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.
Despite suffering a major loss in court on Monday, MyPillow founder and staunch Trump loyalist Mike Lindell is remaining positive.
A federal jury in Colorado on Monday afternoon found MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell liable for defamation, siding with a former Dominion Voting Systems employee who alleged that the Donald Trump loyalist caused real-world harm with 2020 stolen election conspiracies he aired at his 2021 “cyber symposium,” an event that also proved costly for Lindell in the form of an ill-fated and boomeranging “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge.”
In the end, the jury found Lindell liable for defaming Dr. Eric Coomer, along with his company FrankSpeech for participating in a civil conspiracy to do the same, leaving the MyPillow CEO on the hook for $2.3 million — a far cry from the $60-plus million Coomer’s team asked for but nonetheless a loss for Lindell, according to Kyle Clark of 9NEWS.
It wasn’t a total loss for Lindell, however, as MyPillow escaped liability — reportedly as Coomer’s legal team requested.
In an interview with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani on LindellTV after the verdict, Lindell offered his reaction, saying: “It was awesome.”
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr
“I hope Mike doesn’t feel too down. He never does,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said as he kicked it to Lindell for a statement.
“It was awesome,” Lindell told Giuliani.
He also called the judgment a “huge victory for our country,” adding that, “MyPillow was sued for no reason and they won.”
“All the pillow companies have to be happy because now they can’t be sued for libel.”
Lindell had long maintained that he has “done nothing wrong,” that he truly believes his claims about the election, and that both he and his allies have instead been persecuted and subjected to “lawfare” for simply asking questions about the integrity of the 2020 election, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In a video and post shared Monday on X ahead of the verdict, Lindell remarked upon the gravity of his situation: “Today the jury decides.”
https://t.co/ipaZcOhd5z Today the jury decides. We’re standing on God’s Word, believing for victory! Thank you for your prayers and support as we fight for secure elections and free speech. Isaiah 54:17 pic.twitter.com/KaphgbJnOC
“I really believe, God willing, that this will be the gateway to securing our elections, bringing back free speech and the American dream, and saving our country,” he said, before asking his supporters for prayers and directing them to the website for his legal defense fund.
President Trump responded to Tucker Carlson on Monday after the former Fox News host criticized the president’s handling of Iran and the conflict in the Middle East.
Last week in a newsletter, Carlson accused Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s strikes against Iran that sparked the current days-long exchange between the two Middle Eastern powers. The newsletter arrived in the inboxes of Carlson’s readers under the headline: “This Could Be the Final Newsletter Before All-Out War.”
Here’s what Tucker Carlson, who has been aggressively advocating against military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, had to say in his newsletter this morning:
“This could be the final newsletter before an all-out war.”
“Earlier this week, unnamed Washington sources expressed concern over Israel’s ability to fend off Iran’s retaliation, which would inevitably lead to Benjamin Netanyahu ordering the American military to step in and fight on his country’s behalf,” Carlson wrote. “On Thursday, Iran’s president threatened to ‘destroy’ any country that eliminates his government’s nuclear facilities. Now, the world will learn what that looks like.”
Trump responded to Carlson’s criticisms while attending the Group of Seven Summit in Canada.
“Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!’” Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday evening.
Donald Trump just completely fractured his base. And he did it for the very neocons who minted the #NeverTrump movement.
Earlier in the day, Trump dismissed a question from a reporter on Carlson’s concerns.
“I don’t know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,” said Trump, appearing to jab at Carlson over his exit from Fox News. Carlson now runs his own media business, the Tucker Carlson Network, and hosts a popular interview podcast.
Greene, a staunch Trump supporter, pushed back on the president’s criticism of the former Fox News host.
“Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country,” Greene wrote on the social platform X. “He unapologetically believes the same things I do. That if we don’t fight for our own country and our own people then we will no longer have a country for our children and our grandchildren.”
Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people.
He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country.
Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before.
He unapologetically believes the same things I do.
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 17, 2025
“And foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction,” she added.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that President Trump was leaving the G7 Summit early due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. Leavitt said Trump had planned to stay at the economic summit longer, but returned to Washington Monday night “because of what’s going on in the Middle East.” Trump left Washington for Canada this week to meet with world leaders at the Group of Seven Summit.
“President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Much was accomplished, but because of what’s going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State,” said Leavitt.
President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Much was accomplished, but because of what’s going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State.
The change in the president’s plans came as he posted a warning to residents in Tehran to leave the city immediately. The Iranian capital has been bombarded for days by Israel in targeted strikes on military and other key locations.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday morning that he has not reached out to Iran for peace talks.
“I have not reached out to Iran for ‘Peace Talks’ in any way, shape, or form. This is just more HIGHLY FABRICATED, FAKE NEWS! If they want to talk, they know how to reach me,” Trump posted. “They should have taken the deal that was on the table — Would have saved a lot of lives!!!”
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 17, 2025
“Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” Trump wrote. “Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”
When asked on board Air Force One what he meant by promising something more than a ceasefire, Trump said he wanted, “An end. A real end. Not a ceasefire.” He added that “giving up entirely” would also be an option.
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands during their joint press conference, Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Leslie N. Emory)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed during a recent interview that Iran viewed President Donald Trump as a threat to its nuclear program and actively worked to assassinate him.
“They want to kill him. He’s enemy number one. He’s a decisive leader. He never took the path that others took to try to bargain with them in a way that is weak, giving them basically a pathway to enrich uranium, which means a pathway to the bomb, padding it with billions and billions of dollars,” the prime minister told Fox News’ Bret Baier during a special Sunday edition of “Special Report.”
“He took up this fake agreement and basically tore it up. He killed Qasem Soleimani. He made it very clear, including now, ‘You cannot have a nuclear weapon, which means you cannot enrich uranium.’ He’s been very forceful, so for them, he’s enemy number one.”
Netanyahu revealed he was also a target of the regime after a missile was fired into the bedroom window of his home. He went on to call himself Trump’s “junior partner” in threatening Iran’s ability to weaponize nuclear arms.
Netanyahu said his country was facing an “imminent threat” of nuclear destruction and was left with no choice but to act aggressively in the “12th hour.”
“We were facing an imminent threat, a dual existential threat,” he said.
“One, the threat of Iran rushing to weaponize their enriched uranium to make atomic bombs with a specific and declared intent to destroy us. Second, a rush to increase their ballistic missile arsenal to the capacity that they would have 3,600 weapons a year…. Within three years, 10,000 ballistic missiles, each one weighing a ton, coming in at mach 6, right into our cities, as you saw today… and then in 26 years, 20,000 [missiles]. No country can sustain that, and certainly not a country the size of Israel, so we had to act.”
Netanyahu said, by doing so, Israel is not only protecting itself but also protecting the world.
Iran has since retaliated with a large-scale ballistic missile attack on Israeli cities.
Netanyahu told Fox News he believes Israel’s offensive measures have set back the Iranian nuclear program “quite a bit,” sharing his belief that negotiations with the terrorism-sponsoring regime were clearly “going nowhere.”
Netanyahu has described the operation, coined as Operation Rising Lion, as “one of the greatest military operations in history.” Addressing the Iranian people, he said they had been oppressed for 50 years by the same Islamic regime that has long threatened to destroy the State of Israel.
By U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero, Public Domain,
President Trump is doubling down…
Over the weekend, President Trump announced ICE must “expand efforts to detain and deport” illegal immigrants in “America’s largest [c]ities,” including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.”
The president’s comment came in a Truth Social post on Sunday evening after a week of anti-ICE protests that have taken place in major cities across the country, with most demonstrations remaining peaceful while others turned into violent riots in places like LA and Portland.
“Our Nation’s ICE Officers have shown incredible strength, determination, and courage as they facilitate a very important mission, the largest Mass Deportation Operation of Illegal Aliens in History,” Trump wrote. “Every day, the Brave Men and Women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment, and even threats from Radical Democrat Politicians, but nothing will stop us from executing our mission, and fulfilling our Mandate to the American People.”
“ICE Officers are herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” the president added.
The immigration protests began in LA on June 7, after local ICE raids resulted in hundreds of arrests.
The president immediately deployed the National Guard to the area when protests started two weeks ago, garnering criticism from Democrats insisting their presence would only escalate tensions.
As the protests and riots expanded nationally, continuing into this weekend, violence also took hold of certain crowds, injuring both federal and local law enforcement officials, as well as demonstrators.
On Saturday, an innocent bystander was fatally shot during an organized protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, when two event peacekeepers in neon vests opened fire on a suspect, Arturo Gamboa, 24, who ran toward the crowd with a rifle, and ended up shooting the wrong person.
HOLY SHT 🚨 This is the best video on 𝕏. Signs on a Bridge in California read: “F*ck your protests and Your Foreign Flags. Support your local ICE Raids”
In spite of the protests, Trump doubled down on his efforts to deport illegal immigrants in his Sunday post.
“In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside,” he said. “These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.”
He added that he wants ICE officers “to know that REAL Americans are cheering [them] on every day.”
“The American People want our Cities, Schools, and Communities to be SAFE and FREE from Illegal Alien Crime, Conflict, and Chaos,” he wrote. “That’s why I have directed my entire Administration to put every resource possible behind this effort, and reverse the tide of Mass Destruction Migration that has turned once Idyllic Towns into scenes of Third World Dystopia. Our Federal Government will continue to be focused on the REMIGRATION of Aliens to the places from where they came, and preventing the admission of ANYONE who undermines the domestic tranquility of the United States.”
The Trump administration called for a halt on deportation raids on agricultural sites, hotels and restaurants, and not to arrest “noncriminal collaterals” the New York Times reported. The move came out of fears that the sweeping raids were hurting key industries in the U.S.
NEW: Dodgers National Anthem singer sings in Spanish after being told not to, starts crying during a “story time” while talking about how great of a person she is.
‘Baby Nezza’ said she decided to sing in Spanish because of the ICE raids.
Americans may soon learn why the man who stole the confidential financial information of 18,000 taxpayers got the lightest possible criminal sentence from the Biden administration after leaking the tax returns of one of those people – President Donald Trump.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced in a statement he has “sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting information about the prosecution of Charles Littlejohn, the former IRS contractor who leaked the tax returns of President and Trump and thousands of others to ProPublica and the New York Times.”
“During Littlejohn’s sentencing, Biden-Harris Justice Department prosecutors stated that the scope and scale his unauthorized disclosure was unparalleled in the IRS’s history yet allowed Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, resulting in only a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine,” the statement explains.
“It remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count,” the statement notes.
Jordan’s letter reads, in part:
“The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing to investigate the unprecedented leak of protected taxpayer information by Charles E. Littlejohn. Despite confessing to leaking ‘thousands of individuals’ and entities’ tax returns’ to ProPublica and the New York Times, the Biden-Harris Administration charged Mr. Littlejohn, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contractor, with only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. Due to the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability, the Committee has learned that the scope of Mr. Littlejohn’s leak was much broader than the Biden-Harris Administration had led the public to believe. Accordingly, we respectfully renew our request for documents relating to Mr. Littlejohn’s prosecution.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, Justice Department prosecutors stated that the ‘scope and scale’ of Mr. Littlejohn’s unauthorized disclosure was ‘unparalleled in the IRS’s history.’ They claimed at the time that the data stolen by Mr. Littlejohn included ‘returns’ and ‘return information’ for approximately 18,000 individuals and 73,000 businesses. Yet, the Justice Department under President Biden allowed Mr. Littlejohn to plead guilty to only one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence, three years’ supervised release, and a $5,000 fine.
“During Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing, the judge expressed that she was ‘perplexed’ and ‘troubled’ by the overly lenient plea agreement, stating: ‘The fact that [Mr. Littlejohn] is facing one felony count, I have no words for.’
“On February 8, 2024, the Committee wrote to the Biden-Harris Justice Department requesting documents about the Department’s decision to pursue one charge against Mr. Littlejohn despite the severity of his actions. On March 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Justice Department responded by defending Mr. Littlejohn’s single felony charge and his five-year prison sentence. The Biden-Harris Justice Department failed to produce any substantive or nonpublic information to the Committee.
“After President Trump took office, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that over 405,000 taxpayers were victims of Mr. Littlejohn’s leaks and that ’89 [percent] of the taxpayers [we]re business entities.’ While it is now clear that Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers, it remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count. It appears that the Biden-Harris Justice Department authorized a plea agreement in this case that did not ensure full accountability for criminal conduct that was unprecedented in its scope and scale.”
President Donald Trump takes questions after signing Executive Orders, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
President Trump is celebrating his most recent win…
President Donald Trump celebrated a federal appeals court ruling Thursday that granted him a temporary legal victory in his use of military force on U.S. soil, allowing the National Guard to remain deployed and under his control in Los Angeles as immigration protests continue.
The decision, handed down Thursday night by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, paused an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who found the president’s deployment unlawful and ordered control of the Guard returned to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The legal whiplash, pausing Breyer’s 36-page rebuke just two hours after it dropped, left Los Angeles caught between two clashing branches of government and a national debate over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and military presence in civilian life.
The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!
A battalion of 700 U.S. Marines is expected to arrive Friday to support the Guard, an escalation that critics, including Newsom, argue the move is an example of authoritarian excess. The troops have been guarding a federal detention center downtown, where protests have centered.
“I’m confident, on the basis of the review of the 36 pages – absolutely it will stand,” Newsom said of the district judge’s order.
National Guard troops in Los Angeles have already detained protesters boycotting operations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), though they were quickly turned over to local law enforcement, according to officials.
Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman told the Associated Press on Wednesday that about 500 National Guard Troops have been trained so far to help agents carry out immigration operations.
Michael Avenatti, a former high-profile attorney who rose to fame representing porn actor Stormy Daniels against President Donald Trump, was originally sentenced after pleading guilty to bilking his California clients and hiding millions more from the IRS.
He had the sentence vacated in October by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that it was based on calculations of a greater loss to his victims than was actually suffered — and thus was too lengthy.
U.S. District Court Judge James Selna on Thursday sentenced Avenatti to 135 months, minus 40 to account for a separate Stormy Daniels fraud sentence.
The court previously ruled that the Stormy Daniels theft was similar in nature, happened in the same time period, and therefore could be considered when deciding the new sentence.
The 14-year sentence was nullified, but not dismissed entirely, and his convictions still stand, with Avenatti guilty of wire fraud and tax obstruction.
Authorities said Avenatti negotiated and collected settlement payments on behalf of his clients, then funneled the money to accounts he controlled and spent it on his own lavish lifestyle.
The case is separate from Avenatti’s other convictions for attempting to extort Nike and stealing money from Daniels. Avenatti’s attempts to get those convictions and sentences overturned on appeal all failed.
Avenatti’s initial release date was set for July 31, 2035, but he asked Selna for a sentence that would have him released in just a few years. Avenatti, who was suspended from practicing law in California, has been representing himself.
Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of only a few months less than the 14 years originally handed down.
Ahead of his resentencing, Avenatti appealed for a more lenient sentence by providing details of his alleged personal transformation while behind bars in a 41-page memorandum filed last month.
The memorandum detailed his life at the Terminal Island prison in Los Angeles, describing how he is trusted by prison officials to help other inmates – including serving as “suicide watch companion.”
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had harsh words for the White House on Wednesday after he said he was “uninvited” from its annual picnic, a snub that came amid the Kentucky Republican’s vocal opposition to President Trump’s tax cut and spending package.
On Wednesday, CNN’s Manu Raju caught up with Paul outside the Capitol, where the senator addressed the revoked invitation for seven minutes.
“I think I’m the first senator in the history of the United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,” he said. “I just find this incredibly petty. I mean — I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the President.”
Paul added, “The level of immaturity is beyond words.”
The senator went so far as to say he has lost respect for the president.
“I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse,” he said. “And they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic. I don’t know. I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.”
Paul accused White House aides of “running sort of a paid influencer campaign against me for two weeks on Twitter.” He even said that “someone has told us that the White House called them from the White House, and offered them money to attack me online.”
He added, “So, it’s silly in a way, but it’s also just really sad that this is what it’s come to,” he continued. “But petty vindictiveness like this, I don’t know. It makes you wonder about the quality of people you’re dealing with.”
In a Thursday Truth Social post, Trump claimed that Paul and his family are in fact invited to the White House event.
“Of course Senator Rand Paul and his beautiful wife and family are invited to the BIG White House Party tonight. He’s the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn’t he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women,” the president wrote.
Paul responded to the invitation with two posts, one in which he called the president’s words “promising” and another in which he slapped a Make America Great Again hat on his grandson.
“This is a promising sign of things to come—and if there’s one thing [President Trump] and I agree on, it’s that my wife is beautiful,” the senator wrote on X.
This is a promising sign of things to come—and if there’s one thing @POTUS and I agree on, it's that my wife is beautiful. pic.twitter.com/6nPlo205d1
Fellow budget hawk Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also said he was not invited to this year’s White House event.
Incredibly petty & shortsighted of Trump’s staff to exclude Republicans from the annual White House picnic while inviting Pelosi and every Democrat. I always give my few tickets to my staff and their kids, but apparently this year my tickets have been withheld as well. Low class. https://t.co/YXeAlt9oId
By Federalreserve - https://www.flickr.com/photos/federalreserve/54004811346/, Public Domain,
President Trump is reportedly mulling implementing some major leadership changes at the Federal Reserve.
Reports indicate President Trump is considering a member of his Cabinet to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
Powell has less than a year remaining in his term as Fed chair, which is due to expire in May 2026. President Donald Trump, who nominated Powell to the role in 2017, has signaled he won’t nominate the chair for another term and recently gave Powell the derisive nickname of “Mr. Too Late” amid his efforts to lobby the Fed to cut interest rates.
Trump has suggested he could name Powell’s successor in the near future, well in advance of the end of Powell’s term as chair, and has reportedly developed a short list of contenders in mind.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is one of the leading contenders for the role of Fed chair, Bloomberg News reported, citing people familiar with the matter, though the outlet noted the administration hasn’t started formal interviews.
Bloomberg reported that former Fed official Kevin Warsh, who Trump considered for the treasury secretary role before opting to nominate Bessent, is also on the short list for the Fed chair role.
Bessent testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday and was asked about reports linking him to the Fed chair role and whether he would rather have that role or remain as the Treasury secretary.
The secretary said that his current role is “the best job” in the nation’s capital and that while he is “happy to do what President Trump wants me to do,” he “would like to stay in my seat through 2029” to advance the administration’s agenda until the end of the president’s term.
The Legal Hit Squad Targeting Trump Lawyers
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.
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.
If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.