Trump Seeths as Judges Seek Disbarment of Todd Blanche?!?

Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF as the group's array against Todd Blanche being confirmed as the Attorney General takes shape. And as we're on and just past day two of his confirmation hearing with live witnesses for and mainly against Todd Blanche, I wanted to also update everyone on things that are working behind the scenes, such as bar complaints that have been filed against Todd Blanche in New York at the Appellate Division First Department. I'm a member of that one too. And the reference to that bar complaint by Judge Williams in her scathing 56-page decision concerning whether fraud on the court or deceit or bad faith had been perpetrated in her courtroom, whether she had been used by Donald Trump and Todd Blanche to create the Anti-Weaponization Settlement Fund and a super pardon for Trump and his family or not. And at the same time, the Department of Justice alum have come forward. A thousand and one of them have signed a letter that was addressed to the two ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, Grassley and Durbin, outlining in excruciating detail, much the way the 60-page plus grievance did, the reasons why Todd Blanche is unfit to be the Attorney General of the United States. I thought I'd bring in sort of representatives of both groups here. So I want to bring in Lauren Stiller-Racleen and John Montgomery, representing Lawyers Defending American Democracy, who along with another group filed the bar complaint against Todd Blanche in New York, and our friend and colleague, Lisa Graves, who wears many hats, including a legal AF anchor, but here is a proud alum of the Department of Justice and signed her letter along with a thousand other people to try to move the needle with Durbin and Grassley. So first, let me welcome Lisa and John and Lauren to Legal AF. Thank you. Great to be here. Thank you for having us. Why don't we kick it off, just to update the story with the testimony in the last 24 hours from Liz Oyer. She's now known as the pardon lawyer, Liz Oyer, but you know, once proudly served in the Department of Justice as just a career apolitical pardon attorney, making recommendations to whoever's sitting in the Oval Office about what pardons they should be granting, and she was dumped and fired because she refused to rubber stamp what Donald Trump wanted, and she was canned by Todd Blanche, and she had some searing testimony today, riveting testimony today as a witness brought by the Senate Democrats, and I thought we'd play a couple of clips of her and then get into where we are with your respective filings and submissions. Let's play the clips. Earlier this week, a federal judge found that Mr. Blanche personally misled this Congress about the department's settlement agreement with President Trump. To the American public, it looks like Mr. Blanche is running DOJ as Donald Trump's personal law firm. He is using law enforcement powers to pursue petty grudges harbored by the president. These pointless vendettas are wasting our scarce resources and destroying DOJ's credibility. Mr. Blanche has repeatedly placed President Trump's interests ahead of the interests of the country. The collusive settlement agreement is a perfect example. It protects the entire Trump family and all of their businesses from any investigation or audit forever. It gives away nearly $2 billion of our money for no reason at all. It is a windfall for the president and his allies at the expense of the American people. A court found that signing this agreement was a betrayal of Mr. Blanche's duty to zealously represent the interests of the United States. That is the most basic obligation of the attorney general. Mr. Blanche said yesterday that the settlement fund is dead. It is not. That is contract law 101. Mr. Trump or his sons could seek to enforce it at any time. Two days after Mr. Blanche was confirmed as deputy attorney general, he fired me from my position as the department's career pardon attorney. I declined to rubber stamp a political favor for a friend of the president and it cost me my job. Mr. Blanche's office had asked me to recommend restoring the gun ownership rights of a convicted domestic abuser. I raised concerns about public safety, but Mr. Blanche's staff pressured me to go along anyway. I did not. Domestic violence is the leading type of homicide among women. When a domestic abuser is armed, his victim is five times more likely to be killed. But because this particular domestic abuser had a personal relationship with the president, Mr. Blanche's staff asked me to set aside my concerns. When I wouldn't, Mr. Blanche fired me within hours. He then took extraordinary measures to silence me. He sent U.S. marshals to my home in an effort to prevent me from speaking with members of Congress. Yeah, I think that guy was Mel Gibson. He's the only person in America that lost their job over Mel Gibson's gun rights. But having said that, with a powerful presentation in a way that even individual senators 10 minutes at a clip can't do, what I said, I don't know if you guys heard it, what I told the senators and their staff to do, and I know they watched the show, is that all you got to do is take the grievance complaint filed by lawyers defending American democracy, single-spaced, that runs 73 pages, and or take the letter written by the DOJ alum and just use that and track that and make all those points. So what I wanted to start, let me start out with the lawyers defending American democracy with John and Lauren. How did that letter come together? How did you get 101 former state and federal judges, the federal judges or all state judges? Both. Both to come together for that. And what was your purpose in filing that bar complaint with the regulator of Todd Blanche's law license? John, do you want to kick it off? Sure. So we, since 2020, Michael, we have been regularly filing ethics complaints that we considered to be part of the assault that we've witnessed now for a number of years on the rule of law. We were particularly active in ethics complaints, substantial complaints against lawyers like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Ken Chesbrough, Jeffrey Clark, and others. And we have continued that all for the purpose of helping to protect the rule of law. Our view is that accountability is integral to the rule of law. And we, you know, regrettably are seeing, you know, many lawyers who are deviating from the ethical standards that are necessary to actually comply with their oaths as lawyers and with the rules of professional responsibility. So that leads us to this particular complaint. We've worked sometimes by ourselves and often, you know, actively with other groups and particularly with Democracy Defenders Fund. And we did so on this complaint and then collaborated with them on the solicitation of others who might be interested in signing the complaint. And in this particular case, you know, we have, I guess it's, Lauren, 101 former judges, state and federal. So that's a long-winded answer to your question, for which I apologize, but I hope that's complete. That's what makes these videos. Let me read from just one portion of the bar complaint that's been filed. It says, Mr. Blanche, this is on page four, Mr. Blanche's participation in President Trump versus the Internal Revenue Service was fundamentally incompatible with his ethical obligations under the New York rules of professional responsibility. Among other things, Mr. Blanche failed to competently and diligently represent the United States, participated in a matter he previously participated in while in private practice, attempted to assist his former client and current boss, President Trump, to skirt legal limits on his ability to end a tax audit against him, his family and his companies, and achieve a global release of all claims the United States had or could have had against them, and personally and knowingly, through the acts of another, engaged in conduct that was deceptive and prejudicial to the administration of law. And then it goes on for 70 pages and detailing it. My first question for Lauren is, has the First Department Appellate Division acknowledged the receipt of it? Have they opened up an investigation? Where do you think you are in the process? Well, where we are in the process is we just learned literally a couple of hours ago that there is not going to be an investigation. And apparently we are invited to submit a complaint before the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department of Justice if we think that we would like this pursued. So we have not had a chance to really digest this letter, nor we're meeting tomorrow to talk to our colleagues at Democracy Defenders Fund. So it's premature to say what we will do at this point. But needless to say, it is extraordinarily disappointing that the state disciplinary authority responsible for lawyers' conduct and accountability to follow the rules of professional conduct that every single lawyer in country is supposed to follow, that they are saying, if you have a complaint about Todd Blanche, take it to Todd Blanche. That's where it seems to stand at the moment. Well, we're breaking news, whether it's good or bad here. I mean, look, I've seen the Florida Bar take a similar position as it related to Pam Bondi. I'm also a member of the Florida Bar, and I chastise them for doing that. There's nothing in the bar rules that says if you're in federal service, you are immune from having a bar regulator look into your ethical conduct or not. Other states have allowed, the D.C. Bar has allowed government lawyers to be investigated in real time. And I had hoped that the Appellate Division First Department would have said, no, we're not going to do what Todd Blanche has announced he wants us to do, which he's already said as he's suing bar associations, that, oh, no, it should start with the Department of Justice and our own internal analysis before. I mean, have they said, go there first and then failing that, come back? It doesn't look like that. No, no, no. It doesn't say that at all. And I don't want to get too far into the weeds here, Michael, but we do have a congressional statute that makes it clear that Department of Justice lawyers, including expressly the Attorney General of the United States, is subject to the bar rules of each DOJ lawyer's state or jurisdiction of admission. Well, that's a great answer. I mean, you guys got to take an appeal. They're wrong. As was Florida. And we will certainly be evaluating any options that we might have, because this is appalling. The notion, as Lauren just said, that Todd Blanche is going to seriously evaluate his own conduct, which he's already ignored the ethical standards that apply to him. So it's hard to imagine that his own department is going to take a different view. I mean, if you think about what our complaint is about or what Judge Williams' complaint is about, it's about conflicts of interest. The notion that the Department of Justice is going to investigate Todd Blanche, it just is a massive conflict of interest. So what are they going to do? So just playing this out, Judge Williams, in her order, I'll read it, have it here on the floor. It says, directing the clerk of the court, the Southern District of Florida, to send a copy of the order to the State Bar of New York, it's really the Appellate Division 1st Department, of which Acting Attorney General Blanche is a member, with his bar license number, and then notes that disciplinary proceedings are currently ongoing, referencing you. It says in footnote 70 of her order, ethics complaints have been filed in New York and the District of Columbia against Acting Attorney General Blanche and Associate Attorney General Woodward. See letter to Attorney Grievance Committee, ethics complaint, and there it is. So now what? They're going to tell the judge, sorry, you've sent it to the wrong place? We of course don't know, to be fair, whether the Grievance Committee in the 1st Department has received that referral, presumably not. We don't know whether they're anticipating receipt of that referral, but the letter that we've received today is incredibly disrespectful to Judge Williams and the Federal District Court in Florida. And when they receive that referral, good question, what are they going to do? And now I wonder, we'll play the clip here, now I wonder if Blanche knew he had this in his back pocket when he responded to Senator Blumenthal about the bar complaint and Judge Williams' referral. Let's play that clip. The judge in Florida referred your misconduct. She concluded that there was misconduct and misrepresentation and improper purpose in that legal action to the Bar of New York for potential discipline, including losing your law license. I know you disagree with the result of the ruling. Has that kind of referral ever happened by a federal judge for an Attorney General of the United States? I don't know, but I'll tell you something. That judge never asked us to respond. She never gave us an opportunity to respond to anything, and she didn't refer me. She just asked that a copy of the order be provided the New York Bar, because there are several activist groups that have filed complaints against me. So listen, as I said earlier, I think anybody on this committee, especially the lawyers that have practiced, can read that opinion and reach their own conclusions. But I very much disagree with the judge's insinuations about me, and we're going to do what we can to make that right. We're just like, oh, it's all wrong. I don't have an active bar complaint against me. I wonder if somebody tipped him off since you said you just got in the last few hours, and I wonder if the fix is in here in Donald Trump's backyard at home state. That's fascinating. The thing about it that I think is so upsetting, well, everything about it is upsetting, but you also have to ask the question. The DOJ has proposed a new rule in which they're trying to say that any lawyer that works for the Department of Justice, if you have any kind of grievance or complaint against their behavior, you cannot take it to the same state authorities that every state has created to do lawyer discipline. You have to send it first to us for our conflict of interest-ridden evaluation of their behavior. The idea now that comes to mind, the worry that comes to mind is, is what New York is doing simply another example of capitulating in advance? There was this proposed rule. It has not yet been put in effect, but is New York saying, oh, well, we better capitulate in advance because we don't want to get in trouble. We don't want anything bad to happen to us. At every level, this should be a concern to every lawyer in this country because it's essentially stacking the deck and treating one class of lawyers completely differently than every other lawyer in this country has every right and expectation to know that that's how problems are resolved in the profession. Well, the Grievance Committee is certainly not lawyers defending American democracy. Let me turn to Lisa Graves, who, besides spending her entire career looking at corruption in the court system up to the United States Supreme Court, also has the distinction of being one of the only people, I don't know, probably a small handful, to serve all three branches of government, including the Department of Justice, and sign the letter. So talk about the letter that you participated in that also detailed in excruciating detail what Chuck Schumer has referred to as Todd Blanche's rap sheet and sent it to the ranking members on the Judiciary Committee. Talk about that process and then what do you think is going to come out of that? Well, I was proud to sign that letter that was organized by the Lawyer Connection. That letter was signed by the Justice Connection, pardon me. That letter was signed by more than 1,000 alums of the Justice Department, including people who served under Republican and Democratic presidents at the highest levels of the department. And together, we've come together for this letter. We may not agree on a million other things, but we agree on this. Todd Blanche is the wrong man to lead the Justice Department. He's demonstrated that he's the wrong person to lead the Justice Department through his actions. Whatever his testimony has been over these last two days, and the testimony against him, which I've watched closely, does not exonerate him. In fact, it further underscores his unfitness for the position of public trust that he's been nominated to, in addition to the position of public trust he now holds as Acting Attorney General, having been confirmed previously as the Deputy Attorney General by this Republican-led Congress at Trump's urging. And so I think I would say, certainly on my part, I joined that letter with love for the mission of the Justice Department to serve all Americans. When I used to walk into the Justice Department, when I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General over there in the Office of Legal Policy and Policy Development, and before, I felt a tremendous amount of pride and honor to walk through those doors on Pennsylvania Avenue, where it's engraved, the place of justice is a hallowed place. I believe that deeply. I think most people who work there believe that deeply. And it's been tarnished and trashed by Todd Blanche, who is treating the Justice Department as basically the private law firm, law firm for Donald Trump, for pursuing his childish, petty political vendettas, as well as dismantling fundamental areas of mission of the Justice Department. And I'm glad to be on this conversation today with Lauren and John and you. The notion that the Justice Department can simply issue a regulation in defiance of the McDade Amendment, which is 28 U.S.C. 530B, which is the law, the statute John is referring to that applies to all the lawyers. And it says that the lawyers of the Justice Department are subject to the rules of the bars to which they belong and all states. And as Lauren was saying, we simply cannot have a situation in which the most powerful lawyers in the country are subject to no rules other than their own, especially when we know what's happened. It's not just that Todd Blanche subserviently fired Liz Oyer from her career role as a pardon attorney. He decimated the very office, the Office of Professional Responsibility, that supposedly we're supposed to seek, or people are supposed to seek review of. Todd Blanche has really been ruling the Justice Department, even with Pam Bondi at the top. He has been creating a culture of fear for employees. It's been documented by a number of people who've left, who've described the culture there. It is not a culture in which the traditional process of people setting aside their political views, setting aside their religious views in order to do the work of the American people to put the Constitution first. That is not the culture. The culture is what Donald Trump wants whatever he wants, and the command to jump, the response is how high. And we know that in part from Todd Blanche's first press conference as acting attorney general when he was asked how he would respond to any pressure from Trump to pursue his perceived political enemies. And Blanche said in so many words, he doesn't worry about that at all. The only thing he worries about is doing enough to pursue what Donald Trump wants him to pursue, which is truly dangerous. It's a long-standing part of Western civilization, of American law, that you have to have someone guarding the guardians. You cannot have unchecked power, and we know that unchecked power is corrupting. It is inherently corrupting. We need to have the bars involved in responding to complaints like the complaint from Judge Williams that you referenced, Michael, responding to the complaint by LDAD and other lawyers to hold Todd Blanche accountable. And I'll just say this, we know that's one of the things they fear because we know that people have faced accountability for their actions, like John Eastman being disbarred in California for his role in trying to subvert the 2020 election. We know that Jeffrey Clark, who is attempting to do the same, has been facing bar proceedings in the District of Columbia. We know that John Mitchell, the former Attorney General for Richard Nixon, faced not just criminal charges and imprisonment, but was in fact disbarred. And disbarment is the one thing that Donald Trump cannot repair through his untrammeled pardon power, which I believe is too far. He may be able to pardon Todd Blanche if the case arises that he decides to do so, but he cannot unilaterally prevent these bars from holding the people of justice more accountable. And I hope that the state bars will rise to the challenge and ensure that we have ethical lawyers and not people willing to, in the case of Todd Blanche, put the interests of Donald Trump ahead the interests of his real client, the United States of America, and we the people. Yeah, look, the reality is there's no requirement that the Attorney General be a lawyer. But if they're going to be a lawyer and not voluntarily give up their bar license, then they should be regulated. Otherwise, what's the purpose of somebody, I'm sure he's paying his dues, I'm sure he wants to keep his bar license in good standing, I'm sure he didn't go inactive, or I'm sure he's doing his CLEs or getting some sort of exemption from doing them so he can return on the revolving door back to private practice, what he's all done. So it's a valuable thing to him, then therefore he should have to pay the price. Look, if Donald Trump wants to put his plumber or his pool repair man as Attorney General and he can get the votes and apparently he can get anybody confirmed, then avoid this whole problem and don't put a lawyer in. But if you're a lawyer, this is what I always tell clients of mine, they're like, well, I'm a lawyer, I'm a lawyer CPA and I don't really practice law. Well, then you still have your law license, right? What you just did violated your law license. So you're gonna lose it, you don't have to have it, it's a privilege. But if you have it, then you need to be regulated for it. I mean, grievance committee, wake up. I don't know what is going on in my state, it's an embarrassment. Two of my states have now rejected regulating, standing up to Donald Trump. And before I turn back to Lauren, let me just read just the table of contents in Lawyers Defending American Democracies bar complaint, that's all I gotta do. So this is all they should have done with one of their 10 minute blocks for the senators today. Potential violations of the New York rules of professional responsibility, failure to defend the United States in President Trump versus IRS, entering into a baseless and flawed settlement agreement and the creation of an unlawful anti-weaponization fund and an unprecedented general release of liability to Trump and his family. Conflicts of interest, participation in prior matters worked on while in private practice, personal financial interests, personal loyalty and prejudice and bias. James Comey, but everything going after the seashell indictment, former Armando Abrego Garcia, a judge ruled vindictive prosecution in that case. I haven't even turned to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the cover up, the cover up of the cover up, right? Failure to timely comply with disclosure requirements, unlawful withholding and redacting of documents, release of sensitive victim information, failure to publish justification of redactions as required by law. Judge Sullivan's gonna have something to say about that. Conflicts of interest, dishonest and deceitful statements and conduct. I mean, any one of those things in any other era would be a disqualifier or and why isn't it today? You know, one of the things I talk about a lot in this role is the fact that I don't think people understand enough just how alone we are right now from a law enforcement perspective. We do not have a functioning federal government protecting people who live in this country from violations of law. We have a president that will pardon anybody who commits a crime that looks like things he's been accused of committing just to show how unimportant those things are. So if you've embezzled, if you've been convicted of stealing other people's money, I mean, the list is very long, but they all get pardoned. January six writers get pardoned and maybe get money in the list is as long as what you just read. There is nobody looking out for us right now. If we have a complaint that normally we could appeal to a specific part of the Department of Justice, it doesn't matter anymore because they won't care and they won't pay attention. That's what Congress ought to be focusing on as they evaluate whether he is fit to be attorney general. And that's what the public needs to focus on when they think there's recourse in some respects for a federal crime that may have been committed and there is nobody there. So I think that's one of the biggest tragedies. And, you know, it's kind of funny when you mentioned the Epstein files. What the other part about this that I maybe I missed it, but I have seen any coverage in the hearings of the you know, the whole thing with the puppies in the yoga for Maxwell. OK, well, I'm glad to hear that because I haven't seen coverage of that. He said he said, I don't have the clip here, but I had Booker on with me last night on Legal AF and Cory Booker and the clip went viral off of it. Cory Booker said to him, you transferred her to a lower minimum security as a payback for the testimony, right, that you obtained from her. And he said, no, he went through a whole thing about security issues and worried about the security of Ghislaine Maxwell. He says you care about the security of a convicted child sex trafficker, but you don't care. She pointed to the to the 10 Epstein survivors in the room, but you don't care at all about their security and right and their and their dignity in the process. And how is that not on itself disqualifying? There's nothing there was nothing in this list that makes him fit to be in this role. And yet here we are. And it's and here's a here's a question. Maybe this is maybe this is for John, you know, long bar experience that you have, you know. So these people, they know how time works, right? They know how a clock and calendar work. And they know that they're every day, they're closer to the end of the administration than the beginning. And they know that the Democrats are likely to take the gavels in the Senate, certainly in the House. And what happens to administrations and lawyers they have, they know what happened in the first administration, how many, how many lawyers for Trump were indicted, convicted, disbarred, or fined or all four. And yet, they act with this impunity, as if they won't, that the bell tolling will not be tolling for thee in six months or eight months or a year's time. How is that possible? You know, I have thought about this a number of times. And I think it is just a reflection on how thoroughly Donald Trump and Trumpism has been able to capture people who are, you know, ambitious or prepared to, you know, sacrifice, you know, whatever standards of decency and morality they have in the interests of pursuing some goal of, you know, generally power and prominence. And once you're trapped, you can't get out. And so all I can think of is that people like Todd Blanche say, you know, we hope to be able to live to fight another day, you know, if the time comes where we have to defend ourselves. He's got to get impeached. He's going to, Todd Blanche, if he continues, not even continues, for the things he's already done, he's going to get, he's going to, does anybody on this panel believe he's not going to be impeached if the Democrats get the House? I'll just say that I'll volunteer to work on his impeachment. There we go, everybody. Listen, Lisa Graves is ready and willing and able to come back to help. Yes, but will he be convicted? You know, the question where I always have to ask, and I don't, if that's one of the prices that Donald, that Todd Blanche has to pay, I suspect he's prepared to pay it. He must be. I mean, he knows he's got a pardon on federal crimes. Absolutely, he'll get a pardon. He won't go the way of Nixon's attorney general, at least in federal court and all of that. And it looks like we just started the top of the show with the revelation that bar associations and grievance committees are not doing their job to defend the rule of law and our, they're just not. I don't know what went on in the meeting for the grievance committee, but they are not doing their job. Are they elected? Can they be unelected from that post if they're not going to do their job? By appointed. They're appointed. Right. You know, under the auspices of the, you know, the justices of the first department. Right. Chief justice there, Renwick and all of that, right? Yeah. Right. And when you see this, and when you see this happening in our profession, the fear is, what will it take? And this is all what LDAT is, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, is all about. What will it take for the legal profession to understand that it is being captured by an autocratic administration that is completely using the capitulation and the settlements and every other cudgel that they have to bully the profession into silence. And by doing so, set the stage for every other type of authoritarian regime that has ever succeeded throughout history. You start with the lawyers and when you capture the legal profession, you can move right along to the rest of civil society. And that's it. Well, that was their, that was their plan from day one, fire the inspectors general, get rid of all the lawyers that headed up because that was the thing that's that held Donald Trump back, right? It was the White House counsel who ran in and said, who the F are you guys? Get out of this office. It was the deputy White House counsel. He got rid of all those. He brought in his entire crew of criminal defense lawyers who he had already tested, battle tested, that were going to be his lawyers. Not the US, the United States of America's lawyers. He would do their bidding. Even Tom Blanche forgot who he represented when he was asked by John Kennedy says, are you his friend? He said, well, I'm his lawyer. I was his lawyer. No, you got it right the first time. And then they wrote it all down in project 2025. And then you, and then they put in charge of personnel management in, in this administration, Russ vote, who's, who is on camera saying he wants to cause as much pain as possible to federal workers. That was his goal. How do you cause as much pain and trauma to these people who are simply really trying to do their jobs in, in pursuit of federal service and serving the public? What can our audience do about this? I was going to give a low note. Can I give a low note before? Because really in response to what John said and what Lauren said, what John said about the nature of power and what Lauren said about the capitulation, I've been reading this book. It's called the law in Nazi Germany, ideology, opportunism, and the perversion of justice. And it talks about, and I'm just going to just give a quote because it's, it's, it's really extraordinary. It says what we often think of the third Reich as a zone of lawlessness, the Nazi dictatorship and its policies of persecution rested on a legal foundation set in place and maintained by judges, lawyers, and civil servants trained in the law. And it goes on to say intelligent and well-educated legal professionals lent their skills and knowledge to a system of oppression and domination. Their support of the regime resulted from a combination of ideological conviction, careerist opportunism, and legalistic self-delusion. It just to really respond to those notes. Yeah. Timothy Snyder in that book he published in the first Trump administration on tyranny has a whole chapter on Germany and, and, and it's the role of lawyers and of law, just the point you made, Lisa. Yeah. So what do we do about it, folks? How do, how do people help lawyers defending American democracy, lawyers and non-lawyers? What do we do about it? Well, first go to our website, ldad.org. You can volunteer, you can donate, but you can, the real emphasis is on volunteering though, and doing everything that you can to participate in our work and the work of others to, to understand that everything you do matters and that if you do nothing, that's not inaction, that's action. So those who say, oh, I can't, I don't know what to do. I can't look. It's awful. I can't do anything. My voice doesn't matter. That is helping to really feed the authoritarianism. It is doing what they're seeking. On the other hand, there, there really is a world out there of people trying their best every single day to write, to speak, to show up, to protest, to call their various government officials, to reach out to through podcasts, you know, and other kinds of media opportunities to say, this is the time when you have to use your voice, when you have to stand up, no matter what you do, try to make sure that you are out there joining with those who are every day trying to move the needle to protect democracy and the rule of law. Well, well said. Oh, and I, and you know, I, I just think, you know, we, we have to learn from those lessons of history and look what's happened in recent years in Poland. There were judges who came out in their robes to stand against the regime and the effort to target judges for standing up for the rule of law, for standing up for justice. And in Hungary, there was such an outpouring by the people about their expectations for Hungarian society. It, you know, is already changing the course of history. And so I always think we just have to not give up, not give in and, you know, make our voices heard. That could be letters and calls to, to that appellate division saying, we want you to do the right thing here. That was the wrong decision, do the right thing. And it, it's going to be a lot of those sorts of calls and actions in, in the days and weeks ahead, including making sure people are registered to vote, making sure people get to the polls and making sure their votes get counted and the people elected get, get sworn in. So we have a lot of work ahead of us. And so I'm, I'm actually hopeful, even though I sounded that bleak note, Michael, I'm hopeful because actually more and more people are waking up and are objecting to the path that we're on and want a different way, want a different way forward. Don't you think? I mean, if I could just say one more thing, because a hundred percent, that is so important. And, you know, one of the things that LDAT has done is we've created something called Meeting the Moment, an initiative to try to have lawyers around the country being engaged with their community and coordinating on messaging in a way that can break through the lies and the disinformation and the noise and communicate similar messages, respond to action alerts in a, in a way that will lift each other's voices. And I think that that's another issue that all of us have to be thinking about, which is respond to the lies, respond to the misinformation, speak up in real time to make sure that, you know, challenge the media when they simply repeat talking points that they know are lies, in real time respond by fact checking. So there is so much that can be done. And I come to the, you know, the, if you are protecting democracy, you have to live in the world of hope. And that's what we all do. We live in the world of hope. And we need a lot of people to join us there. I was just going to say, I'm not going to step on that line. It's a great way to end the show. Thanks for everybody being here. We have lawyers defending American democracy represented by Lauren Stiller Ricklin and John Montgomery on the board. And we've got, of course, our friend, or friend Lisa Graves, who is a signatory to Justice Connections, a detailed letter to the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, outlining why Todd Blanche is unfit and signing it as a former member of the Department of Justice. You're on Legal AF. Thank you for being here. If you like this kind of content, you want to support the rule of law and our democracy, become a subscriber. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popock. Come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Wear Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.