Who is David Brock? And what is he up to in Michigan?
Simply put, David Brock is a smear artist, a literary hit man Even more odious, Brock has managed to be an “equal opportunity” serial smear artist — first for the left, then for the right, and now for the left again. The Nation has described Brock as a “conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder.” The National Review described him as a “right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin.” Politico called him a “former right-wing journalist turned pro-Clinton crusader.” But all three publications missed the fact that Brock started as a fairly conventional liberal, then veered right into the conservative orbit, then turned sharply left as he became an apologist for Hillary Clinton.
But it is Brock’s latest project that should be raising alarm bells, in Michigan and elsewhere. According to Axios magazine, “A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits . . .”
Importantly, David Brock is advising and perhaps directing this Group, which is going by the name of the “65 Project,” a name that apparently derives from the number of lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. Brock evidently told Axios in an interview that the idea is “not only to bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but to shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.” [See Lachlan Markay, Jonathan Swan, “High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods,” Axios, March 7, 2007, emphasis supplied; See also Joel Pollak, “David Brock Launches ‘Dark Money’ Effort to Disbar, Shame, Impoverish Trump Election Lawyers,” Breitbart News Network, March 7, 2022].
It is widely speculated that the 65 Project’s targeted lawyers with Michigan connections are those upon whom federal Judge Linda V. Parker levied sanctions in King, et al v Whitmer, et al, the most prominent challenge in Michigan to the 2020 election. Parker’s edict is under appeal, but the lawyers she fingered are:
· Howard Kleinhendler (New York, New Jersey),
It’s an interesting question as to whether Brock himself came up with the disbarment strategy or whether Michigan Democrats’ effort last year spurred him on. But whether these efforts arose independently or in concert, they are, as Dershowitz put it, “contemptible.” And every attorney in the state should oppose them, both out of self-interest and out of a desire to protect the right of counsel that is at the heart of our legal system.
************************************************************
The assasins were the unethical lawyers who tried to assisted our democracy. They did so by falsehoods, outright lies and abused the legal process . All those things were found by Judge Parker to merit sanction by the court. This is where your argument goes away, you conflate political argument with legal ones. You certainly know the difference. As a lawyer, we are trained from the first day in law school that your fidelity is first to the court and not the person paying you. In the instance at hand you missed that somehow. Those who abuse the legal system should face discipline where the violate the rules of the Court. Otherwise we forfeit our way of solving problems to those who seek to infect the justice system with their partisan cause
Er, Ah, Arthur, you wouldn’t by chance be a DEMONcrat…….or worse yet, a RINO, now would you?
Well sir with all due honor how about explaining “ no excuse absentee ballots.” How were they compared to registrations? Are there videos of that process and if not, why not. This is not a communist country yet and there are ALWAYS 2 sides to a story. One is facts and one falls short. Attacking other lawyers won’t save anyone’s butt.
Oh so don’t question the integrity of the election because you are misusing your credentials as a lawyer? Are you seriously saying this? Do you know how absolutely stupid that argument is? Any legal professional’s fidelity is to the Constitution, period. Not the Court or the client. Any directive that the legal profession has that conflicts with this is Unconstitutional. Those lawyers did have a preponderance of evidence, whistle blowers, video evidence and illegal ballots. Should have gone to the discovery phase. Why didn’t it. You are a liar and should be disbarred.
It’s so easy for the left to fool you because you’re ignorant af & want to be lied to.
You, Arthur, do not deserve to enjoy the benefits of Western Civilization.
Your comments make DUMB LOOK SMART, the system has been corrupted by IDIOTS like you
Tempting to say what could possibly come next in this crazy world we now inhabit……
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.3 (a) “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or Law to a tribunal .” Rule 4.1 “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or Law to a third person.”
LAWYERS SHOULD TELL THE TRUTH IN COURT
“All we can do is strive for the closest approximation of Truth” John C. Stewart, Attorney-44 years.
Soooo under your Premise….shouldn’t Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler….ALL be in
Leavenworth!!! They are ALL LIARS….and ALL Attorneys!! OOPS!! I forgot….if your a CORRUPTOCRAT You get a pass…RIGHT?
Facts matter. You don’t have them. You are doubting unhinged beliefs.
Alarming! Thank You ,Sir for Your investigative expertise and determination to expose facts which” main stream Media” appears to cover up or just ignore . Is the 65 Project/David Brock disbarment effort of which Our A.G. S.O.S. and Governor support , allied with the Geo Soros Agendas?
I see, Libtards NEVER threaten people. Right.
As you can see from the rules of ethics mentioned by others, the author fails to distinguish between who you represent and your conduct in providing that representation. Representing unpopular clients is one thing; presenting cases to a judge with no factual basis, or supported only by evidence you know or should know is false, is an entirely different matter, and justifies sanctions. The judge’s reactions in many of these cases show a serious problem in what the lawyers submitted to the court, not who they were representing. Whether any of these lawyers are actually disbarred depends on the individual case, and is unlikely in most cases as the bar for disbarment for what you present to the judge is very high. But for the author to totally ignore the distinction between what is a lawyer’s duty, and what is prohibited, shows a major lack of credibility on the writer’s part.
Good thing the writer here is highly credible! What must be realized is that zealots like Brock provide the impetus for those such as Parker to issue ludicrous orders. Judges are supposed to make rulings based on law, fact, and reason, not on emotionally charged hyperbole that is provided by those with ulterior motives at play.
It should be blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer exactly what is transpiring here, and only those with an extreme partisan bias (to the left of center) would deem Judge? Parker’s ruling logical. But its certainly not the first time a Judge has mounted and rode a Kangaroo through the courtroom. I’ve been involved in a court case where two judge’s resemble Laurel & Hardy; and where a Court of Appeals panel can best be described as Three Blind Mice! There was another case in particular where a highly respected Judge referred to one of his contemporaries as only understanding 60% of what is brought before him. Most judges, however, make a valiant attempt to, and usually succeed at, following the law and rendering a just and fair verdict. To those that continually don’t, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission awaits. For Judge? Parker, there is no election that can remove her, but now she has drawn unwanted attention to herself where all of her opinions will be subject to intense scrutiny for bias. If a pattern is found, off the bench she goes. (perhaps in the pouch)
How could it be that all that one has loved and cherished simply crumbles? What is happening to our beloved country? What happened to honesty, the rule of law , respect for one’s self? I’m sad to say the country truly is crumbling right before our eyes. Our judicial system once highly respected, is no more.