The American Bar Association Should Probably Be Disbarred

How can an organisation on the take set the rules of ethics for a profession that has long been associated with a lack of ethics?

Just a very short further note on the circular money flow of pure corruption behind lawfare 2.0 and the judicial fight against the Trump adninistration spending freezes. A few people have noted the role of the American Bar Association as the provider of the ethics guidelines followed by most States.

The process to remove a federal judge is particularly difficult, requiring an impeachment similar to what occurs against a President. Such a judge also faces a confirmation process to take up the role in the first place. Once in, they are difficult to remove, which makes their ethical character extremely important.

The supposed watchdog of ethics for all lawyers is essentially the American Bar Association.

It is the American Bar Association which sets the ethical rules for lawyers, the code lawyers are supposed to follow to remain within professional ethical guidelines. When a lawyer’s behaviour is considered unethical they are disbarred. Disbarment is actually fairly rare, but most States follow the rules set out by the ABA.

While the ABA can’t circumvent the impeachment process regarding federal judges, so far as I know (better legal minds than mine can answer that), even its public statements can have a significant impact. If the ABA was calling a judge unethical, their position would be untenable. And the ABA has much more influence than that over prosecutors and lawyers generally.

But the American Bar Association is not a neutral guardian of ethics, especially when it comes to judicial lawfare waged in support of the vast fraud that is USAID.

The American Bar Association has itself been a major recipient of USAID funding.

The American Bar Association then dutifully issued a scathing denunciation of DOGE activities and the USAID spending freeze.

Several of the Democrat Judges ruling against Trump spending policies have themselves received USAID funding or shown that should recuse themselves from key USAID cases.

Bringing personal feelings to a case and having conflicts of interest are of course ethical violations of a judicial role.

Judge McConnell called Trump a tyrant in 2021. He personally donated $700,000 to two Democrat Senators who then recommended to Obama that he be appointed as a federal judge. These Senators both refused to recuse themselves from the confirmation vote on McConnell getting a lifetime judicial post. McConnell has refused to recuse himself from cases against the Trump administration.

Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali is a Canadian born Biden appointment. He was President of a Soros founded NGO that received USAID funding. He has ruled that USAID funding should continue.

Just one Soros organisation received 260 million US dollars from USAID. Soros in turn has funded almost all of the Democrat DA’s and prosecutors engaged in Trump lawfare.

All of the organisations bringing lawsuits against DOGE and the audits and spending freezes have received Soros funding or USAID funding or both.

Judge John Bates who ordered that LGBTQ+ propaganda be restored to government websites is married to Carol Rhees, the founder of an NGO called Hope for Children in Ethiopia, which is funded by (can you guess?) USAID.

These are ethical violations the ABA should be interested in, but the ABA are themselves on the payroll.

The people who set the ethical rules are paid by the people whose spending is being revealed as crooked, and are also effectively in charge of whether lawyers and prosecutors have been unethical, who are then bringing cases and hearing cases which decide that the system paying them or their family members must be continued.

The system is so crooked that the entire ABA membership have a conflict of interest in these cases, and the ABA as an organisation definitely does just as much as these specific judges do.