The Crime Report
November 27, 2020
In the end justice prevailed.
America’s independent courts were the final line of
defense against a want-to-be autocrat who intimidated, threatened and cajoled
public officials in his ill-fated effort to hold onto power.
There have been at
least 36 lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of, President Donald Trump’s
campaign. Nearly every legal action was dismissed, withdrawn or settled. Judges
of all political persuasions have ruled against the Trump campaign.
Thankfully, in this country it is not enough to run
into court with bluster and bravado and intimidate a judge.
Thankfully, in this country judges don’t cave under
political pressure.
Thankfully, judges in this country still demand that
litigants present evidence to support their claims and make arguments that are
supported by law and precedent.
While the leadership of the Republican Party in the
House of Representatives and Senate sat silent, influential Republicans like
the Secretary of State said
a week after the election, “There will be a smooth transition to a second
Trump administration.”
When the Attorney General authorized U.S. Attorneys
to investigate election irregularities, judges in courts around the country
stood tall.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann described a
Pennsylvania case seeking to prevent state officials from certifying the
results of the election as “strained legal arguments without merit and
speculative accusations.”
Judge Brann said that he “has no authority to take
away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of
citizens.”
“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been
haphazardly stitched together,” wrote Brann in
his order dismissing the claim.
Three of Trump’s attorneys withdrew
from the Pennsylvania case on the eve of the argument before Judge
Brann. Attorneys Linda A. Kerns, John Scott and Douglas Bryan Hughes left the
president’s legal team.
Kerns, Scott and Hughes were not the only attorneys
involved in election suits to realize representing a client with neither the
facts nor the law on their side can be risky business.
While much is made of Rudy Giuliani’s
less-than-stellar performance and willingness to play hard and fast with the
law and facts, lawyers are required to follow a strict code of professional
responsibility established by state bars.
In Pennsylvania, where three of Trump’s lawyers
jumped ship and Giuliani took the helm, the state follows the American Bar
Association Model Rules
of Professional Conduct. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Responsibility
3.3 prohibits a lawyer from making “a false statement of fact or law to a
tribunal.”
Lawyers are obligated to be truthful in everything
they say to a court.
The president can tweet about all sorts of
conspiracies, and his attorneys can promise all kinds of evidence outside the
court; but once inside, the courtroom judges demand facts, they want law, and
it doesn’t matter who the attorneys represent. That’s why Kerns, Scott and
Hughes withdrew.
To make it clear, in another Pennsylvania suit where
the Trump campaign was complaining that their poll watchers were being excluded
from observing the ballot count, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond—a
conservative George W. Bush appointee—asked Trump’s lawyer if campaign
observers were in fact present.
“There’s a nonzero number of people in the
room,” the
lawyer responded.
Judge Diamond, said he was “asking you [the lawyer]
as a member of the bar of this court.” Uh-oh, that question has serious
implications for that lawyer to whom it was posed. The lawyer quickly affirmed
that Trump poll watchers were in the room.
Many have labeled the actions of Trump and his
campaign as a “slow” coup d’état. We have heard time and time again that
“President Trump is a threat to constitutional democracy.”
That threat has subsided for now. Inauguration day
is about two months away.
U.S. General Services Administration chief Emily
Murphy informed President-elect Joe Biden that her agency has
formally ascertained him as the apparent winner of the 2020
election and will move ahead with transition proceedings.
The Constitution prevailed, due in no small part to
an independent judiciary which expects, and demands, that lawyers act ethically
and with candor in America’s courtrooms.
The court of public opinion is no court at all. Our
government of checks and balances has guided us through the dark days of a
would-be despot.
Matthew T. Mangino, a former district attorney of
Lawrence County in Pennsylvania, is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly
& George P.C. He is the author of The Executioner’s Toll, 2010. His
weekly syndicated column is distributed by GateHouse Media. You can reach him
at www.mattmangino.com and
follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino
To visit The Crime Report CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment