Was hearing reports that Eastman and Clark are both intending to plead the 5th during testimony.
While they're legally free to do so, I find it kinda dumb if that doesn't have repercussions from the Bar.
Because they could try and claim the two other protections (attorney-client and executive), but they know enough about their own conduct that they believe they may have criminal exposure.
I may be way off base, but I think we should expect more from people that are both responsible for, and have significantly more education in these things.
I know in security, I have no additional powers over the average person when it comes to arrest or use of force. But I fuck up in either, I know I'm fucked career wise, and probably legally, BECAUSE I AM SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER.
If these two fuckos have enough criminal exposure to plead the 5th, they shouldn't be allowed to practice law again, at least not without stringent review.
Was hearing reports that Eastman and Clark are both intending to plead the 5th during testimony.
While they're legally free to do so, I find it kinda dumb if that doesn't have repercussions from the Bar.
Because they could try and claim the two other protections (attorney-client and executive), but they know enough about their own conduct that they believe they may have criminal exposure.
I may be way off base, but I think we should expect more from people that are both responsible for, and have significantly more education in these things.
I know in security, I have no additional powers over the average person when it comes to arrest or use of force. But I fuck up in either, I know I'm fucked career wise, and probably legally, BECAUSE I AM SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER.
If these two fuckos have enough criminal exposure to plead the 5th, they shouldn't be allowed to practice law again, at least not without stringent review.
Pleading the 5th isn't an ethical violation and is a protected right under the Constitution. There should be no retaliatory action for anyone to plead the 5th, otherwise it loses all meaning.
Ehhhh... like most issues of protected rights, including free speech, I'd say there are consequences and there are consequences. Like, yes, you have the absolute right to say things; the government can't/shouldn't stop you. You don't have the right to avoid all other consequences of what you say and how people will respond.
Yes, no one can stop you from pleading the Fifth. And the result of that may be, you may not go to jail for what you did. But you're also not allowed to practice law for a while/ever.
Ehhhh... like most issues of protected rights, including free speech, I'd say there are consequences and there are consequences. Like, yes, you have the absolute right to say things; the government can't/shouldn't stop you. You don't have the right to avoid all other consequences of what you say and how people will respond.
Yes, no one can stop you from pleading the Fifth. And the result of that may be, you may not go to jail for what you did. But you're also not allowed to practice law for a while/ever.
You're still breaking the protection against self-incrimination, which is the point of the Fifth - the government cannot compel you to testify against yourself, and that includes professional sanctions, especially in cases of government licensure.
Pleading the 5th in and of itself shouldn’t be worthy of disbarment. Participating in a coup attempt is, but using a specific right enumerated by the constitution as a protection literally every American enjoys isn’t.
Retaliation for pleading the 5th would have a chilling effect on defendants doing so that we would not want it to.
Pleading the 5th should basically be automatic, the fact that is not is a weird loophole they were trying to close in the old british legal system. And even then we still needed Miranda because of how fucked up our justice system is built.
I guess it would be pretty easy to argue that any pressure on you to not use your 5th amendment rights is a violation of your 5th amendment rights.
The bar is not generally a government organization though.
They are free to and do set standards of conduct that are different from those protected by the constitution.
A lawyer may not lie, as an example, even when not under oath. And yet lying is constitutionally protected when not under oath. I am sure there are others (but not being a lawyer I am not entirely up on all of them)
Pleading the 5th, while constitutionally protected still may violate ethics. Unless they can enumerate what exposure they think they might have to the bar, in private, with such an explanation as to how that act was not a violation of their ethical obligations I see no reason the bar should allow them to remain lawyers.
Edit: because otherwise pleading the 5th in this case implies they knowingly did something that would have produced disbarment. It does not necessarily do so in all cases. But this is what ethics reviews are for is it not?
Goumindong on
+9
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
No it implies they believe something they did could be interpreted as something worthy of disbarment, not that they know it should be.
This is the same logic for why even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police because prosecutors and cops can interpret any words you say to fit whatever they want.
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
No it implies they believe something they did could be interpreted as something worthy of disbarment, not that they know it should be.
This is the same logic for why even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police because prosecutors and cops can interpret any words you say to fit whatever they want.
If it implies they did something they think may be worthy of disbarment then the bar is free to demand to know what the thing is.
The government may not compel them to reveal it but the bar is free to not associate with them as a result of their actions
In a “technically yes they could act like this” way, I suppose. But the legal profession has an interest in comporting itself in a way that does not find itself at odds with its members exercising their rights.
Do you have any examples of a lawyer being disbarred for pleading the 5th?
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
I guess it would be pretty easy to argue that any pressure on you to not use your 5th amendment rights is a violation of your 5th amendment rights.
The bar is not generally a government organization though.
They are free to and do set standards of conduct that are different from those protected by the constitution.
A lawyer may not lie, as an example, even when not under oath. And yet lying is constitutionally protected when not under oath. I am sure there are others (but not being a lawyer I am not entirely up on all of them)
Pleading the 5th, while constitutionally protected still may violate ethics. Unless they can enumerate what exposure they think they might have to the bar, in private, with such an explanation as to how that act was not a violation of their ethical obligations I see no reason the bar should allow them to remain lawyers.
Edit: because otherwise pleading the 5th in this case implies they knowingly did something that would have produced disbarment. It does not necessarily do so in all cases. But this is what ethics reviews are for is it not?
First off, we shouldn't have private bars (and it's worth noting that not every state handles licensure through a bar organization - several do in fact directly license lawyers.) The bar system is part of the legal profession's self-policing system, which is a horribly broken mess. But ignoring that, the reality is that bar organizations are obliged to follow the Fifth because in the states where they serve as the licensing agency for lawyers, they are acting as an agent of the state, and as such are bound by the state's strictures such as the Fifth Amendment.
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
But that’s not what is being asserted. The assertion here is that pleading the 5th should automatically trigger a disbarment.
I’ve said repeatedly now that they should be disbarred for their conduct, not for exercising their rights.
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
But that’s not what is being asserted. The assertion here is that pleading the 5th should automatically trigger a disbarment.
I’ve said repeatedly now that they should be disbarred for their conduct, not for exercising their rights.
No. The assertion was that if they plead the fifth the bar should investigate and failing to find a good reason should disbar.
People were once disbarred for being members of the communist party. Not because the communist party was communist* but because the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US. and membership in such a party that has such a tenet was conduct detrimental to the administration of justice.
There are many instances of lawyers advising their clients to commit crimes being disbarred and refusing to answer questions relating to advising clients to commit treason should also get you disbarred provided you cannot give the bar a damned good reason for it.
*well maybe. But the ostensible reason was the plans for violent revolution.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I find it unlikely there aren't documents that would justify disbarment that can still be demanded of Clark and Eastman even if they plead the 5th.
I'm under no illusions that it will happen, but John Eastman should absolutely be disbarred for his memo about how Pence should break the law and ignore delegates from states he personally chose.
An ethical standard that allows such conduct is a contradiction in terms.
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
But that’s not what is being asserted. The assertion here is that pleading the 5th should automatically trigger a disbarment.
I’ve said repeatedly now that they should be disbarred for their conduct, not for exercising their rights.
No. The assertion was that if they plead the fifth the bar should investigate and failing to find a good reason should disbar.
People were once disbarred for being members of the communist party. Not because the communist party was communist* but because the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US. and membership in such a party that has such a tenet was conduct detrimental to the administration of justice.
There are many instances of lawyers advising their clients to commit crimes being disbarred and refusing to answer questions relating to advising clients to commit treason should also get you disbarred provided you cannot give the bar a damned good reason for it.
*well maybe. But the ostensible reason was the plans for violent revolution.
To be honest, anytime a Lawyer is brought up on civil or criminal charges, their governing body should be launching a review and investigation regardless of if they invoke the 5th.
Civil isn’t “charged”. The bar to get sued/sue is pretty low. So having that trigger an automatic review would be overkill. It would be abusable at the least.
If someone is in a position where they are interacting with the police and even POSSIBLY going to be suspected of something, they should automatically clam up. The 5th should be invoked automatically. I would prefer it was so automatic that it meant nothing to anyone but the gov and the person it's protecting. NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.
If someone is in a position where they are interacting with the police and even POSSIBLY going to be suspected of something, they should automatically clam up. The 5th should be invoked automatically. I would prefer it was so automatic that it meant nothing to anyone but the gov and the person it's protecting. NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.
Great. But we are not talking about what you personally should do in interactions with the police but whether or not a lawyer should be disbarred for pleading the fifth in front of congress relating to their activities surrounding and supporting a coup attempt against the United States.
Civil isn’t “charged”. The bar to get sued/sue is pretty low. So having that trigger an automatic review would be overkill. It would be abusable at the least.
It should be a pretty quick review then.
If someone is constantly being sued then it seems their governing body should be aware, and informed of any deeper problems.
If someone is in a position where they are interacting with the police and even POSSIBLY going to be suspected of something, they should automatically clam up. The 5th should be invoked automatically. I would prefer it was so automatic that it meant nothing to anyone but the gov and the person it's protecting. NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.
Great. But we are not talking about what you personally should do in interactions with the police but whether or not a lawyer should be disbarred for pleading the fifth in front of congress relating to their activities surrounding and supporting a coup attempt against the United States.
So, cool, you ignored the entire point of that to pick on one little thread? Well done.
The point was, because of the police and criminal "justice" system in our country, you shouldn't have to invoke the 5th, it should be automatically invoked at all times to the point where it wouldn't be this "oh, where's theres smoke" attitude people have, such that, in this case, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the person should be investigated/disbarred for claiming the 5th.
Even in this case, it absolutely shouldn't be cause. This isn't like exercising your 1A rights and having to deal with private consequences.
Civil isn’t “charged”. The bar to get sued/sue is pretty low. So having that trigger an automatic review would be overkill. It would be abusable at the least.
It should be a pretty quick review then.
If someone is constantly being sued then it seems their governing body should be aware, and informed of any deeper problems.
Yes, because there are no instances of rich and/or powerful individuals or corporations swamping those they dislike with lawsuits.
If I was accused of something I didn’t do, and I used the 5th so I wouldn’t have to take the stand, it would be total bullshit for me to then lose my job because my employer assumed that the only reason I did so was because I was guilty.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
But that’s not what is being asserted. The assertion here is that pleading the 5th should automatically trigger a disbarment.
I’ve said repeatedly now that they should be disbarred for their conduct, not for exercising their rights.
People were once disbarred for being members of the communist party. Not because the communist party was communist* but because the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US. and membership in such a party that has such a tenet was conduct detrimental to the administration of justice.
Funny how all those right-wing revolutionaries out there are being let off with a slap on the wrist, while communists were hounded to the grave.
the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US.
You, of course, have a source for that?
I'd imagine it's a reference to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
[T]he Communist Party, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US.
You, of course, have a source for that?
I'd imagine it's a reference to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
[T]he Communist Party, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.
So, it's a "source" based on a statement made about the alleged goals of a thing by the guys in direct opposition to the existence of that thing?
Shit, if we sourced stuff as "Democratic positions" based on what RepubliQans said were Democratic positions....
the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US.
You, of course, have a source for that?
I'd imagine it's a reference to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
[T]he Communist Party, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.
So, it's a "source" based on a statement made about the alleged goals of a thing by the guys in direct opposition to the existence of that thing?
Shit, if we sourced stuff as "Democratic positions" based on what RepubliQans said were Democratic positions....
the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US.
You, of course, have a source for that?
I'd imagine it's a reference to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
[T]he Communist Party, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.
So, it's a "source" based on a statement made about the alleged goals of a thing by the guys in direct opposition to the existence of that thing?
Shit, if we sourced stuff as "Democratic positions" based on what RepubliQans said were Democratic positions....
Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff in the Trump White House, will no longer fully cooperate with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to a letter his attorney sent to the committee Tuesday morning that was obtained by The Washington Post.
“Over the last several weeks, Mr. Meadows has consistently sought in good faith to pursue an accommodation with the Select Committee and up until yesterday we believed that could be obtained,” Meadows’s attorney, George Terwilliger III, wrote in the letter.
The committee said last week that Meadows had produced records to the committee and would soon appear for an initial deposition. At the time, Terwilliger said Meadows wanted to reach an agreement with the committee that would not require him to waive executive privilege “or to forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.”
The committee held firm on not letting him claim shit like executive privilege. I hope a warrant goes out for him soon.
+41
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I love how they phrase it as an accommodation. "I need to be out by lunch due to appointments." is an accommodation.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Posts
While they're legally free to do so, I find it kinda dumb if that doesn't have repercussions from the Bar.
Because they could try and claim the two other protections (attorney-client and executive), but they know enough about their own conduct that they believe they may have criminal exposure.
I may be way off base, but I think we should expect more from people that are both responsible for, and have significantly more education in these things.
I know in security, I have no additional powers over the average person when it comes to arrest or use of force. But I fuck up in either, I know I'm fucked career wise, and probably legally, BECAUSE I AM SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER.
If these two fuckos have enough criminal exposure to plead the 5th, they shouldn't be allowed to practice law again, at least not without stringent review.
Pleading the 5th isn't an ethical violation and is a protected right under the Constitution. There should be no retaliatory action for anyone to plead the 5th, otherwise it loses all meaning.
Yes, no one can stop you from pleading the Fifth. And the result of that may be, you may not go to jail for what you did. But you're also not allowed to practice law for a while/ever.
You're still breaking the protection against self-incrimination, which is the point of the Fifth - the government cannot compel you to testify against yourself, and that includes professional sanctions, especially in cases of government licensure.
Retaliation for pleading the 5th would have a chilling effect on defendants doing so that we would not want it to.
The bar is not generally a government organization though.
They are free to and do set standards of conduct that are different from those protected by the constitution.
A lawyer may not lie, as an example, even when not under oath. And yet lying is constitutionally protected when not under oath. I am sure there are others (but not being a lawyer I am not entirely up on all of them)
Pleading the 5th, while constitutionally protected still may violate ethics. Unless they can enumerate what exposure they think they might have to the bar, in private, with such an explanation as to how that act was not a violation of their ethical obligations I see no reason the bar should allow them to remain lawyers.
Edit: because otherwise pleading the 5th in this case implies they knowingly did something that would have produced disbarment. It does not necessarily do so in all cases. But this is what ethics reviews are for is it not?
This is the same logic for why even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police because prosecutors and cops can interpret any words you say to fit whatever they want.
Lawyers are no different. Let these lawyers lose their ability to practice because of the actions we can prove, not because they correctly use the rights they are afforded.
If it implies they did something they think may be worthy of disbarment then the bar is free to demand to know what the thing is.
The government may not compel them to reveal it but the bar is free to not associate with them as a result of their actions
Legally it is. The bar isn't a government actor.
That doesn't make it a good idea.
Do you have any examples of a lawyer being disbarred for pleading the 5th?
If you were accused of a severe and heinous crime that is directly related to your behavior as a professional, your employer should absolutely initiate an independent ethics inquiry to make sure that you are behaving in accordance with your professional obligations.
First off, we shouldn't have private bars (and it's worth noting that not every state handles licensure through a bar organization - several do in fact directly license lawyers.) The bar system is part of the legal profession's self-policing system, which is a horribly broken mess. But ignoring that, the reality is that bar organizations are obliged to follow the Fifth because in the states where they serve as the licensing agency for lawyers, they are acting as an agent of the state, and as such are bound by the state's strictures such as the Fifth Amendment.
But that’s not what is being asserted. The assertion here is that pleading the 5th should automatically trigger a disbarment.
I’ve said repeatedly now that they should be disbarred for their conduct, not for exercising their rights.
No. The assertion was that if they plead the fifth the bar should investigate and failing to find a good reason should disbar.
People were once disbarred for being members of the communist party. Not because the communist party was communist* but because the communist party declared its intent to violently overthrow the US. and membership in such a party that has such a tenet was conduct detrimental to the administration of justice.
There are many instances of lawyers advising their clients to commit crimes being disbarred and refusing to answer questions relating to advising clients to commit treason should also get you disbarred provided you cannot give the bar a damned good reason for it.
*well maybe. But the ostensible reason was the plans for violent revolution.
An ethical standard that allows such conduct is a contradiction in terms.
To be honest, anytime a Lawyer is brought up on civil or criminal charges, their governing body should be launching a review and investigation regardless of if they invoke the 5th.
MWO: Adamski
Great. But we are not talking about what you personally should do in interactions with the police but whether or not a lawyer should be disbarred for pleading the fifth in front of congress relating to their activities surrounding and supporting a coup attempt against the United States.
It should be a pretty quick review then.
If someone is constantly being sued then it seems their governing body should be aware, and informed of any deeper problems.
MWO: Adamski
So, cool, you ignored the entire point of that to pick on one little thread? Well done.
The point was, because of the police and criminal "justice" system in our country, you shouldn't have to invoke the 5th, it should be automatically invoked at all times to the point where it wouldn't be this "oh, where's theres smoke" attitude people have, such that, in this case, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the person should be investigated/disbarred for claiming the 5th.
Even in this case, it absolutely shouldn't be cause. This isn't like exercising your 1A rights and having to deal with private consequences.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yes, because there are no instances of rich and/or powerful individuals or corporations swamping those they dislike with lawsuits.
Funny how all those right-wing revolutionaries out there are being let off with a slap on the wrist, while communists were hounded to the grave.
I'd imagine it's a reference to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
So, it's a "source" based on a statement made about the alleged goals of a thing by the guys in direct opposition to the existence of that thing?
Shit, if we sourced stuff as "Democratic positions" based on what RepubliQans said were Democratic positions....
...we'd be acting like the general media?
We’d have a way better platform
The committee held firm on not letting him claim shit like executive privilege. I hope a warrant goes out for him soon.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.