On Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET, RNLA will host a webinar to discuss "The Dangerous Precedent Set by the Left's Threats Against Republican Attorneys." It will feature RNLA Co-Chair Harmeet Dhillon and GW Law Professor Jonathan Turley. Both have criticized the left's recent attacks on Republican attorneys.

Desperate to stay relevant, The Lincoln Project has adopted yet another liberal strategy: harassing people who disagree with them. Following the example of Rep. Maxine Waters' calls to harass Republicans going about their everyday lives, The Lincoln Project has called for harassment of individual lawyers and large law firms representing President Trump in election litigation.

The Lincoln Project started by targeting Jones Day and Porter Wright, which are representing President Trump in Pennsylvania. RNLA's Vice President for Election Education Ron Hicks and his colleagues at Porter Wright are leaders of the Trump Pennsylvania legal team (along with former RNLA Southeastern Pennsylvania Chapter Chair Linda Kerns), and the firm has received threats for its representation. 

Carrie Severino wrote today about liberals' attacks on the rule of law and Attorney General Bill Barr, all as part of their efforts to "resist" the presidency of Donald Trump:

What we have been witnessing is an all-out assault on the rule of law from the woke Left, which has elevated its political ideology to something resembling a secular religion. By this mentality, Trump and his agents are monomaniacally recast as totems of sinister forces who must be stopped at all costs. Never mind notions of fair process and democratic deliberation that made the American system of law what it is.

Today, the House passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump with no Republican support.  There were a few Democrats voting with the Republicans and one voting present. Here are some of the best reactions from Republican House leaders to today's debate.

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the cases of Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, and Trump v. Vance, President Trump's challenges to House Democrats' and New York's subpoenas for his personal financial records:

There is a lot to unpack in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the review of four FISA applications.  It is impossible in one short blog post to detail all of the things uncovered.  The only safe conclusion is all Americans should be upset by this report.  As one group said (emphasis added):

For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. . . . The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns.

That statement is not from a Republican or a conservative group, it is from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Speaking of Carter Page, he has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which begins:

The sole Republican on the Federal Election Commission, Caroline Hunter, published an op-ed in Politico today describing how her colleague Ellen Weintraub's attacks on President Trump and frequent tweets and media appearances are undermining the public perception, independence, and impartiality of the FEC:  

Yesterday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded to the Democrats' efforts to subpoena information from the White House and Executive Branch officials, categorically rejecting their "constitutionally illegitimate proceedings." He notes that the Democrats are not allowing basic due process protections that the Supreme Court has declared must apply to congressional investigations:

Democrats want President Trump’s tax returns and will do almost anything to get them.  First there was the effort to keep him off the ballot in California by demanding his tax returns.  This law, if upheld, would have had the effect of disenfranchising thousands of voters.  Now the efforts turn to New York. A highly partisan DA looking to make waves found a Clinton-appointed Judge, Victor Marrero, to agree to issue a subpoena for President Trump’s tax returns from before he was President.  As we stated regarding the House Democrats' similar subpoena effort:

This subpoena is not a legitimate tool of oversight of the Executive Branch but instead an effort to investigate actions taken by a private citizen due to his subsequent political positions and activity.

After issuing a preliminary injunction against California's law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns before appearing on the ballot -- a clear attack on President Trump -- a couple weeks ago, a judge on the Eastern District of California issued an order yesterday explaining the basis for finding the law unconstitutional on several grounds.  RNLA leaders and members have been leading the fight against California's anti-Trump law: Harmeet Dhillon, Mark Meuser, Justin Clark, and Stefan Passantino are litigating the federal law challenge to the law, while Chuck Bell is litigating the state law challenge.