Harvard University's 'conservative pro-Trump lawyer', Lee Jae-myung's 'priority pay for the lawyers of the sect'

Harvard University's 'conservative pro-Trump lawyer', Lee Jae-myung's 'priority pay for the lawyers of the sect'

 

While Harvard University, which has been in a fight with the Trump regime, has stepped forward to divide the conservative Supreme Court by 'hiring conservative pro-Trump lawyers', the Democratic Party's legal committee chairman, who confirmed his incompetence by saying, "I did not expect it at all" in the Supreme Court ruling, revealed the party policy of 'promoting conservative unity' by responding hard-line.

Harvard University's legal dispute has many similarities with the legal dispute of the Lee Jae-myung regime and the 'conservative response', but in the actual response, Harvard University focused on 'dividing conservative judges' and the Lee Jae-myung regime's strategy of 'attacking conservative judges and encouraging hard-line collusion' by paying success fees to lawyers first is an extreme contrast. 

Harvard University, which has been facing a massive legal battle and has had its financial support cut off due to the Trump administration's refusal to accept an executive order, has appointed a former Texas attorney general who argued in favor of abortion restrictions as its defense attorney for the lawsuit. 

Two former clerk judges for Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, have appointed hard-line conservative lawyers who were advisors to the Trump Organization.

These lawyers are conservative legal heavyweights hired by Harvard to win its lawsuit against the Trump administration, and if it loses, billions of dollars in federal funds are at stake.

The Democratic Party must return 43.4 billion won in state support from the last presidential election if Lee Jae-myung is found guilty.

On the 1st, Democratic Party Legal Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Cho Ki-yeon said on 'YTN News Special' about the Supreme Court's ruling, "I am embarrassed because I did not expect this result at all." 

Democratic Party lawmaker Yang Bu-nam, who was a former Supreme Prosecutor, was directly selected by this candidate, and on the 30th, in an exclusive interview on CBS YouTube, he said, "The referral to the full bench was very unusual and the speed was too fast. I think the Supreme Court also wanted to show its presence," and "Although there are many conservative justices, I think there is a high possibility of a not guilty verdict. Even if the case is remanded, the trial will not end until June 3, so there will be no problem in becoming president."

Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min introduced a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act on the 1st to suspend criminal trial procedures for defendants who are elected president during their term of office.

Democratic Party lawmakers Kim Tae-nyeon, Min Hyung-bae, and Lee Yong-woo introduced a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act on the 1st to suspend all trial procedures during the term of office if the defendant is the president. 

Kim Min-seok, the head of the Democratic Party's Situation Room and a member of the Supreme Council, said on the 1st, "Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, who caused a judicial rebellion, will also resign," and Rep. Jeong Jin-wook pointed out the Supreme Court justices who found him "guilty," saying, "10 Supreme Court justices should be impeached." 

Lee Yong-woo, the chairman of the Democratic Party's legal committee, declared on MBC on March 26 that "Representative Lee should take steps to receive the public's judgment separately from the verdict," and declared that the verdict and the presidential election should be separate.
Lee then aimed at the appellate court's verdict, saying, "If the case goes to the Supreme Court after today's verdict, both parties will have to engage in written arguments for at least two months, and then the hearing will begin," and he judged that the Supreme Court's verdict on Representative Lee's election law violation case would not be made until the presidential election day and announced it, but in reality, he revealed the Supreme Court's misjudgment on the 1st.

The candidate announced on the 3rd in Gangneung that "voting is a bullet. It is truly a means of revolution," and that the election is above the law.

This candidate responded to the impeachment of the Chief Justice by saying, “I am an elected candidate, and the election is fought by the party and the election campaign committee, so I believe the party will handle the issue in accordance with the will of the people.” He also discarded the “party member sovereignty” principle by saying, “Politics is something that the people do.”

Lee Jae-myung's Regime has been paying the National Assembly seats to the defense attorneys who are currently on trial as compensation through the "preemptive payment of compensation," and has introduced the "party member sovereignty system" to ensure that they have vested rights and a stronger voice in legal issues.

The New York Times reported on the 2nd that Harvard University is forming an A-list squadron of hard-line conservative pro-Republican lawyers in a legal battle with the hard-line conservative Trump administration, saying, “This is a different story than the last time Harvard faced a legal battle that made headlines.” 

“Back in 2022, Harvard was advocating for minority rights and turned to WilmerHale, a law firm with a longstanding relationship with the university, for help, but the Trump administration shook up the legal profession.” Now, WilmerHale is under attack from the administration itself and the Trump administration, and they are fighting a fierce battle of their own.

Harvard’s legal battle is a desperate situation, as it faces a fundamental threat to academic freedom after rejecting a list of demands from the administration, including the firing of professors who are “more committed to activism than scholarship” and the ban on international students who oppose “American values.” 

In particular, unlike the fight during the first Trump administration, this legal battle involved billions of dollars in federal funds if lost, so it was linked to the existence of the largest private university in the United States, and the university responded with the “most conservative lawyers.”

The American media and legal community have said that Harvard is likely to win by recognizing the legal merits of the Constitution, but if the case goes to the Supreme Court, it could face a backlash from the conservative judges on the Supreme Court that Trump’s first administration had planned in advance.

The New York Times reported that “the conservative lawyers’ list on the Supreme Court was designed to give the university power in front of a court where Republican-appointed justices have an overwhelming majority.”

Aaron Tang, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, told the New York Times that “this is consistent with a long tradition of clients trying to signal to the Supreme Court that this case is not a ‘liberal versus conservative administration’ issue at Harvard.” “This is academic freedom, so you have to appeal to someone across the political spectrum.” 

 

In this candidate's trial, the second trial separated freedom of expression into 'perception' and 'act' and found him not guilty, but the Supreme Court recognized it as 'act' and gave priority to the 'voter's position' of the election law, resulting in a guilty verdict. In addition, the lawyers for this candidate focused on 'excessive prosecution investigation and indictment' rather than the legal theory of the specificity of 'act' in 'expansion of freedom of expression', ignoring the 'conservative division of judges' in the Supreme Court, which is the Harvard method, and failed to 'stop the Supreme Court's early ruling'.

 

Lee C. Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan, used the same strategy when he hired lawyers to argue an affirmative action case before the Supreme Court in 2003, this time with Harvard’s conservative lawyers. “I understand exactly what Harvard is thinking about hiring these lawyers,” Bollinger told the Times. 

During the 1980s, when the conservative winds were at their peak, the swing vote on the Supreme Court was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by President Reagan. Michigan chose Maureen E. Mahoney, a former law clerk for Republican appointee William H. Rehnquist, who was chief justice when the Supreme Court heard the case. “I knew that Sandra Day O’Connor was going to be a critical vote, and I wanted someone who really understood how she thought and how she was going to feel about this case,”

Bullinger, the former president of Michigan who is now president of Columbia, told the Times. The strategy worked, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Michigan. 

The Times said, “Harvard did not comment on this article,” and that in its lawsuit against the administration, Harvard argued that the Trump administration’s order violated the First Amendment in several ways, and that the administration relied on a more arcane law, the Administrative Procedure Act, to drive the process by which federal agencies develop rules and impose penalties, while ignoring the university’s own requirements in order to cut federal funding. ” 

Trump told TourSocial on Tuesday that the government would “strike away” Harvard’s tax-exempt status. The Times reported that “if the Trump administration ultimately does this, it could lead to another legal challenge.”

Justin Driver, a Yale law professor who clerked for Justice O’Connor, told the Times that the Harvard lawyers’ list “underscores how deeply divided the right is at this fraught moment in our country’s history.”

The Harvard team carries some immediate risks for lawyers who join it.

One of the lawyers, William A. Burck, recently advised the Trump Organization, and Trump tried to fire Burck because he had agreed to represent Harvard.

Seventeen lawyers have officially registered with the Harvard team.

“Other lawyers are likely working behind the scenes” in the Harvard case, the Times said, adding that “not all of them are known to be sympathetic to conservative causes.”

Among the registered attorneys, Joshua S. Levy was a federal prosecutor in Boston during the Democratic Biden presidency and is now a partner at Ropes & Gray.

Mr. Burke, a partner at the conservative firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan during the Reagan era, graduated from Yale Law School and was a law clerk for Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018.

Mr. Burke served as a staff attorney for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in the Republican George W. Bush White House and was once so staunchly conservative that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called him a “partisan warrior” for the Republican Party. 

At least seven other lawyers in Harvard’s legal group have clerked for Republican-appointed justices, including four current justices, before or during their time in Washington.

In addition to Burke’s firm, at least three other firms, including Lehotsky Keller Cohn, are handling the Harvard case. Stephen P. Lehotsky, a Harvard Law School graduate who clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Republican Bush administration.

A Republican, he played a central role in putting together Harvard’s legal team this time, a person familiar with the strategy told the Times on condition of anonymity.
The Harvard team included a change in King & Spalding partner Robert K. Hur.
Hur, who clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, is best known for his work on the Biden secrets case.
Hur, a Republican who spent most of Trump’s first term as Maryland’s attorney, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, but he nonetheless caused a stir by referring to Biden as “an old man with a bad memory.”
Harvard’s strategy has been successful before, but it’s not without risks.
“You have to be really careful,” Bollinger, who successfully led the lawsuit as president of the University of Michigan and is now president of Columbia University, told the Times. “If the people you’re advocating for feel like you’re trying to manipulate them by the type of lawyer you have, they can turn on you.” 

<Lee Jae-myung, Attorney Kim Dong-ah, on trial in Daejang-dong, ‘Daejang-dong’s ability recognition selection’, nomination deal, March 25, 2024>
<Trump regime ‘tax exemption’ due to US universities ‘refusing to release progressives’ during wartime mobilization, April 17, 2025>
<Harvard University Board of Trustees Supports President to Uphold ‘Freedom of Anti-Semitic Expression’, December 13, 2023> See