Legal Profession

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Lawyers Are Focus of Inquiry Into Alternate Electors Scheme

      by

      In recent subpoenas, federal prosecutors investigating alternate slates of pro-Trump electors sought information about Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Eastman and others.The Justice Department has stepped up its criminal investigation into the creation of alternate slates of pro-Trump electors seeking to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election, with a particular focus on a team of lawyers that worked on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.A federal grand jury in Washington has started issuing subpoenas in recent weeks to people linked to the alternate elector plan, requesting information about several lawyers including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and one of his chief legal advisers, John Eastman, one of the people said.The subpoenas also seek information on other pro-Trump lawyers like Jenna Ellis, who worked with Mr. Giuliani, and Kenneth Chesebro, who wrote memos supporting the elector scheme in the weeks after the election.A top Justice Department official acknowledged in January that prosecutors were trying to determine whether any crimes were committed in the scheme.Under the plan, election officials in seven key swing states put forward formal lists of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College on the grounds that the states would be shown to have swung in favor of Mr. Trump once their claims of widespread election fraud had been accepted. Those claims were baseless, and all seven states were awarded to Mr. Biden.It is a federal crime to knowingly submit false statements to a federal agency or agent for an undue end. The alternate elector slates were filed with a handful of government bodies, including the National Archives.The focus on the alternate electors is only one of the efforts by the Justice Department to broaden its vast investigation of hundreds of rioters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.In the past few months, grand jury subpoenas have also been issued seeking information about a wide array of people who organized Mr. Trump’s rally near the White House that day, and about any members of the executive and legislative branches who may have taken part in planning the event or tried to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.The widening and intensifying Justice Department inquiry also comes as the House select committee investigating the efforts to overturn the election and the Jan. 6 assault prepares for public hearings next month.The subpoenas in the elector investigation are the first public indications that the roles of Mr. Giuliani and other lawyers working on Mr. Trump’s behalf are of interest to federal prosecutors.After Election Day, Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis appeared in front of a handful of legislatures in contested swing states, laying out what they claimed was evidence of fraud and telling lawmakers that they had the power to pick their own electors to the Electoral College.Mr. Eastman was an architect of a related plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use the alternate electors in a bid to block or delay congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.Examining the lawyers who worked with Mr. Trump after the election edges prosecutors close to the former president. But there is no guarantee that an investigation of the lawyers working on the alternate elector plan would lead prosecutors to discover any evidence that Mr. Trump broke the law.The plot to use alternate electors was one of the most expansive and audacious schemes in a dizzying array of efforts by Mr. Trump and his supporters to deny his election loss and keep him in the White House.John Eastman, a lawyer advising Mr. Trump, was an architect of a plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use alternate electors in a bid to block Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIt began even before some states had finished counting ballots, as officials in places like Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin came under pressure to create slates of electors announcing that Mr. Trump had won.The scheme reached a crescendo in the days leading up to Jan. 6, when Mr. Trump and his allies mounted a relentless campaign to persuade Mr. Pence to accept the alternate electors and use them at a joint session of Congress to deny — or at least delay — Mr. Biden’s victory.At various times, the plan involved state lawmakers and White House aides, though prosecutors seem to believe that a group of Mr. Trump’s lawyers played a crucial role in carrying it out. Investigators have cast a wide net for information about the lawyers, but prosecutors believe that not all of them may have supported the plans that Mr. Trump’s allies created to keep him in office, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer said he was unaware of any investigation into his client. Mr. Eastman’s lawyer and Ms. Ellis did not return emails seeking comment. Mr. Chesebro declined to answer questions about the inquiry.The strategy of pushing the investigation forward by examining the lawyers’ roles could prove to be tricky. Prosecutors are likely to run into arguments that some — or even much — of the information they are seeking is protected by attorney-client privilege. And there is no indication that prosecutors have sought to subpoena the lawyers or search their property.“There are heightened requirements for obtaining a search warrant on a lawyer,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama. “Even when opening a case where a lawyer could be a subject, prosecutors will flag that to make sure that people consider the rights of uninvolved parties.”As a New York real estate mogul, Mr. Trump had a habit of employing lawyers to insulate himself from queries about his questionable business practices and personal behavior. In the White House — especially in times of stress or scandal — he often demanded loyalty from the lawyers around him, once asking in reference to a mentor and famous lawyer known for his ruthlessness, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?”Some of the lawyers who have come under scrutiny in connection with the alternate elector scheme are already facing allegations of professional impropriety or misconduct.In June, for instance, Mr. Giuliani’s law license was suspended after a New York court ruled that he had made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while fighting the election results on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Boris Epshteyn, another lawyer who worked with Mr. Giuliani, has also come under scrutiny in the Justice Department investigation, the people familiar with the matter said.Two months before Mr. Giuliani’s license was suspended, F.B.I. agents conducted extraordinary searches of his home and office in New York as part of an unrelated inquiry centered on his dealings in Ukraine before the 2020 election, when he sought to damage Mr. Biden’s credibility.In March, a federal judge in California ruled in a civil case that Mr. Eastman had most likely conspired with Mr. Trump to obstruct Congress and defraud the United States by helping to devise and promote the alternate elector scheme, and by presenting plans to Mr. Pence suggesting that he could exercise his discretion over which slates of electors to accept or reject at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of votes.There is no guarantee that an investigation of the lawyers working on the alternate elector plan would lead prosecutors to discover evidence that Mr. Trump broke the law.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe scheme, which involved holding meetings and drafting emails and memos, was “a coup in search of a legal theory,” wrote the judge, David O. Carter of the Central District of California.It was revealed this month that Mr. Eastman was involved in a similar — but perhaps even more brazen — effort to overturn to the election results. According to emails released by a public records request, Mr. Eastman pressed a Pennsylvania state lawmaker in December 2020 to carry out a plan to strip Mr. Biden of his win in that state by essentially retabulating the vote count in a way that would favor Mr. Trump.A week before the disclosure of Mr. Eastman’s emails, Ms. Ellis was accused of misconduct in an ethics complaint submitted to court officials in Colorado, her home state.The complaint, by the bipartisan legal watchdog group the States United Democracy Center, said that Ms. Ellis had made “numerous public misrepresentations” while traveling the country with Mr. Giuliani after the election in an effort to persuade local lawmakers that the voting had been marred by fraud.It also noted that Ms. Ellis had assisted Mr. Trump in an “unsuccessful and potentially criminal effort” to stave off defeat by writing two memos arguing that Mr. Pence could ignore the electoral votes in key swing states that had pledged their support to Mr. Biden.As for Mr. Chesebro, he was involved in what may have been the earliest known effort to put on paper proposals for preparing alternate electors.A little more than two weeks after Election Day, Mr. Chesebro sent a memo to James Troupis, a lawyer for the Trump campaign in Wisconsin, laying out a plan to name pro-Trump electors in the state. In a follow-up memo three weeks later, Mr. Chesebro expanded on the plan, setting forth an analysis of how to legally authorize alternate electors in six key swing states, including Wisconsin.The two memos, obtained by The New York Times, were used by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman, among others, as they developed a strategy intended to pressure Mr. Pence and to exploit ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act, according to a person familiar with the matter. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How the Manhattan DA's Investigation Into Donald Trump Unraveled

      by

      On a late January afternoon, two senior prosecutors stood before the new Manhattan district attorney, hoping to persuade him to criminally charge the former president of the United States.The prosecutors, Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne, detailed their strategy for proving that Donald J. Trump knew his annual financial statements were works of fiction. Time was running out: The grand jury hearing evidence against Mr. Trump was set to expire in the spring. They needed the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, to decide whether to seek charges.But Mr. Bragg and his senior aides, masked and gathered around a conference table on the eighth floor of the district attorney’s office in Lower Manhattan, had serious doubts. They hammered Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne about whether they could show that Mr. Trump had intended to break the law by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements, a necessary element to prove the case.The questioning was so intense that as the meeting ended, Mr. Dunne, exasperated, used a lawyerly expression that normally refers to a judge’s fiery questioning:“Wow, this was a really hot bench,” Mr. Dunne said, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. “What I’m hearing is you have great concerns.”The meeting, on Jan. 24, started a series of events that brought the investigation of Mr. Trump to a sudden halt, and late last month prompted Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne to resign. It also represented a drastic shift: Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had deliberated for months before deciding to move toward an indictment of Mr. Trump. Mr. Bragg, not two months into his tenure, reversed that decision.Mr. Bragg has maintained that the three-year inquiry is continuing. But the reversal, for now, has eliminated one of the gravest legal threats facing the former president.This account of the investigation’s unraveling, drawn from interviews with more than a dozen people knowledgeable about the events, pulls back a curtain on one of the most consequential prosecutorial decisions in U.S. history. Had the district attorney’s office secured an indictment, Mr. Trump would have been the first current or former president to be criminally charged.Mr. Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case, the interviews show. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney’s office opted to leave the investigation, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. The tension spilled into the new administration, with some career prosecutors raising concerns directly to the new district attorney’s team.Mr. Bragg, whose office is conducting the investigation along with lawyers working for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, had not taken issue with Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz presenting evidence to the grand jury in his first days as district attorney. But as the weeks passed, he developed concerns about the challenge of showing Mr. Trump’s intent — a requirement for proving that he criminally falsified his business records — and about the risks of relying on the former president’s onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, as a key witness.Mr. Cohen’s testimony, the prosecutors leading the investigation argued, could help to establish that Mr. Trump was intentionally misleading when he exaggerated the value of his properties. The financial statements Mr. Trump submitted to banks to secure loans — documents that say “Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation” of the valuations — could also support a case.Mr. Bragg was not persuaded. Once he told Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne that he was not prepared to authorize charges, they resigned. Explaining the resignation to his team of prosecutors in a meeting a day later, Mr. Dunne said he felt he needed “to disassociate myself with this decision because I think it was on the wrong side of history.”Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz also bristled at how Mr. Bragg had handled the investigation at times. Mr. Bragg left the pivotal Jan. 24 meeting before the discussion ended, though several of his top aides stayed behind. And after that day, Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz — two of New York’s most prominent litigators, who had become accustomed to driving the case — were not included in closed-door meetings where decisions were made.Mark Pomerantz, one of two lawyers who were leading a criminal inquiry into former President Donald J. Trump’s business practices. The two resigned last week after the investigation came to a sudden halt.David Karp/Associated PressMr. Bragg’s choice not to pursue charges is reminiscent of the high hurdle that others have failed to clear over the years as they sought to hold Mr. Trump criminally liable for his practices as a real estate mogul. Mr. Trump famously shuns email, and he has cultivated deep loyalty among employees who might otherwise testify against him, a one-two punch that has stymied other prosecutors in search of conclusive proof of his guilt.In the Manhattan investigation, the absence of damning emails or an insider willing to testify would make it harder to prove that any exaggerations were criminal. Mr. Trump, who has a history of making false statements, has in the past referred to boastful claims about his assets as “truthful hyperbole.”The interviews with people knowledgeable about the Manhattan investigation also highlight the success of Mr. Trump’s efforts to delay it.He fought many of the subpoenas issued by the district attorney. In one of those battles — for Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial documents — it took nearly 18 months and two trips to the Supreme Court for Mr. Vance’s office to obtain the records. As a result, the ultimate decision of whether to pursue charges fell to Mr. Bragg, his more skeptical successor.A public uproar over his handling of the investigation has added to the turbulence of Mr. Bragg’s early tenure.As he was weighing the fate of the Trump investigation, Mr. Bragg was also contending with a firestorm over a number of criminal justice reforms he introduced in a memo his first week in office. The memo immediately embroiled his administration in controversy, a public relations debacle that worsened with a handful of high-profile shootings, including the killing of two police officers in late January.Although it is unclear whether those early travails influenced Mr. Bragg’s management of the Trump inquiry, there is no doubt that they contributed to his frenzied first days in office.Mr. Bragg’s decision on the Trump investigation may compound his political problems in heavily Democratic Manhattan, where many residents make no secret of their enmity for Mr. Trump.Mr. Bragg has told aides that the inquiry could move forward if a new piece of evidence is unearthed, or if a Trump Organization insider decides to turn on Mr. Trump. Other prosecutors in the office saw that as fanciful.Mr. Trump has long denied wrongdoing and has accused Mr. Bragg and Ms. James, both of whom are Democrats and Black, of carrying out a politically motivated “witch hunt” and being “racists.”Danielle Filson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bragg, said that the investigation into Mr. Trump was continuing under new leadership.“This is an active investigation and there is a strong team in place working on it,” Ms. Filson said. She added that the inquiry was now being led by Susan Hoffinger, the executive assistant district attorney in charge of the office’s Investigation Division.Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne declined to comment.The Brain TrustCyrus R. Vance Jr., the previous Manhattan district attorney, began the investigation into Mr. Trump, including whether he had intentionally inflated the value of his assets to defraud lenders.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesMr. Vance and his top deputies were riding high last summer.They had just announced criminal tax charges against Mr. Trump’s family business and his longtime finance chief, Allen H. Weisselberg. The next step for Mr. Dunne, Mr. Pomerantz and their team was to build a case against Mr. Trump himself.The two were suited to the task. Mr. Pomerantz, 70, had once run the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. He had also been a partner at the prestigious law firm Paul Weiss, and he came out of retirement to work on the investigation without pay.Mr. Dunne had begun his career trying cases as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, gone on to become a partner at another top firm, Davis Polk, and was a former president of the New York City bar association. As Mr. Vance’s general counsel, he had successfully argued before the Supreme Court, winning access to Mr. Trump’s tax records.Helped by lawyers from Ms. James’s office, which was conducting a separate, civil inquiry into Mr. Trump, Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz pressed ahead with their investigation into whether Mr. Trump had used his financial statements to deceive lenders about his net worth and secure favorable loan terms. Mr. Cohen had testified before Congress that Mr. Trump was a “con man” who “inflated his total assets when it served his purposes.”By the fall, a number of the prosecutors assigned to the investigation thought it was likely that Mr. Trump had broken the law. Proving it would be another matter.Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has been leading a parallel inquiry focused on whether financial statements for Mr. Trump’s family company intentionally included false information.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesSoon, some of the career prosecutors who had worked on the inquiry for more than two years expressed concern. They believed that Mr. Vance, who had decided not to seek re-election, was pushing too hard for an indictment before leaving office, and that the evidence gathered so far did not justify the speed at which the inquiry was moving.The debate was born of painful experience from past investigations, including one involving the Trump family. In 2012, in the first of his three terms, Mr. Vance closed an investigation into accusations that Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. and his daughter Ivanka had misled potential buyers of apartments at one of the Trump Organization’s New York hotels, Trump Soho. The decision trailed Mr. Vance for years, subjecting him to criticism after Mr. Trump was elected president.Concern among the office’s career prosecutors about the investigation into the former president came to a head in September at a meeting they sought with Mr. Dunne. Mr. Dunne offered to have them work only on the pending trial of Mr. Weisselberg or leave the Trump team altogether.Two prosecutors eventually took him up on the latter.Mr. Vance pressed on, and in early November, convened a new special grand jury to start hearing evidence against the former president. Still, he had yet to decide whether to direct the prosecutors to begin a formal grand jury presentation with the goal of seeking charges. As his tenure drew to a close in December, he consulted a group of prominent outside lawyers to help inform what would be his final decision.The group was referred to internally as “the brain trust” — a handful of former prosecutors that included two senior members of Robert S. Mueller’s special counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.Before they all convened for a meeting on Dec. 9, Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz circulated hypothetical opening arguments in advance: one for the prosecution; another for the defense.In the meeting, which lasted much of the day, the outside lawyers raised a number of questions about the evidence and the lack of an insider witness. Mr. Weisselberg, who has spent nearly a half-century working as an accountant for the Trump family, had resisted pressure from the prosecutors to cooperate.The brain trust puzzled over how to prove that Mr. Trump had intended to commit crimes, and the group questioned Mr. Cohen’s potential strength as a witness at trial. A former Trump acolyte turned antagonist, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges of lying to Congress on behalf of Mr. Trump and paying hush money to a pornographic actress who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.Mr. Bragg, who had not yet been sworn in, was not aware of the Dec. 9 meeting.And there are differing accounts of how well the brain trust responded to the evidence, with one participant calling the reaction “mixed at best,” but another saying that there was agreement that the prosecutors had credible evidence to support charges and that no one recommended against a case.The deliberations led prosecutors to simplify the charges they planned to seek to make it easier to win a conviction, and Mr. Vance was soon persuaded. Three days later, Mr. Dunne sent the team an email announcing that they would proceed. The plan, he said, was to seek charges from the panel in the spring. Most of the remaining career prosecutors were on board. But that week, a third prosecutor left the investigation into Mr. Trump.‘Time Is of the Essence’Carey Dunne, Mr. Vance’s general counsel. A leader, with Mr. Pomerantz, of the Trump inquiry, Mr. Dunne became frustrated, and he ultimately resigned, over questions about the strength of the case.Jefferson Siegel for The New York TimesWith Mr. Vance about to leave office, the investigators’ attention turned to their future boss.Born in Harlem and educated at Harvard, Mr. Bragg won a hotly contested Democratic primary last year with a campaign that balanced progressive ideals with public safety. He had served as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan and also in the state attorney general’s office, where he rose to become a top deputy managing hundreds of lawyers.Understand the New York A.G.’s Trump InquiryCard 1 of 6An empire under scrutiny. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Seattle’s Choice: A Police Abolitionist or a Law-and-Order Republican?

      by

      The finalists in the race to become Seattle’s next city attorney have extreme differences in their views. Some residents are wary of both of them.SEATTLE — In the campaign to become Seattle’s next city attorney, the two candidates would like to tell you that their past remarks are not representative of who they are.One of the candidates, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, is a self-described “abolitionist” who seeks to upend the criminal justice system. In Twitter posts last year, she celebrated those who set fires at a youth detention facility, called property destruction “a moral imperative” and praised whoever apparently triggered an explosive inside a police precinct as a “hero.” Over that same period, her opponent, Ann Davison, was moving in the opposite direction. A former Democrat, she declared herself a Republican appalled by what she saw as a lack of order in Seattle. In a city where Republicans have long been cast out of city politics, Ms. Davison filmed a why-I’m-not-a-Democrat video for a supporter of Donald Trump who later stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.Initially viewed as long shots who joined the campaign just hours before a filing deadline, Ms. Thomas-Kennedy and Ms. Davison have emerged as the two finalists to be city attorney, which represents the city in legal matters and leads prosecutions of low-level crimes. The extreme range in their political views has left some residents feeling unmoored ahead of Tuesday’s election. They said they are worried about worsening polarization surrounding the urgent issues facing the city: homelessness, housing affordability, crime, mental health and police reform.“I think a lot of us are disappointed in the choices that we have before us,” said State Senator David Frockt, a Democrat who represents Seattle. “I am wary of both of them.”The campaign has stirred a conversation about what it means to be a Democrat in a city where eight of the nine council members are Democrats —- the only departure being a socialist.Gary Locke, a former Democratic governor who worked as President Obama’s ambassador to China, said he didn’t consider the race through a partisan lens.“Sometimes you have to look at the candidates and their positions, not just at the party label,” Mr. Locke said.Mr. Locke decried Ms. Thomas-Kennedy’s past statements and said her call for fewer prosecutions would exacerbate problems in the city. He has joined with another former Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, to endorse Ms. Davison.But other Democratic Party groups and leaders have rallied around Ms. Thomas-Kennedy, with each of the Democratic caucuses representing the city’s seven legislative districts endorsing her.Shasti Conrad, the chair of the King County Democrats, who has done consulting work for the Thomas-Kennedy campaign, said she was shocked and disheartened to see Mr. Locke and Ms. Gregoire back a candidate like Ms. Davison. People can’t call themselves Democrats and endorse a Republican for the job, she said, adding that the former governors were simply not in touch with the people living in Seattle.Seattle’s current city attorney, Pete Holmes, ran for re-election but lost in the primary.Elaine Thompson/Associated PressWhile she understands that some people have concerns about Ms. Thomas-Kennedy’s past remarks, she said that when people consider the vision and experience that Ms. Thomas-Kennedy would bring to the office, there was no question about who would be the better choice.“Things feel so broken that we need someone who is visionary and need someone who is going to address racial equity and take this office in a direction that will yield better results,” she said.Many local elections around the country on Tuesday have been shaped by debates around crime and how to overhaul the criminal justice system. Seattle’s mayoral election features one candidate, Lorena González, who last year was among those who endorsed a 50 percent cut in the police budget, running against Bruce Harrell, who has campaigned on a message for more police.Seattle recorded more homicides last year than in any year over the past quarter-century, although property crimes that would be handled by the city attorney’s office have not followed a similar rise. In a city that has become one of the nation’s most expensive places to live, there has been a surge in visible homelessness, with researchers counting a 50 percent increase in tents within the urban core since the start of the pandemic.Ms. Thomas-Kennedy was a public defender who said she grew appalled watching how the city handled misdemeanor crimes, prosecuting people for things that were essentially crimes of poverty. She got into the race but didn’t expect to be competitive against the three-term incumbent, Pete Holmes.“I thought I would have a blurb in the voter’s pamphlet about what’s happening at Seattle Municipal Court and how we could be doing things better, but I expected to kind of largely be ignored,” Ms. Thomas-Kennedy said. She said she was surprised to see herself come in first in the primary, carrying 36 percent of the vote, but she said it was evidence of how much people are yearning for substantial change.Ms. Thomas-Kennedy said the tweets she sent last year, before even considering a run for office, came at a time when she was angry after police were shooting tear gas into her neighborhood, forcing her to buy a gas mask for her child. But she said the remarks were inappropriate for someone running for office.“A lot of those things are just hyperbolic,” she said. “They were very flippant. And I will say that I think, more than anything, they were kind of childish. And do I think that’s appropriate for someone that’s running for office? No. Would I tweet like that anymore? No.”While she campaigns on a platform of eventually abolishing the criminal justice system as we know it, she said she knows that the process of reaching her goals won’t happen overnight. She envisions that the city first needs to have systems in place to support health care, education, job training and treatment services.For the city attorney’s office, she said she sees an opportunity to use the office’s civil division to go after corporations who commit wage theft and to protect tenant’s rights. She expects she would still prosecute things like serious assault or repeat DUIs because there aren’t yet alternative systems in place to address those crimes.Seattle Police investigate a shooting in the city’s Pioneer Square neighborhood, where multiple people were shot in July. The city recorded more homicides last year than in any year over the past quarter-century.Bettina Hansen/The Seattle Times, via Associated PressMs. Davison came to the election from an opposite viewpoint: that the city was already letting prosecutions slide in too many cases.Ms. Davison said the office in recent years has focused so much on helping support people accused of crimes and not enough representing the interests of victims of crimes. She contends that the lack of consequences for those committing crimes is making the city less safe. She also said the residents of the city want to see both police reforms and enforcement.Although she is a lawyer, she focuses mostly on civil contract law and arbitration. She said in an interview that she hadn’t handled a case in a courtroom since she left a downtown law firm more than a decade ago. But she contended that such experience isn’t necessary for the job.“The role is being a leader, and you hire subject-matter experts,” Ms. Davison said.A year ago, Ms. Davison was running for the state’s lieutenant governor position as a Republican and recorded a video explaining why she was a former Democrat as part of a “WalkAway” campaign — a pro-Trump effort. The founder of the WalkAway campaign, Brandon Straka, pleaded guilty this year to disorderly conduct during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.As part of the video, Ms. Davison decried what she said was Democratic leadership in Seattle moving too far to the left.“I just can’t be part of that anymore,” she said. On Twitter, she decried that the far left was pulling the city toward “Marxism.” She joined conservative efforts to repeal a sex-education law.But although she was running as a Republican and courting Republican endorsements, Ms. Davison has tried to distance herself from the declaration. She notes that the office she is running for is technically nonpartisan. She said she actually voted for Joe Biden and voted for the Democratic candidate in the three prior presidential races.Republicans are still supporting Ms. Davison, hoping she has an opportunity to turn what seemed like an unstoppable tide in Seattle. Cynthia Cole, the chair of the King County Republican Party, laughed when she was asked when the last Republican was elected in the city.After some research, she found a Republican that served as mayor in the 1960s. But one did serve in the city attorney position more recently: He departed the office 32 years ago. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s ‘Team Kraken’ Lands in Hot Water

      by

      L. Lin Wood played a starring role in the failed legal effort to alter the results of the 2020 election on behalf of former President Donald Trump. But Mr. Wood, a lawyer, now wants everyone to know that he had no real involvement in the suit to decertify the vote in Michigan, despite his name appearing on it.“I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint,” he said on Monday, “but I had generally indicated to Sidney Powell that if she needed a quote-unquote trial lawyer, I would certainly be willing or available to help her.” Ms. Powell, you may recall, is the legal eagle who vowed to “release the Kraken” on supposed 2020 election fraudsters, thus earning the pro-Trump legal crusade its mythic nickname.Mr. Wood was just trying to support his Kraken co-counsel.Mr. Wood’s, um, clarifications were made to a federal judge during a hearing on whether he, Ms. Powell and several other lawyers should be sanctioned over the Michigan case. The city of Detroit, among other entities, has accused the pro-Trump legal team of abusing the court system by pursuing a frivolous, error-riddled case. The city wants the offending lawyers punished financially and referred for possible disbarment.Sidney PowellElijah Nouvelage/ReutersMonday’s virtual proceedings did not bode well for Team Kraken. U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker expressed skepticism bordering on dismay about some of the evidence and experts from the original case. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps,” she marveled at one point. “How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?”Generally speaking, it’s not a good sign when a judge is characterizing one’s evidence in terms such as “fantastical,” “speculative,” “bad faith,” “obviously questionable” and “layers of hearsay.” Judge Parker brushed back Ms. Powell’s assertion that the complaint’s 960 pages of affidavits proved “due diligence,” countering, “Volume, certainly for this court, doesn’t equate with legitimacy or veracity.”The hearing ground on for six hours, with so much back talk and smack talk that the court reporter had to ask the participants to tone things down so that she could do her job. At day’s end, all parties were given two weeks to submit additional arguments.Mr. Wood was not the only defendant eager to downplay his role. The lawyer for Emily Newman, another member of the Michigan Kraken team, said his client spent a mere five hours on the case and that her role was “de minimis.” More generally, the defendants maintain that the entire hearing is outrageous and baseless and — surprise! — that they are being unjustly persecuted. “I have practiced law for 43 years and have never witnessed a proceeding like this,” Ms. Powell said.But here’s where the political and legal paths diverge for those perpetuating Mr. Trump’s election lies. The legal world has ethical, professional standards by which members are expected to abide. When they violate said standards, they can’t simply whine or bluster their way out of trouble with partisan demagogy. They need to justify their actions to judges and professional groups who have a clear grasp of the issues — and who deal with slick talkers for a living.This is the situation in which Team Kraken and some other Trump legal enablers find themselves. Michigan is just one of several states where suits are underway against the lawyers who pursued baseless election-fraud complaints. Last month, a New York appellate court suspended the law license of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive apparatchiks, for making “demonstrably false and misleading statements” about the 2020 election. The Texas bar is looking into whether the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, committed professional misconduct in challenging the election results. The state bar of Georgia, where Mr. Wood’s practice is based, is investigating his behavior.No doubt, the legal system hosts an abundance of carnival barkers and political hacks. Just this week, Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign legal adviser, announced her departure from the Republican Party, accusing its leaders of failing to stand up for Mr. Trump and for “true conservatives.” She is particularly miffed at the Republican National Committee’s chief legal counsel, Justin Riemer, for having reportedly spoken ill of her push to invalidate the 2020 results. “What Rudy and Jenna are doing is a joke and they are getting laughed out of court,” Mr. Riemer wrote in a November email, according to a new book by Michael Wolff. “They are misleading millions of people who have wishful thinking that the president is going to somehow win this thing.”Ms. Ellis has demanded the resignation of top party officials, including Ronna McDaniel, the R.N.C.’s chairwoman, and says she will not return to the fold until the party “comes back home to conservatives.”Such theatrics may thrill MAGA fans — and even more so the former president. But they are unlikely to sway jurists or other arbiters tasked with reviewing the behavior of officers of the court.Mr. Trump’s alternative facts hold less sway over some realms than others.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Law License Suspension: Read the Document

      by

      all ballots cast in the presidential audit.9 The hand audit, which relied exclusively on the

      printed text on the ballot-marking device, or bubbled-in the choice of the absentee

      ballot, confirmed the results of the election with a zero percent risk limit. Respondent’s

      statement that the vote count was inaccurate, without referencing the hand audits, was

      misleading. By law, this audit was required to take place following the election and be

      completed no later than December 31, 2020 (Ga Ann § 21-2-498). Respondent’s

      statements were made while the hand audit was proceeding and after it concluded. We

      understand that Dominion has sued respondent for defamation in connection with his

      claims about their voting machines (Complaint, US Dominion, Inc. v Giuliani, 1:21-cv-

      00213, US District Court, District of Columbia [Washington], January 25, 2021).

      Consequently, we do not reach the issue of whether respondent’s claims about the

      Dominion voting machines were false, nor do we need to.

      statements about the results of the Georgia election count are false. Respondent

      provides no basis in this record for disputing the hand count audit. Respondent made

      these statements at least on December 3, 2020 when appearing before the Georgia

      Legislature’s Senate Judiciary Committee, during a December 6, 2020 episode of the

      radio show Uncovering the Truth, during a December 22, 2020 episode of his radio

      show Chat with the Mayor, he alluded to it in a December 27, 2020 episode of

      9 In this motion, because the AGC only relies on the audit referred to in the Georgia Secretary of State’s January 6, 2021 letter to Congress, we only consider this one audit. Georgia’s election results were, however, actually audited three times, and no evidence of widespread fraud was discovered (Daniel Funke, Fact check: No evidence of fraud in Georgia election results (June 1, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/01/fact-check-georgia- audit-hasnt-found-30-000-fake-ballots/5253184001/ [last accessed June 12, 2021]).

      In view of the hand counts conducted in Georgia, we find that respondent’s

      17 More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Alan Dershowitz Became a Force in Clemency Grants

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentLatest UpdatesWhere Each Senator StandsTimelineHow the House VotedHow the Trial Will UnfoldAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyUsing Connections to Trump, Dershowitz Became Force in Clemency GrantsThe lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz, who represented the former president in his first impeachment trial, used his access for a wide array of clients as they sought pardons or commutations.Alan M. Dershowitz had substantial influence with the White House as President Donald J. Trump decided who should benefit from his pardon powers.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesKenneth P. Vogel and Feb. 8, 2021Updated 7:30 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — By the time George Nader pleaded guilty last year to possessing child pornography and sex trafficking a minor, his once strong alliances in President Donald J. Trump’s inner circle had been eroded by his cooperation with the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s team and its connections to Russia.So as Mr. Nader sought to fight the charges and reduce his potential prison time, he turned to a lawyer with a deep reservoir of good will with the president and a penchant for taking unpopular, headline-grabbing cases: Alan M. Dershowitz.Mr. Dershowitz told Mr. Nader’s allies that he had reached out to an official in the Trump administration and one in the Israeli government to try to assess whether they would support a plan for Mr. Nader to be freed from United States custody in order to resume a behind-the-scenes role in Middle East peace talks, and whether Mr. Trump might consider commuting his 10-year sentence.Mr. Dershowitz helped craft a proposal — which Mr. Nader’s allies believed he was floating at the White House in the final days of the Trump presidency — for Mr. Nader to immediately “self-deport” after his release from a Virginia jail. Under the plan, Mr. Nader would board a private plane provided by the United Arab Emirates to return to the Gulf state, where he holds citizenship and has served as a close adviser to the powerful crown prince.Given the nature of Mr. Nader’s crimes and his cooperation with the Russia investigation, his bid for clemency was a long shot that did not work out. But Mr. Dershowitz’s willingness to pull a range of levers to try to free him shows why he emerged as a highly sought-after and often influential intermediary as Mr. Trump decided who would benefit from his pardon powers.Many of Mr. Dershowitz’s clients got what they wanted before Mr. Trump left office, an examination by The New York Times found. The lawyer played a role in at least 12 clemency grants, including two pardons, which wipe out convictions, and 10 commutations, which reduce prison sentences, while also helping to win a temporary reprieve from sanctions for an Israeli mining billionaire.His role highlighted how Mr. Trump’s transactional approach to governing created opportunities for allies like Mr. Dershowitz — an 82-year-old self-described “liberal Democrat” who defended the president on television and in his first impeachment trial — to use the perception that they were gatekeepers to cash in, raise their profiles, help their clients or pursue their own agendas.Mr. Dershowitz received dozens of phone calls from people seeking to enlist him in clemency efforts. The cases in which he did assist came through family members of convicts, defense lawyers enlisting him because they thought he could help their court cases as well as their clemency pushes and Orthodox Jewish prisoners’ groups with which he has long worked.In a series of interviews, Mr. Dershowitz — who in a career spanning more than half a century has represented a roster of tabloid-magnet clients accused of heinous acts, including O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein — cast his defense of Mr. Trump and his clemency efforts as a natural extension of his work defending individual rights against a justice system that could be harsh and unfair. “I’m just not a fixer or an influence peddler,” he said.Mr. Dershowitz said his efforts on behalf of Mr. Nader reflected “a multifaceted approach to these problems. So I don’t separate out diplomacy, legality, courts, executive, Justice Department — they’re all part of what I do.”He said that “the idea that I would ever, ever ingratiate myself to a president in order to be able to advertise myself as a person that could get commutations is just totally false and defamatory.”Among those Mr. Dershowitz sought to help was George Nader, a figure in the special counsel’s Russia investigation who pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and sex trafficking a minor.Credit…C-SPAN, via Associated PressHe acknowledged, though, that his relationship with Mr. Trump increased interest in his services, and potentially his effectiveness.“Of course I’m not surprised that people would call me because they thought that the president thought well of me,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “If somebody is seeking a pardon from Clinton, you’re not going to go to somebody who is a friend of Jerry Falwell. You’re going to go to somebody who is a Democrat. That’s the way the system works.”He said he had agonized over cases in which he had failed to persuade Mr. Trump, including that of a federal death row inmate he had represented who was executed in December.Still, Mr. Dershowitz had an outsize influence over how Mr. Trump deployed one of the most profound unilateral powers of the presidency, including:Commutations to three people on whose behalf he personally lobbied Mr. Trump after working on their cases with Jewish prisoners’ rights groups. They included two New York real estate investors who had been convicted of defrauding more than 250 investors out of $23 million and a former executive at a kosher meatpacking plant who was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud.Commutations to several people who received long sentences at trial after turning down shorter sentences in plea deals offered by prosecutors, an outcome known as the trial penalty, against which Mr. Dershowitz has long crusaded. A commutation for a New Jersey man who was sentenced in 2013 to 24 years in prison for charges related to a Ponzi-style real estate scheme that caused $200 million in losses. Pardons to two conservative political figures, the author Dinesh D’Souza and the former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis Libby Jr., and a commutation to the former Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich. Mr. Dershowitz did not work on their cases, but he recommended clemency grants when Mr. Trump asked his opinion.It is difficult to determine how much money the work brought Mr. Dershowitz.Mr. Dershowitz, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School who described himself as semiretired, said more than half of his clemency work was pro bono, and most of it was done on behalf of pre-existing clients. When he was paid, it was at an hourly rate in line with the fees charged by senior partners at law firms, Mr. Dershowitz said.In one case, he was paid by the family of Jonathan Braun, whose 10-year sentence for drug smuggling was commuted by Mr. Trump in his final hours in office. But after The Times reported that Mr. Braun had a history of violence and threatening people, Mr. Dershowitz said he donated the fees to charity.Mr. Dershowitz emerged as a favorite of Mr. Trump’s after he publicly criticized the Russia investigation.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesBut Mr. Dershowitz — who volunteered examples of Mr. Trump seeking his advice while in the next breath protesting that he was “not a Trump supporter” and had no more influence with Mr. Trump than with past presidents — obtained something that his defenders and detractors alike described as especially important to him: renewed political relevance and an increased reputation as a power player, particularly in the Jewish community.Mr. Dershowitz emerged as a favorite of Mr. Trump from his early days in office as a result of his criticism of the investigation being carried out by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.Mr. Dershowitz, an ardent supporter of Israel, was invited to the White House in 2017 for two days of private talks about a Middle East peace plan being assembled by Mr. Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and other officials.Mr. Dershowitz was invited back to the White House last year, when Mr. Trump unveiled the peace plan, and for a Hanukkah party in 2019 where Mr. Trump signed an executive order Mr. Dershowitz had helped draft targeting anti-Semitism on college campuses.The week after the Hanukkah party in 2019, Mr. Dershowitz attended a Christmas Eve dinner at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he said Mr. Trump lobbied him to join his impeachment legal defense team. Mr. Dershowitz said he decided to join as a matter of principle and noted that he had also consulted with President Bill Clinton’s legal team during his impeachment.Mr. Dershowitz acknowledged taking advantage of his access to push for clemency grants, starting with the invitation to the White House for talks about the Middle East peace plan. He used the opportunity to urge Mr. Trump to grant clemency to Sholom Rubashkin, the kosher meatpacking executive convicted in 2009.Sholom Rubashkin, a former kosher meatpacking executive, was convicted of bank fraud in 2009. Mr. Dershowitz pressed Mr. Trump to commute his 27-year prison sentence. Credit…Matthew Putney/The Waterloo Courier, via Associated PressMr. Rubashkin’s case had become a cause in Orthodox Jewish circles, and Mr. Dershowitz had worked on it on a pro bono basis. A few months after Mr. Dershowitz made the case to Mr. Trump in the White House, Mr. Rubashkin was free.That outcome emboldened a network of activists and groups supporting prisoners’ rights, social service and clemency, including some associated with Orthodox Jewish leaders.Mr. Dershowitz and a Jewish group with which he has worked closely, the Aleph Institute, were central players in the network. As word spread of their successes, they were inundated with requests from prisoners and their families, including many Orthodox Jews. Late last year, Mr. Trump called Mr. Dershowitz to ask about clemency grants he was advocating on a pro bono basis with the Aleph Institute for Mark A. Shapiro and Irving Stitsky, the New York real estate investors convicted in the $23 million fraud. Mr. Dershowitz cast the cases as emblematic of the trial penalty.Mr. Dershowitz had written op-eds in Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal denouncing the trial penalty and citing unnamed cases. One matched the details of Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Stitsky, who were each sentenced to 85 years in prison after they turned down plea agreements of less than 10 years. Mr. Dershowitz said one or both of the articles had circulated in the White House, and Mr. Trump had asked him about the trial penalty.“He was very interested” in the penalty, Mr. Dershowitz said, and also “the concept of the pardon power being more than just clemency, but being part of the system of checks and balances for excessive legislative or judicial actions.”Mr. Stitsky had no prior relationship with Mr. Trump. But last year, friends of Mr. Stitsky helped retain a Long Island law and lobbying firm, Gerstman Schwartz, that did. One of the firm’s partners had parlayed previous New York public relations work for Mr. Trump into a new Washington lobbying business after he became president.And Mr. Stitsky’s new lawyers also tapped into the pardon-seeking network by working with both Mr. Dershowitz and the Aleph Institute.Mr. Trump commuted the sentences of Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Stitsky.In another case championed by Mr. Dershowitz and the Aleph Institute, Mr. Trump commuted the 20-year sentence of Ronen Nahmani, an Israeli-born Florida man convicted in 2015 of selling synthetic marijuana. The appeal to the White House, which Mr. Dershowitz helped devise, included an assurance that Mr. Nahmani would leave the country and never return — a framework that Mr. Dershowitz said served as a model for Mr. Nader’s case.Mr. Dershowitz at the White House last year, before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited Mr. Trump.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesMr. Dershowitz was enlisted to help Mr. Nader by Joey Allaham, a Syrian-born New York restaurateur and businessman, who paid Mr. Dershowitz to consult on Middle East issues, including working with Mr. Nader.After Mr. Nader was arrested in 2019, Mr. Allaham connected Mr. Dershowitz to Mr. Nader’s criminal defense lawyer, Jonathan S. Jeffress, who paid Mr. Dershowitz at an hourly rate.Mr. Nader’s team grew to include the lobbyist Robert Stryk, who filed a disclosure statement saying he was working to win a presidential commutation, and the lawyer Robin Rathmell, who filed a clemency petition at the Justice Department citing Mr. Nader’s help to the United States in Middle East relations. Mr. Nader’s allies had also used that argument in the early 1990s in an effort to win a reduced sentence when he pleaded guilty to a different child pornography charge.Mr. Dershowitz said he thought it would help Mr. Nader’s current case if the American, Israeli and Emirati governments would vouch for his assistance to the United States in the region, and if Mr. Nader would pledge to leave the country upon his release.Mr. Dershowitz told Mr. Nader’s allies that he made one call last year to a Trump administration official who handled Middle East policy and who was discouraging about the idea. He also called Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, who was noncommittal. After that, Mr. Dershowitz said, he shifted his efforts on behalf of Mr. Nader to focus almost exclusively on his fight to reduce his sentence in the courts.“That was 99 percent of the effort,” Mr. Dershowitz said, “because the clemency effort directed at commutation was always so uphill considering the nature of the crime that it was never realistic.”Mr. Nader’s allies had a different impression of Mr. Dershowitz’s efforts.“We understood that Mr. Dershowitz was seeking clemency on behalf of Mr. Nader,” Mr. Jeffress said, “and that he was rejected for the sole reason that Mr. Nader had cooperated in the Mueller investigation.”Nicholas Confessore More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      District Attorney Charged in Sexual Assaults on Former Clients

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDistrict Attorney Charged in Sexual Assaults on Former ClientsChad Salsman, the elected prosecutor of Bradford County, Pa., was accused of preying on female clients who were in vulnerable legal or personal situations while he was their defense lawyer.Chad Salsman, the district attorney of Bradford County, Pa., being escorted into court in Towanda, Pa., on Wednesday.Credit…Brianne Ostrander/The Daily Review, via Associated PressFeb. 7, 2021Updated 9:02 a.m. ETThe women were targeted because they needed help with child custody cases or criminal charges, prosecutors said. Some had struggled with drug use or were survivors of sexual abuse.But once Chad M. Salsman had guided the women into his private law office, ostensibly to discuss their cases, he forced them onto his desk and sexually assaulted them, prosecutors said. He then told the women not to tell anyone what had happened.Mr. Salsman, who was a practicing defense lawyer at the time, went on to win election as the district attorney of Bradford County, Pa., in 2019.But his pattern of predatory behavior was not publicly known until he was arrested on Wednesday and charged with more than a dozen crimes, including sexual assault, indecent assault and intimidation of a witness or victim, prosecutors said.Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, said the charges reflected crimes against five women over the past several years, although he said that his office knew of additional victims whose cases could not be prosecuted because the crimes had occurred too long ago under the statute of limitations.“The details of these assaults are incredibly disturbing, and they are criminal,” Mr. Shapiro said at a news conference in Bradford County, a rural part of Pennsylvania about 65 miles northwest of Scranton, along the New York State line.“Mr. Salsman abused his position of authority as a lawyer and as a public official here in this county,” Mr. Shapiro said. “The victims in this case were relying on him to be their advocate, to represent them at a time when they felt powerless, and instead they ended up being preyed upon.”Mr. Salsman, 44, pleaded not guilty and plans to fight the charges, his lawyer, Samuel Stretton, said.Mr. Salsman has rejected calls to resign, although he has handed over the day-to-day handling of cases to his first assistant district attorney, Mr. Stretton said.“He has denied any misconduct,” Mr. Stretton said. “There was never any nonconsensual sex. There was never any inappropriate touching. It’s just not true, and we have adequate corroboration to prove that.”Mr. Salsman began practicing law in 2001 and won a contested race as a Republican in 2019 to replace the district attorney, who was retiring. He said that his three daughters had inspired him to run and that he hoped to rid the county of its reputation as “Meth Valley.”“I want both my family and yours to feel safe living in Bradford County,” he told The Morning Times of Sayre, Pa., in October 2019. “I will be a tough but fair district attorney who always seeks justice for crime victims while protecting our constitutional rights.”But even before he took office in January 2020, Mr. Salsman was already under investigation, according to court records, which show that the case had been referred to the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office in late 2019 by Mr. Salsman’s predecessor as district attorney, Daniel Barrett.The investigation found that Mr. Salsman had a pattern of advances, coercion and assault against female clients who were in vulnerable legal or personal situations, Mr. Shapiro said.Mr. Salsman would begin by asking the women for explicit photos or groping them in court or in private meetings, Mr. Shapiro said. When the women said they were struggling financially, Mr. Salsman pressured them into sex instead of charging them legal fees, Mr. Shapiro said.After assaulting the women, Mr. Salsman directed them to a small bathroom in his office to clean up with paper towels or wipes, Mr. Shapiro said.Staff members at Mr. Salsman’s law office told a grand jury that he asked his secretaries play music or run a noise machine or an air-conditioner during client meetings. The staff members said they often saw women leave the office in tears, Mr. Shapiro said, adding that Mr. Salsman had told victims he could “ruin their lives” if they spoke out.Most of the misconduct charged in the case took place when Mr. Salsman was in private practice as a defense lawyer, although Mr. Shapiro said one assault had happened in November 2019, after Mr. Salsman had been elected district attorney but before he took office.Mr. Shapiro said that Mr. Salsman had also continued to intimidate his victims after he was sworn in.“Even during our office’s secret grand jury proceedings, while he was district attorney, Chad Salsman tried to pressure victims and members of his own staff to disclose what they had told the grand jury in these secret proceedings — a further attempt to scare them into silence, and an attempted corruption of the judicial process.”Mr. Shapiro said that Mr. Salsman “chose these victims purposefully by design,” adding: “He thought they would be easy to silence and likely they would be less believed if they ever came forward. We’ve seen this playbook before.”The Abuse and Rape Crisis Center of Bradford County called the charges “traumatizing and horrifying to our community” and said it believed there were probably more victims who had not come forward.The center said on Facebook that Mr. Salsman’s law license should be revoked and that he must resign.“While this case proceeds through the legal system,” it said, “there is a broken trust with the safety and integrity of the Bradford County District Attorney office that will not be healed while Salsman retains access to former, current and future victim files.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Prominent Lawyers Want Giuliani’s Law License Suspended Over Trump Work

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyProminent Lawyers Want Giuliani’s Law License Suspended Over Trump WorkThe move by dozens of lawyers, including judges and former federal prosecutors, was the latest in a series of calls to censure him.Despite fierce criticism from the legal community, Rudolph W. Giuliani had doubled down on his baseless election fraud claims in recent weeks.Credit…Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJan. 21, 2021Updated 7:08 p.m. ETDozens of prominent lawyers have signed a formal complaint seeking the suspension of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s law license — the latest and loudest in a series of calls to censure him for his actions as President Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney.The lawyers said Mr. Giuliani had trampled ethical boundaries as he helped Mr. Trump pursue false claims of election fraud, then gave an incendiary speech repeating those claims just before the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.A draft of the complaint to the Supreme Court of New York’s attorney grievance committee accuses Mr. Giuliani of knowingly making false claims about the election and urges an investigation into “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in or out of court.”Calls to discipline Mr. Giuliani have mounted in the weeks since the riot and are intensifying even now, after Mr. Trump has left office. The latest complaint, signed by a bipartisan who’s-who of legal luminaries from New York and beyond, represents perhaps the most serious condemnation of Mr. Giuliani’s conduct to date.The list included former acting U.S. Attorney General Stuart M. Gerson, former U.S. district judges H. Lee Sarokin and Fern M. Smith, and two former state attorneys general, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts and Grant Woods of Arizona. Also signing the complaint were prosecutors who worked in the same United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that Mr. Giuliani led during the 1980s, including Christine H. Chung.Ms. Chung, a steering committee member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, the organization that filed the complaint, said that the group had reviewed the work that Mr. Giuliani did on Mr. Trump’s behalf, and that it amounted to “a purposeful campaign to go to the American people with a lie about a stolen election.”“This is a man that once led the highest prosecuting offices in this nation, and he knows what fraud is, and what it’s not,” said Ms. Chung, who did not work for the U.S. attorney’s office during Mr. Giuliani’s tenure. She added, “For a lawyer to be attacking the rule of law is disallowed, and it’s dangerous.”Ms. Chung said that by Thursday evening more than 1,000 people had signed the complaint, which anyone can sign on Lawyers Defending American Democracy’s website, and that she expected “thousands” more to add their names.The complaint, which calls to suspend Mr. Giuliani’s license to practice law during an investigation into his conduct, is one of several that have been filed with the grievance board. It comes a week after New York State Senator Brad Hoylman, the chairman of the State Senate’s judiciary committee, called for the state court system to begin the formal process of stripping Mr. Giuliani of his license to practice law.Conducting the investigation and deciding on a fitting penalty could take months, or even years, largely because of procedural hurdles and the complexity of Mr. Giuliani’s case, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an expert on legal ethics.Mr. Gillers said that he hoped the court would conduct a thorough investigation and would suspend Mr. Giuliani’s license while it did so, because Mr. Giuliani had traded on his reputation as a lawyer to promulgate false accounts.“It’s a privilege and an honor to be a New York lawyer, and by investigating Giuliani and possibly sanctioning him for his behavior the courts reaffirm that fact,” Mr. Gillers said.Mr. Giuliani, who did not respond to requests for comment, discussed the complaint on his radio show on Thursday afternoon.“The whole purpose of this is to disbar me from my exercising my right of free speech and defending my client, because they can’t fathom the fact that maybe, just maybe, they may be wrong,” Mr. Giuliani said..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.He went on to detail what he described as evidence of his accusations of fraud, and to claim that all his statements were based in fact. He called the complainants “idiots,” “malicious left-wingers” and “irresponsible political hacks.”“You want to disbar me?” Mr. Giuliani asked. “I think I’m going to move to disbar you.”The slew of calls for disciplinary action underscores how much Mr. Giuliani’s reputation has changed from his years as a federal prosecutor known for taking on organized crime and his two terms as the mayor of New York City, during which he championed law enforcement and emphasized cleaning up the streets.At Mr. Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, not long before a violent mob stormed the Capitol, Mr. Giuliani called for a “trial by combat” to address discredited claims of voter fraud.“I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there,” Mr. Giuliani said.The complaint accuses Mr. Giuliani of sticking to his false accusations of widespread voter fraud as recently as Sunday, sacrificing his reputation in the process.“Other lawyers observed ethical obligations by stepping back from representing Mr. Trump and his campaign,” the complaint reads. “Mr. Giuliani not only lent his stature and status as a lawyer to the venture but shows no inclination to stop lying.”Earlier this week, a person close to Mr. Trump said that Mr. Giuliani would not participate in Mr. Trump’s defense during his second impeachment trial in the Senate.Azi Paybarah contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More