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. So, let me get this straight: Deborah Shatz counsels her client to smear an innocent man in front of the world by lying about a sexual assault that never happened while testifying before Congress; Marc Elias steals elections for a living. Yet, neither of these two porcine creatures is threatened with disbarment by the ABA. Meanwhile, Joe DiGenova is threatened with the termination of his law license simply because he lawfully defends Trump from massive electoral fraud. Why is that? Well, let’s see: both of the sociopaths I mentioned are members of a certain tribe, and that tribe runs the ABA. Remember their names.

      1. Ad Hominem is not argument.

        I can not think of any credible reason to call anyone a bigot today.

        Most of what little bigotry there is today is from the left.

        It is left wing nuts who do not think that minorities are capable of voting without massive amounts of help from the left.

        After all no black people have ID.

      2. You are the bigot. You use African Americans to make yourself feel good not them. When you play the race card like you do all the time one can recognize you as a racist.

  2. The person who should be facing disciplinary charges is Sally Yates in Georgia. She decided that she knew the best policy and came out and publicly disagreed with Trump’s January 2017 executive order, commonly called the travel ban, although it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. She did this even though the Office of Legal Counsel found it to be legal. Yates owed a duty of loyalty to her client, the office of the President of the US and intentionally violated that duty. She also signed off on 2 bogus FISA orders.

  3. Turley labels diGenova’s “joke” about drawing & quartering Krebs as harmless“overkill” yet refused to accept Biden’s apology for his “if you ain’t black” comment & his regret at trying to be a smart aleck. Biden ended up winning 87% of the African-American vote despite Trump insisting that “no other president has done more for black people except maybe Lincoln.”

    Turley strongly defends Trump attorneys despite conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Hagedorn calling their request to have the court invalidate the November election “unprecedented in American history” and “the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen.”

    Trump appointed US district judge Ludwig said this about Trump attorney’s lawsuits: “I have a very, very hard time seeing how this is justifiable in the federal court. The request to remand this case to the Legislature almost strikes me as bizarre.”

    Turley strongly condemns the actions of the Lincoln Project & strongly supports Trump’s attorneys’ quest to invalidate millions of Biden ballots & overturn the election. With JT, harassment is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

    1. DiGenova is not running for office.

      Biden’s “you aint black” remark would just be a stupid statement but for the election.

        1. Joe DiGenova represents himself – not Trump.

          Further his vlog’s are not the practice of law.

          Trump is trying to STOP the theft of an election.

          I told myriads of people starting in April to NOT vote by mail. It was rife with fraud and there was a possibility that many even all mailin ballots could be thrown out.

          Regardless, in every state where there is mailin balloting – I will give you every single ballot that you can prove was cast by an actual legitimate voter – you know they way that all in person ballots are real people who had their signatures and IDs verified.

          But you can not do that – because you failed to properly validate the ballots before you opened them and afterwords you can not sort the valid ones from the invalid ones so if there are sufficient invalid ballots there is no choice but lose them all.

          You have chosen to play a very stupid and dangerous game of electoral chicken.
          Even if you actually win – in the long run you will lose.

          And in the meantime you will have no legitimacy and you have labeled yourselves as the party of fraud.

          All this was avoidable – all you had to do was follow the law.

          Actually verfiy the signatures, THEN validate the provided DOB and ID#’s as well as checking that the voter is registered and has not already voted, is currently living. and currently resides in the state.

          AFTER you have done all the above – which the law requires – then you can remove the ballot from the envelope and enter it for counting.

          But if you skip that on ANY ballots – you risk EVERYONE’s ballots.

          BTW why should those of us who did vote in person – had our signatures and ID verified – including a photo verification have our votes diluted because you were too crooked to eliminate illegitimate ballots ?

          Regardless, If you did not wish to risk losing your vote – you could have voted in person.

    2. If democrats wanted their ballots to count – they should have followed the law.

      By failing to do so they have in FACT invalidated millions of votes against Biden.

      You have created a crisis. It looks highly likely that you will get away with it.
      But there will be a high price – for the country and for democrats.

      Democrats do not seem to be able to grasp anything beyond the immediate impact of their acts.

        1. The courts are not following the law.

          This is not even a close call.

          Please read PA Act 77 – it specifies the handling and verification of all ballots – mailin, absenteee and in person.
          As well as the requirements for observers and objections during the counting and verification process.

          Democrats and republicans voted for that Law. Gov. Wolf signed the law.

          Why did democrats in Philadelphia violate that law ?

          Why are you and the courts allowing them to get away with it ?

          Why have you no integrity ?

          Why didn’t Biden speak out before the election (or after) – there are so manhy know problems with mailin ballots – asking that everyone follow the law ?

          That is easy – democrats are about “by any means necescary”

          They do not care about the law.

    3. The request is unprecidented – the behavior of democrats in this election was unprecendented.

      Unprecendented requiests are the natural response to unprecedented lawlessness.

    4. “Turley labels diGenova’s “joke” about drawing & quartering Krebs as harmless“overkill” yet refused to accept Biden’s apology for his “if you ain’t black” comment & his regret at trying to be a smart aleck.”

      There is a difference between bad taste and trying to incarcerate or wreck someone’s career.

      Why when there is bad taste on the right do you wish to incarcerate a person while you wish to praise bad taste on the left?

      1. DiGenova is not running for office.

        If he was a different standard would apply.

        DiGenova did not insult his own constituents.

        1. “DiGenova is not running for office. If he was a different standard would apply. DiGenova did not insult his own constituents.”

          JS, I know he is not running for office etc. Tell that to Race.

  4. Party Secretariat for Professional Education and Discipline

    -Prevent Abuse of Legal Process; Promote Truth, Unity and Accountability

    WASHINGTON, DC – The Party today announced guidance for professionals in the legal and financial sectors.

    The following guidelines are announced with immediate effect. Where appropriate to prevent future harm from past misconduct, these guidelines may be applied retroactively.

    1. Legal Sector

    Abuse of the legal system for partisan political purposes presents a clear and present danger to the administration of Justice.

    All attorneys serve as public citizens in the Public Interest. They are reminded that their duty to represent the interests of their clients is not unlimited. Attorneys should be alert to situations where the representation of certain clients, or the advocacy of legal positions contrary to Party-aligned interests, may make them complicit in the crimes of their clients.

    Attorneys are also reminded of their ethical duty to report other lawyers that have committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In those situations, the attorney shall inform the appropriate professional authority. See Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3(a).

    2. Financial Sector

    Auditors, public accountants, and other financial professionals play a critical role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of financial information. They are in a unique position to detect fraud or other financial transactions inimical to Party aligned interests. Auditors are encouraged to apply heightened efforts to identify and report any such activity as a matter of Public Interest.

    In addition, auditors should exercise special care when reviewing financial information relating to Party-aligned organizations or affecting Party-aligned interests. In those situations, strict adherence to generally accepted accounting standards (GAAS) may be inappropriate and even dangerous.

    Sector participants are also reminded of the ethical requirements set forth in the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, including the Accountability Standards set forth therein, which shall be strictly applied consistent with the Public Interest.

    3. Cooperation with Political Partisans Misaligned with Party Interests

    Legal and financial sector participants are reminded that cooperation with Political Partisans are presumed to be contrary to the Public Interest and a violation of applicable law. All such cooperation should be discontinued with retroactive effect. For more information, please refer to previous guidance issued by the Party Secretariat for Truth and Reconciliation.

    Immediate implementation of these guidelines is authorized under previously approved directives adopted in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Further information on these guidelines will be communicated as circumstances dictate.

    Blog moderators will recognize that the foregoing is intended as satire to foster discussion on important issues relating to the role of the government and the media, the rule of law, and free speech.

  5. Democrats collective FU to the rest of us little people.

    Democratic Leaders Go Wild:
    Public officials defy their own virus rules.

    Et tu, Mayor?
    A couple of weeks ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom got caught dining with a dozen or so others, including the head of the California Medical Association, at the ritzy Napa Valley restaurant French Laundry in violation of his own social-distancing rules.

    Mr. Newsom apologized while excusing his faux pas in part by saying the soiree was outdoors. Not quite. Fox 11 news later posted photos showing the get-together took place in a dining room that was mostly enclosed. As a local Fox reporter tweeted, “A witness who took photos tells us his group was so loud, the sliding doors had to be closed.”

    Bill Melugin
    EXCLUSIVE: We’ve obtained photos of Governor Gavin Newsom at the Napa dinner party he’s in hot water over. The photos call into question just how outdoors the dinner was. A witness who took photos tells us his group was so loud, the sliding doors had to be closed. 10pm on @FOXLA

    In any case, Mr. Newsom isn’t the only limousine liberal with expensive taste and distaste for common-man rules. The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week that San Francisco Mayor London Breed attended a birthday party at the French Laundry the night after Mr. Newsom did. Her dining room was also mostly enclosed. As the Chronicle explained:
    The dinner would have certainly violated San Francisco’s health guidelines if it took place in Breed’s own city. San Francisco has issued stricter guidance than the state for several types of businesses, including restaurants, which were not supposed to seat groups larger than six indoors or outdoors unless everyone lived together. Three days after dining at the French Laundry, Breed banned indoor dining in San Francisco altogether.

    “I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that everyone act responsibly to reduce the spread of the virus,” Breed said in a statement Nov. 10. “Every San Franciscan needs to do their part so that we can start moving in the right direction again.”

    The debate over what constitutes indoor or outdoor dining will soon be moot. Gov. Newsom on Thursday previewed a stay-at-home order that will ban in-person dining. His order comes on the heels of a state judge’s order requiring Los Angeles County to produce scientific evidence to justify an outdoor dining ban. Hours after voting for the outdoor dining ban, an LA County Supervisor had gone out to eat at her favorite Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, the Sacramento Bee reports. “Like so many people in Los Angeles, she has a favorite place to eat and is saddened that so many restaurants are suffering from lost business,” her spokesman said.

    Meantime, Thursday’s U.S. Labor Department weekly unemployment benefits claims report showed California with the highest continuing claims rate in the country at 7.3%, higher than even Puerto Rico (5.5%). Of course, some of California’s claims are fraudulent.

    California’s Employment Development Department this week reported that more than $400 million had been paid on some 21,000 unemployment benefit claims filed in the names of California prison inmates, including 133 on death row. Perhaps they could order take-out from the French Laundry for their final meal.

    Meantime, several other liberal politicians had to apologize this week for disregarding their own rules and advice.
    • Austin, Texas, Mayor Steve Adler last month flew to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, on a private jet with seven guests who had attended his daughter’s wedding. As the Austin American-Statesman reported:

    One night into the trip, Adler addressed Austin residents in a Facebook video: “We need to stay home if you can. This is not the time to relax. We are going to be looking really closely. … We may have to close things down if we are not careful.”

    Apparently, the father of the bride needed a vacation from his own stay-at-home guidelines.

    • San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo had defied state guidelines by attending a Thanksgiving celebration at his parents’ home with seven others from five different households. He, however, explained that they all wore masks when they weren’t eating, but “I have a very large family—I am one of five children—and several of our family members who would have often joined us for Thanksgiving in the past—including sisters, nephews, nieces and cousins—stayed home out of caution.”

    Sam Liccardo
    I apologize for my decision to gather for Thanksgiving with my family, contrary to the rules. I understand my obligation as a public official to provide exemplary compliance w/ public health orders, & not to ignore them. I commit to do better. My statement:

    Perhaps Irish- and Italian-Americans who belong to big families could challenge government restrictions on private gatherings as discriminatory.

    • Denver Mayor Michael Hancock had asked city employees not to travel over Thanksgiving while touting his own decision not to hold his usual turkey-day gathering with 50 or so close family and friends. Then he hopped a flight to Mississippi to visit his wife and youngest daughter.

    Who can blame Mr. Hancock for wanting to spend the holiday with family? But next time he should spare his city the extra helping of self-righteousness.

  6. So the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) can betray and challenge the authority of a duly-elected president, and steal an election but an American, a conservative (indeed, the American Founders were conservative as is their Constitution), cannot reveal their crimes and express an opinion regarding appropriate punishment? In recent centuries in the U.K., figures like diGenova would not have needed to act or comment, as government agents would have Drawn and Quartered traitors for committing the treason of simply challenging the authority of the presiding official (a monarch in that era). Were justice effected in America, the American welfare state would not exist, nor would the traitors committing treason against a duly elected president. Joe diGenova’s comments and actions would not even be required.

    1. Ya, no. The only traitors here is the President and his supporters who are trying to overthrow a clean and legal election.

      1. MollyG

        There is ZERO doubt that numerous election laws were broken in this election.

        Lets not pretend that everything was done correctly.

        Thus far the decisions against Trump rest primarily on the failure to demonstrate that the ilegality was sufficient to alter the outcome.
        Not that it did not occur.

        Clean and legal elections follow the actual law.

  7. Professor Steve Vladeck declared “Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.”
    How does someone make it to adulthood without learning what a threat is? Here’s a tip: If the word “should: is involved, it is not a threat.

    1. Hmm, whose judgment about legal ethics is more trustworthy, a guy on a comment board or a law professor?

      1. Who said anything about ethics? I’m talking about language and lying. A “should” statement is never a threat.

        And why would you expect a law professor to have a better understanding of ethics than an actual lawyer on a comment board, especially when you’ve already seen the law professor in question lie for purposes of subjecting a lawyer to discipline?

        1. A “should” statement can be a threat, just like saying “it would be a shame if anything happened to your dog” can be a threat. Depends on the speaker’s intent and context. I expect Vladeck to have a better understanding of legal ethics than you because I’ve read some of his work and some of your comments.

          I haven’t seen Vladeck lie. What lie are you referring to?

  8. ” While the comments by diGenova were worthy of condemnation, they were clearly meant as a joke. It was simply not funny”

    That is all that needs to be said. The rest is BS being piled on by inadequate people that cannot think.

    1. Hey Allan, can’t bring yourself to post under your name anymore, huh? You used to criticize people who posted anonymously.


      How many times has the phrase, “I’m gonna kill you” been uttered among friends and relatives on this planet?

      Righteous indignation on the part of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

      OMG! diGenova said Draw and Quarter. Oh, my!!!

      So effective. So plausible. So believable.


  9. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    “Biden not only received a majority of the popular vote, but also cleared 51 percent — the largest vote percentage obtained against an incumbent president since 1932 and a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988, when Bush was essentially running for a third Ronald Reagan term. In the process, Biden amassed the largest total number of ballots in U.S. history. He pummeled Trump by more than 7 million votes (and exceeded Barack Obama’s 2008 vote total by more than 11 million). That margin is bigger than Massachusetts’ entire population; in fact, only 14 states have a population of more than 7 million. Biden’s popular vote margin by percentage (4.4 percent) far surpasses Obama’s 2012 victory over Mitt Romney.

    Why is it important to emphasize the magnitude of Biden’s victory? Because, far from narrow, it represents the overwhelming verdict of the voters. If there is such a thing as a mandate, Biden has one……”

    1. One wonders when you will approach Joe Biden to suck him off? Or maybe you prefer Kamala’s member? no judgement!

        1. One would hope that Turley could see the batsh*t crazy he has unleashed. Instead of looking, he feeds it more and could care less.

      1. I’m happily married anonymous and my wife might get upset if she knew I spent time on a site where you included me in your sexual fantasies.

        Is this Jeffery Toobin?

        1. Your wife told me otherwise. She performed admirably, said no one had made love to her like a true man in decades and offered that you and she are swingers and hence not monogamous. Maybe you should be spending more time with her than trolling. or not

    2. Moron in WaPo doesn’t know what overwhelming means or how the President is elected. Thanks for sharing.

      1. See, this is why I think you’re Allan, “William,” you like to insult people, and in order to insult, you pretend that people think things that are only in your imagination. Admittedly, you’re not the only troll who does that, so maybe you’re not Allan, but only another jackass.

        1. You think I’m “Allan” because you think everyone is Allan. I think the WaPo writer is a moron because he misused the word “overwhelmingly” and appears to misunderstand how Presidential elections work. Perhaps I’m wrong; perhaps he is simply lying. Either way, he expects his readers to believe something stupid.

          1. You think I’m “Allan” because you think everyone is Allan.

            Correction — you think everyone you disagree with is “Allan”.

          2. I don’t think everyone I disagree with Allan. Young isn’t Allan, mespo727272 isn’t Allan, Olly isn’t Allan, Rhodes isn’t Allan, Squeeky isn’t Allan, Estovir isn’t Allan, Art Deco isn’t Allan, George isn’t Allan, jinn isn’t Allan, John isn’t Allan, Steve Witherspoon isn’t Allan, … You come across like Allan.

            Misusing a word doesn’t make someone a moron, and there’s nothing in the author’s statement to indicate that he misunderstands how Presidential elections work. He’s talking about the “verdict of the voters,” not about the Electoral College.

    3. And yet:

      He lost the vast majority of the counties in the US.
      He lost 18 of 19 bellwether counties.
      He lost counties that Clinton won.
      He did not win any counties that Clinton lost.

      Biden won GA, AZ and WI by less than 40,000 votes – only slightly more than 1/2 Trump’s 77,000 margin of victory in 2016.
      Flip those 3 states and Biden loses and Trump wins.

      So Biden actually won by a NARROWER margin that Trump in 2016.

      Even in the large set of swing states – Trump did incredibly well everywhere except for 5 cities that all had unusually high turnout and unusually high margins for Biden. Biden did better in Atlanta that in NYC or SF.

      Do you really beleive that ?

        1. I just wrote that you need to add to the discussion and here you are again not adding rather repeating yourself. The issue is whether votes for Biden were real individual votes by citizens or illegal votes. The issue is not how many legal and illegal votes were cast for Biden.

          1. And listen to Krebs saying that the thing that made this election stable was a paper trail of votes. My guess is you don’t agree…, but that’s just the thoughts in your head, a particular paranoia used to generate visions of garbage bags full of ‘fake’ votes.

            Your right to indulge in these right wing fantasies for sure, but that’s on your own time.

            1. The election is quite obviously NOT stable.

              A significant portion of people believe the election was stolen.

              Actual government requires that people trust the results of elections.

              I do not know what Krebs claim is, but there is only a partial paper trail of votes.
              This is by design in voting arrangements that rely on secret ballots.
              Because you are not allowed to tie a ballot to a person.

              Of course there is a huge problem because mailin voting is not a secret ballot from the start.
              But ignoring that. with a secret ballot you must validate the legitimacy of the voter BEFORE you attempt to count the vote.
              Because once you shift the ballot into counting – you can never correct the problem if you subsequently discover the voter was ineligible or did not exist.

              I would further note that there was little difference between the election process in the democratic primaries in 2020 and the general election.

              In DEMOCRAT primaries approx 20% of mailin ballots were rejected as invalid. In the general approximately 0.25% were.

              Voting did not magically improve by a factor of 800.

              Regardless the paper trail argument is both nonsense and the partial papertrail will ultimately undermine the election.

              We already have anecdotal evidence of votes that were not cast by the actual people they are purported to be.

              That number will only increase over time as it is possible to identify and verify all voters after the fact.

              Finally if you wanted the results to be trusted – your would have followed the law and conducted the election under meaningful public scrutiny

              Trump recently lost a case in AZ – not because the claim was false – the court accepted it as true – as it was proven.
              The court claimed that the failure was moot – because the Republican observers were essentially required to go to court to keep from being thrown out BEFORE they were thrown out.

              Do you think that I can force a Judge to drop speeding charges because the cop had to come to court to charge me with speeding BEFORE I actually sped ?

              One of the problems the courts do not grasp is they are not the ultimate arbiters. The people are.

              We saw in East Germany in 1989 what happens when the people withdraw their consent from government.

              The job of the courts is NOT to give their impramatur to the election.

              It is to reassure the people that the election was lawful.

              They are failing.

            2. You had better get used to it. Assuming Biden is inaugurated this will dog him his entire presidency.

              Few are letting go.

              There are so many reasons.

              First you did not follow the rules in the election.

              Next because you wasted the entire countries time for 4 years ranting collusion, collusion, ,,,

              Next because you have lied about so many things over the past few years.

              And finally because you went out of your way to avoid public scrutiny.

              I do not know if the recent GA video is proof that the ballot box was stuffed.

              It is absolute proof that the Election officials in GA lied, illegally removed observers, and then started counting ballot boxes they had hidden without oversight. Lots of people will assume – probably correctly that the reason for acting in secret is that you were cheating.

              Regadless, you have a credibility problem you can not over come.

              Further pretty much the same thing happened in 5 other big cities at very nearly the same time.

        2. No he did not – that is not how elections are determined.

          If you do not like that – change the constitution.

      1. WSJ, Nov 10

        “Joe Biden last week won 16% of the nation’s counties, but those counties account for 70% of nation’s economic activity, Brookings analysts report. By contrast, President Trump won 84% of counties, accounting for less than 30% of GDP.

        Their work shows an increasing divide between a high-output, Democratic-leaning part of the nation and a lower-output, Republican-leaning set of communities. …”

        Carry on.

        1. So based on your argument those people who make more money get to make the rules for those who do not ?

          Regardless, I would suggest learning something about maslows heirarchy of needs.

          New values (absent government interferance) always consume more of our income than old ones.

          Luxury goods more than necescities.

          The evidence you cite actually proves the opposite of what you claim.

          I can go without my iphone loner than you can go without food.

          What you have demonstrated is that Biden won the tiny part of the country that produces luxuries.

          How won little or none of the parts of the country that produce necescities.

          This is relevant in so many ways.

          It is easier for those who produce luxury items to buy into socialism – they know absolutely nothing about necescities.

          I find the lives of left wing nuts hilariously hypocritical.

          You go to the grocery and buy high fiber organic, fair trade locally grown Kashi, and fail to grasp that you do not get those kind of choices outside of free markets.

          Listen to your hero – Bernie Sanders – he does not want you to have choices in deoderant, sneakers – or coffee, or food.

          Most of you wood break out in rashes and die if you actually had to live in a world with only the choices socialists allow you.

          Go to starbucks and order your “Grande Chai Tea Latte, 3 Pump, Skim Milk, Lite Water, No Foam, Extra Hot”
          and ponder why have that kind of choice ?

          I will give you a clue – Not from socialism of any kind.

          You are all IYI – intellectual yet idiot.

          You can not see the hypocracy in your daily lives – even your coffee orders.

          Never have so many over priviledged spoiled rotten brats been empowered to dictate life choices to others.

          Before you tell others how to live, farm, produce the actual necesities that make your life possible.
          Try producing yourself.

        2. JF – this is trivial.

          I can live without starbucks. apple, google, amazon, twitter, facebook, …..

          Much longer than you can live without food, energy.

          In 1900 food was 45% of the family budget. Today it is 12%
          In 1900 cloths were 15%, now it is below 5
          In 1900 the typical family had about 13% of income for things that were not necescities. today it is near 50%.

          Please tell me what it is that is produced by those purportedly high productivity Biden counties that is a necescity ?

          You rant about the wealthy, socialism, communism – but YOU are the top 1% of luxury consumers – for the US, for the world.

          1. What is amazing is that not that long ago people like JF were complaining about corporate welfare. The corporations own the Democrat Party and now get all sorts of benefits that may not involve cash payouts but benefit the big players. By shutting down small businesses competition Jeff Bezos has increased his wealth by up to $75 Billion of his $131 Billion dollar wealth. Small businesses have been closed while the billionaire corporations remained open. People like JF who don’t think remain obvious to the changes of the Democrat Party.

            1. In several areas the shifts in the parties have been incredible.

              Absent very significant changed the democrats advantage with minorities is disappearing slowly.

              This is also why Trump or not, Trumpism has become the ideology of the GOP for the foreseeable future.

      2. PS John Say keeps repeating the lie about big cities in swing states. Biden underperformed Hillary in Philly, Atlanta, and Detroit, and the same as her in Milwaukee. Biden out performed her in the suburbs of those cities and red counties across those states. In total, he beat Trump by 7 million while Hillary only beat him by 3 million.

        John Say was earlier assuring us of a coming Trump victory so not doubt he needs some salve to sit down. This despite the fact that Trump has never broken 50% in polling or approval ratings and now has been rejected by voters twice,

        Ouch! I feel you pain John!

        1. Joe,

          John is also mistaken to focus on counties rather than people. Counties don’t vote, people do. People are not even distributed across counties. EC votes are not distributed by county. If winner of the EC was not the winner in a given county, then it is no longer a “bellwether county.” John is also wrong that Biden “did not win any counties that Clinton lost”:

          It strikes me as unsurprising that the country became more polarized under Trump. Biden faces a real challenge in decreasing the polarization.

          1. Joe,

            “John is also mistaken to focus on counties rather than people.?”
            No, I am just noting some interesting facts.

            “Counties don’t vote, people do.”

            It is also correct that the president is not elected by popular vote.

            “People are not even distributed across counties.”
            That is a choice. It is not the business of government.

            “EC votes are not distributed by county.”
            Correct, but they map much more closely to counties than to individual voters.

            “If winner of the EC was not the winner in a given county, then it is no longer a “bellwether county.””

            Amazing – we have listened to you rant about the EC for 4 years – now you are relying on it.

            “John is also wrong that Biden “did not win any counties that Clinton lost”:

            Did you read your own linked article, though you are to be excused because the article is confusing and muddy.

            Ultimately it actually says nearly exactly what I have said.

            Biden lost ground to Clinton in much of the country.
            But he gained ALOT of ground in a very small number of very large cities in swing states.

            As to the muddiness – look at the map of arrows representing gains by Biden and Gains by Trump.

            Then look at Arizona. Trump won AZ in 2016. Trump purportedly lost in 2020. Yet in YOUR map there are more and longer arrows indicating a significant red shift in AZ from 2016 to 2020.

            Put simply – the map is graphing something different from what the analysis claims.
            It is a good example of a misleading – possibly deliberately misleading statistic.

            “It strikes me as unsurprising that the country became more polarized under Trump”
            Of course not – for decades – but increasingly since 2008 the left has been driving polatization.
            There is excellent Pew data on this.

            Trump did not polarize the country – the left did.
            But Trump benefited from the lefts polarization.

            “Biden faces a real challenge in decreasing the polarization.”
            There is no challenge – Biden can not possibly fix this.

            The polarization will not end until the left comes to terms with the fact that they are on the wrong side of reality, as well as morality.

            It should be obvious that in a country where almost all the violence is coming from the left – that you are afraid of the right that something is very wrong with YOUR perception.

            But I will qualify that. As the left increases the polarization – you WILL eventually get violence from the right.

            When you destroy the rule of law – violence is inevitably going to be the outcome.

            The left is quite litterally pushing the country towards revolution.

            While there was only a small right response to the left wing nut violence over the summer, it is unlikely that will stay that way.

            As the left attacks cities, and institutions, and the police, and as government fails to act, as the left behaves lawlessly – failing to follow election laws – then respect for the law is destroyed.

            You do not seem to understand – the left MUST abide by the law – even law they wish to change prior to succeeding in changing it, or NO ONE will abide by the law.

            I am not sure we have yet reached a tipping point where significant violence will come from the right – but we are fast approaching that tipping point.

            Biden does not even beleive that Antifa is real – drop him in Portland without secret service protection and see if Antifa is real.

          2. Throughout everything you are under the delusion that words are more important than acts.

            For Biden to unify the country – he would have to ACT.
            And there are almost no actions he can take that would bring the country together that would not also inflame the left.

            Biden has made a long list of promises – not one of which is “unifying”.
            For each of these promises – whatever he does is going to piss off more people than in placates.

            End Fracking – don’t – does not matter what he does, he will face increased not decreased anger.

            Please tell me a single area that Biden can ACT that will bring the country together ?

            Grow up.,. Words do not cut it.

            Christ does not separate the goats from the sheep based on their WORDS, but based on their DEEDS.

            I will be happy to pray for a miracle, that Biden actually turns out to be a good president, unifying the country.

            But there is about zero chance of that.

            Not only is Biden ignorant of how to do that – YOU, the entire left, the media, and democrats are.

            You can not unify the country by calling everyone who disagrees with you racist, mysoginst, homophobic, hateful, hating haters.
            Even if True – which it is not, that makes things worse not better.

            You can not change people by FORCE. You can not impose your will on others by FORCE – even if you are actually right – which you are not.

            You can not unify the country by lawlessness. Not by violence, looting and arson in the streets, not by failing to follow election laws. Not by imposing draconian policies on people by executive fiat.

            The more lawless, and the more force you use the more you are the tyrants you claim to oppose.

        2. JF – your claim that Biden underperformed Hillary in the 5 critical big cities that tipped this election is bogus.

          Provide actual data.

          Biden did significantly underperform Hillary – and Obama EVERYWHERE ELSE.

          There are very few places that Biden outperformed Clinton (or Obama) and nearly all of those are the specific big cities that are the focus of the fraud allegations.

          I would further note that Biden’s actual margin of victory in GA, AZ and WI is under 40,000 that is barely over half Trump’s margin over Hillary. And flip those three states and Biden as 269 EV and loses.

          You can rant all you want but the FACT is that accross the country elections – presidential, senate, representative, local, are constantly being decided by fractions of a percent.

          If you do not grasp that Fraud is a huge problem, and that the trustworthyness of elections are critical – you are a clueless idiot.

          There is an NY House seat that I beleive is still undecided that is down to a 12 vote margin.

          Do you honestly think there is a congressional district in the country that does not have atleast 12 fraudulent votes – even without adding mailin ballots.

          You keep putting your head in the sand over election fraud. And you fixate on tactics to get your prefered outcome – rather than to get trustworthy results.

          You completely fail to grasp that EVERY TIME Democrats have bent or changed the rules – in the long run republicans have benefited.

          Democrats used the odious practice of ballot harvesting – illegal in nearly all the US – but fully legal in California, to flip a handful of seats in CA in 2018. They have all flipped back in 2020 – because anything democrats can do – republicans can to.

          I expect that you will see the areas with the greatest fraud today – flooded with illegitimate ballots in 2022 and 2024.

          Do you think it is hard to foul up a mailin election ? It is trivial. Give me a small amount of money and I can wreak havoc on elections in Philadelphia – and do so in a way you will never be able to catch me. If I am careful – you may not even know it happened.

          I noted that this election pivoted on 40,000 votes in 3 cities – though there is significant fraud in several more.

          How hard do you think it will be to tip those 3 cities enough with mailin fraud to flip elections ?

          You are not going to grasp the consequences of your blindness until YOU are the victim.

          Well that is coming.

        3. JF – I did not vote for Trump.

          And you continue to lie – about pretty much everything.

          much of your claims regarding Biden’s voting patters are false.

          You were caught up in the collusion delusion.

          You keep repeating a stupid lie about me.

          I do not care – but you should. It is your credibility and your integrity.

          But then I should not be surprised – you burned those long ago.

          Please. please produce the evidence to support your claims.

          1. John, you were the one who said “Do not accuse someone else of lying – PROVE IT. If you do not the moral failure is YOURS.”

            Here you accuse Joe of lying and you don’t prove it. Hypocrite.

            1. I have proven it.

              JF has accused me of a moral failure.
              The burden of proof for that claim is on him.
              His failure to prove that I said something that I did not, is all the proof required.

              Proof of moral failure is NOT recursive.
              If you make a claim of moral failure you are obligated to prove it or you are presumptive lying.

              This is not difficult to understand.

        4. One of the conclusions in this election is that the polls have been VERY wrong.

          All trump polling was off by atleast 5 points, and in some places by as much as 17%.

          So why should we trust other polls like “approval ratings”.

          Regardless, I do not care about polls or approval ratings much.

          I care about accomplishements.

          What did Obama actually accomplish ?

          He botched recovery from a recession – something that is trivial.
          He screwed up foreign policy all over.
          PPACA has proven nearly the disaster the right predicted, very little of it is even left – beyond the name.
          It was an expensive fiasco that actually managed to be worse than what preceded it.

          Aside from actually building the wall – there is very little difference between Trump and Obama on immigration – except rhetoric.
          The cages for children that Trump purportedly used – were built under Obama/Biden.
          The Obama administration was as heavily deporting people as Trump – frequently raiding their jobs to throw families that were settled.

          Obama spied on politicians and journalists – The Trump campaign was just a small part.

          Obama promised peace and brought more war.

          On the real world Obama was a massive failure.
          In the real world Trump has been moderately successful.

          I would say we will see with Biden – but while the details are not set, the big picture is.
          Biden can not succeed. Whether he capitulates to his far left or merely is Obama redux, he will still be a failure.

          Why – because the ideas of the left – democrats do not work. We have seen that over and over.

          It is called reality.

          This time will not be different.

      1. It not only does not count – it also did not happen.

        We are told by our purported betters on the left that there is essentially no such thing as election fraud.
        That is despite a long long long tradition of election fraud in both the US and the world.

        We are told that this election – which was openly conducted not merely in the fashion most prone to fraud, but also in open defiance of the laws meant to limit (not eliminate) fraud, must be trusted – because …? Because they got the outcome they wanted.

        Is there the slightest doubt that if they had not they would be screaming bloody murder ?

        We spent the past 4 years listening to the left rant over a ludicrously stupid claim of fraud that not only was not fraud but also did not happen.

        Still we investigated the claims of the left thoroughly – even though anyone with a brain knew them to be false from the start.

        Yet today – no inquiry into an election were real fraud was easy, and likely is permitted.

        Mostly – I think that Sydney Powells claims of computer fraud are highly unlikely – because the odds of getting caught are normally very high and the consequences of getting caught are garguantuan.
        But there is a flaw in my reasoning – and that flaw is that the odds of getting caught are only high if there is real scrutiny. If our government and courts fight tooth and nail – and succeed in preventing real independent verification of the electionic systems – then the odds of such fraud skyrockets.

        But the claims of large numbers if illegal votes are far more credible.

        Illegal votes happen all the time. When elections are decided by several percent of the vote – it is extremely rare that they determine the outcome of the election.

        But increasing our elections are decided on very narrow margins in much of the country. And that makes illegal votes a MAJOR problem.

        We already know that our voter registration roles are crap. In many parts of the country more people are registered to vote than exist in that district. And this has been true pretty much forever, and has been true when voting was nearly exclusively in person.

        In person voter fraud is just about the hardest to pull off – but there are only two possible reasons for large scale error in voter registration records – fraud or incompetence.

        Regardless, we know annecdotally that in 2016 in NH a state decided by about 2000 votes, that 5500 people voted who could not on election day prove they were residents of NH. Over the next 9 months public records confirmed that 2000 of those did establish residence in NH (that does not mean they were ALL legally allowed to vote in NH at the time). There exists to this day no evidence that the remaining 3500 were ever NH residents. It is probable that SOME of them actually are/were, But it is not likely that all or even most of the unverifiable 3500 were ever NH residents. It is highly likely that most of these and even a few of those who subsequently were verified were not only not legal NH residents but may have even voted in another state.

        Regardless that number is sufficient to have flipped the election for both the president and the senate.

        And that was an in person election.

        The normal error rate for first time mailin voting is about 20% – Most of that error is NOT fraud. it is merely people who screw up the process of voting by mail. But the measures that trip up first time mailin voters are the same measures that allow us to reduce the number of fraudulent votes. These are signature verification, and verification against voter registration rolls – Together these constitute a quite poor and they only bulwark against fraud in most states. Some States – I beleive all the contested states except NV have voter ID laws that require further validation even on mailin ballots, these include date of birth, and drives license/state ID numbers.
        These significantly reduce the odds of fraud, BUT they also significantly increase the number of valid votes that get rejected.

        Regardless, there is no way to have mailin voting that ensures that only legitimate voters vote AND that all legitimate votes are counted.
        All antifraud measures come at the expense of counting the votes of some legitimate voters. There is no means arround this.

        In the 2020 democrativ primary the rejection rate for mailin ballots was 20%. In the 2020 General election in the same states it was substantially less than 1%.

        The election was decided in 3 states by 40,000 total votes – there is ZERO doubt that even a cursory review of mailin ballots would produce twice that number of ballots in those states that should have been rejected.
        Following the actual law would likely have resulted in the rejection of a couple of hundred thousand votes in 5 states.

  10. Professor Turley: I am a licensed attorney in Ohio. I represent plaintiffs in medical-malpractice claims, and as a plaintiffs’ lawyer, I am a member of the Ohio Association of Justice. The list server for general torts in that organization just recently had a dust-up over this precise issue, because several members posted support for the Lincoln Project’s efforts. Here is just one of my posts excoriating my fellow trial lawyers for that brazen, shameful, and in my opinion unethical public sentiment: “AmySue,
    It’s stunning that you don’t see that the ones “they came for” here ARE THE LAWYERS AT JONES DAY, and I’m the one “speaking out” to defend them. (By the way, I accepted your “friend request” on Facebook; you’ll enjoy the pictures of my kids and grandchildren.)

    If Vice-president Biden hires Baker & Hostetler to argue that the Pennsylvania supreme court somehow had legal authority to ignore Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, will you post on this list server that the attorneys at Baker are “destroy[ing] our country” and that we, as an organization, should shame them into declining that representation? If you or anyone else did, I would object to that also, for exactly the same reasons.

    Just yesterday or the day before, someone posted on here asking for the name of an attorney to represent a client on an allegation of sexual assault committed upon a child: did anyone here object to that representation? No, nor should they have.

    Our legal system is built on a presumption that ALL parties are entitled to counsel. Attacking lawyers for representing unpopular clients has a very bad history; as an organization, we should not be a party to it.

    I have asked OAJ President Bob Wagoner to issue a statement on this list server that OAJ does not support the personal attacks on the attorneys at Jones Day and at Porter Wright, nor upon any other attorneys in Ohio who might represent President Trump (or any other client), and that any further posts supporting such personal attacks will result in those individuals being banned from all OAJ list servers. As of my posting this, Bob has not responded, although he did leave a voicemail asking me to call him back, which I have tried to do several times today.

    Tony Turley | Turley, Peppel & Christen LLC
    2224 Centennial Rd.
    Toledo, Ohio 43617
    Office: 419.214.0808
    Cell: 419.266.3233

    1. As an attorney, one would expect you to understand the difference between providing a defense for the accused and repeatedly filing baseless and evidence free legal claims intended to please an irrational client but pre-destined to go nowhere.

      Maybe not.

      1. “Joke Friedbrain,”

        By “repeatedly filing baseless and evidence-free legal claims” are you referring to the years of illicit scams perpetrated by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) such as the “spying.” disinformation and defamation campaign conducted by rogue elements of the FBI (all since fired or retired), the “fake” and unconstitutional flop which was the Mueller Investigation, the hysterical and incoherent Christine Ballsey Ford charade, the innocuous Ukraine phone call, the Nanny Pelosi “fake” and impotent impeachment to nowhere, etc., etc.?

Leave a Reply