The esteemed American legal community, led by the universally revered American Bar Association (ABA), has recently extended a call to action to its vast network of 1.3 million lawyers. The ABA is encouraging these dedicated professionals to lend their skills to the upcoming 2024 election cycle by offering their expert legal advice – all in a grand effort to bolster the democratic process. Yet, in the shadows of this noble vision, a blatant partisan motive lies, singularly crafted by the individuals at the helm of this initiative: Jeh Johnson, a Secretary of Homeland Security from the flawed Obama era, and retired Judge Michael Luttig.
Johnson and Luttig, assigned by the ABA to steer the legal profession’s response to the security breach at our hallowed U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, unfortunately seem to be viewing the entire proceeding through significantly tinted lenses. They shared their predisposed view and recommendations in an exclusive interview with USA TODAY prior to their nationwide summit last Friday.
Noteworthy is the involvement of one John Eastman, a former law clerk for Luttig. He has been villainized for helping craft then-President Donald Trump’s administrative strategy concerning the 2020 election. This attempt at vilifying Eastman is simply part of the larger smearing campaign against anyone who dared to question the outcome of the contested 2020 election. Eastman currently faces the unreasonably severe punishment of disbarment for his actions and beliefs.
Donald Trump, alongside his ardent allies, promptly filed 64 lawsuits in six critical states, seeking to challenge the perplexing results of the 2020 election. A 2022 report, rather condescendingly titled ‘Lost, Not Stolen,’ that made an audacious attempt to discredit their efforts was released. The authors of this report concluded that Trump and his supporters ‘failed to produce substantive evidence’ to substantiate their complaints. The derision of this report only cements further the increasing disdain the establishment has for those who dare to question it.
Rudy Giuliani, a man of great character who stood by Trump during the turbulent post-2020 election period, has now lost his license to practice law in New York over allegations of falsehoods. Again, this seems like nothing more than political vengeance against a man who had dared to confront the entrenched establishment. Likewise, in Washington, D.C., an ethics board recommended Giuliani’s disbarment in a move that clearly reeks of political retribution.
Another ally who found himself in the crosshairs was Kenneth Chesebro, implicated in controversy over activities related to the 2020 results in Georgia. Recent events have seen Chesebro’s law license suspended in Massachusetts, another example of the harsh punishment meted out to anyone who dared to challenge the established narrative of the 2020 election.
Alongside these luminaries, other targeted lawyers include ex-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, and Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis. Stephanie Lambert has also found herself under legal scrutiny for activities related to a voter data breach in Michigan. These are just some of the names in a long list of legal professionals who have had to face undue retribution for daring to question or bring light to inconsistencies.
The most damning critique was leveled by Johnson, who accused colleagues of making ‘spurious, ridiculous, false arguments,’ essentially blaming them for enabling incendiary rhetoric instead of promoting reasoned discourse. It’s evident that Johnson conveniently forgets the role contentious legal debate serves in ensuring a robust democracy.
Jenna Ellis took the opportunity to express her remorse over the unfolding events, admitting she should have scrutinized the allegations she was reviewing more thoroughly. She emphasized her lapse as a failure of due diligence, suggesting this was due to the high-stress conditions. Interestingly, she expressed regret at her reliance on highly experienced lawyers for authentic information.
Former Judge Luttig, conversely, projected a rather derisive view of his ex-clerk, Eastman, labelling his legal hypothesis intended to challenge the 2020 presidential election results as ‘tenuous.’ Essentially shunning Eastman, Luttig asserted he would have encouraged Trump against following this legal course. Regardless, it’s clear Luttig’s comments do not deter the very robust legal professionals who continue to advocate for their clients, irrespective of the partisan climate.
Johnson, carrying his partisan perspective forward, emphasized the potential dangers of desperate lawyers employing ridiculous arguments merely to secure proper compensation. He expressed a desire to steer the legal profession away from this supposed unethical dilemma. It’s certainly worrying to see an individual like Johnson so eager to restrict open debate and brush off dissenting views in such a dismissive manner.
In a call-to-action to his fellow legal professionals, Johnson encouraged lawyers to use their influential status to promote faith in the electoral process. He advocated facilitating a more respectful discourse on sensitive subjects, a move that on the surface seems noble. Nevertheless, his comments don’t hide the fact that his plea seems to conveniently carry a subtext that supports only one side of the political aisle.
Insisting on getting involved in grassroots discussions, Johnson urged legal professionals to engage with community groups and schools to disseminate information about elections. He stressed on challenging misinformation prevalent on social media, indirectly hinting at a common theme that those questioning the 2020 election results were solely responsible for misinformation.
Johnson metaphorically called on lawyers to ‘respond to the call for democracy’ akin to the way physicians stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic. This rallying cry, however noble, raises an important question – can the legal community maintain its commitment to democracy when key figures insist on stifling dissenting opinions through partisan ideological lenses?
ABA’s Biased Vision: An Attempt to Stifle Trump’s Legal Allies appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
