There have been suggestions that the White House defense team could be brought up on bar charges for their arguments in the Senate. I have previously written that such statements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are vindictive and ill-informed. The White House team were effective advocates for their clients and we do not disbar lawyers for making arguments or defending individuals that we do not like. I was surprised and disappointed therefore that my fellow witness from the Trump impeachment hearing, North Carolina Law Professor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Gerhardt joined this dubious argument on CNN yesterday. The call for ethics charges seems dangerously close to the view of Lawrence O’Donnell that Trump defenders are barred from his MSNBC program because they are all “liars.”
Obviously, Gerhardt and I have substantial disagreements. Gerhardt supported the articles of impeachment based on bribery and other crimes. I opposed those four articles, which were ultimately rejected by the Committee. The Committee went forward with the two articles that I said would be legitimate but remained unproven. We later disagreed when Gerhardt declared that this impeachment was the first time that the White House closely coordinated with his own party on the handling of the impeachment trial. Those however were academic differences over the history and interpretation of prior presidential impeachment cases.
This however is different. Proponents of the impeachment seem to be lashing out at counsel and suggesting that they were acting unethically in zealously advancing the President’s defenses. After disagreeing with me that the impeachment was not “rushed” prematurely, Gerhardt asked to make a different point about the defense team. He declared
“I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
CNN host Poppy Harlow followed up by asking Gerhardt “Do you think the D.C. Bar . . . is actually going to hold Pat Cipollone, for example, to account for this?” Gerhardt doubles down against everyone on the legal team: “I think what we are seeing as well is that the lawyers who presented his case in the Senate basically misled or lied to the Senate. And so at one point — at some point we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements, which we now all know were false.”
It is not clear what Gerhardt believes were statements “we now all know were false.” It is incumbent on an attorney to be specific about the false representation when he is saying that “we are going to see ethics charges brought against these lawyers for making false statements.” He is saying that the entire team will be charged with ethical violations – a very serious allegation against all of these lawyers. Indeed, such a statement itself can be viewed as a matter of per se slander for impugning professional ethics and conduct. Even clients have been held liable for unsupported claims.
Moreover, bar associations are equally concerned about the ethics of impugning the conduct of other lawyers without sufficient support. Various ethics opinions warn that threatening or declaring bar violations can be unethical, particularly when (if true) you are under an obligation to actually report such conduct. If there is a lack of a good faith basis or support, it can violate professional standards.
The Gerhardt charge appears to be a loose reference to the a series of leaks and newly obtained evidence that showed that Trump was involved in seeking the investigations in May 2019. It is a curious foundation. The team did not deny that Trump wanted the investigations and cited the fact that the controversy over the Biden contract had been raised in the media since the Obama Administration. Recently, discussed emails also show that Trump was communicating on the possible freeze with other officials. Again, that is not on its face proof of any intentional false statements by counsel, who argued that Trump was long concerned about foreign assistance to the country.
There is also the report that former national security adviser John Bolton claims in his forthcoming book that Trump directed him to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would meet with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney — a meeting allegedly attended by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Once again however that such a statement, if made, would not be materially different from what was argued. The White House released the transcript showing that Trump wanted to arrange a meeting with Giuliani. What Trump has recently denied is that he ever told Bolton that the Ukrainian aid was linked to the investigations.
Moreover, the White House team landed some haymakers themselves in showing that the House Managers misrepresented aspects in the record. House manager Adam Schiff was previously given four Pinnochios by the Washington Post for his denial of any contacts between his staff and the whistleblower. Should he join this line of counsel to be frog-marched to the bar? Such disagreements tend to be the grist of the litigation mill. Lawyers often present one-sided views of the record that the other side views as unfair or unsupported. We do not declare on national television that the entire opposing legal team “will” (not even “may be”) called before the bar.
The defense took the record of the House and did what good lawyers do: they argued the best case within that record. We cannot allow the age of rage to adopt William Shakespeare’s line from Henry VI: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is even worse when it is lawyers seeking to shoot lawyers.
wrestling with a pig only makes the pig happy and get you covered in mud
First the Democrats came for the Catholics
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Catholic
Then the Democrats came for anyone who went to church or temple
And I did not speak out
Because I rejected organized religion
Then the Democrats came for the unborn babies
And I did not speak out
Because I killed my unborn baby since she was an inconvenience
Then the Democrats came for the family unit
And I did not speak out
Because I divorced my multiple spouses and abandoned my children
Then the Democrats came for me
And I knew I screwed
Because they did away with the Rule of Law
– Estovir
(modified poem of Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1946, on the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis)
Gerhard or anyone else making such an ethics complaint will have opened themselves up to a very nice libel/defamation/slander lawsuit.
oh, Leveut, if you have proof that any such sort of defamation suit has ever worked, please produce the citation,
because this is precisley how people misuse process, to avoid the risk of defamation, because lots of different sorts of lies can be alleged in lawsuits and there’s actually a cushion or privilege against defamation liability operating in most sorts of tribunals
here is a short article that explores the topic of qualified immunity against defamation for court statements
https://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/2016-12-22-attorneys-beware-limited-immunity-from-defamation-suits/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/Spiro%20Mogul%2012.22.16.pdf
Professor Gerhardt’s a grits n’ gravy version of Laurence Tribe – if he believes what he said, his students in law school are likely being cheated of a useful education.
Well, I have bad news for you. This kind of silly crap is only going to get worse. Take the elements – you have a group of high-functioning Democratic party white folks who are convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority over us deplorables and credulous boomer rubes. And here comes Trump into the fray, calling them stupid, and crooked and hypocritical and just plain wrong about a lot things. And it is pretty obvious when you think about it. For example, NAFTA, or us funding NATO out of proportion. Add to that the financial costs of Trump cutting off some small part of their money supply.
Sooo, of course they are going to become emotionally unraveled. They will latch on to whatever they can to look smart and concerned, like the whole Blasey Ford nonsense. Really??? The liar sniffles a few times, and tells how scairt she was of flying and then you find out she flew to New Zealand to surf without being zonked out on Xanax.
This is like the crowd following the Nekkid Emperor. Did they thank the little boy for blurting out the obvious truth, or did they become more angry??? They got truly p*ssed off. That is human nature.The more Trump “wins”, the worse and more devolved they will become. They are very rigid, and controlling people, and they will seek to regain “control.”
What they are truly “resisting” is admitting their own failures.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here is some more on this point:
———–
So what is cognitive dissonance, and why does it matter?
Flying saucers to the rescue (or not)
Psychologist Leon Festinger, who coined the term, described it as:
“… a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent.”
In 1957 Festinger infiltrated a Chicago-based flying-saucer cult run by ex-scientologist Dorothy Martin, who had apparently been receiving warning messages from aliens from the Planet Clarion (as you do).
Apparently humanity was going to be flushed from existence by a Genesis-like flood at precisely midnight on 21 December 1957. But the ‘Seekers’, as the cultists called themselves, would be whisked away by a flying saucer from the planet Clarion while everyone else drowned or at least got inconveniently wet.
Many of the cultists had given up money, homes, familial and other relationships to join the doomsday cult.
They were invested in their belief.
Festinger, pretending to be one of them, wanted to see how they’d react when this didn’t happen, which of course he assumed it wouldn’t. Well, here’s some news for you.
The world didn’t end at midnight on 21 December 1957!
So what happened next? How did the Seekers react?
Clarion call blues
Midnight on 21 December 1957 rolled around and… nothing. No flood. No end of the world. No spinning, selective flying saucer from Planet Clarion to the rescue. Nothing.
Festinger waited. Just how would the Seekers explain such clattering, disconfirming feedback? How would the disappointed cultists react to the failure of their prophecy? Would they be embarrassed and humiliated? They would at least admit they were wrong, right?
What happened next amazed him.
Now the cultists, who had until now been avoiding publicity, actively sought it. They wanted to tell the world what a near miss it had been. How their faith and the power of their true belief had saved the world from catastrophic flood!
They had actually managed to rationalize this glaring belief/reality clash. Wow! All that horrible conflictual discomfort evaporated (for the time being).
Festinger was flabbergasted, and absolutely fascinated. Thus his concept of cognitive dissonance was born.
He observed that the real driving force behind the cultists’ apparently inexplicable response was the need not to face the awkward and uncomfortable truth and ‘change their minds’, but rather to ‘make their minds comfortable’ – to smoothe over the unacceptable inconsistencies.
.https://www.unk.com/blog/unravelling-cognitive-dissonance/
—————
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are at your best, Squeek. I skim over many commenters, but always read yours.
Thank you NickS! I am always glad to see you still posting here!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Democrats bringing “ethics” charges against the President’s Legal Team is right out of HITLER’S Playbook. I continue to be amazed at how VICIOUS and VINDICTIVE these people are!
Hitler was a good person, animal lover, vegan, progressive socialist ( like FDR), war hero and community organizer. Never ordered a ‘final option’, never starved millions with B17. Bombing food, dams, railroads & cities of women & children until Germans and refugees all over Europe starve & died of disease by the millions. Hitler’s imagination for evil could not match Churchill, a vet of the Boer genocide.
Pete Bauman
Many 1% Americans believed that the U.S. should ally WITH Germany against Russia.
The problem with that is Germany’s industrial might would have become a strong competitor to U.S. industry. Henry Ford, the Bushes, and others preferred doing business with Germany, not being forced to compete against their industrial giants.
Useless last sentence, what is the difference between doing business and competing for business with same companies?
YNOT
If you don’t know the difference, feel free to just ignore that sentence. Might be easier for you than trying to rebut it.
Right, I guess I don’t see a conspiracy like you always do.
You will fit in well here; have you met squeKKKy?
To make a claim like this is to throw all effective council under the bus including yourself. He has put tomatoes in the fruit salad again.
remember when they were going to bring Cheney up on war crimes charges? total bilge…
Trump’s Lawyers Refused To Answer Question About Guiliani’s Pay
One of the most under-reported moments of the week came when 4 Democratic senators raised the question of Rudy Giuliani’s compensation; as in ‘who’ was paying Guiliani for all his unofficial envoy work regarding Ukraine.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow merely huffed with indignation that such a question was even raised and didn’t bother to address it. So apparently this question was left dangling in the wind. Arguably John Robert’s should have interjected and ordered Trump’s team to provide an answer. But there is no record that Robert’s addressed it.
I think the Senate and public have a right to know what financial compensation Guiliani received for his efforts. It’s hard to believe that Guiliani picked up all the expenses incurred; jetting around Europe with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The fact that this question remains open contributes to the sense that Trump’s defense was generally arrogant and dismissive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/30/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-really-doesnt-want-talk-about-whos-paying-rudy-giuliani/
I suppose the house managers never did this. They answered all questions including contact with whistle blower and timeline questions and …..yadda yadda ……it cuts both ways without cross examination and it is what it is.
How Rudy was paid has nothing to do with the articles of impeachment the house brought. Rudy was not being impeached.
Tina, if Rudy was functioning as an unofficial presidential envoy, the question who was paying him is highly relevant. And the fact you dont think so illustrates why this impeachment will reach no closure amid the rush to aquittal.
I suggest someone file large slnder lawsuit against Gerhardt for his statement that they lied.
Make the fool pay royally for his ignorance and do so publicly.
I agree and suggest Jay Sekulow. He is capable of making a good argument and winning!
Gerhardt is just auditioning for a paid position as outrage clown on a cable tv program. He is a disgrace.
I like that term, outrage clown. It really fits him.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Slander per se for sure! Reckless for sure! Perhaps an element of malice as well. Being a law professor does not confer credibility! I wonder whether Professor Gerhardt has the Sack Treatise on Defamation or the Professional Rules of Conduct in his library.
Classic projection.
Interesting… So Trumps lawyers could face “legal” repercussions for defending their client from an indictment that specified no violation of law or statue. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. And if being called an idiot offends you then keep in mind your idiocy offends me too.
So Trumps lawyers could face “legal” repercussions for defending their client from an indictment that specified no violation of law or statue.
_______________________________________________
The point you missed is that Lawyers can be disbarred for lying. But the general point your making still works. If they don’t state what the lie is then the accusation of lying is pretty hollow.
Schift should be disarred for lying. For conspiring to take down an elected president and interfering with 2020 election. Actually when all of this is over Trump should sue him for slander
Won’t be many Democrats left in the house if this were the case.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not up on the finer points of their required ethics, but perhaps JT could have been more specific as to the charges.
I believe the WH lawyers are accused of repeatedly lying about clear facts, and the earliest and most repeated one by Cipilone was that Republicans were not allowed to participate in the depositions taken in the basement. Republicans had the exact same access as democrats and did participate.He knew that and that is a lie.
According to Bolton’s book, Cipilone was an attendee at a meeting with Trump where the Ukrainian shakedown was discussed. If proven to be true, that makes him a party to the alleged scheme and a fact witness. Can a trial lawyer do that?
You apparently hve bad info. You should be more careful where you get your info nd who you believe.
Barry, you’re not offering ‘any’ info.
Actually the republicans were not allowed to ask questions in the the basement, Schiff also refused to allow republicans to have witnesses they wanted and Schiff refused to allow anyone from Trump’s defense team to be there. Cipilone was correct. You are miss informed.
There were no clear facts presented by the democrats, everything they alleged was a made up Schiff imagination. He actually went on the senate floor and made up conversations between Trump and world leaders, conversations that never took place it was all in his head. IF anyone should be dis-bared it is the house managers for their out and out lies.
Tina, that’s a lie. Republicans had the same rights as democrats to ask questions or have their commitee counsel ask questiins. They were also allowed relevant witnesses. They could have called any number of administration witnesses who could have corroborated Trump’s story. Under the missing witness princiole, his failure to produce documents or witnesses he controlled should be taken as evidence of guilt.
bythebool – the Democrats voted on who was relevant or not. Although the Republicans wanted Hunter Biden (who was mentioned by the House managers some 400 times) he was considered not relevant on a party line vote. However, Pam Bondi showed us how relevant he really is.
the principle you refer to is hardly applicable in this context.
it applies to court cases not political show trials
“According to Boltons’ book’??? So you have seen it? Has anyone seen it? NYT’s reports something and you take it as fact? Remember all the times the NYT’s ran stories about Trump that were all proven false? Unless you have seen the book you have no idea what is or is not in it..
Fair enough Tina. I’m sure we agree that the Senate should get Bolton under oath as a witness. Surely he’ll not risk jail time for perjury and corroborate Trump’s innocence.
wrong and stop calling me Shirley
hold on “Seth”
how do you know what’s in bolton’s book? it hasnt been published.
stories about it are leaks of hearsay upon hearsay
or, if you have a preprint copy, “show me!”
How is it possible that most senators won’t face perjury charges after taking an oath to be “impartial” jurors, yet many having expressed, prior to the “trial” beginning, that they’d already decided which way they were going to vote?
markkernes – I am going to be interested to see how the Democratic candidates for President vote on the Obstruction of Congress charge. If they vote for it, they are voting against their own best interest.
It was a Patrician-Political sham. It was a waste of time and money. Look to the patrician votes for your answer!
My two Democrat senators did that.
I think the House Managers had “unclean hands”, which is something you are probably an expert on. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The natural order of things according to the DEMOCRATS/Totalitarians is Heads they win, tails you lose. They don’t actually want elections, they don’t feel they should have to put up with having to compete in the arena of ideas. Why, because they feel they are so much smarter than everyone else. When listening to them, it’s like listening to a bunch of temper tantrum throwing children squabbling on a playground. When you see them whining and carrying on the way they do, it’s hard to believe they inhabit the bodies of adults. Make no mistake about it though. Their lust for power and dominance is their driving force and they will try and bulldoze anyone or anything that gets in the way!
You nailed it on the head. They are trying darn hard to make it illegal to disagree with them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Now I understand why Lizzy Warren is such a far-left loon . . . being a leftist Law Professor really rots your Brain as Gerhardt can testify. Gerhardt should be disbarred and censored for lying !
Not many people in Washington have honest intentions..Thanks J. Turkey The Democrats Hate is consuming all their common sense. What will it take for them to be honest with themselves and the rest of the Country?
Any tiny shred of respect that remained for me in relation to the Democratic party went up in smoke these past couple of weeks. Yes, even ‘moderates,’ for if not openly advocating, at the least blithely tolerating what is probably the largest partisan public disgrace ever perpetrated in our country. At some point you’d think self-awareness would kick in for the dems, but nope: they just keep buying more shovels.
James keep your fingers crossed that Bernie wins Iowa. Then we can sell even more shovels by the barrel. This is Trump’s best adversary in the field for 2020
whatever merits bernie had it 16 or before are totally obsolete. his radical and dangerous schemes to say nothing of his radical and dangerous campaign managers, will drive Americans to the polls in droves— for Trump!