Trump Abuses Government Power To Punish Democrats' Law Firms
The president is politically targeting those he says politically targeted him.

Misuse of government power by politicians to punish their enemies is an old story. The Biden administration infamously leaned on social media companies to suppress voices critical of the White House and its policies. New York used explicit threats of regulatory intervention to bully banks and insurance companies into denying services to the NRA and other gun rights advocates. And now President Donald Trump has turned his disputes with left-leaning law firms into an excuse to revoke their security clearances and subject them to investigation. It's part of a continuing and dangerous pattern of government officials abusing power to penalize opponents' opinions and activities.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Trump Calls Out Opposing Law Firms
In separate March executive orders, Trump called out multiple law firms who had drawn his wrath: Perkins Coie LLP for, in part, hiring "Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false 'dossier' designed to steal an election" and for working with "activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws"; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP for litigation against participants in the January 6 Capitol riot and for efforts "to manufacture a prosecution against me"; Jenner & Block LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, for "obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders." In addition to partisan activities, the president accused the firms of race-based hiring in violation of civil rights laws.
The current administration arguably has legitimate political grievances. That is, the firms all engaged in partisan litigation and legal shenanigans targeted at Trump and his allies. But in politics, especially in the unhealthy culture of Washington, D.C., that's business as usual for all players, whatever their ideologies or affiliations. What Trump did next shouldn't be, though something like it has become too common.
Misusing Government Power for Political Retribution
The president's orders went on "to suspend any active security clearances" for the law firms and to order all federal agencies to "take appropriate steps to terminate any contract" with the firms. Employees of the law firms were barred from federal government buildings "when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States" and federal employees were directed to avoid contact with those firms' personnel. The president also directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate the hiring practices of "representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms."
The executive orders were very obviously intended to weaponize access to government business as well as the power of the regulatory state against Trump's political enemies. But it was also perceived as part of a larger effort to cripple pillars of the political opposition to the current administration.
"Mr. Trump and his allies are aggressively attacking the players and machinery that power the left, taking a series of highly partisan official actions that, if successful, will threaten to hobble Democrats' ability to compete in elections for years to come," Kenneth P. Vogel and Shane Goldmacher wrote for The New York Times.
Broader Threats to Civil Liberties
But the president's actions don't just hobble Democrats and "the left" in some political power play—they use government authority to punish political speech and activity. That's a threat to free speech and a violation of civil liberties.
"The President's Order is a self-declared act of retribution that targets a law firm for representing clients and causes the President disfavors," hundreds of law professors argue in an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie in a lawsuit against the government seeking a permanent injunction against the orders. "In inflicting this retribution, the Order contradicts centuries of precedent safeguarding free speech, the right of association, and the right to petition."
Signers of the petition include Eugene Volokh, of the Reason-hosted Volokh Conspiracy.
Critics of the presidential actions point out that, while many people object to the law firms' conduct in opposing Trump, his supporters, and his causes, that doesn't justify using the power of the state to punish the firms. Doing so sends a message that opposing whoever is in office at the moment might bring down the full—and entirely too dangerous—attention of regulators and government investigators.
"You don't need to feel sympathy for large law firms—or support the clients or causes they represent—to see the danger in a president abusing his authority to bend the legal system to his will," argues Aaron Terr, Director of Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "Trump isn't just punishing these firms—he's chilling legitimate advocacy and eroding the core principle that everyone has a right to legal representation. That's bad news for the rule of law and protection of individual rights."
In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union raised exactly this point when it supported the National Rifle Association's lawsuit against New York state's government. The ACLU is generally in opposition to the NRA's overall mission, but it recognized that officials shouldn't be able to abuse the coercive power of the state to punish those who disagree with them.
"The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero commented.
We're Overdue To Break the Cycle
New York officials threaten banks to get them to deny services to self-defense advocates, the Biden administration leans on social media companies to muzzle conservatives and critics of pandemic lockdowns, the Trump administration cuts off contracts and threatens investigations of Democratic law firms—we can include seemingly politically motivated prosecutions of Trump and go back further to Operation Choke Point and other perversions of government power. It's an easy cycle to get going, but very difficult to stop once it's in motion and everybody is screaming "they started it!"
"The fallout from these assaults on the bar may not be limited to lawyers who represent clients or causes that are perceived as hostile to President Trump; the precedent created here could be used by future presidents, of either party, to chill advocacy hostile to their policies or executive branch officials," warns another amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie filed by groups including the ACLU, FIRE, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
We've had enough of politicians punishing their political opponents. Let them fight their own battles in the political arena and leave our civil liberties out of it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First thing is, let's kill all of the lawyers... So that Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer can stand un-opposed, and clone MANY-MANY copies of Queen Spermy Daniels for His Imperial Harem!!!
"Kill the lawyers" would fit right in here, with "Team R" crap-turds from the last few years! (Above and beyond "Hang Mike Pence" from Captain Crap-Turd, shit is.)
https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-congressional-candidate-says-audit-all-50-states-execute-all-involved-1632838
Pro-Trump Congressional Candidate Says 'Audit All 50 states' and 'Execute All Involved'
I say again... BURN the witches AND the vote-stealing Demon-Craps! Bring ON the 1-party "R" state!
Marjorie Taylor Greene says execute democrats
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html
Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress
From there…
In one post, from January 2019, Greene liked a comment that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In other posts, Greene liked comments about executing FBI agents who, in her eyes, were part of the "deep state" working against Trump.
What will commenters complain about since you’ve called out both parties on this and they can’t just say “ well, you obviously think it’s wrong only when Trump does it”? Since that’s 5% of the comments on these posts and the other 94% is Sarc and his opponents sniping at each other, that leaves almost nothing to say here.
Well, for one thing, we could say that J.D. TUCCILLE didn't profusely praise Trump, so that PROVES that JDT is a Left-Tits!!!
After that, many childish shit-posters will then BRAG about their ignorance, cluttering up the comments with "JDT;dr"...
I REFUTE twat ye say, by SNOT reading it!
Calling out both parties is disingenuous because they didn't call out Democrats while they were doing it. How do I know this? Because anyone who criticizes Trump didn't criticize Democrats when they did it. Even if they did they didn't do it hard enough. And that makes whatever Trump does ok. Ask any of his defenders, they'll tell you.
You applauded Trump's lawyers being indicted.
He really did. Sarcasmic and Reason have no problem with political prosecutions but if someone tries to stop it, the watch out.
These guys are evil. Sarc may have become evil by accident through sheer stupidity, but he's still evil.
You never called out team blue when they did it. If you had, maybe your point would be valid. Instead, this blathering you continue simply makes you a partisan troll. You engage in Newspeak and nothing more.
He's just defending his hypocrisy through lying about his past.
I'm mocking the fact that you and the other devout members of the Church of Trump defend Him doing things that made you crazy when the other team did them, and you then project your partisanship and complete lack of principles onto everyone else.
You're a hypocrite. We know.
Do you think clearances are a right? Because the two instances are not the same. False both sides is an argument without merit.
One side is removal of clearances at the discretion of the president and executive.
The other side is indictments and removal of law licenses.
The fact you think this is equivalent is pretty funny.
They weren't complaining about anything Democrats did while they were doing it, just after the fact to bolster a complaint against DJT. They were all for government suppression of social media, disbarring/jailing lawyers, novel prosecution and any other abuse under the sun so long as Democrats are the ones perpetuating the wrongs.
That's so true. All those articles complaining about Democrats where I sarcastically posted "This article doesn't exist because it contradicts the narrative about Reason" really don't exist because if they did they'd contradict the narrative about Reason.
Your trolling needs work.
Cite which articles relevant to this topic have these comments.
Your comments were the opposite in the related sullum articles on the related topic.
Seeing how accurate your prediction was, what are your picks for a short term buy the dip strategy?/s
Sarc should be ignored. Then just wait for liver failure to take it's course.
The 65 Project:
The 65 Project is a legal activism campaign seeking to "disbar and discredit" Trump-affiliated lawyers who worked on lawsuits supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Poor, POOR Sidney Powell!
https://reason.com/2022/02/11/sidney-powell-disowns-her-kraken-saying-she-is-not-responsible-for-her-phony-story-of-a-stolen-election/ (Yet another Powell article)
https://reason.com/2021/03/23/sidney-powell-says-shes-not-guilty-of-defamation-because-no-reasonable-person-would-have-believed-her-outlandish-election-conspiracy-theory/
Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory
Which particular lies are we wanting to hear and believe today?
WHY do evil people love it SOOOOO much when lawyers LIE in court? Is it the lawyers that they love, the lies, or both?
Sidney Powell didn't say that. Her lawyer did and he was wrong to. AND IT TURNED OUT POWELL'S ASSERTION, THAT SHE WAS IN COURT OVER, WAS CORRECT!
Time to stop relying on four year old propaganda and lies, Shillsy.
Believe twatever lies and propaganda You PervFectly want to, Marxist Moose-Mammary! No one can stop You!
(PS, Your PervFected cites fell off.)
"...who worked on lawsuits supporting Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election."
Which never happened, shit-for-brains.
That’s why these law firms should be taken out now. Among others.
No question. Any objection from the right is from lawyers who don't want their brand questioned.
Perkins Coie stands apart from the others, as there is probable cause they were involved with the crimes of the Clinton campaign from 2016 to 2017.
Oh yeah? You didn't complain when Democrats did it you hypocrite. That invalidates your criticism and makes it ok when Trump does it.
ZZZZZZZ
Bad attempt at a false equivalency! Fifteen yards against Sarc!
Deliberate attempt at a false equivalency by Sarc.
I don’t remember Democrats issuing EOs aimed at single law firms and then withdrawing it after extorting them for millions of free legal services.
Doesn't matter. Democrats are like The Simpsons. They did everything first. Even if they didn't, they did. And you didn't complain. That makes whatever Trump does ok.
Go get a room where you two can lie together instead of lying here.
I’m sure Tony would be delighted to make Sarc his bottom. Which shouldn’t be a problem for Sarc so long as Tony gives him a sixer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/12ruxxo/if_he_ends_up_inside_me_its_gonna_cost_you_a/
I don’t remember republican run law firms conspiring to destroy any other lawyers who work for anyone they don’t like.
Fuck you Tony. You and your fellow travelers fucked around. Now you’re finding out what happens. Tough shit for you.
No, they just used law firms to manufacture evidence and throw people in jail (Manafort, et. al.). But cry harder while the heads roll at Perkins Coie and 77 million voters rejoice.
You're whole life seems to revolve around trolling the comments section. It would be one thing if you actually had regular debates when you disagree with something, but 97% of your comments are the same tired, old schtick you've been posting for years. "It's okay, the Democrats did it first" and "You're a mean girl" and "This article doesn't exist." "I didn't say that" followed by someone showing you said exactly the thing you're denying. You're not convincing anyone that you are right, and you don't seem to have any principles of your own, other than Trump/JesseAz/ML/"Team Red" = bad. Sometimes I wonder that if Trump came out and condemned the police, if you would become the biggest "back the blue" guy. We all saw how your dislike of cops didn't extend to the Capitol police, whom you became a sycophant for regarding Jan 6. I don't know if there is a more hypocritical person in the comments, and that's saying something.
You know why I don't debate anyone here? Because they don't argue with what I say. They argue with a caricature that's been built by years and years of lies. It's really easy to spot one of you guys' lies by the way. If a sentence contains "sarc thinks", "sarc says" or "we all saw" then it's a lie. The only reason I'm considered a hypocrite is because I disagree with the narrative about me. When that happens you attack me calling me a lying hypocrite because it never occurs to you that what is said about me is wrong. And then you get pissy when I say you have the maturity of a middle school girl.
followed by someone showing you said exactly the thing you're denying
I used to respond when people would take some comment of mine out of context and then claim it means something totally different than what the words actually say, but it was a lost cause. That's because you and people like you believe what is said about someone, not what the person actually says. That might make you popular, but it also makes you immature scum.
The only reason I'm considered a hypocrite is because I disagree with the narrative about me.
The key to understanding sarc is how he lives in his own little fantasy world. In reality we routinely compare the standards he applies to those he hates to circumstances where the same principles apply to his allies. Unsurprisingly we found he has literally never applied the same standards to himself or his allies that he used to judge those he hates.
And then you get pissy when I say you have the maturity of a middle school girl.
It's always amusing when the first person to resort to schoolyard taunts lectures others about maturity. But then standards don't apply to sarc.
This is why Sarc should be ignored. He’s a Brian damaged town drunk that adds nothing and causes trouble.
Freeze him out.
Sarc says “You know why I don't debate anyone here? Because they don't argue with what I say. They argue with a caricature that's been built by years and years of lies.”
Is that a lie sarc?
I've been reading these comments for two years before I even set up a login to comment myself. So I've read your comments since 2020. You're not fooling anyone, much less me, by claiming what you just did, and portraying yourself as the perpetual victim of the comments section. I've witnessed you claim outright that you didn't make a statement, only to have someone post the link to you doing just that. Then when you're cornered by that, you deflect by attacking the person for posting evidence of your lies. "What a loser you are to have bookmarked so many of my comments." When you're not taking that approach to being proven a liar, you claim that we have to go by what you meant, not by what you said. Yet you also mock the rest of us by claiming we say, "You can't rely on what Trump says, you have to rely on what he meant." Do you not see the hypocrisy oozing out of you with that juxtaposition?
How many times have you jumped to post "It's okay because Democrats did it first"? Did you condemn the Dems when they DID IT FIRST? No, you didn't. In some cases, you cheered on the Dems when they did it first. This is why no one believes you have principles.
Sarc does support Officer Byrd shooting an unarmed woman. So you're not far off.
.
TooSilly, did you bother investigating where the power of classification authority is held? Navy v Egan may be if interest to you.
Likewise these firms used their clearances to push false propaganda such as Steele. But I keep forgetting Reasoj defended the false Russia collusion hoax.
There is no right to hold a clearance. These firms are connected to some of the worst violators and abuses of classified information. From Brennan to clapper. The Clinton's.
But you think removing clearances is abuse. Oddly reason defended indicting trumps lawyers.
Pretty pathetic in the Jeff like argument.
Furether investigation into Perkins Coie is warranted.
Many investigations into Perkins Coie are warranted.
Spoiler alert: they’re guilty of a whole host of things.
Yes, and in the meantime there’s no good reason they should have a security clearance.
The Biden administration infamously leaned on social media companies to suppress voices critical of the White House and its policies. New York used explicit threats of regulatory intervention to bully banks and insurance companies into denying services to the NRA and other gun rights advocates. And now President Donald Trump has turned his disputes with left-leaning law firms into an excuse to revoke their security clearances and subject them to investigation.
False equivalence. The Biden and other Donkeys were practicing illegal lawfare. Trump is exercising his legitimate power.
Shame on you JD Too Chilly.
Reason prefers democrats in charge, and endless lawfare. However ‘strategically and reluctantly’.
Not only should they have lost their security clearances, they should be investigated for ties to Marxism and Islamist groups. To that end, Speaker Johnson needs to revive the HUAC and go after these far left subversives.
Yes, once you start with these kind of tactics, it is difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The call here is for Trump to the bigger man than his opponents have been, and to deescalate the political dirty tricks, but why would you expect him to be?
Nobody has explained to me how removing clearances is abuse or a dirty trick.
Law firms don't have a right to these clearances. They have abused their access prior. This would cause the removal of most clearances holders.
It is less of an issue than even Biden removing clearances from whistleblowers.
They have had their liberty threatened or even their careers threatened.
This is not the same as indictments or threatening their licenses. Lawyers exist without clearances, they do not do so without a law license.
The fact that the Democrats went after Trump's lawyers harder only reinforces my point that Trump is being held to a higher standard.
Didn't Trump's lawyer Chesebro get disbarred after pleading guilty to forgery ? It's hard to play the boaf-sides game when one side is being found guilty of actual crimes.
Kevin Clinesmith also pled guilty to forgery.
What happened to him?
AP: JUDGE SLAPS WRIST OF FORMER FBI ATTORNEY KEVIN CLINSEMITH WITH PROBATION FOR ALTERING CIA EMAIL TO SPY ON CARTER PAGE
Prosecution should appeal that sentence and have the judge investigated for Marxism.
Not just forgery, forgery on a FISA application to spy on an American citizen, something FISA isn’t supposed to be used for at all.
Because it is extortion to gain free legal services. Of course they don’t have a right to clearances but that does not mean Trump can pull them at will in demand for free services.
Who is getting any free legal services here, MollyMAiD? Cite and link.
Trump can pull security clearances at his discretion.
Case closed.
Today I learned pro Bono legal work was extortion.
He is not holding a gun to their head. They don't have a right to anything. They can decline the deal. They won't because they're greedy swamp reptiles.
“Nobody has explained to me how removing clearances is abuse or a dirty trick.”
It’s like you don’t even OrangeManBad. I’m so disappointed in you.
The lawyers can be abusive, coersive, and bully for political means, but the victims of it cannot fight back. Got it.
Well, they can if they're not guilty of being D. J. Trump!
It’s the Reason way.
Oh noes, not their security clearances!
Poor Asif Rahman, they went after his security clearance, too
I am not against the revocation of security clearances. I don't think they should be investigated simply if the only reason is they upset Trump at some point in time.
It's a good thing then that that's not the only reason for the revocation of security clearances.
Anyone who participates in weaponization of government should expect to be sanctioned for doing so. Not sanctioning them is the surest guarantee they will continue.
Which is what Toosilly actually wants, just reserved exclusively for Democrats.
Which is what Trump defenders actually want, just reserved exclusively for Him.
Nobody said that.
Notice how sarc's attacks have no relationship to the facts at all. He simply asserts whatever he thinks will damage those he hates without regard to reality.
Notice that instead of telling me that what I said was wrong, Marshal goes on the attack. Why? Because he's lying when he says he opposes weaponization of government. He only opposes it when Democrats do it. When Trump does it it's ok. Why? We all know why. Because Democrats did it first.
He’s pointing out how you went on a fact-free attack, dipshit. And then you validated Marshal’s point.
He’s too stupid to do otherwise.
We all know why. Because Democrats did it first.
If accepting weaponizing government only when one side does it is wrong why did you accept it when Dems did it? You had literally zero complaints for something you now pretend everyone should oppose. Even if your description of me were correct it would make me...exactly like you.
Regardless you are once again wrong on the merits. Sanctioning employees and others like law firms who weaponize government is not weaponizing government, it is de-weaponizing government. To not do this is to allow government to remain weaponized against Reps only. Your desire for this outcome is why you consistently assert this nonsense.
Sortition eliminates 90% of this. People who are randomly selected to do a civic responsibility don't have the ability to seek power beyond their very temporary power which they already have. The tiny remainder - people who still seek power via the decisions of randomly selected people - usually don't find an advantage via intimidation.
Forced labor for the win!
It's not forced. When was the last time you were forced to do jury duty? Conscription was deemed unconstitutional is the ORIGINAL version of the 2A. The one that assholes stick on a pedestal without the slightest comprehension that it involves militia somehow.
"Libertarians' aren't worth a shit.
You’re too stupid for this. Why don’t you fuck off back to Stormfront? Maybe you and Misek can give each other reacharounds.
I’m prepared to join the local militia the moment the need arises slaver.
Tuccile can wring his hands and claim that boff sidez shout, "The other guys started it!" But one side actually did start it.
Most of my life, Democrats have broken every political norm while expecting zero retaliation. Part of it is their expectation that the media will run cover for their shenanigans, which of course they do. Part of it is the nature of being the party of change while the other party represents the preservation of norms, so you can always count on them to fight with one arm behind their back.
To me, it all hit a boiling point during Obama. He was the most imperious president since FDR, and even Cocaine Mitch finally had enough. Thus his use of Harry Reid's rule-breaking change on judicial confirmations against Garland.
Then along comes Trump, a life-long New York Democrat who is more than happy to play their game. The Democrats are shocked (shocked!) that a Republican would dare do the things they've been doing for decades. Blue blood Republicans are shocked (shocked!) a vulgarian would hijack their party and dare to win an election or two. And the media is, well, you know, shocked that they no longer have complete control over the information stream to tell the unwashed masses what to think about whom.
Trump is a manbaby who does a lot of shit I hate. But he is indeed retribution, as he said. And I don't have to like him to love seeing the Democrats and their media reap what they have been sowing forever. The enemy of my enemy and all that.
I'd love to see it end.
But the only way to insure that something NEVER ends is to only have one side forced to follow the rules.
As a person who has yet to find anything expressly objectionable about Trump 2.0's actions to date, I agree with you 100%.
As an OG#NT, I'm going to disagree with you insofar as the fact that I'm not sure I like where this course correction has pointed us. The fact that there's a "MAGA Left" on the rise has my "I told you so!" sensors blinking. (I also recognize and wholly admit that the GOP is an enfeebled party that was incapable of delivering on any actual conservative policy goals, so I won't pretend like there was a meaningful "third choice" between Trump and Marxists.)
I understand and appreciate his prioritization. The border, trade, and the American economy are top issues at the moment. We have got to get the illegals out, the border secure, and bring the globalists to heel. I just hope that once that's secured, we haven't since forgotten that all the LGBT Pedos and DEI gimps and baby killers and Black Lives Whatever racists and anti-Christian elements also need to be dealt with using extreme prejudice. We don't want any of those SOBs legitimized by the left and the right.
The horror.
Libertarians for special privileges for left wing law firms!
The Democrats have never come remotely close to using EOs to punish law firms for representation their opponents and then extorting them for free services.
Who is getting free legal services here, MollyMAiD? Cite and link.
Tony doesn’t know. It was likely something he was told to say by MSNBC.
Notice how specific her claim is: they didn't use executive orders, as if that's the relevant fact. This is how propaganda works.
Yep. Carefully parsed phrasing that’s misleading. MAPedo Jeffy specializes in that.
The Trump Administration is abusing its power to go after Ryan Routh, too.
I mean, it’s shocking what they won’t do!
Oh. So DAs never indicted conservative lawyers? Elias and various NGOs aren't trying to disbar conservative lawyers?
Not according to Tony’s MSNBC directed propaganda.
jeffsarc Sullum and JD Godiva : “Republicans who try to legally stop Democrats who illegally attack our Democracy - are the threat to our Democracy”
In politics, how many times does the heel get to cheat before the good guy can cheat back? Because that's what Trump's doing, and I support that in the wrestling theater of politics.
That’s pretty accurate.
Trump is Jesus, obv, and should have turned the other cheek….
Says every Donkey.
It's like Reason is doubling down on the stupid lefty narratives after the 2024 Trump win. They are so butthurt after trying so hard for the Harri/z win. It's embarrassing, really. No self respect, no introspection, no re-evaluation. Just the accusations against Trump of everything they didn't bother accusing Biden of doing when he was actually doing it.