Paul, Weiss Next on the Chopping Block

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And Donald Trump is "Ending the Weaponization of Government"

Yesterday the President issued another Executive Order, this time targeting all "employees of Paul, Weiss" - quite coincidentally, the 2024 AmLaw and 2024 NY Law Journal "Law Firm of the Year"! - "and Mark Pomerantz," a lawyer formerly, but no longer, employed by the firm.**

Under the terms of the Executive Order, (1) security clearances for every one of the thousands of Paul Weiss employees (and Mark Pomerantz) are "immediately suspended, pending a review of whether their access to sensitive information is consistent with the national interest"; (2) the government "will halt all material and services . . . provided to Paul Weiss and restrict its employees' access to government buildings"; (3) the government "will terminate contracts that involve Paul Weiss"; and (4) federal agencies will "refrain from hiring Paul, Weiss employees unless specifically authorized."

** Pomerantz was of counsel to the litigation department at Paul Weiss when, in 2021, he left the firm to join the New York City DA's office as a Special Assistant DA, to assist DA Cyrus Vance Jr. in his investigation of Donald Trump's business and financial dealings. He resigned that position in 2022, when the new DA, Alvin Bragg, announced that the office would not be pursuing an indictment of the former president.  Pomerantz wrote an angry letter of resignation, and he wrote an angry book about his experience in the DA's office (The People v. Donald Trump). According to a Paul, Weiss spokesperson, he has no current affiliation with the firm.

That is, to put it mildly, a pretty serious blow to the firm's business activities. And what had Paul, Weiss done to deserve all this? The Order spells it out in gruesome detail:

Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left the firm to join the Manhattan District Attorney's office solely to manufacture a prosecution against President Trump.  According to his coworkers, Pomerantz had unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate President Trump. After being unable to convince Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

Wait . . .  that's it? Because they hired "unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz," we need to keep their lawyers and paralegals and administrative staff out of government buildings? And terminate all contracts we have with the firm? And revoke all of their security clearances?  Because they hired someone who, "according to his coworkers," had "unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate President Trump," and then tried to gin up support for what he did in a "media campaign"? Seriously? That's why we are hitting them with these rather extraordinary sanctions?

Nervous, yet?  "First they came for the law firms, but I wasn't a law firm, so I didn't care." One definition of authoritarian tyranny is that you are subject to punishment entirely at the whim of one person. We seem to have gotten there. Cross Donald Trump and he'll drop the hammer on you. Acting entirely alone, by Executive Order, he can destroy - or, at the very least, substantially harm - you and your business. He can even single you out as an individual!: "and Mark Pomerantz." The President is judge, jury, and executioner.  That's how it works, now.

Presumably, the Administration will be enjoined from implementing most, and perhaps all, of this Executive Order, just as it has been enjoined from implementing many of the similarly punitive restrictions on the Perkins, Coie firm. But lots of damage has been done, and, more importantly, the message has been sent: Stand in this guy's way and you will be punished. Cross him at your peril. Could it be any clearer?

And to top things off, the Executive Order contains a section on "Ending the Weaponization of Government":

President Trump is delivering on his promise to end the weaponization of government and protect the nation from partisan actors who exploit their influence.

• President Trump is refocusing government operations to their core mission—serving the citizens of the United States.
• President Trump signed an Executive Order to end the weaponization of the Federal Government on his first day in office after promising to "end forever the weaponization of government and the abuse of law enforcement against political opponents."

It is, truly, absurd and Orwellian: declaring that you are ending "weaponization of the government," and the "abuse of law enforcement against political opponents" while simultaneously bringing the full sweep of executive power (and more!) to impose some pretty savage punishment on your personal and political enemies! It's a nice trick, if you can pull it off.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

They are getting what, to quote the film Joker, they "fucking deserve".

[Malika the Maiz]

Seems you didn’t get Joker was not a hero to be emulated, especially maybe for a POTUS.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not understanding media is a core value of the American right.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yeah, Bud Light showed that.

[Frank Drackman]

Well I’ve got a joke for you, I’m going to tear you a new ass hole

[LawTalkingGuy]

The 1200 person law firm deserve targeted sanctions that will be economically devastating and devastating to their clients because one guy worked there who the president hates? Do you really think that’s a good standard?

[Malika the Maiz]

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

[MatthewSlyfield]

And some people don't particularly want to watch the world burn but are convinced that the only hope for fixing the very serious problems with our government is to burn it to the ground and start over from scratch.

[Sarcastr0]

Making excuses for why you want to watch the world burn doesn't change what you are.

[Riva]

It is gratifying beyond description to know that all the BS you can write, combined with all the BS issuing from rogue district court judges, will not suffice to override the president's unreviewable authority to relieve these hack firms of their security clearances.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He doesn’t have the authority to kick lawyers out of government buildings including courthouses.

[Riva]

Not sure what you're talking about with respect to federal courthouses, but as to federal buildings under the executive branch, hell yeah he can toss their hack asses out. He could throw you out too if he were of the mind. Put that to the test if you want.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Some people don’t want to watch the world burn, they just want the government to burn!*”

*and this is about the government hurting private actors anyways!

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Ves' mir nasil'ya my razrushim
do osnovan'ya, a zatem
My nash, my novyj mir postroim, --
kto byl nichem, tot stanet vsem!

In Russia, they burned it all down in 1917-1918, but what came after was not necessarily an improvement.

[NotAnExtremist]

True, but you can't expect Trumptards to know anything about history (or even understand why they should).

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That's why so many academic Marxists are the geniuses espousing socialism.

[bernard11]

I thought you had more sense than that. I guess the MAGA bug has infected you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, LTG, I do.

There have to be consequences for what was done to Donald Trump if the republic is to survive. There is no requirement that they do business with the government.

And some of us would consider being voted "law firm of the year" to be, at the least, a strong caveat.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Of course you think that. You’re an asshole.

[Malika the Maiz]

And a lunatic.

[Paladin_44]

"There have to be consequences for what was done BY Donald Trump if the republic is to survive."

There - I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Trump sure ain't much to trumpet, but it sure looks like Trump is fixing it for a large part of the electorate. You're welcome.

[David Nieporent]

Nothing was "done to" Donald Trump, and there not only do not "have to be consequences," but it is unethical, unconstitutional, and illegal to impose "consequences" on people who have broken no laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sucks to be them.

[Bruce Hayden]

Neither did Trump. But you continue to pretend that the criminal charges against him were legitimate.

[David Nieporent]

But you continue to pretend that the criminal charges against him were legitimate.

The criminal charges against him were all 100% legitimate. In fact, there's essentially no dispute about his actions. People try to excuse them, explain them away, immunize them — but not actually deny that he did those things.

(Well, except you, who invented an utterly fabricated fairy tale about what happened in the documents case that bore no relation to any facts, even ones Trump admitted.)

[Savagely Average]

Eh, I hate Trump but the hush money case was bullshit. Yes he was guilty but it should have been a misdemeanor. The felony enhancement was politically motivated and unjustifiable imo.

[Krayt]

Most people: We are a nation of laws, not men.

Most lawyers in politics: We are a nation of Men-manipulating-laws, not laws, not men.

[BigEyeRoll]

Yes.

They made a bad marketing decision and should have to live with it.

[Riva]

I wouldn't necessarily use that analogy but this is glorious.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Roberta Kaplan, who not only worked on LGBTQ issues up to and including Supreme Court cases but also represented E.J. Carroll, used to work at Paul Weiss.

This news is of some personal interest since I know a few people who used to work at Paul Weiss, with offices in Manhattan.

The Friday thread referenced Trump's rant at "his" Justice Department, led by his former defense attorney. To quote one news summary:

President Donald Trump on Friday walked into the Department of Justice and labeled his courtroom opponents “scum,” judges “corrupt” and the prosecutors who investigated him “deranged."

In an early celebration of Festivus, he aired his greviances, including against the "illegal" media.

[Hugh]

86 47

[Malika the Maiz]

Also yesterday Protector of Speech King Donald went to his DOJ and suggested it’s illegal for news agencies to criticize him too much. “Won’t someone rid me of this meddling press!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

So the press has free speech rights but he doesn't???

[Darwinnie]

You have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, I fear there is no cure.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Your fear is noted -- and glorious.

You guys are so easy to bait.

[Magister]

Anybody with normal reading comprehension would understand that "I fear that ..." is a rhetorical device that does not express actual fear.

[JasonT20]

Your fear is noted -- and glorious.

Keep drinking from your cup filled with liberal tears while the country you claim to love is left weaker and you and your fellows are left poorer by all of the things Trump-world does. I have no doubt that will be the liberals fault too.

[F.D. Wolf]

If Post's posts had a soundtrack, it would be a cuckoo clock.

[Commenter_XY]

Payback is a bitch. That is precisely what this is ---> political payback.

I think there are several more law firms that will join Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss on the 'toxic law firms to avoid if you ever want a government contract' list, Professor Post. They made their choices. Live with them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Christ, what an asshole.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Live in the real world.....

[LawTalkingGuy]

I do. Which unfortunately is filled with mean-spirited assholes like yourself.

[ReadMore]

If you're posting on a website to defend soulless AmLaw 100 firms like KE and Paul Weiss who never met a financially overmatched defendant they weren't willing to take a fee to mash into the ground, because you think those leviathans "aren't getting a fair shake from the government," you sound like one of those people who's also a strong proponent of tax cuts for the rich, legacy admissions into college, and multinationals polluting the environment because you hold their stock in your 401k.

I get that you don't like Trump, but holy fuck, pick a better hill to die on.

[Magister]

The vendetta is about Trump, who was never as rich as he claimed but cannot in any way be described as "a financially overmatched defendant". His problem was not that he lacked funds to defend himself but that he committed fraud, rape, defamation, insurrection, obstruction of justice and a host of other crimes.

[Krayt]

Point of order: His problem was running for office and being an ass to the other side. Little to none of that would be investigaged or prosecuted butfor the political opposition pulling out all the stops to git 'im.

It doesn't excuse, but the massive misuse of government to get an opponent because they are an opponent, while facetiously maintaining disinterested concern for rule of law is evidence of concern for anything but rule of law.

[Magister]

Massive conspiracy to get Trump, who ran for office precisely to provision the whiny victimhood you all jump on. Plenty of evidence that he did the crimes he was indicted for, and which he evaded through corrupt judicial action and getting elected.

Can you name a "financially overmatched defendant" that Paul Weiss mashed into the ground? The only one that ever comes up as a concern is Donald Trump, who is now a soulless authoritarian mashing others into the ground.

[NotAnExtremist]

You totally missed the point of David Post's reference to Martin Niemoller, didn't you? Did you even notice it? Do you understand what it meant?

I'm not sympathetic to big law firms either, but defending them when they are unjustly attacked with the force of the federal government is the same sort of thing as the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis back in the day. Maybe you don't understand why that mattered, either.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the point of the Niemoller paraphrase is to clam that Trump is a National Socialist.

[Magister]

No, the point is that large law firms are just the first target; Trump has expressed a lot of hatred for a lot of individuals, groups and institutions, and it's not likely that he will stop the vendettas if enough people say nothing.

[David Post]

Magister: Exactly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: I don't think you realize just how pissed off some of us are.
2: If Trump truly tried some of the tactics that the National Socialists used, he'd been able to. He's not that kind of man.
3: He's thinking his legacy here -- it isn't about power per se.

4: He also may prevent a third Civil War/

[Zarniwoop]

Shorter Grampa Ed: "I'm a Nazi, and Trump is the only thing holding me back from breaking out the SNOWPLOW!!1!"

Truly encouraging.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You claim that invoking Niemoller has nothing to do with calling Trump a Nazi?

We've had years of claims that Trump is a Nazi, and this is just another example.

[Magister]

We've had years of claims that Trump is a would-be authoritarian who praises Putin, Orban, Kim Jong Un and others, and this action is another example. Doesn't have to be about Nazis.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We've had plenty of evidence that he's a devotee of the Imperial Presidency, but that doesn't help make the case that he's making *unprecedented* grabs for Presidential power.

People who are now Never Trumpers, used to support a President who sought to exempt himself from the laws against *torture* by claiming that subjecting him to such laws would be an unconstitutional infringement of his prerogatives as President. (Torture is almost as bad as limiting a large law firm's access to classified information.)

What foreign dictator was George W. Bush emulating when he got open-minded toward torture?

And what foreign dictators were Obama and Biden emulating when they were formulating immigration policy contrary to statute, or writing off loans owed to the government, etc.?

My view is that we ought to bring an end to the Imperial Presidency, not simply to check Trump, but to put a curb on other Presidents, too.

[Krayt]

Thank you. That would involve de-supining Congress.

[Magister]

So, abandoning the Nazi angle. To some degree, the intent of an author's statement is what the author intended, and David Post has troubled himself to add only one comment that confirms my interpretation is exactly what he intended. So you're left wandering off to another topic rather than dispute that David Post correctly expressed his intent.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"abandoning the Nazi angle."

Not in the slightest. I'm responding to the angle *you* used, not retracting what I said about Prof. Post's remark.

If you use the Niemoller quote, you're rhetorically linking a person with the National Socialists, even if you're imagining that you're saying something else. If you want to convey a different meaning, use different words.

[Magister]

No, it's linking a person's specific course of action to the same pattern used by a variety of authoritarians, not just Nazis; I listed a number that Trump has admired. A reply with no mention of Nazis is pretty much dropping that angle, when your original claim was that it could be nothing else.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Using Niemoller gives you the exquisite thrill of calling someone a National Socialist. A sinister Nazi-like "they" are plotting against you and must be stopped at all hazards. What an excellent opportunity for antifascist cosplay.

Of course you realize how silly it is, which is why you're trying to distance yourself from it.

[Magister]

Waaahmbulance dispatched to deploy a fainting couch under tone police Margrave. Sad that the best defense you can muster is outrage over name calling that hasn't happened.

I can call Trump an authoritarian without invoking Nazis at all; I have in this very thread. I named the current authoritarians that Trump aspires to be; they're not Nazis but they are pretty nasty, and not the sort of person who should be holding the highest office in the US.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I can call Trump an authoritarian without invoking Nazis at all; I have in this very thread."

Of course, it was Prof. Post who used the Niemoller schtick.

And I showed authoritarian tendencies in previous Presidents - almost as if Trump is part of a bad pattern rather than a unique outlier. If you want to pretend that's a *defense* of Trump, go ahead.

[Magister]

Yes, Margrave reflexively defends Republicans. Prof. Post explicitly endorsed my interpretation which rebutted your original claim that the point was to call Trump a Nazi.

[ReadMore]

Yes, yes, of course, all large firms are unquestionably run these days with the same fealty to bedrock principles of equal representation for all that permeated the legal profession back when the ACLU defended Skokie Nazis under that principle. Paul Clement and Erin Murphy might have a different view, though.

And the federal government cancelling contracts and access for biglaw because the current administration has a personal vendetta isn't in the same moral galaxy as the SS rolling through Jewish neighborhoods. It's not even in the same moral solar system as modern Jewish students getting kristalnachted off their college campuses by Hamas shills or ICE deporting those same Hamas shills in violation of the First Amendment. Proportion and context matter in life, not slavish devotion to one-size-fits-all notions that now has you and "Old Man Yells at Cloud" Post defending (checks notes) the antagonists in every legal drama that's come out of Hollywood over the past 40 years.

Arguing that one has to make a principled stand for biglaw to prevent the slippery slope employs a logical fallacy most of us have realized by adulthood is unworkable moral garbage. Reliance on it leads to equally untenable arguments like if the federal government is not stopped from punitively imposing environmental laws on BP when they spill oil in the Gulf, we're but two steps away from jackboots at your neighbor's door seizing the leaky quart of motor oil in their garage.

[Social Justice is neither]

You Marxists sure didn't give a shit about that when they were unjustly going after your enemies and calling half of Americans terrorists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly.,

[Malika the Maiz]

Defending something with payback is a bitch is a sad defense. It’s just a to quoque or whataboutism, a concession that you can’t defend it as a neutral principle but your “side” doing it is ok because the other side did it at some time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is precisely what this is ---> political payback.

Not that that would be much of a defense, but it’s not. The nature of the payback is purely personal.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, I state what it is, accurately I might add. It is political payback.

It is personal. Politics is personal.

[bernard11]

Are you fucking serious?

If so, you truly are a giant asshole.

Payback? Fuck you.

[Sarcastr0]

In real time, he became a deeply unserious and bitter nihilist.

He says since October 7 Holidays no longer bring him joy.

Dude needs therapy.

[Nobartium]

Nervous, yet?

No.

Security clearances and govt contracts aren't rights.

[Malika the Maiz]

Giving government contracts based on whether someone has been crony enough is the heart of crony capitalism. Big fan of that, are ya?

[Nobartium]

Elections, consequences, etc.

[Malika the Maiz]

Again, you’re fine with crony capitalism. We get it.

[bernard11]

Isn't part of the point of the Constitution to limit those consequences.

Only a moron like you and the other assholes who keep saying that would think winning an election grants unlimited power.

[Zarniwoop]

Freedom of Association is a constitutional right, however.

And Trump is punishing thousands and thousands people solely on the basis of their associations. Often very, very tenuous associations.

For example, King Donald is butthurt about a handful of former Perkins Coie lawyers who left the firm years ago. Yet included in his collective punishment revenge fantasy are newly-minted lawyers who just passed the bar and have never met the lawyers he's butthurt about.

That's not even remotely American. And I hope the courts agree that it's also unconstitutional.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Security clearances and govt contracts aren't rights.

If they are illegally denied, rights are involved.

Law firms are also important in protecting rights. If they have no security clearances or are blocked from all government contracts, it will hinder the defense of rights.

Also, misuse of government power when handling privileges is a problem. Finally, as noted in a reply, freedom of association is a right. Likewise, there is a right to petition the government to redress grievances, including by litigation.

The executive order is very well a "rights" problem.

[SimonP]

Leveraging government spending in order to enforce dictates that you lack legal authority to impose directly is one of the key ways that authoritarians in democratic systems consolidate power.

If you're not concerned, you're an idiot.

[questioner7]

"Security clearances and govt contracts aren't rights" -- neither are they the president's personal property.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually as he is both the CIC and the person ultimately responsible should someone who ought not be cleared is, I would say that they ARE his personal discretion.

Don't like it, impeach him.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-paul-weiss

"Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles. Many have engaged in activities that make our communities less safe, increase burdens on local businesses, limit constitutional freedoms, and degrade the quality of American elections.
Additionally, they have sometimes done so on behalf of clients, pro bono, or ostensibly “for the public good” — potentially depriving those who cannot otherwise afford the benefit of top legal talent the access to justice deserved by all. My Administration will no longer support taxpayer funds sponsoring such harm.

My Administration has already taken action to address some of the significant risks and egregious conduct associated with law firms, and I have determined that similar action is necessary to end Government sponsorship of harmful activity by an additional law firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General."

In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around “targets” based on race and sex. My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States should not have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds."

[Zarniwoop]

Additionally, they have sometimes done so on behalf of clients, pro bono, or ostensibly “for the public good” — potentially depriving those who cannot otherwise afford the benefit of top legal talent the access to justice deserved by all.

FFS, what are they even trying to communicate here? "By giving away services for free, they deny access to top legal talent to people who can't afford it"?

[Darwinnie]

That doing pro bono work for clients MAGA hates denies free work for those MAGA likes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s so funny to hear the Trump admin whine about unethical attorneys when even before politics his attorneys were Roy Cohn and Michael Cohen. Both of whom were famously unethical and ultimately disbarred.

Then everyone who did the 2020 election stuff ended up sanctioned and disciplined in some way.

And there’s no way that Alina Habba maintains her license for long. Like if even a tenth of the stuff in this lawsuit is true, she’s going to be in big disciplinary trouble.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/alina-habba-bedminster-lawsuit-settles-b2611971.html

If there’s one thing I’m absolutely sure of: it’s that Trump and Trump world does not actually care about the rules of professional responsibility in any way shape or form.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even if Alina Habba actually did what she is accused of -- so what?
I can name lawyers who have done a lot more slimy stuff than that.

She actually sounds ethical by comparison.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. No you don’t.

[Zarniwoop]

Are there any current, practicing lawyers who read the VC that support King Donald's latest revenge froth and spittle?

I worked for an AmLaw 100 firm (~1000 lawyers) for a while. I never had (or needed, or wanted) a security clearance, but I did regularly talk to gov't employees and enter gov't buildings in the course of my practice. Being subject to this because a former member of my firm caused King Donald some butthurt is mind-boggling.

The spreading cancer of this revenge is no longer about "security clearances aren't a right". It's about blatantly un-American things like collective punishment for having a former association with someone who later annoys the King.

Ask yourself how you'd react if Pres Biden had done this to any lawyer who said anything bad about Hunter ("they keep telling lies about Ukraine, and that has foreign policy and security implications, so I can do anything I want"). Think about what this unchecked power in the hands of a future Democratic president would mean. It will be wrong then ... and it's wrong now.

[Nobartium]

Ask yourself how you'd react if Pres Biden had done this to any lawyer who said anything bad about Hunter ("they keep telling lies about Ukraine, and that has foreign policy and security implications, so I can do anything I want").

That would be so deep inside my expectations that it wouldn't phase me.

[Malika the Maiz]

Expecting the other side is and would be awful justifies my side’s awfulness!

[Nobartium]

Politics didn't stop being a bloodsport today.

Let us know when it does.

[Malika the Maiz]

Rationalizing your lack of principles.

[David Nieporent]

No, it started being a bloodsport today, when Trump decided to weaponize the federal government against his personal enemies.

[Bruce Hayden]

It became a bloodsport when the Obama DOJ and FBI were mobilized against Trump in 2016. And then the Biden DOJ fabricated criminal cases against him, then authorized their FBI to conduct an armed search of his home, with Shoot to Kill orders, and then proceeded to paw through his wife’s underwear drawers, and hauled off obviously personal property, just because they could. That’s when it became a bloodsport.

[CountmontyC]

That was (D)different

[Commenter_XY]

No, it was defending (D)emocrats (D)emocracy, damn it! 😉

[David Nieporent]

As I said just a moment ago: an entirely fabricated set of facts. You know Rudy Giuliani got disbarred for lying as badly as you're doing right now, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Really?

Are you familiar with the mASSgop?
Trump is ethical compared to them.

[Krayt]

Of course, both sides are worthless shills for their goals, twisting and faceting as necessary to justify their already-picked positions, a fragrant garden of situational ethics.

Watch out, law firms and banks who do business with the NRA!

"That's way less than this!" Yes. This is v2.0. Have you not been paying attention to the imperial presidency one-upsmanship each of the past elections since the late 90s? Oh to just be in an era of merely signing statements again.

[Zarniwoop]

That would be so deep inside my expectations that it wouldn't phase me.

For some reason I find that extremely hard to believe. I suspect, rather, that you'd be at the front of howling torches-and-pitchforks mob.

Hey, new handle here, check. Ridonkulous right-wing extremist posturing, check. Let's see if you're that nickname-tranny "I come to VC to post my repressed gay fantasies" guy people block once you spam your usual predictable and repetitive drivel.

[questioner7]

Based on what precedent exactly?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, some practicing lawyers support Trump, including for careerist and ideological reasons.

[Zarniwoop]

Sure sure. But Nobartium and others who have thusfar bleatingly justified King Donald's butthurt-revenge scheme ain't lawyers "who read the VC", tho.

I guess Josh B might qualify.

[NotAnExtremist]

Blackman's pathetic, groveling attempt at justifying this action of Trump's will probably not be long in coming.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The bottom line is that if you try to kill the king, you've got to actually kill the king. If you don't, your f******....

They tried to destroy Trump, and they failed. And now they are f*****..,.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, you added a qualifier regarding people who read this blog.

I think VC is read by some I referenced, including those who read some of the contributors with selective focus (guns, supporting Israel, EV's free speech posts, etc.).

[David Nieporent]

I guess Josh B might qualify.

If he were a real lawyer, maybe.

[Bruce Hayden]

And look who’s talking.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I didn’t need help to see that Prof. Blackman is not a real lawyer (all you have to do is look at his CV!), but if I were unsure it would indeed be worth noting that a real lawyer is calling him out.

[David Nieporent]

But by the time you get to page 75 of his CV, past the list of his media appearances, you'll be too tired to notice the lack of actual legal experience.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I actually checked after posting this because I was curious to see what it’s up to now. He’s managed to get the page count down to 60 or so, mainly by putting everything in a minuscule font, and he’s also copyrighted it.

[NotAnExtremist]

If we accept that a CV is a creative work (which in Blackman's case is probably true), then it's automatically protected by copyright whether or not he puts a copyright notice on it. But it's pretty amusing that he actually did so.

[David Nieporent]

You are mistakenly looking at the abridged version. His full CV currently clocks in at 165 pages, though to be fair the first three (!) of those are a table of contents.

[Nobartium]

Moved

[Longtobefree]

Seconded.

[Armchair]

"Nervous yet?"

Nope. Paul Weiss made a choice. The decided to let one of their employees "leave" to pursue a political prosecution. Then they happily accepted him back. They made their political bed, and would have reaped the rewards if Biden had won.

Maybe if Mr. Post had come out against the 65 Project, I'd have more sympathy. But I don't.

[NotAnExtremist]

Wow, so many assholes in this thread. The "mute user" function is getting a workout today.

[Social Justice is neither]

Yes, you and your Marxist revolutionary buddies are assholes

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe if Mr. Post had come out against the 65 Project, I'd have more sympathy.

Kind of giving the game away here. If you think the 65 Project was wrongheaded, why would you support Trump doing something worse?

[Armchair]

1) This is not worse.

1a)....Perhaps what would be "even" is the federal government instead doing a raid on the offices of Paul Weiss, obtaining every invoice and document that had the word "legal services" on it, then carefully examining exactly what was charged. And if could be said to "not" be legal services, but something else (document couriers, publishing, monetary transfers, etc), then charges the partners with criminal business fraud for each and every instance.

2) There's a general rule in politics. Turnabout is fair play.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is not worse.

Project 65 is/was:

1. A group of private citizens
2. Making complaints with neutral tribunals
3. Asking individual lawyers to be sanctioned
4. For actions they actually took in court.

This is:

1. The president of the United States
2. Acting unilaterally
3. To impose collective punishment
4. Because one lawyer now at the firm wanted to do something which his supervisors ultimately decided not to do.

How is the second thing not worse?

[Zarniwoop]

And in the Perkins Coie case, it's even worse!

1. The president of the United States
2. Acting unilaterally
3. To impose collective punishment
4. Because 3-4 lawyers not even at the firm anymore took actions circa 2016 and 2020 that Trump is still butthurt about

[Bruce Hayden]

The firm paid for the Steele Dossier, that was used to attack Trump before the election and throughout his original four years in office. They were a cutout for his political opponents (Clinton and the DNC) to keep their fingerprints off of their dirty work. The Clinton campaign and the DNC hid the costs by treating them as legal expenses to that firm, when they were nakedly political. Engage in political dirty tricks, at the Presidential level, and expect to pay the price, if and when the person you played those political dirty tricks at gets control of the federal government.

As for all of the innocent lawyers paying the price - they picked their bed. Now they can lie in it. Those were firm checks that paid for those political dirty tricks. When that came out, nothing was done, at least publicly, to distance the firm from their attorneys involved. They weren’t fired or otherwise disgraced. Which could logically be assumed to mean that their actions were condoned, if not endorsed, by the firm itself.

[Sarcastr0]

2020 Truther is as immoral as he is delusional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Clinton and the DNC got fined by the FEC for doing it, so enough of pretending it didn't happen.

They bought a political hit job using Perkins Coie as a cutout. That's legally established.

[Michael Ejercito]

They actually admitted it.

[Armchair]

This is...

1) Just Government contracts.
2) For a single firm (+ Perkins Cole if you like).
3) Doesn't affect private business
4) For a firm which gave that lawyer a "leave of absence" for a political prosecution, then happily accepted him back to the firm.

65 Project was....

1) A coordinated action by private actors, .
2) Targeting a broad swath of lawyers who would choose to take legitimate cases but from a certain type of client
3) Designed to retard or eliminate the ability of conservative organizations being able to obtain reasonable legal support
4) Designed to destroy their business, private and public

65 project and the associated actions were far, far worse. They're reminiscent of the actions taken to deprive African Americans of legal representation, by blackballing any lawyers who might take those cases. They seek to make it impossible for certain people to get reasonable representation. This action is a single law firm (+ 1 perhaps) for very specific actions individuals at that law firm undertook.

[Sarcastr0]

Sweaty.

[Zarniwoop]

1a)....Perhaps what would be "even" is the federal government instead doing a raid on the offices of Paul Weiss, obtaining every invoice and document that had the word "legal services" on it

That you think a judge would issue a warrant for that is both laughable and deeply worrisome.

[Commenter_XY]

They don't seem to like rule #2 Armchair. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because we are not supposed to win -- ever.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. Paul Weiss made a choice. The decided to let one of their employees "leave" to pursue a political prosecution. Then they happily accepted him back.

I'm pretty sure that the 13th amendment means that they did not have any choice as to whether he left the firm to join the DA's office.

Maybe if Mr. Post had come out against the 65 Project, I'd have more sympathy. But I don't.

Setting aside the question of whether the "65 Project" did anything wrong that needed to be "come out against," the 65 Project is a private operation, not the federal government.

[Armchair]

"I'm pretty sure that the 13th amendment means that they did not have any choice as to whether he left the firm to join the DA's office."

Oh David...you know how this works. You think Paul Weiss didn't know ahead of time and endorse Pomerantz "leaving?" He even technically just took a leave of absence to work at the DA. He didn't actually quit his job at Paul Weiss.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh David...you know how this works.

You're making things up to rationalize supporting Trump acting like a mad king.

Do you ever have luck adding a layer of condescending dickery as a substitute for details or credibility?

[Zarniwoop]

Nope. Paul Weiss made a choice.

Did a 2024 law school graduate who passed a bar exam in the summer of 2024 and then joined Paul, Weiss as their very first law job "make a choice" such that they deserve to be collectively punished?

Did a patent docketing clerk who joined Paul, Weiss in Jan 2025 "make a choice" such that they deserve to be collectively punished?

Trump is lashing out at thousands and thousands of people with the power of POTUS because he's personally butthurt about the actions of a small handful of named individuals.

That's un-American.

[Bruce Hayden]

They chose to join a law firm that took a nakedly partisan action against Trump. No doubt, the newby attorneys were blinded by the $$$ and prestige.

[Armchair]

"Did a 2024 law school graduate who passed a bar exam in the summer of 2024 and then joined Paul, Weiss as their very first law job "make a choice" "

Yes. They made a choice. They chose to join Paul, Weiss, knowing full well the background of the firm they chose to join. If they don't like those consequences, they can make another choice.

They can choose to leave the firm. I might encourage them to do so.

[Zarniwoop]

So you believe the EOs are interfering with a core 1A right, and it's justified?

[David Nieporent]

And by "the background of the firm" you mean, "absolutely nothing about the firm," and by "knowing full well" you mean "had no idea at all of some weird paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory that would emerge from the Trumpian cult a year later."

[Armchair]

A law school graduate who chooses to work for a firm knowing "absolutely nothing about the firm"? Really?

You've become a joke David.

[David Nieporent]

…with respect to its relationship to Trump, jackass. Because there wasn't one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If the new normal is that whole organizations can be punished for bad acts by a few people, I guess that means the next democratic president can fire all of ICE

https://www.newsweek.com/fabian-schmidt-green-card-holder-naked-violently-interrogated-ice-mother-2045361?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1742050925

[Kleppe]

"I guess that means the next democratic president can fire all of ICE."

I encourage the next Democrat president to do this, as it would help ensure he is the last Democrat president.

[David Nieporent]

I encourage the next Democrat president to do this, as it would help ensure he is the last Democrat president.

As long as he says that it's about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse — ICE is all three — then it's fine, as I understand the new rules.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump is trying to destroy federal agencies that are way more popular than the most thuggish law enforcement agency we have, so I don’t actually think it would backfire as much as you think. People will grow tired of Argentinian dirty war tactics against legal residents.

[Zarniwoop]

Maybe change the hypothetical to "revoke the security clearance of any lawyer who is a member of the Federalist Society, and bar any law firm employing a FS member from providing services to anyone with any gov't contract, and bar any FS member from entering a Federal building"

[Bruce Hayden]

Essentially already done - with top lawyers forced out of firms for representing Trump.

[Zarniwoop]

No [slaps forehead with a "you eeediot!" eyeroll].

Private law firms have a well-established 1A right to choose who they do/don't associate.

If you don't get why "1A right of free association" is different than "the King decreeing collective punishment based on association", I can't really help you.

[Bruce Hayden]

I fully understand. But top firms were successfully lobbied by large clients to drop representation of Trump and other Republicans even after conflicts checks had been completed, and representation begun.

[Vryedni]

So I suppose Jones, Day isn't a law firm.

[Nelson]

So private actors told their law firm that they had to choose between Trump and them? What’s the problem there?

Then, because they chose the non-Trump clients, that justifies Presidential action against them? How is that anything other than unjustified retribution for a completely legal (and common) business decision?

You’ll have to explain your rationale for such a petty and vindictive response to an everyday cost/benefit analysis by the law firm. Because it sure looks like governmental retribution for protected behavior.

Or are you saying unjustified temper tantrums by snowflake Presidents is valid public policy?

[Bruce Hayden]

I think that it very much depends. Perkins Coie issued firm checks to Fusion GPS, to pay for the Steele Dossier, which was utilized to attack Trump before his election in 2016, and throughout his first term in office. They then hid their active involvement by billing their clients, Clinton and the DNC, for their political dirty tricks as legal expenses. And central to this scheme to commit election fraud was Marc Elias, a prominent firm partner at the time.

Then there was Mark Pomerantz, allowed to take a leave of absence from Paul Weiss, in order to lead the prosecution of Trump in NYC. He thus, never really left the firm, but rather just took that leave of absence. One of their lawyers thus prosecuted Trump in a LawFare case in NYC. IF they had wanted to disassociate themselves from the prosecution, they probably should have severed their formal association with him, then hired him back, when he was done and ready to come back to work.

In both cases, blame top management of those firms for their problems here. Elias was well known as a Clinton fixer - not just in the case of the Steele Dossier, but otherwise too. Firm top management allowed these attacks on Trump to go forward with attorneys formally associated, at the time, with their firms. Publicly held private companies wouldn’t allow it with their officers. Why should large law firms have different rules?

[Noscitur a sociis]

One of their lawyers thus prosecuted Trump in a LawFare case in NYC.

That is incorrect. Pomerantz wanted to charge Trump with misrepresenting the Trump Organiztion’s finances. He resigned when the district attorney declined to proceed with those charges, so he never prosecuted Trump at all. If you’re interested in learning more , your local library can probably get you a copy of his book.

[David Nieporent]

Perkins Coie issued firm checks to Fusion GPS, to pay for the Steele Dossier, which was utilized to attack Trump before his election in 2016, and throughout his first term in office. They then hid their active involvement by billing their clients,

This is borderline incoherent, and by "borderline" I mean "utterly." They "hid their involvement" by… "issuing firm checks"?

That's setting aside that the Steele Dossier was not utilized to attack Trump before his election in 2016.

[Bruce Hayden]

I think that you need to distinguish between private and public (government) organizations. Private organizations, like law firms and corporations, are voluntary associations. Corporations are often banned from, for example, government contracts for the actions of a single top officer. This is really little different. Law firms are responsible for the actions of the attorneys (and other employees) formally associated with the firm. Making things worse - larger law firms are rarely still organized as true partnerships, but are, rather organized as corporations, or their close alternatives (e.g. LLCs, LLPs, etc).

[Katall]

One big difference. Barring a company from contracts requires due process, that is, notice and an opportunity to respond, as well as nonarbitrary reasons. Whatever one thinks, the EO is based upon what one person's idiosyncraticities and seems arbitrary.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can't remember anything like this being done by Democrats. But the "K Street Project" under the Gingrich/DeLay Congress was similar, where the Republican Party would not engage lobbying firms that did occasional work for the opposition. The objective was one-party rule. Now the objective is one-man rule.

[Zarniwoop]

But even that example is a private, non-gov't organization taking the quite limited step of "not hiring firms because [reasons]". That's quite different (as I suspect you agree).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, very much so.

[Magister]

The K Street Project "was an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials". It differs from the present only in that the Republican party did not then have as much power as now, not because they weren't using governmental power (access to influential officials, granted or denied) to advance the same goal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

These orders do raise one legitimate point: big law firms have long engaged in racial-preference programs that are, at best, of highly dubious legality. An executive order examining those could be both good for the country and profession, and an easy political win. It’s unfortunate, to say the least, to have that agenda undermined by intertwining it with Trump’s personal grievances.

[Zarniwoop]

non-rhetorical, serious Q: do you think the allegations about large law firm hiring practices are part of the actual reason Pres Trump is issuing these orders?

Considering the repetitive and non-specific allegations in the EOs, they are starting to look to me like a "DEI bad" fig leaf added on as boilerplate justifications.

CJColucci below mentions Jones Day as an example of a top large law firm that leans right; do you think Pres Trump will also issue a similar EO against Jones Day for same/similar "DEI bad" allegations? (I'm skeptical, myself, unless some Jones Day lawyer causes Trump-specific butthurt.)

[NotAnExtremist]

But that possibly-legitimate point is obviously not being raised in good faith.

[Sarcastr0]

Affirmative action programs by private actors are absolutely still legal. United Steel Workers of America v. Weber is still good law, and no cases since then has been about private institutions.

"highly dubious legality" seems not to be a fair take on the current legal lay of the land.

[Social Justice is neither]

So political persecution and prosecution are just dandy when it's for your Marxist revolution but anything that harms your revolutionaries is off the table, even if perfectly legal and an obvious violation of the law. Got it, GFY.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hyperbole like "Marxist" does not lead me to think your commenting gets any better.

[CJColucci]

There are plenty of fine law firms out there, some of which lean Democratic and some of which lean Republican. If a Democratic administration wants to give its legal business to Paul Weiss or a Republican administration wants to give its legal business to Jones Day, that may be excessive top-down micromanagement for my taste, but it doesn't bother me. But telling private contractors what lawyers they can use on pain of losing contracts and blanket bans on access to buildings, etc. are a bit much.

[Life of Brian]

quite coincidentally, the 2024 AmLaw and 2024 NY Law Journal "Law Firm of the Year"

This certainly sounds impressive, but as far as I can tell neither AmLaw nor NY Law Journal issue a "Law Firm of the Year" award -- the only hits I see for either are back to this article.

I suspect the (single) award at issue is from The American Lawyer, which is a trade rag that picks lawyers and firms for a variety of annual awards based on deliciously squishy criteria ripe for influencing by these massive firms' equally massive PR departments.

So for folks that consider awards like the Oscars and Grammys to represent a substantial independent measure of value, this may well fall in the same bucket. For the rest of us, it likely just comes across as a distraction.

[gormadoc]

Most industry awards from journals or magazines are just opportunities for the givers to make money.

[Drewski]

NY Law Journal 2024 Honorees: https://www.event.law.com/newyorklawjournal-nyla/2024-honorees

That page's formatting is messed up for me (it doesn't show categories), but here's the article showing Paul Weiss being nominated for Law Firm of the Year: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/07/10/the-lists-are-in-new-york-law-journals-finalists-for-distinguished-leaders-top-dealmakers-and-diversity-initiatives-of-the-year/

Here's Paul Weiss's announcement: https://www.paulweiss.com/practices/litigation/litigation/awards-and-rankings/paul-weiss-named-new-york-law-journal-s-2024-law-firm-of-the-year?id=53875

[David Nieporent]

Heh.

[Life of Brian]

Ha -- thanks. So ALM Media has TWO trade rags hosted on the same website, both of which issue identically-named awards and use the same word for word identical methodology.

Shades of "RAM'S bottom."

[David Nieporent]

This is impeachmentworthy in and of itself, not that the GOP has a single member left with any ethics (let alone spine) at all. Trump does not own the federal government, and has no right to use even a single federal dollar for his personal interests.

[Commenter_XY]

David, convince the House to hold a vote. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House say it is.

[Bruce Hayden]

So is taking bribes from the Ukrainian and Chinese governments while in a top office, including the Presidency, but I never saw you suggesting impeachment for the interregnum denizen of the White House.

[David Nieporent]

You're mentally ill. You know that none of this happened.

[Bruce Hayden]

Talk about living in a bubble. Where do you think all that drug and hooker money that Hunter was spending came from? Don’t you remember the 10% for the “big guy”?

[David Nieporent]

Hunter. Biden. Is. Not. Joe. Biden.

Don’t you remember the 10% for the “big guy”?

I remember that there was no such thing, you lying POS.

[John F. Carr]

"That is, to put it mildly, a pretty serious blow to the firm's business activities."

It is not obviously a serious blow. Of all the practice areas listed on the firm's web page (https://www.paulweiss.com/practices) only a few are likely to require security clearances or nonpublic access to government buildings. I would say the order is serious enough to give standing to sue but not serious enough to justify emergency relief.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, there's already been emergency relief granted in the parallel Perkins Coie case. What do you think that judge got wrong?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there some reason you stopped at point 2 of the 4 Prof. Post listed?

(Incidentally, for some reason he only linked to the summary of the order, not the order itself, which is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-paul-weiss/). As with the Perkins Coie order, it suggests that entities who are represented by Paul, Weiss will themselves be ineligible for federal contracts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any reason why the federal employee(s) can't go to the lawyer's office?

[Zarniwoop]

Sometimes your stupid bloviating is actually funny.

[SRG2]

So you cultists are all in favour of weaponisation of government when Dear Leader is doing it and lying about it.

And hence all this time you whined about weaponisation, your gripe was not about the action but about who was doing it.

[NotAnExtremist]

That was obvious all along.

[Kleppe]

I have it on good authority that turnabout is, in fact, fair play. As is always the case, the leftists will come to regret the various precedents they have set with their maladministration and bad behavior.

[Magister]

You've spun up some shared delusion that prosecution of Trump had no basis in what he did. So your turnabout is to escalate from justified prosecution to unjustified persecution. Usually Republicans just ruin the economy, and then expect Democrats to fix it; Donald Trump's first term worked hard to destroy a number of norms, and this time you're hoping they'll achieve broader ruin to every institution.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is the relevant precedent here, in your view?

[David Nieporent]

I have it on good authority that turnabout is, in fact, fair play.

What authority is that?

[Kleppe]

Judeo-Christian morals/ethics, Greco-Roman logic/reason, contemporary Western social norms and legal theory, common sense. It's just cricket. Don't set a precedent you don't want to end up on the wrong side of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Christian morals/ethics

L, as they say, OL.

[David Nieporent]

Judeo-Christian morals/ethics,

As Jesus famously said, quoted in Matthew 5:39, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turnabout and hit them really hard on their right cheek. And then again on their left cheek. And then maybe shoot them, just to be safe."

[Commenter_XY]

That is not what it actually says, lmao.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The joke ->
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your head ->

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...it is still over my head. Could you explain? 😛

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo"
-- Brachot 58a, 62b, citing Exodus 22.2

"If someone is going to kill you, get up very early in the morning and kill him first."

[David Nieporent]

That is as accurate as your usual quotes, and also literally has nothing to do with the discussion. Self-defense and "turnabout" are entirely different concepts.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump seems to be confused about the "turn the other cheek" directive. Jesus was talking about doing so while facing forward.

[Kleppe]

"favour"

It's fascinating how the addition of a single letter identifies someone as a remorseless welsher.

[Kleppe]

"That is, to put it mildly, a pretty serious blow to the firm's business activities."

There's nothing more odious to the leftist than accountability and consequences. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, you have been very clear for quite some time you only care about revenge.

Why you would openly post how you are such an empty and narrow moral failure I do now know.

[Roger S]

Yes. The anti-Trump lawfare ran deep, and drastic actions are needed to put an end to it.

[David Nieporent]

There was no "anti-Trump lawfare," and even if there were, Trump isn't doing these things; POTUS is.

[Bruce Hayden]

Still defending 4 bogus criminal and a couple of civil suits against Trump. Of course, it’s not LawFare. Federal, GA, and NYC prosecutors just run around and randomly indict and prosecute random people using charges never before utilized successfully in court - knowing that the will likely be reversed on appeal for just that reason as Due Process violations.

[Zarniwoop]

Got curious, did a little poking around the intarwebz. Nothing scientific, but:

Head of Paul, Weiss's S.Ct. practice group:

Before entering private practice, Kannon served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and to Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig.

Highlights: longtime member of the Federalist Society; worked for Ken Starr; Assist Solicitor General under Bush II. In 2020, he argued on behalf of Seila Law in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB.

There are four other former S.Ct. clerks in the practice group, including an Alito clerk. Probably not a "woke lib".

In other words, if the issue does reach the S.Ct., the Justices will personally know multiple people - and some of the top conservative lawyers in the country - that are subjected to the collective punishment of the EOs. And that's without even looking at any of the other top law firms targeted by the EOs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Earl Warren was a conservative Republican Govrernor of California who supported Japanese Internment. Eisenhower later said that nominating him was the biggest mistake he made as President.

Young conservatives go bad -- I don't know why but they do.
David Brock comes to immediate mind -- when he was 30, he wrote "the Real Anita Hill" and was a hard core conservative.

He hit 40 and founded Media Matters. Go figure.

An outspoken conservative under the age of 40 scares me.
I've seen too many go bad...

[Nelson]

Yes, it’s well documented that the calm wisdom of youth evolves into the irrational extremism of old age.

If your argument is that people evolve from temperate to intemperate as they age, you are setting a new standard for irrationality. And you already own at least half of the VC’s top 10.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The fact sheet notes:

To ensure taxpayer dollars no longer go to contractors whose earnings subsidize activities not aligned with American interests, the Federal Government will terminate contracts that involve Paul Weiss.

Involve?

Note the reach of the fact sheet:

Federal Agencies will also refrain from hiring Paul Weiss employees unless specifically authorized

Just how far is he purporting to go here?

[Zarniwoop]

Note the reach of the fact sheet:

Federal Agencies will also refrain from hiring Paul Weiss employees unless specifically authorized

Just how far is he purporting to go here?

Current PW employees, but if they quit first they can then apply for Fed jobs? Recent PW employees? Anyone who has been a PW employee ever - someone who was a PW summer clerk 20 years ago, or a PW janitor 20 years ago?

The ambiguity is probably a feature, not a bug.

[mulched]

That is a shame, especially for all the many, many Paul, Weiss partners and associates who came out publicly against Pomerantz becoming a free-lance prosecutor going after only one target.

[mulched]

No? Maybe they told him privately, with a contemporaneous memo.

[mulched]

No? Maybe one para who's willing to say now that she thought it was a bad idea at the time.

[David Nieporent]

Mark Pomerantz worked for the Manhattan DA's office for a few years. I am not aware that at any point he was a "free-lance" prosecutor. In fact, I am not aware of any jurisdictions in the U.S. that allow for that at this point in time. (Some small jurisdictions allow private individuals to bring charges, but not to prosecute, or at least not without the specific approval of the government prosecutor.)

[mulched]

Pomerantz was semi-retired when he went back to work for the Manhattan DA's office for no salary. He investigated only one target. You can read about it in his book.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/18/prosecutor-trump-book-manhattan/

[mulched]

Being a single-target volunteer prosecutor of a presidential candidate and then writing a book about it are both definitely not lawfare.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, not at all. Just doing his civic duty, defending (D)emocracy.

[mulched]

Try that at your local DA's office:

"I'll come work for you for free, but only if I can prosecute [specific political opponent]. The charge? I don't know what the charge is yet. We'll come up with something."

[David Nieporent]

For the record, Trump was not in fact a presidential candidate. Pomerantz was hired in February 2021, when Trump was merely a disgraced former president, and quit in March 2022, when Trump was merely a disgraced former president. (He became a presidential candidate in November 2022.) And you are correct; neither being a prosecutor nor writing a book constitute lawfare.

[mulched]

If you remove enough context, anything can be ethical. The esteemed David Nieporent picking nits and ignoring facts just to stay on the side opposite Trump.

"Ackshually he wasn't a candidate because he hadn't formed an exploratory committee..."

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure that in fact I added context, rather than removing it. Proving you to be wrong and/or a liar. I understand why this bothers you. But it's an entirely fabricated narrative you came up with. Nobody in February 2021 thought Trump was running for president. This was right after he had been impeached for the second time, before his senate trial even. And that was the senate trial where a bunch of Republican senators said, "Yeah, impeachment was justified, but we don't have to convict him because his political career is over anyway."

[mulched]

"being a prosecutor" omits the context of volunteering to work for free in the prosecutor's office as long as you get to prosecute a selected political opponent.

"writing a book" omits the context of publishing the details of the case you developed while volunteering in the prosecutor's office in hopes of embarrassing the DA into charging your political opponent.

Man up and admit that this was a skeazy politically-motivated prosecution. In other words, lawfare.

And nobody thought Trump wasn't running in 2024.

[David Nieporent]

as long as you get to prosecute a selected political opponent.

Sigh. We just went over this. in February 2021 Donald Trump wasn't anybody's political opponent. And, just to add, Donald Trump was never Mark Pomerantz's political opponent.

And nobody thought Trump wasn't running in 2024.

What action do you think Mark Pomerantz took with respect to Donald Trump in 2024?

[mulched]

You think a political opponent is only a candidate actively running against another candidate? That's pretty dense.

I didn't say Pomerantz did anything in 2024. I said that at no point after Trump lost the 2020 election was he not going to run in 2024. That's also pretty dense.

[mulched]

Maybe you think that Mark Pomerantz was a disinterested public servant, only interested in the public good and sacrificing a big-law paycheck to serve humanity. He had no political motives, just the altruistic nature that drives him to wake up saying "How can I get Donald Trump?"

[Dan Schiavetta]

David
Don’t feed the troll

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say Pomerantz did anything in 2024. I said that at no point after Trump lost the 2020 election was he not going to run in 2024. That's also pretty dense.

Not a single person thought, less than a month after the J6 coup attempt, that Trump was going to run again. Again: I reiterate that the senate GOP chose not to convict him because they thought that it was unquestionable that he was done.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you think that Mark Pomerantz was a disinterested public servant, only interested in the public good and sacrificing a big-law paycheck to serve humanity. He had no political motives, just the altruistic nature that drives him to wake up saying "How can I get Donald Trump?"

MAGA cultists have come up with the weirdest notion that there's something unusual and unethical about prosecutors who want to prosecute criminals. Like prosecutors are supposed to be indifferent about whether crime is a good or bad thing, and that being biased against those who commit those crimes is unseemly at best.

[mulched]

Pomerantz didn't volunteer to prosecute murderers or rapists. He doesn't hate violent crime that much. He didn't even volunteer to take on any non-Trump white collar cases either. He doesn't hate financial crime that much.

He only unretired to go after one person. When Vance and then Bragg told him no, he didn't stay on and prosecute other crimes. He doesn't hate crime that much.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes David, and Matthew Colangelo left the #3 position at DOJ to prosecute petty criminals in NYC. He had a burning desire to do justice in the mean streets, but wound up prosecuting Candidate Trump's NYC case, instead. Totally by accident! 🙂

[David Nieporent]

He only unretired to go after one person.

I don't know what "unretired" even refers to, but in any case, I really don't understand what point you think you're scoring here. Yes, Pomerantz specifically went to the DA's office to help prosecute Trump, the highest profile criminal in the United States at the time. Yes, and? So what? What is supposed to be wrong with that?

After being utterly humiliated in your (MAGA collectively, not you personally) attempts to claim that Trump didn't break the law, you're reduced to "Well, it's bad if the people who prosecuted him didn't like him."

[David Nieporent]

Yes David, and Matthew Colangelo left the #3 position at DOJ to prosecute petty criminals in NYC. He had a burning desire to do justice in the mean streets, but wound up prosecuting Candidate Trump's NYC case, instead. Totally by accident!

1) Colangelo was not in the #3 position at DOJ.
2) He did not leave to prosecute petty criminals.
3) I reiterate the same thing I just said to "mulched": I have no idea what point you think you're scoring here.

[mulched]

You already admitted your lack of awareness of Pomerantz's situation in your first reply. No need to go on about it.

Prosecutors shouldn't prosecute based on their personal political interest in the accused. You're welcome to deny Pomerantz's political interest.

[David Nieporent]

You already admitted your lack of awareness of Pomerantz's situation in your first reply. No need to go on about it.

WTF are you talking about?

Prosecutors shouldn't prosecute based on their personal political interest in the accused. You're welcome to deny Pomerantz's political interest.

Pomerantz had no political interest; he's a lawyer, not a candidate. If what you mean is political animus, then your comment is just stupid and wrong. There is nothing wrong with prosecutors having animus towards criminals; it would be incredibly weird if they didn't.

A problem arises when a prosecutor stands to personally gain from a prosecution. So, for instance, a politician prosecuting his actual political opponent, or a business rival, or the like. A romantic rival, perhaps. But none of that was present here.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Meh

[David Nieporent]

[wrong spot]

[ReaderY]

As Louis XIV put it, “L’Etat, c’st moi.” Trump is simply applying this well-known absolutist principle straightforwardly. Mr. Trump IS the United States. Treason against Mr. Trump IS treason again the United Statess. And it was always so. All acts against and attempts to hamper Mr. Trump, such as attempts to criminally prosecute him, or for that matter to sue him for or attempt to collect on bills he chose not to pay, were and are by definition acts against and attempts to hamper the United States, and treason against it.

If you had wanted a country in which the state was conceived of as something separate from the person of the Soverieign, and whose Sovereign was something less than an absolute monarch, you should never have supported Mr. Trump.

The only difference Mr. Trump has with George III was that George III is not Mr. Trump. Other than that, he is equally against this whole revolutionary “all men are created equal,” “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” and the rest of the liberal bullshit that has defrauded the Great Men who are its natural rulers out of the power and privelege they are entitled to for the last 249 years. And he means to put a stop to it.

[ReaderY]

Bracey v. Gramley introduced the idea that while government officials are normally presumed to act correctly and in the public interest and are normally accorded deference based on that presumption, the presumption is a rebuttable one.

I would think, in cases where the United States government attempts to invoke a presumption in favor of propriety of its officials’ actions, this particular order would tend to a good ways in the direction of rebuttal evidence.

[River]

The Manhattan DA's office also weaponize the government. Their entire prosecution of Trump was unethical and illegal, and the attorneys involved do deserve to be disciplined. Extending it to an entire firm that did nothing more than hire one of those attorneys does seem pretty extreme, and I agree that that also constitutes weaponization of the government. I'm just saying that both sides seem to have gotten down in the mud on this one. Neither side in this story has behaved virtuously.

[Krayt]

If only all human history and the entire surface of the Earth were lousy with people using government to hurt their enemies and fatten their wallets while lying about their purposes, we could have had an inkling of this scenario ahead of time.

Dammit!

Don't worry about either, or the poor lawyers. They'll all go home to their gated communities or mansions tonight, and have chef make them dinner to assuage work upsets.

[David Nieporent]

The Manhattan DA's office also weaponize the government. Their entire prosecution of Trump was unethical and illegal,

TF? How could the prosecution be "illegal"? I'm not sure what ethical principle you think was violated, but I suppose one could conjure up an argument if one strained hard enough. But illegal? What law do you think it violated to prosecute Trump for forging business records?

[River]

The law they violated was the statute of limitations, which ran out well before the prosecution began. Prosecuting a politician because you happen to dislike their politics, rather than because of any actual illegal thing they might have done, is pretty obviously unethical.

[Rossami]

Unethical behavior -> losing security clearance. I'm not seeing anything even vaguely unusual here, much less cause for outrage.

Tolerating unethical behavior -> losing security clearance. A step removed but a pretty small step. Still not seeing anything to justify the outrage in the article above.

Bosses tolerating unethical behavior -> probably innocent subordinates losing security clearance. It seems unfair but we're talking security clearances here. They are discretionary in the first place and the presumption is against granting it. That is, you are untrusted until provent trustworthy (an inversion of the usual legal assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'). So yeah, working at a company whose bosses can no longer be tolerated also taints everyone who works there. Again, I'm not seeing anything to justify the outrage expressed above.

[Rossami]

By the way, if you want to argue that "it wasn't unethical behavior", that's a plausible argument but not one that I think fits the premise of the article above. The author seems to me to be saying 'even taking the order at face value, it's evil and unconstitutional'. I'm not seeing that.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it wasn't unethical behavior, but also I'm not sure why Trump apologists keep talking solely about security clearances, when the Trump EOs go much farther.

[Rossami]

Wow, a lot of typos in that post. My apologies.

"provent" -> "proven"
"can no longer be tolerated" -> "can no longer be trusted"

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Excuse me, but the federal government is a CLIENT. The President holds the Executive power under Article 2. And any client can announce that it is not hiring any lawyer or firm. What is unethical is lawyers complaining about a choice made by a potential client not to hire them. President Trump didn't make the new rules, but he is gonna play by them. FAFO.

[Zarniwoop]

Yet another apologist who either doesn't understand the scope of the EOs, or is willfully misrepresenting it.

[ReaderY]

I have to say, complaining that these folks are solid conservatives as a reason not to understand why Trump is going after them is more than a bit like complaining that Trotskyites are solid communists as a reason not to understand why Stalin went after them. You really think that any of this has anything to do with ideology? You think Trump gives any more of a shit about ideology in deciding who to bump off than Stalin did? Read your Orwell.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So Trump is Hitler *and* Stalin, too?

[ReaderY]

Orwell’s whole point was that they weren’t all that much different.

Trump is like Hitler in that he started with a functioning democracy and used exploits to take it over and make it an absolute govrnment. Trump is well along that path but slower than Hitler was. A key advantage is he started with a majority in the legislature, whereas Hitler had to call new elections and imprison political opponents to get his majority. A disadvantage is that the American Constitution gives the federal executive considerably less power than the Weimar Republic did, although Trump is doing his best with what he has.

But the personal vindictiveness and spite is more like Stalin.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If we're going to invoke Orwell, Trump sounds more like Emmanuel Goldstein, a secular devil-figure to stir up the passions of the masses.

[ReaderY]

No, he is the kind of person Goldstein describes in his book: somebody in the Middle who appealed to the Bottom in order to get to the Top (and replace the former Top people with a new class of them), as an expediency, for purposes of gaining power.

Since the whole birther thing, well before he started the thing about the size of his first inaguration crowd, his re-election support, etc., he has used lies in exactly the way Goldstein describes the 1984 people using them: to test for loyalty by assessing people’s willingness and capacity to suppress their own personal observation and thought processes and accept what he tells them as truth, and suppress their memories when he changes the story. Doing so requires considerable mental flexibility and not everyone has the capacity. Only those fully willing and able to fully surrender the self to him can be accepted as followers, let alone allowed to be leaders; those lacking either the will or the capacity to do so are to be kept outside and eventually destroyed. His lies and people’s responses to them identify and test who is and is not really loyal to him, who is willing to completely surrender their selves and their entire concept of self to him, in exactly the way they did in 1984.

The thing about the method is that it gives him the ability to identify who has the capacity to fully surrender their selves self long before anything like such a full surrender ever occurs. Similar, it lets him know who the traitors are long before any thought of betrayal ever occurs to them. Built into the subtext of 1984 are short passages indicating that Winston Smith was groomed from childhood to play his traitor role long before he ever had any awareness of it. Trump also has this capacity to groom people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That's quite an elaborate theory you've got there.

[Barabolya]

Boo-Hoo. Schadenfreude is a dish best enjoyed warm. I trust nobody at Perkins or Weiss was holding their breath in expectation of a nomination for US-AG. Having guzzled the Kamala-Kool-Aid, there was every expectation of more Government Contracts to aid and abet the continued socialist persecution of Conservatives and President Trump. State-Run media insisted she was a shoo-in. Let the blue-haired oracle of the democrat party, Brazile, 'splain it to you: "Politics is a zero-sum game" for dems. And last I looked, they lost.

[ReaderY]

The Fuerher upholds the law! The democrats are criminals!

[ReaderY]

Trump is no conservative. He is every bit as much a revolutionary as Hitler was. He no more cares squat about conservative values except as an expedient and expendable means to power than Stalin cared about socialism.

[Darth Buckeye]

I am conflicted on this issue. When Trump was looking for legal counsel, none of the major firms were willing to represent him. These same firms profess a willingness to represent any unpopular person....but not Trump.

On the one hand, I feel that the major law firms have been part of the reigning establishment in this country that has been profiting from the growth of the federal government...and many have eagerly assisted in the lawfare against Trump. On the other hand, representing unpopular people or ideas is a foundational principal for the legal profession.

Yesterday, my wife and I watched MIGHTY IRA and then the 1981 TV movie SKOKIE. David Goldberger, the attorney who represented the neo-Nazis at Skokie was one of my law school professors and he was featured prominently in MIGHTY IRA. We spent the afternoon talking about free speech and related ideas. We also watched the 5 minute scene from A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS when Sir Thomas More says why he would give the Devil the benefit of the law.

Trump is a highly unpopular person. The major law firms should have been willing to represent Trump even though he was unpopular. But they were willing to assist in the lawfare against Trump during the 2024 election season. This lawfare was a disgrace to our profession and probably should be considered a violation of professional ethics. I think the current administration is fair to question the integrity of these firms and revoke their security clearances until they can demonstrate that they will act professionally.

[bernard11]

There perhaps reasons to refuse to represent someone other than personal disapproval.

Concern about being told to act unethically, about getting paid, are two.

I'm sure there are others.

[David Nieporent]

I am conflicted on this issue. When Trump was looking for legal counsel, none of the major firms were willing to represent him. These same firms profess a willingness to represent any unpopular person....but not Trump.

Trump (a) famously doesn't pay his bills; and (b) is an unmanageable client. I wouldn't represent my own brother if he acted as Trump acts as a client.

[ReaderY]

I do have to say, paying your bills does tend to help. I do fear, however, that as Trump consolidates power and reaches farther into his grabbag of grievances, the people who tried to complain about him stiffing them over the course of his life may find the federal government govermment suddenly making life very, very difficult for them.

[David Nieporent]

Just to clarify that, I wouldn't charge my own brother. But I would still insist that he listen to my advice.

[bernard11]

Trump cultists here have gone even deeper into the slime on this one.

[CronosTruth]

"rather extraordinary sanctions"

I'm sorry, but when did lawfirms have a right to be employed or under contract with the government?

A company can choose to not do business with a certain entity it no longer likes. But apparently the government must do business? or else?

Are big law attorneys simply this entitled??