Image 01 Image 03

Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., files Bar complaints against Trump election lawyers

Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., files Bar complaints against Trump election lawyers

Jonathan Turley: “What Pascrell is doing is undermining our legal system … [This] is a dangerous form of demagoguery.”

Threats and intimidation have been part of the Democrat Resistance to Trump from the beginning.  Those attacks now are focused on lawyers representing Trump and Republicans in election litigation.

The Lincoln Project and others organized harassment and doxxing of Trump law firms and lawyers. It’s unclear to what extent those threats, including threats to harass unrelated clients of the law firms, caused some firms and lawyers to withdraw, but the message was clear, represent Trump in election legal proceedings, and your life and job would be made miserable.

The attacks now have reached the level that a Democrat Congressman Bill Pascaral, Jr., has filed Bar complaints against lawyers representing Trump:

Pascrell is a danger to our civil society. Jonathan Turley makes the point that Pacrell’s actions are part of a larger Democrat assault on lawyers, law firms, and even legislators:

We have been discussing the campaign of harassment and threats against Republican lawyers to get them to drop election challenges. New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell expanded that campaign this week with a malicious and frivolous demand for New York and other states to disbar roughly two dozen lawyers for representing Trump, the Republican party, or the Trump campaign in the litigation. While Democratic members and the media discuss attacks on democracy and the rule of law, they appear to have little problem with campaigns to threaten and harass both lawyers and legislators for raising questions about the election.

Many of us criticized Rudy Giuliani for his performance in this litigation, particularly the controversial press conference held last week. Indeed, I have previously criticized Giuliani for his public comments and allegations. However, Pascrell wants Giuliani disbarred specifically for filing these legal actions as well as a host of other lawyers….

As I have previously discussed, it is a familiar campaign that is unfolding without objections from most media figures, lawyers, or law professors. Indeed, this is a campaign that has been led by lawyers against lawyers….

At the same time, Democratic leaders like Michigan’s Attorney General  Dana Nessel have threatened criminal prosecution against those who have posted videos alleging voting fraud and even threatened possible prosecution of legislators who meet with President Trump or raise challenges to the election results.  The media is virtually silent on these threats to coerce lawyers and legislators into silence….

What Pascrell is doing is undermining our legal system by using his office to advance a campaign targeting lawyers and legislators who raise objections to his party prevailing in the presidential election. As with the Lincoln Project’s campaign, this is raw retaliation and intimidation to deter the use of our legal process. When such actions were taken against lawyers representing civil rights groups and others in the 1960s, it was correctly denounced as an outrageous abuse of our legal system. Now that Republican lawyers are being targeted, it has become a campaign supported members of Congress, thousands of lawyers, and the media.

What Pascrell is doing is a dangerous form of demagoguery that should be denounced by people of good-faith regardless of their political affiliations.

Needless to say, The Lincoln Project, organizers of harassment of lawyers and law firms, is on board with this strategy:

On Monday, CNN Newsroom host Kate Bolduan brought on a member of the Lincoln Project who insisted that it was “unlawful” for any member of Michigan’s canvassing board to delay certifying that state’s election results. Jeff Timmer, whom Bolduan identified as a “senior advisor” for the disgraced organization, advocated that the American Bar Association either sanction or outright revoke the legal license of any Republican who refused to certify Michigan’s election results immediately….

Timmer then did that thing that seemingly everyone at the Lincoln Project loves to do: he demanded potentially career-destroying consequences for any Republican attorney who failed to behave how he thought they ought to.

JEFF TIMMER: [Shinkle] has indicated he’s not likely to vote in favor of certification.  He’ll probably have to answer to the Bar Association for that.

KATE BOLDUAN: Do you think he should?

TIMMER: I think he should. He has to certify. It’s his obligation. He has a sworn oath to do so.

BOLDUAN: Do you — when you say he should answer to the Bar Association, are you saying he should, like, lose his license?

TIMMER: Well, sanctions are definitely possible. The court has held canvassers in contempt before when they failed to do their duty. As a lawyer, I would be worried about that.

This assault on the legal system is not isolated. It’s part of the larger attempt to deplatform people affliated with the Trump administration, prevent them from obtaining employment, and keep them off campus.

Democrats don’t know when to stop. It will come back to haunt them. They have burned down all norms in the effort to get Trump, so they have no right to expect that they be treated any differently.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I think this election has convinced them that they will hold the majority forever, so that there won’t be an opportunity for the same tactics to be used on them. I fear that they may be right if they make mail in voting permanent, give amnesty to 20 million+ illegals, open the border for many more to come and throw money and free benefits at them in return for votes, and lower the voting age to 16 or 12 or whatever.

    Dusty Pitts in reply to james h. | November 23, 2020 at 10:14 pm

    Or that they’re on the verge of losing it forever.

    I’ve been in fights like this. Outrageous tactics are a sign of desperation, not confidence

      I hope you’re right, but I’m not so sure. I see a war being forced upon us.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Dusty Pitts. | November 24, 2020 at 1:45 am



      They are already openly worried about what Trump will do if he doesn’t prevail in court on vote fraud. They know this is just going to make more voters angry while the rest of get angrier. At some point, they are going to do what commies always do when repression fails, violent suppression. It’s right out of the Marx and Engels handbook.

      They are already trying to figure out how they can suppress the certain Trump-propelled 2022 tidal wave in the off year elections. The machines won’t be enough to stop it. They are determined to tie Trump down with lawsuits and court actions to silence him. If that happens, we have to be out there being very loud on a daily basis. Time to rip the lid off of this communist takeover so everyone understands what is going on.

      Our majority is growing fast and getting very, very angry. This is no time to be polite and reasonable.

        People are still not seeing the big picture hear. Out of office, DJ Trump has NO power. He is not only not a member of the Establishment, he has become their enemy. He has no traditional leverage to bring to bear. Even in office, he was incapable of bringing any leverage to bear against the Establishment. He could not stop Russian Collusion, the Mueller investigation or get Obamacare repealed.

        The real power is that of the 75 million people who voted for him. They are the ones who will come for the politicians with torches and pitchforks. What the liberal Progressive Establishment is banking on is that the law abiding members of the society will simply go home and wait for the next election, if Biden is inaugurated. This has been the traditional response to past actions by the Establishment. If that happens, the nation is lost.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | November 24, 2020 at 1:06 pm

          Will that be instantaneous and multi-pronged simultaneously at all levels of bureaucracy and politicians?

          Edward in reply to Mac45. | November 24, 2020 at 2:41 pm

          Of course that all depends on John and Jane Q. Public being willing to get their butts off the couch.

          bhwms in reply to Mac45. | November 24, 2020 at 3:07 pm

          Which begs the question – what do 75 Million cheated voters do until 2022?

          – Organize into precincts and blocks
          – Attend, and if necessary, take over the town, city, and state committees.
          – Get trained in GOTV. Municipal and off-year state elections are a great place to test projects and methods.
          – Recruit new blood for the local races. School Board, Boards of Election, Town Clerks, Precinct Moderators, Voter Checklist Supervisors (your state and local offices will vary).
          – Demand your legislators assert the authority of the legislature as the final arbiters of election law. I saw a draft resolution floating around – anyone know of one?
          – Demand your legislators put checks in and strengthen your voting laws. Make it clear that mail-in voting is not permissible, and that the courts have no role in setting the rules for elections.

          My personal ideal: help the Convention of the States movement in each state pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention to take up the articles called for in “The Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin.

          Anything I left out?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to james h. | November 23, 2020 at 10:50 pm

    WE already have at least 20 million illegals, their reproductive rate is about 3.5. Currently, I have reason to believe that there really are at least 30 million, so say 15 million families with a total of 50+ million anchor babies.

    This is really Fing up our demographics. The bottom line is that Latin American countries are concurring America, breeding on our dime, dowering our competitiveness and our average IQ.

    This is a really big deal, and Muslims are far worse.

Thanks, Professor, but I’m uninterested in, “It will come back to haunt them.” I’m more aligned with, “Let’s hit ’em where it hurts, until they scream ‘Uncle.'”

And GOPers, where are you, screaming for the State Legislatures to appoint Electors independently of the scams? That’s what Electors were created for: to prevent fraud or a very bad candidate from ascending to the presidency.

NOW is that time. NOW. Biden is not just a democrat, he’s senile and we ALL know it. He may even know it. I’ve known a number of old folks who knew their mental acuity was going.

Get real, State Legislators. You wanted the job, you wanted to be in the kitchen. Now you’re there. Step up, grow a brain and a spine to match, and fulfill your Obligation to your citizens. Stop this steal.

    Yep, they said they wanted the job. What they really wanted was the paycheck, the security, and the prestige.

    Every one of these state legislator took the Article VI oath and the counterpart oath required by their state’s own constitution.

    What did we get in the bargain?

    = Profiles in Putty

    I’m with you CTF. Unfortunately, those R legislators are on the other side…

      Close The Fed in reply to Barry. | November 24, 2020 at 7:40 am

      I don’t think they’re “on the other side” nearly as much as they simply aren’t leaders. They’re followers sitting in leadership positions.

      They got those positions during calm times, and they aren’t the men necessary for prosecution of WAR.


    alaskabob in reply to Close The Fed. | November 24, 2020 at 1:05 am

    Lawyers against lawyers… well… that really is a majority of lawyers against a minority these days. How can anyone engage a lawyer without fear that the firm’s internal ideology will intentionally lead to a negative outcome for a client whose beliefs are against their own? We have seen this before with totalitarian regimes. As the Pa. fed judge shows being a “Republican” and member of the Federalist Society is either a deep cover or phony using straw man arguments to prevent a fair and free election audit. Ethics? Please……

      txvet2 in reply to alaskabob. | November 24, 2020 at 1:13 am

      “”How can anyone engage a lawyer without fear that the firm’s internal ideology will intentionally lead to a negative outcome for a client whose beliefs are against their own?””

      This is hardly new. I ran into it way back in the ’70’s.

I don’t believe in releasing people home address but maybe that’s what the Lincoln project frauds need. There comes a time when people need to fight back.

In the 1960s the left was really coming into its own. All manner of reprehensible defendants appeared before the courts. And what did the left cry out,

“Even the worst criminals deserve fair legal representation”

And people like William Kunstler were there to answer the call.

And he was cheered and cheered and cheered some more by the left for taking on the “hard cases.”

“so they have no right to expect that they be treated any differently”

And yet their yelping will be loud and endless if the tables are ever turned.

Lawfare is war by other means. Remember.

It’s a good thing Obama had voluntarily resigned from the IL Bar when he had American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and son killed with a drone without due process — or any process whatsoever.

    Milhouse in reply to zennyfan. | November 24, 2020 at 2:55 am

    1. He did not resign. He went on inactive status, which he’s still on. He can reactivate his license any time he feels like it, by paying a fee and taking some CLI courses.

    2. Military operations against enemies of the USA are not subject to the fifth amendment. The enemy has no due process rights or any other rights against being killed by US forces in accord with the laws of war. Holding a US passport doesn’t change that, and never has. In which previous war do you think US citizens who fought for the enemy were treated differently than their brothers-in-arms? Cf Quirin.

      Dathurtz in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2020 at 6:02 am

      Did he personally engage our forces in combat? Did he engage anybody? I think he deserved death for his obvious treason. I am disturbed that trial never occurred. We should all oppose assassination of citizens without trial.

        Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | November 24, 2020 at 10:06 am

        Since when is it necessary for an enemy soldier to “personally engage our forces in combat” before our forces can kill him? Rear echelon officers are suddenly exempt?! Where did you come up with such a rule?

        He personally enlisted and served with the enemy forces; that made him a fair target. That is how war has always been fought, and the only sensible way it can be fought.

        bhwms in reply to Dathurtz. | November 24, 2020 at 3:28 pm

        Milhouse is right – at the point he became an enemy combatant, you’re under the Laws of War – a set of treaties and norms.

        As an enemy combatant, you are a legitimate target. Even there it is murky – because he was not following the rule of Distinction (wearing a uniform so you can tell belligerents from civilians), he doesn’t have those protections. So frankly, he was a legitimate target either way.

          Milhouse in reply to bhwms. | November 24, 2020 at 4:06 pm

          Not obeying the rules doesn’t stop him from being an enemy combatant, it just makes him an illegal enemy combatant, so he has all the disadvantages of that status but none of the benefits.

          Basically, enemy combatants who obey the rules, if captured alive must be treated according to the Geneva conventions, cannot be punished for having fought for the enemy, and cannot be tried by a civilian court. Those who don’t lose those protections. But until they’re captured the difference is irrelevant.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2020 at 9:30 am

      1. True. Obama can re-activate his law license if he wishes though I can’t see any reason for him to do so. He certainly didn’t know the law either way.

      2. Obama claimed that he had the right to unilaterally declare anyone an enemy combatant be they a US citizen or not and and that he had the right to order the extrajudicial execution of anyone that was designated an “enemy combatant” regardless of their location up to and including extrajudicial executions on US soil and/or US territory.

      So quit gaslighting the Obama regime.

        What do you mean by “unilaterally declare anyone an enemy combatant”? How else do you think it should work? How else has it ever worked? What sort of bilateral process could possibly exist for this? And in which previous war has it ever existed? Do you think that before one of our soldiers can shoot an enemy soldier he must first hold some sort of bilateral proceeding to determine whether that person is a genuine enemy soldier?! Are you nuts? By the nature of things, the right to kill enemy soldiers includes the unilateral responsibility and authority to determine who they are!

          Bush administration floated the theory that terrorist organizations, not directly aligned with a state actor, with whom a state of declared war existed, could be declared an enemy combatant and was subject to the laws of land warfare. It was politically convenient and was allowed to stand. Obama came long and continued it. Even the Trump administration has used it, including expanding it to include state actors dealing solely with their own internal revolutions.

          Now, is it lawful, under our Constitution? Probably not. Are we still doing it? Yes. Why? Because the judiciary is a total joke. Politics rules the law, not the law ruling politics. Just one more nail in the coffin.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2020 at 4:13 pm

          Why do you think it’s unlawful? There can be no question that a state of war exists between the USA and these organizations. There has never been any requirement that the enemy be a state; the Barbary pirates were not states, but we went to war against them.

          Bush’s great insight on Sep-11-2001 was to declare that we were at war not only with the specific people who attacked us that day, and not even with the specific organization they belonged to, but with the entire network of international terrorist organizations with which it was affiliated, and with those regimes that gave it material support and enabled it to exist. Congress endorse that when it declared war not just on al Qaeda but also on Afghanistan and the Taliban, and reaffirmed it when it declared war on Iraq.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2020 at 7:53 pm

          Is it a state of legally recognized war between a nation and an organized crime family? Is it war if Mexican nationals stream across thee Mexico Border to commit crimes? Now, the Barbary Pirates were a different situation. They were directly affiliated with the governments of nation states. In fact, the first US merchant ship seized by the Barbary Pirates was seized by a group affiliated with Morocco. The Barbary States not only exercised quite a bit of control over the “pirates” but also reaped monetary gain from their activities. So, a slightly different situation than exists with the War on Terror.

          So, while US military units can be legally used to defend US citizens and interests, from heavily armed criminal aggression, outside the CONUS, it can not be so used within the boundaries of the United States or against US citizens abroad. Yet, it has been used by both the Bush 43 administration and the Obama administration. The Trump administration was slightly different in its use of military force against ISIS/L, as tht organization was a powerful military force operating directly against US citizens and interests outside the US AND in areas where thee local government did not exercise control. However, the two attacks against the sovereign government of Syria, in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons, were simply bald-faced acts of war. The use of chemical weapons, which later turned out to be highly suspect if not totally fraudulent, did not involve US citizens or recognizable US interests. A no state of war existed between the US and Syria, there was no legitimate authority for the US to act as it did.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2020 at 11:57 pm

          Mac, your entire premise is just wrong. There has never been a requirement that both parties to a war be states. Neither the mafia nor illegal immigrants are waging war against the USA, and the USA hasn’t declared war on them, so no, no state of war exists.

          There’s no reason we couldn’t go to war against a mafia, or against an organized border-crossing ring, if they were to take up arms against us, or if congress decided we should take up arms against them.

          “So, while US military units can be legally used to defend US citizens and interests, from heavily armed criminal aggression, outside the CONUS, it can not be so used within the boundaries of the United States or against US citizens abroad.”

          Says who, besides you? There is no such constitutional principle, and the only statute that does part of what you claim is the Posse Comitatus Act, which is simply a post-Civil-War measure to protect states’ rights. In any event we are talking here about war, not crime, so even if you were right it would be irrelevant.

Doesn’t matter. Nobody seems to have the testicular fortitude to hold Democrats to the same standard they hold everything Trump.

    Edward in reply to barnesto. | November 24, 2020 at 2:49 pm

    There are many who have the testicular fortitude (aka cojones) but are absolutely lacking the ability to take action (obviously within law and moral strictures). IF an internal war happens, the inability goes away.

These are SLAPP suits. He might wind up on the hook for a LOT of attorney’s fees!

Someone in the House, or wherever they may be instituted, must file an ethics complaint against this corrupt abuser of power.

And if there is a civil cause for interference with business opportunity or something of the sort, all the better, including punitive damages.

Let me know when Democrat (or Republican) TOP level LAW BREAKERS are ALL finally arrested and jailed in orange jumpsuits.

Then I’ll be happy.

As for the Democrats’ attempting to criminalize opposition, they will overreach. That may be necessary for a an organic resistance of the many to rise. It will be different than the manufactured resistance of the activists against Trump.

Many people are happy to see Trump out. Biden will have his honeymoon, but the incompetence and heavy handedness will grow. Scrutiny is just starting and big tech is also under the microscope. Backlash to Obama redux with peaceful resistance that will be felt. Direct action on a macro and micro level. It may hurt for now, but it may be the best chance to fight off the globalist, collective enterprise.

Said it many times here. The battleground was prepped years in advance of 2020, probably more like decades. That people still think PDJT stumbled his way into the presidency is amazing to me. The left never came up with a new playbook over the years because the GOPe/rinos were pretend opposition. The left is fighting in uncharted territory and they don’t even know it.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    artichoke in reply to CKYoung. | November 24, 2020 at 12:27 am

    At least the left is fighting.

    By threats they got Wayne County to certify its impossible results. The R’s took that back, but D’s will say that a vote is a vote and there’s no recission. According to parliamentary procedure there isn’t. And so Michigan’s state level Dems have the excuse to certify the whole state.

    By threats they got GSA to start handing them money and space.

    They are winning the battles. How we burned in the camps …

One reason that leftists have burned down norms is that they’ve never had to pay any price for doing so. That emboldened them to transgress more, and more, and more.

We tried to understand them. We tried to work with them. We tried to compromise. They saw it as weakness.

Unfortunately for everyone, the price of restoring an ordered society is now likely to be quite high. They will have to pay it. If they escape punishment, it’s over. We’re Somalia.

the ballot box hasn’t failed, the judiciary failed in it’s obligation to keep the election as honest as possible. the should have declared the PA votes null and void and forced a revote.

“It’s a dangerous form of demagoguery.” Yeah, so what? Such dangerous, bad things WIN.

It’s time we started winning. They’re playing for keeps. We’re waiting for Deux ex Machina to appear and award us the win for our principles.


this is a post i put up about getting a viral video and evidence about difficulties for poll watchers.

If you cannot use please please pass onto someone that can.

“A Favor to ask:
A suggestion regarding the ability of poll-watchers to read ballots from 6 feet or more away.

A P.O.V (Point of view) video needs to be produced to show the impossibility for Poll-watchers to see the ballots.
This POV must also include the angle of the poll watcher to the table.And with a real(in scale) ballot being handled by an election worker. It must be a real situation when produced, properly done.
Why do this??
The footage can be released on the Web to demonstrate to the Public that the task was impossible for Poll-Watchers, in violation of laws.
Maybe even a VR(Virtual reality) version for Justices and Judges to experience the frustration of the process.
When the Public can see the impossibility of the task they will understand what was going on, and will be certainly more motivated to conduct elections in a more honest manner.
The old saying of “a picture is worth a thousand words” is very pertinent here.I would find it funny having the Supreme Court putting on VR googles to experience the so-called Poll-watching first hand in perfect scale and environment.Then them having to guess what the vote was after 10 votes, and see how many they got wrong. Thats the game for the public too, Guess the numbers of the votes and at the end it will disclose the correct votes number.

The favor i ask: If anybody can get this idea thru to the Republicans or persons that can competently do this, and release it for Public Consumption BEFORE any Court cases, i feel it would have massive educational value for all.

Please use the Tech available.
Please get this idea to people that might run with it. As an Australian, people hang up on me because of my accent(only joking,haha)
Plus releasing this would absolutely infuriate the Democrats and Corrupt election officials that abused Chinese Virus issues.
Plus the Supreme Court Justice would watch on Youtube/Rumble/Twitter too, even before the case i think. Public opinion would already be stirring pretty hard after the video.

Regards and best wishes.
Aussie Supporter.”

I think this would really hit like a nuke bomb mate, if done professionally.Please please get it to someone that can use it.

regards and many thanks for good fight.The World needs it.

Matt Peach


    artichoke in reply to Aussie bloke. | November 24, 2020 at 12:32 am

    This is absurd. Obviously it’s impossible and unacceptable, and wasting more time on mathematical proofs of the obvious is pointless. If a judge wants to rule against you, he’ll say the elaborate case is too confusing or whatever.

      Aussie bloke in reply to artichoke. | November 24, 2020 at 1:18 am

      We all know the Election was fixed, even i can see it from Australia.
      But if a POV video goes up, the whole public can see that Poll-Workers had zero chance of doing their job.
      The most important thing is that the Supreme Court will also know that the Public have seen the POV Video and that the Poll-Workers could not see ballots correctly.
      Plus it will really piss the Democrats off, and it is worth it just for that.

The one thing that never struck me as realistic about Kung Fu movies is the trope where the evil gang completely surrounds our hero, then comes in to attack him one by one, instead of just mobbing him and then beating the shit out of him like Democrats do.

I would suggest, if you really are contemplating armed revolt, that this is hardly the place to try organizing – or anyplace else on the internet.

Hopefully the FBI is monitoring your posts too.

Every single day, whether it be LI, Rush, Tucker, Hannity, or Levin, all I hear are conservatives whining and whimpering about the mean Democrats not playing fair. I probably will not live long enough to witness any conservative or Republican play hard ball with the opposition

Think it’s bad now? Wait until Biden leaves office (within a year) and the true Satan becomes President.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to MAJack. | November 24, 2020 at 9:05 am

    1) It will probably happen sooner than a year.

    2) Then Pelosi gets to be VP.

    3) Hillary will be pissed, well, more pissed.

      Pelosi may not be the Speaker in the new Congressional Session.

      Why on earth would Harris pick Pelosi as her VP?

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | November 25, 2020 at 12:16 pm

        To insulate herself from the possibility of impeachment and removal from office. Not that there’s likely to be the necessary votes in Congress, even after the midterms, but why not? Besides, she (Pelosi) has done enough damage already. Making Pelosi VP would keep her from doing further damage as speaker and place her somewhere she can be more closely supervised, all the while making it look like a “promotion.”

Why wouldn’t the left think at some point we are just going to take a knee. We always have in the past.

I know…it’s Pete Santalli….but…..anyone see this?

So do I start printing bumper stickers and signs: Biden is NOT my President! #Resist” ?

Why are they fighting so hard if they did nothing wrong, and any challenge to the results would simply prove that?

Asking of the attorneys….are there enough non-insane not Fascist types of you to call out and squelch this egregious behavior?

Excuse me. Maybe someone can get me up to speed. When did “certification” of anything become synonymous with “rubber stamp”?

Would you fly on an airliner if the FAA was “required” to certify its airworthiness?

A Punk Named Yunk | November 26, 2020 at 3:33 pm

We were labeled deplorables for supporting Trump.
How do we label those who actually did vote for Biden?
Deranged morons. Ah, but now we’re engaging in name-calling.

But you did the same.. Now you’re engaging in what-about-ism

Yet he had no issue with Eric Wingman Holder and his letting voter intimidation go saying they were black no worries or his attack on AZ for mirroring federal immigration law.

Not to pick nits here – but he did not file a bar complaint, he wrote a letter urging discipline proceedings for alleged violations of the ethics code. This is an attempt at intimidating publicity, but not an actual complaint.