Top Clinton Lawyer Censured By Democrats For Disturbing Decision

( One of the Clintons’ top lawyers was recently sanctioned by federal appeals judges in Texas for multiple violations.
The Democratic election lawyer was sanctioned for a “redundant and misleading submissions” and also for violating his ethical “duty of candor” to the court. The case in question involved the Democratic Party fighting against a Texas state law that banned what’s known as straight-ticket voting.
Marc Elias is the lawyer who was criticized and subsequently punished. He works for Perkins Coie and has represented Democrats in election cases during the 2020 presidential election. He also hired Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that in 2016 hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele.
Last week, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit spoke out against Elias, as did many of his colleagues.
Two appellate judges nominated by then-President George W. Bush, Edith Clement (2001) and Jennifer Elrod (2007), said Elias needed to be sanctioned. Catharina Haynes, who was nominated to her post by Bush in 2007, didn’t agree. Overall, though, the judges ruled in favor of sanctions, writing:
“Appellees did not notify the court that their latest motion to supplement the record filed on February 10, 2021, was nearly identical to the motion to supplement the record filed several months ago by the same attorneys, on September 29, 2020.
“Critically, Appellees likewise failed to notify the court that their previous and nearly identical motion was denied. This inexplicable failure to disclose the earlier denial of their motion violated their duty of candor to the court.”
The appellate court ruled that Elias and the other Democratic lawyers in this case would have to pay attorneys’ fees as well as double costs. The panel ruled that the lawyers should review Texas’ Model Rules of Professional Conduct on “Candor Toward the Tribunal.”
They also recommended they “complete one hour of Continuing Legal Education in the area of Ethics and Professionalism, specifically candor with the court.”
The website for the secretary of state in Texas points out that the Texas Legislature enacted what’s called House Bill 25 in 2017. That bill amended certain provisions in the state’s Election Code that ended straight-party ticket voting. While the bill was passed in 2017, the practice officially went into practice on September 1, 2020.
While the start date of that rule may seem fishy to some liberals, it isn’t fishy at all, since the law itself was passed nearly three years before.
A federal judge tried to overturn that ruling to allow straight-party ticket voting because of the pandemic. The appeals court overturned that ruling, though, with plenty of time before the 2020 presidential election.
The appeals court further ruled that “there is no legal basis to support Appellees’ post hoc contention that motions to supplement the record apply only to one stage of an appeal.”
The judges wrote:
“If Appellees had any confusion about the application of the order, they could have and should have disclosed the previously denied motion in their new motion. Moreover, after Appellant notified Appellees that they intended to file a motion for sanctions based on this lack of candor and violation of local rules, Appellees could have withdrawn their motion. But they did not.
“Instead, they stood by a motion that multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. Sanctions are warranted in this case to deter future violations.”