New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) called Vice President Kamala Harris the clear winner of Tuesday night’s presidential debate.
“Oh, Kamala definitely won the debate,” Sununu said during a Wednesday morning appearance on CNN. “There’s no question about that. So the question is, what does it mean, right? And it’s not just, what does it mean to everybody? What’s going to do that 10 percent of swing voters?”
“I think if you poll those swing voters, they want results,” he said. “They’re results-driven. It’s the cost of living, it’s the border, it’s public safety, those types of issues, you can be the change agent to make that better in their lives.”
The outgoing New Hampshire governor, who considered a presidential run of his own, praised Harris’s debate strategy Tuesday night.
“She kind of talked confidence in her answers, and then she took the last 30 seconds of almost every question and hit him with a personal attack, knowing that that would get under his skin,” Sununu said. “It was a very effective measure, and I give her a lot of credit on that. It kept him on the defensive, to be sure, and it’s ultimately, definitely, stylistically, why she openly won the debate.”
Sununu said the debate would move the needle “a little bit,” but argued neither candidate explained to voters how they would help lower costs for average Americans. The GOP governor added Trump failed to take advantage of openings to go on the offense over the economy.
“He should have talked about price controls,” Sununu said. “He should have talked about the cost of living more. I think he went like an hour, not even talking about inflation and those are real issues.”
Sununu said the ex-president should also draw a bigger contrast on foreign policy with Harris, saying on CNN there “was clearly more peace when” he was in office.
“That is a strength that he has, that he has not exploited in this campaign,” he said. “There is chaos in Ukraine, chaos in Israel. You know, there’s a lot of pressure going on in Taiwan. Let’s not forget about that. Let’s not forget about Afghanistan.”
ANALYSIS – Most conservatives and even some liberal free speech advocates applauded Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, a Big Tech hotbed of leftist narratives and anti-conservative censorship.
Many leftists, outraged that they could no longer simply cancel opposing conservative views, squealed and threatened to leave Twitter.
Of course, they made their threats on Twitter, then waited on Twitter to see the reactions on Twitter.
However, since his tumultuous takeover, Musk has worried some supporters by apparently quickly engaging in the same capricious censorship he so strongly decried.
Going after critics, including the college kid who tracks his plane using publicly available open-source information.
Most recently Musk put his Twitter CEO-ship on the line by asking Twitter users to vote online about whether he should remain ‘Chief Twit.’
Not surprisingly, considering residual leftism left at Twitter, Musk lost that poll and may soon step down and appoint someone else to run the Twitter show.
Still, despite the turmoil and concerns brought on by Musk’s Twitter takeover, many see this dramatic move as an even more dramatic shift in the media ecosphere.
A momentous move to the right and against the dominant liberal media megaphone.
Axios writes: “Elon Musk and allies are building a new anti-left media ecosystem almost overnight.”
It continues:
Why it matters: It’s as if the New York Times editorial page suddenly flipped to the right.
With the reins in Musk’s hands, the right is gaining power in online spaces the left once dominated, Axios’ Erica Pandey reports.
Axios adds: “Look who’s driving the news on Twitter…”
And notes:
Anti-mainstream-media journalists — like Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi — are driving the narrative, getting the clicks and earning new followers on Musk’s Twitter.They’re thriving in an environment where alternative, anti-left and anti-establishment media has taken center stage.
To the folks at Axios, “Musk’s moves at Twitter are part of a larger — growing — anti-left, alternative media ecosystem.”
To buttress their case, they point to Joe Rogan’s populist podcast, which has a heavily conservative fan base and was the most listened-to show of the second half of 2022, according to Edison Research.
Not to be outdone, Axios notes, Ben Shapiro’s more intellectual conservative podcast is now No. 7 — and rising.
As a conservative, I can only hope this is the beginning of a major shift from the leftist-dominated media landscape to a far more balanced one where conservative points of view are given the respect they deserve.
Let’s see where this all leads as we head into the 2024 election.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks in National Statuary Hall on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, January 6, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
ANALYSIS – Question – What’s worse than regular people being indoctrinated to be woke leftists? Answer – a global woke leftist Artificial Intelligence (AI) helping them.
And apparently, and not unsurprisingly, that’s what Joe Biden and his team want. And they are working hard to achieve this nefarious goal.
And it is terrifying.
The American Accountability Foundation (AAF), a government watchdog group, recently warned that Team Biden is actively using the federal government’s vast power to regulate AI to promote a “woke” ideology in the basic architecture of the revolutionary, powerful, and dangerous new technology.
That ‘woke’ ideology promotes affirmative action racism under the guise of ‘anti-racism,’ and radical transgenderism as gender ‘equity.’ Please note ‘equity’ is the opposite of equality. It means forcing equal results not providing equal opportunities.
It is essentially un-American – simply a new way to say socialism.
But Orwellian doublespeak is the way the left sugarcoats and soft peddles its poison.
After researching Team Biden’s plans for artificial intelligence, AAF concluded that Biden administration officials are planning to feed emerging AI platforms with “dangerous ideologies.”
Add that to the growing list of the dangers of AI.
AAF just released part one of a multi-part “investigation into WOKE AI.”
“They have plans to rig AI in the name of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination,’ ‘harmful bias,’ and ‘data that fails to account for existing systemic biases in American society,’” the group tweeted on June 25.
🧵1/ BREAKING: The Biden admin. has plans to make artificial intelligence systems WOKE.
They have plans to rig AI in the name of fighting "algorithmic discrimination," "harmful bias," and "data that fails to account for existing systemic biases in American society."
READ:👇
— American Accountability Foundation (@ExposingBiden) June 25, 2023
“Under the guise of fighting ‘algorithmic discrimination’ and ‘harmful bias,’ the Biden administration is trying to rig AI to follow the woke left’s rules,” AAF president Tom Jones told Fox News Digital.
“Biden is being advised on technology policy, not by scientists, but by racially obsessed social academics and activists. We’re already seen the biggest tech firms in the world, like Google under Eric Schmidt, use their power to push the left’s agenda. This would take the tech/woke alliance to a whole new, truly terrifying level.”
Arati Prabhakar, director of Biden’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, seen in the twitter thread above, recently touted Biden’s signing of an executive order that, in her words, “promotes data equity,” directs agencies to fight “algorithmic discrimination” and ensures these agencies use AI to advance “equity…”
Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden named “AI czar” is supposedly in charge of the National Science and Technology Council which oversees all science and technology efforts across the federal government.
Fox reported that the AAF memo showed another example of how Team Biden is weaponizing AI.
The “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy last October talks of “algorithmic discrimination” in which AI systems treat people differently based on their race, sex or other characteristics and calls for data “used as part of system development or assessment” to be “reviewed for bias based on the historical and societal context of the data.”
To address such concerns, the blueprint recommends, among other steps, that “proactive equity assessments as part of the system design.”
But AAF isn’t the only one sounding the alarm about Biden’s woke AI, Tesla CEO and Twitter owner Elon Musk also warned about the danger of “woke” artificial intelligence being weaponized to push political agendas through false information.
Last December, he tweeted: “The danger of training AI to be woke — in other words, lie — is deadly.”
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A left-wing Swiss billionaire has been bankrolling the voting systems used in American elections, with an alleged bias toward liberals, a U.S. senator reveals.
United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Rules Committee, pressed Benjamin Hovland, Vice Chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on foreign influence in U.S. elections through what he called “a new form of Zuckerbucks: partisan, foreign-backed funding for local election administrators through the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence.”
Hagerty calls it a “highly problematic scheme in which left-wing organizations provide substantial, foreign-funded resources for conducting American elections at the local level.”
Much of the funding comes from Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss billionaire and multi-million dollar donor to left-wing causes through his “Hub Project.”
“This is an $80 million initiative, funded by a web of left-wing entities, to ‘help’ local election administrators conduct elections,” Hagerty explained. “It’s a new form of ‘Zuckerbucks,’ is what it is. This network of entities has received tens—if not hundreds—of millions of dollars from a foreign left-wing billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss. He’s not a U.S. Citizen, so he can’t contribute directly to our elections, but he’s found a way to be involved in our elections.”
“After being repeatedly pressed by Hagerty to acknowledge whether foreign donations used to conduct American elections are acceptable, Vice Chair Hovland conceded that this interference is inappropriate,” a statement from Hagerty’s office reveals.
“Absolutely not. Of course not,” Vice Chair Hovland answered.
“I want to be clear with that because what this is is Zuckerbucks 2.0 coming from a foreign billionaire involving themselves in our elections. What I want to make certain is that this Commission—that no Election Assistance Commission dollars are commingled in any way with these foreign funds,” said Hagerty.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.
ANALYSIS – Please hold the door! Well, it can’t get more ironic or infuriating than this.
A new video appears to show a U.S. soldier, apparently, a female National Guard troop activated by Joe Biden, unlocking and opening a gate in Texas to allow a large group of illegal aliens to cross into the United States.
And Biden thinks it’s funny.
This, after Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas shamelessly said on ABC’s “This Week” that Team Biden had succeeded in getting the word out that the nation’s borders were not open.
The video tweeted by Fox News Channel (FNC) Los Angeles bureau reporter Bill Melugin, is dated May 15, just after Biden allowed the Trump-era Title 42 to expire. The specific location in Texas was Eagle Pass in the U.S. Border Patrol Del Rio Sector.
I asked the Texas National Guard if this is one of their soldiers who opens the gate for the group of migrants. They tell me she is NOT a TX soldier & is not TX ARNG. I’m told she is a Title 10 soldier from the Missouri ARNG under orders from the federal gov & working w/ BP. pic.twitter.com/zKWy121u1K
It is not an official Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry point. In fact, the gate is part of a Texas state border barrier, and the land is reportedly private property.
And to be clear, the soldier was reported to be acting under orders, and the migrants were loaded on a U.S. government bus.
Texas officials quickly highlighted that the soldier is not a member of the Texas National Guard deployed by Governor Greg Abbott under Operation Lone Star.
Instead, she is a Missouri Army National Guard (ARNG) member deployed to “assist” Border Patrol agents under Title 10 by Team Biden.
But the joke is on us.
It seems Biden’s understanding of “assisting the Border Patrol” involves opening the gates to allow illegal migrants to enter the country before being symbolically “processed” and released into the country.
Many of the migrants are being given immigration court date appearances set so far into the future as to be meaningless. Others are let go without any specific court dates.
One Venezuelan told the Washington Examiner that his mother “was told to wait 10 years before she can see a judge.” Another Venezuelan man was told to appear in court in March – 2027.
When asked by reporters about how he believed things were proceeding after Title 42 expired, Biden responded with a laugh, saying: “Much better than you all expected.”
Of course, they are better than expected when you are facilitating their entry to avoid images of mass chaos at the border. “Thank God there’s a camera there so we can watch them all come through in a nice orderly fashion,” one Twitter user commented.
Even disgraced and fired liberal CNN host Chris Cuomo bashed Biden about this:
…we have our president laughing, “Ha ha ha. It’s not as bad as you expected.” Really? With record numbers being processed and released into America. It’s no laughing matter, but if it is a joke, the joke is on us, because the people in power are allowing this to continue.
And while the border looks less chaotic than in recent months, illegal migrants are filling processing centers to capacity, with an unbelievable backlog of two million pending court cases.
Meanwhile, Mayorkas also touted a 50% drop in illegal migrant encounters on the border since Title 42 was rescinded, with 6,300 encounters on Friday and about 4,200 on Saturday.
But their numbers had exploded right before the end of the pandemic-era restriction, topping more than 10,000 a day, so a big drop isn’t hard to achieve.
And with U.S. troops deployed, order is restored – because the border gates are now officially open. The joke really is on us.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
ANALYSIS – Everyone knows crime has exploded in New York City (NYC). This is especially true in the city’s subway system where aggressive mentally ill vagrants and homeless people abound.
But when a white, 24-year-old Marine veteran on the subway tries to subdue a “threatening” black, mentally ill man (with a rap sheet as long as his arm – including an outstanding warrant for felony assault) – the left can only see one thing – ‘racist murder.’
The Marine vet used a chokehold to subdue the aggressive 30-year-old homeless man, Jordan Neely on Monday.
The hold reportedly lasted 15 minutes. He was assisted in subduing Neely by at least two other riders, one of whom was black.
The apparent effort to protect passengers on the F train from Neely’s “threatening” behavior proved to be fatal. Sadly, Neely later died.
Many argue the Marine was justified. One witness told the New York Post that the man was screaming in a threatening manner.
“He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail,” said Juan Alberto Vazquez. “He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.”
But before the coroner had issued a cause of death, leftist agitators were calling it murder.
“NYC is not Gotham. We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequences. Or where the killer is justified & cheered,” City Comptroller Brad Lander tweeted Tuesday.
The next day, in response to a cautious and responsible statement from NYC mayor Erik Adams, where he said he was going to wait for more facts, Democrat NYC Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on a statement, calling the incident a “public murder,” and saying fellow Democrat Adams had reached “a new low” with his response.
This honestly feels like a new low: not being able to clearly condemn a public murder because the victim was of a social status some would deem “too low” to care about.
The last sentence is especially rich from an admin trying to cut the very services that could have helped him. https://t.co/0DtXl9DOO5
Adams, who was once a transit cop during his career with the NYPD, seemed to focus on the mentally ill Neely then also called on elected officials and advocacy groups to: “Join us in prioritizing getting people the care they need and not just allowing them to languish.”
The far-left Working Families Party ripped the initial response from Adams, calling the death “a modern-day public lynching,” said in a statement.
The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide Wednesday evening, though it needs to be clear that this does not equate to murder.
Homicides can be accidental or unintentional.
And even the conservative news outlet Daily Caller sensationalized the Marine’s action in their tweet:
While leftists tried to demonize the blonde, shaggy-haired Marine, and make Neely into an innocent victim, Newsweek reported that Neely had 42 prior arrests between 2013 and 2021, including four for assault.
And considering NYC’s violent subway crime wave, including people getting shoved in front of trains, subduing Neely seems reasonable.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that since 2019, the rate of violent crimes — murder, rape, felony assault and robbery — has more than doubled in the New York City subway system, even as ridership has dramatically decreased.
This fear was highlighted in January 2022 when Michelle Alyssa Go, a 40-year-old Asian-American woman who worked at the consulting firm Deloitte, was shoved in front of an R train in Times Square by a homeless man who police said had a history of crime and mental illness.
Meanwhile, the Soros-backed, ‘progressive,’ Manhattan District Attorney, or DA (yes, the same one gunning for Trump), Alvin Bragg, who is black, has said his office is now investigating the incident.
As part of our rigorous ongoing investigation, we will review the Medical Examiner’s report, assess all available video and photo footage, identify and interview as many witnesses as possible, and obtain additional medical records. This investigation is being handled by senior, experienced prosecutors and we will provide an update when there is additional public information to share.
Much more to come, but maybe not as quickly as some would like.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.
Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”
Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.
A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.
58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”
Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.” They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.
Reuters summarized the findings, noting:
* Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).
* Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).
* Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).
* Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.
* Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement.
“This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.
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.
