Today we saw oral arguments in the lawfare case against Attorney General Knudsen. Sadly, this is nothing new. We’ve seen this movie before. The left uses “lawfare” to silence and target political opponents, manipulating the legal system for partisan gain. This isn’t just happening at the national level, as we’ve witnessed in the ongoing lawfare against President Donald Trump. Now, it’s Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s turn. Much like Trump, Knudsen is being subjected to a politically motivated show trial—one designed not to uphold justice but to neutralize our Attorney General for simply representing a co-equal branch of government. In truth, it is more than that. It is a partisan attack that threatens the foundation of our democracy. Let’s go back to the beginning of this absurd witch hunt and go through the facts. The attack on Knudsen started in 2021 when a California lawyer with no meaningful ties to Montana, Clara Ellen Roberts, filed a complaint against him. Notably, no Montana lawyer or judge has lodged a similar complaint, which suggests that this is more about politics than legal ethics. The orchestrators of this case, from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to the Commission on Practice, have deep ties to the Democratic establishment, raising legitimate questions about impartiality. Pam Bucy, head of the ODC, was appointed by Mike McGrath, the former Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, a former Democratic Attorney General. Bucy, herself a former Democratic Attorney General candidate, brings a clear partisan perspective to her role. Similarly, the Commission on Practice, which is overseeing the case, has deep financial connections to Democratic and liberal judicial candidates, contributing over $50,000 in political donations. This partisan backdrop mirrors the tactics we’ve seen against Trump, where legal challenges were used not to enforce the law, but to discredit and undermine a political opponent.
The involvement of Special Counsel Dan McLean only deepens the political nature of this case. McLean, a long-time Democratic donor, initially recommended resolving the matter with a simple letter of admonition—an indication that even those within the system thought the case lacked merit. However, when that outcome was not favorable to the political forces behind this, the Commission brought in a more zealous prosecutor, Tim Strauch, another Democratic donor. Strauch’s connections to liberal judicial candidates and past interactions with the Attorney General’s office make his involvement even more suspect. What’s more, the whole process is steeped in secrecy, with many of the individuals involved only recusing themselves after Knudsen’s defense team exposed their conflicts of interest. The public is left in the dark, and the integrity of the proceedings is compromised. This lack of transparency, coupled with the partisan affiliations of key players, creates a chilling precedent, one that echoes the lawfare tactics used against Trump and threatens the very foundations of justice.
But there’s more at stake here than just political vendettas. The case against Knudsen has the potential to set a dangerous precedent in Montana. At the heart of the trial is the issue of separation of powers. As Attorney General, Knudsen was representing the legislature—a co-equal branch of government—in a separation of powers case. If this trial succeeds, it will pave the way for courts to silence other branches of government, undermining the very checks and balances that protect against overreach. This is not just about one individual or one case; it’s about the future of Montana’s legal and political system. If the courts can target the Attorney General for fulfilling his constitutional role, they will be emboldened to continue making activist decisions, free from any accountability. Every other branch of government is held to a standard of accountability—elected officials must answer to the voters, the executive is checked by the legislature, and judicial decisions are subject to scrutiny. But this case, driven by partisan interests, threatens to give the courts unchecked power, allowing them to operate in the shadows without fear of legal and constitutional challenge. This is the same pattern we saw with President Trump—using the courts to suppress political opposition under the guise of legal proceedings. Just as the left and their allies’ attacks on President Trump have been used as a tool to silence his voice, the legal proceedings against Knudsen serve the same purpose—to undermine his role, his authority, and his ability to serve as a voice for separate and equal branches of government.
In the end, this trial isn’t about the rule of law at all. It’s a politically motivated attack aimed at weakening a Republican officeholder through partisan influence and personal vendettas. The legal process is being weaponized to ensure that the courts remain an unchecked arm of one political party, free to make decisions without fear of accountability. Montanans, like all Americans, must and do recognize this dangerous precedent and demand an end to the political show trial against Attorney General Austin Knudsen. The integrity of our legal system, and the checks and balances that protect our democracy, are at risk.
By: Don “K” Kaltschmidt
Don Kaltschmidt is Chairman of the Montana Republican Party
