fbpx

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) Wants America’s Dumbest Congressman Disbarred

Sixteen members of Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) penned an open letter on Monday demanding the immediate disbarment of “America’s dumbest Congressman” Louis Gohmert (R-TX) for filing a lawsuit in which he argued that Vice President Mike Pence possesses the constitutional authority to declare President Donald Trump as the winner of the 2020 election.

Photo by SUSAN WALSH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The case was quickly dismissed – twice – by two federal judges because Pence does not have that power.

“There must be consequences for the disgraceful conduct of Gohmert, his lead attorney, William L. Sessions, and his other lawyers in this spectacle. Every client deserves a vigorous, energetic, devoted, and imaginative representation. But, even if a client wants it, a lawyer must never represent a client in a way that is frivolous, dishonest, untruthful, and malicious and an attorney must not knowingly induce them to do so,” wrote LDAD, which represents 5,000 attorneys across the United States.  Gohmert and his lawyers have done just this.”

The organization shredded Gohmert’s putzy interpretation of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

It was a no from them:

Not a single word in that Amendment, or in any other, gives the Vice-President any role whatsoever in choosing which votes to count let alone the extraordinary, unilateral power to select who the next President should be, regardless of the outcome of votes in the various states. His lawyers, without any reference to case law or any other authority for this outrageous and indefensible argument, made a filing in federal court with this specious claim as its centerpiece.

LDAD, which is non-partisan, added:

It is hard to conceive of a more self-evident breach of these oaths and ethical prohibitions than this case. The client wants to overturn — baselessly — the results of a free, fair, and secure election. His lawyers have decided to dispense with the Constitution, the ethics prohibition against frivolous lawsuits, truth, fairness, and honor in an effort to serve their client’s purposes. This conduct is an unacceptable abuse of the courts and a perversion of the honor and privilege of a license to practice law. It is up to lawyers to speak out against this behavior. 

The signatories concluded that they “want it known that we do not accept the behavior of the lawyers in this case. We do not tolerate it. We do not consider lawyers who act in this way to be suitable members of our profession. And we call on the disciplinary bodies responsible for policing these lawyers to immediately open investigations and discipline them for their disgraceful conduct.”



Follow Us On: Facebook and Twitter