On the heels of DC attempting to disbar @JeffClarkUS, a dark money group has escalated further--filing bar complaints against little-known lawyers who defend the Administration in court. This is a frontal assault on the Executive Branch. It must be defeated at all costs. 1/
Lets set the stage. First, the subjects of the complaints are the political appointee who has my old job--Deputy Assistant AG for Federal Programs, in @TheJusticeDept parlance--and two career lawyers. These are not high profile people accustomed to harassment. 2/
Second, the complainant appears to be a random group funded by left-wing dark money. (The "Legal Accountability Center"; Orwell would be proud.) It is not a former client or current litigant. It's seemingly some activists paid to read X all day, then harass government lawyers based on public reporting. 3/
Third, the basis of the complaint is ludicrous--claims that these lawyers were somehow dishonest with the district court in litigation over terminations at the CFPB. This random complainant has no basis for that claim; it is internet speculation pasted into a complaint. It is also false. 4/
So now what? It seems obvious that state bars cannot dictate how federal Justice Department lawyers represent the Executive Branch. And it seems equally obvious that government lawyers--already making significant financial and personal sacrifice to serve their country--should be maximally shielded from this type of harassment. 5/
The harassment is, of course, the point. This group doesn't care if these lawyers actually face sanction. Its goal is to intimidate them into chilling their advocacy on behalf of the Executive Branch. It wants to pressure them, in other words, to be less zealous lawyers. 6/
These are exceptionally gifted attorneys so this intimidation game will fail, but it is still an enormous problem. @TheJusticeDept lawyers already work long hours for comparatively low pay. Now they also have to deal with this crap? 7/
The courts have developed immunity doctrines in other contexts to pretermit this sort of harassment. Prosecutors (and judges) are absolutely immune from direct civil suit. Federal officers acting in their official capacity are immune from state sanction. etc 8/
I'm sure lawyers @TheJusticeDept are crafting arguments to resist the attack on @JeffClarkUS and this new assault on line attorneys. I am too, so please share ideas. As @GeneHamiltonUSA and I have discussed, defending the rule of law requires that we stick up for public officials who spend each day trying to uphold it. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The district judges in New Jersey are thinking about replacing @realdonaldtrump’s chosen US Attorney—@USAttyHabba—with someone the judges choose under a statute purporting to give them that power. But if the judges attempt that move, it should fail. Here’s why. 1/
First the basics. Article II vests all executive power in the President. That includes the prosecution power of U.S. Attorneys. For @POTUS to properly exercise that power, he must be able to freely hire and fire all subordinates who wield it. 2/
As Chief Justice Taft—a former @POTUS himself—wrote in Myers: “The President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates.” Again, that includes US Attorneys. 3/
The @WSJopinion has an editorial today arguing three basic things: (1) Emil Bove is a poor judicial nominee, (2) his nomination will stop other judges from retiring, (3) other Trump nominees are better and will induce more retirements. I broadly disagree. 1/
First, as I have written elsewhere, Emil Bove is a strong nominee right down the fairway of @realdonaldtrump’s long track record of excellent appointments. He has strong credentials and is a senior official @TheJusticeDept in the Administration. Straightforward pick. 2/
What about @WSJopinion's objections? The main objection concerns a meeting in which Bove allegedly asked colleagues about defying a potential court order and did so using profane language. Lets unpack both claims. 3/
The President removed the Board Members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—the infamous funding vehicle for @NPR and @PBS. These Board Members—as other terminated federal officials have done—sued the President to hold onto their offices. But importantly, they lost.. 2/
Case closed, right? Wrong. Rather than accede to the court's ruling, the officials refused to leave. They continued to unlawfully commandeer their offices, sending more taxpayer dollars to @NPR and @PBS. 3/