How Rudy Giuliani's Drinking Habits Could Hurt Trump's Defense
Special Counsel Jack Smith reportedly is keenly interested in whether the former New York mayor gave Trump legal advice while intoxicated.

Four days after the 2020 presidential election, News Corp Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch told Col Allen, then editor in chief of the New York Post, one of the papers owned by Murdoch's company, that he "just saw a bit of Rudy [Giuliani] ranting" about the systematic election fraud that supposedly had denied Donald Trump his rightful victory. Murdoch, who is also chairman of the Fox Corporation, called Giuliani "a terrible influence on Donald." Allan agreed that Giuliani seemed "unhinged," adding that he "has been for a while" and "I think booze has got him."
That exchange, which came to light as a result of the defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed against Fox News in response to its promotion of the conspiracy theory that Giuliani was peddling, raised an issue that could be salient in the federal case that charges Trump with unlawfully trying to stop Joe Biden from taking office. Based on information from three anonymous sources, Rolling Stone reports that Special Counsel Jack Smith is keenly interested in Giuliani's drinking habits after the election, when he headed the "elite strike force team" that aimed to reverse the outcome.
Why is that relevant? Trump maintains that, far from conspiring to defraud the United States, obstruct the congressional certification of Biden's victory, and deprive Americans of their voting rights, he was pursuing remedies he thought were legal for what he perceived as decisive election fraud. As Trump's lawyer, Giuliani played a key role in reinforcing both beliefs. If he was drunk at critical moments when he advised Trump on how to challenge the election results, and if Trump knew he was drunk, that would undermine the former president's argument that he acted in good faith based on legal advice he reasonably believed to be sound.
Rolling Stone, which cites "a source who's been in the room with Smith's team, one witness's attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter," says federal prosecutors have asked witnesses "how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power." They also have asked witnesses whether Trump, a longtime teetotaler, "had ever gossiped with them about Giuliani's drinking habits"; whether Trump "had ever claimed Giuliani's drinking impacted his decision making or judgment"; and whether Trump "was told that the former New York mayor was giving him post-election legal and strategic advice while inebriated."
In response to those questions, Rolling Stone reports, some witnesses said that "they saw Giuliani consuming significant quantities of alcohol," that "they could clearly smell alcohol on Giuliani's breath, including on election night," and that "they noticed distinct changes in his demeanor from hours prior." The magazine quotes former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner on why all this matters.
"To rely upon an advice of counsel defense," Epner says, a defendant must make "full disclosure of all material facts to the attorney. That requires that the attorney understands what's being told to them. If you know that your attorney is drunk, that does not count as making full disclosure of all material facts."
That defense also requires that the defendant "reasonably followed the attorney's recommended course of conduct in good faith," Epner adds. If Giuliani had a pattern of giving "much more aggressive" advice when he had been drinking, "it would not be reasonable to rely on the drunk advice."
This issue is relevant not only to the federal election interference case but also to the Georgia indictment that focuses on Trump's efforts to claim that state's electoral votes. In both cases, Trump argues that he followed his lawyers' advice.
One example is the angry, rambling, incoherent, and boastful speech that Trump delivered on Election Night, during which he claimed victory and alleged "a major fraud." The decision to do that, former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller told the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, riot by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol, was strongly influenced by Giuliani. According to Miller, Giuliani was saying, "We won it. They are stealing it from us. Where did all the votes come from? We need to say that we won." As Giuliani saw it, Miller added, "anyone who didn't agree with that position was being weak."
Miller suggested that Giuliani's aggressive stance may have been influenced by the alcohol he ingested that night. "I think the mayor was definitely intoxicated," Miller said, "but I do not know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the president."
The journalist Michael Wolff, who wrote three books about Trump and his inner circle, likewise reported that Giuliani was so "incredibly drunk" on Election Night that he was unsteady on his feet, to the point that Trump's aides worried that he might accidentally smash antique White House china. They were "obviously, or rightfully, concerned about what Giuliani was saying to the president about the election, and giving him this misinformation," Wolff told MSNBC in 2021. "But they were also concerned that he was going to break the china."
As Rolling Stone notes, those accounts were contradicted by Roy Bailey, a friend of Giuliani's who appeared on his podcast last year. "I was with you that night, and you had nothing to drink," Bailey said. "You were all business." Giuliani denied the claim that he was drunk on Election Night, saying on Twitter that he "REFUSED all alcohol that evening" and pronouncing himself "disgusted and outraged at the out right lie." He said his "favorite drink" was Diet Pepsi.
More generally, Giuliani insists that alcohol consumption had no impact on the advice he gave Trump. "I'm not an alcoholic," he told New York's NBC station in 2021. "I probably function more effectively than 90 percent of the population."
The fact that Giuliani felt compelled to deny that he has a drinking problem suggests his behavior left a different impression on at least some of the people who witnessed it. "Giuliani was, many around Trump believed, always buzzed if not, in the phrase Steve Bannon made famous in the Trump White House, hopelessly 'in the mumble tank,'" Wolff writes in Landslide, the final book of his Trump trilogy. As "the Trump family" saw it, Wolff says, "Rudy was crazy, or drunk, or opportunistic, or all three."
According to Wolff, Trump "explained to a caller that he knew Rudy took a drink too many, and that he was a loose cannon, and that he said a lot of shit that was not true." But the important thing, Trump reportedly thought, was that Giuliani "could be counted on to fight even when others wouldn't" and was willing to "work for free."
Still, Smith may have a hard time verifying not only that Giuliani was drunk when he advised Trump but also that Trump was aware of his intoxication. Was Giuliani drunk when he repeatedly went on TV to proclaim that the election had been stolen by some combination of phony ballots and deliberately corrupting voting machines? Was Giuliani drunk when he made similar claims on Twitter, at press conferences, and in legislative testimony, podcasts, and speeches? Was Giuliani drunk when he backed post-election lawsuits that never produced credible evidence of the anti-Trump conspiracy he described? Was Giuliani drunk when he advised Trump that the "alternate" electors plan was a legitimate way to rectify what they both viewed (or claimed to view) as a grave injustice? Was Giuliani drunk when he pressured legislative leaders in supposedly contested states to recognize those electors instead of Biden's? Was Giuliani drunk when he embraced the argument that Vice President Mike Pence had the constitutional authority to do the same during the January 6 tally of electoral votes?
If so, that would be a tidy explanation for Giuliani's aggressiveness and recklessness. But I suspect the problem with Giuliani went deeper than the "booze."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
" - how seemingly intoxicated Giuliani was during the weeks he was giving Trump advice on how to cling to power."
Let's make a case on some clown's feelings. That's the essence of every damnable accusation agains the man. We're in a sickening era of Lord of the Flies.
>>Based on information from three anonymous sources
lol not credible
>>Rolling Stone reports
really not credible
>> Special Counsel Jack Smith
triple-dog not credible
>>keenly interested in Giuliani's drinking habits after the election
irrelevant
>>Why is that relevant?
it's not
how big is your hope chest?
Ummm, that HELPS Trump, if anything
Yeah, if you have to assume that Trump knew his lawyer was plastered, you've just given yourself another thing to prove, haven't you? How does that strengthen the case against Trump?
Never heard of a client who was punished due to the personal actions of his counsel, but we are entering new and interesting areas of law here, so you never know.
I bet people will really not like being held responsible for something somebody else who was drinking did.
I have to agree. If Trump was relying on legal advice, declaring that the legal advice was incompetent for any reason is exonerating, not condemning.
The claim is that Trump knew the advice was untrustworthy and therefore was wrong to trust it. That is, at best, a stretch, and is making multiple levels of assumptions.
This seems to be degrading from witch hunt to throwing mud at a wall.
You guys are forgetting an important fact. Trump was ALSO given advice by many other lawyers and senior personnel (including his own attorney general) that election fraud on a scale to change the election results didn't exist; and that Guillani et al were full of shit, crazy or both.
So when weighing whether Trump was acting reasonable in ignoring one set of advice in favor of another; the fact that Guillani was possibly inebriated is very relevant.
But let's be honest. The way its going to be presented in court is that Trump was given a range of advice from various experts/lawyers/govt personnel and associates/family. He relied on the advice of Guillani and Powell and Eastman because they told him what he wanted to hear and that he was willfully and deliberately blind to anything else.
Also, re: Guillani and drinking, please see the Borat movie clip with the underage girl. "I was just adjusting my pants." Sure Rudy. We believe you. Also see the lawsuit against him by his former staffer. Holy shit. Rudy "America's Mayor" is a total perv scumbag. Karma is a bitch.
He had lawyers saying both ways. Weird how you ignore that. Your legal thesis is only views you agree with are legal.
The majority of their claims were illegal votes which were not investigated. Weird you ignore that.
Ga just admitted a week or two back that MTGs husband never registered for mail ballots but showed up as voting by mail. They never investigated despite being given thousands of affidavits from others saying they had the same issue.
Your claim rests on all votes valid, none fraud, state said all is good. While ignoring the illegal votes as the basis of his claims.
I just explained that he was given advice saying one thing and different advice (what he wanted to hear) from different sources. The ultimate LEGAL question is whether Trump can rely on the advice of counsel defense and the fact that he received competing advice (with completely opposite conclusions) is *relevant* to that inquiry.
All the shit you are talking about is whether Trump is reasonable in believing there was possible election fraud which is a separate inquiry vs whether he was acting reasonably in taking group B's advice over group A. Also relevant here is that Trump's 'elite strike force' filed multiple lawsuits alleging fraud and they were ultimately unsuccessful. Once those routine legal avenues were foreclosed, he then pursued extra-legal measures.
The fact that the attorneys who were lead counsel losers of the state level lawsuits are also the same people whose advice he chose to follow does factor into the total analysis. Trump: There is massive election fraud! Attorneys: File lawsuits. Lose lawsuits. Trump: There was massive fraud! Attorneys: Well the lawsuits didn't work, why don't we try this instead? Other attorneys: Those attorneys are crazy don't follow their advice. Trump: Follows the advice anyway.
It wont play out any other way. There are loads of people who will testify Trump was warned repeatedly NOT to follow the advice of Guillani and Powell and Eastman. That is what is going to make Trump's defense weak. If in addition his attorney was drunk, its just more evidence of Trump's willful blindness.
Legal challenges rarely require a preadjudication of a reasonable argument. There are frivolous lawsuits all the time. Are we sure you’re a lawyer?
And your test of reasonableness is in itself not reasonable.
Also relevant here is that Trump’s ‘elite strike force’ filed multiple lawsuits alleging fraud and they were ultimately unsuccessful.
Based on standing or arguments? The vast majority were the prior. We have successful lawsuits in multiple states regarding illegal election changes made by election officials. Again you ignore facts and rely on politics. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
The best part of your ignorance is that there was still an open lawsuit in GA when the alternate electors were chosen mimicking a 1964 even in Hawaii in a similar situation. You want to criminalize this. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
Then again you ignore Ga admitting to the facts of people showing as voting by ballot who never registered to vote by mail. Ga admitted to not investigating. This was one of many claims the state chose not to pursue. Youre arguing a state choosing not to purse a crime means a crime did not happen. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
There are probably hundreds of jaywalking events in every city every day. They rarely get cited or ticketed. By your argumentation this means if someone claimed people jaywalking every day they are lying and shouldn’t say it. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
Courts were the avenue for disagreement. He was largely denied without adjudication of claims. But denial of that adjudication does not remove his rights to free speech nor petitioning government, which you seemingly feel okay criminalizing. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?
Was it illegal for Goldman to sue OJ after he was found not guilty? Should they have been found guilty of fraud of the legal system? Your rationalization would make that illegal.
To add to your point Jesse, at least two states were recently found to have illegally changed their voting laws for the 2020 election.
One was Pennsylvania and the other was I think Wisconsin. Of course these cases were only resolved years after the fact, but do prove that Trump was right about illegal votes.
Even beside that fact, the lefty lawyer from Volokh who helped ruin the comments there denies fundamental aspects of our laws by defending the Trump prosecutions which includes going after his legal council.
There is a fundamental right to have lawyers execute petitions and defenses in courts even if you or another lawyer disagree on the law. Lawyers constantly disagree on laws, that's the entire point of the court system.
But lefty lawyer has defended the belief that a lawyer or a court telling someone they are wrong opens up a person to criminal charges. This ignores all aspects of jurisprudence. DAs are lawyers. Appeals courts exist. But lefty lawyer says once told you lost by any court, any petition is fraud.
Why I keep asking if he is a lawyer.
"which includes going after his legal council."
It's not hyperbole to point out that this is Nazi/Stalinist tier stuff. It flabbergasts me that the entire country, left and right, isn't up in arms. But instead we have the Mother Jones crowd linking arms with the haute-bourgeoisie NeverTrump GOPe and shouting for more.
Start wearing black because the republic is already dead.
Yes I am an attorney. You may notice I am talking about legal issues and legal tests. You are talking out of your ass about irrelevant topics not relevant to the original OP which is focused on Trump's defense of 'relying on advice of counsel' and one of said counsel being a lousy drunk. The test of reasonableness which you seem to think doesn't exist anywhere in law is part of the legal analysis.
Gish gallup bullshit, which you seem to excel at, is non-responsive to anything being discussed and is not deserving of a fuller response.
Your appeal to authority to lawyers is hilarious in itself is by default 50% of lawyers lose a legal argument in court.
But let's extend your assertions.
Let's criminalize the Innocence Project. I mean they had lawyers yell them they were guilty and a court agreed.
Let's criminalize appeals as they had lawyers tell them they were guilty and a court agreed.
Are you even intelligent enough to understand the slippery slope of the legal arguments you are making?
So what? People can take legal advice from whoever they want. I don't think Trump has had the best legal council in all this, but that's not against the law.
Novel and exciting new legal doctrines and theories are being written every day. What an exciting time to be a lawyer.
Like witnessing Runnymede, being on Palatine Hill 100 BC, or in Philadelphia in the late 1770's.
Do we at least get a cool revolution towards liberty or are we stuck in a Weimar republic situation?
I bet people will really not like being held responsible for something somebody else who was drinking did.
Teddy Kennedy must be laughing in his grave.
"Yeah, if you have to assume that Trump knew his lawyer was plastered, you’ve just given yourself another thing to prove, haven’t you?"
The time-traveling breathalyzer machine is pretty expensive to operate, but if it stops Trump...
the tech has greatly improved on the new Quantum Leap.
It could be that Jack Smith's not looking to prove anything but rather to be ready for rebuttal. Trump's lawyers could try to lay the blame off on Rudy for giving false advice. Smith is preparing for this.
[Emphasis added]
Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump knew Giuliani was drunk at the time* he was talking to him. Good luck with that.
* He allegedly was drinking on election night, according to some "sources" to the point where they were worried he might break the White House china, and it could be argued that any "reasonable person" would have known he was plastered, but was that before or after he spoke to Trump? Does anyone know the exact timeline of how much he drank and when vs when he "advised" Trump on that occasion or any other time he gave Trump "legal advise" during the time period in question?
So Reason is pro all drugs unless it involves someone in Trumps orbit.
That's the pic of him Reason is going to go with? Seriously?
A typical trick. Use goofy pictures of people you don't like and use heroic/well shot pictures for people you do.
+1 picture of Obama with "halo" around his head.
That's some rope and hang you can believe in.
Yes indeed. Kudos for that.
Would you expect anything else?
Reason does this with all politicians. Long Reason tradition.
Reason does this with all - republican - politicians. Long Reason tradition.
Fixed that for Mike
Check out the blog post that just went up, about school closures.
To be fair, that may be the most flattering recent pic of Giuliani they could find. That guy is looking rough lately.
If Trump received or did not receive any advice, he still didn't break any laws. Every citizen of America could have done exactly what Trump did and not one would be expect to be indicted.
You need to take a minute and read the indictments.
You mean the one where Trump is accused of asking the GA secretary of state to use legal avenues to "find votes"? I found it quite amazing that they actually included Trump explicitly asking for legally appropriate actions in the indictment.
No, I mean the one where he telephoned the GA SOS and after being repeatedly told the vote was valid and that he lost, he asked the Brad Raffensperger to recalculate and find him 1 more vote than he needed to win. Maybe you are naive and think that is legal but many other can see the truth.
Hahahahaha, someone didn’t actually read the indictment, and it wasn’t Zeb.
Way to post the narrative though.
Okay, then please explain item 31 on Page 15 of the indictment?
Rudy went full lunatic during the Trump years. After doing so well with NYC earlier in his life, he totally fucked himself on the way out.
How did he go "full lunatic", Shrike. He disagreed with the Democratic party? Worked for Trump? Advocated goals not aligned with the oligarchs wishes?
All the shit he did during election night was the culmination of years of building insanity. That is going "full lunatic". Election fraud claims? Everyone knew it was total bullshit, but it kept flowing from his mouth.
And I have no idea why the fuck you are referring to me as a bird. Maybe you too bought a ticket on the Full Lunatic Loco.
Sullum, Sarc called, he’s on line *hic* one.
Seriously though, the column is full of assertions and assumptions no matter how weird Rudy went.
Isn't mikes defense of no reason stories on Biden corruption that it is fact free and all innuendo... yet here we have Sullums article.
As a matter fact, yes. Odd that Laursen is staying away from this article like the plague.
Odd that Laursen is staying away from this article like the plague.
He's probably furiously masturbating over it as we speak.
Maybe Lauren finally took doctor's advice and ate a box or five of rat poison.
"Rolling Stone, which cites "a source who's been in the room with Smith's team, one witness's attorney, and a third person familiar with the matter,"
Wow! I'm convinced.
Oddly enough Smiths team can leak whatever they want but the judge is closely monitoring Trumps team.
I guess "a person that served coffee to Smith's team once" couldn't be reached for questions.
Wait... was this the sub artist from subway from when the media fawned over him for being a regular guy?
that guy's in O's pond.
The same publication that gave us the bullshit Rape on Campus story. Forgive me if take their reporting with a grain of salt.
A friend of a friend of my mother's neighbor's cousin told me the problem is that Guilliani is secretly a thousand-year old vampire and he accidentally sucked the blood of someone who had prion disease and that's what fucked him up. Now I can't swear that this is true, but it does fit the evidence quite nicely so you can't discount the theory.
Move the reply button
Must be a lefty.
No, he wants it moved to the right!
Seems plausible.
Bwhahaha! A Rolling Stone "source" - "one who's been in the room with Smith's team". Is he still in the room with you?
Pay no mind to RS's UVA rape story ($165m defamation judgement with just one plaintiff), the story that so many people people OD'ing on Intervectim, hospitals were unable to prioritize gunshot victims, the dreamy Boston Bomber fanfic, "Justin Trudeau: The North Star - Is He The Free World’s Best Hope?"
And Sullum still gives credence to a RS story based on yet another anonymous RS source. Nice picture too. You really are a despicable human being.
Rudi is sarc?
Not quite drunk enough.
How can giving "legal advice while intoxicated" possibly be a crime?
Quite easily. The question is, how can taking legal advice from an intoxicated lawyer be a crime?
The whole "if Trump knew he was drunk" aspect is crucial, isn't it? Sure, you arguably can't rely on a lawyer's advice if you KNOW he's high as a kite, or having a psychotic breakdown, or whatever, but why would you assume your lawyer is out of his gourd?
Hunter made millions globally as a lawyer high on crack. Not sure DoJ wants to go this route.
That's different. The magic D protects all its children.
Are we not doing phrasing anymore?
Lol.
fresh season fires up tonight.
Under this novel argument, shouldn't Biden be investigated since there was cocaine in the fucking Whute House?
He said his "favorite drink" was Diet Pepsi.
Trump's a Diet Coke drinker. He would have fired Rudy's ass if he knew.
I'm of the opinion that if you're an adult, you probably shouldn't be drinking soda in any form, diet or otherwise. Especially old fogies like Giuliani and Trump. But hey, it's a free country.
Based on information from three anonymous sources, Rolling Stone reports
I have 17 anonymous sources that say Rolling Stone's reports are false.
I have 18 that say the opposite!
Lies! I demand you name your anonymous sources!
I can name those claims with 20 anonymous sources!
I have infinity+1 anonymous sources. I win! You have to believe what I say now!
It is good to see attorney-client privilege is respected by the Left these days. They are going to hate these new rules where you can simply charge the lawyer with being part of the conspiracy to do away with it.
Yikes. Is this what it's come to? Really? I feel like I'm reading a sequel to Alice in Wonderland where everyone's spouting nonsense.
No. Lewis Carrol would be more funny.
This is more a Jonathan Swift style story. Where the king's guidance is given by the man who is best at limbo and war is declared over which side to break your boiled egg.
If every drunk lawyer was indicted, there'd be none left.
Oh. That would…be….a shame….no….please don’t…..
Is this hopeless shit what passes for actual journalism in this once-decent magazine? If you're going to rely on Rolling Stone, why not quote are Mother Jones and The Daily Worker?
Sullum's tsunami of irrelevant hogwash continues unabated.
Goddamn. Getting desperate, Sullum? Finally realized the walls aren't actually closing in and panicking a bit?
It's OK, we know you were really desperate.
I can't wait to see your face when he's getting sworn in again.
But I doubt whether Stevens or anyone else anticipated the insouciance of the Georgia district-attorney-turned-totalitarian-activist who, by indicting Donald Trump and at least four of his lawyers on racketeering charges this month, has devised a breathtakingly simple way to make lawyers vanish: just send them to jail (along with their clients) for advocating a legal theory of which the Democratic Party disapproves. – Michael Lesher
Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse.
And yes: that is the “racketeering” alleged in this so-called indictment. The felonies of which Trump and his associates stand accused in Fulton County, Georgia are the challenges they made to the results of the 2020 presidential election. No bribes, no hidden skullduggery, no usurpation of political office for private gain. No – the alleged “conspiracy” is all about Trump’s unsuccessful efforts to persuade officials that the election results were marred by irregularities and, as a result, should not be certified as a matter of law. That is all.
Forget the media frenzy about the details: who spoke with whom and when, which Trump adviser is being charged for which “debunked” claim, and so on.
The important point about this indictment is that lawyers are being charged with felonies for doing legal work.
An American prosecutor is criminalizing the legal profession – a business that can only end with the “totalitarian form of government” whose first steps Justice Stevens identified with the elimination of lawyers.
I really wish someone in the business would tell Ms. Fani Willis (who is currently basking in her fifteen minutes of media glory as the prosecutorial Jael to Trump’s Sisera) that if you make it a felony to offer unsuccessful legal arguments, you make it virtually impossible to offer original legal arguments at all.
But then, I’ve often wished that mainstream media had the backbone to speak out against the prosecution of Julian Assange, on the grounds that if Assange is locked up for doing what all investigative journalists do there won’t be any more investigative journalism. And yet our popular “journalists” clearly don’t give a hoot about the destruction of journalism, so long as it’s done in the service of the powers that be.
And apparently they feel the same way about prosecuting lawyers for doing what lawyers have always done – just think of Clarence Darrow’s “Nietzsche made them do it” argument on behalf of Leopold and Loeb – so long as it’s Donald Trump’s head on the block. The New York Times has just printed a “guest essay” calling Ms. Willis’ 98-page travesty “brilliant.” Et tu, Brute?
But the real news is the cowardice of the nation’s lawyers. They should be rising up en masse to denounce the indictment – just as all reporters and their editors should be shouting from the rooftops in support of Assange. After all, every lawyer has a duty to protect the legal system from subversion. And whatever you think of Trump (I personally think little of him), this indictment is an unconscionable attempt to strip the electoral process of judicial oversight by criminalizing unpopular legal challenges to election results.
Peel away all the flatulent rhetoric and the tedious repetition of details, and what’s left of the indictment is the claim that Trump and his lawyers are criminals because – and only because – they offered the government and the courts an unpersuasive legal theory for challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
If they can be convicted for that, the rule of law in the US political system is at an end. It’s that simple – and that serious.
Mind you, I hold no brief for the particular arguments these lawyers – Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, et al. – actually presented. Their case was a makeshift assortment of dubious legal theories and sketchy facts, and I’m not surprised that it failed.
In fact, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Trump and company. had been required to pay the legal fees of their adversaries in court – a remedy the law provides when lawyers’ arguments are more creative than credible.
But it’s one thing for a judge to reject some lawyers’ last-ditch effort to protect their client’s position. It’s an entirely different matter to threaten them with racketeering convictions because they offended a powerful political organization – in this case, the Democratic Party. Legal debates – and defeats – are part of a healthy democratic society.
Criminalizing legal challenges to political processes is a weapon of the sworn enemies of constitutional government, whether their names are Dick the Butcher, Adolf Hitler, Joe Biden, or Fani Willis.
Does that sound too harsh? Well, consider the paragraphs in Willis’ indictment about the attempt of Trump’s lawyers to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the votes cast for Biden by members of the Electoral College. According to the indictment, that effort – because it contradicted elements of the so-called Vote Counting Act – was nothing less than a criminal undertaking in furtherance of a racketeering conspiracy.
But where would that leave those members of Congress who in January 2001 tried to persuade Vice President Al Gore to reject the Electoral College’s votes in favor of George W. Bush? That effort, too, was illegal – because the petitions presented by the Congressional representatives lacked the signature of a United States Senator.
One Congresswoman actually stated that she didn’t care whether her petition carried the needed signature – to which the Vice President pithily replied, “Well, the law does care.” But no one in the press called the Democrats’ petitions “fakes” or “forgeries;” no one accused the Democratic representatives of trying to “steal” the election; and no one dreamed of charging any of them with felonies for making a doomed last stand against an election they thought had been unfairly decided.
But you can’t have it both ways. If Trump, Giuliani, Eastman, and Chesebro are criminals because they urged Mike Pence to overlook the formalities of the law in 2021, then all those Democrats who presented anti-Bush petitions on the floor of Congress in 2001 were criminals too.
And the next lawyer who considers a legal objection to some future election result will know that he may face arrest, and a felony indictment, if the prevailing powers later declare his arguments “debunked.” Can a democratic electoral process survive in an environment that punishes legal challenges to perceived irregularities?
I don’t know of a single commentator who has claimed that elections can be trusted to govern themselves without any sort of judicial oversight. And judicial oversight depends, necessarily, on the availability of private legal action.
So where are the throngs of angry lawyers denouncing the Willis indictment? Where are the bar association presidents, who until now have had a public opinion on just about every subject? Where are the law professors publishing op-eds in mainstream periodicals to warn us of the threat this indictment poses to the constitutional structure of the republic?
One clue to their silence may be found in the Times’ guest essay I mentioned already – the one that managed to masquerade 98 pages of political hack work as “brilliant” legal argumentation. That essay links the impending legal battle in Fulton County to the show trial staged by the so-called “January 6 Committee” – a travesty I’ve written about before.
The comparison is instructive. The January 6 Committee publicized its conclusions even before its proceedings officially began – and among those conclusions was the demonization of any effort to challenge the 2020 presidential election as an attack on the nation itself.
Ms. Willis probably intends to conduct her own show trial in similar fashion, and the liberal press is clearly prepared to go along. Not many lawyers are eager to be pilloried in mainstream media as traitors or subversives.
But I think there is another reason, and to understand it one needs to understand the political indoctrination of the US legal profession, a process that has only intensified over the last two decades. As a glut of lawyers made finding legal jobs increasingly difficult, bar associations and other lawyers’ organizations (nearly all of which incline to the left) seized the opportunity to impose ideological tests as a way of winnowing out, or at least marginalizing, lawyers with undesirable opinions.
The effects have been all too obvious. Thus, a recent “panel discussion” sponsored by the New York City Bar Association about “authoritarianism and lawyers” never mentioned the upending of representative democracy during the COVID coup or President Biden’s flagrant violations of the Nuremberg Code. Instead, the speakers lamented the fact that some New York lawyers had actually supported Trump’s reelection campaign.
This week, the same organization is advertising an event “premised on the idea that lawyers can and should play a greater role in combating climate change.”
In other words, wherever mainstream liberalism prevails, lawyers are expected to be cogs in the machinery that is steadily pushing us all closer to totalitarianism.
And the indoctrination seems to be working: few lawyers objected to the January 6 Committee show trial; and so far, at least, one can count on the fingers of one hand the lawyers who have called the Willis indictment what it is: a blatant attack on constitutional government.
Maybe some of those silent lawyers are privately displeased about what is happening, and are hoping that if they wait a bit the whole thing will go away. But I’m afraid any such hope is dangerously misguided. The totalitarians are not backing down; on the contrary, they have gained confidence and momentum over the last three years.
All the terror tactics and democracy destruction we’ve witnessed since 2020 is likely only to accelerate under a series of new pretexts: another virus, “climate change,” a purported rise in “hate speech,” “white supremacism” – the list can be extended almost infinitely.
So there isn’t going to be a better time to register an objection. If you care about the integrity of the US legal system, and especially if you’re a lawyer yourself (as I am), now is the time to speak up.
If we wait until Trump’s lawyers are all in jail, we may find we’ve waited too long. Yes, today it is Trump’s orange head on the block. But tomorrow we may all find ourselves threatened with prosecution for saying the wrong thing, supporting the wrong cause, or even thinking the wrong thoughts.
By: Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse.
I think this entire post misses an important distinction. He keeps referring to the actions of the lawyer co-conspirators as a 'legal challenge.' That is not factually correct. Actual legal challenges were filed. And heard. When they lost, they had the option to appeal. If that appeal lost, they could appeal to a higher court. When the State level court of final resort also denies them their requested relief, that is the end of the line to that 'legal challenge.' (absent some maneuver to move the matter to federal court to start the process over again from dist ct to appellate court to US supreme court.)
That is what a legal challenge in common parlance means. A legal challenge does not mean violating oaths of office of say a Sec of State (just say there was fraud and let me and the GOP congress handle the rest?). It does NOT mean seizing voting machines and copying their hard drives, confidential voter information, etc... without any advance judicial authorization or subpoena. There are a host of things that can be considered a legal challenge or even more broadly 'legal argument.' And there are many other actions alleged that have nothing remotely close to being 'legal' in nature. This author conflates the two and treats all acts as equal.
This is disingenuous at best. Legal hackery to most. Obviously meant for people who know only two things about law: jack and shit.
Exactly which machines were seized? Again you lie, they debated it as an option, but never took action to seize even one machine. So you are all for thought crimes? You think looking at options are a crime?
I don't think Trump cared whether Rudy Guiliani was intoxicated or not. I think he just listened to what he wanted to hear. He did not care that other where telling him he lost the election, he merely wanted to hear he was cheated.
TDS-addled piles of shit like Sullum are grasping at every straw they can find.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
> "I'm not an alcoholic... I probably function more effectively than 90 percent of the population."
This is exactly what an alcoholic would say. Anyone who knows an alcoholic has seen this behavior.
Agree with this comment.
Republicans should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. To claim otherwise is un-Democratic.