get much worse if states adopt the proposed ethics rule banning speech that manifests bias against certain protected classes of people. (bias against other groups of people is of course permitted under the proposed ABA rules)

    As far as I can tell, bar associations have been taken over by do-gooders who want to force all lawyers to support certain political causes (e.g. by forcing them to pay dues fees that are used to support political lobbying for or against certain bills), and to behave in certain ways that the bar deems to be acceptable.

    The professors are obviously attempting to use the ethics rules to suppress political speech. Given the obvious potential for selective use of ethics rules for political purposes, it might be time for courts to start striking down these types of restrictions on speech.

    1. May I combine this effort with the world wide witches work shop to whitehouseless President Trump.

      To quote myself in the first post around two am on Nov 9th. (and this latest effort may well fall under the ethics rules for witch we are pro foundly greatful…)

      Ding Dong The Witch is DEAD the wicked witch which witch it is?

      Could have been written for the Gang of Fifteen, the DNC or any trying to determine is their life after death for wtiches?

      But fear not just sing this little ditty and all will be well


      Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
      Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

      Wake up – sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
      Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead.

      She’s gone where theDinos go,
      Below – below – below. Yo-ho,
      let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out.
      Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
      Let them know
      The Wicked Witch is dead!


      As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.

      But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see

      To see?

      If she

      If she?

      Is morally, ethic’lly

      Father No.1
      Spiritually, physically

      Father No. 2
      Positively, absolutely

      Undeniably and reliably Dead

      As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
      And she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.

      Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendants

      If any.

      Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last is dead!”

      And there you have it officially.
      Let your dreams be troubled free
      Then dance and sing so merrily

      Ding Dong the witches are historeeeeee!

  12. How many of these 15 law professors have ever tried a jury trial case? I bet none. They are supposed to be teaching students to be lawyers and they don’t know nuthin bout birthin babies.

    1. Finally a rational discussion of the article, instead of the diatribe of kemo sabe and the Wizard of Oz. Thank you for getting us back on track and steering the thread back to the issue at hand; did Kellyanne Conway violate ethics statutes or did she tell friends where they could get a good bargain?

      1. lupusguru – as I learned from the Jesuits, first we need to define terms. What defines a good bargain? Who are included in friends? Once we have some answers we can move on to answer your questions. 😉

        1. I hope you found the time bomb I placed here and there about the fallacy in the complaint. I tried to get it to our brightest bulbs especially those in the academic circles. My Gang of Fifteen comment from this morning has taken wings but more important is the oversight (on purpose or not) of their fallacious complaint. I just know there is going to be some schpinner that will find some reference I missed in the four hours of research today. But the easy answer is you can’t charge ethics violation unless the individual is working as an attorney. i couldn’t even find anything that made that ethics procedure a life time 24 hour a day until death do us part so the whole thing is just a rather badly contrived and backfired blaaaahhhhh.

  13. Totally political attacks. They are out to destroy everyone around Trump. They don’t care if they are right. They will do whatever they can to beat them down. The attack on Ivanka’s companies has been part of of the news. KellyAnne was taking part in the conversation. It’s not KA’s company or her family’s.

    1. How can you destroy someone intent on self destruction?

      This administration is getting more press than Nixon ever got.

  14. Forgive me for not bringing up this point in my earlier comment. District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, 17(a) provides “Except as otherwise provided in this rule or as the Court may otherwise order, all proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by an attorney shall be kept confidential until either a petition has been filed under section 8 (c) or an informal admonition has been issued.”. The question thus arises: how did a confidential document make it into the public domain a matter of days after it was filed? I can say with assurance, based on having litigated cases with them, that the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel does not disclose confidential information. Certainly, Ms. Conway, even if she had already been served with the complaint, is not going to make the complaint public. Who does that leave? I suspect it is the esteemed “law professors, all of whom teach courses relating to legal ethics”, that’s who. or someone acting on their behalf. See my earlier comment. It appears that these law professors need to update their knowledge of ethics, at least the part of ethics dealing with disclosures of confidential information. The leak of the confidential information to the public demonstrates beyond peradventure that the complaining law professors have motives ulterior to the proper functioning of the legal profession.

    1. In point of fact as we found out some hours ago when it first broke and this site was sleeping the case is heavily weakened for a number of reasons not the least of which is where the hell where these 15 hypocrites when far worse was being performed like trained monkeys …manques on a stick. The answer they were off being hypocritical .

    2. I put this in two places who knows maybe it will be three.

      Diogenese is still searching.

      The problem is in characterizing someone as a counsel or council and under which set of definitions. The KEY is the words AT LAW such as attorney at law.

      One who gives advice but not legal advise or devoid of legal advise. is quite different from the other.

      Therefore what is the definition used for her appointment. That turned out to be

      Counselor to the President of the United States. inthe words of the Counsellor To The President. The words at law or legal advisor are not mentioned. Therefore she was not acting as a legal adviser

      Next are they laws, real laws, defining the status of the job. Nowhere could I dig up any version that added ‘ legal councillor or even ‘at law.’ but she is a lawyer and member of the bar as they call it.

      Does that code of ethics hold sway at all times? What if they are coaching a little league team which is a form of counseling?

      I fear the Gang of Fifteen jumped the gun and left out some key information for striclty political purpose an then HOW will they be treated?

      Diogenese is still searching for an hones descendent of Plato. In the meantime perhaps you can nelp with the problem of how far reaching is the bar ethics manual? Can you die and be sued in the afterlife?

      1. Researching a bit further well for some of you a lot further. I checked the wording of the complaint and found no use of the words at law or legal councilor only Presidential Counselor

        Based on that and the following which you’ll get tired of no doubt but tough she was not working as a lawyer or attorney but as something more akin to a coach such as Mike Ditka kicking ass and taking zero names.

        Based on that information alone the complaint is faulty, should be rejected and the Gang of Fifteen counseled and censored for missing such an obvious point.

        Either that or they are all devotees of Plato and company and believe in leaving themselves a way out.

        We shall see if more factual information is forth coming and how that affects things but as of right now they are dangerously close to earning the title ‘enemy domestic.’ It’s not just the media.

        As George Soros has found out many of this type are for sale.

        1. I put this in three places not counting other blogs.

          Diogenese is still searching.

          The problem is in characterizing someone as a counsel or council and under which set of definitions. The KEY is the words AT LAW such as attorney at law.

          One who gives advice but not legal advise or devoid of legal advise. is quite different from the other.

          Therefore what is the definition used for her appointment. That turned out to be

          Counselor to the President of the United States. inthe words of the Counsellor To The President. The words at law or legal advisor are not mentioned. Therefore she was not acting as a legal adviser

          Next are they laws, real laws, defining the status of the job. Nowhere could I dig up any version that added ‘ legal councillor or even ‘at law.’ but she is a lawyer and member of the bar as they call it.

          Does that code of ethics hold sway at all times? What if they are coaching a little league team which is a form of counseling?

          I fear the Gang of Fifteen jumped the gun and left out some key information for striclty political purpose an then HOW will they be treated?

          Diogenese is still searching for an hones descendent of Plato. In the meantime perhaps you can nelp with the problem of how far reaching is the bar ethics manual? Can you die and be sued in the afterlife?

      2. There is no statute of limitations on Bar complaints save death. The Bar cannot sanction a member who is no longer living. The writ of the court, while having a wide berth, does not extend that far.

        The Bar can sanction a member for actions occurring outside of the practice of law if those actions bear on the attorney’s fitness to practice law. How far outside the practice of law the actions have to be before the Bar will not consider them as bearing on fitness is an open question. For example, a lawyer who cheats on his personal income taxes can (and has) been disbarred. Commission of crimes involving moral turpitude (whatever that may mean) regardless of context will also result in disbarment. On the other hand, lying to your young child that Santa Claus will not come if he does not behave will not warrant a sanction.

        Conway’s “actions” are really speech. The First Amendment applies to lawyers, too. I predict that the Bar will be very hesitant to sanction a member for speech even if that speech occurs outside the courtroom unless the speech is perjurious. See Bill Clinton. Clinton, it must be remembered, was disbarred, not for lying in public statements about Monica Lewinsky, but for lying under oath at a deposition.

        Conway was clearly not giving legal advice when she made the comments the law professors complain about. She was not under oath. In one comment, she probably inadvertently left out the word “attempted” in describing the Bowling Green plot. In another, she disputed the reported size of the inauguration crowd. In the third, she plugged Ivanka Trump’s shoe line. In my view, the question should be: would any lawyer making these comments be disciplined by the Bar? I think the question answers itself.

        What I submit bears on fitness to practice law is the abuse of the Bar’s disciplinary system to further political views. I think the Bar should take a very long look at the actions of these law professors.

        1. Thanks for weighing in with that additional information. I’m in agreement not only of my original take on the subject but with the views presented in the blog on the subject. The legitimate views anyway. 8 AM Saturday morning I just ran a list of various news services and it’s a dead subject. Until the next time it’s brought up by whomever. We are now better informed.

          I’m really liking this outsider attitude now slowly permeating government. Sooner or later, why not now the question will be if the rules make it so difficult to operate and we write the rules why are we not changing the rules. Referring to the difficulties with the entrenched bureaucracy in particular.

          Bout time Congress bought themselves a set of balls and if not step aside for a replacement. This business about a G Nothing clerk telling our elected officials is the fault of our elected officials but also in retaining them Bring in the outsiders!

          I note in passing the estimate on fixing California’s dams is one billion. The prelude no doubt to debt foregiveness and a plea for more money. Meanwhile they are digging those two huge tunnels to drain the SF Bay into Los Angeles golf courses. I’m in favor of those who wish to do so seceding and leaving with their suitcases… and nothing else.

          Thanks again and to the others who contributed. For the rest of you read the Ding Dong Hi Ho posts.

  15. I wonder what the rules are regarding having an individual, who is not a part of the nuclear family unit and who previously lived alone and independently from said family unit, end up using the White House as a flop house for eight long and tortuous years? Yep. That’s right. Not a weekend visit. Not a month vacay. A whole f’ng decade of moochibg. We had Weezy, eating, sleeping and living in the White House, for close to a decade, on the taxpayers’ dime, and not a word about any sort of possible violations or improprieties. Silence. Think about it. An outsider, who was not a member of the immediate family and who had previously lived independently, became a squatter and slept, lived, ate and crapp#d in the White House, for eight years, mooching off of benefits to which she was ineligible, and, yet, shockingly, no one has the b@lls to say a word. No question as to the impropriety of doing so. How about let’s talk about a decade of some old broad, trespassing in the White House and stealing the food and sleeping for free? When’s that complaint coming out?

    1. And now we pay for a family member that is alienated from her spouse to live in golden towers because of someone’s golden showers.

      1. Say what you will about her, but there is no denying the fact that she is his wife. Perhaps she is his third wife, but she is, legally, his wife. An immediate family member. As such, there are a whole variety of benefits and privileges to which she is entitled by virtue of that spousal relationship, whether you like it or not. A mother-in-law is not a wife. A mother-in-law is not a child. A mother-in-law is, well, basically, nothing. She conned her way into reaping the benefits and privileges to which she had no right or claim, and the law professors, around the country, too busy f’ng their students, said nada. Nothing. Has there ever been a grandmother who lived in the White House? No one, that I can recall, ever bothered to question the interloper’s presence in the White House. Now, compare that to an off-handed remark, made out of frustration due to the relentless pressure by angry mobs of lunatics who are incapable of getting over the fact that their hallowed candidate lost. I’d say that eight years of living for free, in a home provided by the government for the POTUS, stealing White House silverware and stuffing one’s face with brisket from the kitchen are a far more serious offenses than the reflexive response of lashing out in response to the boycott organized against the child of the President. I want to add my name to the complaint which addresses Weezy being allowed, at the taxpayers’ expense, to squat in the White House for close to a decade. She left her dirty slippers under the bed and her Polident in the bathroom.

            1. I didn’t know she had one of those….wait a minute.. Empress of Austria or something?

        1. A mother-in-law is not a wife. A mother-in-law is not a child. A mother-in-law is, well, basically, nothing. She conned her way into reaping the benefits and privileges to which she had no right or claim, and the law professors, around the country, too busy f’ng their students, said nada.

          IIRC, Hugh Rodham was discovered by reporters to had more gear than did Chelsea stored at the White House.

          A number of Presidents have had their adult or semi-adult children in residence at least seasonally, along with spouses. Among them were Margaret Truman, the Johnson sisters, the Nixon sisters (w/ David Eisenhower), 3 Fords, and at least 1 Carter couple (whose marriage blew up while they were there).

    2. Check with a real estate agent The last PResident rented out the Lincoln Bedroom for those who qualified and that depended on donations to the Clinton Family Foundation currently and still under investigation by FBI and IRS..

  16. Americans need to take a keen look at the world of so called “Professors”. This group went in dumb and come out dumb too. They are hustlin round Altanta in their allegator shoes. And they are trying to keep the Trumpsters down. Oh yeah. They are rednecks but a different swatch of rednecks. They also do not know pig latin and do not know that their itShay does stink.

  17. If Trump is going to Make America Great Again, I have a question? Is that inclusive of Mexico and Canada? Are these countries not in North America, I am confused with the game plan.

    Which is it, is he going to Make the US Great again? Hence, “MUSGA or will his plan also include his Russian counterparts?

    1. It’s “make America great again” not North America. AMERICA a nickname for the USA ( if you don’t get that either it’s the United States of America). This is not meant to be snarky just informative.

      1. Haven’t traveled much have you Aldo? I guess it’s good you keep the gene pool limited to little exposure. How’s that ACA mental health working for you?

        1. You are quite nasty and must be a liberal. If you are trying to indicate that I am uneducated or mentally ill by your comments, you have failed. I’m sorry if your feelings were hurt. What you wrote was sophomoric.

          1. No on is saying anything. I am just presenting Alternative Realism for you, to rationalize your behavior.

              1. You see? It’s been noticed by more than or a few and we’re into the realm of the high severals. Looks like Yoda’s book isn’t doing you much good .

              2. Little un re defining

                A number of years ago from 400 to 500 BC or thereabouts two pre-eminent Greek Philosophers were hard at trying t define ‘real’. Plato the student of Aristotle decided that what we think we observe using the five senses was not real no matter how much your head hurt when someone slammed it with a rock. He decided that reality could only be found in some unknown, undiscovered place another world, universe or deep within our own self perhaps but only a few could understand it or ever ‘sense’ it and explain to the rest. Those few were of course philosopher scienticsts.

                So difficult was this ‘mystic other place’ only those few should be ‘in charge of the false reality and no one else shiould have any say so at all in the affairs or governence of the ‘false real world.’ He called for rule of all by one. A totalitarian autocracy. In the end he recanted stating his fellow Greeks would never stand for such a system. However some centuries later Immanual IKant re visited those ideas and invented sa post Enlightement version which begat in turn Socialists, Communists,and there spin off National Socialists or Nazis and finally today seciular progressives. That linie of thinking has never changed

                Why they spent centuries a millenium at that point no one has explained but they did. However they had competititon with another student Aristotle.

                Aristotle used the method later picked up by Occam bariously descibed as his razor. The most stimple answer is the most likely to be true OR when all answers but one have been found wanting the one left is correct.

                Aristotle said….If I bash your head with this rock you will sense this is the real world without worrying about ‘how do you know that’ by other means and that is that or A is A. His followers added one or two more element since they were not stuck in the mud and blood of mysticism. Thinking, reason, and observing ina scientific manner the nature of things From that came deomcoratic and republican forms of government no doubt becaude the fractious argumentative Greeks wouldn’t stand for anything else.

                And from that filtered through the Chiristian then Muslim eras, the dark ages, the rennaisance and the enlghtenment periods led us to the second ages. and the century of socialist wars. with the factions mentoned above and one other.

                The idea of self government by thinking reasoning citizens took root across the Atlantic and rooted firm becoming our present day 240 year old Constitution. Some years later after a false path beckoned them mainly the French Revolution and Marx Engels etc. Self Govrning Citizens were followed by the Plato line as progressivism. The first 1776 the second 1898.

                Socrates line of thinking had still not fully fleshed out it’s ideas Plato’s lines charged past it in what was second wave of and type of citzen. Nort the independent hardy pioneers but those escaping from a life of serfs and peons and slaves. They found a ready, willing ,able and prepared new set of masters and back to the Plato line of totalitarian roaders we w ent. but not completely.

                Min 1900s the Aristotelean line of thought completed itself using the mission statement of the Declaration of Independence and it’s first hand obervations fo the nature of totalitarianism. That final segment is called objecftivism. and now stands at the top having in November 2016 defeated the other version or subjecctivism.

                That’s the base and it consists of four things. 1. Recognition of one’s self or self identity as a rational thinking reasoning entity. with abiltiy to observe or be cognizant of the real world. 2. Observe and examine the nature of the world and determine with tests among other things ‘is it useful’ As a whole but more important ly in it’s individual parts. 3. Along with the scientifc examination develop a personal sense of morals ,v alues and standards d – ethics. 4. For each observation in part 2 and it’s outcome determine is the usefulness of a thing also moral.

                The founders were ahead of their time by far but then ‘no tv.’ The curent crop of leaders especially those following Plato’s discarded thinking now must contend with MTV. And there lies the ‘flip’ and quick answer.

                How can those with no ethics but a belief in mysticsm be accepted as the judge of anything. And once the Plato line of thinking is rejected with whatever it is nattering on about one sees the answer is it can’t and it isn’t useful.Nor are it’s defintions.

                Congratulations you have now as Rod Serling would passed through the Twilight Zone of the Second Dark Ages and are in the Second Englightment.

                Therefore we rejected the progressivist movement based on it’s 100 plus years of failure and mostly failure to recognize man as an independent thinking entity and have failed the examination found it to be be NOT USEFUL: and showed it the door.

                The hard part is pcking up the pieces and putting what is real back together again. But worth while.

                Bacon, Wevster and Anonyimous Ltd. will not doubt argue the side that has already been discarded failing to realize it is a collective voice from the dump

                1. tWo sub rules. Always be honest with yourself and your owen moral values. Secondly things change ad new observatons are made. One finds a poison is not poisonous if one eats the tomato and does not boil it’s greens. right now we are reviewing our test of Plato’s line of philosophy realizing when corrected by Aristotle went from poisonous to useful. What, if any of it could or might be useful?

                  I can think of only one and that still wants more thought and testing. It’s the Lincoln Error and had he lived how would it have been or might been different. A second is the failure of the new country to properly educate it’s new citizens before allowing them to join the social contract.

                  But that’s the deep thinkers among us. the rest must consign themselves to thinking from the depths of the Deep Dump.

                2. Michael Aarethun – Occam’s Razor is little more complex than I hit you on the head with a rock and A = A. There is also the problem of blood, possible stitches, death, pain, concussion. This is how you become a detective. 🙂

                  1. William of Ockham was actually a fairly high ranking member of the Church (Catholic) but that’s where the name came from. I have a nice collection of the older History of Philsophy series should you run into a question with no answer that hasn’t been bypassed as well as how the philosophy writings were protected and saved and the history of the various contributers over two millennia. Should you need some research done. with references etc. including Windelband and W.T. Jones.

                    1. Michael Aarethun – William was a friar. That is a private in the army of the Franciscans. He may have had personal acclaim, but the next step up is prior then abbot. Some monasteries have sub-priors.

                    2. Let’s talk about ethics again especially wher attorney’s are concerned. Did you know members of Congress are exempt from ethics laws and even organizational rules on that subject. Law Degrees aside those who make the laws are even more exempt.

                      Here’s to prime examples from todays news.

                      Pelosi, Nancy better known as Benita Pelosillyni

                      stated eight years a go “You have to vote for ACA if you want to read it.” That applied to her own party members as well as the rest of the world specifically her employers the citizens of the USA, California, and San Francisco but especially to the ‘other party.’
                      today demands to be able to read the still unwritten but in conference repalcement for ACA although has yet to attend a planning meeting.

                      Translation? There are two.

                      She wants to go on record as showing up but only to delay the procedure.

                      She wants to be sure any damage that can be caused willl be caused

                      But in the end she wants to see the Republicans and Independents get her head off the chopping block.

                      You see right now the Democrats OWN ACA and as it dies and implodes and explodes and leaves how many uninsured without a choice of Doctors and after paying huge fines she wants her head of the chopping block and the responsibility shifted to some one, anyone else. Regardess who pays the price.

                      And is is a very weird thing to do she repeated her previous idiotic statement and reversed her opinion demanding to be able to read the bill prior to voting – even though those participating are doing exactly that. while she sulks in her office or her paid for by US taxpyears grape farm.

                      Representative for San Francisco? She doesn’t live there.she’s from Napa Valley.

                      Then SECOND she joins Comrade Shumer threatening to shut down government. So let’s get that out of the way AGAIN.

                      Government NEVER shuts down. Some maybe be sent home who are not needed and this gives you a sample of where to but government .

                      But the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branch other than a few GS3’s never shut down

                      The military never shuts down

                      The LEA’s never shut down.

                      The intelligeenc services never shut down.

                      The FAA especially the Air Traffic Controllers never shut down

                      IRS never shuts down

                      Getting the picture. At best they never reach a goal of 30% sent home and the one’s that are should be given one way pink slips except……janitors and security guards are needed.

                      I will add a third since it’s aprto f the first two. shumer and the losers don’t have the power to shut down government anymore.

                    3. the ultimate point was including the last dyslectic keyboard entry was whwere are the ethics when Congres itself makes these ludicrous statements which cast doubt on their own honor and morals? Where’s the ethics when they will claim to shut down Government as if it’s a big deal when it isn’t and knowing it scares hell out of the old folks when it shouldn’t.

                      Social Security does not shut down

                      Medicare does not shut down

                      Looking at Miami today the US Coast Guard does not shut down.

                      ObamaCare however IS being shut down but that is a good thing.

                      Where’s the ethics Benita Where’s the ethics Comrade Shumer? No where because your idea of ethics is ‘maintain complete control using any and all means possible.’ which is the definition of fascism.

                      Tell you what the nation and the world a favor. Shut down your office and your mouths Not like you are doing anything important anyway.

          2. If you haven’t figured Canada is in North America, Mexico is in North America. They get real testy when you say you are American when crossing the border. However, since you have limited experience in the real world, maybe Trump can find You employment, it sounds like you could use the help.

              1. Test time: The following Countries Canada, Mexico and The United States are located in what continent?

                Please take your time, this is an opportunity to expand your knowledge.

                1. If you truly believe that citizens of other countries refer to the US as “America” and its citizens as “Americans”, you either do not travel much or don’t pay attention. I have crossed more borders than I care to remember and (A) am typically referred to as an “American”, (B) have NEVER had ANYONE object or show any discomfort with me referring to the US as “America”. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

                  1. Sounds like a gringo to me

                    kemo sabe what do you think one who knows

                    What you mean we….Tonto.

                    Ouch! that would be like really cold dude with mask

                    Cold I’ll show you cold give me those buckskins. Here take these Hollyweed lycra tights.

                    Hey Hey think I’m thst fooolish my Momma didn’t raise no tonto.

                    Something got lost inthe translation but it’s of a far higher level of intellect than any offered by the Gang of Fifteen

                    Comrade One?

                    Yes comrade tw0″.

                    “What Comrade Heels of Silver mean about Tonto?”

                    (thinking to himself)

                    ‘How you going to carry out party directives with these kind of tweets.’

                    “Comrade Two stand in front of this wall for a moment.”


                    “Solve that problem by golly you betcha”


                    “I thought so…”

                    “Meeting Dismissed report for re-programming.”

                    1. Banal, now that’s a big word to use. I agree that some lack originality and obviously are boring puppets, the strings must get tight at night.

                  1. You should have one of those red caps on in your picture. Ya know those “Make America Great” ones that were made in China.

      2. beakie,
        There’s no need to apologize. These are the same flamers you will find on most blogs. The best advice (fwiw) is to just ignore them.

    2. Little bit weak in the Geography and History Department are we.

      United States of Bolivia refers to a portion of South America the form terriotry of Portugal
      United States of Mexicanos refers to a portion of North America a former territory of Spain
      United Sates of America the first of three referred to the common name for the British American Colonies.
      Canada refers to the Royal Dominion of Canada of the British Empire or His/Her Majesties Possessions.
      Mexico referred to His Royal Majesty the King Spains Province of Mexico which then came under the French for a while.

      The Russian name included the Dominiions of the Tzar of the All The Russias known as America as a part of Siberia.

      Otherwise we would not have World Cup which is or a World Series which isn’t.

      You must have slept through all this and got a social promotion.

      The term United States was first used at the beginning of the War for Independence and referred to “The United States of America ‘Sitting In Congress.’

      Social Promotion does not make you qualified for much more than being programmed but as for Mexico hay todo vecinos distante no mas.

    1. I doubt she would consider it luck; more likely she would consider it wise to have nothing to do with Canada.

    2. I truly believe from what I saw, that Kellanne Conway is guilty of no more than an excited utterance, no more than “you like this purse? ” I got it at iFields when they had a 24 hour sale before they sold to Macy’s, Go, for it! I got a deal at $29.95″

Comments are closed.