Did Trump’s Impeachment Lawyer Lie To The Senate?

Pat Cipollone, one of President Trump’s lawyer,  stated  that Republicans weren’t allowed to participate in House depositions. This wasn’t true: 47 Republicans who served on the appropriate committees had the right to attend these depositions, and many did attend. Naturally the “Get all Trump allies’ resistance mob regards this an intentional lie, and is demanding that Cipellone be disciplined for professional misconduct.


Writes legal ethics expert Stacie  Rosenzweig, “This is almost certainly a lie rather than a misstatement or misapprehension; I can’t imagine a scenario in which a lawyer with a three-decade career and a reputation for being “well-prepared and even-keeled” would simply not know that.” Her logic is exactly upside down: a lawyer that experienced would not deliberately utter a lie in such a high profile forum where it would certainly be noticed, undermining his credibility to no good end.  Sure enough, the factcheckers were on his misstatement like a shot.

The lawyer probably made a mistake, contrary to Rosenweig’s unjustfied certitude.This may have occurred because the false claim that the GOP was shut out of the depositions was a frequent right-wing talking point, and he didn’t check it. The assertion was at best tangential to his argument; I guarantee that no bar association would discipline any lawyer by using the argument, “You’re too good and experienced to make a stupid mistake.” Good and experienced lawyers made mistakes, sometimes astonishing ones.

Rosenzweig asks where Cipellone is barred (she’s barred in Wisconsin). It doesn’t matter, since the Senate trial was in D.C, and D.C. ethics rules apply. However, a simple Google search would have informed her that before becoming White House Counsel, he worked at  Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner in Washington, DC. He’s a D.C. lawyer, like me. The fact that she didn’t bother to perform this simpe resaerch suggests to me that she wasn’t taking the issue very seriously, and her conclusion reflect that as well.

D.C. Rule 3.3, like the similar rule in the other jurisdictions,  prohibits lawyers from making false statements to a “tribunal,” and requires the lawyer to correct any false statements of material fact if they inadvertently make them. The statement in question, however, wasn’t relevant to whether the President committed impeachable offenses, and thus wasn’t material. Rosenzweig should have known this too.

Then there’s the very foggy question of whether the Senate was a tribunal. D.C. Rule 1.0  says a tribunal can be a legislative body, but only if it is acting in an adjudicative capacity.  Rosenzweig stated that, but left  out the rest of the definition:

A legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular matter.

Does that sound to you like the Senate in an impeachment trial? Who is that “neutral official” that renders a “binding legal judgment”? There isn’t one, and I’m not certain that a guilty verdict is a “legal judgment” either. Therefore  I don’t think the impeachment qualifies under the D.C. Rules definition of a tribunal, and since this is only the third time there has been an impeachment trial, the question has never been asked or answered definitively.

Rosenweig then argues that even if the Senate isn’t a “tribunal,” Cipellone breached Rule  8.4(c) prohibiting conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Obviously lawyers are neither investigated nor sanctioned for every misstatement of fact they make, nor does every such statement rise to the level of an 8.4 violation. If she really thinks that a non-material misstatement of a matter tangential to the Senate trial at best, where the lawyer can credibly say that he was misinformed rises to the level where a bar association would find it necessary to investigate, I don’t think she should be writing a legal ethics blog.

She does mention the  Debate Clause, and I give her points for that:

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution states in part, for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place. The purpose of the clause is to prevent the arrest and prosecution of unpopular legislators based on their political views.

Yet she breezily says that the clause wouldn’t apply to Trump’s lawyers. Really? So a House member like Adam Schiff, who was loose with the facts repeatedly while addressing the same pseudo-tribunal Cipollone did, would face no consequences should he misstate a fact by design or accident, but a non-member lawyer would? That hardly seem fair or logical. In truth, the battle in the Senate was a debate, certainly more than it was a presentation of evidence. Surely all advocates should be subject to the same standards

In summation, the various commentators and left-wing scolds who were demanding that Cipollone be “disbarred” (like The Daily Kos) didn’t know what they were talking about, as is often the case. One of the few accurate things Rosenzweig said in her post was the lawyers very seldom get disbarred, and when they do, it is for very serious ethical breaches, which this was not. What she should have also pointed out that a distinguished lawyer with an impeccable record of ethical conduct, misstating a trivial fact before a non-tribunal in a context probably covered by Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution would never be investigated nor sanctioned in any way, because such a statement under such anomalous circumstances obviously does not “reflect adversely on fitness to practice law,” which is the requirement for sanctionable misconduct.

I also believe that Stacie Rosenzweig’s analysis was careless and misleading. I assume she can and will do better.

12 thoughts on “Did Trump’s Impeachment Lawyer Lie To The Senate?

  1. Check her personal Facebook page. It is likely to expose the reasons for her heavy breathing on this matter regarding this lawyer’s misstatements.

  2. Cipollone’s misstatement, of course, could have been fully cured by the other side’s lawyers saying, “That’s not true.” At which point Cipollone would have forced to say, “Oops, my bad.” That’s why both sides get to have lawyers and also why it is absurd to imagine that he would deliberately lie about a matter that is so easily checked.

    • Thanks…isn’t that obvious? I don’t understand how Stacie reaches the conclusion that Cipollone lied. And the reason the other side didn’t correct him is that he might as well have said “Roy Rogers made “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” famous. It didn’t matter to the impeachment verdict one way or the other.

  3. The Trump Derangement Syndrome claims another helpless victim. I hope it’s not terminal in her case.

    Anyone associated in any way with Trump must be destroyed by employing any means, fair or unfair.

    What I want to know is when will someone on the Left get disbarred for their numerous legal ethics breaches, many of which have been detailed here at length? To paraphrase one of Paul Krugman’s greatest hits, my first-pass answer is never.

    In my case, though, it will have the virtue of being accurate, however sad.

  4. Yeah, maybe Cipollone meant to say Republicans WERE allowed and simply misread his text. I don’t know, but it certainly won’t be the last instance of this happening.

    Since the 2019 Presidential Impeachment was never about removing the President for high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather to publicly shame him in hopes of making him un-electable come November, it only stands to reason that anyone associated with him must be shamed as well.

    This is nothing we haven’t seen regarding President Trump since, well, even before the 2016 election.

    Democrats who speak are extended every grace – by their own and by the media – for saying terrible things…they are given every benefit of every doubt. It’s all explained away with a shrug, a chuckle, a wave of the hand. “He was taken out of context” or “She really meant to say…” or “It was just a momentary lapse in judgement…” or “Hasn’t everyone said a shameful thing once…” Every excuse is offered and everyone is expected to accept it without reservation.

    Not so with Republicans. No “other side” is offered, little or no grace is extended, every statement is blown dramatically out to criminal proportions, and everyone is expected to accept that without reservation.

    I apologize, that reads like a shotgun-blast of statements, but it’s Monday morning.

  5. What does the word “participate” mean in terms of the House inquiries? The inquiries were conducted by committees comprised of members from both parties. We all saw that.

    There were sessions held in the SCIF in which we have no idea what transpired. If Republicans were allowed in but could not question anyone or repeat what they heard that would be like saying the 10 year in the punt pass and kick competition participating in the Superbowl.

    Participation means different things to different people. Ask someone that feels disenfranchised if they truly allowe to participate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.