Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher, in the play Henry VI, uttered the oft-quoted words “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Shakespeare’s intent with these words has been debated, but one interpretation is significant. “Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.” Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 (1985) (Stevens, J. dissenting). The Trump script is different but at least as pernicious – ‘the first thing we do, we frighten [indeed threaten] lawyers who challenge the administration’s authority’. What brought this on? Jack Smith, former special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump, sought legal services after resigning. A law firm offered that assistance at no cost. When that became public, the attack on lawyers commenced with a fury. Wielding power from the Oval Office, the President issued a memorandum against that firm, Covington and Burling, stripping security clearances from some of its attorneys and directing “all agencies to review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP.” Put more …

Two weeks out from the presidential election, the nation is divided, polls can’t predict a winner, a third party candidate persists in their campaign, and anger over issues (Gaza being emblematic) pushes some to not vote, vote third party, or vote “to punish” the Democratic candidate. My commitment to activism and progress is strong; my responsibility as a lawyer, law professor, and advocacy/persuasion teacher, is to dissect arguments, identify the reasoning behind it, and look for and expose fallacies or unacknowledged consequences. As I see these trends, read the heartfelt angry statements, and listen to those who take such stances, I fear two things – the consequences of such actions are dire and the reasoning does not hold up. Consider these statements, some direct quotes and others paraphrases of what potential voters have said: I need to see a policy that says something in Israel is going to change [before I vote for Harris] I am becoming a one issue voter The Democrats have done great things. Biden has passed historic legislation, but none of …

The report announcing that no criminal charges would be brought against Joseph Biden for mishandling classified materials brought an unsurprising response from Donald Trump – that this was “selective prosecution.” As he stated in a speech to the NRA, “It was just announced that Joe Biden’s Department of Injustice will bring zero charges against crooked Joe despite the fact he willfully retained undisclosed droves of ultra-classified national security documents.” Trump added “if he’s not going to be charged, that’s up to them, but then I should not be charged.” And this claim has now been made in court papers, as Trump’s lawyers in the documents case filed a new pleading calling it a case that should have never been brought and must ultimately be dismissed on the basis of, inter alia, selective and vindictive prosecution. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report issued by Special Counsel Robert Hur, finding that President Biden has “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” over the course of …