Daily Archives: January 9, 2021

President Donald Trump called for peace in a video after a mob of his supporters violently breached the Capitol building on Wednesday in protest of the certification of the 2020 election results for Democrat Joe Biden.

I know your pain. I know your hurt, Trump stated. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We dont want anybody hurt, he said. Its a very tough period of time. There has never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us from me, from you, from our country.

Trump continued his message by telling his supporters to go home even if they were upset about voter fraud and election integrity.

This was a fraudulent election. But we cant play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. Youre very special, Trump said. Youve seen what happens you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace, he added.

Trumps message which Twitter flagged as a claim of election fraud that is disputed, prohibiting people from liking the tweet, replying to it, or responding to it due to a risk of violence comes after multiple members of Congress condemned the chaos and called on the protesters to leave.

Vice President Mike Pence previously called for people to leave the Capitol building, saying that those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The violence and destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop and it Must Stop Now. Anyone involved must respect Law Enforcement officers and immediately leave the building, he wrote on Twitter. Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

President-elect Biden also denounced the Capitol chaos, calling on the disorder to end.

During the breach of the Capitol, a woman was reportedly shot in the chest and is in critical condition.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

View post:

Trump Calls For Peace As Riot Roils Capitol: 'You Have To Go Home Now' - The Federalist

Irina D. Manta, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Jan. 5, 2021 | Updated 2:20 p.m. ET Jan. 5, 2021

He beat me for president of the Yale Law School Federalist Society by exploiting the rules. He should follow my example and not contest Trump's loss.

Sen. Josh Hawley has made waves with his call for Republican senators to object to President-elect Joe Bidens election victoryand force Congress to voteWednesdayon whether to accept the Electoral College results.I invite Sen. Hawley to reconsider his misguided position and, instead, to do what I did when I lost an election to no other than him: Show grace in defeat.The principle is the same whether the election is for president of the United States or, as with us, for president of a campus club.

Sen. Hawley, R-Mo., and I were both members of the Yale Law School Class of 2006. While we had our differences, we shared a common bond through our joint participation in the schools fairly small Federalist Society, made up of mostly conservative and libertarian law students.

At the end of our first year, we were both electedas vice presidents for events of the YLS Federalist Society. Collaborating in these positions in our second year proved difficult. I organized the lion's share of the groups events and frequently received no responses from him on emails I sent to him and the societys president that year. This puzzled me because I thought ourgoal was to make the organization as strong as possible, and failure to communicate was an obstacle.

This isnt to say that Sen. Hawley didnt have his qualities as a vice president. For example, his marketing skills certainly contributed tostrong turnout at an event with the late Harvard Law School professor William Stuntz. While I did more work that year, Sen. Hawley knew better how to shine the spotlight on his contributions, which is an important skill in the political arena.

The YLS Federalist Societys presidential electionstarted rolling around the spring of our second year, in 2005, and it was traditional for one of the two VPs for events to assume that role. Sen. Hawley and I each announced our candidacies. Shortly before the election, a friend tipped me off to how Sen. Hawley was planning to beat me, given that he was uncertain he coulddo so based onvotes only fromregular members who knew our records best.

Irina Manta on May 22, 2006, in the Lillian Goldman Library at Yale Law School.(Photo: Family courtesy)

Asappearedaccuratebased on the eventual turnout, Sen. Hawley had obtained from the sitting president the student email addresses for the YLS Federalist Society Listserv (and the president, whom I had helped to win the previous year, did not volunteer that information to me at that stage). The rule was that anyone who had signed up for the Listserv by a certain earlier date could vote in the societys elections. This included a bunch of people whodid not attend events and had little or no involvement with the society.

Hawley's White House path:Be No. 1 at pandering to President Trump and trampling democracy

The rule, while easy to administer, was a bad one. It even had the potential for individuals to co-opt the society for the sole purpose of destroying it. Historically, however, nobody had exploited that rule, to my knowledge. Instead, candidates had campaigned for votes from people actively involved withthe society.

Law professor Irina D. Manta and Sen. Josh Hawley.(Photo: Manta by Carlos Farini. Hawley by Getty Images.)

I found out about Sen. Hawleys plans too late to counter them successfully. I lost the YLS Federalist Societys presidential election to him by a handful of votes.The presidency comes with a number of advantages, including entry to key professional opportunities. From my perspective, I was the more deserving candidate and cared more about the organization. The voting rules, again, were problematic, and Sen. Hawley exploited that all the way to victory for himself and the rest of his slate.

But you know what? As far as electoral fairness is concerned, none of that matters. The rules were the rules. The people who showed up to vote had the right to vote. I have no reason to believe that the person who counted the votes miscounted. Based on the system we had, which while flawed was hardly unethical, Sen. Hawley won and I lost. And not once did I attempt to contest that loss.

Sen. Hawley and I both ended up initially aslaw professors, but thenour paths split. He pursued political offices while I remained in academia (though also continued my own political activism). And while he has been one of President Donald Trumps loyalists, I have been the opposite, from my membership in Checks & Balances(a group of lawyers and academics committed to the Constitution and the rule of law)to my volunteer work for the Biden campaign in 2020.

On his way out the door: Congress should impeach Trump again and bar him from holding any future public office

Of course, the stakes are much higher when it comes to the presidency of the United States than that of the Yale Law School Federalist Society. Conversely, however, maintaining the integrity of the democratic system of our country vastly trumps doing so for a law school club. While Sen. Hawley is unlikely to succeed in his bid to hinderBiden from taking office, he is setting a dangerous precedent such that one day, a hostile Congress could overturn a rightful presidential election.

The courts have ruled repeatedly that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Some speculate that Sen. Hawley is simply posturing to position himself for his own presidential run someday. Even if this provided ethical cover for his actions (spoiler: it doesnt), he has the intelligence to find better tactics than erodingour democratic system.

Irina D. Manta is professor of law and founding director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University'sMaurice A. Deane School of Law. Follow her on Twitter:@irina_manta

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/01/05/trump-lost-senator-josh-hawley-accept-result-like-i-did-column/4114231001/

See original here:

I lost a law school election to Josh Hawley. I moved on then, and he should now on Trump. - USA TODAY

The election of 1800 keeps coming back to inform, console and trouble us. John Adams was the incumbent. Thomas Jefferson was the challenger. After one of the most vituperative elections in American history, Jefferson emerged the winner. He had 73 electoral votes, Adams just 65. Thus, Adams became Americas first one-term president. There have been nine, depending a bit on how you count. Donald Trump is the latest. Before him, it was George H.W. Bush.

The problem in 1800 was twofold. First, a structural weakness in the Constitution: There was no separate balloting for president and vice president. Second, by coincidence Jefferson tied in the Electoral College with his vice presidential running mate (no such term existed at the time) Aaron Burr. That meant that the Constitution could not differentiate between Jeffersons 73 electoral votes and Burrs 73. When this happens, the Constitution requires the election to be sorted out in the House of Representatives, with each state getting only one vote. This has only happened twice, once in 1801 and again in 1825 when the House elected John Quincy Adams even though he lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson.

The Electoral College in action. In 1800, Jefferson had 73 electoral votes and Adams just 65. But Aaron Burr, running for vice president, also had 73 votes. What to do?

Everyone knew that Jefferson had been elected president. John Adams was disappointed, even bitter, but he was too much a patriot and a gentleman to refuse to accept the voice of the American people. The problem was that the Federalists (the party of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington) could not reconcile themselves to the idea that Thomas Jefferson had defeated the establishment candidate John Adams. Die-hard Federalists determined to do whatever it took to deny Jefferson the presidency. Some partisans suggested that the outgoing Federalist Congress simply vote in an entirely new president. Others said that if they could delay the House vote until after March 4, the date the new president was to be installed, they could name a president pro temp of their choice. Sound familiar?

It was a time of intrigue, panic, conspiracy and chaos. The raw new national capital was beset with small clusters of passionate men devising political strategy, demonizing their political adversaries, fretting in apocalyptic terms about the survival of the young republic. The Washington diarist Margaret Bayard Smith wrote that the conspiratorial Federalists hurried to their lodgings under strong apprehensions of suffering from the just indignation of their fellow citizens for attempting to overturn the election.

Balloting in the House of Representatives began on Feb. 11, 1801. The House immediately determined not to adjourn until they had resolved the issue and chosen a president. Food was brought into the House chamber. The votes went on day and night, deep into the night, and exhausted representatives sacked out on the floor, sometimes on pallets. One representative, Joseph Nicholson of Maryland, was so sick that he had to be carried into the House chamber on a litter through a Washington snowstorm, but he declared that he would cast his vote for Jefferson even if it killed him. He was so frail that his wife had to guide his hand as he marked his ballots. One newspaper reported that it was ludicrous to see [Congressmen] running with anxiety from the committee rooms, with their nightcaps on.

For six excruciating days and 35 separate ballots, the vote was invariably the same: eight states for Jefferson, six for Burr. Jefferson needed the endorsement of nine states to win. It was clear that Burr was never going to win, because that eight-vote Jefferson block would never yield to a junta but neither would Jefferson win unless one of the Federalist states gave up the fight and changed its vote to Jefferson.

Finally, on Saturday, Feb. 14, a Delaware Federalist named John Bayard announced that he had decided to support Jefferson, thus giving him the nine state votes he needed. Someone in the Federalist caucus immediately shouted Deserter! As soon as Bayard announced that he intended to do the right thing, he was subjected by Federalist die-hards to unrelenting criticism. When the Federalist met in caucus after his announcement, the clamor was prodigious and the reproaches vehement. Several Federalists from New England announced that they meant to go without a constitution and take the risk of a Civil War.

James Asheton Bayard (1738-1807) lived in Wilmington, Del., the home of former Delaware senator, vice president, and now president-elect Joe Biden. Bayard served three terms in the House of Representatives, beginning in 1797, ending in 1803.On the principle that no good deed goes unpunished, Bayard was targeted by the Jeffersonian Republicans in the election of 1804 for his opposition to several of the administrations initiatives. Accordingly, Bayard was defeated by Jeffersonian-Republican candidate Caesar Rodney. Fortunately for Bayard, he was soon selected by the legislature of Delaware to serve as a U.S. Senator, a position he held from 1814-1813. He was one of thirteen senators to vote against James Madisons declaration of war against Great Britain.

Why did Bayard decide to switch his vote? Historical opinions vary. Some said he had found a way to negotiate with Jefferson through an intermediary and to wring a few concessions out of the president-elect in exchange for ending the impasse. Jefferson denied this all the way to his death on July 4, 1826, and the historical record appears to support his denial. Some historians say that Aaron Burr began to pull back from his earlier statement that he would accept the presidency if the Federalist-dominated Congress handed it to him. Bayards own explanation was that it was clear that Burr was never going to get to nine votes, and therefore it was absurd to prolong the crisis indefinitely, and that to exclude Jefferson, as he put it, would come at the expense of the Constitution.

Aaron Burr. Did he pull back from his earlier statement that he would accept the presidency if the Federalist-dominated Congress handed it to him?

In other words, when the crisis moment of his life came, James Bayard gave his support to due process, fairness and the Constitution of the United States rather than to the party of men he resoundingly preferred to Jefferson and the Republicans. However much he disliked and distrusted Jefferson, Bayard was devoted to the survival and stability of the Constitution more. The step was not taken, Bayard later wrote, until it was admitted on all hands that we must risk the Constitution and a civil war or take Mr. Jefferson.

Note, however, that at no time did Bayard simply acknowledge that Jefferson was clearly the presidential candidate (not Burr) and he had clearly defeated John Adams, therefore it was only fair to honor the peoples will and install him as president.

When the final vote was cast on Feb. 17, 1801, six days into the fiasco in the House of Representatives, Bayard did not need to switch his vote after all. Bayard cast a blank vote, as did South Carolina, but Maryland now voted for Jefferson, giving him the ninth state vote he needed to be officially certified as the third president of the United States.

John Bayard. OnFeb. 14, 1800, Bayard, a Delaware Federalist, announced that he had decided to support Jefferson, thus giving him the nine state votes he needed.

Jefferson, who was fond of nautical metaphors in spite of the fact that he did not do well on ocean voyages, now wrote, The storm we have passed through proves our vessel indestructible. He called his election the Second American Revolution. He would serve two terms as president, then hand pick his successor James Madison. Archibald Stuart of Staunton, Va., wrote, The minds of men from extreme anxiety seemed to settle down into a firm resolution to resist every attempt to give us a President who had not been the choice of the people. I was pleased to discover this temper as it proves our liberties cannot be lost without a struggle.

When push came to shove (and it nearly did), the Federalists, led by John Bayard, did the right thing and curtailed their attempt to prevent Jefferson from assuming the presidency. But what if they had persisted? Jefferson and many historians have argued that if the Federalists had succeeded in overturning the election, our fragile new republic might have collapsed just a dozen years after its founding. There might have been civil war of secession. The election of 1800 was the first transfer of power from one party of men to another, from one approach to American governance to another. In the end it turned out to be a peaceful transfer of power, though not without some real political chaos.

Rumors always travel faster than truth. During the first five weeks of 1801, Virginias governor James Monroe was warned that the Federalists planned to remove arms and gunpowder from a depot in Virginia to store elsewhere in case the crisis devolved into armed conflict. He sent agents to make sure that did not happen. The Federalists thought they heard that Virginia and Pennsylvania militia troops were on their way to the national capitol to make sure Jefferson was seated in the presidency. Wild talk of secession by one or more sections of the country circulated through the capitol and in neighboring states. The Republicans circulated a rumor that if things fell apart, they would call for a new constitutional convention, a threat that terrified the Federalists, who feared that the United States would be refashioned into the loose association that characterized the discarded Articles of Confederation.

Just how serious did this get? Jeffersons greatest biographer Dumas Malone asked, Were they [Jeffersons republicans] prepared to use force if need be and thus risk the disruption of the Union? Did they contemplate any other form of resistance? At the very least, the political rhetoric was incendiary. Pennsylvania Governor Thomas McKean (a Jefferson supporter) declared, if bad men will dare traitorously to destroy or embarrass our general government and the union of the states, I shall conceive it my duty to oppose them at every hazard of life and fortune; for I should deem it less inglorious to submit to foreign than domestic tyranny. McKean said he was ready to issue an order for the arresting and bringing to justice very member of congress, or other person found in Pennsylvania, who should have been concerned in the treason.

McKean and James Monroe of Virginia both wrote rashly about the possible need to marshal state troops at the border of the District of Columbia to take back the presidency for Jefferson, if necessary, but both acknowledged in more sober moments that they would have sullenly acquiesced if the Federalists had been successful in handing the presidency to Burr. The Republican floor manager of the House of Representatives Albert Gallatin, later Jeffersons Secretary of the Treasury, said, No appeal whatever to physical force was contemplated, nor did it contain a single particle of revolutionary spirit.

Just what impact all this violent rhetoric and brinksmanship had on the final outcome is difficult to determine. In the end, Jefferson took office right on schedule, put together one of the greatest cabinets in American history, cut taxes, reduced the size of the army and navy, balanced the budget, paid off a considerable percentage of the national debt, and doubled the size of the United States with a single stroke of his pen. In other words, he proved to be a sensible centrist president, sometimes even a little Federalist in his actions, and he was resoundingly re-elected to a second term in 1804. Civil war was averted, as was a coup detat by the bitter losing party. The guardrails held barely.

Years later, a little weary from a lifetime of political struggle, but with his characteristic optimism, Jefferson put it all in perspective in a letter to his old friend and one-time rival John Adams: And so we have gone on, and so we shall go on, puzzled and prospering beyond example in the history of man.

At 2021 begins, we seem to be particularly puzzled.

You can hear more of Clay Jenkinson's views on American history and the humanities on his long-running nationally syndicated public radio program and podcast, The Thomas Jefferson Hour, and the new Governing podcast, The Future in Context.

Read this article:

The Year Another Capitol Siege Almost Took Place on the Hill - Governing

On Wednesday, a dozen Republican senators along with more than half the Republican members of the House will raise a formal objection to Joe Biden electors during the Electoral College count certification. They will object over concerns about election integrity following widespread allegations of voter fraud, reports of irregularities in the counting of absentee ballots, and documented violations of election law in several battleground states.

The corporate media have with one voice denounced these Republicans and dismissed their concerns as nothing more than the ravings of partisans obsessed with peddling conspiracy theories and currying favor with Donald Trump. Chuck Todd of NBC News declared Sunday that not a single court has found a single instance of fraud an assertion precisely no one believes, not even Todd himself.

Yet thats been the medias mantra that there is no evidence of voter fraud or irregularities, none whatsoever. We are all supposed to pretend that 2020 was the first election in American history that was clean as the driven snow.

Speaking to Sen. Ron Johnson, one of the senators planning to object Wednesday, Todd even claimed the only reason tens of millions of Americans question the integrity of the election is because Republicans have been sowing doubt. In a particularly appalling moment, even for Todd, he accused Johnson of using his committee to create the illusion of voter fraud.

Elsewhere in the corporate press, Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz and all the other Republicans planning to lodge an objection on Wednesday have been vilified as seditionists. George Will called them the Constitutions most dangerous domestic enemies. Even conservative outlets such as National Review have criticized the GOP lawmakers, rather disingenuously claiming the allegations of fraud and irregularities arent so different from those that fueled Democratic doubts about the outcome in Ohio in 2005.

But heres what all these strident denunciations are missing: There really was evidence, lots of it, that voter fraud and illegal electioneering took place on a massive scale in the November election.

Im not talking about exotic theories that voting machines controlled by communists in Venezuela and China switched millions of Trump votes to Biden (a convenient straw-man the corporate media constantly slays). Im talking about old-fashioned, mundane stuff: people voting twice, dead people voting, cash-for-votes schemes, election workers ignoring state laws about the counting of absentee ballots, and courts changing the rules and deadlines for absentee ballots at the last minute. Much of it was perpetrated by Democratic political machines in places like Philadelphia and Detroit cities infamous for corruption and election-rigging.

We at The Federalist reported on it. We talked to poll challengers in Michigan who witnessed election workers counting ineligible absentee ballots and not allowing GOP observers to do their jobs. We talked to political insiders and volunteers in Philadelphia who described an election system thoroughly compromised by a corrupt Democratic machine.

We chronicled an illegal scheme to bribe Native American voters on tribal lands in Nevada and Arizona with cash cards, electronics, and other prizes in exchange for votes. We reported on changes to mail-in voting in multiple battleground states, including Georgia, rammed through by state legislatures or issued by fiat from bureaucrats and judges, that made it easier to cheat with fraudulent or ineligible absentee ballots.

Some of this was made possible by the often haphazard and sometimes unlawful expansion of absentee voting and extensions of absentee voting deadlines, all under the pretext that COVID-19 justified radical changes to how we vote (it didnt). The result, in some states, was what amounted to a chaotic experiment in mass mail-in voting.

Dozens of states made changes to absentee voting, some more drastic than others. Nine states along with Washington, D.C., took the extraordinary step of mailing actual ballots to every voter on the rolls. Others did away entirely with eligibility requirements for mail-in ballots, introducing no-excuse absentee voting. Still others introduced novel procedures for curing incomplete absentee ballots that would normally be thrown out.

The corporate press ignored all of it, just as they ignored any story that might have hurt Biden during the campaign. Their goal was and is to get Democrats elected, period. They dont care about being fair, or telling the truth, or keeping their readers informed about reality. If they did, they would have reported on this stuff instead of lumping it all together as so many conspiracy theories.

That brings us back to the Republican lawmakers who will object to the Biden electors on Wednesday. In a joint statement issued over the weekend, 11 senators and senators-elect noted that the extent of fraud in the 2020 election is disputed but that the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes. As a result, large numbers of voters dont trust the election results. The statement cites a November Reuters/Ipsos poll that found 39 percent of Americans believe the election was rigged, included a whopping 67 percent of Republicans.

While the formal objections of these lawmakers wont change the outcome of the election or stop the Electoral Colleges certification of the count, the senators call for a bipartisan election commission at least acknowledge that we have a serious problem on our hands when this many Americans dont have confidence in our elections, and that something needs to be done about it. Democrats and corporate media, by contrast, refuse to acknowledge we have a problem at least not this time, because they won.

A commission along the lines of what the senators are proposing isnt the solution. Im not sure anyone knows what the solution is in a country where national elections are conducted differently from state to state, even county to county. But to paraphrase Frdric Bastiat, the best way to ensure voters trust the results of our elections is to make our elections trustworthy.

Until we do that, every national election from here on out will be a crisis.

Here is the original post:

GOP Lawmakers Have A Point: Americans Need To Trust Elections - The Federalist

(Photo by Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

As you probably could guess, based on his radically right-wing record and degree from Yale Law School, Senator Josh Hawley was a member of the Federalist Society in law school. And as you also probably guessed based on those two facts, he was a bit of an asshole back then (I mean, probably now too, but this story is about his law school days, so).

Irina Manta, a professor at Hofstra Law School and a FedSoc darling who was spotted trying to make the law hold people accountable for lying on Tinder and branded a Karen after a neighborhood squabble over fireworks, has an opinion piece on USA Today dishing on Hawleys time in law school and urging him to ditch his sure-to-be-failed attempt to prevent Joe Biden from becoming the 46th President of the United States. Manta is also clear to note, that despite her association with FedSoc, she worked on President-elect Bidens campaign this cycle. But enough with the background, lets get to the (old) hot goss.

Manta and Hawley are both members of YLS 06, and were active in their law schools Federalist Society, so, obviously their paths crossed. But more than just casually cross, they were both elected as Vice Presidents for Events for FedSoc as 2Ls.

As Manta notes, Collaborating in these positions in our second year proved difficult. I organized the lions share of the groups events and frequently received no responses from him on emails I sent to him and the Societys president that year. This puzzled me because I thought our goal was to make the organization as strong as possible, and failure to communicate was an obstacle. ALL THE SIDE EYE.

As Mantas version of the story goes, she did way more work in their joint position, so when both Manta and Hawley threw their hats into the ring for President of FedSoc for the following year, she thought she had it in the bag. But thats where the chicanery begins, according to Manta.

Shortly before the election, a friend tipped me off to how Sen. Hawley was planning to beat me, given that he was uncertain he could do so based on votes only from regular members who knew our records best.

As appeared accurate based on the eventual turnout, Sen. Hawley had obtained from the sitting president the student email addresses for the YLS Federalist Society listserv (and the president, whom I had helped to win the previous year, did not volunteer that information to me at that stage). The rule was that anyone who had signed up for the listserv by a certain earlier date could vote in the Societys elections. This included a bunch of people who did not attend events and had little or no involvement with the Society.

The rule, while easy to administer, was a bad one. It even had the potential for individuals to co-opt the Society for the sole purpose of destroying it. Historically, however, nobody had exploited that rule, to my knowledge. Instead, candidates had campaigned for votes from people actively involved with the Society.

I found out about Sen. Hawleys plans too late to counter them successfully. I lost the YLS Federalist Societys presidential election to him by a handful of votes.The presidency comes with a number of advantages, including entry to key professional opportunities. From my perspective, I was the more deserving candidate and cared more about the organization. The voting rules, again, were problematic, and Sen. Hawley exploited that all the way to victory for himself and the rest of his slate.

So his success is based on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law. Got it. And now hes all in a tizzy because Democrats followed both the letter and spirit of election laws? Also, got it. He strikes me as exactly the sort of prick who earnestly believes its fine for him to do it but its cheating when you do it. Unsurprising.

Manta closes with a plea for Hawley to drop his objection over the certification of the electoral college results because she didnt object to his shady law school victory, so he should take a lesson. She notes he is setting a dangerous precedent such that one day, a hostile Congress could overturn a rightful presidential election. Shes not the only Yalie who disagrees with Hawley over his position, but all the obvious double standards in the world are still unlikely to change Hawleys position. At least we have a better sense of the exact sort of person Hawley really is.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email herwith any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

See the original post:

Josh Hawley Was The Exact Sort Of Prick Youd Imagine Him To Be At Yale Law School - Above the Law