The following contains partial editorial content which is the opinion of the writer.
WASHINGTON, DC- One of the bedrock principles of the American system is equal justice for all. That equal justice is guaranteed to all—young and old, rich, and poor, white, and black, Democrat and Republican. A major part of that equal justice are the rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution, such as the right to due process.
Also included in the constitution is a process to handle the peaceful transfer of power, as spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of that document. That clause spells out the process for certifying the presidential election.
Throughout history, a process has been in place whereby if, Senators may contest the electoral votes in specific states, if a member of the House also agrees. This is nothing new and in nearly every election, especially in recent history, this has been done.
In fact, the last several times when a Republican was elected president—in 2000, 2004 and 2016—Democrats have contested a number of results from some states.
Now, when some Republicans exercised their rights under the Constitution to contest the 2020 election, Democrats claim it is a “coup” or an “insurrection.”
Let’s face facts. There was some funky business going on in the 2020 election, primarily and overwhelmingly in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and others.
Whether this was election “fraud” or something less nefarious, only the most partisan of Democrats can look at what happened, the interference from social media companies, the last-minute changes in election laws, and the malfeasance of the mainstream media and believe it was normal.
Yet, for anyone that questions the results of the November 2020 election, they are defined as conspiracy theorists, lunatics, Qanon extremists or worse yet, insurrectionists.
It’s almost as if the 2000 election, heavily contested by Democrats and their sympathetic cheerleading media never happened. Aside from the fact that some people got carried away on January 6, possibly aided and abetted by government agencies, there is little to distinguish January 2001 from January 2021.
Why then is it that 14 months after the siege at the US Capitol, some people who protested (or merely trespassed) there are still being held in Russian Gulag-like conditions in Washington, DC, some held in solitary confinement, shut off from speaking to their attorneys and for those who have been tried, receiving far more serious sentences than people who attacked police officers, destroyed buildings, and created mayhem in 2020?
As a piece in Revolver notes, why are attorneys who were doing their job by looking into possible election malfeasance on behalf of former President Trump being targeted and threatened with being disbarred, for no other reason than working for the wrong team? Were attorneys who fought the 2000 election results on behalf of Al Gore and the Democrats similarly abused? Not a bit.
With that in mind, let us introduce you to something called “Project 65,” a group recently profiled by Axios which is funded by millions in “dark money” with the sole intent and purpose of destroying “as many Trump-affiliated lawyers as possible,” Jeffrey Clark, former assistant attorney general at the U.S. Justice Department writes in Revolver.
So, what is Project 65 and what exactly are they up to? According to Clark, their sole purpose is to file bar complaints against 111 lawyers who worked on behalf of the former president, no matter where they are licensed. However the main purpose in doing so is to make sure no lawyers who want to keep their law license will ever go up against the establishment ever again.
Who is behind Project 65? Well it’s no other than David Brock, who used to be one of the good guys back in the day but then decided to go to the dark side of the force, where he formed a little group called Media Matters, a Soros-funded hit squad that likes to attack conservatives.
Some of their favorite targets have been the late Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and others. Back in the day, Brock wrote a book called The Real Anita Hill which slammed the accuser of now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Hill had famously accused Thomas without basis of sexual harassment. Now it seems like Brock is trying to atone for his “sin” of going up against the establishment himself.
Brock has recruited people for an “advisory” board, including former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, someone affiliated with the Clintons by the name of Melissa Moss, and in order to make it appear “bipartisan,” a “Republican” named Paul Rosenzweig.
According to Brock, here is the mission of Brock’s hit squad:
“[Project 65] will not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints but shame them and make them toxic in their communities.”
In other words, Brock’s mission is to destroy these attorneys. Axios, Clark wrote, said that Brock is engaged of a “war of the strong against the weak.”
“I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing…You’re threatening their livelihoods. And you know, they’ve got reputations in their local communities.”
Sounds like a real scumbag there.
As Clark notes, Brock has taken a page right out of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky (“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”). In other words, by going after the so-called “low hanging fruit,” attacking these attorneys in their hometowns, Brock hopes to “shame” them, “plague them with hefty legal bills, and especially pick off ones who are less famous and backed by fewer resources.”
Where did Brock come up with the clever “Project 65” moniker? That’s because of the number (65) of lawsuits filed in support Trump’s contesting of election results.
As Clark wrote, no matter what side of the spectrum one is on, love them or hate them lawyers on either side provide a valuable service and that is guaranteeing the rights granted to us as Americans under the United States Constitution. As he claimed, “trying to shame, outlaw, and destroy the personal reputations of any category of lawyers, on the Right or on the Left, must be resisted with maximum effort.”
Brock isn’t even trying to hide or disguise what he is attempting to do through this dangerous scheme, as Axios wrote. “The 65 Project is focused on starving any future efforts of legal talent as well as focusing on 2020.” That statement is chilling. What Brock is saying to lawyers is they better be on “the right side of the political sphere” or they will be ruined.
One attorney who won’t be intimidated by Brock is Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who has promised, according to Breitbart, to “defend any lawyer targeted by [the] McCarthyist ’65 Project,” a reference to the Joseph McCarty tactics of the 1950s which used to be criticized by Democrats. Not any more apparently. Dershowitz told Breitbart:
“It was only 22 years ago when lawyers like me sought to block the election of President George W. Bush, believing as we did that Al Gore actually received more votes than Bush in Florida and was the rightful winner. We lost in court. But back then no one suggested going after the hundreds of lawyers who tried to prevent Bush’s certification. A dangerous weapon, like the 65 Project, unleashed by Democrats will surely be used by Republicans at some future time.”
Dershowitz’s statement should serve as a warning. It does nobody any good for both political parties to engage in a game of “gotcha” depending on who is in charge. Clark wrote:
“Weaponizing bar rules to endlessly relitigate contests about the 2020 presidential election (or any election) is not what the rules of legal ethics and professional conduct exist to accomplish. It is blatant lawfare, designed to impose ruinous costs on lawyers of an enemy political faction. It’s a Pandora’s box that should remain closed.”
According to Project 65, they are targeting three categories of lawyers: (1) Trump’s inner circle of lawyers, such as Jenna Ellis and Boris Epsteyn, (2) lawyers who signed on to be alternate presidential electors; and (3) attorneys who participated in the attack on the Capitol or were simply present at the events of January 6.
In examining each category, the first is perhaps the easiest, Clark said—guilt by association with Trump. The second one is much more problematic for Democrats, since they themselves have used that tactic in the past, specifically in 1960 when there were alternate Hawaiian electors appointed for then-Senator Kennedy, who eventually became the actual electors for him, so clearly Democrats lose the argument that was either illegal or unethical.
Finally the last category also presents something of an issue for Democrats. If they are alleging the mere presence of an attorney at the January 6 protest is unethical, they need to explain why lawyers who engaged in truly violent protests in the wake of George Floyd are not being held to that same standard.
There is, however a more nefarious undertaking being pursued, with the Texas Bar Association announcing just weeks after Project 65 was launched that it was pursuing allegations of unethical conduct against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. His crime? The Washington Examiner said Paxton is under fire because he had the audacity to be among a group of over a dozen attorneys general who sued to overturn the 2020 election.
So in essence, somebody believes that attorneys general doing their job and attempting to litigate a suspicious election result are now somehow subject to getting disbarred, again an attempt to weaponize bar rules to serve one political party. Again, to destroy these people for being on the “wrong” side politically.
There is all manner of evidence in states from Georgia to Wisconsin to Arizona that the 2020 election was far from “perfect.” As Clark says, “there is no attorney ethics rule that mandates agreement with Democrat media narratives, however often they are repeated.”
He also notes that Paxton and the other 17 duly elected attorneys general were certainly acting within the scope of their authority to make the argument that the 2020 presidential election wasn’t conducted in accordance with Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Presidential Electors Clause.
As Law Enforcement Today has reported numerous times, that Article requires that “such electors to be appointed in the manner determined by state legislatures.” Not by governors, state courts, election officials or state administrative agencies who used the COVID-19 pandemic to circumvent long-standing election laws.
Some have criticized the attorneys general for filing the lawsuit, especially since the gutless United States Supreme Court refused to take up the case. However, as Clark notes, the high court didn’t “enshrine the ‘Big Lie’ narrative in law. They simply held that Texas lacked constitutional standing.” Period.
It appears that Project 65 has a partner in attacking attorneys across the U.S. The complaint against Paxton was filed by a different group, hilariously called Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD). Clark said while he cannot prove the two groups are working together, however he believes “they are closely aligned and coordinated.”
The timing of the complaint against Paxton by the Texas Bar also smacks of politics. Paxton noted that the lawsuit seemed “strategically (and politically) timed:
“They’ve intentionally waited a year and a half after my Supreme Court challenge—right in the middle of an election—to do it…Worse, they announced their plans on the very first day of my election against George P. Bush—Biden’s and the Democrats’ preferred candidate for Attorney General.” As the church lady on Saturday Night Live used to say, “well isn’t that special?”
Fortunately, Clark believes Project 65 is a lot of bluster that will likely be unsuccessful.
First, the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, which guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances, would seem to be binding in this case, with Clark pointing out that filing of lawsuits can form the basis of such. While frivolous lawsuits can be subject to penalty, however “the standards for this are supposed to be clear-cut and limited.”
In contrast, filing lawsuits supported by sworn testimony “is categorically the sort of activity protected by the right to petition.” Last minute changes to election laws, election rigging by Facebook oligarch Mark Zuckerberg’s “Zuckerbucks,” and other hijinks are certainly able to be subject of lawsuits.
Clark also predicted that Project 65 may in fact be violating the civil rights of both the attorneys, as well as the clients they represent. Those civil rights, which include “free expression, free political association, access to the legal counsel of one’s choice,” are all foundational rights guaranteed by our founding documents. Brock and his ilk may not like it, but that really is beside the point.
Finally Clark suggests fighting fire “with fire,” or as he says, “the best defense is a good offense.” He recommends that every lawyer faced with a complaint from Project 65 file a counter-complaint to the bar where a member of Project 65 is a member.
The formation of a Project 65 “counterproject” should be undertaken. This is of vital importance because as Clark says, the cancelation of Trump-affiliated or adjacent lawyers is only step one. “The end goal is to create a reality where left-wing ideology and the legal system are one and the same.
If America’s businessmen and right-leaning donors aren’t willing to step up now and fund a counter-Project of their own, then they should not be surprised if the day comes where they can’t get a lawyer either.”
He says that “personal knowledge should be required for bar authorities to open an investigation into any Project 65 complaint.”
Finally, he recommends that any lawyer who files a Project 65 bar complaint “should be required, under penalty of perjury, to disclose his identity to the bar authorities where he or she files such a complaint.”
As Mark Levin suggested in American Marxism, the only way to fight against the American Marxists, of which Brock clearly appears one, is to beat them at their own game. The suggestions by Clark to fight back against this attempted Marxist takeover of our legal system by destroying your political enemies are important and must be implemented.
As Clark closed his piece in Revolver:
“This is a fight that patriotic Americans must win, or the United States will just be the latest example of a republic decayed into a phony, failed oligarchy.”
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.