Every limbo boy and girl All around the limbo world Gonna do the limbo rock All around the limbo clock Jack be limbo, Jack be quick Jack go under limbo stick All around the limbo clock Hey, let's do the limbo rock
Limbo lower now Limbo lower now How low can you go?
When it comes to the District of Columbia Bar Association, it turns out to be very low indeed...
The highly partisan and unethical DC Bar needs to be severely disciplined in a variety of ways, legal of course
The lawfare needs to end and that's the only way to end it
What they're doing to @JeffClarkUS is evil and they should be made an example
— Mike Howell (@MHowellTweets) July 31, 2025
Yes, this is the same DC Bar who refused to even docket a legitimate complaint against two of Michael E. Mann's lawyers: John B. Williams and Peter J. Fontaine for publishing false information to the jury in the sham trial against Mark (and Rand Simberg) last year in the DC Superior Court.
Here is what DC Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr., found earlier this year:
Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.
and
Dr. Mann's focus on procedural requirements for timely objections presumes that the evidence and testimony are not otherwise tainted by inherently sanctionable misconduct. That is plainly not the case here: It bears repeating that Dr. Mann and his counsel should not have engaged in the falsehoods and misrepresentations to the jury and the Court in the first place.
thus
The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann's bad faith trial misconduct... [emphasis added in bold]
For the DC bar, an actual finding with several pages of documentation and reasoning from a senior judge means nothing to see here...
Even if you are convicted of fabricating evidence, as long as you are doing the bidding of the left, you can still practice law in DC:
Kevin Clinesmith is a convicted felon who fabricated evidence as an FBI lawyer so the FBI could fraudulently obtain an illegal spy warrant against Carter Page. The DC bar restored his bar license after he was convicted.
Jeff Clark has been convicted of nothing. These people are... https://t.co/G1jwaKdoCG
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 31, 2025
But if you are on the right (and, in the right!), the DC bar will bend over backwards to disbar you:
Please watch the new documentary about my struggle fighting against the Democrats trying to destroy me, because I am a strong Trump supporter and thought Georgia investigating its election in 2020 at a deeper level was worth doing. https://t.co/NIB28kLBXu
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) September 16, 2024
As one of his lawyers, Harry MacDougald, tweeted:
....They want to disbar Mr. Clark for "dishonesty" for recommending in a privileged setting that the Department of Justice take a different position on contested matters of fact, law and policy. In a draft letter that was never even sent.
This has no precedent in the entire history of lawyer discipline because giving clients independent professional judgment in a confidential setting – even when it runs against a consensus of other advisors – is a fundamental ethical obligation under the Rules of Professional Conduct. If this travesty stands it will wreck the profession and harm clients and the public interest.
But there other important interests at stake. The federal government is supreme over the states and local governments. The constitutional structure of our government cannot stand if the operations of the Executive Branch of government can be hobbled by an organ of a single local government that has decided to wage political warfare against the national government through the medium of a bogus ethics case.
Indeed. It apparently all boils down to "election" shenanigans...
In his closing statement to the jury in Mark's trial, Mann's lawyer John B. Williams (the same false evidence guy mentioned above) equated "climate deniers" to "election deniers":
Plaintiff's counsel in rebuttal equated Defendants with "Donald Trump" and "election deniers"—"[t]he people who continued to deny that Trump los[t] the election" despite "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Tr. 107 (2/7/24 PM). Counsel said "the same issue is true here." Id. And he offered this politically charged argument in support of his request for punitive damages.
It worked. Despite Mann having no actual damages, the jury sent a message and ordered the "climate denier" Mark to pay one million dollars in punitive damages.
(Subsequently, that was reduced by the judge to 5k on constitutional grounds. And, now it is Mann that owes one million dollars.)
In the same way, the DC bar is punishing Jeff Clark for being an alleged "election denier" whilst apparently representing the interests of his client.
The 2020 "election" of Biden is sacrosanct as is Michael E. Mann's "hockey stick". To "deny" otherwise will cost you your life (in the case of Ashli Babbit, et al), your profession (in the case of Jeff Clark, et al) or several years of your life, millions of dollars and counting (in the case of Mark, et al).
We've all appreciated President Trump's move to restore law and order on the streets of DC. Is it possible to do anything about the corrupt DC Bar and the courts there as well?
To help keep us going during this unending battle for free speech, please consider a club membership for yourself or a friend. Please also check out our various free speech related merchandise and gift certificates available in the Steyn Store.