Democratic Members File Bar Complaint Against Trump Counsel Joe diGenova

YouTube Screenshot

We previously discussed the abusive move by Rep. Bill Prascell (D., N.Y.) to seek the disbarment of roughly a dozen Trump and Republican lawyers for challenging election results. Such calls have become common place. Indeed, during the impeachment trial of President Trump, North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gerhardt predicted that the entire Trump legal team would be disbarred after their representation of the President.  Now, Democratic Reps. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), have filed a complaint alleging direct violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct against Trump lawyer Joe diGenova for his recent controversial remarks about fired Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency head Chris Krebs. In an interview, diGenova called for Krebs to be “drawn and quartered” for his failure to protect this election. While noting that I did not believe that diGenova was actually calling for violence, I immediately criticized those comments.  However, despite the view of ethics professor Stephen Gillers to the contrary, I do not believe that this is even remotely an ethical violation. It is however a clear use of bar rules for a political purpose.  Notably, Rice and Lieu, both lawyers, have been utterly silent on the campaign of harassment and abuse by groups like the Lincoln Project. There have been no calls for disbarment of those attorneys or investigations into threats of violence against Republican lawyers. Indeed, I have not read a single lawyer or law firm supporting the Lincoln Project denouncing its campaign to harassment fellow lawyers — a campaign that began shortly after Joe Biden was declared the presumptive winner of the election.

I have not hesitated to call out counsel for election-related violations that could result in disbarment like the recent Republican lawyer allegedly calling for people to register out-of-state to vote fraudulently in Georgia.  While the comments by diGenova were worthy of condemnation, they were clearly meant as a joke.  It was simply not funny, particularly in these increasingly violent times.

Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs  should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.”

Nevertheless, these members have filed a bar complaint. Imagine the impact on free speech if lawyers could be pulled in front of state bars for such political statements. This was not in a filing in court. It was a comment on diGenova’s view of a failure to protect the election.  This has nothing to do with the propriety of the underlying comments. I obviously disagree with it. I immediately condemned it. However, it is like the bar complaint filed against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fl.) for his actions in Congress. It is the weaponization of the bar complaint process for political purposes.

The basis for the complaint covers various rules: Rule 8.4 (Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession); Rule 3.6 (Trial Publicity); and Rule 4.4 (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons).  As has often been the case, various legal experts quickly declared the charges well-founded and compelling. It seems that, when the target is Trump or his associates, any ethical and criminal charge is facially valid under unbounded interpretations of underlying provisions. No concern is raised for the impact of such charges on free speech or possible political abuse.

Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest.'” No rational person.  The Washington Post’s Randall Eliason seemed to dismiss that this was “just a colorful metaphor.” Professor Steve Vladeck declared “Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.” These are both individual who have previously embraced sweeping criminal and ethics claims against Trump and others for the last four years, including (in Eliason’s case) interpretations long rejected by the Supreme Court.

Gillers emphasized Rule 8.4(b) and Rule 8.4(d) to apply to lawyer who “(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects” or “(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.”

Gillers correctly notes that “With regard to (b), it is not necessary that the lawyer have been prosecuted so long as the act is criminal and it adversely reflects on his ‘fitness.’”  The problem is that this is not a crime. It is a reckless statement. It is unclear how Gillers believes that diGenova would be charged with a crime for such a common hyperbolic statement but it would result in tens of millions of people being frog marched to the penitentiary. 

As a free speech advocate, I am particularly sensitive to his type of sweeping statement because I have long opposed cases of “violent speech.” Indeed, we previously discussed the issue of violent speech in a column where I argued against charging Michael Brown’s stepfather during the Ferguson rioting. I do not believe that such comments could satisfy the standard established by the Supreme Court in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio as advocating imminent violence. Violent speech is protected under the Constitution absent such a threat of imminent violence. I have previously written about the dangerous line of criminalizing speech. I currently have a case in the federal court on this issue in United States v. Al-Timimi.

We have seen some extensions of ethics rules to include criticism of judges (here and here), a move that I have also opposed as a threat to free speech. Those cases however involved criticism of judges in actual cases in which the lawyers appeared.

The controversy over diGenova’s comment does not come close to any rationale theory of a criminal act.

Gillers also maintains diGenova’s comment “interfered with the administration of justice,” as stated in Rule 8.4(d).  The basis of that claim is that “seriously interferes with the work of the courts in addressing the campaign’s claim that the election was unfair.” That statement is equally unhinged legally and factually. Krebs is actually not a party and not expected to be a witness in these election challenges, which are largely now being litigated on the appellate levels.  Yet, Gillers insists that “a disciplinary body could find that diGenova’s threats against Krebs for saying the election was fair seriously interferes with the work of the courts in addressing the campaign’s claim that the election was unfair.”  If so, in my view, it would be an abusive use of the bar process to selectively target a lawyer for political reasons.

This type of controversy obviously involves a mix of concerns over legal ethics, criminal law, and free speech. In my view, these charges are an abuse of the bar process and should be condemned by all lawyers even as we condemn the comments of diGenova.

188 thoughts on “Democratic Members File Bar Complaint Against Trump Counsel Joe diGenova”

  1. Democrats & Ethics Violations: wash, rinse, repeat

    Rep. Maxine Waters’ daughter collected $240K from congresswoman’s campaign – NY Post

    The daughter of California Rep. Maxine Waters netted around $240,000 this past election cycle — from her mother’s own campaign, new records show.

    The congresswoman’s campaigns shelled out payments to Karen Waters for work she did on her 82-year-old mother’s re-election campaign, including “slate mailer management” and “GOTV” — or likely “Get Out the Vote” services.

    The payments appear in new Federal Election Commission filings reported by Fox News on Friday.

    More than $212,600 in disbursements to Karen Waters are broken down into 26 entries such as “slate mailer management” fees, “office expenses” and “canvassing” between March 2019 and September 2020.

    Rep. Maxine Waters
    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
    Another $28,150 in payments to Karen Waters occurred in October and November, for “GOTV” and “slate mailer management” fees — though one for $1,000 was simply labeled “Walker payments.”

    Maxine Waters, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has been scrutinized over payments to her daughter before. Her campaign has paid Karen Waters or her public relations firm Progressive Connections to produce, print and mail slate mailers since 2004, Fox News said.

    Since then, Waters’ daughter has reportedly received almost $1 million from the campaign.

    Maxine Waters, a Democrat, won re-election in November to California’s 43rd Congressional District, a seat she’s held since 2013.

    1. Trump’s kids have gotten millions from his campaign. I’m sure you’ll voice the same concern.

  2. I haven’t gotten past the first sentence of this post, because it already contains two highly-misleading statements. First of all is Turley’s claim that someone is seeking to get another attorney disbarred, which is misleading and an exaggeration. When someone refers a complaint about an attorney to a disciplinary commission, the complaining party doesn’t have the authority to seek any specific punishment. Deciding whether a Rules violation occurred, and if so, the proper punishment, is the exclusive province of the disciplinary body. BTW: an attorney has a duty to report conduct by another attorney (arising under non-privileged circumstances, and if the referral is not abused for purposes of seeking leverage in a legal matter) to a disciplinary commission. Secondly, the reason for the referral is not for “challenging the election results”. The reason is because these attorneys are abusing their licenses to practice law by filing actions they know, or would know upon minimal investigation, are frivolous, unreasonable and groundless because there are NO facts to support them. In fact, some of Trump’s lawyers have withdrawn, voluntarily dismissed lawsuits they filed, and his campaign has been unable to get high-profile firms to take his cases. (the fact that he stiffs lawyers, like everyone else who deals with him, could be part of the problem, too). The sole reason for filing dozens of lawsuits to try to prevent certification of the results, and/or to stop the Electoral College from voting, is because there is a mentally ill person, suffering from narcissism, who also is a pathological liar, and who cannot accept defeat. Lawyers are officers of the court, and are duty-bound to investigate the facts of a matter before filing suit. There must be “good grounds” to support the allegations of any civil suit. Nowhere is this more true than when injunctive relief is sought–the movant must show a meritorious case, be likely to prevail on the merits, and there must be no other suitable remedy available to stop irreversible harm. Suits may not be used as dilatory tactic, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. Note the number of courts that have looked at the allegations, demanded proof, and when none was forthcoming, dismissed with prejudice, only to have Trump’s lawyers re-file the same claim. That is abuse of process. The lawyers doing this deserve to be disciplined.

    I’m not even going to bother to read the rest of Turley’s post. because the opening statements are deceitful and misleading. I find it amazing that any quality law school would keep Turley on its faculty, mainly because I cannot find any reason to respect him. Posts like today’s are the reason why.

  3. Of course, the people promoting this don’t actually believe there own humbug.

    We’ve come to the point where the Democratic Party and the social nexus around it is contending that all opposition is illegitimate. So, try to get the opposition’s lawyers disbarred, stuff the ballot boxes, manufacture criminal charges, etc. You actually cannot maintain a competitive political order under these circumstances. You cut down all the trees, and there’s nothing protecting you. This will not end well.

    1. By the same token the democrats should be charged with an ethics violation for murdering rational discourse.

      1. Democrats and Ethics Violations? surely you jest

        Rep. Waters charged on three counts

        The House ethics committee on Monday outlined its charges against Rep. Maxine Waters, who is accused of helping a bank in which her husband owned stock secure federal bailout funds.

        The committee charged the 10-term California Democrat with three counts of violating House rules and the federal ethics code in connection with her effort to arrange a 2008 meeting between Treasury officials and representatives with OneUnited bank.

        The panel said Waters, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, broke a House rule requiring members to behave in a way that reflects “creditably” on the chamber. The committee said that by trying to assist OneUnited, she stood to benefit directly, because her husband owned a sizable amount of stock that would have been “worthless” if the bank failed.

        The committee also accused Waters of violating the “spirit” of a House rule prohibiting lawmakers from using their positions for financial gain, as well as a government ethics statute banning the dispensing of “special favors.”

        1. “Waters requested federal help for her husband’s business.”


          This clown also “requested federal help” for deadbeat ghetto mortgage borrowers through wholly unconstitutional HAMP, HARP, etc., programs. My minority neighbor strategically “defaulted” on his existing mortgage. My neighbor had a $8K+ 2-story house on a large lot in Southern California, four new and near-new expensive cars and pick-up trucks, an extremely expensive brand new 24-foot, professional water-ski boat, a trailer full of OHVs, a 40 foot $225K RV, new landscaping, etc., and he filed under Maxine Waters’ scam HAMP and HARP for an extremely beneficial mortgage re-fi with help on fees, having liquidated or divested absolutely none of his extremely valuable assets to help himself pay off his existing mortgage. He was a Filipino county sheriff deputy. Maxine Waters’ office assistant said HAMP and HARP were great programs and that an individual’s assets were not taken into consideration when a borrower defaulted then applied for government mortgage refinancing assistance.

  4. The Trump lawyers filed demonstrably false information and sloppy briefs with the courts. They deserve to be investigated for those.

    1. And what were the demonstrably false claims ?

      A sloppy brief is a only harmful to the client. There is no grounds for 3rd party complaints.

  5. Filing bar complaints is a legal and non-violent action within the bounds of a civilized society with a democratic government. Turley is seriously confused about both facts and principles.

    1. Aye

      Leftist traitor’s tears over rhetorical violence vs their complete lack of condemnation of actual violence

      is farcical to the extreme.

      But what can be expected by people who support cowardly coup plotters.

    1. So what ?

      There is actually a recent supreme court case on this.

      DiGenova’s remarks are not a “true threat”.

      If they were half the celebrities in Hollywood would be in jail for threatening the president.

      At the very least apply standards without glaring hypocracy.

  6. Professor Turley should be interviewed by a nonpartisan to ask him tough questions. The very popular, impartial comedian Kathy Griffin would be ideal to interview Profesor Turley. She would sit him in a chair, cuddle up to him, ask him fluff questions and then….whack!

  7. Turley, oddly, I find you to be mondo hypocritical in your free speech views. Quite selective at best…

    Just yesterday, in the comments section in response to a blog reader who stated Trump should declare martial law and cancel the Georgia run off election in order to protect liberty I responded that should Trump do that he should be f^&ked by a horse on the town square in response. An absurdist response to an absurdist suggestion, no doubt. I noticed my comment was taken down. Not that I care about it being taken down…, I just find it odd that in judgement of that exchange you’ve taken one side in the realm of free speech and squashed the other — a pattern long ongoing on your blog.

    While I tend to agree with you on the rush to disbar lawyers for words they utter in out of context moments, I find it hilarious that you classify diGenova’s words to basically be just ordinary huff on the continuum of random ‘i’m going to shoot that guy’ rhetoric. Taken in the context of the moment, someone very well may take it upon themselves to carry out what diGenova suggested in much the same way as that guy who sent the bombs to the dem politicians making his fox news generated dem hate list awhile back. DiGenova should maybe be disbarred for a criminal inability to read the room when taking into consideration the highly charged political moment where a president is running a political kabuki show about not undertaking a peaceful transfer of power. Do we know if he’s serious or not? I think we all get (some on this blog obviously excluded) that trump is just grandstanding to raise money to personally take advantage of from his PAC, but the ‘nothing to see here’ tact you approach trump and cronies with is tone deaf and a bit dangerous, Jon. Please sac up and condone the flagrant crushing of political norms with wildly inappropriate ignorance so present in the republican party currently.

    -Elvis Bug

    1. Anonymous:

      “…I find you to be mondo hypocritical…”

      Then go away.

      Why do you keep coming back if you find Turley so offensive?

      Street whores have a name for clients like you.

    2. Darren deletes comments.

      And I’m not sure that JT has ever changed the password, so it’s possible that others have access as well.

      Many perfectly legitimate comments are deleted, too. Jonathan needs to hire a neutral moderator, change his password and cut his guest bloggers loose.

  8. The Democrats have been threatening the President and his supporters with a host of extinction events, and after an impeachment show trial and the legal persecution of Flynn and Page, nobody doubts the Democrats mean every hate-filled threat. As a response, some of the President’s friends are now talking about martial law. The Democrats need to stop with the vendettas–this is third-world insanity–and Flynn needs to stop talking about martial law. NOW!!!

    If this situation doesn’t convince voters in Atlanta that handing the Democrats the Senate is already a horrible idea, then those voters will find out the hard way only when it’s too late. Letting the Republicans keep the Senate will hopefully keep the federal government in check until the firebrands burn themselves out. But to give the Republicans a chance, something needs to be done to restore faith in our elections. Otherwise, Trump supporters may not vote.

    The last thing we need now is dough-faced judiciary. The Supreme Court should strip Pennsylvania’s electors from Joe Biden as a matter of principle, and force Georgia to have oversight from federal election officials under the authority of the Court–not the Whitehouse–for the runoffs. The Court needs to release the Kraken and restore some faith in the federal government among Trump’s supporters. I don’t know if any of this is possible. I just know something like it is needed.

    If the Senate falls to the Democrats, the Supreme Court will be next on the list of vendettas. Roberts and Kavanaugh have to see that.


    1. Both Perdue and Loeffler appear to have engaged in insider trading. They don’t belong in the Senate.

      “The Supreme Court should strip Pennsylvania’s electors from Joe Biden as a matter of principle”

      No, they shouldn’t, because there is no constitutional reason for them to do so, and they have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.

      “and force Georgia to have oversight from federal election officials under the authority of the Court”

      For what legal reason?

      “The Court needs to release the Kraken”

      No, the Court needs to abide by the Constitution. Powell’s and Wood’s error-laden suits will fail on their own.

        1. I really don’t have time for you ankle-biters this morning, but there’s a lot at stake here. First, the insider trading issue–fake news. Second, with regard to Pennsylvania, don’t argue with me; argue with Justice Alito. He’s already publicly voiced his outrage at how Democrat officials railroaded that election. Third, Fulton County has a plumbing problem that seems to interfere with elections, ballot verification was a joke, and nobody on either side trusts Raffensperger to conduct a fair election. Finally, decent people don’t want Democrat trolls being seated on a packed Supreme Court.

            1. The facts cited in the article seem to refute your claim.

              If you sell stock in a company BEFORE they are awarded a lucrative contract that you are involved in that is NOT insider trading.

              That is self harm.

              Insider Trading would be BUYING stock in a company that you know will get a lucrative contract.

              1. What a fundamental misunderstanding of trading you have there, Mr. Say. Good up to about the late ’80’s, but once markets started to move much quicker digitally, it relegated your bazooka joe level of trading and markets into being real dinosaur stuff today.

                First off, the issue is that Perdue traded inside information. Period. End of sentence.

                But back to your trading model…

                You’re talking about break out trading. Something that was effective until things went digital but something that can get you spanked today. Why would it make sense to sell insider info on an awarded contract nowadays? Well, there is no true inside information anymore for one…, people watching that particular stock would’ve been speculating on the awarded contract for awhile beforehand. Perdue would have the most advanced of inside information from the briefings he received — so a solid strategy would’ve been to buy the speculation (KNOWING that, in fact, the speculation was on the money). And then when the information dropped there was a good chance the companies’ stock gapped up on the overnight market — and this is exactly where pros sell, knowing the gap breakout will most likely retrace to support before re entering. In other words they sell trying to catch the breakout traders (your model) in a squeaze and it is one of the most effective trading strategies to.take advantage of in modern markets.

                But bottom line, the only issue is that Perdue demonstrably used insider information he was briefed on in the senate to trade. That is criminal.

                Elvis Bug

                1. No, the issue is NOT if Perdue has insider information.

                  It is if he acted to benefit from that information.

                  The claim I have heard thus far is that his actions HARMED him.

                  He sold stock that he had every reason to beleive would rise in the future based on insider information BEFORE that rise.

                2. With respect to trade – you are clueless.

                  In both trade and numerous other areas – the digital era ENHANCES the arguments for freedom it does not diminish them.

                  Further your post is jumping all over the place like a chicken with its head cut off. You clearly know very little about trade, trading, economics.
                  You have been watching too much TV and listening to too many left wing idiots.

                  There are always complex and relatively small ways to profit at the fringes, but those are rare and exceedingly dangerous.

                  One of the fundimentals of economics is that standard of living – GDP, profits rise when you produce more value with less human resources.

                  That is ALWAYS a requirement. It is “the engine of the world”. There is no substitute for it. It must dominate the economy or the economy does poorly. A tiny handful of people can make money by gaming the system at the fringes – though there will always be more losers there than winners by necescity, regardless, the scale MUST be tiny.

                  Billions – aproaching trillions of free exchanges occur everyday – it does not matter whether they are fast or slow – done by a human or a machine. Ultimately HUMANS must on net significantly benefit. If they do not – those exchanges will not continue to occur.
                  The free part of free exchange means that you can always say no, for any reason, or no reason at all.
                  And we WILL say no if the winners in the free marketd do not outnumber losers by millions to 1.

                  It is irrelevant whether you think someone else’s actions make sense to you.

                  Crime is not a function of conforming to your wishes.

                  In this instance crime is personally profiting from the knowledge or power of public office.

                  I am sure that politicians of both parties – possibly even Perdue do that all the time.

                  But in the example you claim is insider trading – Perdue did not do that.

                  If you want insider Trading in this instance you would need perdue to SELL the stock before the company was DENIED a contract they expected to get.

                  Of course Perdue has information that he can benefit from personally – as does every single other politician.

                  The only way to reduce that is to reduce the power of government.

          1. First, the insider trading issue is not “fake news,” and if you cannot admit this, then I have to question your commitment to honest discussion. An example with Perdue:
            Loeffler also broke the law by soliciting campaign donations from a federal building:

            The U.S. needs to take white collar crime more seriously.

            Second, Justice Alito hasn’t suggested that “The Supreme Court should strip Pennsylvania’s electors from Joe Biden.” My argument is with you, not him, because you’re the one who suggested it.

            Third, you haven’t substantiated a single thing you said about Georgia. You can have whatever opinions you want, but you shouldn’t pretend that your opinions are facts.

            Finally, decent people don’t want trolls of any sort being seated on the Supreme Court, and if you weren’t so partisan, you’d be able to say that. I may disagree with some nominees’ judicial philosophies, but I don’t consider them “trolls.”

            1. CTDHD – there is lots of evidence of various forms regarding the fraud in Georgia and elsewhere.

              Some of it is hearsay – that does NOT make it false, nor does it make it inadmissible, it likely would be admissible in a criminal trial even.

              The entire impeachment was double hearsay or less – often it rested on guesses about what Trump was thinking.

              But there is evidence beyond that – there is statistical evidence that indicates numerous voting or vote counting anomalies that do not ocurr naturally, and probably can not occur naturally.

              There is also factual evidence – observers were thrown out of all five major cities that flipped this election – at nearly the same time.
              They were told that counting was being stopped – for a variety of reasons. But voting continued and shortly after there were very large one time spikes in Biden ballots. This is not absolute proof, but it is compelling evidence.

              Then there are numerous election laws that were violated wholesale.

              There is no real disagreement that all these things happened.

          2. The problem is that Raffensperger promised to conduct a full audit, recanvas and hand recount.

            He did NOT. There was no hand recount, there was no audit. They did check there addition and search for votes that had not been counted. All important by far less than promised.

            An audit requires minimally maunually recounting a random group of voting machines to determine if there are errors.
            You can not check the machine with the machine.

            It also required manually examining the mailin ballot envelopes to determine if significant numbers of ballots were counted that were not legitimate.

            It requires verifying that the number of voters casting votes matches the number of ballots counted.

            If Manually auditing the machines exposes a problem – the actual vote can be corrected, by manually recounting all ballots.
            If it does not that will torpedo Sydney Powells claims.
            Regardless Raffenspeger did not audit anything much less the machines.

            The other problems that an actual audit can turn up – are no longer correctable.

            Regardless, if the number of counted invalid ballot exceds the margin of victory the entire outcome of the election is unknown – there was no valid election and the results can not be certified.

            That is why we follow the rules.

        2. Of course there is – elections are determined by the lawful votes of legitimate voters.

          In PA there are more mailin ballots cast than people who requested a ballot – by a huge margin.

          If there are more ballots than voters – there is fraud.

          Democrats in PA failed to follow the PA election law – that too is fraud.

          To be clear – that the election laws were not followed is not even contested.

          The PA supreme court admitted it was not following the law or the PA constitution when it legislated from the bench.

      1. If you care about What you think that Loefler did, then how can you possibly not care about Chris Kerry, Devon Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and myriads of other democrats.

        I have no problem getting rid of the republicans who are willing to use the power of government for personal gain.

        Why aren’t you willing to do the same with democrats ?

        And if you care about Loefler’s conduct – which if it actually is what you claim – and the evidence suggests it is not, then why don’t you care about the lawless investigation of Trump, or about the lawlessness in the democratic conduct of the election.

        Regardless – you either care about the law – all the law, or you don’t.

        So lets REALLY investigate everything.

        I am fully prepared to look at the truth – all of it – are you ?

        So far you have not been willing to.

    2. you are such a drama queen. the only ones being violent are your right wing republican extremists who are a threat to all Americans. Only the Right are beating people up, assaulting innocent onlookers and are the true source of violence in this country

      1. So where is this actual violence by right wing extremists ?

        Where is the right wing looting ? Arson ? Where is the right wing 150% increase in violent crime ?

        Where is the right wing dramatic increase in police shootings ?

        If this right wing violence is so pervasive – you should have lots of examples ?

        It was republican senators and congressmen that were shot by a democrat.

        It was republicans that are constantly assaulted leaving Trump rallies and conservative events.

        It is often old men and women just trying to get home who are assulted by Antifa in places like Portland.

        It was republicans protesting election fraud that were assaulted by Antifa in DC.

        Even in Charlottesville – it was the alt-right protestors with a parade permit that were accosted inside police barriers for hours before James Fieldings car dash.

        It was Rand Paul that was assaulted by his neighbor.

        Kyle Rittenhouse was chased accross Kenosha before being cornered and shooting a man who was attacking him and trying to take his gun from him.

        Please – where is all this right wing violence ?

  9. Prof. Turley I take exception to your “Especially in these violent times” pronouncement.

    Todate the actual violence is EXCLUSIVELY by the left.

    That may change, but until it does, all this crap criticising republicans – Trump, DiGenova – ANYONE for purportedly making remarks that incite violence is not merely nonsense – but hypocritical and worse WRONG.

    The fact that many on the right make “jokes” bad or otherwise that can be argued as inciting violence and yet they do not result in right wing violence is a GOOD thing, It means that people are EASILY capable of making choices about violence and are not driven by rhetoric.

    It also means there is no excuse for the violence from the left.

    It is not our rhetoric that is the problem – it is the REAL VIOLENCE by those on the left.

    More speech is the ANSWER not the PROBLEM

    Those on either side who justify violence by the speech of others are WRONG. Regardless of what “side” we are dealing with.

    But your fixation on the speech fo those such as Trump obscures the fact that REAL VIOLENCE is the problem and it is all from THE LEFT.

    This is the direct consequence of leftist ideology that constantly equates speech with violence.

    That ideology is WRONG.

    Offensive speech is far less dangerous than the pretense that speech is violence.

      White supremacists and other like-minded extremists conducted two-thirds of the terrorist plots and attacks in the United States in 2020, according to new CSIS data. Anarchists, anti-fascists, and other like-minded extremists orchestrated 20 percent of the plots and attacks, though the number of incidents grew from previous years as these extremists targeted law enforcement, military, and government facilities and personnel.

      But according to John, who ignores all the evidence that contradicts his beliefs, “the actual violence is EXCLUSIVELY by the left.”

        1. So how many police were shot by White Supremecists this year ?

          How many people were killed by them ?

          Did they do $2B in damage ?

          Did they increase the rates of violent crime in democrati controlled cities by 150% ?

          If there is an epidemic of white supremecist violence – where is it ?

      1. CSIS is a billionaire globalist cutout. of course they say those who oppose globalism are the enemy

        they exaggerate the action but one day it will get hot for them, one day. very hot

        Saloth Sar

          1. The CSIS study is flawed metholody in two big respects.

            Firstly the categorization is suspect. You can read their own description of it and see for yourself.

            One example of this is how the Michigan rednecks were immediately classified by the media as “right wing” when in fact one of them was an anarchist. Moreover “boogerloo bois” are also clearly anarchist. In spite of their love for guns, anarchism is a left wing political ideology, see, Bakunin, and other political theorists who claimed the name.

            Secondly, the study does not take into account the actions of “agent provocateurs” and government paid informants. We know from history and study of FBI operations such as the infamous “Operation Patcon” or the Civil Rights era infiltrations of KKK by government paid informants, exposed in the Church committee and other studies, that FBI habitually targets “right wing” groups for penetration and provocation. In short many of these incidents were cooked up by quasi governmental actors IN THE FIRST PLACE and are thus invalid for the count

            Outfits like CSIS never account for that because — THEY LIKE IT! It serves their political purpose

            Which is, protecting, BILLIONAIRES, the enemy of the American working and middle class

            Saloth Sar

            1. Anarchists aren’t always left wing. Some anarchists are right wing. The Boogaloo Bois are right wing anarchists.

              1. Lets put the Boogaloo Bois aside for the moment.

                Can you name another purportedly right wing anarchist group ?

                I can not think of any – at present or in the past.

                The closest I can come is anarcho-capitalists, and they are not true anargchists they are just anti-state, and none of them are violent.

            2. Secondly, the study does not take into account the actions of “agent provocateurs” and government paid informants. We know from history and study of FBI operations such as the infamous “Operation Patcon” or the Civil Rights era infiltrations of KKK by government paid informants, exposed in the Church committee and other studies, that FBI habitually targets “right wing” groups for penetration and provocation. In short many of these incidents were cooked up by quasi governmental actors IN THE FIRST PLACE and are thus invalid for the count
              They do this with Muslim “terrorists” as well.

      2. Cut the $hit.

        Go to Wikipedia – you can find ALL the terrorist attacks. All the mass shootings.

        Far and away the most common is islamic terrorism.

        Can you even name an actual act of violence by whatever these groups that you are so afraid of ?

        237 police officers were shot this year so far – a record. Where they shot by the KKK or Neo Nazi’s ?

        Richard Spensor endorsed Biden.

        Even overtly racist acts – the predominant target today is Jews – not blacks and quite often it is the left targeting them.

        Ben Shapiro alone was the target for 7400 of the almost 20000 incidents of “hate speech”

        I have no problem condeming “white supremacy” – but it is very hard to do today – because it is almost gone.

        Though I would note if the left keeps this everyone they do not like is a racist nonsense up – they WILL bring it back.

        When I was much younger the Nazi’s marched through my town. The KKK held cross burning rallies nearby that drew thousands.

        There are probably not 1000 neo nazi’s and KKK members in the entire US today. There are more antifa in portland than white supremecits in the US.

        Your are claiming there is massive white supremecist violence WHERE ?

        It is not on the news – and the news bends over backwords to try to paint eco-terrorists as white supremecists.

        I am not interested in nonsense by some idiotic group that is making $hit up.

        Show me all this massive white supremecist violence in the real world ?

        Did White Supremecists destroy more than $2B in property this summer ?

        Did they shoot 237 cops so far this year ?

        Did they increase the rate of violent crimes in most US cities by 50% ?

        Do you understand that more people died from the increased violence just in chicago last year than in all mass shooting all year,
        That all mass shootings for the past 5 years ?

        You say I am ignoring the “evidence” – what evidence ?

        Make you case ?

        Somebody did $2B in looting, arson, as well as myriads of assaults. Somebody shot 237 cops.

        You have two choices – Antifa or BLM – which was it ?

        It certainly wasn;t the KKK, or neo nazi’s.

        If you are trying to say that White supremecists are the single largest source of actual violence int he US today – that’s not something that you can hide in some left wing database.

        Don;t you think CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo would be running stories with acts of white supremecists violence EVERY DAY ?

        Where are they ?

        Are you claiming that the left wing media is really just shilling for white supremecists ?

        Do you live in the real world ?

        What does it take for you to understand that only idiots are interested in made up facts that can not be confirmed by reality.

  10. Professor Turley, You open with “…to seek the disbarment of roughly a dozen Trump and Republican lawyers for challenging election results.”

    Excuse me? They are not being targeted for “challenging election results”. They are being targeted for spouting clearly false allegations. They have been universally thrown out of court because they bring nothing but words. They are making a mess of our democracy. It is long past time for this nonsense to stop. IMHO, Trump could be charged with High Crimes by the house in the morning and convicted by the senate in the afternoon because of his wild FRAUD allegations for months. It is long past time for him to stop. He is a destructive force in our society clearly hell bent on destroying as much as he can before he leaves office. Stop it, stop it now.

    1. Afadavits are words – and they are evidence.

      Regardless, you can not hide your actions and then claim innocence because having destroyed the evidence no one can prove you are wrong.

      In state after state specifically in 5 large democrat controlled cities the election laws were VIOLATED.

      This is not “Just words”, it has been widely reported, In many instance improperly blessed or ignored by courts.

      Ballots were accepted after deadlines established in the law.
      Dates were changed.
      Ballots were not properly reviewed or standards were lowered.

      In many states that require voter ID and have provisions to meet that ID requirement for mailin ballots – those requirements were just ignored.

      Universally observers were deprived the ability to observe baloot handling.

      These and many other similar acts are FRAUD, they are also ILLEGAL.

      Regardless, you should expect that when you act in the dark, we will all presume you are up to no good.

      Government – including elections and ballot handling is conducted in the sunlight.

      I would further note that your party has zero credibility with many of us right now.

      It is democrats int he Obama administration that tried to sell the collusion delusion.
      That spied on reporters, the senate, opposing political parties, that used the IRS to target political opponents,
      That lied repeatedly about all of this.

      Joe Biden lied repeatedly about his knowledge and involvement in his sons affairs.

      Given power you have abused it.
      And you have lied over and over and over for political advantage.

      Where is Schiff and Warner’s “actual evidence’ ?

      Given the copious volume of lies emanating from the left – why should we trust that you would act honestly behind closed doors in an election ?

      YOU have burned your own credibility. You are not deserving of anyone’s trust.

      1. Many affidavits are nothing more than hearsay evidence.

        When John says YOU have burned your own credibility. You are not deserving of anyone’s trust,, he is describing himself.

        1. hearsay, a rule with exceptions so large that they swallow it whole

          i have never seen a hearsay objection upheld and i’ve been to courts hundreds of times

          sometimes they get upheld on a different rule, relevance, or on some other rule, but hearsay is hardly ever excluded

        2. They may or may not be the same.
          An affidavit is a sworn statement, usually under oath or before a magistrate/official.
          Hearsay is something one person claims another said. It is effectively rumor or gossip.
          An affidavit might contain hearsay, but the affidavit being submitted are sworn statements regarding what people saw or experienced, at least the ones that have been reported. They contain some hearsay, e.g., that a supervisor told people to leave while he and a few others counted votes, but the essense is that the person who signed the affidavit is reporting that s/he was forced to leave the room while the votes were counted by a small group, not as normal.
          Using terms as precisely as possible helps us understand one another.
          Using them carelessly does not.

          1. They contain some hearsay, e.g., that a supervisor told people to leave while he and a few others counted votes . . .

            That’s not hearsay. That’s a witness reporting what he observed.

        3. Some are. All are not. Hearsay is often admissible in a criminal trial – generally ifd a person tells you they are doing something wrong it is admissible in all settings – even criminal ones. It is adminssible in many other settings.

          Almost the entire impeachment was based not on hearsay – but speculation about what Trump might have said to others.
          In otherwords it is LESS than hearsay.

          In fact the entire Collusion Delusion rested mostly on double and tripple hearsay.

          Finally an awful lot of the evidence is NOT hearsay.

        4. Nope – descibing you and all those who have sold the collusion delusion and the myriads of other lies of the past 4, 8, 12 years.

          Thus far you and JF have incorrectly claimed I was wrong about the 2020 election. Two problems – I wasn;t. the few predictions I made came true – we unfortunately got a messy close fraud ridden election.

          But lets say I was wrong about the election – so what ? That would make me no better than all the pollsters. all the political pundits.

          Further it would mean that one should be careful about trusting my political predictions.

          It says nothing about my credibility or trustworthyness.

          Innaccurate predictions – are not lies, they are also not errors of fact.

          What facts have I been wrong about ? What lies have I sold ?

          I can provide a long list of factual errors and lies by the left, by the media, and if you would come out from behind the curtain of total anonymity – probably you.

          Can you do the same ? Go for it ?

          Credibility and integrity are not opinions. They are earned by accuracy, truth, and not bearing false witness.

          Examine me on that basis.
          Then examine yourself.

    2. Professor Turley, You open with “…to seek the disbarment of roughly a dozen Trump and Republican lawyers for challenging election results.”

      Excuse me? They are not being targeted for “challenging election results”. They are being targeted for spouting clearly false allegations.

      That is preposterous. It is 100% partisan and has nothing to do with the merits, and we know that because these complainants didn’t file grievances against all the thousands of lawyers who said and did things to hurt Trump that were far more clearly without foundation in law or fact — like all those former prosecutors who falsely claimed that Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he hadn’t been President. Or Weissmann himself.

  11. There is no question in my mind that the country would be immeasurably better off if lawyers were exterminated from any and all elected offices.

  12. May I suggest you read 18 USC 111(a)(2), at Mr. diDenova’s statements appear to fit quite well within “intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,”. That’s a crime.

    1. May I suggest you consult any dictionary of the English language and learn the meaning of “forcibly.” Idiot.

  13. They weaponize everything else, no surprise that they are doing it here in an effort to stamp out any opposing view – even those made in jest. However, much like what happened with Harry Reid’s actions in the Senate, once used for that purpose it is fair game for the other side.

    And with that, the credibility of the legal system and lawyers in general suffers. Well done

    1. lawyer’s licenses are now playthings of the billionaires who control the state judiciaries as surely as they do the federal one

      billionaires are the enemy

      Saloth Sar

  14. Democrats to us little people: “Obey”. Democratic governors, mayors, council persons close our economy and say stay home, then violate their own directives. Democratic lawyers and professors accuse the presidnt of treason during impeachment and yet are silent on Joe Biden’s quid pro quo in Ukraine and don’t question the content of Hunter’s laptop…..If you’re not part of the Collective….

    1. Turley is right to fear violence from the right.

      But wrong about its impetus.

      It is not remarks such as those by DiGenova that are bring the right closer to violence.

      It is the lies and abuse of power by those in power that is doing so.
      And it is the actual violence by those on the left.

      Turley is chiding DiGenova for a bad joke.

      Those of us who spent the summer watching “mostly peacefull” protests, that resulted in more than $2B in destruction, numerous deaths, spikes in crime and record numbers of police shot on duty grasp where the problem is.

  15. I hope at some point you accept an invitation to appear on C-SPAN so you can be asked direct questions about your views and conduct. Not unlike most talking heads, it is a one-way conversation- you talk and we listen, but you have not presented yourself to be questioned by your audience. Whatever trepidation you may have to be held accountable by the C-SPAN viewers, at least you would not be exposed as a coward for refusing to avail yourself of this public examination.

    1. The same thing could be said about Joe Biden and Kamela Harris, they talk and we listen, but the media have been loath to hold them accountable and actually ask questions that the public needs to know.

      The Democrat lawyers who are using the bar process as a way to get at Trump’s attorneys, should be met with lawsuits against them for “abuse of process.” It is time for them to pay the price for their clear abusive practices.

      1. And how do you expect that to happen ?

        As we have seen – left wing nuts have taken over the bar, and the courts.

        Anyone who actually beleives in the rule of law or tries to follow it is “a right wing nut” as well as a hateful, hating hater.

        Turley chides DiGenova for inciting violence – yet amazingly todate the right has been amazingly peacefull. Our only violence has come from the left.

        But Turley is correct to fear that the right will become violent.

        That is always what happens when all avenues of legal redress are destroyed.

                1. Using what you have in your article:

                  Unless I am misreading there is no evidence beyond a so called informant.
                  The alleged event did not happen, the alleged plotters were not caught with bottles and gasoline.
                  All we have is an informant testifying that they were planning to do something.

                  That is not much.

                  The left wing lawyers arrested in NYC were caught on video throwing molotov cocktails into a police car, and separately caught with molotov cocktails.

                  The perpatrators in your allegation are supposedly Bugaloo boys – these are anarchists which have more ideologically in common with Antifa than the right.

                  So what is it you actually ave here ?

                  It is POSSIBLE this might have become an act of right wing violence.

                  Are we supposed to proclaim parity between an incident that might or might not have actually happened and myriads of examples of actual violence ?

                  And look how hard you had to work to come up with this.

                  1. It’s like finding a unicorn. I’ve found the guy who pretends that he doesn’t know that people don’t always tell the truth.

                    1. Thanks for telling about yourself. That would also explain your flashing icons, just like Allan.

                1. Or even that there was a real incident.

                  All the evidence is from an informant there does not appear to be any corroboration.

Leave a Reply