Not long ago, I said that when it comes to elections going forward, our lawyers have to be better than their lawyers.
Mark Hemingway at RealClearInvestigations has a similar warning in a new article, titled “Harvard’s ‘Lawfare’ Programs are an Omen of Elections Not Decided at Polls --- but in Court.” Check out the poster boy at the top of his screen; it’s Marc Elias. Elias is probably the man most responsible for the fact that Joe Biden is sitting in the Oval Office right now thinking about ice cream.
How dare President Trump challenge the results of the 2020 election! Why, that’s tantamount to treason, the argument goes. Even encouraging states to conduct forensic audits is a threat to “our democracy,” as it implies problems and destroys trust in the system.
Never mind that the system --- in its current, essentially un-auditable state, does not deserve our trust.
And never mind that in the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016, Democrats formally challenged the results of presidential elections that had been won by Republicans, in another classic case of “our rules for you, no rules for us.” As Hemingway points out, it was that series of challenges by the Democrats that led to the development of the network of leftist election litigators we have today. Of course, we first think of the Hillary- and DNC-connected firm Perkins Coie and attorneys Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann (currently under indictment), but according to former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, there were about 30 groups that jumped into action after the pandemic hit to make fast changes in state election laws, mostly to expand mail-in voting while removing any safeguards. The percentage of Americans who voted by mail doubled between the 2016 and 2020 elections.
After Trump lost in 2020 and some conservative states started re-tightening their rules, these armies of “progressive” lawyers got busy again, filing challenges to keep them from changing back.
So, do voters get to decide who wins, or do courts get to filter their voices and decide for them? Increasingly, we see the strategy of “lawfare.” So it might come as no surprise that Harvard Law School is getting in on this big-time, preparing attorneys for the day when election outcomes are routinely decided in court. Adams calls this next phase “Let’s set up an elite training academy.”
In April, Harvard Law started the Election Law Clinic, which gives students credit for working on campaigns (why am I reminded of the students at Georgia Tech who helped create the fake Alfa Bank story?), as well as “hands-on litigation and advocacy work across a range of election law areas, with an initial focus on redistricting and voter-suppression cases.” It doesn’t sound as though they’ll be working on any conservative campaigns, but maybe they can still get Stacey Abrams declared the rightful governor of Georgia.
The director, Ruth Greenwood, sees many students wanting to go into election law and wants them to be able to “hit the ground running as election lawyers from day one.” Law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit sees this flood of new election specialists as creating more demand for that kind of expertise and litigation. In other words, it’s going to get much worse. Election days used to be something to celebrate as part of being American, but they’re increasingly something to dread.
In recent months, we’ve done some deep dives into the websites of some of these new groups that showed how amazingly organized and incestuous they are, and Harvard’s Election Law Clinic is part of that. Greenwood is a former fellow of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute and has also worked at the Campaign Legal Center.
As you can see, the CLC is funded in part by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and also by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Ford Foundation and ActBlue. Greenwood describes the proposed legislation in H.R. 1 –- what we like to call the “Legalize Voter Fraud Act” –- as “the biggest step the federal government has taken to protect the right to vote since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.” It would be a big step, all right, in that it would unconstitutionally place elections under federal control. Adams has his own name for the bill; he calls it “a partisan weapon masquerading as a civil rights law.”
Here’s how radical and intrusive this group is: Harvard Election Law Center adviser Nicholas Stephanopoulos (not sure if he might be related to George), in a piece he wrote for Marc Elias’ group Democracy Docket, argued that Congress should refuse to seat a candidate who benefits from voter suppression under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. He defines voter suppression as “policies that make it hard for people to register and vote.” We learned in 2020 how broadly they interpret that. They made it so easy to vote, any dead person can do it. And every vote by a dead person suppresses the vote of a live person who’s almost guaranteed to have voted Republican.
Another organization, Protect Democracy, is actually two: the 501(c)3 Protect Democracy Project, which is tax exempt and supposedly non-partisan hahahahaha, and the 501(c)4 United to Protect Democracy, which admits it is partisan. They list 70 employees on their website, but their address is a mailbox service they share with hundreds of organizations.
We wrote about the Protect Democracy Project when it gave a $300,000 check to Whistleblower Aid, which supported Eric Ciaramella, whose ginned-up complaint started Trump’s first impeachment.
Time Magazine wrote a piece last February about the alliance of these political groups with business titans like Mark Zuckerberg --- not to question their actions, but to praise them for “saving” the 2020 election. It was “an extraordinary shadow effort, dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.” (If you need to take a break to run and throw up, go ahead. We’ll wait.)
Feel better? Here’s the link to the full article, but I warn you, you’ll just have to throw up again.
The Protect Democracy Project also conveniently owns a software company, VoteShield, that monitors voter databases. I am not kidding. Hemingway’s article has details.
J. Christian Adams, who has his own organization, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, says there are far fewer groups on the right to hold the left accountable for mistakes and/or misdeeds. I’d say going to law school now seems pretty much like going to journalism school –- not to practice law or journalism, but to “fundamentally transform.”
For when you have time, I’ll link to the video and transcript of a great interview by the founder and CEO of American Majority, Ned Ryun, with another Hemingway, this time Mollie, about the 2020 election. Having written the book RIGGED, she can summarize so clearly what was done, especially by sponsors such as Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life. Elias’ strategy, she says, is to “expand the sphere of litigation, depending on how an election turns out.”
And that’s why our lawyers have to be better than their lawyers.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW, I READ THEM>>>