At its narrowest, the Capitol breach spawned the Department of Justice’s legal pursuit and prosecution of participants as something approximating terrorists, and the House January 6th Committee’s political pursuit and persecution of the conservative movement itself as terroristic.
Unpopular though litigators might be, this vengeful, dangerous, and un-American manifestation of the War on Wrongthink should concern all Americans.
"We’ve come together to hold accountable the Big Lie Lawyers behind fraudulent lawsuits intended to overturn election results, and those that otherwise helped fuel insurrection.
"Following Biden’s 2020 victory, an army of Big Lie Lawyers filed 65 lawsuits based on lies, in a malicious attempt to subvert democracy. They failed.
"Despite resounding losses in court, Trump and his Big Lie Lawyers have not stopped. They are actively working to seize control of state and local elections, and ramp up additional litigation in ’22 and ’24.
Democrats of course have challenged numerous presidential elections—the last three won by Republicans, in fact—and, of course, fight all manner of legal issues around elections vigorously.
The 65 Project’s projection, therefore, is mind-bending.
That Trump’s lawyers sought to challenge some of this activity in court is no crime, however much the left wishes to paint it as part of the “insurrection.”
On the contrary, candidates aren't only entitled to lodge legal challenges over issues such as these, but when speaking of questions as weighty as the legitimacy of a presidential election, and the integrity of the electoral system itself, they are also arguably duty-bound to do so.
It's self-evidently not operating in good faith, but rather explicitly to punish its legal opponents.
It would be chilling enough if this group aimed solely to ruin Trump’s lawyers professionally, but The 65 Project also seeks to ruin them personally.
As Brock told Axios, the idea is to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."
“I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing,” Brock said. “You’re threatening their livelihood. And, you know, they’ve got reputations in their local communities.”
The 65 Project is open about its totalitarian bent, as well the obviously cynical nature of this gambit. One anonymous person involved with the project quoted by Axios said that it “is mostly important for the deterrent effect that it can bring so that you can kill the pool of available legal talent going forward.”
In a system of shifting rules, in which elections are increasingly to be determined in court rather than at the ballot box, preventing your opponent from being able to compete in the courtroom by depriving him of his lawyers makes sense.
It becomes an imperative to destroy your legal competition—at least if you subscribe to an ends-justify-the-means ethos.
"The evenhanded application of the law is a principle that must be defended. Everywhere, balance and perspective are under attack. Whatever the costs of America’s process-heavy adversarial contests, that feature of our polity is a key bulwark of liberty. Due process is not something to be trifled with, deconstructed, or thrown away based on the passions of the political moment.
"The Prussian military theorist Von Clausewitz is famous for his dictum that “war is the continuation of policy by other means.” Project 65 seeks to invert that: To turn politics into just another mode of all-out warfare. Attacking the dignity of the bar will be the death knell of our Anglo-American legal system and for fair, competitive politics more generally. Project 65’s lawsuits are an assault on the principle of equal protection under the law and on the Constitution’s Petition Clause. This is a fight that patriotic Americans must win, or the United States will just be the latest example of a republic decayed into a phony, failed oligarchy."This project perfectly represents the ruling class’s broader effort to shame, censor, and, if needed, cancel perceived threats to its power and privilege through use of the politics of personal destruction, and at the cost of liberty and justice.
Dissent has become increasingly indefensible. Anything standing in the ruling class’s way must be obliterated—targeted, bankrupted, and broken.
Those unable or unwilling to recognize that our ruling class wants not just conservatives, but all opponents wiped off the playing field, and that the only response is to fight fire with fire—that is, to raise the costs of this malicious behavior to such massive levels as to wholly deter it—will be condemned to failure.
Those at the commanding heights of American society act as if they believe they will never face punishment for this kind of deplorable conduct.
This calculus has to change.
Clark provides some ways to shift the paradigm worthy of consideration.
We as Americans must be thinking more broadly about a counter-response, consistent with our values, principles, and traditions, to the broader assault on tens of millions of fellow God-fearing, freedom-loving patriots.
It's incumbent upon us to demand that our leaders represent us in the face of this onslaught.
Absent such a defense, we will require a whole new set of leaders.