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.
The CNN link to the transcript seems to be dead. Is there another, or have they deleted the transcript?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2002/01/cnr.01.html
I have great respect for you, but I continue to wonder how you can remain a Democrat when you see your fellow party members continually (CONTINUALLY) spewing this kind of venom and rage.
I guess I do understand that you don’t want any more death threats for you or your family members, but that just underscores my point…
As a lawyer, you understand there’s a public face and a real face. Rarely do the twain meet.
As always, clearly reasoned, and quite reasonable analysis of the facts. WHat Gerardt said seems libelous and defamatory on its face, and according to his own reasoning should be dragged before the Bar Association to defend himself. Trump hate is a fire out control. Calm, quiet voices like Prof. Turley’s are vital in such querulous times.
This is pretty sick stuff, but it seems their is a large contingent of law professors made from it. Given that the whole impeachment hoax was contrived from normally inadmissible, due to unreliability, hearsay evidence, a battle in Bar ethics committees could ensue from which Schiff emerges as the loser. Ethical standards for accusers are more stringent that those for defenders. Schiff met none of them.
(Above) “… it seems there…”.
They will be coming for you next, Professor Turley. That is who they are: fascists. Just like Antifa is supposed to be anti-fascist but are actually the face of fascism.
You’ve worded your column title with baited words. It will be used against the opposition in arguments today most likely. They will not refer to the context of the article. Was that designed?
Correction used against the President
If, during arguments, Schiff or one of his equally incompetent colleagues has the guts to impugn the ethics of the President’s counsel, I recommend the latter respond by deeming Schiff to be the Mike Nifong of impeachment cases.
I’d say Schiff makes Nifong look like a Girl Scout. Schiff creates crimes to entrap his perceived enemies; distorts testimony; enlists disgruntled federal employees who want to believe they have more power than the president on foreign affairs and get them to lie to the IG; etc. etc. He needs to go to prison for what he’s put this country through.
Hello folks,
It’s been YEARS since I’ve been here. It takes a lot of work to talk with you fine and clever folks and I guess I got lazy about keeping up with all of you.
Anyway, I’m still lazy. But I did find my old screename that I used here so I could not resist dropping by on account of seeing this article on the Whatfinger website.
If you don’t know what Whatfinger is, let me brief you: it’s a fairly decent alternative to Drudge Report.
The American Democrat (or “Democratic” as some annoyingly insist) has reached his apex. Yes, I still use the universal pronoun “he” to refer to men and women. But he has, from my viewpoint, actually reached the bottom of the barrel. Everything he stands for has been exposed to be supported an evil manner: women rights, the environment, racism, compassion, sexual freedom, welfare, and morality.
It is justice desserts in my opinion that the Democrat women folk have done this to them. They surely have wrecked the Democratic Party.
It is not that the focus of the Democrats were bad things to address, it’s how stupidly Democrats have addressed them. Children casually having sex changes? Seriously? Who is letting that stand? It’s a sign of utter depravity by the left/Democrats.
When I think of women’s rights I think of last night’s Super Bowl “entertainment”. Do you want your daughters conducting themselves in that manner before the world and having it as a centerpiece of manly sport? Or do you want them to be scholars, artists with REAL skill, doctors, or good mothers?
If you want them to not act like trash, then you will want to avoid being a Democrat. It is because of Democrats that this public filth is spewed throughout the solar system. Democrats do not have the moral wherewithal to avoid smearing garbage over the airwaves. This is because the standards they pretend to have are the lowest imaginable. They are as low as Sodom and Gomorrah. They are as low as Hitler (who advocated for Socialism in Mein Kampf). And they are as low as the hatefest known as the Trump Impeachment.
It will always be an honor to be impeached by Socialists/Communists/Democrats.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be the center of your life.
The only thing the President’s counsel did wrong was to beat the tar out of those hacks on the other side. There’s nothing unethical about that.
What we are witnessing is the latest in a pattern of attempts to intimidate counsel who pose a threat to schemes to remove the President. As Prof. Turley observes, these attempts are in themselves unethical.
What’s he talking about? No mention of this was made by anyone in any position to do so. False statements like this need to be challenged the moment they are made. More lies from them. At this point, I think only the American people can put an end to the constant attempts to undermine the President. Many of us are weary of the false witch hunts and huge amounts of money and time being spent to accomplish nothing when those resources could be put to good use building America instead of weakening it.