All the news that’s depressing enough to print: on disbarments
I have to gird my loins (metaphorically speaking) to look at the news these days. It’s hard to know what to say about so much of it, other than that it feels like a looking-glass world in which the Red Queen is in charge and “the best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”
Some of the depressing news is quiet and probably has no significance for most people. For example, if you were to conduct a poll of the American public and ask them who Kevin Clinesmith is, how many would be able to identify him as the FBI lawyer who falsified an email as part of the Russiagate web spun to snare Trump? I would say that 10% would probably be a high estimate.
So I think that this recent story about Clinesmith’s law license wouldn’t have much meaning to most people:
Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith and his legal team have agreed to a one-year law license suspension in Washington, D.C., after the official was found guilty in August 2020 of illegally modifying a statement relating to the Russiagate investigation and scandal, according to new bar records.
A District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility committee will hear the suspension proposal on July 19 and decide whether to approve or reject Clinesmith’s bar sanction.
If the panel proceeds with the suspension, Clinesmith will be prohibited from practicing law again until August 2021, one year from the date when he reported his guilty plea to the D.C. disciplinary counsel’s office.
Clinesmith pleaded guilty in court to the charge that he had doctored an email that was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) in 2017 concerning whether or not former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had been a “source” for the CIA. He was then sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service in January 2021.
In other words, not even much of a wrist slap – more like a love tap. The message? If you’re on the side of the left, you can get away with things like that with hardly any consequences at all.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani – who was on the other side – has had his law license suspended:
Rudolph W. Giuliani … had his law license suspended after a New York court ruled on Thursday that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the results of the 2020 election on behalf of Donald J. Trump.
Alan Dershowitz has something to say on the matter:
Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from the practice of law without a hearing, based largely on First Amendment-protected statements he made outside of any court of law. A panel of the Appellate Division of New York suspended the former mayor of New York and former United States Attorney last week without giving him an opportunity to dispute the charges against him at an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, he was suspended largely on the basis of statements he made not in court but on television…
Although Giuliani is now entitled to a post-suspension hearing, it seems clear that the judges already have made up their minds, saying that the result will “likely” be “substantial permanent sanctions” — which means disbarment…
…[T]here are no compelling arguments why anyone — lawyer or non-lawyer — should be denied the full protection of the First Amendment when he or she participates in the marketplace of ideas on television, podcasts or other media, even when representing a client.
Any statements made in such a public context can be rebutted in the marketplace of ideas, and so the public needs no special protection from statements made by lawyers…
The rules under which Giuliani has been suspended are so vague that they cannot possibly satisfy the standards of due process, especially where public speech is concerned and clarity is required before it is suppressed.
The court cited a rule allowing disbarment for conduct, including speech that “adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.” It is difficult to imagine a more subjective standard subject to selective application. The panel also cited a rule that called for disbarment for knowingly making “false statements of fact or law to a third person.”
As usual, Dershowitz is both clear and correct. And then he adds this, which expresses my sentiments exactly:
If these rules were applied across the board fairly, and equitably, thousands of lawyers would be disbarred every year.
If we’re going to apply such a standard – which I think is absurd – then I nominate Ben Crump to be first in the disbarment line. He’s lied over and over and over about nearly every one of race-centered police violence cases in which he’s been involved, and his lies have done remarkable damage.
And no, I won’t sit on a hot stove till Crump’s disbarment occurs.
One of the many signs of the impending collapse of our republic is the corruption within the entire justice system, from the very top (DOJ) on down to local Soros-funded DAs in formerly great cities refusing to prosecute last summer’s looters and rioters, as well as many criminals, including violent recidivists. In totalitarian systems (as ours is rapidly devolving into), all questions of law, order, and justice are completely politicized, as decisions are made and enforced by commissars and by ideologically-driven judges. Many Americans, aware of the importance of due process but dismayed by the guilty being set free, will also find much to ponder in the decision by the PASC, on a technicality, to release Bill Cosby, clearly responsible, from massive amounts of evidence, for having abused and mistreated women over many decades.
j e:
I agree with the first part of your comment, but I could not disagree more with your statements about the Cosby case.
I am planning to write about it, but it probably won’t be till tomorrow. If you do a search on this blog for my previous articles about the case, you’ll see why I say what I say. His trial was a real miscarriage of justice even if he was guilty. I refer you, for example, to this post. I never wrote Part II – at least, I can’t locate it right now – but the discussion I was planning for Part II is described in the last paragraph of the post I just linked:
That is the issue on which the recent release was based. It’s not a minor thing – it’s actually very important. You can read about it at Legal Insurrection.
Here’s another old post I wrote about the miscarriages of justice in the Cosby trial. Also see this post of mine.
The worst kind of wood rot is the kind that works internally. You trust the beam or joist until suddenly it turns to dust when you need it most.
Behavior of the DC and NY bar in these cases is illustrative. I have to believe they knew how badly this would reflect on them, and they just didn’t care.
I am reminded of a line from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2– it’s part of a dialogue between Jack Cade (a real historical person who led a rebellion against Henry VI in 1450; a major grievance was the corruption of the king’s administration) and a character in the play named Dick the Butcher:
JACK CADE. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–
ALL. God save your majesty!
JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
DICK THE BUTCHER. The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
My wife and I disagree about Cosby. He did nothing different from hundreds of male stars of that era. The relationships, while often unbalanced in the power of the parties, were usually consensual. The “Casting Couch” was a feature of Hollywood for decades. Cosby was the first major star to be accused since Errol Flynn was involved with underage girls in the 1940s and it happened only after he talked about the “Black Family.” The matter of “Quaaludes” was also well known and, again, usually consensual. He was not a candidate for sainthood but I think he was innocent of what he was accused.
My wife and I disagree about Cosby. He did nothing different from hundreds of male stars of that era.
Don’t know who did what when, in Errol Flynn’s era or now. I do know some people are remarkable for an inability to suspend judgment in these matters. Accusations, much less criminal and civil complaints, concerning incidents which supposedly occurred twenty or thirty years earlier should be regarded with the most thorough skepticism.
It also doesn’t seem to occur to Cosby’s detractors that his accusers expected something from him in return for favors, and might just be getting revenge on him for not delivering some benefit or courtesy they thought was theirs. One must also consider the possibility that pile-ons consist largely of fictional accusations by self-dramatizers and people hoping for a spot on a settlement gravy train.
A not-entirely-innocent man treated shamefully by the British court system was the Australian entertainer Rolf Harris.
Then there’s Adam Schiff, ……. talk about liars. And Robert Mueller and his co-conspirators, who spent millions of our tax dollars on nothing, or actually on trying to take down a legitimately elected President (aka “sedition.”) I get sick just thinking about all that. Oh, wait, ……. they’re leftists, I forgot. They don’t get disbarred. Sorry, what was I thinking ?
If anyone was a candidate for disbarment, it would be Schiff. Ye gods what a liar !
Lest we forget: Bill Clinton was fined $25,000 by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2001, and his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for five years. Clinton also faced disbarment before the U.S. Supreme Court, but he chose to resign from the court’s practice instead of having to contend with any penalties.
Cosby expressed Conservative opinion.
He tried some constructive criticism to HELP/ENCOURAGE/CAJOLE/WAKE UP people to get out of what has developed into a multi-generational self-destructive rut.
Alas he preached the bizarre White Supremacist, Racist, Patriarchal, Capitalist, Colonialist, Zionist mantra of “Taking Responsibility” for one’s life.
(Can you imagine?? What a downright disgusting patronizing SOB. Yuck…)
For which he was skewered, tarred and feathered, drawn and quartered—interviewed and taunted—and then left for the hyenas and vultures to pick over.
As a comedian he probably should have known better than to leave the plantation. (Because comedians know viscerally just how mean, how evil, people can be—they see glimpses of it in the mirror every day…i.e., more than glimpses.)
Nonetheless, as a hero—YES!, in spite of everything—Cosby couldn’t have done it any differently.
Epilogue: Jordan Peterson has had his difficulties; but he is fortunate that he never tried his hand at stand-up.
“One of the many signs of the impending collapse of our republic is the corruption within the entire justice system, from the very top (DOJ) on down to local Soros-funded DAs in formerly great cities refusing to prosecute last summer’s looters and rioters, as well as many criminals, including violent recidivists.”
Yes, so many examples but contrast the treatment of rioters who burned down buildings or literally backed up trucks to loot businesses versus a couple in a gated community who displayed weapons on their own front porch.
I would love to know what happened in one case. The details are hazy in my memory but there were 2 young lawyers, I think in NYC. They attacked police and got caught. Molotov cocktails? Sabotaging brake lines on patrol cars? I forget. Then there were articles saying “Poor kids, now their lives and careers are ruined for all time”.
Were their charges dropped out of “compassion” like so many of the rioters?
Molotov cocktails.
Anyway, they’re out.
Free.
Snickering.
And when their control breaks down, laughing uproariously.
The “Look Ma, No Crime” attorneys at “law”….
Ideological fanaticism blinds these ‘judges’ from recognizing the entirely predictable consequences of their actions. Absent the rule of law, they stand convicted by the very ‘standards’ they themselves have set.
Only fanatics bereft of reason can ignore both the hypocrisy of their ‘rulings’ and their betrayal of their oath to uphold the Constitution. Clearly, an oath taken freely, means nothing to them. It’s likely that they rationalize their betrayal as justified by their… more highly evolved understanding of the issues.
They place good intentions above results and thus are busily paving another road to hell.
It will not be the ‘justice’ system that will hold them accountable but sooner or later, the citizens they’ve betrayed.
Giuliani expressed opinions about what happened during the election. He had some pretty good evidence for those opinions. Lots of signed affidavits by election workers, statements by statisticians about the statistical anomalies, and more. All dismissed as baseless by a biased MSM and the Democrats. Now his opinions are being criminalized. This in a country where free speech is supposed to be….. well, free. If expressing an opinion is a crime, we are all in danger. This cannot stand.
As to Cosby. I agree with the opinion that what he did was mainly consensual and done in a contractual manner. Both sides expected to benefit from the activity. The old “casting couch” sort of deal. I also agree that Cosby was targeted because he spoke out about the black community’s inability to raise its sights above the welfare, single mother, fatherless children, low expectations way of life. He was a big star and wealthy, but cancel culture ruined his life. A cautionary tale for all.
Related:
(Just another misunderstood young person…)
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/blm-rioter-who-smashed-car-window-toddlers-face-avoids-jail-after-lawyer-says-it-was
BTW, if you didn’t know it already, “destroying property is not violence”.
(A public service announcement brought to you by Nikole Hannah-Jones….)
https://twitter.com/700R____/status/1410367297492029445
Though to be fair to this intrepid NYT reporter and top-notch historian, she is thoroughly consistent (well, consistently perverse) and her views, unsurprisingly, jibe with the policies and outlook (such as they are) of the Democratic Party. Surprise!
One can be certain that she will have plenty to contribute in the future.
…As Tara Reade, with simply exquisite timing, shows us that Obama is most certainly NOT the only one with a unique sense of humor….
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tara-reade-jen-psaki-biden-bill-cosby
Indeed, it looks like True Jen may finally have met her nemesis….
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s the new putative hierarchy. The real question is: At what point does the retribution of these acts with violence become commonplace as the only means left for the disenfranchised?
And heeeere she is, once again! (As…sorta, kinda, pretty much…expected…)
Yes, our favorite incisive, hard-hitting, down-to-earth historian! (A professional’s professional: no one—and I mean NO ONE—does stealth edits like she does!)
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/30/breaking-unc-caves-to-pressure-grants-1619-project-founder-tenure-n1458693
The “You-had-better-let-us-destroy-you-or-else-we’ll-destroy-you” cult strikes back!
That’s right, folks, it’s Palestinian Rules(TM) in ALL its gory glory at a campus near you!!
BTW, if you didn’t know it already, “destroying property is not violence”.
Devaluing private property as not worth defending is part of the Marxist plan. The most fundamental principle of our nation is that of the right to own private property that is defended by the courts. When property is devalued and not defended by the law, why own it? If someone can destroy or steal your property and not be punished, why own it? It’s part of their plan to get rid of property rights.
This would no doubt be one of the rationales behind the Democrats’ ploy to plough through the suburbs.
Of course that pig will no doubt be being perfumed as “empowerin” the have-nots among us”…along with such profoundly ethical slogans as “the more fortunate will all have to do their part to help shoulder the burden…”, etc., ,etc.
Somewhere Hernando de Soto weeps…. (and not just him).
On May 16, 2007, Don Boudreaux had a great column in the Pittsburg Tribune-Review:
Marvelous Properties
https://archive.triblive.com/news/marvelous-properties/
At one point he posted it at his blog, as not all of his columns were still available for awhile at the Tribune-Review website (so to be safe):
https://cafehayek.com/2019/12/pittsburgh-tribune-review-marvelous-properties.html
If anyone wonders, we do not know each other and have never met. I find that he is often a great writer, and consistently effective, I believe, at communicating with the public. This column is my favorite, I believe.
Barry & JJ – regardless of whether the sexual favors were consensual, contractual, coerced, or something else (is there anything else??) – the fact that Cosby was charged “now” for doing (or allegedly doing) things that many people had to have known about for decades (given the timeline of the complaints) shows that he was targeted for Going Off the Plantation, not for the offenses per se.