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.
“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. ”
**********************
No surprise to me. Somehow, I managed to get Prof Gerhardt’s first press conference some years ago where he made his first big splash: Thirty Seven Inches, you say?
https://youtu.be/TO2kdrX_dlI
At what point will Professor Turley stop being surprised? It’s an observable trend and hardly surprising given the recent shenanigans. I think “disappointing” would be a more apt description.
I really don’t want this to be the norm.
Karen:
He’s only “officially” surprised.
Tch, tch.
Vivre libre ou mourir.
Vive libero o mouri.
Depending upon which side of the Alps you are on.
Tch, tch.
Vivre libre ou mourir.
Vive libero o mouri.
Depending upon which side of the Alps you are on.
You will not investigate a Democrat or you will be impeached. You will not defend yourself or your lawyers will be disbarred. When the cases is disproven, as the victim itself claimed there was no crime, Democrats will demand access to your emails, phone conversations, inner circle. In essence, they will use taxpayer money and their positions of (supreme) authority to dig up dirt on you for the 2020 election. If you fight it, they will claim you must have something to hide. Open your life to them, in a manner to which no political opponent is entitled, or they will call you criminal. Show them the man and they’ll find the crime.
Bake that custom cake against your will, or be ruined. Keep quiet about your political beliefs or people who claimed to be your friends will call you a fascist racist. Don’t wear Republican political clothing or you could be assaulted.
Our response, Vivere liberi aut mori.
Oh. Latin, sort of.
Yeah, my Latin’s not that strong. They started saying Mass in English before I was born, so there was less emphasis on learning Latin. Don’t test me on declension.
Shakespear took an insane time in English history and made it enjoyable, of course many tears removed. Whence comes our Shakespear?
Leftists are people with criminals minds intent on turning government into organized crime to deprive the rights of their political foes. From liberals to national socialists to communists, every version of leftwing government is organized crime.
Just wondering Mr. Turley, that after seeing the thoughts and actions of the left and the deep state, are you still thinking of yourself as a Democrat and left leaning? So many dems are leaving the party after seeing the way their so called leadership works! Hope to see you leave too! However, many GOP just as bad ande deep state too!
Shifty Pee-Losi Schumer 3 fools keep selling you Rib-eye steak and all you get is ground beef LMAO.. Soon you will get chicken sh**t and after that pig-s**it and horses*it for desert. Keep believing these fools. But I paid for Rib-eye LMAO@foolsdaily.com
https://m.phys.org/news/2020-01-dynamics-democratic-elections-physics-theory.html
Are political scientists going to use these insights?
Microfibres:
http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/673/plastic-pollution?page=3#post-6222
Damages the ecosystem in unknown ways.
i despise synthetic fibres. their production and marketing was a solution to a problem that didn’t exist
stick to wool, cotton, leather, and linen. there’s no need for plastic clothes!
“Our job is to accuse the other side of exactly what we ourselves are doing.” Josef Goebbels, Propaganda Minister, Third Reich.
Absurd.
Exactly, and when that doesn’t work, do worse: John Soleman’s car was just broken into and his laptop with all his research notes on Ukaine/Bidens/Clinton campaign was stolen. It was a professional job. This is war, people.
yeah Seth Rich figured that out years ago Cat
Is this more Democrat projection. A subliminal acknowledgement that they, schifty and company, could, and should, be brought up on ethics charges for lying to Congress, colluding and coaching witnesses, fraud and deception.
Yep. I lost count of how many times schifty lied while doing his “managing”.
On the media, and the law blogs, we need more real trial lawyers to be the ones chosen to speak out.
The trial lawyers got us into this mess.
Round them all up then bill them at thrice their hourly rate plus incidentals
actually big law firms are a thousand times the scoundrels than “trial lawyers” but keep on believing that if you like
Mr K.
Do we actually have real Law/Order & Lawyers???
Just look at the 3rd Rails that Turley, the S Court, etc., those ……. aholes will not address.
All I know is they & their kids need at least 10 more Mandatory Vaccines!
It’s here buddy, Bio-Chem Warfare thur govt vaccines… Mandatory
Below is the best info I’ve had after 30-40 yrs tracking those b*stards.
Please pass the links along to those that are pregnant or have kids!
Listen close or replay it till you understand!
Leaked Video! Head U.N. Scientist Admits Vaccines Are Killing People
236,517 views
·Jan 10, 2020
https://banned.video/watch?id=5e191ca0b0ffe2001a9c2676
War Room with Del Bigtree
https://banned.video/watch?id=5e1fdffb3ad75f002be434c8
The links above & this one here I think need posted together.
(wordpress here only lets use post 2 at a time, not 3_)
Most people, even my wife, have been Brainwashed into believing the CDC/FDA/Govt/State/Local School Crap, & others in the legal community, that Vaccines are both Safe & Effective.
They are the worst kind of Liars!!!
Re listen to this below if you do not understand the importance of what this doctor is saying!
Dr Shiva Attadurai, a researcher, addresses viccines & Vax research.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5e214273f17b0c001e792f46
If false comments get you dis barred Schiff and others should be sweating bullets.
If Cipillone attended a meeting at which Trump directed a quid pro quo and then suggested to the contrary before the Senate, I think that would be an ethical problem for a lawyer (at least here in Massachusetts). Moreover, the defense argument that Republicans were denied the right to attend hearings and cross examine witnesses was indeed a flat out misrepresentation. I find it curious that Turley seems to focus on alleged lapses of the pro impeachment advocates and seems to give a pass on the outrageous conduct of Trump and his sycophants. There is no equivalency between the two sides
You are right. One side, has no ethics morals, or capabaiity to tel the truth. An d then there is the Trump defense team on the other side. What rock have you been hiding under, Schiff is the laughing stock of the world because EVERYTHING that spews from that seditous POS’s mouth is a lie, and apparently everyine in hte universe but you knows it. For crying out loud, even all the fake news outlets say he is a liar.
What are you talking about? Republicans WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE: Schif CUT THEM OFF IF HE DIDN’T LIKE AND APPROVE OF THE QUESTIONS!! PLUS, THEY ONLY COULD CALL WITNESSES THAT SCHIFF APPROVED OF AND TRUMP’S LAWYER COULD NOT BE THERE AT ALL, AS PER SCHIFF!!! If Cipillione could have been at the meeting but not been aware of any “quid pro quo”, even if it happened. Lunch breaks, coffee breaks, side talk, etc. could be a reason. I’m tired of the gestapo Democrats. I feel like I’m watching real time “The Lives of Others” with these ravenous anti-American Democrats. EQUAL BRANCHES, PEOPLE and BTW, Obama would have been impeached a dozen times if there were these many leaks and investigations (Bush too, probably).
Cat, that’s a lie. Republican Committee members attended basement depositions and had exactly the same rights as Democratic members. Republicans can and did call witnesses , and like the democrats, were not allowed to call irrelevant witnesses.
It is not worthy that Republicans did not call WH witnesses who should have been able to exonerate the President. By the “missing witness” standard, failure to produce documents and witnesses you control can be taken as evidence of a cover up and guilt.
Republicans were only allowed witnesses on Schiff’s preapproved list.
Mr. Palmer, it is you that is misrepresenting the facts about President Trump’s denial of access to the impeachment hearing in the House.
The hearings went on for 78 days. During that period, the Intelligence Committee under Rep. Schiff ran with the ball for 71 days, and the Judicial Committee under Rep. Nadler had worked the issue for 7 days. The committee meeting in the Intelligence committee were held in a SCIF, and the President’s representatives were denied access. When the Judicial Committee’s meetings, the President’s representatives were offered access, but declined. Look it up.
So, you told a lie of omission.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2020/jan/28/fact-checking-trump-impeachment-defense/
More and more we are seeing people being given a career where they have no qualifications. This professor obviously has no understanding of our laws and the founding documents they are based upon. When we have professors in universities failing a student because that student not only disagreed with what the professor said but proved their disagreement was correct, we have a problem. We seriously need to look at tearing down our entire education system and rebuilding it based solely on merit and not on politics.
Once again, another pillar of society (professor) proven to be a mere joke. The upper crust of society are nothing more than Bum Rushers in expensive garb.
NOT upper crust. RADICALIZED beyond a reasonable doubt and guaranteed to have a 360 degree turnabout had the very same team defended OBAMA!
Yeah, the statement, “which we now all know were false,” really set the bells ringing. Assertions, bandwagon, cardstacking – this isn’t a rational argument, it’s poorly concealed propaganda.The kind of thing you hear from a political hack. Maybe this kind of stuff stokes the fires in the rest of his fellow partisans, but if he wants to convince the other half of the nation, he’s going to have to display some erudition. Either address the defense team’s arguments in their entirety or shut up and let somebody else do it.
Obviously this is a joke , there isn’t a human being on the planet that would be stupid enough to believe this bs. If you’re going to lie at least make it sound somewhat believable and this is not even remotely close to being believable. You lost leftists, deal with it.
Shaming these people who perpetuate lies against republicans is all we can do but democrats and the press have no shame nor are they worried about it. Power, subterfuge, sophistry, and malignancy is what they want and what they are.
Actually, you can start encouraging people to visit #walkaway. It’s a movement for people who have woke up from the Democrat’s ridiculous narratives and walking away from the party. They also do videos on youtube. One thing most of them say is that they “born” Democrats and never really questioned anything. They were taught Republicans were mean and bad and never really examined the issue.
Personally, I do not see why any self-respecting white person would vote for a Democrat again. And I used to be one.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“self respecting white person”, at least you have that, must be lonely.
HA HA. “Self respecting” is something we all should do and do to others too. As for the “White person”, I no doubt believe it’s because a segment of the Dem party and “progressives” are actively saying that all White people are evil and racist. THAT is evil and racist and wholly wrong.
Squeaky, Walkaway went nowhere in 2018. And it will go nowhere in 2020. If someone’s not a Trumper by now, they’re not likely to become one.
Between about 20% and 40% of all Trump rally attendees claim to be democrats. Tell me about the walk away movement not going anywhere.
“Between about 20% and 40% of all Trump rally attendees claim to be democrats.”
Source?
Anonymous – you can look into it, as it is an oft repeated claim.
Here is an example of an interview with someone who claimed to have voted Democrat in 2016. How can anyone prove who they actually voted for? One could prove political registration, but not whom they voted for. There are often claims among the crowds at Trump rallies that people were Democrats. All anyone has is their word, so take it with a grain of salt. While it is true that Democrats do cross over to the Republican Party, and vice versa, getting any completely accurate figure would be difficult.
There are prominent examples of Democrats going over to Trump. The #WalkAway campaign is an example of the hatred and intolerance so rife in the DNC really turning off Democrats. Many of us conservatives know Democrats who think their party is getting too hateful. One of my relatives is currently suffering severe TDS political poisoning. A Democrat friend stopped socializing with her and her friends because all they ever wanted to talk about was how much they hated Trump and Republicans. Kind of made her appetite evaporate. Candace Owens is another famous example of a Democrat who Red Pilled, left the plantation, and became a conservative. So is Brandon Tatum. Even Thomas Sowell was a Democrat as a younger man. Eventually, the facts don’t support their remaining in the party. It has long been a saying, with many iterations, both here and across the pond, that if you don’t lean Left when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you don’t lean conservative when you are older, you have no brain.
“Ryan Chapman of Indianola actually voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but he was at the Trump rally in a MAGA hat. Last time, he thought both nominees were “toxic” but decided to give Clinton a chance because of her experience. “Then my mind was changed by how they attack [Trump] and how they belittle him in every decision he does. I have not seen this much smear in a president ever … I’ve never seen so much hatred towards a president.” Chapman also praised Trump’s handling of the economy.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-trumps-des-moines-rally-should-make-democrats-nervous
Squeeky – did you used to be a self-respecting white person or Democrat? 😉
Well, I used to be a Democrat. Heck, I even supported Hillary until the email insanity and Trump. I would have voted for her over a Romneyite.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – so, you admit that at one time you were a Democrat, but not a self-respecting white person? I am glad you got over that. 😉
It really is time for charges against people who speak like this. Isn’t it …. “hate crime” they’re indulging in? That would be delicious irony.