By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The D.C. Bar recommended disbarment for Jeffrey Clark due to his actions related to the 2020 election. The board found that Clark was prepared to have the Justice Department misrepresent its investigation into the election’s integrity, a severe ethical violation. Clark’s attempts to pressure Georgia lawmakers and his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results contributed to the board’s decision. The Bar’s recommendation emphasizes the gravity of the situation and aims to deter similar misconduct within the legal profession.
Read the original article here
Judges Detail Horrors They’ve Experienced Since Ruling Against Trump: The core of this discussion is a stark and concerning reality: judges are facing threats and intimidation for rulings made against a former president, and this behavior is perceived as an assault on the very foundation of justice. The sentiments expressed highlight a deep-seated fear that the administration is deliberately undermining the rule of law, turning those who uphold it into targets. There’s an underlying sense of disbelief that such actions are occurring in the United States, with many likening the situation to the rise of authoritarian regimes. The mention of historical comparisons, such as the Nazi book burnings, paints a picture of the potential consequences of unchecked power and the erosion of democratic principles.
The most unsettling part is the feeling that the judiciary is under siege. The reactions express a feeling of vulnerability among those tasked with upholding justice. The phrase “threatening judges isn’t justice” underscores the fundamental problem: the act of intimidation itself is a blatant violation of the principles of a fair and impartial legal system. The question posed – “What would they do if it was any other person?” – suggests a double standard and a perception that the former president and his supporters are operating outside the bounds of normal legal proceedings. The language is charged with frustration and anger, reflecting the writers’ feelings of betrayal that the very system meant to protect citizens is under threat.
Many of the reactions point to a sense of outrage at the failure of the current system to act decisively against these threats. The idea of lawmakers being influenced by threats of violence is a chilling prospect, and the repeated calls for decisive action demonstrate a deep concern for the future of democracy. There is a palpable sense of urgency, a call for immediate intervention to safeguard the integrity of the courts. The use of phrases such as “mob tactics” and comparisons to organized crime further intensify the tone of the discussion.
The responses also convey a feeling of profound disappointment and disillusionment. The frequent statements of frustration and helplessness are a natural outcome of these incidents. There’s a prevalent theme of comparing the current situation to a “banana republic,” a term used to describe nations plagued by corruption, political instability, and weak governance. The repeated use of this term underscores a deep worry that the United States is losing its way, descending into a state of chaos and lawlessness. The expressions of disillusionment extend to the Supreme Court, with direct criticism of their perceived inaction or complicity in the face of these threats.
The discussion goes further to comment on the political context of these events. There’s an apparent belief that these threats are not isolated incidents but a part of a larger political strategy. The reactions indicate a conviction that certain groups are actively working to undermine the legal system, motivated by their ideological affiliations and their support for the former president. The use of terms like “domestic terrorists” suggests that the threats are being treated as acts of political violence, aimed at silencing dissent and intimidating those who oppose the former president’s agenda. The political divide and the deep-seated animosity between opposing factions in the country are further highlighted.
A recurring point is the idea of a mass exodus, which shows the feeling that some of the people in the current political climate should be removed from the country. In addition, the reaction calls for the need for decisive actions to be taken to prevent the situation from getting worse. There’s a desperate call for justice, a desire for the perpetrators to be held accountable for their actions, and a renewed effort to restore the integrity of the legal system. The expressions of support for the courts’ rulings are made. The reaction expresses a feeling of hopelessness and a need for drastic action to stop the destruction of democracy.
Finally, the responses reflect a sense of foreboding, a sense that the country is heading down a dangerous path. The historical comparisons and the warnings of authoritarianism suggest that the stakes are very high, and the future of democracy is at risk. The discussions capture a sense of desperation, frustration, and a profound concern for the future of the nation.