In other words, a crude attempt to use what those most supportive of Trump thought was “presidential power.”What Clark's (insane) draft letter lays bare is what so many long suspected: This was never about *good* legal (or factual) arguments; it was about using patently meritless legal and factual contentions as a thinly veiled cover for overturning the result of a democratic election. https://t.co/AJJppFgovi
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 4, 2021
You may say "there's nothing new here." But there is: It's evidence of just how far lawyers *inside* the administration were willing to go to effectuate a coup (yes, it would've been an "autogolpe," but you get the gist). That Clark's superiors shut this down is a relief, but...
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 4, 2021
Which explains why Clark told the Georgia legislature to call itself into special session if necessary. There was no law. That’s the point where lawyers stop. Clark didn’t want to stop.The draft is dated 12/28.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) August 4, 2021
That's 14 days after the Electoral College voted (and voted for Biden); 17 days after #SCOTUS turned away Texas's stunt lawsuit; and 20 days after the safe harbor deadline for certifying competing slates of electors.
There was no law left; just power.
I wonder how many in the legal profession are disturbed there were so many lawyers who were willing to destroy democracy on behalf of DONALD TRUMP! Big law firm lawyers from big name law schools, this thug coming from Georgetown, yet another one for elite Catholic education to answer for. Harvard having given him his BA before then.
ReplyDeleteThe bar associations that license these people need to be more proactive about removing them from their rolls. Giuliani isn't the only clown who doesn't deserve to practice law any longer. And frankly, the line between presenting a legal argument for a client (even if it's Jeffrey Epstein) and presenting arguments that have nothing to do with the law (the torture memos under W. come to mind, as well as recent events in and out of the Trump Administration) should be a bright line issue. One is allowed; the other absolutely is not. There is a vast difference between defending even the most reprehensible alleged conduct against the power of the government (that's how the system is set up) and arguing for the government in power to have all the power it wants to do whatever it wants.
ReplyDeleteThat's part of what I mean by making it impossible for these actions to be possible. Because otherwise we're back to the old epigram: "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?/For it if prosper, none dare call it treason."