Trump Attorney Accuses The President Of Criminal Conduct In His Withdrawal of Representation

On January 7th, an attorney representing President Donald Trump filed a one-page motion of withdrawal from a case filed shortly after the election. That is hardly remarkable with attorneys entering and leaving cases every day in federal court. What is remarkable is the reason.  Philadelphia-based attorney Jerome Marcus told the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that he was withdrawing because President Trump used him, and his election challenge, to “perpetuate a crime.”  The filing raises some troubling questions regarding the alleged criminal conduct as well as the necessity of making such an allegation in a simple motion to withdraw from representation.

Marcus was counsel in one of the earliest election challenges that focused on the exclusion of polling place observers. The effort was unsuccessful and it was not clear what still remained to litigate. Indeed, after the electoral votes were accepted by Congress, such cases would likely be viewed as moot. Thus, a dismissal was the most likely result awaiting the case.

Here is the entirety of the filing statement by Marcus:

The filing is breathtaking. Marcus does not state the criminal conspiracy engaged in by his client. He simply states “the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime and the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant and with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.”  The latter part of that statement is perfectly appropriate. I have withdrawn from representation over fundamental disagreements with clients. It is the statement that “the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetuate a crime” that is so concerning.

In withdrawing from a case, an attorney is under a duty to take all possible steps to protect the client’s legal position and to avoid undermining his case.  Here Marcus is accusing his client of a crime, an allegation that is entirely unnecessary to withdraw from the case since fundamental differences is alone sufficient for an action.

In fairness to Marcus, one of the grounds for withdrawal is a criminal enterprise.  Rule 1.16 of the Pennsylvania Bar Code states:

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent; (3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud; (4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled; (6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

Marcus is stating two grounds including the stated basis under subsection (3).  However, the rule also states that “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.”  This raises a difficult issue for attorneys in what to disclosure or assert in a motion to withdrawal. Not only are we asked to minimize any harm to a client but the client may seek sanctions for allegations that are not supported or established. (In-court statements are generally treated as privileged from defamation actions under tort law).

Marcus and other attorneys have been subject to unfair and abusive attacks for their representation. He was one of the attorneys who stood his ground in defending his client. He has been placed in an extremely difficult position and refused to abandon his client. Moreover, Marcus may view this disclosure as ethically compelled under the rules to state the real reasons for his withdrawal. Given his history of standing by his client, I am very concerned about the allegation of criminal conduct that he has witnessed or come to discover in the course of his representation.

It is not clear what Marcus is alleging is the criminal enterprise or conspiracy. However, the filing comes after the rioting at the Capitol. If that is the basis for the filing, I have serious misgivings over the filing.  Marcus has every right to withdrawal over fundamental differences. I have criticized many of these filings and opposed the challenge in Congress as unfounded.  I also criticized Trump for his speech while he was still giving it. Yet, the speech itself was not a crime in my view.  More importantly, an attorney should not publicly accuse a client of criminal conduct on a subjective or speculative basis.

Once again, I am not sure what Marcus is referencing in this line. He may have a separate basis for claiming that his services were used for a criminal purpose and the timing with the speech was purely coincidental.  Again, I do not fault Marcus for this withdrawal but, as a criminal defense attorney, I was taken aback by the language of the motion.  This type of accusation is clearly is inimical to the client and unnecessary for the purpose of withdrawal.

The question is whether state prosecutors could now seek further information on the alleged criminal conduct.  There is a crime/fraud exception to attorney-client confidentiality and Marcus just publicly stated that he has knowledge of such criminal conduct. If that criminal conduct is the speech, I would have serious problems with the statement in the filing. If the criminal conduct concerns a separate demand or action in the case, prosecutors may want to know more about the underlying facts.  Again, the question is why include the allegation when you have an unassailable basis to withdraw from a case that was likely to be dismissed in the days to come.

In the end, Marcus is stating a specific basis for withdrawal under the state bar code. As such, he can legitimately claim that he is acting within the express grounds of the code. This is a difficult and long-standing question for counsel in such cases.

113 thoughts on “Trump Attorney Accuses The President Of Criminal Conduct In His Withdrawal of Representation”

  1. It is not clear what Marcus is alleging is the criminal enterprise or conspiracy.

    Yes, it is. Marcus thinks Trump committed a crime by exercising his First Amendment rights to encourage others to exercise their First Amendment rights:

    “I believe that the filing of that and other cases was used by President Trump yesterday to incite people to violence. I refer specifically to his urging people to come to Washington for a ‘wild’ protest,” Marcus said in a statement

    Marcus has flagrantly breached his fiduciary duties to his client. One wonders whether he may have deliberately botched the lawsuit as well.

    1. For a man who has run businesses his whole life and employed masses of people, Trump had a terrible time recruiting trustworthy people to work for him. Is that because of the nature of the political world, or is it something in him?

      1. “Is that because of the nature of the political world, or is it something in him?”


        When you tell the creatures inhabiting a swamp that want to drain their swamp, you’re going to attract creatures who pledge their loyalty to you whose real intentions are the exact opposite.

        Trump’s biggest weakness was his tendency to take them at their word because that had worked for him in the business world.

        But it was a big blind spot. When Obama initially took office he also tended to take people at their word who pledged their loyalty to him.

        The result for both of them were lots of two-faced leakers. Inside information is very valuable in politics.

          1. Yes, and despite clear violations of the law nobody was punished. They will do it again. In government crime does pay.

      2. Art— I wondered about that too. I think the pool of candidates for political work in DC is tainted, perhaps a cesspool. Loyalties and connections built up over years are stronger than any commitment they have to a president who is an outsider, or to the American people. He could expect loyalty and they had a duty to provide it, but their deepest loyalties lay elsewhere. The mafia is less treacherous.

  2. “Marcus and other attorneys have been subject to unfair and abusive attacks for their representation. He was one of the attorneys who stood his ground in defending his client. He has been placed in an extremely difficult position and refused to abandon his client.”

    JT, you don’t need to be a super sleuth to figure out that the Lincoln Project neocons coerced Marcus into making these accusations when he withdrew as Trump’s Counsel in return for them removing the heat off of him.

    It’s damage control. The fact that he filed this the day after the events at the capitol is further proof.

    At this point it is very obvious that the neocon/neolib money masters in the MIC are doing their best to completely neuter Trump after he leaves office because they are afraid of the influence Trump will have when he is no longer in office.

    What an excellent opportunity this is shaping up to be for Tulsi Gabbard as an independent in 2023-4.

    1. I was a Trump supporter. He appears to be the worst POTUS in my adult life, and I’m no spring chicken. He makes Carter and Obama look swell. Trump set the GOP back about a half C. Pelosi and Dems could not buy a gift like Trump for all the tea in China.

  3. Those who commit crimes, and those aiding and abet insurrectionists must face consequences. The time has come to use the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

    “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

  4. “It is not clear what Marcus is alleging is the criminal enterprise or conspiracy. However, the filing comes after the rioting at the Capitol. If that is the basis for the filing, I have serious misgivings over the filing. ”

    My guess is that it won’t be long before Trump approaches you to represent him in his post administration legal adventures, Professor.

    It’s my further guess that this attorney sees a legal tsunami heading his way over fundraising irregularities around Trump knowingly lying about the true election results. Today, the former communications director for Trump said she resigned because she couldn’t carry on with the lie about the election. Also probably doesn’t want to be anywhere near having to fight off civil matters that may arise around the death of the Capitol policeman at the trump Capitol party. Take your pick, there is a lot headed Trump’s way that didn’t exist last week. What an extraordinary bundle of crime this week has been for the president!

    Elvis Bug

    1. Hey Elvis.

      Speaking of Tsunami’s. You may want to keep an eye on the shoreline for receding water.

  5. Just one big comment which I don’t usually do Facebook or twitter. I am a 72 year old college degreed deplorable as Hillary says . I worked in hospitals. I am so sick of the way the Dems are saying how I think. I mourn my country because it sure looks like Marxism to me. Cancel culture has already gotten me just in what I get in different emails. I read . Hitler remember destroyed libraries. If you thought differently you were condemned. I would go somewhere off grid if I could afford It and live the rest of my life With my family and nature. I am female and I am genuinely afraid for my grandchildren. This is a non violent follower of Trump . I
    I want the kind of America he offered. I feel sorry for him because he was not a politician and his bravado and personality was not suited to the presidency But he really wanted I believe to help this country and people. That is the ones that are not millionaires living their everyday lives. I will not forsake him. He is human and how much of all this can anyone take anymore. My father was in the medical Corp went in on the first wave of the invasion. They aimed at his Red Cross on his helmet and he survived. This country I hope we will survive but half this great nation are feeling lost in their own country. My mother was from Boston and a Smith and we would go to see relatives and always shown the ride of Paul Revere. My great great grandfather was with Daniel Boone opening up the West out of Virginia. I had family members in Civil War fighting for both sides. My great great great grandfather was aide to Stonewall Jackson. I want my country to survive as a democracy! Thanks

    1. Sandra Bauer is just our usual troll posing as a woman. Here he spends the comment establishing ‘credentials’ to make Bauer a ‘great American’. Real people don’t write like that!

      1. Peter cannot get Estovir out of his head. Maybe Estovir has security cam footage of the rest rooms at Will Rogers Park

    2. I’m sorry for you, Sandra. When you use words like “Dems” ,”Marxism”and phrases like “cancel culture”, I know that you are a Fox News disciple.You say you want the kind of America Trump offered. What are you talking about? Returning to dirty, inefficient, polluting coal instead of clean, renewable energy? That’s not going to happen, nor should it. Why should Americans die from air and water pollution? Factories returning to America? The big corporations don’t want that because they can pay people in Mexico $1 an hour, import the products and still make more money, and guess what? They’re run by Republicans. You don’t want brown people from south of the border coming and living here illegally? Guess what? It’s because businesses hire them and help them evade deportation. Guess who run the big hotel and restaurant chains that mostly employ illegals? Republicans. Abusing migrants and traumatizing their children isn’t the answer. Neither is taking tax money allocated for the military to build more walls. Prosecuting those who hire them will dry up the jobs and if there aren’t any jobs, they’ll stop coming.

      You want to believe Trump was an outsider, and that he has macho and bravado, and you probably believe he is very wealthy, all earned from his talent. This is because you don’t know much about him. If you watch Fox, you never will. The next time A & E’s Biography of Trump airs, you should watch, because you will learn that: 1. he’s no patriot; no Trump family member ever was. They consider putting your life at risk for your country to be stupid and misguided because it doesn’t get you any money. In fact, Trump, Jr. wanted to go into the military, and Trump, Sr. threatened to disinherit and disown him if he did. Read Dr. Mary Trump’s book on this point. Trump evaded the draft by having his father ask a podiatrist tenant in a building he owned to falsely claim that Donald had bone spurs. The podiatrist has passed away, but his daughters both swear their father talked about this for years. The Selective Service records of his deferment have gone missing and Trump claims that he doesn’t recall what medical problem got him the deferment. I, too, have family members who served their country, going back to the Revolutionary War, fought on both sides in the Civil War, including 2 buried at Arlington. Trump is no patriot, and no patriot should have any reason to support someone who cheated to get out of military service and who wouldn’t even allow his namesake to serve. 2. Trump is a showman, first, foremost and always. Big shot–big time party-goer, flashy attention hog and womanizer. The need for attention and adulation, coupled with insane jealousy over Barak Obama’s success, is why your hero ran for president. Did you forget his lies about Obama not being born in Hawaii? 3. There is an immense difference between bravado and arrogance–a difference you don’t perceive because you’ve been conditioned not to. Trump has never succeeded at anything other than “The Apprentice”, an entertainment show based on the false premise that he’s a successful self-made billionaire. Trump was supported by his father well into his forties. One failed real estate venture after another. After his father came down with Alzheimer’s and lost control of the family finances, the Donald started filing bankruptcies–6 altogether, including the Trump casinos in Atlantic City that hemorrhaged money from day one. Pa Trump used to send his chauffeur to Atlantic City to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of chips that were never cashed in–which was an “off the books” loan, but the casinos still went under. In fact, Pa Trump’s wealth came from the taxpayers. After WWII, the government subsidized construction of apartments and homes for returning veterans, and Pa Trump took advantage of this to construct cheaply-built apartments. Then, there’s Trump University–$25 million settlement for defrauding “students”, Trump Steaks, Trump Bottled Water, Trump Golf Accessories–all failures. 4. Trump has always had a bad reputation–“Don the Con” he was known as because he cheated people who did business with him. He has been sued thousands of times for not paying money he owes. Michael Cohen said he kept 2 sets of books–one for the IRS that downplayed his net worth–and a second set for Forbes to exaggerate his net worth.

      Trump cheated to get into the White House. Read the Mueller Report. He could not be exonerated because he didn’t cooperate–procured the lack of cooperation of key witnesses, he hid documents and wouldn’t be interviewed, all of which is obstruction of justice He fired Dan Coats when Coats wouldn’t back down from confirming that Russians helped Trump’s campaign. When he lost the 2020 election, he began lying about election fraud, irregularities, etc, because his massive ego cannot accept that the majority of the American people rejected him. Folks like you, Sandra, believe Trump’s lies, and that is tragic. For example, in Pennsylvania, Fox and other pro-Trump media claim that it was unconstitutional to allow mail in voting–that the rules were changed at the last minute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is the final authority on state law, says “no”. Yet, Fox and Trump keep repeating his lie, and you keep believing. Wednesday’s riots, resulting in the deaths of at least 5 people, were the direct result of a narcissistic egomaniac who has the power to delude people like you into believing you were cheated from your choice of president.

      Sandra, your empathy is misplaced. Every single day, the US sets new daily records for COVID infections and deaths. But, your hero said, up to the election, that the US has “turned the corner”. So, Fox, et al, lie and tell you that you should question the accuracy of the COVID statistics. At the end of the day, Trump has proven he is no leader. He failed at the presidency just like he failed at everything else in his life–his marriages, his businesses–only this time, people have died unnecessarily due to his arrogance. He has enough charisma to get people like you to believe in the bag of manure he was selling, and despite a pandemic out of control, despite the fact that he fomented an insurrection resulting in the deaths of 5 people, and despite a wrecked economy, massive unemployment and a record trade deficit, you still believe. That’s what’s scary.

      1. +10

        I’m endlessly entertained by the prospect of the first thing that’s going to happen in the Biden administration to the Trumper crew who are so programmed by Fox is that they’ll receive a check for 2k. They’ll probably think trump sent it.

        Elvis Bug

  6. Trump has every right to challenge the election that he honestly believed was rigged. Trump has every right to try every Constitutional argument to overturn the election. Trump had every right to encourage his followers to peacefully protest to Congress. Nothing he did publicly in his speech comes anywhere close to legal incitement. To say he was responsible for the riot is a political argument, but as a legal argument it lacks any merit.

    Therefore, Marcus’ disclosure of Trump’s purported criminal enterprise, must be something unknown to the public — something Marcus learned through his representation. However, since there is a crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege, Marcus should be required by authorities to disclose Trump’s hidden criminal conspiracy. There might be something there, but I doubt it. As others have stated, Marcus was probably just virtue signaling and trying to distance himself from Trump to preserve his future career prospects.

    If that is the case, Marcus violated his ethical duty to his client. He betrayed his client. He breached his fiduciary duty. He should be investigated by the bar and disciplined. His ethical failings should lower his professional standing and harm his career prospects. But that will not happen. His virtue signaling will be seen as virtuous, because OrangeManBad. Trump continues to be revealing in the exceptions made to long standing principals made to deal with him. Long standing principal should not have exceptions just because someone has boorish Twitter habits and opposes off shoring factory jobs to China.

    1. “There might be something there, but I doubt it.” So therefore, “If that is the case, Marcus violated his ethical duty to his client.”

      No leap of faith there is there.

    2. Trump only has a right to challenge the election in legal ways. He doesn’t have a legal right to challenge the election with defamation, for example.

      Trump has a right to try constitutional arguments, but not unconstitutional ones. He asked Pence to act unconstitutionally.

      Trump had a right to encourage his followers to peacefully protest to Congress. But telling his supporters “we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” isn’t encouraging peaceful protest, especially after Giuliani warmed them up with “let’s have trial by combat.” He said he wished the military could go with them, “I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please?” He said “you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong” and said he’d go with them, “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, … and we’re going to the Capitol.”

      Trump, previously: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
      Some rioters had hoodies printed up with “Civil War – January 6, 2021”

      1. That’s stupid and disingenuous. No one else’s words are relevant to assertions that *Trump* committed a crime. Making bad arguments is not a crime, And defamation is not a crime.

        1. I said defamation is illegal, not that it’s a crime. As a lawyer, you should be able to attend to relevant details.

    1. The only thing interesting about Dominion’s suit is the four facts that the company omitted:

      — That two independent audits by the state of Texas rejected Dominion, because its system is so easily corrupted.

      — That its Security Chief, Eric Coomer, is openly biased against Trump — which fact destroys Dominion’s claim to be unbiased.

      — That in 2018, it leveraged or sold its IP, via HSBC bank, a company that is in bed with communist China

      — That in October 2020, China “invested” some $400 million in Dominion/Staple Street Capital, via the China cutout UBS Securities LLC.

      Obviously, Dominion is trying to evade those facts, and avoid them being raised in discovery.

      1. I found the most interesting thing to be that the drama-queen attorneys for Dominion led with a claim that Powell caused “unprecedented harm”, as if no business had ever been defamed before.

        But if I had read the whole thing, I might agree with you.

  7. The Great Piling On ignores reality and attorney ethics or established practices. Can’t let a crisis go to waste.

    As part of the Great Piling On, all excusing and ignoring and encouraging of earlier political-BLM-Antifa violence is ignored.

    Biden also feels compelled to add fuel to the fire, in his most unpresidential bringing up of racism into the mix.

    This double-standard view of protest/violence with its racist one-opinion piling-on shaming doesn’t portend well for America.

    1. What is your explanation for the difference in police response to the Capitol Building protesters versus BLM protesters?

      1. “What is your explanation . . .”

        That the Left demonizes right-ring protestors, but romanticizes BLM/Antifa protestors. Oh, and that the police were ordered to stand down in the face of BLM rioters, but killed 4 (?) Capitol Building rioters.

        I gather, though, that that is not the “difference” you concocted.

        1. Well, supposedly three people suffered ‘medical events’ (heart attack? asthma?). An officer also died, of what I do not know. It does appear that one protester was shot in the head a propos of nothing in particular. I don’t think live rounds were used during the weeks-long siege of the federal building in Portland.

        2. Some of the police yesterday took selfies with the lawbreakers.
          They allowed people to leave the Capitol Building after they broke the law by storming it.
          They did not kill 4 Capitol Building rioters, they killed 1, Ashli Babbitt. The rioters killed 1 police officer, Brian Sicknick.

        1. Everything about your post is false.

          Just the fact you can look at footage of both situations and make the statement you made tells me everything I need to know about you — and it lets me know no amount of factual information can penetrate. Look, I went to an urban high school in the 70’s with forced bussing. One thing it made clear was that there is a difference in energy between a crowd that is just whipped up but has a few people getting overly excited versus a crowd where everyone is overly excited and ready to blow.

          Not that there weren’t aspects this summer that got out of hand, but often crowds that were just whipped up were treated like they were ready to blow. What happened wednesday was that a crowd that was ready to blow was treated, at best, like they were just whipped up. Wednesday should’ve had an established perimeter line before the crowd reached the Capitol and, on the way from the rally, should’ve been infiltrated by plainclothes officers punching selective MAGATS in the throat. Just to focus attention into specific areas rather than letting it hitting a crescendo and charge the Capitol. Sort of like how a smoke jumper crew sets back fires to channel energy away from a fire’s main thrust.

          Before you try to say: oh it was Antifa infiltration! Well that’s false right away on two major points: one is there would’ve been intelligence on their presense beforehand and there would’ve been an established perimeter line at the Capitol waiting for them (tactically exactly what happened this summer). And the woman who was tragically shot was a vociferous Q anon, while truly sad what happened to her, she now goes on the list of people who got smoked while doing a home invasion. And there is no way she’d be upfront at an Antifa rally just on general principle.

          Wednesday’s riot was a prime example of a) white privilege, b) what happens when a president is asleep at the switch and also the prime inciter of a mob and out of touch with the National Guard/pefense dept., and c) the logical extension of a political party who has spun a gullible populace segment up for years not knowing it was going to eventually blow. It was a s&*t show. And when the dust settles and this whole thing is investigated, we’ll find there was some sort of stand down collaboration with at least a small segment of security.

          Elvis Bug

          1. “Before you try to say: oh it was Antifa infiltration!”

            And yet there it was.

            “[D]on’t forget to disguise yourself as patriots / Trump supporters. Wear MAGA hats, USA flags. A convincing police uniform is even better. This way police and patriots responding to us won’t know who their enemies are and onlookers will think there are Trump supporters rioting so it’s harder to turn popular opinion against us.” (From the Antifa playbook)

            As applied to the Capitol Hill protests:

            “The Antifa members disguised themselves with pro-Trump clothing to join in the DC rioting, said the sources, who spotted the infiltrators while monitoring video coverage from the Capitol.

            “The infiltrators were recognized due to their participation in New York City demonstrations, and were believed to have joined in the rioting so that Trump would get blamed, the source said.”


            There’s plenty of blame to go around. Whitewashing Antifa’s evil does not help your cause.

      2. You’re referring to the police kneeling before the BLM protestors? Or the Capital Police officer fatally shooting a woman from behind a barricade and through a broken window?

    2. “This double-standard view of protest/violence with its racist one-opinion piling-on shaming doesn’t portend well for America.”

      This double standard piling on is in your mind.

      The police presence on Wednesday was miniscule. The police presence last summer with black protesters was massive. On Wednesday, 5 people have now died, including one police officer. How many died last summer?

      White people walk around and into state capitol buildings (and now the nations capitol building) carrying rifles, What would be the response if black people walked into state capitol buildings with rifles.

      No difference? Really?

      Unless we realize racism is alive and well in America today, you’re right, this does not portend well for America.

      1. The police presence on Wednesday was miniscule. The police presence last summer with black protesters was massive.

        Because Republicans pick up their trash and don’t steal televisions and set fire to police stations.

        1. Yep, Trump supporters just break the law by storming the Capitol.

          Trump said in July, “Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON” Did he think it would only apply to those on the left?

      2. White people walk around and into state capitol buildings (and now the nations capitol building) carrying rifles, What would be the response if black people walked into state capitol buildings with rifles.

        Back in 1967 in Sacramento, the response was calm.

        Sacramento, May 2, 1967: Two dozen armed [Black Panthers] entered the state Capitol at noon today and 10 made their way to the back of the Assembly Chamber before they were disarmed and marched away by the state police.

        The Assembly was in session at the time and Speaker Pro Tem Carlos Bee ordered the men removed from the chamber.

        After the state police questioned the men, they returned the weapons to them because the intruders had broken no law.

        Following their release by the state police, the men left the Capitol and rejoined some companions who remained outside during the incident. They then drove off.

  8. Imagine that, turley is surprised, nay, disbelieving that master baby trump may have committed a crime.

    On Wednesday, trump gave a speech where he incited a mob to march to the capitol and said he would be right there with them. They should never back down from the fraud being perpetrated by the weakling republicans and evil democrats. Well surprise surprise, the mob marched to the capitol, broke in, 5 people are now dead.

    trumps words incited a mob and death followed.

    Yes, I call that criminal conduct. And I have no doubt there is much more criminal conduct by baby trump over at least the lat 40 years of his life.

    1. Professor Turley is a lawyer, In this case, he knows the law and the facts, and he knows that they do not add up to a crime.

  9. Given the calls for everything from purges of administration officials to re-education camps for Trump supporters, demands that would have made Stalin and Mao blush, this letter of withdrawal is not at all surprising.

  10. I don’t think you can accuse a client of committing a crime in a court filing even if it is a ground in the rules. But this is Trump world. There are no rules.

    1. Given that Marcus was representing him in an election law case, it’s difficult to see what sort of ‘crime’ the President could be ‘perpetuating’, particularly in re a matter already decided. I’ve been a party to election law cases, and the only avenue I could see for a ‘crime’ would be defending petitions I’d salted with forgeries or invegling people into signing perjurious affidavits. The thing is, if Marcus is representing the campaign or the President in Pennsylvania, I’d think the president would be quite removed from the mechanics of collecting affidavits and Marcus fairly intimate with it, even if it weren’t his own staff collecting them.

      Marcus is an anti-trust specialist who practices in a two-lawyer firm in suburban Philadelphia. He seems a very odd choice to do this sort of work, bar that not many attorneys have election law as a sideline and many of those who do are enmeshed in local party committees. Given what happened in the ‘gay marriage’ cases in California (where an attorney defending the statute acted to throw the case), I do wonder if some of the pick up team the Trump campaign hired signed on only to sabotage him.

  11. I agree with those who hope to be forgiven for their sins of working for Trump by trashing him, like Michael Cohen. Had Trump won, these people would have continued participate in and enjoy the rewards of a Trump victory. Personally, I would not employ or be associated with any of these people for fear of their lack of integrity.

  12. I think you give the lawyer too much credit. Just look how all the Russian stuff ended up. Carter Page filing suit. We don’t have a fair justice system. Human nature is to survive sometimes over principle. If you support Trump you won’t be hired again. It such a joke and we need to start calling out abuses in the legal system. Part of the judge’s ruling in PA case about observers. The judge said the statute didn’t specify a distance. Thereby justifying keeping observers 20 or more feet from where the votes were being counted. Torture the language like that we don’t have a legal system. As Justice Thomas said “Common sense isn’t so common anymore”. He must have been talking about lawyers.

    1. Something smells. Election law is something quite distant from his ordinary lines of business and he practices in a two-person firm. Not much infrastructure there to collect the evidence in a process as rapid as what you see in an election law case. Why would he take this case? Does he have some debt in arrears he needs a quick fee to service?

    2. Well, there was something sketchy about the conduct of Michael Flynn’s lawyers at Covington & Burling.

      1. Flynn filed suit against them for ineffective counsel. Will he proceed with the suit? Discovery should be interesting

  13. Why? Why? Miss American Pie. Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry. Good old lawyers stinking Trumpster smells and rye. Singing: This will be the day that I cry!

  14. My speculation is fears of purges to come making the client expendable, along with virtual signaling in self-interest. The idea of being ruled by laws rather than men is becoming increasingly illusory. Lawsbtransform into cudgels to be applied selectively against political opponents. As a person who is not a lawyer, my opinion of the caste grows ever lower.

    1. From what we’ve seen, threats from professional associations or para-statal bodies in Pennsylvania is a possibility. The American Psychological Association waged a campaign of defamation against a rather minor rank-and-file psychologist named Paul Cameron, including ‘ethics’ charges. I’m surprised every time I see in someone the confluence of sociopathy and sanctimony.

  15. Marcus appears to be looking to his future career, given the calls to ‘cleanse’ the country of Trump supporters and earlier intimidatiion of lawyers who worked on Trump’s appeal of the election.
    If so, we have reached the 1950s.

    1. We haven’t. People who suffered during the 1950s consisted of about 150 entertainment industry figures, a scatter of officials at the State Department and the US Information Agency, and some random private citizens whose employers learned of their Communist affiliations. The FBI in particular had it in for a man named James Kutcher, who was a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. Some innocents were injured by this (e.g. the actress Pert Kelton and, again Kutcher), but a great many of these people would have happily put you out of work had they been in a position to do so. And being a Communist in that context is a great deal more sinister than being a Republican voter in this context. NB, Howard Zinn was a three-meetings-a-week Communist Party member in 1947 and this was known to the FBI. It didn’t prevent him from enrolling in graduate school and being hired and tenured by a research university. Prior to 1943, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were very open and public about their Communist affiliations and it drove a wedge between them and their relatives; it did not prevent Julius Rosenberg from completing an engineering degree at a public college and from landing work during the war which required a security clearance. When Earl Browder was bounced out as Communist Party secretary-general in 1945, he received immediate job offers he did not take. His sons had long academic careers and were left alone by the government. Alger Hiss, disbarred jailbird, found work as a salesman after his release from prison. You have to wonder how many people’s livelihoods were actually threatened.

    2. Mark Gauvreau Judge was immediately fired from his rather desultory job when the Kavanaugh controversy erupted. I’m remembering that the step-mother of the police officer being harassed by the public prosecutor’s office in Atlanta was also summarily fired from her job. I’d be interested to see the exchange of e-mails which preceded these dismissals.

Leave a Reply