The pro-Donald Trump legal group, America First Legal (AFL), has taken over the Maricopa County Recorder's office, and it's illegal, one Arizona reporter Brahm Resnik wrote, citing a new court case.

County Recorder Justin Heap hired American First Legal to counsel them in a lawsuit, court documents show. County Attorney Rachel Mitchell sued over the matter and revealed a slew of concerning details in the process.

Mitchell asked for a temporary restraining order and injunction at the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, but the court ruled that she lacked standing.

However, a new filing alleges that the "AFL has abused that limited ruling and used it as a launching pad for [an] unprecedented power grab. In the past three-and-a-half weeks alone, AFL, a partisan non-profit organization funded by private donors, and the Recorder have: 1. Proclaimed that AFL will serve as the Recorder's counsel on 'all' matters 'covering the administration of early voting or any election statute that contains the phrase "recorder or other officer in charge of elections," based on self-declared global conflict of interest with the County Attorney.'"

The suit also claims that the AFL has "instructed County elections staff to disregard legal advice from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (MCAO) about voter instructions at polling locations."

The AFL allegedly told staff they couldn't seek any legal advice from the county attorney and tried to prevent the county attorney from attending a Board of Supervisors executive session about the election, the suit says.

AFL then "threatened to pursue criminal charges against the Board for establishing drop boxes — forcing Attorney General Kris Mayes to write a letter to AFL warning it against making 'unfounded threats of criminal liability.'" The pro-Trump legal group then allegedly sent a letter to the Board threatening to sue them under a criminal statute and demanding public records.

Mitchell's filing makes it clear that AFL was never hired to provide "in-house" counsel for the Recorder's office.

The filing goes on to allege that the AFL is "acting as de facto deputy county attorneys is ultra vires and illegal. The Recorder lacks any explicit or implicit statutory authority to hire outside counsel — let alone a partisan organization — to serve as in-house counsel on 'all' matters under his 'purview.'"

The uploaded filing only contains excerpts from the full document and doesn't cite any specifics about dates for hearings or details about where the case stands.

President Donald Trump is apparently tampering so thoroughly in elections that even a staunchly MAGA official is raising alarms about it.

“[Maricopa County Attorney Rachel] Mitchell garnered national attention after Senate Republicans tapped her to question Christine Blasey Ford during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process after Ford alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her as a teenager,” wrote MS NOW’s Ja'han Jones on Wednesday. “Kavanaugh has flatly denied the allegation.”

Yet despite Mitchell’s impeccable MAGA credentials, including endorsing Trump’s 2024 campaign, Jones reported that she has filed a lawsuit against America First Legal, White House adviser Stephen Miller’s right-wing activist group that is trying to make sure Trump does not lose control of Congress during the 2026 midterm elections.

“The office is led by Justin Heap, who has egged on the Trump administration’s push to acquire sensitive voter data in Arizona,” Jones reported. “And the disturbing context to all this is Trump has openly declared that Republicans should nationalize voting processes and ‘take over the voting’ in several cities — like Phoenix, perhaps.”

Jones added, “In a June 8 legal filing, Mitchell’s lawyers asked Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney to rein in Recorder Justin Heap’s politically connected firm, the America First Legal Foundation, which it said has undertaken ‘an unprecedented power grab.’” Her lawyers argued that “the Recorder lacks any explicit or implicit statutory authority to hire outside counsel — let alone a partisan organization — to serve as in-house counsel on ‘all’ matters under his ‘purview.’”

Overall Jones concluded, “The fact that even conservative officials are sounding the alarm here shows how extreme, unprecedented and potentially threatening to democracy this situation could prove to be.”

Speaking with AlterNet earlier this month, Common Cause Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation Dan Vicuña said that Trump’s various voter repression policies — including trying to stop mail-in voting, demanding voter files, gerrymandering, supporting voter ID laws and stating he will deploy law enforcement to voting places — are all part of a larger plan to steal the midterms. Common Cause is a nonprofit good government group with a distinguished pedigree tracing back to 1970.

“What they all add up to is a desire to avoid any accountability to the voters in the midterm elections — to ensure, to preordain the outcome of a midterm that he thinks is going to go badly for him,” Vicuña told AlterNet. “We know, from the Big Lie of the 2020 election to spurring on a violent revolt to overthrow a free and fair election, that he has no respect for democratic norms, for the voice of the people. This is entirely about his own power and his own ego. He will even invest in protecting that ego and protecting his power at the expense of the needs of the public. People are suffering with high gas prices and affordability issues, and he does not care. All that matters is protecting his power, and he has no interest in whether he does that through democratic means.”

Republican voters in Arizona sent a litany of election deniers to the November ballot, chief among them the nominees for the top three statewide offices. But they’re far from the only ones who advanced to the general election.

The Grand Canyon State has long been at the center of the election conspiracy theories that have become a tenet of the modern Republican Party under President Donald Trump, who has been doggedly focused on false claims of election fraud over the past decade.

As the belief that elections are rife with fraud — at least when Democrats win — has transformed from fringe online discourse into a GOP article of faith, adherents and promoters of election conspiracy theories have been gaining more elected power.

But those views are growing more unpopular among voters, as issues such as affordability and the war in Iran take center stage.

“It is not sustainable, and people do not have an appetite for it. People want to have our elections be a process that helps us pick our leaders and then they want our leaders to lead for us,” Alex Gulotta, All Voting is Local Action’s Arizona state director, told the Arizona Mirror. “It is not winning people’s hearts and minds.”

Despite that, a growing number of election deniers are running for office in Arizona and across the country, according to Kelly Rader, research director at States United Action, a nonpartisan nonprofit that supports state officials protecting elections and has been tracking election deniers since 2022.

Arizona is one of four states — along with Colorado, Wisconsin and Tennessee — that have three or more election deniers running for statewide office, according to their analysis.

Nationally, nearly 75% of the states have an election denier running for a statewide or congressional office, Rader’s research found. That is 139 candidates across the country, among them 21 candidates for governor, nine running for secretary of state and eight running for attorney general, according to the data.

“Election denial is a comprehensive strategy to undermine trust in our elections so that Trump and his allies can challenge election results they don’t like,” Rader said. “As we move through the primaries and sprint toward the fall, we expect that Trump will continue pushing the same old election conspiracy theories. And we are closely watching which election denier candidates echo those claims in the months to come.”

Gulotta echoed those sentiments, adding that Trump’s continued denialism of the results of the 2020 election has helped fuel the fire for candidates to use the same rhetoric.

“I think as long as the president of the United States and his cronies are acting in a way that seeks to prevent voting and is really focused on denying the results of elections, we will continue to see this,” he said. “I am hoping we will grow out of it soon, hopefully another cycle or two.”

Rader said the corrosive effect of lies about election results has far-reaching effects, but was optimistic about the work being done by the nation’s election administrators to educate people and counter the conspiracies.

“Efforts to undermine confidence in legitimate election outcomes don’t just threaten individual races; they erode voter confidence and threaten one of the most important limits on presidential power,” she said. “The good news is that election officials across the country are educating voters, rebuilding trust, and working to ensure another free and fair election this year.”

It isn’t just election denialism that is on the ballot, either.

This year’s batch of conspiracy-minded candidates ranges from QAnon adherents to former “audit” workers. Some of them may be well known to most Arizonans, while others are newcomers to electoral politics.

The old guard

The top of the ticket in Arizona will be a who’s who of people who have been involved in election related conspiracy activities since 2020.

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs won the Republican party primary for Governor where he will square off against Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in November.

After Trump lost his 2020 re-election bid to Joe Biden, Biggs was front and center in Arizona and Congress trying to “Stop the Steal.” He joined fellow Arizona GOP Congressman Paul Gosar in spreading doubt about the results of the 2020 election and made claims of voter disenfranchisement that were not backed up by evidence.

Former Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers said Biggs called him the morning of January 6 asking him to sign onto a letter calling for the decertification of Arizona electors. Biggs, who voted to reject electoral votes for Biden from Arizona and other battleground states, would later allegedly seek a pardon from Trump for his involvement.

Two other prominent election deniers will also be at the top of the Arizona ticket.

State Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who won the GOP primary for secretary of state, has long pushed unfounded claims around the state’s elections.

Kolodin was one of the key attorneys for Trump’s campaign who challenged the 2020 election results in the state and has represented a number of prominent election deniers. Kolodin was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2023 for his part in lawsuits challenging the 2020 election that made implausible and evidence-free claims of massive election fraud. He represented Trump’s campaign in the so-called “kraken” lawsuit in Arizona that was based on claims made by people with no actual knowledge of the elections.

In his time in the legislature, Kolodin has pushed for sweeping changes to Arizona election laws largely based on election conspiracy theories.

Then there’s GOP attorney general nominee Warren Petersen, who currently serves as president of the Arizona Senate. He, along with former Senate President Karen Fann, oversaw the partisan “audit” that the Senate conducted in 2021 to scour for fraud in Maricopa County’s election the year before. It found no evidence of fraud, and actually concluded that Biden won the election in the state’s largest county.

Earlier this year, he handed over material from that election review to the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice.

Other prominent election deniers also won their primaries, including Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff. On top of believing the 2020 election was fraudulent, Rogers has also engaged with white nationalists and other extremists.

She’ll also likely be joined in the Senate again by Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, who has openly embraced QAnon and spread conspiracy theories about the Department of Child Safety.

In its simplest form, QAnon is a conspiracy theory that alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles are running a global sex-trafficking ring, control world governments and are trying to bring down President Donald Trump — who is himself single-handedly dismantling the cabal.

Farnsworth and Rogers also will be joined by the QAnon-posting and January-6-insurrection-attending Sen. Janae Shamp, who ran uncontested in her primary.

Another prominent election denier who won their primary is former Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb.

Lamb worked with other far-right sheriffs and a group that was involved with the widely debunked film “2000 Mules” to police polling locations in 2022. Lamb won his primary despite lurid allegations about his sex life and the release of a racist chat he had with a border vigilante.

If he wins his election — which is likely, as his district is deep red — he’ll join fellow election denier U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, who unsuccessfully tried to claim election fraud led to his 280-vote loss to Kris Mayes in the 2022 contest for attorney general.

The new class

Among the well-known pushers of conspiracy theories in the state are some new faces that are seeking political power.

For instance, Michelle Altherr is seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Brian Fernandez in the Democrat-leaning Legislative District 23.

Altherr worked at the partisan election “audit,” citing it as one of the main reasons she has gotten into politics. She has long been a presence at Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meetings, where she has spread unfounded claims of election fraud.

Another new face is James Rogers, who won his primary for the state House of Representatives in Legislative District 10. Rogers has represented Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, a known election denier, as part of the America First Legal law firm, which was started by top Trump advisor Stephen Miller.

The law firm was also behind a failed lawsuit that attempted to change how Arizona counties use drop boxes and maintain voter rolls.

Then there’s Mylie Biggs, Andy Biggs’ daughter, who won an uncontested race to represent Legislative District 14 in the state Senate.

Last year, during an appearance on The Matt MacCurdy program, she said that she doesn’t believe women should hold public office. On that same podcast, the younger Biggs said she has a fondness for conspiracy theories, telling the host to not get her “started on 9/11.”

Early voting for the general election starts on Sept. 19 for military and overseas voters and early voting for everyone else begins on Oct. 7. The last day voters can register to vote and apply for an early ballot is Oct. 5. Voters can find more information and register to vote at this link.

President Donald Trump has fired Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, but that does not mean his draconian anti-immigrant agenda will wind down. According to a recent report, the architect of that agenda remains as entrenched in power as ever.

"Far from acknowledging defeat, Mr. Miller appears to have simply adjusted his strategy in an effort to minimize political fallout," wrote Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Hamed Aleaziz, Christopher Flavelle, Emily Cochrane and Glenn Thrush of The New York Times in a Sunday report.

The report elaborated that, even as Trump’s “crackdown” has become unpopular in pretty much every American political group outside of the president’s own base, Miller has adjusted to the challenges by treating it as a personal test rather than a sign he should reevaluate his course.

"Mr. Miller, one of the most influential presidential advisers in recent memory and an unabashed champion of Mr. Trump's hard-line immigrant crackdown is at a crossroads,” the Times elaborated. Because of his performance up to this point, “he faces questions about how aggressively he can continue to drive the deportation campaign, and how much appetite his party and the country have for tactics that proved successful in helping to boost arrests of immigrants but reignited a polarizing debate."

Overall the report observed that “rather than Mr. Miller seeing his power recede, he has moved to apply it in other ways, seeking policies that would pressure undocumented immigrants to leave on their own.” As a result “Mr. Miller's influence has also extended beyond Washington."

Like many other figures in Trump’s orbit, Miller is widely considered to be extremely racist. Last month New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote that by ending public education funding for undocumented children in red states, Trump is deliberately attempting to keep underprivileged racial minorities less educated than theirs. For this reason, Bouie argued that the administration's efforts to repeal civil rights protections and other legislation from that era must be understood in an explicitly white supremacist context.

“Both Miller and the MAGA right are engaged in the same kind of work as their political forebears,” Bouie wrote. “It is no wonder, then, that they want to gut the 14th Amendment, which was revitalized by the struggles of Black Americans and other groups throughout the 20th century. Theirs is a project of subordination at home and abroad; of the re-inscription of caste and the recreation of tiered citizenship based on race and nationality. And now, as then, the 14th Amendment stands in the way.”

Miller is so influential, he is even believed to have been responsible for the Trump administration’s decision to reverse its previous withdrawal of political lawsuits against progressive law firms and lawyers. His America First Legal has also targeted law firms and corporations for diversity initiatives.

The surprising decision by the Trump administration to reverse course and continue battling progressive law firms and lawyers has been attributed to the ire of Donald Trump and his senior advisor, Stephen Miller.

But given that Trump is somewhat preoccupied by a certain Middle East conflict, a CNN story and speculation attributed to “a source familiar with the situation" hint that Miller’s fingerprints appear to be likely the ones gripping the renewed legal throttle.

Miller’s America First Legal has previously targeted law firms and corporations for diversity initiatives and challenged Biden-era policies to pressure compliance with conservative goals.

Thus, The Wall Street Journal story that the Trump administration was abandoning its defense of the president’s executive orders sanctioning several law firms and individuals indicates at the least some Justice Department missed communications.

Trump’s executive orders would have prevented firms and individual lawyers from entering federal buildings, eliminated federal contracts with the firms and their clients, and removed any security clearances.

Law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey were among those affected. Chilled by those lawsuits, several other large law firms cut deals with the president, providing more than $1 billion in pro bono work on causes Trump favored.

Trump cited the sanctioned parties for their connections to his political rivals. He also noted their diversity initiatives and pro bono work for immigrants, transgender rights and voting protections in his executive orders.

Now, the administration’s bite at the legal apple continues.

Late Thursday morning, December 18, the news broke that federal Judge Trevor McFadden —an appointee of President Donald Trump — had rejected a lawsuit brought by major Trump allies: the America First Legal Foundation, a far-right MAGA legal group.

According to Politico's Josh Gerstein, America First Legal was "trying to demand records" using the Freedom of Information Act. But Gerstein notes that McFadden, in his America First Legal Foundation v. John G. Roberts ruling, "says Congress 'excused' itself [and] judiciary."

McFadden, in a 21-page court document, wrote, "The Freedom of Information Act announced a policy of broad disclosure of government documents. Broad disclosure, however, does not mean unlimited disclosure. While FOIA promises access to many Executive Branch records, Congress excused itself and the courts from FOIA’s reach. In 2024, America First Legal Foundation ('America First') requested various documents from the Judicial Conference of the United States and Administrative Office of the United States under FOIA. Both entities rejected the request on the basis that they are part of the Judiciary, so FOIA does not apply to them. America First disagreed."

The Trump-appointed federal judge continued, "Taking a narrower view of FOIA's court-documents carve out, America First sees the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office as agencies subject to FOIA. So America First sued and asks the Court to compel the heads of the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office to comply with its FOIA request. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 2."

McFadden noted that the "defendants moved to dismiss America First's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim."

The judge wrote, "Under Rule 12(b)(1), this Court presumes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and 'possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.' Id. And when a defendant brings a challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. See id."

President Donald Trump's immigration policies have often found themselves in the crosshairs of America's legal system. Now a judge appointed by Trump himself has blasted federal agents for arresting people even when they are not undocumented immigrants and then claiming to have misidentified them.

"Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointee in New York, rebukes ICE for arresting two people erroneously — including a U.S. citizen — and later claiming 'mistaken identity,'" reported Politico's Kyle Cheney on Monday on X. He quoted Brown as saying, "ICE agents falsified official records."

In his decision, Brown condemned ICE's overall approach to enforcing the law.

"In countless ICE habeas petitions involving individuals detained for civil — not criminal — proceedings, respondents advised judges of this court that various petitioners had been jailed due to misidentification: officers erroneously identified the petitioner as a 'target' of an ICE 'operation' based on similarities of height, weight, description, and sometimes a photograph," Brown wrote. "The undersigned has, in prior cases, accepted this explanation based on representations of counsel and/or sworn statements by ICE agents. This case required exploring that proffered justification in connection with two such non-criminal arrests."

This is not the first time Brown has slammed Trump's immigration policies. In March, Brown harshly criticized ICE for detaining an honors student swept up in a raid despite possessing Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. Honduran national Hester Asaf Garcia Lanza, who came to the United States at the age of 9 and worked lawfully in the United States for years, was picked up in an ICE/DHS sweep. Garcia Lanza was then subjected to removal proceedings in defiance of his legal certifications, and after the court determined Garcia Lanza should be released because he was in the United States legally, ICE imposed unsanctioned conditions and DHS added a large fine.

“This isn’t how things are supposed to work in America,” Brown argued in his decision, further describing the actions as "unimaginable cruelty" and concluding, "The laws of human decency condemn such villainy.”

Brown is not alone among Trump-appointed judges to denounce the administration. U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif and U.S. District Judges Timothy J. Kelly, Karen Immergut, Thomas Cullen, Stephanie Gallagher, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., Trevor N. McFadden and Mary S. McElroy have all ruled against Trump in high profile cases, even though the president appointed them.

"To date, GOP-appointed judges have ruled against the administration in more than a dozen high-profile cases," CNN's Aaron Blake wrote last year. "They’ve also often used strong language that suggested Trump and his administration were blatantly violating the law."

Amid his ongoing feud with CNN and other outlets, one of the network's top anchors snuck in a "subtle dig" at President Donald Trump during a recent live broadcast, per The Daily Beast.

Kaitlan Collins is a prominent host and former chief White House correspondent for CNN and has gained significant attention in recent years for Trump's particular animosity towards her. During a 2023 town hall event, in response to Collins grilling him about the classified documents he hoarded at Mar-a-Lago, Trump lashed out and called her a "nasty person."

As The Daily Beast noted in its report from Saturday, "Trump’s attacks on Collins have become even more frequent" since the start of his second term, calling her part of "Fake News CNN" in a social media post from December, and lambasting her as "always Stupid and Nasty."

Trump's anger has become even more notable amid his ongoing attempts to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from entering the White House. The president himself has repeatedly said that the ban is due to negative coverage from each outlet, while his legal team has attempted to argue in court that there is no legal requirement to allow outlets into the White House and that the targeted outlets have failed to meet certain supposed professional standards. The ban has been struck down multiple times in court, but reporters for the three outlets have continued to be denied White House access nonetheless.

As The Daily Beast highlighted, Collins appeared to take aim at Trump in a subtle manner during a recent broadcast, by way of a prominently placed mug on the anchor's desk of her program, The Source, reading: "America Needs Nasty Women."

"After the ban was overturned by one of Trump’s own judicial appointees on First Amendment grounds, the president then kicked CNN off Air Force One and bluntly antagonized Collins, singling her out for criticism and telling her she 'shouldn’t be here,'" The Daily Beast detailed further. "Time published a lengthy interview with Trump this week in which he lashed out at Collins while ranting about how the media only covers negative stories."

“So at a certain point, you say, ‘What’s the purpose of, like, this crazy Kaitlan Collins?’ She’s a very average person. She’s the most unhappy young person I’ve ever seen,“ Trump said during the interview. "If I did something spectacular by any standard, and they would write about it, they will only write badly."

President Donald Trump’s taxpayer-funded television ad campaign has raised serious concerns among his own advisers, with several describing the initiative as potentially illegal and actively distancing themselves from it, according to a recent report.

Zeteo revealed that Trump’s allies and administration officials involved in discussions about the ads have described them as “obviously illegal,” as one senior Trump official put it. Another source close to the White House said they were approached for a role in the project but declined due to legal concerns. “It did not sound legal at all,” the individual stated.

The report also states that Trump has privately referred to these spots as “midterm ads,” according to two knowledgeable sources. However, the White House has denied this characterization, maintaining that the commercials are lawful public service announcements, not political advertising.

The controversy centers on a series of government-funded ads featuring Trump that began airing weeks before the November 3 midterm elections. One of these ads closely resembles a 2024 Trump campaign ad in which he decries a “final battle” against “globalists,” “warmongers,” and the “deep state.” Another ad plays the song “Love Me” as Trump asserts that America will never become a communist nation. All three ads conclude with the disclaimer, “Paid for by the US Government.”

Zeteo also reported that several advisers are trying to keep their names off documents and internal communications related to this campaign because they fear future congressional investigations and potential legal costs. The Department of Homeland Security has allocated $20 million for this campaign, redirecting funds initially intended for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Federal data confirmed that a $20 million “National Media Campaign” contract was awarded to Maryland-based LMD Agency Inc. immediately after the funds were reallocated.

Critics are vocally asserting that these ads may breach restrictions on using congressionally appropriated money for government propaganda or partisan political activities. Public Citizen has called on broadcasters to stop airing the ads and has urged federal authorities to investigate potential improper partisan engagement by executive branch officials.

More than $2.5 million was already spent on these ads within the first seven days, as reported by AdImpact data. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., firmly stated that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund this campaign.

Trump is taking a hands-on approach in selecting the ads, with Axios reporting that the campaign is set to expand as Election Day draws closer. “This is just the beginning,” an administration official declared.

CNN anchor Kasie Hunt dropped a painful Thursday supercut of President Donald Trump new press secretary overblowing her resume mere days into her new job as a disseminator of information to millions of Americans and the world.

“I was a corporate lawyer. The friendliness of a westerner being in a. It was a Chinese law firm. It was amazing,” said Katie Zacharia to CNN on May 15.

“I love to be able to break that down. I'm a lawyer,” she told the Greg Kelly Show at WABC 77 Radio October 5.

“I am a lawyer, and I'm a rigorous researcher,” she also told the crew of the Clay & Buck Show August 13.

“I'm a lawyer. I went to Pepperdine, Pepperdine law as a lawyer,” Zacharia informed “In Front of Us with Jeff Storobinski” August 14.

“As a lawyer, the procedural steps are absolutely critical,” she told Fox News August 13.

“Lawyer, attorney, attorney at law, esquire. It's a lot there,” said Hunt at the conclusion of the painful contradiction—which CNN assembled hours after Zacharia rationalize her lies, explaining that she sought advice, potentially legal advice, before referring to herself as a lawyer — despite having failed the California bar after graduating from law school.

“I consulted for a very long time. Many people in the field. Is it okay and acceptable if I label myself lawyer, not attorney at law, not Katie Zacharia, esquire, but lawyer, and provide legal analysis, not legal advice,” she told conservative show “Real America Voice” this Thursday afternoon. “And they said ‘absolutely, absolutely across the board. You can call yourself a lawyer.’”

“Her credibility took a massive hit her first week out, and then she didn't do a great job,” said conservative pundit and Dispatch Editor Jonah Goldberg. “I think she'll get better at it. It's sort of axiomatic because I don't think she could get a lot worse, but I also think she'll get better at it. But if she's going around representing herself as a lawyer or an attorney or whatever and she wasn't one, it gets at her fundamental credibility for a job that requires a good bit of credibility.”

“I don't think it matters,” quipped GOP pundit Scott Jennings. “A press secretary doesn't need to be a lawyer. And he's not hiring a lawyer. They got plenty of lawyers in the White House counsel's office, and I'm sure they're going to have to hire a bunch more. She doesn't need to be a lawyer. What she needs to do is deliver the message from the podium in a way that is concise, on point, and that he likes. And that's really the only thing that matters.”

“Well, part of it might be because she stood next to the president and was asked, ‘where did you pass the bar?’ And the president turned around and looked at her. So now there's video of him, of the two of them standing together [looking bewildered],” said Hunt. “… It just it put Trump in a weird position in that moment.”

“Well, yes, but it's easily cleared up,” assured Jennings. “And again, it's inconsequential to the job whether or not she has a law degree.”

Panelist and former prosecutor Elie Honig, however, did not accept that argument.

“If any friend of mine or any of my students who I teach were to come to me years later and say, ‘I passed the I graduated law school, but I did not pass the bar, and I'm going to go put myself out there as a lawyer.’ I would say, ‘let's not do that because at best it's misleading, or worse,’” Honig said.