ANALYSIS – One of the most transcendent political issues today is the Left’s war on reality. Specifically, the radical efforts to push a totally made-up, anti-science, transgender ideology on society, and especially our children.
And most Republicans agree. Actually, most Americans agree.
Being on the wrong side of this issue should automatically disqualify a GOP candidate for president. And former New Jersey governor Chris Christie is wrong on this issue – big time.
During a segment on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, Christie argued against state bans on sex change treatments for children, reported Fox News.
When asked about Republican governors banning life-altering, genital mutilating gender reassignment surgeries and experimental ‘puberty blockers’ drugs and hormones for minors in their states, he replied:
I don’t think that the government should ever be stepping in to the place of the parents in helping to move their children through a process where those children are confused or concerned about their gender.
To be fair, Christie also said: “What I would like to make sure each state does is require that parents are involved in these decisions.” And that is critical. But it isn’t enough.
If this was 1980, and a Republican candidate said the government shouldn’t get between parents and their children, I would wholeheartedly agree.
But in 1980 no one would have imagined a society, medical establishment, public school system and government pushing radical transgenderism on our kids, and their parents.
The world is now officially upside down. And even parents are being pressured to permanently damage their kids. The only chance we have to preserve basic human values is by Republican red states defending them wholeheartedly.
And when possible, defending them at the federal level.
Former President Donald Trump has been vocal about his stance: “These people are sick, they’re deraigned,” Trump recently said in North Carolina, speaking of those who support men competing in women’s sports.
Unfortunately for Christie, and fortunately for the rest of us, Fox News reports that a strong majority of Americans disagree with him.
A Washington Post-KFF poll “found that 68% of Americans oppose access to puberty-blocking medication for kids ages 10 to 14 and 58% oppose access to hormonal treatments for kids ages 15 to 17.”
But Christie isn’t just wrong on this extreme issue. He has been wrong on transgender issues for many years.
While serving as governor of New Jersey in 2017, Christie passed laws allowing children to use school bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth.
Christie’s signature also removed restrictions on biological men competing in women’s sports, an issue that the WaPo poll found over 60% of Americans think should be banned.
Christie also signed another law that year prohibiting insurance companies from denying services to anyone based on their ‘gender identity.’
In the increasingly crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls, former President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and former Ambassador Nikki Haley, are all on the right side. They all support restricting children under 18 years of age from receiving gender reassignment (or genital mutilation) procedures.
All three also support banning biological men from competing in women’s sports. And they are all correct.
But, as far as I’m concerned Christie just disqualified himself from being a GOP candidate for president.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Daniel Ramirez from Honolulu, USA, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – Two retired generals, and a retired colonel, all three graduates of the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, have signed a statement, nominally representing the long list of West Point graduates known as the ‘Long Gray Line,’ accusing the academy of violating its core values.
And also of imposing socialist, anti-American indoctrination.
When you wonder why so many of our military commanders are involved in scandals, and accused of moral and ethical lapses, and even crimes, look no further than West Point, and the other national military academies.
In their August 17 missive emailed to a long email list and posted on the website of the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates, the senior officers, LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret), MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), and Col Andrew O’Meara, US Army (Ret), argue that the academy no longer truly enforces the proud institution’s Cadet Honor Code.
Despite West Point’s motto being “Duty, Honor, Country,” and that motto forming the basis of the Cadet Honor Code, it is now enforced less than half the time.
Rather than resulting in expulsion as in the past, the officers note that “today, the Academy’s website makes the casual web disclaimer that over 50% of convicted violators [of the honor code] are excused and allowed to graduate.”
But the rot goes far further and deeper than just letting unethical cadets graduate to form the backbone of the Army’s officer corps. These cadets are increasingly being indoctrinated in neo-Marxist socialist ideology “that runs counter to the noble principles of the Constitution.”
They add that: “The corruption of cadet instruction with socialist doctrine is further demonstrated by a pronounced bias in selecting guest speakers, who have been almost exclusively liberal.”
[I would argue they are leftist not liberal]
“We could not identify any conservative speakers in recent years,” they noted. The officers continue:
Specifically, they argue, the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) at the Academy, or ideas derived from that theory, “severs the ties of every cadet to the defense of the Constitution, thereby nullifying the oath cadets have sworn to uphold.”
They explain that: “Critical Race Theory now replaces Duty, Honor, and Country,” at West Point.
And CRT is a cancer.
Critical Race Theory considers the founders evil, the Constitution illegitimate, and the Republic systemically racist. It abolishes the Declaration of Independence that declares all men are created equal. It brands the population as racist, privileged, and unfit to enjoy citizenship rights.
The writers add: “Officers and enlisted troops must sit through leftist indoctrination sessions that portray America as an inherently racist nation, white troops as genetically bigoted, and minority troops as hopeless, lifelong victims.”
And the authors specifically single out Joe Biden and his team of leftists for accelerating this indoctrination and subversion at the academy, and throughout our military:
The Biden Administration seeks to divorce military service from the defense of the Constitution by replacing allegiance to the Constitution with Critical Race Theory. This prepares the military for its role in support of an overthrow of the government and the Constitutional order. By forcing the military to undergo liberal socialist indoctrination, they sever the linkage between US military service and support for the Constitution.
To these senior retired officers, the goal is nothing less than the overthrow of our Constitutional system from within.
Using the manufactured threat of ‘white extremism,’ as the excuse, the left is forcing Critical Race Theory indoctrination on our military to prevent any internal military opposition to the increasingly anti-constitutional actions of this, and other, far-left administrations.
Ultimately, they note: “The cumulative impact of these changes has so altered the Military Academy that USMA betrays the purpose for which it was founded in 1802 – defense of our Constitution and maintenance of individual freedom.”
And I will add – If we don’t remove this rot very quickly, our Republic is truly doomed.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A novel legal theory from two conservative legal scholars published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that a section of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to run for president may be getting a court hearing in Florida.
As Ballot Access news editor emeritus Richard Winger notes:
On August 24, a Florida voter, Lawrence Caplan, filed a federal lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from being placed on 2024 ballots as a presidential candidate. Caplan v Trump, s.d., 0:23cv-61618.
Caplan, who appears to be representing himself in the case, writes:
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of an individual who commits insurrection against our government has remained on the books for some one hundred and fifty plus years without ever facing question as to its legitimacy. While one can certainly argue that it has not been thoroughly tested, that fact is only because we have not faced an insurrection against our federal government such as the one while we faced on January 6, 2021. It should also be noted that President Trump has since made statements to the effect that should he be elected, he would advocate the total elimination of the US Constitution and the creation of a new charter more in line with his personal values.
Winger believes Caplan’s suit is “misguided:”
The Fourteenth Amendment “insurrection clause” bars individuals from being sworn in to certain offices, but it does not bar them from seeking the office. When the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, there was no mechanism to prevent any voter from voting for any candidate.
Caplan appears to be taking the law review article’s authors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulson, at their word:
“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” Bode and Paulsen write.
Alternatively, ordinary citizens could file challenges on the same grounds with state election officials themselves.
And other such suits may emerge over the coming weeks. I’m not convinced any federal judge will be willing to read Section 3 like Baude and Paulson say it should be. It’s not because the Section’s words aren’t clear – they are.
My concerns are akin to those of Cato’s Walter Olsen, who writes:
…no one should assume that just because Baude and Paulsen have made a powerful intellectual case for their originalist reading, that the Supreme Court will declare itself convinced and disqualify Trump. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably described himself as a “faint‐hearted originalist,” which captures something important about the thinking of almost every Justice—if overruling a wrongly decided old case threatens to disrupt settled expectations to the point of spreading chaos and grief through society, most of them will refrain. Stare decisis, and a general preference for continuity in law, still matters.
Exactly. While some judges may nurse images of themselves as bold crusaders for justice, most jurists aren’t eager to upset established practice and precedent on a whim. Though, to be fair to the times when such upsets have occurred – Brown v. Board of Education, for example, or Griswold v. Connecticut – have been warranted, necessary, and beneficial.
Does that apply in the Caplan case? A court will decide. But as I’ve long said about Trump, the only court he cares about is public opinion. If voters reject him, that will carry more weight and sanction than any court could ever deliver.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
ANALYSIS – Big Brother keeps growing – As part of the broader government war against free speech, the Department of Defense (DoD) is now using Orwellian means to search the internet, social media, and just about everything else, for things we say or post.
And it’s not just for legitimate physical threats against generals, it will also be looking for simple negative comments about our top military leaders.
And we should all be outraged. This really is scary stuff. This even goes beyond recent reports of the government buying our detailed personal information from data brokers, which I wrote about here.
The military runs a little-known outfit called the Army Protective Services Battalion under the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID). Think of it as the Pentagon’s Secret Service for generals.
Its mission specifically falls under CID’s Executive Protection and Special Investigations Field Office. And it has a lot of resources. Its new webpage notes:
With over 400 assigned special agents, police officers, analysts, physical security specialists, and professional support personnel spread across three continents, the Executive Protection Field Office is the largest office within CID providing worldwide dignitary protection for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and over a dozen other protectees in domestic and overseas locations.
Executive Protection also protects foreign counterparts during official visits to the United States, along with designated former or retired Department of Defense officials. Army CID’s dignitary protection mission is supported by robust protective intelligence and threat management investigative capabilities. [Emphasis added].
This perfectly legitimate organization exists to safeguard our senior military brass, as well as foreign brass visiting our country. As part of its duties, it conducts legitimate ‘protective intelligence’ to identify potential physical threats to its protectees.
I am very familiar with their mission having worked with some of these folks as a military attaché during high-level foreign visits by our Defense Secretary and generals. I also have professional experience with dignitary protection.
All this is very good and vital stuff.
The problem arises when the scope of the protective intelligence mission expands to include things that it shouldn’t. In this case, the unit is tasked to protect current and former high-ranking military officers from “assassination, kidnapping, injury or embarrassment.”
Yes, among the big threats is “embarrassment.”
That’s bad enough since it opens the door to looking into things that they shouldn’t just because they might embarrass a general.
But now, according to an Army procurement document from September 2022, reports the Intercept, the detachment’s mission has expanded to include monitoring social media for “direct, indirect, and veiled” threats and identifying “negative sentiment” regarding its protectees.
And it’s hiring a technology contractor to do its dirty work.
“Negative sentiment” – that is almost as bad as “mean tweets.” It is beyond outrageous.
I have expressed ‘negative sentiment’ toward a few senior military leaders numerous times online and in published articles – including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley.
And I will continue to do so, as is my 1st amendment right.
The line should be when anyone makes veiled or direct physical threats against any political or military leader, not just says mean things.
As The Intercept reports: “There may be legally valid reasons to intrude on someone’s privacy by searching for, collecting, and analyzing publicly available information, particularly when it pertains to serious crimes and terrorist threats,” Ilia Siatitsa, program director at Privacy International, said.
“However,” he added, “expressing ‘positive or negative sentiment towards a senior high-risk individual’ cannot be deemed sufficient grounds for government agencies to conduct surveillance operations.”
Siatitsa rightly concluded: “The ability to express opinions, criticize, make assumptions, or form value judgments — especially regarding public officials — is a quintessential part of democratic society.”
Beyond that, what if the Army is protecting a Chinese general visiting the United States? Will they surveil or target Americans who are critical of this foreign adversary’s general or of China?
And according to the documents uncovered by The Intercept, the program the Army is procuring for its newly expanded intelligence mission is a dystopian surveillance nightmare.
It will scour everything, everywhere, and then even pinpoint the location of the person making the comment.
This is extremely frightening.
The Army describes their surveillance system as “a reliable social media threat mitigation service” with an “Open-Source Web-based toolkit with advanced capabilities to collect publicly available information (PAI).”
Information is not only grabbed up from Twitter’s “firehose” but also from 4Chan, Reddit, YouTube, Discord, Telegram, private contractors like Dataminr, as well as smartphone apps and advertisers.
Combined with cellular location data the Army could also precisely pinpoint those who might make a mean tweet about current or former military officials.
The Intercept adds that all this data, plus CCTV feeds, radio stations, personal records, and even webcams – would be available via a “universal search selector.” That means they can access just about anything.
The Army also wants the contractor to preserve the “anonymity and security needed” by “using various egress points globally to mask their identity.” This means they can conveniently make it look like the folks doing the snooping are in China or Russia.
This is a very scary domestic spying capability to use against Americans. Congress must investigate this Orwellian program immediately and remove elements that will infringe on our constitutional rights.
Or it will soon be used against you.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – While much of the establishment media dutifully informed us thatSpecial Counsel Robert Hur’s recent interview of Joe Biden regarding his alleged mishandling of classified materials signals the investigation is ending, ‘with nothing there,’ it could just be the beginning.
In a bombshell new discovery, it appears that Biden may have been lying about those classified documents all along.
I have previously noted that former president Donald Trump improperly held on to classified documents mostly out of vanity, gave multiple bogus justifications for having them, refused to give them all back, moved them around, and essentially dared the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) to come after him – which it did.
Had he returned all the materials he had in his possession, I have argued, DoJ likely would not have raided his Mar-a-Lago home and found damning evidence to indict him. None of the charges against Trump in that case are tied to materials he earlier returned to authorities.
Biden, and former vice president Mike Pence, seemed to have behaved quite differently when they discovered classified materials. Both supposedly quickly returned documents they had held improperly at their homes or private offices.
This was a big difference with Trump’s actions.
Well, that may be true of Pence, but not of Biden, who seems to have a much more tangled web of deceit surrounding his classified materials that date back to his time as vice president and even senator.
As Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School notes in The Hill: “The most glaring problem [with Biden’s case] is that, after they were removed at the end of his term as vice president, the documents were repeatedly moved and divided up.”
That sounds a lot like what Trump did, but going back much farther, and for potentially far more sinister motives.
Turley added:
Biden made clear from the beginning that he expected the investigation to be perfunctory and brief. He publicly declared that he has “no regrets” over his own conduct and told the public that the documents investigation would soon peter out when it determined that “there is no ‘there’ there.”
Now, however, it appears that a critical claim by the White House in the scandal may not only be false but was knowingly false at the time it was made. The White House and Biden’s counsel have long maintained that, as soon as documents were discovered in the D.C. office, they notified the national archives. Many asked why they did not call the FBI, but the White House has at least maintained that, unlike Trump, they took immediate action to notify authorities.
However, it now appears that this was not true. One of the closest aides to Biden and a close friend to Hunter Biden is Annie Tomasini. She referred to Hunter as her “brother” and signed off messages with “LY” or “love you.”
Tomasini was once a senior aide to Joe Biden and, according to the Oversight Committee, inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office — nearly 20 months before they were said to be found by the Biden team.
The Oversight Committee released a new timeline of when the classified documents were discovered.
As Turley notes, “the committee now alleges that the White House “omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials.”
This is huge. It means Biden repeatedly lied about when his staff discovered classified materials in his private residences and offices, and Team Biden had 20 months to tamper with, hide or otherwise dispose of evidence.
While a sitting president can’t be indicted according to existing DoJ policy, that could be changed. Beyond that, this new information has already been added to an increasingly heated impeachment inquiry by the GOP-led House.
The question being asked now by House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) is: How many of the documents improperly kept by Biden related to the countries the Biden family engaged with as part of their alleged foreign influence peddling scheme?
If there were any, that could mean there is “a lot more ‘there,’ there,” than Biden claimed.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
