Over the weekend, the legal team for Attorney General Daniel Cameron filed a lengthy motion to dismiss the impeachment petition. This morning, the petitioners responded with three motions of their own.
The Cameron motion
Cameron’s motion to dismiss (linked below) starts right up front by attacking the impeachment petition, the persons who filed it, and the lawyers who prepared it:
“The Attorney General submits this response to the baseless petition for impeachment filed against him by anonymous persons and a group of political operatives.”
It continues:
“… the petition is invalid for its failure to comply with statutory requirements. And even if it somehow crossed that hurdle, the petition fails to allege any impeachable offense. The Committee should dismiss the petition and award the Attorney General his costs pursuant to KRS 63.070(1).”
The motion to dismiss then expands on those two points – failure to comply with requirements for an impeachment petition, and failure on the facts. It states that the grand jury itself is to blame for not bringing more charges.
The motion also goes into Cameron’s relationship with the Republican Attorney Generals Association (of which he is a member of the executive committee) and the robocall put out by its political arm that urged people to go to Washington for the “Stop the Steal” rally. It states that Cameron had no knowledge or involvement in the robocall.
Finally, the motion attacks Anna Whites, the lawyer who filed the petition, and various other Democrats across the state, as well as the Kentucky Democratic Party.
Following the 25 pages of arguments, the motion then includes 110 pages of exhibits.
The Cameron motion to dismiss was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Barry Dunn; Victor Maddox, Assistant Deputy Attorney General; and Christopher Thacker of Billings Law Firm in Lexington.
The motions filed by the petitioners in response
In response to the Cameron motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed three motions:
- A motion to strike certain “inappropriate portions” of the Cameron motion
- A request for discovery of documents related to the petition
- A motion for a hearing on issues involving Rep. Jason Nemes, the chair of the impeachment committee
The motion to strike
The motion to strike begins by stating
“The Response filed by Attorney General contains significant personal attacks on the citizens who filed this serious concern with the Legislature. As the Commonwealth’s highest ranking law enforcement official, Attorney General Cameron holds a trust granted to him by the citizens of the state. The overly broad and rambling response to the concise and narrowly written impeachment petition contains pages of attacks on the citizens who filed it. That is a clear abuse of that trust and power and is an embarrassment to the Commonwealth.
“… There is no place in this process for belittling the private citizens and voters who raise such concerns.”
The motion continues:
“The Response also falsely claims partisan politics and contains significant gender bias. AG Cameron criticizes counsel based on her past clients and husband’s past job. These statements should be promptly deleted. In 2021 we elected women to serve as State Treasurer and as Lt. Governor in Kentucky and a woman to lead the nation as Vice President. We are well past the time when women are defined by what their husbands once did.
“Counsel for Petitioners has represented dozens of Democratic candidates, county parties, PACs, and organizations pro bono each year over the past three decades. She has also represented hundreds of Republicans and Independents in her private practice over the same time period. This action was not brought by her husband or any of her former clients and claims to the contrary are specious and should be removed.”
The motion asks that “The counsel authoring the Response should be sanctioned for their gender bias and cautioned to confine their discussion to the serious matter before this Committee. Pages 24-25 of the Response should be stricken for this reason and the Attorney General should be required to file a corrected document with those inappropriate statements removed within two (2) working days.”
The request for discovery
The request for discovery asks that the Attorney General produce the following documents by this Friday at 4 PM:
- All documents supporting the Attorney General’s unsworn assertion that he “told . . . the grand jury all charges”
- All communications between Daniel Cameron and Adam Piper, Executive Director of RAGA, between the dates 11/1/21 and 1/9/21
- All communications between the RAGA Executive Committee members, including Daniel Cameron, for the dates 11/1/20-1/9/21, inclusive, which address management of the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RDLF)
- All communications between the RAGA Executive Committee members on the dates 1/1/21-1/9/21;
- All communications between RLDF staff and Daniel Cameron for the dates 1/1/21- 1/9/21;
- Any documents reflecting Daniel Cameron’s attendance at any RLDF meeting, presentation or fundraising event in 2020 or 2021;
- All documents reflecting any costs towards preparing, filing or arguing the amicus brief filed with regard to any out of state joinder in election cases for the months August, 2020- January, 2021.
The request for a hearing on motions already filed
This document notes that a motion for recusal by Rep. Nemes due to conflicts of interest has not been heard, and the deadline for response has passed. Nemes indicated he would ignore the motion, without a hearing on the motion. The motion notes that Nemes should not have the power to ignore a motion that concerns him directly.
The motion also asks that the impeachment committee
“cease disseminating inaccurate information designed to improperly restrict appropriate public actions. Chairperson Nemes’ communications to the citizens of this Commonwealth claiming those who bring impeachment petitions will be liable for expansive “costs” and attorneys’ fees are wholly without merit. The law is clear in specifying that an unsuccessful petitioner may be liable to the members of the Committee for those portions of their legislative day spent on this matter. Inappropriate claims for costs have a chilling effect on citizens who are exercising their protected rights. … The rule could not be clearer: ‘In no event shall costs include attorney’s fees.’
“This suppression tactic is improper, unbecoming of a legislative committee, and should promptly cease. All public communications by the Committee that contain such intentionally chilling misinformation should be promptly withdrawn and a corrected communication posted.”
–30–
Resources