Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Proposes Get Out of Disbarment rule

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed a proposal from AG Pam Bondi for shielding Department of Justice lawyers from professional accountability for unethical behavior. A new rule would “block state bars from investigating and punishing DOJ lawyers accused of violating state ethics requirements.”

And it would do that in an oh-so-Trumpian manner. Through endless delay:

Under this rule, Attorney General Pam Bondi could freeze state bars’ probes until the department has undertaken its own independent review of any allegations—a black-box process that could stretch on extensively. Wielding this new power, Bondi could essentially quash any state investigations into ethics violations by DOJ lawyers, including accusations that these front-line attorneys lied in court, by allowing “reviews” that might last indefinitely. If upheld, the rule would bail out the many, many DOJ lawyers who allegedly breached their ethical obligations in defending the Trump administration.

And even better than Trump’s endless court appeals, no judges need be involved here.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that the now-infamous Lindsey Halligan is under investigation by the Florida bar association and faces possible disbarment over alleged misconduct. The action in Florida, the Times suggests, “could serve as a check on administration lawyers who have been accused by judges of pushing the boundaries of the law or intentionally misleading the courts” as well as “deter attorneys considering working for the Justice Department.” After so many experienced DOJ lawyers quit or were fired soon after Trump regained the White House, Bondi finds herself shorthanded.

But Bondi is not being a good boss who backs up her team. If the Halligan matter goes forward, Bondi too could find herself at risk of disbarment in Florida.

Mark Joseph Stern: First, let me just remind you that there is no federal bar, which is an important background point to understand. State bars license and oversee the practice of law. So when lawyers violate ethics, it is the state bars that step in and impose punishments. The Justice Department has its own process for investigating and penalizing its lawyers accused of violating ethics, but that is not a substitute for state bar investigations and punishments. The DOJ cannot impose the same kinds of professional penalties, including disbarment.

Lithwick asks Stern the obvious: If this was legal, wouldn’t the DOJ have been doing this all along?

No, the government hasn’t been doing that, because it would be illegal. And let me tell you why: A federal statute known as the McDade Amendment says that DOJ attorneys “shall be subject to State laws and rules … to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” So when a DOJ lawyer is licensed in Florida, like Halligan is, she must follow the ethical requirements of the Florida bar.

Yes, well, Bondi proposes a work-around that’s not legally workable. Not that she’s persnickety about following the law except to use it as a cudgel. Stern believes that’s the idea. Bondi likely would go to federal court to seek injunctions against a state bar’s investigation. But that runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent.

In Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in 1982 that federal courts not meddle in state bar disciplinary actions, because states have “an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the professional conduct of the attorneys it licenses.”

Stern is shocked that the DOJ did not mention “this insurmountable obstacle,” saying, “But I guess that’s just the kind of sloppy and dishonest lawyering that’s led to some of these ethics complaints in the first place.”

Given the sloppy and dishonest lawyering we’ve witnessed from the Roberts court, I’m not sure I’d be so confident that the court’s conservatives would defend that precedent from 1982.

A regional war with 17 countries

We just ran across this first-time candidate for VA-8 on Instagram. Adam Dunigan is a former Marine and former CIA case officer. He and five other Democrats are challenging five-term incumbent, Don Beyer Jr., 75, in Virginia’s August primary.

This isn’t an endorsement. (I just encountered his campaign this morning.) But his concise “morning SITREP” from March 5 about the regional war Donald Trump started with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caught my attention.

View this post on Instagram

Also, Dunigan’s got Jeff Jackson presence.

Two other items from Dunigan’s site stood out alongside his aim of stopping Trump’s authoritarian project. First, the former Marine’s commitment to restoring accountability (emphasis mine):

Our democracy is backsliding into an authoritarian project. At a moment like this, we need leaders who are only accountable to the voters who elected them. This means breaking the stranglehold of oligarchs, billionaires, corporations, and political insiders who have weaponized their influence against the interests of middle class and working Americans. We must return to governing by a common set of principles, not shareholder value. 

Second, Dunigan’s assessment of the Democratic Party, with which I heartily concur, “The Democratic Party must evolve or accept obsolescence.”

One piece of advice, Adam. Your logo still says “Vote June 16th.” On February 24, Virginia’s Department of Elections announced it would move its primary to August 4.

This one’s for all you “Better Call Saul” and puppy fans:

During the filming of Better Call Saul’s episode “Bagman,” something heartwarming happened that might restore your faith in humanity.

While shooting in the scorching desert on the Hajiilee Reservation, a stray dog wandered onto the set and collapsed between Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks. She was severely dehydrated and in terrible condition.

The crew gave her food and water, but Bob couldn’t just leave her there. He personally contacted the reservation authorities to get permission to take her to Albuquerque for treatment. At the vet, they discovered two heartbreaking details: She had apparently never walked on grass before, she didn’t recognize the sensation. She was pregnant.

That’s when the Better Call Saul family stepped in. Rhea Seehorn helped deliver the puppies. Every single puppy was adopted by someone from the crew. And the mother? She went home with Patrick Fabian, who adopted her, along with one of the pups for his daughters.

Jonathan Banks later shared the story on a podcast, nearly in tears

On the week when the notorious puppy killer Kristi Noem was finally shown the door, this warmed my heart.

The Texas Senate race is a MAGA litmus test:

President Donald Trump is preparing to endorse a longtime Senate incumbent over a loyal ally in a closely watched Republican primary — a decision that would put him at odds with parts of the MAGA base that have rallied behind the challenger.

Trump has said he intends to endorse Sen. John Cornyn over his Republican opponent Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general and a longtime ally of Trump, according to three people familiar with his thinking, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The Republican primary race heads to a runoff in May. Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social that he plans to make an endorsement soon and declared that the candidate he doesn’t endorse should drop out.

Trump said on Truth Social that he intends to endorse one of them and demands that the other drop when he does it. We know that he loves the criminal monster Paxton (a Texas version of him) but has been persuaded that Cornyn is the safer bet.

Paxton says that he will only consider dropping out if the Senate blows up the filibuster and passes the SAFE Act which isn’t going to happen but makes him all the more beloved by the MAGA base. It’s a problem:

From prominent MAGA voices to lesser-known grassroots activists, many in Trump’s die-hard base say they are befuddled that the president is heeding the calls of establishment GOP operatives over his most loyal backers, adding to frustrations among supporters who warn that waning enthusiasm could threaten Republican turnout in the midterms.

Conservative media figures and MAGA influencers have blanketed social media this week with posts highlighting Cornyn’s past criticisms of Trump, questioning the president’s commitment to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and pledging to support Paxton regardless of Trump’s endorsement. They also recirculated a 2023 Truth Social post from Trump in which he compared Cornyn to former senator Mitt Romney, a Trump critic, and said Cornyn was “always quick to surrender to the Dems.”

“It is a massive ask for the president, love him though we may, to come in and say, ‘Hey, that conservative that you love for the same reasons you love me? I want you to change your mind’” and not vote for Paxton, said Mark Davis, a conservative radio host in Texas who is closely attuned with Trump-supporting Republican activists in the state.

I just don’t think Trump has that kind of juice but he probably has enough left to put Cornyn over the top. That’s all he cares about. He’ll take his victory lap and claimed that he’s the most powerful movement leader the world has ever known — Ghandi and Hitler combined. But little by little the crack is growing wider.

Raging at his loss:

President Trump seethed when the Supreme Court stripped away his unilateral tariff authority, the first real check on his presidency. Then he set out to impose his will on every remaining vector of American power — smashing norms and shrugging off Congress in a historic, 14-day show of executive force.

Over the past two weeks, Trump launched a massive Middle East war, blacklisted the hottest AI company on the planet, ordered new global tariffs, and presided over the biggest media merger in two decades.

He did it all unilaterally — without passing a single law, and without pretending he needed to. 

[…]

Trump has spent his second term systematically testing how much power a president can seize without Congress, the courts or public opinion stopping him. The answer, so far: almost limitless.

• Trump has signed fewer laws than any modern president at this stage — because he doesn’t need them. Executive orders, military force and the bully pulpit have proven more efficient.
• Trump’s advisers say he’s content using unilateral powers, and congressional Republicans — with rare exceptions — have cheered him on at every turn.

What’s all the more remarkable is that Trump is doing this with most of America opposed to his performance in office — and to these specific actions.

• A Economist/YouGov poll conducted as the Iran war began found Trump’s disapproval at 59% — a second-term record. His net approval, according to Nate Silver’s average, sits at -13.
• An January poll by CNN found 58% of Americans say Trump has already gone too far in using presidential power — a figure collected before the most aggressive stretch of his presidency.

He doesn’t care about public opinion much. Why should he? He can do what he wants without any fear of accountability.

The Supremes stepped in one time (and granted it was on an issue about which Trump cares deeply) and batted him back. Otherwise they’ve pretty much backed his power play. That he lost his mind because of that one ruling and decided to launch a war in response tells you everything you need to know about his mental state.

And then there’s the Congress. They are completely useless even in the face of almost assured huge losses a few months from now. I suppose they’re counting on Trump and their allies in the states to manipulate the election so they can keep them to a minimum but it’s hard to see how that will work. Essentially, they’re either true Trump believers, cowards or opportunists so they’re just as bad as he is.

He’s always been a whiner but now that the megalomania has fully kicked in any loss sends him into an emotional maelstrom. This could get very bad if the war doesn’t go perfectly.

This had to give Trump a big thrill up the leg:

Republicans on Capitol Hill are asking the Justice Department to consider bringing criminal charges against Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in President Donald Trump’s first administration who became a star congressional witness about the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, according to two sources familiar with recent developments.

GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk made a criminal referral of Hutchinson to the Justice Department in recent days, the sources said. He accused Hutchinson of lying to Congress in her summer 2022 testimony when she alleged Trump was aware of the potential for violence on January 6, 2021, and forged ahead with his attempts to rile up his supporters.

Loudermilk has long attempted to reframe the public perception of the events at the Capitol, including by scrutinizing the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot and found Trump was “directly responsible” for the riot. Loudermilk’s referral was co-signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who chairs the committee under which Loudermilk is running a probe of January 6.

The “charges” such as they are are about her heresy testimony about what she heard second hand about Trump in the limo and Trump saying that they could let the people with guns come in because they weren’t there to hurt him. How that translates to a crime, I don’t know but the main purpose of something like this is to serve as a warning to anyone who deigns to testify against Trump. (Epstein survivors certainly will take notice.)

These miscreants will never give up on exonerating their Dear Leader for that day. It won’t work, of course. We all know what we saw. But until he’s long dead they’ll keep trying. It’s a cult.

Pew asks an interesting question:

Americans are more likely than people in other countries surveyed in 2025 to question the morality of their fellow countrymen, according to Pew Research Center surveys in 25 countries.

We asked people around the world to rate the morality and ethics of others in their country.

In nearly all countries surveyed, more people say that others in their country have somewhat or very good morals than say their compatriots display somewhat or very bad levels of morality.

The United States is the only place we surveyed where more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%).

Because we have never asked this question before, we don’t know whether a majority of Americans have long held a skeptical view of the ethics of fellow Americans, or if it’s something new – and if so, what’s driving it. But partisan politics appear to play a role.

Yeah, I’d say so. And one of the parties is led by a man whose entire political career was built on grievance and hate for anyone who doesn’t lick his boots, using crude insults and endless threats against them. He governs as the president of only his own followers and punishes those who aren’t. So this makes perfect sense.

Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to rate fellow Americans as morally and ethically bad (60% vs. 46%). 

That’s because it’s true. They elected a criminal to the presidency knowing exactly what he did and they didn’t care. That’s immoral. Sorry.

Bolts.com has done another interesting Q&A with state and local leaders about how they’re dealing with ICE and CBP. It’s quite interesting and somewhat inspiring. The Resistance is deep:

The violence of Trump’s immigration crackdown in cities across the country and the killing of protesters by federal agents have put pressure on local leaders to change their approach to federal immigration enforcement. 

Already, a growing list of states has moved to restrict local collaboration with ICE, and in many local criminal justice elections this year, assisting federal immigration authorities has become a defining issue.

We asked our readers to send us their questions about state and local responses to the federal immigration crackdown as part of our ongoing series “Ask Bolts.” With the help of our entire staff, we respond to nine of those questions below.

Jump to the topic that interests you most, or keep scrolling to explore all nine questions.

How are state and local governments helping ICE?

How can state governments restrict ICE?

How can local governments and communities restrict ICE—from DAs and county boards to activist networks?

These people don’t get a lot of national attention but what they are doing is one of the most vital forms of resistance to the DHS assault.

A confederacy of Otises

What’s the point of having a Congress if it won’t exercise the real powers vested in it? Are they lawmakers or simply a student council?

Twice this week, the U.S. Congress, both the Senate and House chambers, voted down a demand that the president come to Congress for authorization for its war-making in Iran. The House voted 219 to 212 on Thursday, nearly along party lines, “to block consideration of a bipartisan resolution that would end offensive military operations in Iran that had not been approved by Congress.” Four Democrats opposed the resolution. Two Republicans supported it. Collectively, they surrendered their constitutional powers without a shot.

But, of course, it’s not a war. Another name will be found for it.

RAJU: You'll concede this is war?

MARKWAYNE MULLIN: We haven't declared war. They declared war on us

RAJU: The president called it war and Secretary Hegseth called it war

REPORTER: When you walked up just now, you called it war

MULLIN: Okay. That was a misspoke. pic.twitter.com/x2YRUMmzUG

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 3, 2026

The New York Times reports:

“The Constitution is clear: Our Constitution provides Congress initiatory powers of war,” Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky and the lead sponsor of the resolution, said during debate on the House floor, directly challenging members of his own party.

Mr. Massie, who cosponsored the measure with Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, noted that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president to go around Congress and exercise unilateral authority to use force only if there has been a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

“None of those conditions exist today,” Mr. Massie said.

After a series of classified briefings led by senior Trump administration officials, Democrats said the case had not been made that the president had needed to act unilaterally.

Donald Trump did anyway.

You knew he would. So did Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic:

During the run-up to the 2016 election, I wrote that “if you’re a voter who believes that Donald Trump is against foreign wars and regime change, unlike the globalist elites in Washington, D.C., you have been misled.” At the time, I noted that Trump released a video in 2011 that sought to pressure President Obama to invade Libya. Trump also argued that George H. W. Bush should have ousted Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and wrote in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, “We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons.” He added, “Am I being contradictory here, by presenting myself as a deal-maker and then recommending preemptive strikes? I don’t think so.” In 2011, he urged the Navy to wage war on Somali pirates.

Now Trump has proved his proclivity for interventionism, without congressional approval or the support of the public. And there’s no evidence to suggest that he will stop here. If Congress continues allowing him to deploy force unilaterally, he may pursue land strikes on drug cartels in Mexico, a prospect that he raised early this year in an interview with Fox News; regime change in Cuba, a longtime dream of Rubio’s; and God knows what else. He is an impulsive man who gambles, especially when the most significant risks are borne by others. There is no way to know how exactly he will surprise Americans next.

“The United States is now enmeshed in so many conflicts that its foreign policy is closer to ‘world police’ than ‘America First’, ” chides Friedersdorf. As candidate, Trump promoted himself as the “peace president” while lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize.

“It’s the phoniness of it all. It’s the phoniness and this cruelty. Donald is cruel,” Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a retired federal judge, told Trump’s niece Mary L. Trump in a secretly recorded interview.

“He has no principles. None. None.”

Trump is engaged in another criminal enterprise, this time involving spilling blood. The question is whether Congress has the balls to parent a career criminal with possession of the nuclear launch codes and in control of the world’s most powerful military. It is because Trump is the most insecure, emotionally damaged president of our time that he surrounds himself with total nincompoops. And because he helps elect them to Congress expressly to do his bidding, over half of that body is populated with ass-kissing Otis wannabes.

God help us.

Hymn 43

If Jesus saves, well, he better save himself
From the gory glory seekers who use his name in death
Oh, Jesus save me

 

View on Threads

Well, I saw him in the city
And on the mountains of the moon, hey
His cross was rather bloody, oh
And he could hardly roll his stone
Oh, Jesus save me