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.
Full disclosure: non-lawyer perspective here. I think the impeachment process is dated and fated to failure in what American politics has become. Best thing that can come out of this”trial” is the realization that a) Donald Trump was who impeachment was written for, and that b) he won’t be taken from office as a result of it.
Best thing that could happen would be for the ridiculous Justice Dept. guideline against presidents being immune from indictment to disappear. Mueller had enough obstruction on Trump to take out 10 administrations, and paying off the porn star he had sex with just after his 3rd wife gave birth is clear campaign finance violation. I mean, let’s pat the guy on the back for figuring out how to have campaign violations in Citizen’s United-land…truly an impressive achievement on the one hand. something that puts him in Clinton territory, exponentially, on the other.
As far as Gerhardt, sure, probably a bit premature. Suffering from realizing how home jobbed this “trial” was, no doubt.. Cippolone and Lindsey Graham were clearly in fact witness territory…but will anything happen? Not in this climate.
Hmmmm…..we are all born ignorant but it requires work to be stupid…..you seem to be working VERY hard…..
It’s my aim to please for the purposes of identification, DerthDud. Thank you. Thank you very much.
a) Donald Trump was who impeachment was written for,
He wasn’t.
Best thing that could happen would be for the ridiculous Justice Dept. guideline against presidents being immune from indictment to disappear.
IOW, we invite lawfare by creatures like Andrew Weissmann. Sounds like a plan that would be favored by a completely uncrupulous partisan Democrat.
That’s me: completely uncrupulous. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And actually, he in fact was impeached.
The Pelvis:
And Dreyfus was convicted in a secret court. How’d that perception hold up?
. “I think the impeachment process is dated and fated to failure.” If you truly believe so then you propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution under Article V of that document.
You do understand that “DOJ lawyers described OLC opinions as “predecisional and deliberative documents, produced at the request of the president or an agency, containing candid legal advice to aid in a governmental process. OLC’s opinions, being advice, CARRY NO INTRINSIC LEGAL FORCE for regulated parties.”
A decision by the federal trial judges (District or Supreme Courts) would be necessary to determine the “lawfulness” of the 1973 and 1980 memos,
Ready to start that process or do you simply want to talk about doing away with Constitution laws and DOJ opinions?
“Best thing that could happen would be for the ridiculous Justice Dept. guideline against presidents being immune from indictment to disappear.”
this would castrate the office of the POTUS. the chief executive has a lot to do and not enough time to do it in. in world environment with deadly serious national competition, you have to have a chief who can act like one. for example, to protect from and quickly contain global viral contagions. for example. or at least try with all the means that may work.
no sane Democrat actually wants such a thing. particularly sense they believe they will soon regain the Presidency in 5 years or so from now when Trump’s second term ends, and then they will abuse it to the end of time thereafter.
no sane Democrat actually wants such a thing.
They figure the Justice Department staff is salted with enough Peter Sztroks and Andrew Weismanns that Democratic Presidents will skate and Republican presidents will be indicted for fictional offenses. The last three years demonstrate this thesis is probably true.
Salted? Don’t worry, Absurd…, there’s still time for you to become Andrew Weismann when you grow up.
True enough. But that would require defining what a president could be indicted for. It would certainly be a different list than one not centered around the Oval. Trump is the perfect cause for this…his whole problem in Ukraine is around behaving exactly like he did as a developer in NY. Different office, different rules.
When Mueller was asked, under oath, did Trump obstruct, impede, the investigation in anyway, Mueller said, NO. It’s not like Trump erased 33k emails, bleach bit, smashed phones with hammers, when documents were subpoenaed, like Hillary did . Trump turned over millions of documents. Besides the whole SC investigation was hoax based oh Hillary’s phony dossier.
When will we return to the rule of law, and get rid of this Leftist mob rule?
Biggest question:
Did Adam Schiff lie?
Answer:
On numerous occasions and numerous times.
But this is why unethical lawyers, go into government.
More money, better benefits and less actual work.
Lawyers, are only in it, for themselves.
Prove me wrong.
Adam Schiff is a sociopathic liar, but as far as sociopathic liars go he isn’t a very hard-working one. Can you imagine how differently things might have gone if he had actually applied himself?
I doubt he didn’t ‘apply himself’. He had a sh!t case.
Adam Schiff is just the sort of person you don’t want in public office. He’s been on public-sector payrolls without interruption since 1985. From his capsule biographies, one can guess he went into law as a prelude to entering politics and he went into politics to ‘make a difference’ (which the uncharitable among us might interpret as a hankering to harass the normal people).
In a better political world, every member of Congress would be over 40. No more than 20% would be quondam political staff, quondam public employees, or quondam lawyers. Perhaps 1/3 would be those who entered Congress after 15 years or so in some line of work other than electoral politics, and this set would have a median age of about 45. Another 2/3 would have a history in other elected offices and have a median age of about 57. Retirement would be mandatory at age 76 and rotation-in-office debarring someone from sitting for more than 10 years at one stretch would be the order of the day. A term would run for four years, so they might have time to do something other than fundraising. Senators would be elected by caucuses of House members, and have a much reduced set of powers.
Schiff has made a difference, just not a good one
daveg:
Hell naw, he got Trump re-elected.
Maybe. But it’s best not to count one’s chickens…
Anonymous:
Worth the read:
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/02/impeachment-was-political-suicide.html
Money shot:
“Democrats stopped the clock on 8 NOV 16. Until they get over that election, they cannot move forward.”
Anonymous:
Dims are that pathetic friend of yours who can’t stop talking about the girlfriend that dumped him three years ago and now hates all women! We all know that guy. You see him on the weekends in jammies with cheto-stained fingers bragging about his latest stunning victory in Mortal Combat 11.
Yes, something has to change, but still not have our god given Rights left Un-infringed.
OoPs…. God Given Rights not Infringed on…
As best as I can determine, both the prosecution and the defense made claims which are false. Seems to me that they must of known that, hence lies. Are not lawyers ethically bound to avoid lies?
Only the prosecution lied. As the article has shown, the defense did not.
Benson,
intentional factual lies yes but most of what people call lies in this context, are not objectively verifiable facts, they are just different characterizations of the legal interpretations of facts and not the facts themselves
the objective facts in this scenario were rarely and very little in dispute, actually., just the interpretations of them for intangible and subjective things like “intent,” and the legal significance of them.
the fact checkers on NPR I heard a few days along the way were overstepping their boundaries quite a bit with whoppers of their own. legal opinions, strategic arguments, and procedural differences for example are not “Facts” — facts are objectively verifiable things.
this seems obtuse to non-lawyers but lawyers do actually consider this a lot and it goes into the very basic craft of drafting a proper affidavit that sets out facts stated objectively and according only to the personal knowledge of the affiant, and leaves the conclusions to those who will hear it
Someone will cover their bar tab. They did an excellent job!
Leftists will do anything to win. There’s no law or ethics that will stop them. So get good bodyguards/security at this point. They didn’t make it with the bogus impeachment and so they are now trying a different tactic: John Soleman’s car was professionally broken into and all this notes/research on Ukraine/H.Clinton campaign/Bidens/Burisma where stolen when they took his laptop.
Cat, the “Leftists” have all long since gone to their Valhalla. The only ghostly remnants are found on the pages of The Nation and a few other select locations.
Sanders, Warren , Buttigiege, Beto, and the Squad don’t look ghostly enough for me, or for the 65 million Americans who will grab more than pitchforks if any your commie losers ever decides to make a move.
Benson is right in the sense that the “left” of today is obsessed with their narrow strategic self-advantage, with verbal trappings of social deconstructionism, rather than the class interests of the workers, which is what primarily characterized the Left of a century ago.
so for example, they courted “gay rights” and dressed it up in the language of oppression which sounded like marxist cliches of yesterday, when getting the votes and political donations of DINK gay couples was obviously the way to go to line their political war chests. this advanced the real interests of homosexuals in reality only just a little, but it worked out like gangbusters for elections in the coastal areas
I had to google who this solomon character was, although i had a good idea that it would be entertaining as he was likely another loony-toons wackjob buffoon spouting some sort of hare-brained conspiracy tale. Sure enough–I was right. On the bright side (assuming momentarily that your claim that his vehicle was “professionally broken into”–whomever or however that is determined), I can promise you that nothing of value was lost with the alleged purloining of his “notes/research” on your issues of tomfoolery.
this is to “I believe that hannity speaks directly to me through through my tee vee” cat
On another matter, I deeply appreciate the entertainment that your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make provide for me when I periodically stop in to ascertain what type of circle-jerk you clowns are up to. Thank you very much for relieving my concern that you may have decided to forgo the nonsense.
Aren’t you cute.
I can see you’re trying to be witty. Don’t give up, you’re half way there.
Oh, look…another arrogant liberal / progressive “elitist” here to insult and demean. All progressives are educated, compassionate and very impressive. Did you know that? No? Well just ask them. More than that, progressives are all-knowing (Again, just ask them). Yes, America, behold the average progressive, the short-term thinking hedonists, the poor victimized soul who is owed more than the government (tax payers) could ever bestow upon them. And because they’re all about equality, progressives abhor old, white men—especially billionaires. Of course, there are exceptions…Democrats running for office. Hypocrites? You betcha. To a progressive, behind every differing idea is someone to hate, to demean, to insult. And lecture—oh yeah, they love to lecture us commoners. And the best progressive lecturer is the rich liberal politician. Don’t worry, they’ll fly thousands of miles in a private jet to tell you how horrible you are for having an air conditioner. Perhaps you can catch them on their way to their gated community to lecture you on how mean and racist a border wall is. If you can get by their armed security, you can hear about gun control. And unless you’re a Republican female, who they mock, they’ll certainly preach about the #MeToo movement. Ah, progressivism, it’s more than a way of life, it’s a religion. And all evil non-believers must be mocked and destroyed. Perhaps in 2020 many of these lying, corrupt hypocrites will be voted out and we won’t hear as many lectures—from them or their sycophant media.
The Left eat their feces and have been constipated since Trump.was.elected over THREE YEARS AGO!
THAT is why feces just rolls out of their.mouths all.the time.
Oh, look…another arrogant liberal / progressive “elitist” here to insult and demean. All progressives are educated, compassionate and very impressive. Did you know that? No? Well just ask them. More than that, progressives are all-knowing (Again, just ask them). Yes, America, behold the average progressive, the short-term thinking hedonists, the poor victimized soul who is owed more than the government (tax payers) could ever bestow upon them. And because they’re all about equality, progressives abhor old, white men—especially billionaires. Of course, there are exceptions…Democrats running for office. Hypocrites? You betcha. To a progressive, behind every differing idea is someone to hate, to demean, to insult. And lecture—oh yeah, they love to lecture us commoners. And the best progressive lecturer is the rich liberal politician. Don’t worry, they’ll fly thousands of miles in a private jet to tell you how horrible you are for having an air conditioner. Perhaps you can catch them on their way to their gated community to lecture you on how mean and racist a border wall is. If you can get by their armed security, you can hear about gun control. And unless you’re a Republican female, who they mock, they’ll certainly preach about the #MeToo movement. Ah, progressiveness, it’s more than a way of life, it’s a religion. And all evil non-believers must be mocked and destroyed. Perhaps in 2020 many of these lying, corrupt hypocrite liberal politicians will be voted out and we won’t hear as many lectures—from them or their sycophant media.
You may be a useful idiot for the Democrat party, but you are just a regular idiot everywhere else.
If he had all his notes on one laptop and not in an online document store or backed up somewhere else, he is really, really stupid.
Scott – I am guessing he backs up to a cloud and his computer is secured. He travels abroad, so he is sensitive to security.
These Democrats are either crazy or Communists.
Can’t have a commie who isn’t insane.
BTW it’s spelled: D E M O N R A T.
Divide and conquer.
Commiecrats. Dhimmiecrats. Baby killers, jihad appeasers, open borders promoters, gun grabbers, surveillance promoters, economy crushers tranny lovers.
So far Trump and the Republicans are the ones kissing Putin ass.
You have the hots for Vlad don’t you nobody.
Only on a site filled with lawyers would such a proven lie be spouted,
What “evidence” came forward? I don’t remember anything except the comment from the guy who knew the guy who read some of the notes from the Bolton manuscript. BTW, Bolton is an egomaniac…has been one for years and years.
Is this guy Gerhardt for real. I graduated from law school 47 years ago and we had some hard line leftys then, but today almost 100% law schools. God help the legal profession in the future with men like Gerhardt.
We’d better climb out of this rabbit hole before we hit bottom!
The lesson for republicans, the next time they hold the Congress, Senate and Presidency, is to impeach every possible democrat and repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, summarily expunging “injurious” * and improperly ratified amendments, by the same unconstitutional and brutal tyranny that Lincoln employed. As the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) themselves believe, the ends justify the means. All we are saying, is give freedom and self-reliance a chance (finally). Enough of the principles of communism oppressing Americans as unconstitutional redistributionist taxation, unconstitutional regulation and unconstitutional social engineering.
Ben Franklin admonished Americans that they must be strong enough to “keep” their “republic” when he said that we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.
President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”
President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”
_____________________________
*
“…amendments desired,…as will not injure the constitution,…”
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
100% outrageous. President Trump was not allowed to confront his accuser, the so-called whistleblower. Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and the whole goddamn lot of them should be disbarred, impeached, prevented from ever holding office, and imprisoned.
Just because a statement made before a tribunal is false does not by itself make it unethical. The Model Rules specifically require the attorney knows the evidence is false, which is a high standard to meet. From comment 8 of Model Rule 3.3:
“The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. “
Pat, there is no way that Cipilone did not know that Republican Committee members attended the depositions taken in the basement and had the same rights as Democratic members. He repeAted the falsehood that they were not allowed to even attend these meetings.
I think Professor Gerhardt has put himself in legal jeopardy. Though probably nothing will come of it, it is not a set of risks I would have taken. Some part of his mind, perhaps a small part, may be a little worried.
What we need is for the House “prosecutors” to face Barr charges…
Around here if a barr charges at you, quickly climb a tree and then get out your barr spray.
Obviously a Liberal partisan with an Agenda….Ridicules allegation, a prime example of whats wrong in our Educational System…….
Haha. More tomfoolery. Now, adhering to the rule of law, the requirement to comply with the directives of the United States Constitution, and common decency are considered an “agenda.” you can’t make this up.
this is to “I have a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” ricky
baseless partisain lunacy……this needs to be ignored for the demogaurary that it is .
Aid to foreign countries were under review by the Trump Administration. Contrary to previous administrations, he did not want to keep throwing money down a black hole like taxpayer money grew on trees. Remember all that rhetoric that nation building doesn’t work? All the failures, with taxpayer money wasted? I know I’ve complained for years that we give millions to countries who openly despise us. Why? It is important that we periodically review what the goal is for each country. Is it just straight humanitarian aid, like food and medicine to the constantly war torn countries of Africa? Is any of it going to those in need, or just lining the pockets of the corrupt? What’s the goal for each aid?
Once we begin to give aid, there is no reason to assume it should go on forever. Why shouldn’t all aid be reviewed regularly?
For those who didn’t watch this part of the testimony, here’s the bit about the policy about reviewing aid, and that Ukraine was not, in fact singled out. One is to recall that the Executive Branch sets foreign policy, not Nancy Pelosi, not any staffers, and not Adam Schiff.
“Well, it [foreign assistance review] had been going on for quite a while, and the concept, you know, the administration did not want to take a, sort of, business-as-usual approach to foreign assistance, a feeling that once a country has received a certain assistance package, it’s a — it’s something that continues forever,” Hale explained.
“It’s very difficult to end those programs and to make sure that we have a very rigorous measure of why we are providing the assistance,” Hale said. “We didn’t go to zero base, but almost a zero-based concept that each assistance program and each country that receives the program had to be evaluated that they were actually worthy beneficiaries of our assistance; that the program made sense; that we have embarked on, you know, calling everything that we do around the world countering violent extremism, but, rather, that’s actually focused on tangible and proven means to deal with extremist problems; that we avoid nation-building strategies; and that we not provide assistance to countries that are lost to us in terms of policy, to our adversaries.”
Ukraine wasn’t the only country that had aid withheld why a review was ongoing. According to Hale, Lebanon, Pakistan and the Northern Triangle countries were facing similar scrutiny.
“The President suspended the vast majority of our military assistance to Pakistan because of their failure to conform to our concerns about terrorist activity and the proxies that were operating in the border area of Afghanistan,” Hale told the committee. “I’m just trying to go across the globe and try to remember what else.”
But one of the most important parts of Hale’s testimony: the United States’ policy towards Ukraine remains unchanged, despite what the media tells Americans and no quid pro quo took place.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/11/18/read-impeachment-deposition-transcript-from-state-department-official-david-hale-n2556689
Trump is required by the International accounting act, to investigate possible corruption. Biden’s crimes could fall under Foreign corruption act violations.