Corrupt Ex-State Auditor Sues Delaware AG For Defamation
Didn’t KMG do enough to defame herself all by her lonesome?:
Former Delaware Auditor Kathy McGuiness is suing Attorney General Kathy Jennings and other state law enforcement officials for alleged violations of her constitutional rights as well as defamation tied to the criminal case that preceded the auditor’s election loss last year.
Last year, McGuiness was convicted of three misdemeanors tied to her work as auditor in an unprecedented prosecution against a statewide-elected official. The prosecution was led by Jennings and the state’s top public corruption watchdogs and centered on allegations that McGuiness gave her child a do-little job in the office, criminally intimidated her employees and rigged payments for a state contract to avoid oversight.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, names as defendants Chief Investigator Frank Robinson in the Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust, the state’s only real office set up as a public corruption watchdog as well as Mark Denney, a prosecutor who until recently ran that office. Attorney General Jennings, a longtime prosecutor who has been the state’s top law enforcement official since 2019, is also named as a defendant.
The litigation accuses Jennings and Denney of defamation for how they characterized the criminal charges tied to the state contract payments in a press conference in 2021 announcing the indictment against McGuiness. The complaint claims the false statements damaged McGuiness’ political career.
Who could argue with that? Couldn’t have been her corruption in office or the subsequent convictions that ‘damaged’ her political career. I wonder who’s paying her legal fees…perhaps Speaker Pete can testify to her sterling reputation–or Ernie Lopez.
Nuisance suit from a nuisance.
Even if she were to win the suit, she would have to show damages. There is no monetary value to a harmed political career.
With Ron Poloquin as her lawyer, I’m sure she’s in good hands.
Chump loser doing chump loser stuff. A disgrace.
This fraud needs to crawl back to that overpriced beach house she crawled out of before running for public office. She exemplifies all of the behaviors of an irreparably demented, self righteous Republican who is incapable of taking personal responsibility. I’m grateful every day that Lydia York saved the party extreme embarrassment by dispatching this swine last September.
Albo beat me to the punch in pointing out that KMG had to stoop to hiring Poliquin for this lawsuit. Her claims are so ridiculous I guess Steve Wood wouldn’t even take her case.
To be completely fair, I believe Wood is a criminal lawyer, he doesn’t do civil cases.
The lawsuit is clearly an attempt at rehabbing her image, however, if the AG’s office was actually banging away in the press about the illegality of payments to the consultant that were legitimate and the AG’s office knew the payments were legitimate (as the suit alleges), I believe that’s a problem.
If it’s true it means that either the AG’s office was trying to make her look as bad as possible by including debunked charges in press conferences, or the AG’s office is a chaotic mess where exonerating evidence is lost, misinterpreted or ignored. Either way it’s not good.
If she successfully rehabs her reputation, perhaps there’s a run in her future for the 14 RD. Pete is her biggest fan sadly.
She has no chance in the 14th. Marty Rendon is already light-years (a) ahead of her and (b) better than her in every way.
If he is to be challenged in a primary, his challenger is gonna have to be damn good.
I’m already on board with him.
I have not seen the lawsuit and can’t comment on it.
What I can comment on is that DE attorneys are bound to a code of conduct that limits what they can talk about to the media.
What scares me is the willingness of DOJ to go to the press and do press releases about their cases as if they aren’t bound by the rules. That’s not cool.
Y’all should be worried about this DOJ and there doesn’t seem to be awareness of the trajectory of the pendulum to the right in that office.
Rule 3.6. Trial publicity.
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;
(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and
(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
(d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).