Pelosi Questions Why The President’s Lawyers Are Not Disbarred

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) made an extraordinary statement yesterday that suggests that lawyers representing President Donald Trump should be disbarred: “I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making.” Just as I have been highly critical of President Donald Trump’s attacks on Adam Schiff and others, this is a truly outrageous suggestion. These lawyers are performing a key function in our constitutional system in not just representing an accused person but fulfilling a vital role in an impeachment trial. Because Pelosi disagrees with their legal arguments, she insinuates that they should not be licensed attorneys. It is precisely the type of ad hominem attack that Democrats criticize with the President.

Pelosi added that Trump “will not be acquitted” even if he is acquitted — entirely decoupling the Democratic position from either constitutional or ethical norms.

She is not the only person engaging in such low-grade, personal attacks. Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe denounced Alan Dershowitz as a “charlatan” for his views. Dershowitz denounced another Harvard professor as a “coward” for his criticism.

These are good-faith disagreements over the scope and meaning of the constitutional standard. Moreover, the White House counsel has done an able job in responding to the House, including landing a couple of haymakers on the record. Both sides have had brilliant and not-so-brilliant moments. However, they have all conducted themselves will professionalism and civility for the most part.

Nevertheless, this scurrilous slander has become a favorite of even lawyers on the left. Two days before Pelosi’s comment, Mediaite published a column by lawyer and CNN opinion contributor Dean Obeidallah entitled “If Trump’s Legal Team Continues to Lie in the Senate Trial, They Should Be Disbarred.” The column states “Lawyers — and I am one — are officers of the court and we are held to a higher ethical standard than the average person.” He then lists “facts” that are contested by the White House.

Cipollone and Sekulow have been around long enough to know that not one client — not even the president — is worth destroying your career over. But if they continue down this path, they should be investigated for possible ethics violations. For example, he says

Sekulow served up another statement that does not line up with the facts. He told the Senate jurors that Ukrainian officials were not aware of the pause on military aid “until late August.”  In reality, Defense Department official Laura Cooper testified in November as part of the impeachment inquiry that Ukraine officials “were asking about the delay of a U.S. military aid package to their country as early as July 25 — the same day as President Donald Trump’s call with Ukraine’s leader at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.”

However, the White House maintains that the rest of the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Laura Cooper showed only that an inquiry on the aide was conveyed to her from someone in Ukraine. The White House claims that she stated that she did not recall the details or reason for the query. That is called a disputed fact, not an unethical act.

The effort to attack lawyers for being lawyers in certainly in vogue. I recently wrote a column defending Dershowitz from attacks tied to his past representation of controversial figures. As I noted, Dershowitz was attacked defending unpopular individuals like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. That is what criminal defense attorneys do. They represent accused and often highly unpopular individuals. It is the rankest form of attack to suggest that a lawyer defending a client is somehow tainted by the crimes alleged in the case.

This attack is even more reckless and unfair. In this age of rage, advocates prefer to attack lawyers making the arguments than address the arguments themselves. It is all an attempt to assure readers that they do not have to seriously consider what they are saying.

Members of Congress have previously suggested disbarring Jay Sekulow.

I have on occasion called for bar actions against other lawyers, including former Trump counsel Michael Cohen and former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. They committed both unethical and criminal acts. However, I would have defended both of these men if they faced disbarment based on their legal advocacy. The House Manager have been challenged for statements that are viewed as misleading or false, but it would be equally outrageous to call for the disbarment of Adam Schiff.

Rather than respond to the merits of their arguments, Pelosi elects to discredit their professional standing. Pelosi owes these attorneys an apology for this insulting and unwarranted comment.

178 thoughts on “Pelosi Questions Why The President’s Lawyers Are Not Disbarred”

    1. Independent Bob – did you think Hillary was going to win in 2016? If so, keep on thinkin’. 😉

    2. Do you mean “win the Democratic nomination”, or “win the popular vote in this fall’s Presidential election?”

      Elizabeth Warren’s the most plausible candidate for the Democratic prsidential nomination. She’s a liar, but a voice stress analyzer monitoring all the candidates’ statements for lies would be reduced to smoking ruin.

      Hillary Clinton’s poisoned too many wells of support to win in November this year. You don’t spend two years blaming everyone who didn’t vote for you in 2016 for your own failure to win that election, and expect to gain their support this year. The far left in this country isn’t having any more of Hillary Clinton, leaving less than a solid majority supporting her even among likely Democrat voters.

      1. loupgarous,
        I must disagree with you; Hillary has spent over 3 years offering excuses for why she lost, not 2 years.🤓

  1. Trump Is Not Aquitted..

    If Public Doesn’t Buy It

    Trump and supporters can declare victory.  But if impeachment leaves several issues unresolved, that’s not a real aquittal.

    Former Deshowitz client O.J. Simpson  discovered aquittal means nothing if questions still hang.  

    Granted Donald Trump isn’t accused of murder.  But too many issues are unresolved.  Like the Dershowitz defense, for instance.  ‘Can a president violate all protocols and claim public interest?’  

    This defense has to be addressed by legal scholars.  Academics like Professor Turley must explain to students that Dershowitz’s argument is grounded in constitutional law.

    By recognizing such a defense we open a pandora’s box.  Presidents of either party could disregard a number of laws and say they felt justified.  

    If the legal community keeps debating Dershowitz’s arguement this becomes problematic to not just Trump but all Republican senators.  

    It will mean the Senate accepted an expansive view of the presidency open to debate. The continued debate then deligitimizes Trump’s aquittal.  It could also reflect badly on John Roberts.

    Unrelated to Dershowitz’s defense is the pending trials of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.  They could drop some bombshells yet and more than likely will.  Those revelations could also degrade Trump’s aquittal in the public’s mind.

    Then there’s John Bolton and his book.  Again Trump’s aquittal could be cast into question.  Therefore Trump supporters should know in advance that aquittal means nothing if the public isnt buying.

    Trump could wind up becoming the O.J. Simpson of presidents; an aquitted man whose guilt continues to shadow.  

    1. Much of the public never bought the House’s show trial. As Jonathan Turley points out time and time again, The House Democrats, having shut their Republican colleagues out of the hearings and failed to get the witnesses to build a case for Trump’s impeachment themselves. They had the time and wasted it on loud but pointless hand-waving for their political base’s benefit.

      Just – why was Joe Biden not impeached for the very thing the House now insists Trump has to be impeached?

    2. Blah blah blah blah! What???? Take a break and come back to your little post , after some reflection on what you just wrote. Then try again tomorrow morning after a nice cup of joe.

      1. on the contrary, every lawyer is obliged to know the Constitution, and he has done many criminal defense trials where constitutional criminal procedure was deeply relevant at every turn

        one can criticize Dersh for many things I suppose, but his quality as a lawyer is superlative

  2. Polosi has lost her mind. Her electrical synapse are no longer firing. Her tongue should be tied to the roof of her mouth.

  3. There once was someone charged with murder…even though his “victim” was still alive. Evidence showed that the victim was, in fact, fully alive and unharmed.

    But the ones prosecuting him wanted to get him fired and replaced with one of their own. If they couldn’t prove he’d murdered someone, obviously, as he was still alive, then they would try to abuse the system to dig up dirt that would damage him. So they demanded all of his private emails, his phone conversations, and to get everyone up on the stand who could possibly reveal damaging information. He said that’s not fair, he didn’t murder anyone.

    The victim said, “I’m still alive and doing fine! He didn’t do anything to me!”

    “Shut up!” the prosecutors said. “No one asked you!” With excitement, they learned that someone the man had fired might say that he’d killed the victim. Which was ridiculous, as the victim was alive and well. That former employee had a history of lying, and was trying to sell a book. Great! Get him on!!! He can prove this man was murdered!!! “But, I’m fine,” said the victim. “Shut UP!!!”

    With glee, they predicted that the wrongfully accused would block attempts to pry into his protected information, to which they had no right. Giving them access would mean they would use their resources to look for dirt on him in order to get him replaced, and it of course had nothing to do with any murder. When he denied them access, they declared that he should be fired because he’s hiding something. After all, what man wouldn’t open all of his protected information to the people who have openly said they plan to get him fired any way possible? If he gives in, then they have an open door into previously privileged information. He must have said something, somewhere, that could give them an edge to get him fired. Who cares that he didn’t actually kill anyone. This is an opportunity!

    They kept telling people at the water cooler, hey, you know this guy is an attempted murderer? And he’s HIDING evidence! And they ignored the alleged victim. As it turns out, it was one of their own who had harmed the victim previously, the very person they wanted to replace him. Their current target had tried to look into it, which gave their mission a dual purpose. They must at all cost protect their man from an investigation into criminal misconduct, while smearing the person who tried to find out what happened. And a lot of people at the water cooler cheered them on, in a workplace coup. Which side will win? Will justice win, or manipulation, and will the water cooler herd ever learn?

  4. Mostly terrific, but:

    >> She is not the only person engaging in such low-grade, personal attacks. Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe denounced Alan Dershowitz as a “charlatan” for his views. Dershowitz denounced another Harvard professor as a “coward” for his criticism. <<

    That's false equivalence, Jon. You're better than that. Tribe has absolutely lost his mind over Trump and can't recognize a defense of due process and the Constitution anymore if it catches up with him and bites him in the a-s. Dershowitz's "coward" comment was for a specific reason completely unrelated to Trump derangement, and more than well-earned, as are the shrieking denunciations of Dershowitz in general from the left that used to love him when he was making exactly the same arguments for constitutionality and due process in a way that benefitted Democrats.

    1. mespo – I did not think Jerry had it in him. I was impressed. Such speed. Such grace. Such elegance. Such crap.

      1. PaulC…beautifully stated!
        I know I tend to get in the shallows when news clips become comical to me, but I cannot listen to Nadler seriously when those eyebrows of his are entertaining us with semaphore routines!

        1. Cindy Bragg – the best part was the fading echo from Schift begging “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” while the President’s team have huge smiles on their faces.

    1. Mark,
      I was reminded once again about Sir Thomas More’s quote in The Man For All Seasons, when Schiff was all teary-eyed talking about the winds now blowing through D.C. He apparently doesn’t realize he failed at cutting down enough trees to remove this President.

  5. From the WSJ:

    Democrats May Be Blowing Their Chance

    Progressives seem to be forgetting the opponent is Donald Trump, not Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

    Rahm Emanuel, Jan. 31, 2020

    Reform is often more effective than revolution. Amid the heated rhetoric now blowing through Iowa, Democrats appear to be losing sight of that. Progressivism isn’t a destination—it’s an orientation. Purists are anxious to box some of us out by narrowing the definition, but we all share in the mission of using government’s tools to serve those who have been left behind

    Memo to Barack Obogongo: sell your obscene multimillionaire mansion by the sea. Michelle, your standard of living is insulting to Blacks and Hispanics who were left behind during your boy’s Presidency. Fix it

    1. “…using the governments tools…” to get control over the nation so everyone like the Rahm Emanuel types can control the nation & the citizens is more like it.

      We have too much government as it is. Rahm forgets that it’s government that caused most of the left behind.

      Ever read the book, Strategy, by Cloward & Piven?


      1. Peter – those new witnesses are primarily Schift, the WB, the Bidens, etc.

        1. Paul, let the Bidens testify. I’m fine with that. But those polls show overwhelming support for witnesses. Especially among independents, the crucial voting block here.

          1. Peter – the House managers said on many occassions that their case was rock solid. If that is so, they do not need more witnesses.

            1. Mr. Schulte,
              Pelosi was not one of the House managers, but she said their case was “infallible”.
              Was that an ex chathedra announcement by her?

              1. Anonymous – did she speak from her chair or the infamous podium of power?

                1. its instructive how the Left appeal to polls except when polls support historical causes they now disavow like Jim Crow, prohibition of interracial marriage, etc

                  It is a weak mind to be unable to formulate cogent arguments but rather opt to be fickle and stand for absolutely nothing. Theirs is a truly impoverished life

        1. Seth:

          Here’s one for ya: 53% believe in Atlantis and 65% believe they can influence the physical world with positive thoughts. Polls tell you about nothing.

          1. Polls tell you about something, but you have to have a proper sampling frame, you have to use probability samples, you have to know how to pose valid questions, and you have to have some sense on how to analyze these results.

            One problem with the polls Peter quotes is that 3/4 of the public simply doesn’t follow public affairs and half those who do are news junkies without the kind of mental filing system that allows them to recall what they read. So, you ask an issues question, unless it’s something that impinges directly on their daily life, you’re likely to get an idle answer. Idle opinions motivate no one.

          2. One other thing, of course. Peter doesn’t know what ‘executive privilege’ is, and it’s likely 90% of the poll respondents do not know what it is either, because understanding constitutional terms of art is simply not a part of their vocation in life. It’s a stupid question to poll. And, of course, it’s Politico. They don’t pay for good sampling frames.

            1. Tabby, Dershowitz tells us Trump can basically do anything he thinks is in the public interest. This was one of the biggest controversies of the week. And I notice Professor Turley didnt really want to touch this issue.

              1. Basically? If you’re going cite someone, at least try to use their own words rather than your feeble-minded parody of them.

        2. Less than a year ago, 50% in a Rasmussen Poll believed all of our rights and freedoms come from government.

          Your poll, and I don’t care the source, is absolutely meaningless until you can show me a poll (on rights) that shows 75% of Americans oppose making themselves slaves to the government. Because if the government is believed to have the power to give you all your rights, then that same government is believed to be able to take them away.

          No thanks.

        3. It’s been over 3 years since the dmms started working their impeachment scam. Three years. They knew during ALL that time they would move to impeach Mr. Trump at some point. All they needed to do was wait for something they could use as basis to fabricate charges. Ahh, the phone call! THEN the invention of a false narrative to base charges on began in earnest.

          The dimms did their star chamber basement hearings without allowing the Prez any defense or representation. Later, Mr. Turley was the only one of the Constitutional ‘scholarly’ witnesses who got it right.

          When the hurried dimms upped the speed of their con game because the Prez was such a threat, that was their choice. Their call. Then Pelosi held the bogus charges hostage & tried to leverage the Senate to give in to her & the other serial liar demands.

          When the dimms finally did bring the charges to the Senate they soon after started demanding more witnesses & documents. This after all the bluster about how tight their case was.

          Why didn’t the dimms, DURING the prior 3 years have all their evidence & witnesses ready? Why did they think to turn the impeachment process on it’s head by demanding the Senate finish what they were in too big a hurry to complete themselves? They chose their timing & still did NOT have their case ready. Their own fault!

          The House has the power to impeach. If they don’t have their stuff ready to go, that’s on them. The Constitution doesn’t give the Senate ANY power to investigate in this matter. The Senate is only supposed to try the Prez with the evidence the House produces. If daffy dimms don’t do their part in full it’s not the Senate’s duty to help them finish or take the time to gather ANY evidence.

          People are whining that “the other Prez’s who were impeached had witnesses & documents!” Either from ignorance or deception these cry babies don’t mention that the accusers of “the other guys” were from a House that brought charges with evidence & documents to the Senate that were already prepared. In prior impeachments the House had prepared in advance before their walk to the Senate with their charges. The whiners ignore all that.


          1. Above I said “Three years. They knew during ALL that time they would move to impeach Mr. Trump at some point. All they needed to do was wait for something they could use as basis to fabricate charges. Ahh, the phone call! THEN the invention of a false narrative to base charges on began in earnest. ”

            Since the dimms had tried & failed so many times before I should have said “…the invention of ANOTHER false narrative…”.

            Maybe their ‘get Trump off the ballot’ conspiracy got them so excited when Bull Schiff & the fake ‘whistle blower’ floated up from the bottom of the cesspool with yet another contrived pile of donkey poo their derangement syndrome got them so excited they didn’t pause to think. Hmmm. Doesn’t look like they have been thinking much during this whole ‘impeach 45’ charade.

            Whatever. In any case the dimms didn’t fool very many people. I say “very many people” “because even the leaders of the TDS movement know they are lying & fabricating to get Prez Trump out of office.


      2. Seth – plenty of those polled would love to see Hunter Biden and Joe Biden testify.

        I wonder how many polled understand that there have already been dozens of witnesses, and that Ukraine itself, and the ambassadors, confirmed that no strong arming took place.

        When the victim says there’s no crime, and there’s no physical damage, then it’s unjust to keep pursuing it.

        Steve says that Bob hit Rick last year. Rick said he didn’t. Rick’s two liaisons present for interactions said it didn’t happen. There is no evidence of any injuries on Rick. But Steve says so…Does justice demand that Bob go to jail?

    1. I have decided to come clean. I can no longer work for Media Matters. David Brock is a cheating man, pays his people dirt and I have come to realize how dishonest and unethical he is. I will no longer attack people, lie, slander them and otherwise be a buffoon. Just as David Brock switched from being a ring winger to a bat shlt crazy left-wing nut, I have seen the errors of my ways. I will act like a normal human being

      If you thought Peter Shill lied in the past, you ain’t see nuthin’ yet!

        1. Lent will be here before we know it.
          Our dear friend with ALS died yesterday and her husband, a prominent attorney in Richmond, was a former Jesuit. Lent will be meaningful to many of us. Hopefully the country can start to find its way soon

            1. We pray the Rosary nightly at bedtime and include the nation on our list

              Tonight was our family night and we just got home from a new Sicilian pizzeria with friendly staff and patrons. Lots of chatter shared and heard by those around us which is always appreciated. I have missed most of the news today since Fridays are an especially hectic and long day for me. After these last 3 weeks of impeachment news, I remain convinced that typical Americans with whom I interact professionally in clinics and university setting, are not interested in what grips Pelosi, Schiff, MSM, et al. My observations tell me the people with whom I interface are disgusted with Washington and have tuned them out. They have real concerns about many other issues like their family dynamics (a frequent topic that is mentioned by old and young), their sense of being lost in society (disconnected tough “connected online”), and a desire for a more meaningful life, something “conservative” vs “liberal” can not provide.

              Viktor Frankel’s Man Search for Meaning and Scott Peck’s Road Less Traveled, come to mind

              People will find the way if they choose. Something about free will and choices,

              Buenas noche a todos

              1. Estovir,
                My sweet Southern Baptist mother was a praying machine…..always praying for her children. It made us feel safe, even as adults.When she passed, I blurted out.” But who’s gonna pray for us???” I’m telling you, mothers can change the world.
                Wonderful Cynthia Clawson sings it beautifully..

              2. Estovir, have you read Man’s Search for Meaning?

                I’ve been thinking about society today, and in years past. Without religion and a higher calling, a man can have a job, get up day after day, and put his work in, and come home, stuck in a rut. He can amass wealth, but it’s not enough. He can chase young women, until he’s 65, married to his 5th wife, a 35 year old. And he’s not fulfilled. Actors, millennials, the latest generation..they chase pleasure and hedonism and experiences. They do drugs, binge drink, and have constant one night stands via an app…the most disconnected way possible to interact. They don’t even have to approach a woman to ask her out. Just open an app and anyone interested is already there. They think that 75 pronouns will satisfy them. They think that never hearing opposing views will satisfy them. Nothing satisfies them. Some of them do so many drugs and alcohol that they OD, or they end up on the street, or they throw their chances all away. They seek one experience after another, but have found no purpose. What to do this weekend?

                It’s been pointed out that this SJW obsession can be considered the atheist’s quest for purpose and meaning. Save the world, from the comfort of a fossil-fuel keyboard. But it doesn’t satisfy them, because they aren’t, actually, accomplishing anything but angrily scolding.

                This impeachment has stirred nothing but apathy. There’s no quest to get behind. No terrible crime to punish. No riveting evidence. Democrats have been “resisting” Trump since 2016, so it’s just more of the same. Yawn. What to do this weekend? What to do about the high cost of living, or the traffic, or a job?

                1. Karen, I read Viktor Frankl’s book in high school since Cubans often identify with the Diaspora paradigm. I again read it in medical school and then last year I listened to it on Audible while following in my Kindle edition. I think it is a great reference for us today with many great passages:

                  As we said before, any attempt to restore a man’s inner strength in the camp had first to succeed in showing him some future goal. Nietzsche’s words, “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how,” could be the guiding motto for all psychotherapeutic and psychohygienic efforts regarding prisoners. Whenever there was an opportunity for it, one had to give them a why—an aim—for their lives, in order to strengthen them to bear the terrible how of their existence. Woe to him who saw no more sense in his life, no aim, no purpose, and therefore no point in carrying on. He was soon lost. The typical reply with which such a man rejected all encouraging arguments was, “I have nothing to expect from life any more.” What sort of answer can one give to that? What was really needed was a fundamental change in our attitude toward life. We had to learn ourselves and, furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.

                  Frankl, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning (Kindle Locations 1004-1012). Beacon Press. Kindle Edition.

              3. Your comment about the rosary reminded me of someone I knew long ago, who used to carry a rosary ring with him. When he found himself worrying, or stuck in traffic, he would quiet his mind by saying the decades.

          1. Sorry to hear that Estovir. I saw where an attorney I know passed away from cancer who was with formerly Morriss & Morris but I didn’t see any obits for the wife of an attorney.

            1. Mespo, I spoke to Donald King this morning on the phone. Visitation is on Monday 4-7 pm at Bliley’s, Funeral Service at Cathedral on Tues 3 PM, followed by reception at American Civil War Museum

              Ann was elegance beyond compare. A nurse specialist for decades, her faith in God, like Donald’s, was a sure foundation. Though Ann was limited in speech and movement due to her ALS, her smile was from ear to ear. Few people approach death with such grace, courage and acceptance as she did. Don is a Virginia gentleman, former Jesuit seminarian and a heckuva man all around. If we had Knights & Dames in the USA, they surely would qualify. Their marriage was inspiring.

              REQUIEM aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.
              Requiescat in pace.

              V. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord.
              R. And let perpetual light shine upon her.

              V. May he she rest in peace.
              R. Amen.

              V. May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
              R. Amen.

      1. I must confess, I have a long history of mental health problems. But my health insurance lacks proper coverage

  6. Malesherbes, a decent and kindly man, dared to represent Louis XVI in his trial. For that brave act he was sent to the guillotine, but only after watching every member of his family go to the scaffold first. I suspect Robspierre Pelosi would like to do the same to the President’s lawyers.

    Now that the mask has slipped, the Democrats are revealed as truly horrible people.

    1. Now that the mask has slipped, the Democrats are revealed as truly horrible people.

      What’s disconcerting is that it isn’t just sociopaths in Congress. Read some of the ringers who post here. It goes all the way down.

      1. Rahm Emmanuel’s WSJ piece this evening interesting. It is behind a paywall but I believe you have access to it. It is an eyeopener

Comments are closed.