When Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency, one accusation thrown at her was that, as a lawyer, she defended a rapist. “She was a rapist lawyer!” shrieked the fools. Even worse, she wasn’t doing so as a public defender, compelled by her position to take on such a horrible client, but she chose to do so. What did it prove about Hillary? That she was a lawyer.
The New York Times published a news story, a distinction that’s growing less meaningful by the minute, about the lawyer who would be so scummy, so awful, as to defend “Infowars” Alex Jones. Who would be such a disgusting horrifying lawyer?
Lawyers for Neo-Nazi to Defend Alex Jones in Sandy Hook Case
The lawyers have names: Marc Randazza and his associate, Jay Wolman. If Marco’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s been written about here numerous times. He’s my friend. He’s my lawyer. He’s also Andrew Anglin’s lawyer. He’s represented the “sort of” people the New York Times would deign to call “good people.” He’s represented people the Times crowd despises. Just like Hillary representing a rapist. Just like me representing murderers and drug dealers. This is what lawyers do, represent the people in need of representation.
But we chose these clients? A rationalization has appeared to distinguish the virtuous public defender-types, who have no choice in the horrible people they defend, from those of us who do so out of choice. It’s a lie, and the downtrodden public defender-types are as guilty of perpetrating this lie as is the New York Times.
We would all be thrilled to defend the Pope from drug charges, but he doesn’t get indicted too often. On the other hand, the people who do get indicted have a right to counsel too. Defending the Constitution, and putting the government to its burden of proof, is what we do. For Marco, defending the First Amendment is what he does.
As with the people accused of a crime, First Amendment challenges are raised most frequently with people whose speech isn’t widely beloved, as least by the New York Times. So it involves a Neo-Nazi like Anglin? Of course, just as the old ACLU defended the Neo-Nazis at Skokie in 1979. Only a blithering idiot would conflate defense of First Amendment rights with the embrace of the client’s ideology. Elizabeth Williamson is such an idiot.
Marc Randazza and Jay Wolman of the Las Vegas-based Randazza Legal Group are defending Mr. Jones in Connecticut. The lawyers also represent Andrew Anglin, the co-founder of the Daily Stormer, who is being sued for harassment by a Montana woman after Daily Stormer followers subjected her to a torrent of anti-Semitic slurs and threats. Mr. Anglin has cited Mr. Jones as an early influence.
Anglin has absolutely nothing to do with Jones. But, you whimper, if he chooses to represent white supremacists, it “tells” you something.
If they choose to commonly represent white supremacists and insane trolls, well that was their choice. It would be a disservice to NOT have it noted that these lawyers have no qualms with defending the scum of society if they get paid for it.
But so what if some random non-lawyer demonstrates that he is incapable of grasping the concept that lawyers represent the people in need of representation? Holding idiotic opinions is not only the American way, but the very thing Randazza defends. Certainly someone with a double-Harvard-educated brain will set the clueless groundlings straight.
I get that Nazis need good lawyers, but good lawyers don’t have to like it.
Full disclosure time: I know Marc Randazza. I’ve done podcasts with Marc Randazza. Marc Randazza has defended this website.
Not just “this website,” but Elie personally. Maybe not quite full disclosure?
And I respect what he’s doing. No, I don’t agree. I don’t think he should be doing it. Just because Nazis deserve a legal defense doesn’t mean you’re a good person for defending them.
Elie’s a smart guy, far smarter than anything he’s written for clicks in the past two years would suggest. But to burn a friend, someone who has been there for him when needed, to push a lie is disgraceful, no matter how many clicks it gets at that vacuous cesspool of Social Justice.
Randazza does his Nazi dance in court, and he doesn’t cry when decent people shun him.
Threading the Dersh needle doesn’t make language like “Nazi dance” disappear.
But you can defend deplorable people without adopting and promoting their deplorable logic. There’s a difference. The legal community does not talk about that difference very much: lawyers shun deplorable lawyers, and deplorable lawyers put their heads so far up their own ass that they think any suggestion of restraint smells bad.
This is where real lawyers see that Elie isn’t a real lawyer and doesn’t have a clue about what real lawyers do. Faux lawyers see lawyers who defend people they despise as “deplorable lawyers.” They shun them. Real lawyers don’t. Real lawyers defend those who need defending, and do everything they can to zealously represent their clients. The only difference here is that Elie is either happy to lie, whether for cause or clicks, or just doesn’t have the a clue what he’s writing about.
Hillary Clinton was no rapist lawyer, no rapist apologist, no rapist sympathizer. She was just a lawyer doing her duty to her client. Randazza is doing the same for his, just as he defended, and won, for me and, yes, Elie.
To the extent the groundlings believe in such moronic crap, people like Elie, the woke prawfs who will lie about anything for their cause, and the New York Times propagate it. Shameless disingenuousness for a cause is bad enough, but burning the guy who defends the First Amendment is inexcusable. Elie enjoyed Marco’s “Nazi dance” when it was his butt on the line, and the New York Times survives with the crap it publishes only because of the First Amendment. Yet, they are willing to throw it away for a cheap smear. And this probably isn’t as low as it will go.