I abhor violence. Unlike the president, I have never celebrated the death of others nor incited a violent mob to ransack the Capitol. I have dedicated my life to fighting for free and fair elections through lawful means: organizing, protests and litigation.

In the last 10 years, Trump has attacked, demeaned and threatened nearly every prominent leader of the pro-democracy movement. He routinely attacks his perceived enemies but saves his harshest tactics for his political opponents.

Yet, time and time again, the legacy media insist on asking those of us who stand up to him to tone down our rhetoric. It is as if those of us who insist on the rule of law and call out Trump's authoritarianism are the problem. The suggestion is that perhaps, if we were just nicer to Trump, things in this country would be better.

Just yesterday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Rep. Jamie Raskin if Democrats thought twice about their rhetoric against the president. The congressman quickly pointed out that any rhetoric against the president is directed at his authoritarian policies.

The media's insistence that Trump's critics are part of the problem gives cover to false equivalence — treating his lawlessness as one side of a legitimate debate.

In the run-up to the 2024 election, Trump posted on social media that if he won, lawyers, donors and election officials who had worked against him would be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences."

Refusing to back down, I responded that I would not be intimidated or allow him to suppress the vote, subvert the election or cheat.

Two days later, at the presidential debate in Philadelphia, ABC News' David Muir treated my response as a gotcha question for Kamala Harris: "One of your campaign's top lawyers responded, saying, 'We won't let Donald Trump intimidate us. We won't let him suppress the vote.' Is that what you believe he's trying to do here?"

Of course, it was what Trump was trying to do! What else could it possibly be other than an effort to intimidate and suppress the vote? Yet, by asking the question — in a debate nonetheless — Muir was subtly signaling there were two reasonable sides.

After winning the election, even Trump noted the change in how the big news outlets were treating him: "The media is tamed down a little bit," he observed. "They like us much better now, I think. If they don't, then we'll just have to take them on again, and we don't want to do that." He was not wrong.

While the legacy media may be “tamed down,” Trump has continued to take them on. Yet, he has found few signs of resistance.

The parent companies of ABC and CBS both agreed to pay him to settle bogus legal claims. The Washington Post altered its editorial stance, abandoning its decades-long practice of making presidential endorsements. The signs of media capitulation are nearly everywhere you look.

After taking office, Trump delivered a speech inside the Department of Justice calling me a "radical" and a "bad person" who, along with others, "tried to turn America into a corrupt, communist and Third World country."

He signed an executive order targeting my former law firm, punishing 1,200 lawyers for work I did years ago. Then, he went after my current law firm, attacking it and me by name and saying I was "grossly unethical."

Yet, I have yet to see the legacy media ask Trump about his attacks on me or others who have stood up to him. I have yet to read a single full-throated condemnation of Trump's dangerous rhetoric aimed at lawyers doing their job in protecting free and fair elections.

Even as Todd Blanche — Trump's acting Attorney General and former criminal defense lawyer — declares that investigating the president's political enemies is not abuse of power, the legacy media treats this as a debatable proposition.

They have certainly not lectured Blanche to watch his words or tone down his rhetoric.

The midterms are seven months away. Trump has signed executive orders to restrict voting. His Justice Department is trying to build a national database to disenfranchise voters. He has said he wants Republicans to “take over the voting.” His administration routinely claims there would be nothing wrong with deploying federal agents to the polls.

If calling this an affront to democracy and authoritarian overreach is too rhetorical for some in the legacy media, then perhaps it is they who need to rethink their words.

The answer is not for those who oppose this administration's lawlessness to go quietly. To the contrary, far too many people have stayed too silent for too long. The pro-democracy movement must be louder and bolder in its condemnation of the tyrannical actions unfolding around us.

I have been fighting Donald Trump in court and in public for 10 years. I am not stopping. And I will not be lowering my voice.