Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

The New York Times ^ | Oct. 13, 2024, 7:00 a.m. ET | Kate Shaw, Contributing Opinion Writer

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.

Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.

Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.

Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.

At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.

Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors.

TRANSLATION: "Nice law practice ya got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

[Lazamataz]

The New York Times has been flooding out anti-Trump articles like I have never seen before.

In poker, they call this a 'tell'.

[Williams]

In 2020 Biden had SIX THOUSAND attorneys on call to challenge the election, as Hillary and others told him not to conceded the election “no matter what happens”.

And yeah they have been destroying the livelihoods of republican attorneys and others.

[mn-bush-man]

Bingo!

And it’ll only get uglier. So much projection by the liberal narcissists. That and destroying things are all they can accomplish.

[Mark]

What about Biden’s POWER GRAB ????

[workerbee]

The New York Times has been flooding out anti-Trump articles like I have never seen before.

I know, it's been crazy! Even for them.

[Fai Mao]

I have not heard Trump making such statements

[Track9]

Just have the entire DOJ FBI CIA NSA and administrative state and MSM help rats. Only way rats have a chance against the American People.

[Drew68]

The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.

Here's what I predict is going to happen on November 5th.

Trump will be ahead on Election Day.

Trump will be ahead the following morning. Kamala Harris will not concede the race.

In the days that follow, votes will trickle in from certain regions in certain battleground states diminishing Trump's lead. California will continue to harvest ballots that will reverse Trump's lead with the pointless "national popular vote" bragging rights.

Deadlines will pass to count absentee and mail-in votes. Trump still has the EV lead. Lawsuits will be filed to extend these deadlines as certain battleground states scramble to find votes for Kamala.

Now it's coming up on Thanksgiving. The Left is howling "We must count all the votes!" Congress is getting involved vowing to fight any certification for Trump with any legal and quasi-legal method they can think of.

Sometime shortly after Thanksgiving the Supreme Court steps in and puts an end to this madness, much as they did in 2000.

Kamala has still not conceded the race.

The Left screams, "Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court stole the presidency for him!"

Any takers on this bet?

[yldstrk]

What utter nonsense. If President Trump has a case, any attorney may take it.

[yldstrk]

Biden was installed, can’t prove he was elected.

[rellic]

Anybody who trusts a NYT contributing opinion writer to be honest is an idiot.

[Made In The USA]

“… Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud…”

Wow. They can report the future, based on their opinion, as fact. Totally credible. Sure.

[Political Junkie Too]

A Republican winning an election is now a "power grab" according to the New York Times.

Got it.

-PJ

[Stosh]

Good Lord, the intellectual vacuity of NYT staff is nearly unbelievable. To cite just one example of many”. “ . . . he [Trump] will make baseless claims of voter fraud . . .”

First off, that’s a prediction, not a certainty; secondly, absent any indication of what the 2024 election details look like, how does one know that any such claims would be baseless?; thirdly, given that the mainstream press has shown essentially no curiosity over issues of election integrity, why would one assume that the 2024 would be at all evaluated in that context by the press? Even leftwing historians admit that the Kennedy / Nixon election in 1960 might well have been stolen in Illinois, how can the idiot responsible for this article assume any such thing is impossible today?

[Gaffer]

I hope they have that same sentiment when they (NYT) will finally be brought into a fair court and put to task for their complicity in influencing elections for Democrats. And the kind of ‘influencing’ I’m talking about isn’t 1st Amendment stuff - it’s actively colluding with Democrats and lying to change the election outcome.

[rrrod]

By chance CIVIL WAR is on HBO now.

[libstripper]

Here’s who she is, FTA:

“Kate Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.” She served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Richard Posner.”

[metmom]

Power grab.

Like the one that happened Jan 6, 2020 when the feds took control of the White House and Capitol and stationed NG troops to keep the people from access to their own representative government?

[ridesthemiles]

WHAT IF MUSK BUYS THEM & FIRES THE ENTIRE LOT.