The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Next Up: Jenner and Block
Are you getting the message yet? Kiss the ring! And throw in some cash while you're at it. Or Our Leader will destroy you. Do not cross him - he has the entirety of the executive power of the United States at his disposal.
Given that the VC is a blog that is heavily focused on the law and the legal profession in all of its various manifestations, I think it is incumbent upon us to at least pay a little bit of attention to the Trump Administration's continuing attacks on lawyers and judges, if only to ensure that our silence is not construed as capitulation. So no, I'm not going to let it go - no one's forcing you to read anything I write.
The punishment that was meted out to Paul Weiss last week for having "hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz [who] according to his coworkers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate President Trump" while at the Manhattan DA's office has been rescinded! The Executive Order has been withdrawn! All it took, apparently, was $40 million in pro bono legal assistance for Trump-endorsed causes - cheap!!
Of course, the money was never the point (though I am surprised Trump couldn't extort a few million more; I bet Paul Weiss would have paid another $50 million for, say, a statue of Trump somewhere, or a nice fat contribution to the DJT Family Foundation). The point is obedience, about sending the message: "I can crush you, big powerful law firm, like a bug, so don't fuck with me." Mission accomplished.
Brad Karp, Managing Partner at Paul Weiss, sent an email to firm personnel explaining the settlement:
We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn't erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in "bet the company" litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.
In a matter of days, we were able to negotiate such a resolution. That resolution … had three primary components. First, we reiterated our commitment to viewpoint diversity, including in recruiting and in the intake of new matters. Second, while retaining our longstanding commitment to diversity in all of its forms, we agreed that we would follow the law with respect to our employment practices. And third, we agreed to commit $10 million per year over the next four years in pro bono time in three areas in which we are already doing significant work: assisting our Nation's veterans, countering anti-Semitism, and promoting the fairness of the justice system.
Next!!! From Our Leader's latest Executive Order (emphases added):
"Jenner & Block LLP (Jenner) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession's highest ideals, condoned partisan "lawfare," and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States. For example, Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders. Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based "targets."
In addition, Jenner was "thrilled" to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller's entirely unjustified investigation. Andrew Weissmann's career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court. The numerous reports of Weissman's dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner's values and priorities.
Whoa! Those are some really bad guys! Another firm that re-hired an "unethical" attorney, about whom there have been "numerous reports of dishonesty"! Unbelievable! I'm surprised that Our Leader, who can, by Executive Order, do pretty much anything he damn pleases, doesn't just toss the lot of them into the slammer. But at least I'll sleep much more soundly knowing that those bastards don't have any more contracts with the federal government and that their employees are frozen out of federal buildings.
I hadn't heard of any of these terrible things Jenner and Block did until I read Our Leader's E.O., and I'm happy to take his word for all of it. Why wouldn't I? He is, once again, judge, jury, and executioner - just like the Framers of the Constitution envisioned Presidents to act! He decides who's been unethical, who's been "weaponizing" the legal system on a partisan basis, and he busts their ass. And he's winning - nobody even cares that he issued this attack on Jenner and Block even though a federal judge enjoined him from doing the same thing to Perkins Coie a couple of weeks ago!
Our Leader has meted out the usual punishment:
- suspending "any active security clearances held by individuals at Jenner pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest";
- identifying "all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Jenner" which "the heads of agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease [to provide]; .
- requiring all Government contractors "to disclose any business they do with Jenner and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract";
- reviewing "all contracts with Jenner or with entities that disclose doing business with Jenner" and "taking appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Jenner has been hired to perform any service";
- "limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Jenner";
- "refraining from hiring employees of Jenner, including but not limited to Andrew Weissmann."
Any libertarians left out there? How are we feeling about a president who unilaterally imposes this kind of punishment on private parties, based on "numerous reports" of bad action (A.K.A. "rumor" and "hearsay")? No trial. No jury. No fact-finding. Luckily for us, Our Leader is Infallible, so nobody need worry.
It appears that a group of current associates at some Biglaw firms (and not-so-biglaw firms) are circulating a letter decrying Our Leader's tactics of intimidation, and calling on their employers to take a stand against him.
The Executive Branch has launched an all-out attack aimed at dismantling rule-of-law norms, including by censuring individual law firms by name because of past representation. On March 6, the Trump administration widened the scope of its attack to target firms with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This is not normal. We call on our employers, large American law firms, to defend their colleagues and the legal profession by condemning this rapid purge of "partisan actors," a group that seems to be synonymous with those the President feels have wronged him. . . .
We join the American Bar Association in "reject[ing] the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients." . . . When we are united, we cannot be intimidated. These tactics only work if the majority does not speak up. Our hope was that our employers, some of the most profitable law firms in the world, would lead the way. That has not yet been the case, but it still very much can be. It is easy to be afraid of being the first to speak. We are removing that barrier; we are speaking. Now it is our employers' turn.
Good for them. Sign-on link is here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Thank you for a great post.
As Norm Peterson once said on an epic Cheers show, "I can't be bought, and I can't be threatened, but put them together and I'm your man"
I believe he was talking about Paul Weiss and their soon to be cowards -in-arms.
Not saying I absolutely could be bought, but if I could, the price is $15 million. US dollars. Non-negotiable. Just in case anyone is interested.
The Gen X 80s kid in me wants it paid in bearer bonds. I don’t know if those are still a thing, but villains in 80s movies absolutely loved them.
Brad Karp was the smart one. The man deserves a gold medal for saving the law firm, and the livelihoods of 1,300 lawyers (and their families).
The ones who litigate. They're the dumb ones. Why? They are screwed for the next 8 years.
What an organ of the police state you have become.
Better than being a tool . . . .
A distinction without a difference.
Sarcastr0, when you are in business, and you are a CEO, one job is to keep the business going as a surviving concern.
Your problem is the shoe is on the other foot now, and it hurts.
PW, a firm that touts its work defending against "bet-the-company litigation," concedes it best not bet the company.
Which *might* be a reasonable business choice. But that the firm truly was at risk of folding is highly debatable. And I can guarantee PW has defended far more genuinely existential cases for clients who chose to litigate (on advice from counsel) rather than capitulate.
It turns out losing a war has consequences!
Weren’t you a mail carrier at one point? Was that also life during wartime?
In case you haven't noticed, idiot, we're not at war with each other in this country. You may think so
Someone tell that to those who are blowing up Tesla dealerships . . . .
One of the dullest rhetorical acts is to take what someone says literally and then pretend to misunderstand it. The "war" in my comment was the one the Left has been waging on Trump: the impeachment, the investigations, the lawsuits, the indictments, the trials. And now come the consequences.
And the Left deserves it.
I think this was a shot across the bow...
We've never seen this before.
Like when the FBI doctored the 302s with Flynn?
The same Flynn who now pledges allegiance to a hacker in the Philippines he believes is Q-Anon?
Yeah, Flynn is not my cup of tea--a shill for Erdogan, but that doesn't make doctoring 302s ok.
Accepting your rather dubious premise for the moment—how would that be like this?
Yet another lie. Crazy Kraken Lawyer Sidney Powell tried to make that argument, except the 302s and the original underlying notes were all released and there was no "doctoring."
Hey dumbass, you again. The fact is that Lisa Page, who wasn't present at the interview, helped draft revisions to the 302s--highly improper. I guess you're more interested in the rights of criminal aliens than Flynn.
Once again, a lie. In response to Powell's conspiracy theorizing, Judge Sullivan ordered produced, and then reviewed, the 302 as compared to the original interview notes, and found them to be substantively identical. Sidney Powell kept making wild-eyed claims about the existence of other versions, but that was all made up.
Lisa Page, not present at the interview, edited the 302. That's totally out of process. That's a problem. Well, at least if you care about government following its own procedures when someone is going to get prosecuted.
I'm not sure I understand the argument. I agree it's concerning if government actors make things up and put them in reports to punish someone. That's the possible risk if someone who was not present at the initial interview works on a report. And it also matters for chain of custody etc.
But if we have the original interview notes, and we have the report, and we can compare them, doesn't that resolve that concern, procedurally?
Like you may be correct, perhaps there is a procedure that prohibits a third party from copy editing or whatever. But surely you would yield that if someone technically violated that procedure, but all they did was change noun-verb conjugation accord, that would be a de minimis violation and not something that actually has substantive consequences for justice. So isn't what's important here whether the report reflects the notes?
It doesn't resolve the concern. First Page (the editor) and Strzok spoke about "insurance policies" against Trump. Second, the government wasn't forthright about what happened.
I see we're recycling all the greatest hits, but they did not speak of "insurance policies against Trump," and also, Flynn isn't Trump, and the government produced everything and proved it was forthright.
I feel like I did my best to try to understand what you were saying and offer you a chance to clear it up for me. But I don't understand your reply.
I thought your objection was that it's a procedural issue for someone not involved in an interview to fill out a 302 form. And I thought the argument against you was that, even if that were true, having the original notes means we can mitigate any possible harms from that.
You now have two new objections. One is that you think that some people, who I gather have something to do with this story but I don't know what, had a conversation where they said mean things about Trump. I don't know who these people are or why we're talking about them. But I guess it's possible some people would consider investigators making mean remarks about someone affiliated with the person they're investigating could be prejudicial (I'm not sure I believe this, it feels like most investigators even of like very minor and decidedly apolitical crimes blow off steam like this, but okay again I yield you are 100% factually correct)? So if you think it's prejudicial, then you probably want to review the 302 form to see if it matches the notes, which is what I thought we were talking about, and it actually was what we were talking about, and they did review it, and they said it was the same. So what is the worry about the prejudice making it into the 302?
And then your second objection is that the government wasn't forthright. I'm not really sure how they weren't forthright or what being forthright means here, but I'll stipulate that, yes, the government should be forthright. But the conversation is about the "FBI" doctoring the "302s". I can understand that the government not being forthright might lead you to worry about the "302s" being "doctored", but again isn't the context here that we can see the raw interview notes and we know the 302s reflect them? So isn't that the appropriate investigation if there's reason to be believe the government's lack of forthrightness is a problem?
Like I'm really trying hard here to understand your point but it's really hard.
You obviously don't know the Flynn case and why the 302 was so important.
Here's a taste: https://brookingsregister.com/stories/we-still-dont-know-some-things-about-the-flynn-case,32848
Well, it wasn't important at all because Flynn admitted he had lied. (And told the lie to many — including Mike Pence — not just the FBI.)
This is extortion and another sign of America's decent into fascism.
So when Obama went after AIG employees for their stay bonuses, where were you?
Or how about Operation Chokepoint? What about Arthur Andersen?
Here's the problem--these are rules that you guys created, and now Trump is going after his enemies by using these same rules. What goes around comes around.
Amen. It sucks, but when it sucked before, lefties first denied it, then applauded the suckage. How about all that censorship? How about denying the laptop?
Suckage sucks. If lawyers and politicians won't stop it, then I'm glad it's being applied equally. Isn't equity important?
Well played,
Obama never issued draconian EOs directed at specific businesses that offend him and then drop them when he got concessions. It is repugnant to the rule of law for the government to attack law firms for representing clients the president does not like.
Trump has them by the short curly ones due to their racially-discriminatory employment policies.
They fucked over security interest holders in GM's BK. That's fascism baby.
They just started an investigation into Michael Flynn based on the fucking Logan Act, thus interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. Were you cool with the doctored 302s? No one wants to hear it now. What goes around comes around.
Doesn't matter that Obama used different weapons. The Right used to be subservient, bend over and play genteel games with the left-wing Dems while the Dems reamed them.
The genius of Trump is that he refused to unilaterally disarm. He just supercharged the same weapons that far-left Dems like Obama and Biden invented.
Why bring a knife to a gun fight? Trump is firing with nuclear bullets to destroy the left so they can't get up for a long time.
No, the "genius of Trump" is that he's convinced you that you're a loser, just like him.
You're an idiot. No one made any special rules to collar Arthur Andersen. They helped perpetrate the biggest scam in American history making paupers out of thousands of people. But I suppose you MAGA support even them. Not surprised
Trump just pardoned another fraudster... Devon Archer. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/executive-grant-of-clemency-for-devon-archer/
Pretty sure he scammed an Indian casino/reservation out of 60million dollars and the clemency seems to wipe out the criminal forfeiture that was ordered. BUT he was also the main house witness against Hunter Biden re: Burisma. So ya know. Gotta pay your political hatchet man - since his testimony appears to have been a total load of bullshit.
This administration is so blatantly ridiculously corrupt. And its only been a few months.
As opposed to Meritless Garland's plea deals???
Trump made the judgment that he was pursued for political reasons. Why you have pardons.
And dude, even the Obama Admin was concerned about Biden's conflicts of interest. Come on.
AA was vindicated too late. DOJ overreach.
Are you Hank Greenberg or something? Why do you keep bringing up this thing that is almost 20 years old and in no way related to or similar to this discussion?
Because, nitwit, you guys have the fucking vapors over this, and that ship has sailed. What Obama did is actually worse. These law firms violated the law with their employment policies, and like businesses who have been coerced into paying settlement payments to left-wing charities, they are being coerced. It's your playbook.
So the "playbook" you live by is: whatever someone has done to you, you can do to them. Is that it?
No, the Biden regime was an example of budding fascism. This is simply calling some of the elite democrat oligarchs to account for their bad behavior.
IOW, fascism "in full bloom"?
I can’t cry tears for the BigLaw. They largely brought this on themselves.
They spent years, no, decades really pandering to the latest campaign the Left coughed up. Be it abortion (remember the BigLaw partner whose career was sh*tcanned because she didn’t say bad things about Dobbs?), DEI (which, in practice, was just institutionalized racial, ethnic and gender discrimination, wrapped in gauzy bromides to make it look less illegal) and whatever was the latest anti-Trump crusade. Go back and read the on-the-brief entries of so much SJW litigation and see all the names and the fine firms behind them. True, a lot of the pro bono excesses there were designed more to dangle treats to give the associates doing the grunt work so they’d get something to let them feel good about themselves while their main work was making the world safe for some hedge fund.
The one thing the BigLaw didn’t bother to think about was that Trump has had one defining characteristic his entire life: you mess with him, he comes after you harder. (To be fair, being that way is the only way to survive in the part of the NYC real estate market where he worked, so he had to be that way.)
The other thing was something their egos and lofty places in the Bar let BigLaw forget: lawyers are expendable. Even distinguished BigLaw lawyers.
So, this is a case where BigLaw’s sanctimony is its own reward. I’m making popcorn.
They spent years, no, decades really pandering to the latest campaign the Left coughed up.
Did they?
Did they!
Didn't see you saying anything about NY's jihad against the NRA . . . .
No of course not, they were obviously pure as the driven snow and dedicated to truth and justice.
Well based on the torrent of muted deludos who replied, I take it y'all got nothin'
Fair game to trumpet and condemn Trump administration excesses, but the legal community should acknowledge its excesses which have invited such response as well.
1. Bar disciplinary systems have been used selectively and without much precedent to target advocates such as John Eastman. Similar tactics could have been used as cynically against the Gore legal team in 2000.
2. Judges have been increasingly shed humility and been willing to push beyond their traditional role. Along with his injunction on birthright citizenship, Judge Coughenour unnecessarily and chillingly suggested the possibility of an ethics concern for government advocates willing to revisit and challenge Constitutional interpretation related to jurisdiction clause of 14th Amendment.
3. Law firms have allowed themselves to be used as political tools, and as sanctuaries for political tools, perhaps most famously with the Steele dossier.
Critics should also take care to not conflate alleged abuses. Government contracts should not be terminated without appropriate process, but security clearances have less protection and are not entitlements.
1. False equivalency.
2. Look a squirrel! BTW, at some point frivolous claims would warrant sanctions.
3. Law firms have a variety of clients, including political in nature. Bush v. Gore, both sides, involved law firms.
"security clearances have less protection and are not entitlements"
They still should not arbitrarily denied.
Also, at some point, it can hinder constitutional protections, including for certain clients. If taken to the extreme of not even being allowed in federal buildings, it is especially problematic.
Yeah, but the idea that law firms with connections should get unfettered access and carte blanche security clearances is nuts.
Do law firms with connections get carte blanche security clearances, or do individual lawyers at large law firms use the publicly available security clearance process to apply for security clearances that they're approved for?
I have plenty of friends who have security clearances because they work for private firms that have contracts with the governments (e.g. physicists at Sandia, JPL subcontractors, programmers who work on government contracts that implicate safety or security) and all of them just went through the ordinary clearance process, which is annoying and kind of invasive but not difficult to get through. I have friends who have clearances in connection with their military roles, sigint people etc. I had a sort of acquaintance that actually contacted me because she was going through a clearance and for whatever reason the specific clearance she was going for, she needed to document all the foreign nationals she was friends with, and more or less told me that if I didn't want to get interviewed, it'd be the end of our friendship (I didn't, so it was).
All of this seems incredibly bureaucratized and normal and not at all conspiratorial so I guess I don't really understand why you expect biglaw lawyers having clearances would be any different. Do you think you could elaborate what you mean without just summarizing that you have grievances against Leftie Elite Communists Who Hate Our Country?
Oh god. Do you remember the whole Alfa Bank BS--the Perkins Coeieattorney, whose name escapes me, had a building pass to get into and walk around the FBI building. They also get clearances not strictly limited to the particular defense matter that they are working on.
Do some research.
> 1. Bar disciplinary systems have been used selectively and without much precedent to target advocates such as John Eastman. Similar tactics could have been used as cynically against the Gore legal team in 2000.
I'm not sure I understand the comparison. What is it you think that the Gore legal team did that would merit bar discipline?
I don't think they merit bar discipline for zealous advocacy on losing side, just as I don't think Trump's legal team merited bar discipline for zealous advocacy on losing side of election cases.
But you do understand there's a line between "zealous advocacy" and engaging in a criminal conspiracy, right?
I share Professor Post's outrage, but I can't help feeling that the battle has already been lost. There doesn't appear to be anyone or any institution with the power and authority to stop our descent into authoritarianism. Does anyone expect the Republicans in Congress to keep Trump in check? District judges and appellate judges may try to stop some of Trump's actions, but is it realistic to think that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett will take any steps to limit Trump's power? The Immunity decision was a huge step toward establishing a monarchy. Thanks, Roberts.
But their blatantly illegal hiring/promotion practices? You good with that. Becerra threatening journalists, then getting to be HHS secretary?
You mean the completely made up thing you pulled out of Trump's ass?
Come on man. The race-conscious employment actions in BigLaw are an open secret.
"Blatantly illegal" suggests the DOJ could have easily prosecuted such firms, you know, because of the "blatant illegality" of their hiring/promotion practices.
That you (and they) have chosen a different path tends to belie your true motivation, doesn't it?
"blatantly illegal hiring/promotion practices"
Why not, you know, prosecute them for these blatantly illegal practices? Sounds like a slam dunk win for Ms. Biondi, who is in desperate need of one.
No more than Democrats kept Obama and Biden in check.
The road to monarchy began long long ago. FDR was perhaps the biggest step, threatening to pack the Supreme Court and running for a third term. But it goes way back. Lincoln played his part. John Adams threw newspaper editors and publishers in jail, just 7 years after the First Amendment was ratified.
MoreCurious: There doesn’t appear to be anyone or any institution with the power and authority to stop our descent into authoritarianism.
I wouldn't give up quite yet. I think it is, actually, realistic to think that Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, et al will stand up for the rule of law (and, not coincidentally, the power of the judicial branch). Might not happen, but it might ...
Mr. Post, where the f were you when Obama screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK? That whole property rights thingy . . . .
Where were you when Becerra was threatening journalists?
The fact is that these arrogant law firms made themselves vulnerable with their racially-discriminatory hiring/promotion practices.
Well, when a company goes bankrupt, creditors lose. It’s not like the creditors would have been better off if the Treasury hadn’t pumped money in to enable GM to reorganize and survive. Bankruptcy judges modify creditor agreements all the time in Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
To claim a decision made as a national leader to bail out a critical company, right or wrong, is in any way comparable to a decision to go after a law firm because they opposed him in a personal matter, is to illustrate just how warped and logic-free your thinking has become.
Secured creditors have, you know, property rights. You know, that whole Fifth Amendment thingy.
What that intended as a response to ReaderY's comment?
It wasn't. Just wondering if it qualified as a response in your mind...
rloquitor: Mr. Post, where the f were you when Obama screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK? That whole property rights thingy . . . . Where were you when Becerra was threatening journalists?
What the hell difference does that make? I've said it before - if you want to think I'm a horrible hypocrite, that's fine with me. WHETHER I'M A HYPOCRITE IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS WHETHER OUR PRESIDENT IS DESTROYING THE RULE OF LAW.
Mr. Post: You are a hypocrite. Trump is using the same playbook as was developed under Obama and Biden. Your guys fight dirty, and we're supposed to play by Marquess of Queensbury rules?
Only if you're better than the loathsome creatures you despise...
I think the real problem is if Trump acquires enough de facto power to start firing employees who obey court orders.
And going after members of Congress who won’t vote to impeach judges who cross him.
"if?"
He's 78.
Naaah, that impllication , that if the world would elect you Emperor, is really another form of that same problem.
Alito, Thomas are solid. I've watched them for years, didn't always agree but one should expect that.
Roberts is terrible but many of us notice you enshrining 3 of the stupidest humans ever to wear the robes.Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Really, after decades of watching the courts, these 3 are disgraceful !!!! So , sorry, I have to think you are gay or pro-abortion or something like that. You don't like Trump but you never bash Biden, the worst public leader in my lifetime, and Harris just behind him
Where were you when lawyers were being disbarred for being Trump supporters? It is still going on. Wake me up when the anti-Trump lawfare stops.
Were they disbarred for being Trump supporters or were they disbarred for taking unethical actions on behalf of Trump???
Here's a tip: bar association investigations and decisions are publicly available. Why don't you read one of them.
Here is John Eastman: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/state-bar-court-hearing-judge-recommends-john-eastmans-disbarment Link to 100+ page disbarment opinion embedded therein.
He gave legal advice. Wasn't unethical. The certification to be provided by Congress was put to a vote, which means that each legislator could vote how they wanted.
Let's take hypothetical: It is now very clear that the Biden campaign through Tony Blinken got a CIA guy to clear the letter written by the 51 intel "professionals" regarding the Hunter laptop. That was done to influence the election, and Biden used that at the first debate. What if I gave the advice that we should lobby COngress to vote to certify Trump electors on the basis that the interference described above made the election unfair and could be chargeable to Joe Biden? Should I be disbarred for that? Keeping in mind that legislators can vote how they want.
I'm sorry did you have a comment about the link I posted explaining in exacting detail why John Eastman's law license in CA was removed?? Did you find some fault with their reasoning, with the facts, the applicable standards applied??? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
I don't care about your hypotheticals and attempts to derail the comment thread i was responding to.
Here, let's try again this time with...rolls dice... Rudy Guillani: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2024/07_Jul/02/PDF/Matter%20of%20Giuliani%20(2021-00506).pdf
It absolutely was. Indeed, as Trump's own White House Counsel told Eastman, "I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life: get a great fucking criminal defense lawyer—you're going to need it."
If you were a lawyer, which I don't believe you are, sure. Remember that disbarment is to protect the public, not for punishment, and nobody stupid enough to think that doing things to "influence" an election is wrongdoing is mentally competent to be a lawyer.
“If you were a lawyer, which I don’t believe you are”
I asked this individual if they were a lawyer directly at one point. I believe it was during a heated defense of “Ricky Vaughn”. They demurred and said they had “big law experience” … make of that what you will.
The Eastman rehabilitation tour is going to be so painful to witness. Jeffrey “smart thermostats” Clark’s as well.
"Remember that disbarment is to protect the public, not for punishment, and nobody stupid enough to think that doing things to "influence" an election is wrongdoing is mentally competent to be a lawyer."
Someone call Alvin Bragg and Juan Merchan. Try to keep your story straight, hmmmkay?
What happened with the Hunter laptop is that government officials leveraged government power at the behest of the Biden campaign to use misinformation to suppress a story. That rendered the election fundamentally unfair. (The government power was that some of these traitors had to get clearance to sign their names to that bullshit.) Now we can disagree about the remedy, but my view is that DJT was entitled to fight fire with fire, and he certainly had the right to lobby elected officials to vote to certify his slates of electors.
Who the fuck (again, sometimes profanity is required) do you think was president in October 2020?
Even if any of the premise were true — it's not; nobody has identified a single false statement in their letter, and also no story was suppressed — that would not in fact "render the election fundamentally unfair." "People telling lies about themselves or their opponents makes an election unfair" makes Dr. Ed look like Albert Einstein.
He had no "slates of electors." He had some people cosplaying at being electors, but none of them were voted for.
Each candidate has a slate of electors for each state. Congress could have certified Trump's slate in particular states notwithstanding what was reported by the applicable state.
And just because Trump was president doesn't mean that government actors didn't do him (and the American people dirty) or are you good with government actors squashing stories like that? The letter wasn't just Biden calling Trump a liar--these guys got expedited clearance to publish this shit, and the FBI, by the way, knew the laptop was authentic. Spare me.
It's that kind of thinking that got Eastman disbarred. It could not in fact do that. Not as a matter of statute or as a matter of the constitutional.
As to the rest, no story was squashed. You may have a poor memory (maybe you're on board with Kazinski's theory that Trump illegally exiled people to El Salvador because it was just too hard to remember the judge's order not to do that?), but everyone else remembers that the story was discussed extensively in the next few weeks.
What the hell are you talking about?
Even to the extent that's true, what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
So Congresscritters don't have the power to vote how they see fit and people don't have a right to ask them to vote a certain way?
The letter signed by the 51 had to be cleared by the government first--Blinken's mission was to get that clearance. By the way, did you tell Bragg/Merchan about influencing elections? Keep your story straight.
The laptop was a problem for Biden. Government fixers cleaned it up. Yeah, fair election.
That is correct. Counting electoral votes is a ministerial act and they have no authority to "vote how they see fit" with respect to that process.
"That is correct. Counting electoral votes is a ministerial act and they have no authority to "vote how they see fit" with respect to that process."
So if a majority had voted to certify Trump as winner of say, Georgia, then that vote would have been ignored?
You seriously think that a lawyer can be disbarred for asking Congresscritters to vote a certain way? Who's the fucking fascist?
By "asking" you mean "creating forged documents and then trying to use violence to intimidate them into accepting those documents."
Trump called on peaceful protest. Get that right, dipshit.
1) He also called for a violent assault.
2) And we're not talking about Trump at the moment; we're talking about Eastman.
I don't really know what "Congresscritters" means but you keep saying it so I assume it's really important to you.
I don't think a lawyer should be disbarred for asking "Congresscritters" to vote a certain way. (I don't actually know what any of this means but I'll take your word for it)
But I also don't think having opinions about the correct set of professional standards for lawyers makes you a fascist. Like I could imagine some countries where lawyers are very strictly limited in their engagement with politics, and others where they're allowed to engage freely in politics, and the distinction between those countries isn't fascism.
What would be fascism or not would be particular views about the actual mechanism of punishment -- like, if you thought, irrespective of what rules were applied to lawyers, that punishment could be meted out unilaterally and with no process by the avatar of the state on his personal say-so, that could be a fascist-ish argument, whereas if you argued that the correct process for bar discipline is that a complaint is referred to a bar, and the bar evaluates evidence according to some pre-prescribed standard and the accused has a right to defend themselves etc. etc., that would not be very fascist.
Dude, eschew surplusage.
If Eastman really did something wrong, it would not take 128 pages to explain it. None of these anti-Trump lawyers have been disbarred yet.
Roger S — Maybe think that over. It could be reality knocking on your noggin.
That is an interesting standard! The longer the report, the more likely it is false, because the truth is simple.
I can see the appeal...
"Any libertarians left out there?"
You mean the four of them who were actually sincere? Or all the others who can't hear you now through those white sheets on their heads?
I don't think our resident MAGARINOs actually claim to be libertarian, do they?
I think Brett is really the only one here who maintains that he is. (He's not, but it appears to be a matter of self-delusion rather than dishonesty.) The other MAGA people here don't even pretend.
Here's the problem. Trump is using the same tools that big city Democrats and the Obama/Biden Admins have been using for years.
Where were all of you when Obama decided to mess with the stay bonuses for AIG employees. He should have been sent to jail for the rest of his life for that. Or how about the crazy investigation of Tesla for not hiring TPS aliens, when they weren't eligible to work on the projects? What about Holder blowing off the House on Fast & Furious? What about the DOJ going after people protesting what school boards were doing? What about confirming Xavier Becerra after he illegally threatened journalists? Wanna keep going? I can.
The problem for these law firms--their racially discriminatory hiring/promotion practices. Trump has them by the balls.
How many executive orders did Biden and Obama issue targeting conservative law firms again? Of those, how many agreed to do tens of millions of dollars of pro bono work advancing the administration's priorities?? I don't know if you addressed the topic at hand in your stream of whataboutisms.
What makes law firms so special? Are they superior to the journalists that Becerra threatened?
The point is that these tactics come from the rules that you guys came up with. 🙂 Now the shoe is on the other foot.
You mean the only oxen being gored that matters is law firms? The rest of the oxen can get gored all day long, and that's just life?
Yes, the only conclusion that one can draw from my comment is that ONLY LAW FIRMS MATTER.
For fucks sake people. The topic at hand is executive orders by the President targeting law firms. So how many did Biden issue? How bout Obama? What about GW Bush? His father? Bill Clinton? Of those firms targeted, how many agreed to do tens of millions of dollars of pro bono work to get the executive order lifted?
Ill wait for your on topic response.
Different tactics and different oxen gored. Your side is getting a taste of your own medicine--sucks, doesn't it?
But our side was supposed to watch and sit idly by when Obama and Biden green-lighted a Logan Act investigation against Flynn or when a DOJ resistance clown doctored documents to get a warrant in an ex parte proceeding.
You're killing me. Please spare me the sanctimony.
I will bring one off-topic thing--remember when Trump offed Soleimani, a war criminal with the blood of child soldiers and American servicemen and women on his hands. Joe Biden, a disloyal bastard, criticized Trump. We should have had a united front once the deed was done, but disloyal Biden elevated his political fortunes over the interests of the US. You all can go to fucking hell.
Setting aside that nobody, least of all Joe Biden, owed any loyalty to Donald Trump in the first place, this is yet another lie; Biden didn't criticize Trump. Here's Biden's statement:
https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1212954848666234880?lang=en
Although I can see why "I hope he has thought this through" would be seen as an attack on Trump. (It's kind of like how when Ted Cruz told the RNC in 2016 to vote their conscience, everyone understood that this was a criticism of Trump.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-no-benefit-doubt-trump-soleimani-strike-n1111956
My god, you're a douchebag.
I don't really think it's very appropriate to insult someone like that and I don't understand why you want to send people to hell for disagreeing to you. This is like not a psychologically normal way to speak to people.
Anyway, I don't really understand your argument here.
The debate seems to be that everyone agrees this random Iranian dude who got blown up was, like, a bad dude. And in an ideal world, like, bad dudes would, like, get blown up. But in the real world sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. So the debate here is basically whether or not blowing up a bad dude has negative consequences downstream.
And one position is like "No, it doesn't, we should blow up bad dudes". And another position is like "In this particular case, the cost is worth the benefit". And another position is like "In this particular case, the cost doesn't seem worth the benefit". Those are all arguments it's possible to make. And none of them are "I don't think he's a bad dude", but that's also an argument you can make.
So it sounds like, you characterized Biden as being a disloyal bastard for criticizing Trump, because people have the obligation to support the president once the president makes a foreign policy decision. That doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone criticizes foreign policy decisions. Trump criticized Biden's foreign policy decisions, and Obama's, and Bush's, and... and it's good that he did! He's right! Iraq and Afghanistan were terrible misadventures that cost a ton of money and blood for no reason. Is he a traitor for saying that? I really don't think so. I also think Biden was a bit of a foreign policy incompetent. I would be really surprised to learn it's treason to say that. I hope I am not prosecuted for treason, and I really hope I don't go to hell. Hell sounds really bad.
Anyway, it seems especially silly because the context here is an active election campaign. If you can't dispute someone's foreign policy in the context of an election campaign, how would any challenger ever be able to talk about foreign policy at all? Like even if you believed that in general presidents are owed deference -- I don't think you do believe that, but maybe you do -- it would still be the case that a political opponent in the context of an election would be one of the few people who would have space to offer a criticism. I don't really see any possible way to understand your position as a general rule and I'm trying hard.
But then the actual debate you're having here is that you characterized Biden as "criticizing Trump", David linked a statement that seemed to be a tempered but not critical statement, you linked another statement that is actually about a slightly different thing -- not conducting the strike itself, but about a rationale offered for conducting the strike -- but in the same thing you quote, Biden says that in principle he'd have been willing to make the same decision if the evidence was good enough, but he doubted the evidence was good enough. So he's being a little more critical in terms of his general trust in trump, but also a little more deferent in terms of the foreign policy process. It seems like you guys both agree about where Biden is, but the argument is just about whether or not that statement is critical enough to be considered critical? I think that's a really strange thing to tell someone to go to hell over.
You should seek help. First, these guys started the whole name-calling thing, so I don't mind retaliating. If it offends your idea of civility, so be it.
This post is an obvious troll. Soleimani has the head of the IGRC, found in a war zone, and Trump offed him. The issue isn't criticizing foreign policy--that happens all the time. Rather, the issue is criticizing/not supporting the Commander-in-Chief taking out an enemy WHO WAS A WAR CRIMINAL WITH AMERICAN BLOOD ON HIS HANDS. HE EMPLOYED CHILD SOLDIERS.
Biden chose to try to score cheap political points, rather than voicing his support for this action. Fuck that disloyal POS.
Okay yeah it sounds like Soleimani is a bad dude. Stipulated. We all agree. All those people in this conversation who think Soleimani is not a bad guy are, like, wrong, I guess?
I'm not sure I understand the rest of your point. Do you think you could try explaining it? As I see it, your position is that some criticism of foreign policy is permissible, and other criticism makes you a disloyal piece of shit, a bastard, a traitor, and someone who should go to hell (I cannot in my life imagine being this angry about someone). And the distinction between the two is if the subject of criticism is the cost-benefit tradeoff or downstream risks of killing a bad guy, that criticism is not allowable.
It seems like criticizing the cost-benefit tradeoff or downstream risks of killing a bad guy is a very ordinary type of foreign policy criticism (and I'm not really sure why it's worse than criticizing other aspects of foreign policy). It is almost directly analogous to Trump, who criticized the wisdom of the Iraq War without endorsing Hussein or denying Hussein's evil. I don't think Trump is a disloyal POS and a bastard and a traitor and should burn in hell because he correctly criticized the cost-benefit tradeoff of the Iraq war and the risk of engaging in it. If you do, okay, that's fine, again I can't stress enough that it seems very weird and psychologically disturbing to just be pumping out this much bile, but I accept that you sincerely believe that about him.
I don't think the distinction between criticizing the cost-benefit of, say, foreign aid and criticizing the cost-benefit of a specific military strike (which, again, let me say, was against a bad guy, who was a bad guy, because he was a bad guy. You don't need to repeat that he was a bad guy when you reply again. I agree he's a bad guy. Yes I saw your post that explained he was a bad guy.) is an interesting one and I remain confused as to why that's the distinction being made. The fact that he's a bad guy is part of the benefit side of the cost-benefit equation. That's what "benefit" means in the context of cost-benefit, the reason you're doing the thing and what you hope to achieve. Was that the confusion?
Watch the clients leave. Can they stay solvent while the clients leave?
Paul Weiss is waiting to steal clients.
Oneor more of these firms will be bankrupt by 2028
The commenters defending this are amazing. Just amazing.
They would have been Nazis if they had had the chance. And I'm serious.
I am supposed to stand up for organizations that had blatantly illegal hiring/promotion practices? Really? Where were you when Lisa Page was helping to edit the 302s with Flynn? Where were you when Becerra was threatening journalists.
You're supposed to stand up for freedom of speech and the freedom of lawyers to represent clients the President doesn't like.
Hiring practices have shit to do with it.
GM's bankruptcy has shit to do with it.
And even if your BS about Becerra and Page were true it wouldn't have shit to do with it either.
So stop spouting irrelevant whatabouterisms. You look foolish.
It's a matter of public record that Becerra went after journalists for basically the same thing as Goldberg did. You're the fascist, not me.
Things that happened only in your head are not analogous to things that really happened.
Are you seriously disputing that Page edited the FD-302? Are you seriously disputing that Becerra thugged it up with journalists. God, you are dumb.
Again: the 302 matched the original interview notes. There were no changes to it, no versions that said anything different. If you think otherwise you're misinformed/gullible/lying.
Page edited it---way the fuck out of process. And why did Brandon Van Grack withdraw?
1. Page did not edit it, no matter how many times you say it. It was identical to the notes taken by the agents who conducted the investigation.
2. You'll have to ask Brandon Van Grack.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it/
bernard11 — Yeah. It is only in retrospect that it becomes possible to conclude it was nearly impossible, or even unlikely, to be pro-Nazi. Among folks who are not political philosophers, or at least interested bystanders in the subject—which is to say among almost everyone—whatever happens politically evokes mostly cynicism, and non-critical desire that it could just be taken care of without need to notice.
Typical daily life, with the least disruption please, is not only what ordinary folks want to support, but the likely limit of what they will support. What they don’t support, they rarely oppose.
Then you guys should have stood up when Obama was going after AIG employees, but you didn't. Spare me your sanctimony.
Wow. AIG made a series of terrible business decisions that rendered it bankrupt without a government bailout. But rather than face up to their mistakes, its executives pilfered the remaining cash and used it to award themselves huge and completely undeserved bonuses which simple equity demanded be clawed back. Nobody who runs a company into bankruptcy deserves a huge bonus just before it goes bust. The creditors had every right to stop payment demand clawback.
And you’re sitting here accusing Obama of doing something that was in some way wrong on this matter? You folks get to steal willy nilly, as your friends the AIG executives did and any attempt to hold your friends accountable for their theft is…stealing?
Bullshit.
Do you really think you’re helping Mr. Trump for you to be making it so obvious that you’re a mobster, sitting here talking the way a mobster talks? You really think the kind of talk you’ve been talking is going to make him look BETTER?
Many people stayed on at AIG to protect shareholder/creditor value to manage the wind-down. Obama tried to fuck them out of the bonuses they had earned. Sickening. And now you expect me to care about law firms that, in the name of DEI, violate employment law.
I'd be happy to go back to "norms." I don't like the new reality either--but I like it better than unilateral disarmament.
I guess I don't really understand, ceding the entire argument about whether or not you're accurately characterizing what happened, what's "sickening" about this. I would expect that in most bankruptcies and wind-downs, there are disputes around priority of creditors, and employees would be one class of creditor. I don't know in what percentage of cases employees (or executives) get bonuses for staying during a wind-down, in what cases those are clawed back, and how any of that process is affected by fraud or malice on the part of the company. But it doesn't seem crazy to me that in some cases, such bonuses would be clawed back. That seems like incredibly quotidian administrative law.
I don't really understand how it could be "sickening". Maybe I just have a high threshold for "sickening". A lot of things happen in the world that I don't support or even oppose, but really only very extreme things are things that I find sickening.
Someone not being made whole in a bankruptcy seems, again, just like an incredibly boring everyday thing that happens. It's a bummer! Like, accepting your argument that this is a bunch of good people trying to do the right thing and they deserved these bonuses, then, yeah, I'm sorry for those people! That sucks! It doesn't sicken me. I won't think about this again 45 seconds from now. My kid just stubbed his toe and is crying. That's not sickening either but it's like approximately 1,000,000,000 times more sickening to me than hearing about the details of a 20 year old bankruptcy case.
I think if this is still something you're really passionate about, you should find people you love and trust and talk to them about why this is a thing that really is deeply hurting you on an ongoing basis. I think therapy can be helpful. I feel really bad for you if it's hard for you to get through the day, and again, I'm really sorry about the disposition of a bankruptcy case 20 years ago.
Troll. Salaries of those who remain with a company during a BK wind down are "administrative expenses," which get paid. These people worked to preserve value, and Barack Obama tried to screw them out of their bonuses (that his own Treasury Dept had agreed to). So basically, POTUS was picking on individual people. Dems loved that. Fast forward, now these same types expect the rest of us to shed tears over Jenner& Block. Hardy har har.
The point to all this history is to show that Trump is merely playing by the rules set by Obama and Biden. But that should be obvious, troll.
I don't really understand why you decided to insult me multiple times, and I'm not trolling. I've never heard of you before like 3 hours before and I noticed you made a bunch of very angry, totally unrelated posts about a bunch of things I have never heard of before in the same thread and replied trying to figure out how your brain works.
So, again, to be clear the debate here is about minor nuances of administrative procedure in the orderly conduct of a bankruptcy -- I'll take your word for it that you're right about though I'll say you have not really convinced me of that -- is "sickening" and something that you think justifies a boiling rage 20 years later and is an important thing to understand this completely unrelated thing being done by someone else.
I don't find that sickening, that seems like a weird word to use. I suspect a great many bankruptcy courts in a great many bankruptcy cases have, again yielding your argument, diverged from typical protocols in addressing which creditors get paid out. I can definitely understand why that would be a bummer to someone who didn't get paid out. I don't really find it sickening. It seems like a kind of everyday administrative SNAFU.
I don't actually know what Obama had to do with it, whether he issued an EO on it, or if you're using Obama as a synecdoche for the DOJ as a counterparty to a bankruptcy negotiation or what. That makes the entire argument even harder to follow. But I will grant that if Obama, uh, personally asked a bankruptcy court to make a minor deviation from ordinary bankruptcy administrative procedure 20 years ago in order to score political points, that seems like a kind of a not good thing to do. I would not consider it sickening and it would not make my top 14,501 criticisms of Obama, and I would be very confused by why it was coming up later.
I accept the comparison that sometimes presidents "pick on" individual people and some people like it and some people don't like it and other times other presidents use entirely different means to "pick on" other individual people to an entirely different degree to similarly mixed reviews, and the president, the people being picked on, the people who like it, and the people who don't are all different. I don't think this helps me to understand your motivation or respond to the biglaw firms being discussed here or whatever. It seems like an almost total non-sequitur.
Omg dude, AIG's employees weren't screwed by the BK process--Obama tried to screw them. Let's say you agreed to stay on at AIG, and you busted your butt to make sure that AIG didn't get taken to the cleaners, and part of the deal (signed off on by the fucking Treasury Secretary) was that you'd get stay bonuses, to have the President of the United States try to undo those bonuses is the mark of a banana republic and sickening to those of us who do believe in the rule of law (with my caveat that it is vital that you hit back).
Wage laws exist for a reason. And the point here is that Obama, by doing this, and so many other things set the rules of the ballgame. Trump is playing by those rules.
"So, again, to be clear the debate here is about minor nuances of administrative procedure in the orderly conduct of a bankruptcy." Um no. Stop trying to wing it. You're not smart enough.
You keep yelling at me and then not actually explaining your point. I don't know why you're doing this. I do not understand, psychologically, what is causing you to behave this way.
You have articulated your position that it is bad as a public policy matter that a class of creditors (employees who are owed bonuses) might not get what they are owed as a result of a firm going bankrupt. That may well be true. Maybe it's good that the employees got, or were supposed to get, bonuses. Maybe that's the right incentive. I'll take your word for it.
You seem to be drawing a distinction that because, uh, Obama, like, did something, I don't know what, but he did something, to attempt to modify the bankruptcy deal, that means it's not part of the bankruptcy process. I don't really understand what the federal government has to do with the bankruptcy deal unless it was a negotiated settlement for some kind of bailout, but whatever the case, if the federal government is the one who was negotiating the bankruptcy deal, it seems like what we've identified is essentially an inequitable outcome to bankruptcy proceedings. I agree inequity is bad. I don't think it's sickening. I just don't.
And I don't see how something that happened, again, almost 20 years ago is so vibrant and fierce in your memory as a present day ill. Like, if you get bad service at a restaurant, do you complain that the waiter is treating you the way Obama treated AIG employees, then when they say "I have no idea what you're talking about", you just insult them?
I have no idea why you are insulting my intelligence. I also don't know what "winging" it is in the context of conversation where I am asking you to explain your position, and I am telling you I don't understand it and trying to summarize my understanding of your position.
But setting aside the fact that you, again, continuously insult me for no reason, I don't understand how the alleged sickening abuse of the Obama DOJ by meddling in a bankruptcy deal or reneging it or whatever you're alleging, means that 18 or 20 years later an entirely different president is justified to disregard completely different laws with completely different targets for completely different reasons. Like I get the "Democrats went after political opponents, so we can do it too" argument. I don't think it's a very good argument but I get it. I don't get "A Democrat once did something I'm mad about that has totally unclear partisan or ideological dimensions, and now after being mad about this for year or 20 years, I am authorized to do whatever revenge I want on whoever I want". It seems really weird.
I guess I'd ask you this; When was the last time someone who isn't you brought up AIG employee bonuses in the context of a conversation with you because they thought it was relevant to something? And if the answer is never, it maybe suggests that it probably isn't?
But it absolutely was possible to be pro-Nazi. Many people were. George Orwell wrote several essays explaining that (and how) the basic Nazi line is actually quite persuasive.
I believe it's called the "banality of evil". (Hannah Arendt, take a bow.) Ordinary people, doing ordinary things, in the absolutely ordinary service of a new Lucifer.
Think how privileged we are to see this amazing thing happen again, in real time!
(And no, I don't blame the Jews for trying to get on the other side of this one.)
You guys had nothing to say when Saint Obama went after AIG employees. You were cheerleaders. You can all shut up now.
And you're whining about $40MM in pro bono legal work---um, what about all those settlement payments extorted by the DOJ that go to some left-wing "charity." Professor Post, you're a johnny come lately.
And kissing the ring is better than doing what JD had to do to become VP. He kissed ass, french style.
That's true. Vance is a spineless piece of crap.
And one hell of an ass-kisser. You have to admire it . . . . I trust you got a laugh at the french reference.
Awww, poor commie Post who had nothing to say when lawyers were being disbarred for nothing beyond representing a client he personally despises. Fuck you, you were perfectly fine with this game when you were seeing your enemies being put through the wringer but now there is blowback on your friends and these lesser consequences are too much? GFY.
Do you mean the Kraken attorneys who lied to the court?
You sure are pounding the table a lot more than seems needed if you had a good argument.
I don't think the person you are responding to is a communist. I don't actually know who he is but I think it's really incredibly unlikely they are a communist. I don't understand, accepting your argument as true, why any of it would make him a communist, because communism doesn't actually seem to have anything to do with having really specific opinions about the proper applicability of bar discipline for politically exposed people.
I also don't really understand why you are so personally hurt by him. Like, okay, you feel that some lawyers were unjustly subject to bar scrutiny. That sounds like a bad thing for society, and obviously if I agree with you on the facts, I too would feel that's an injustice.
But then you are, like, second order, upset that some other people that have nothing to do with those lawyers were not upset enough about this injustice. I tend to think lots of people aren't upset about lots of injustices but I don't blame them, there's a lot going on in the world. It's really very weird to worry more about what other people think of an injustice than about the injustice itself, but sure.
But then actually what's going on here, is that someone is upset about an injustice that you're not upset about. And you're angry because you think the injustice you're not upset about is comparable in kind to an injustice you are upset about and that you're upset he's not upset about. Okay. I think I have that right. But it still doesn't really seem like that would lead to really vituperative personal anger. I feel like if that was 'Fuck you" material I'd probably be spending like 18 hours a day telling people to fuck themselves, and it feels like that's not a super productive attitude to have.
I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.
If you were dealing with a genuine person, I'd join in and say that this could be a teachable moment for anyone who might have taken a contrary position in response to analogous circumstances in the past.
But you're dealing with someone who has established that he is a violent, irrational and disingenuous individual. There is really nothing more to say in response. Muted.
Which reminds me of a rather catchy tune from my misspent youth: Agent Orange, "Everything Turns Gray".
1. Someone tell that to those who are blowing up Tesla dealerships
2. Like when the FBI doctored the 302s with Flynn?
3. So when Obama went after AIG employees for their stay bonuses, where were you?
Or how about Operation Chokepoint? What about Arthur Andersen?
4. They fucked over security interest holders in GM’s BK. That’s fascism baby.
5. Didn’t see you saying anything about NY’s jihad against the NRA . . . .
6. But their blatantly illegal hiring/promotion practices? You good with that. Becerra threatening journalists, then getting to be HHS secretary?
7. Mr. Post, where the f were you when Obama screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK? That whole property rights thingy
Where were you when Becerra was threatening journalists?
8. Where were all of you when Obama decided to mess with the stay bonuses for AIG employees? He should have been sent to jail for the rest of his life for that. Or how about the crazy investigation of Tesla for not hiring TPS aliens, when they weren’t eligible to work on the projects? What about Holder blowing off the House on Fast & Furious? What about the DOJ going after people protesting what school boards were doing? What about confirming Xavier Becerra after he illegally threatened journalists? Wanna keep going? I can.
9. Where were you when Lisa Page was helping to edit the 302s with Flynn? Where were you when Becerra was threatening journalists.
10. You guys should have stood up when Obama was going after AIG employees
11. what about all those settlement payments extorted by the DOJ that go to some left-wing “charity.”
-----------
Someone is only posting whattaboutism. Over and over again.
SArcastro: Like I said: If you want to think I'm a hypocrite, be my guest. Whether I'm a hypocrite or not is not as important as whether the President of the United States is fucking us over. GRow up, ok?
You misunderstood. He was cataloguing the inanity of rloquitur, not endorsing it.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_case_123520.html
Yes, Mr. Post, you are a hypocrite. What that does is create skepticism about your real position. My sense is that you don't give a shit about DoJ/Executive branch lawsuits that result in crazy settlement agreements. Or what happened with the Flynn 302s. Or what happened to various and sundry targets of Dem administrations. Trump is simply playing by the rules that you guys created. You used lawsuits; he uses EO. You were fine with the laptop BS (which involved government).
I don't like government strong-arming, but until you guys decide to clean up your side, I am going to enjoy a little schadenfreude.
Oh, and where the f were you when Illinois in conjunction with unions were trying to screw over people who got Medicare compensation to care for profoundly disabled family members? And I am supposed to weep for Jenner? Please.
Again: nothing happened with the 302. Mark Hemingway is not a reliable source. All the documents are out there. The 302 is accurate, and nobody disputes its accuracy. It matches the interview notes.
You're wasting your time. He will ride than one into the crater.
Sarcastro is quoting a prior comment by rloquitur and other similar posters employing Soviet-style whataboutism. Sarcastros other comments are supportive of your position.
I came to the comments expecting people would generally agree with your OP post, as I do. I'm shocked at the amount of whataboutism and false equivalence on display here. You'd think that if you were upset by prior abuses of executive power, your response now would be disappointment rather than nyah nyah suck it losers. I'm starting to genuinely believe you have Russian assets posting in your comments section.
Nope--I am just demonstrating what the groundrules are.
Lol. Dressing your hypocrisy up as "groundrules" fools no one. You have no principles. Own it.
Clients have the right to counsel; law firms do not have the right to the government tit.
Democratic donors have plenty of money. Hundreds of billions including Soros, Gates, Cuban, and Bloomberg. Let them put their money where their mouth is.
These law firms hate half the country. Bye.
David Post is probably fine with Project 65 and it's efforts to file ethics complaints against conservative lawyers. Two wrongs don't make a right, but calling out unethical behavior and deciding to send government business elsewhere should not be controversial.
Probably!
[...]
Setting aside the made up facts (as highlighted by Sarcastr0), as well as minor details like the fact that it's actually the 65 Project, not Project 65 (facts aren't really in MAGA's wheelhouse), reporting people to neutral investigators for their own actions is nothing like acting as judge, jury, and executioner of thousands of lawyers based on a personal whim.
If Trump wanted to report Pomerantz, or Weismann, or whoever, to the bar for investigations, that might or might not be justified but would be entirely different than what he's doing.
The bar associations are probably loaded with Trump-haters.
Probably!
The bar associations are probably loaded with Trump-haters.
Roger S — If so, give it some thought. Reality knock, knock, knockin' on your noggin?
Maybe let it in.
I don't really have a strong feeling about the broader argument, but just reading the thread here, it feels like like David Post wrote a post saying "you should not drop a nuclear bomb on a state because someone you don't like lives in it", and the top level reply was "oh, but you're ok with reporting someone you don't like to a disciplinary committee? Hypocrite.", and then David Nieporent said "those aren't the same thing, reporting someone to a disciplinary committee is reasonable and the other thing is not", and then your reply is "I don't think the disciplinary committee would be fair".
So I guess I can't really follow. Okay, the disciplinary committees aren't fair, sounds good. Now what?
But…an open ethics investigation by your state bar association can have negative consequences. Alan Dershowitz says that 65 Project’s ethics complaints against him preclude him from getting admitted pro hac vice in states where he needs special admission to represent clients. And it can cost an attorney thousands of $$ to defend against the baseless ethics charges.
Against my better judgment, I watched Karoline Leavitt tell lies today from the lectern in the White House press briefing room. Her briefing simply reinforced my fear that Trump and everyone in his administration can lie and make up their own “alternative facts” — as suggested once by Kellyanne Conway — and there will be no consequences. Sorry to sound so melodramatic, but this lack of accountability scares me. I’ve been studying history and politics for more than fifty years, and I don’t recall ever feeling so helpless.
More Curious. I know that helpless feeling.
But maybe return again to that study of history for a bit. It teaches that underlying politics more fundamental concepts exist, concepts traditionally relied upon to both empower and to constrain politics.
Because that kind of governance cannot by definition be political in nature, it has to rely on other principles, such as a posited legitimacy for pure power, exercised at pleasure, and without constraint, by a legitimate sovereign. That principle, expressed in so many words by founder James Wilson, had for more than two centuries provided the backbone of American constitutionalism.
Lately, the nation, to its peril, has drifted toward outright disregard of Wilson's principle. The Trump administration's actions could not more plainly express an intention to open a contest for sovereignty against the People themselves.
Thus, these are parlous times because political breakdown is pushing controversy toward that initially-relied-upon higher level of governance, where power matters more than prescribed process. The American Revolution was itself a founding principle, but not a principle to rely on for predictable results if tried again.
I think the trick to make use of that insight could be to imagine pure-power levers that might be available, but which stay as far as possible from invoking the overwhelming force implied by revolution. All-out contests of force are rightly a dismaying prospect, because force implies unbounded outcomes, and uncertain prospects concerning which prospects would result.
So instead, I try to narrow consideration to the the essential quantum of force used to establish our own political system at its founding, the notion of joint popular Sovereignty. That at least has been associated with familiar and long-accepted outcomes.
Admittedly, that advocacy of mine has not yet got much traction on this forum. My hope is that as crisis continues to knock down alternatives, concentration on what might be done creatively with not-so-novel re-applications of existing sovereign power will get more acceptance.
For instance, grand juries seem possibilities worthy of consideration. They are historically structured to act as tribunes of the sovereign People, not under the supervision of any branch of government. It is barely possible to imagine grand jury members beginning across the nation to take advantage of an acknowledged power to act at their own initiative, without supervision by the administration, the courts, or the congress.
What could they do? One possibility is apparently well-precedented in the colonial records of Virginia and Massachusetts, where its use has been documented by the late historian Edmund Morgan. Morgan wrote that it became fairly common during the 18th century for colonial grand juries to resort to the petition power, framing at their own initiative grand jury petitions to governing authorities.
Those, Morgan suggested, conveyed a double message. On the one hand, they invoked the rights of the people acting in their capacity as citizens as supplicants, to approach their governors to appeal for redress of grievances. But on the other hand, said Morgan, the petitions, coming from grand juries instead of from mere individuals, were meant to assert sovereign power, and to remind their governors that they were being commanded to attend to business put before them by an authority higher than their own.
I want to learn more about that now-obscure tradition, to see if it could in some way be adapted to alleviate the nation's present crisis. For instance, what might be the effect if grand juries across the nation, acting on separate initiatives, were to petition the Supreme Court for immediate overturn of Trump v. United States? And to word those petitions as Morgan said was done formerly, as both citizens' supplications for redress, and a sovereign's demand for compliance, supported by a sovereign's power to act at pleasure, and not under constraint of the Court? I wonder if an occurrence such as that could persuade the Court toward a properly reflective reconsideration Trump v. United States—which I take as a rival for Dred Scott as the most dangerous decision the Court has ever handed down.
Thank you for your insight. You've piqued my interest, and I will do a little reading about it. By the way, it's refreshing to read a comment that's not filled with snark, ad hominem attacks, stupidity, and vulgarity. Maybe that in itself is reason for optimism.
The defenders here are all so shallow in their arguments, and deep in ragey delusions about the left, I have no doubt they would support a bloody ideological purge.
Well beyond Good Germans to banal and evil.
Sarcast0, please do not underestimate the banal evil accomplished by, "Good Germans."
I agree that a great deal of evil may be implied by portents of present events. I shrink from conceding it could go as far as Nazi Germany.
Even the entire overthrow of American constitutionalism, and its replacement by a routine totalitarian-syle government would be unlikely to go that far. I presume you can see I join you in being extremely worried,
Imagine Nazi Germany "without the Holocaust".
Now imagine these folks opposing it... (You will have to.)
I appreciate the discussion. Perhaps this blog will discuss this matter, which also seem relevant to those who run this blog:
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/03/aaup-fills-void-columbia-administration.html
Need some napkins?
Attorneys are great at over dramatizing issues. Call it what you want. The American people signed up for this. Big Law needed to be reigned in. And good that they are.
CronosTruth — You posit that separation of powers and due process is one thing, and popular governance is another, and the latter gets power to veto the former? No need to supply any drama to conclude that is totalitarian.
Spare me. None of this is totalitarian. It's just big city politics writ large.
The reality is that it would be nice to go back to norms (yes, BigLaw should be hammered for the employment practices, which are totally illegal), but these guys have been sticking it to people for a long time. Scores need to be settled.
Still nothing more than a fabrication on your part, and also doesn't have anything to do with Trump's threats.
You lose all credibility with that.
You lose all credibility for pretending that Trump's orders have anything to do with that, as opposed to personal grudges about their lawyers, but in any case, show me a single ruling that any of the firms we're discussing has illegal employment practices.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Okay, suppose I agree that BigLaw's hiring practices are illegal. That sounds bad. It sounds like the DOJ could investigate that, and charge them with that. Then courts would convict them, or they'd settle and do a consent decree or whatever. Right, like this is how approximately 100% of all illegal behaviors of this nature are dealt with.
But here we're talking about an executive order that unilaterally decrees a punishment without contest, and then yelling when people try to go to court to contest it.
So the conversation is not actually about whether or not it should be possible to punish companies for committing illegal acts, it's about the manner used to punish companies for committing illegal acts.
Then, someone responds to you to say -- and yeah I notice that he also disagrees with you on the facts, sure -- that, you know, the manner of the punishment and whether or not an offence was committed aren't the same thing. Then your reply is that that loses "all credibility". But I'm not really sure why that would make him lose all credibility.
If you think it's really important punishments be meted out by EO rather than going through the process, that's fine, you can make that argument. But I just don't understand why it's literally incredible that anyone would ask you to or disagree on that point.
Trump spared them the legal expenses and got them to settle quickly. A DOJ case would allow every disgruntled lawyer there to take a wet bite out of their asses. Trump did them a favor.
Okay, so just to wrap up here, your understanding is that due process is bad because criminals should want to be punished unilaterally because it is faster than a trial, and that early on when people said "unilateral punishment is bad" and you replied with "but they committed a crime", you expected people to understand this position, and when someone said "whether or not someone committed a crime doesn't affect the argument that due process is important" and you said they "lost all credibility" by saying that, that's a position that was supported by your assertion that people should not want due process because they should want to be punished without an opportunity to defend themselves.
I just want to note that upthread you called me a troll repeatedly because you thought I was insincere in engaging with you and also you're mad because other people who aren't me insulted you which gives you the right to insult whoever you want, including me. Very, very weird.
The law firms obviously saw that folding is in their own interests. They are in a unique position to understand what vulnerabilities their hiring/promoting practices. Trump hit them with an EO, rather than a Bondi lawsuit (which would have set up intrusive discovery etc. etc,). Would I be ok with this absent what the rules of the game set up by Obama and Biden are? Probably not, but Obama/Biden did much worse things, and the pearl-clutchers had nothing to say. You guys want Trump supporters to rein him in, well, too bad.
And the law firms had due process rights--they could have filed a lawsuit, but chose not to.
I mean, that's not what those words mean. A government official can't punish someone without notice or a hearing and then say, "Oh, as long as you can challenge it in court, no harm, no foul." Due process requires pre-deprivation process in almost all circumstances.
This reply doesn't seem related to the conversation. It seems like you switched your argument from "firms deserve this" to "actually, I let the firms off easy by not giving them due process, which they should not want, because they'd lose, so they should rather be punished unilaterally". That seems like a very weird and twisty argument.
For one thing, from the point of view of Trump Good Lawyers Bad, If Trump could have punished them more harshly, why didn't he? If Trump could have exposed their evil further, why wouldn't he? This is what he was elected to do, smash these evil liberals and their evil liberal lies. He is the instrument of your vengeance as he said.
It's clear to me that punishing someone unilaterally and then offering them due process to sue afterwards (while simultaneously saying any judges that enjoin the behavior because of lawsuits are behaving inappropriately) is not due process under any country's definition of it. But if it were, I don't understand why you didn't raise that argument before you did?
I'll bring up another topic: Martha Coakley. Coakley is one of the most odious politicians that has ever come down the pike. Gerald Amirault (and others). Some of these stories are heartbreaking (e.g., Bernard Baran, a truly courageous person). And here was Barack Obama, man of justice etc., campaigning for her.
Just fucking spare me, ok? Trump is settling scores. Deal with it.
You are just randomly citing bad things that happened in the legal system. Why not bring up the Salem Witch Trials, the Scottsboro Boys, and, I dunno, the apocryphal crucifixion of Jesus?
Um no. Bernard Baran's case itself may be a random issue--but Obama campaigning for Coakley? That's not random, and any decent person would recoil from that. But that's your side dude. Evil.
I don't follow your argument here. I looked up Martha Coakley. She's a former state attorney general, she ran for senate and governor and lost. Obama maybe campaigned for her in some election, I gather based on what you're angry about. On Wikipedia the only mention of Obama is him criticizing her for losing an election that he thought was winnable. Okay, whatever. It kind of seems like as AG she was like a replacement grade liberal in a liberal state and she did some liberal things because she's a liberal.
How does that get you to "Evil." and "one of the most odious politicians" ever? That seems just facially insane to me. There are a whole lot of odious politicians, across the political spectrum, across hundreds of years, across every country on earth. There is no way that Mortha Coakster (sorry, I've already forgotten her name and I'm too lazy to scroll up) is in the top one million most odious politicians, even if you think she's really bad.
I am really trying hard to understand your arguments but you posted like 11,401 times in this thread and all of them are like 11/10 angry about things that you think are like genocide level moral rot in the country but they're all like random little minor things that don't seem to matter at all. Like, I can't follow it. I feel like the reply analogizing these to "random bad things" is pretty on point. I'm totally willing to accept your factual arguments as being correct about all the things you're upset about, I just don't understand how they cohere into the worldview you seem to have.
It'd be like... it's pretty reasonable for someone to say, you know, Biden did a bad job at helping western North Carolina clean up. FEMA is not effective and it wasn't a priority. And I think the lack of priority was motivated by animus towards the south. And real people were negatively impacted by this!!! And I'm reading this and nodding along. Maybe I agree maybe I don't, but I can follow the argument.
But then I scroll down and the person has posted it 150 times and he's responding to a thread about whether or not the US has a good chance at the 2028 world cup, and he's responding to a thread about the latest episode of the Pitt, and he's responding to a thread about agricultural subsidies, and he's responding to a thread about the Nixon-Kennedy TV/radio debate in 1960, and in all of these, he's telling you that literally the most important event that has ever happened in the history of humanity is Biden's perfidy in western North Carolina.
And I think at that point, maybe I don't quite follow it anymore.
You're a hopeless douchebag and an ill-informed troll. Go look up the Bernard Baran case and the far more celebrated Gerald Amirault case. Coakley was involved in these awful cases. Baran is one of the most courageous people you could ever know. He was gay, was wrongly convicted of child molestation, yet refused to plea to something he did not do, even though prison was gonna be hard for him (obviously).
Campaigning for her was an endorsement of this awful woman. I am sure that David Nieporent would agree with me on the awful awful treatment of Baran.
I think you should stop insulting people, and I think you should talk to people in your life that you love and trust about your issues with your temper. It's not good to act like this. I appreciate that these conversations can get heated but if this kind of stuff sticks with you it probably means you need help dealing with it. A better life is just around the corner, I promise.
To your point, you have identified what sounds like a very sad criminal injustice. I was not aware of it, as it is not a particularly notable or known case and it happened when most of us were children. To the extent Coakley as AG perpetrated the injustice (I'll take your word for it!), that is bad. It also sounds like a pretty typical and pedestrian miscarriage of justice, the kind of which I suspect most medium term AGs oversee at least once, and consistent with hundreds and hundreds of other cases. It speaks seriously about the need for effective post-conviction relief, about the dangers of elected prosecutors (which I oppose).
Somehow you jumped from that to proclaiming that Motley Crue or whatever her name is is one of the most evil politicians in the history of the universe, which seems like a crazy thing.
You used that to indict Obama, because I guess he tepidly endorsed her during one of several elections where she lost. I agree that that reminds us that reflexively endorsing your party's candidate despite his or her flaws is a pathology in the U.S. and people who adopt the "even if this person has very bad judgment, they'll advance our ideological priorities" mentality are definitely selling their souls a little bit. But I think if you were to ask people about Obama, the fact that he once endorsed some second string AG loser would not be one of the top 87,401,539 worse things about him.
I understand that for you it is, and I am really sorry this sticks with you, especially if you yourself were a victim of a judicial miscarriage or sexual abuse or a false accusation.
But I don't really understand how your argument is that some 40 year old error of criminal justice perpetrated by a no-name AG who was tepidly endorsed by a guy who was President 18 years ago and this supports, uh, the current president using executive orders to punish big law unilaterally for illegal hiring practices. In this particular sub-thread we're responding to someone telling you you're bringing up random and apparently unrelated things, and I have to say it seems like he's accurately characterizing what's going on.
Again, if you feel like you're not doing a good job of explaining yourself and want to elaborate more you can. Hopefully without repeatedly insulting me.
Just for the record, the actual prosecutions took place long before Martha Coakley was in office, in the mid-1980s, the height of the Satanic panic daycare era. In the 1990s, after the panic had died down, convictions began to be re-examined, and eventually people realized that the 'evidence' for almost all of these incidents was either utterly fantastical or utterly unreliable. Or both. Coakley came into office as a prosecutor towards the tail end of that reexamination era, and — as prosecutors are wont to do — fought to maintain those convictions in the face of new evidence. Nobody accused her of actual wrongdoing (to my knowledge), but she rather stubbornly and overly zealously fought against revisiting these wrongful convictions.
Okay, and then a decade later, Ted Kennedy died and she ran to replace him as Mass senator. Obama campaigned for her over her GOP opponent.
So Obama is like 3 Kevin Bacons away from anything, but rloquitur has decided to be Big Mad about it.
He's more than earned the gray, in my book.
"Nobody accused her of actual wrongdoing (to my knowledge), but she rather stubbornly and overly zealously fought against revisiting these wrongful convictions."
Funny what gets said when a member of the team does wrong. Pathetic.
Wont somebody please, PLEASE, think of the Big Law Firms!?!
I hear politics is nasty business. Nasty.
Who would want to wade into it?
Why, these brave souls, that's who!
Oh, well.
Sometimes you get the bear. Sometimes the bear gets you.
Having a Niemöller moment, are we?
This is barely the start of a proportional response to the lawfare of the last 10 years.
“we suffered first, and therefore anything we do to make others suffer will always be justified”
I take no position here on the morality of proportional responses. Just an observation.
Why would you "take no position" on such matters?
First - completely agree with everything Post said.
Second, cannot belive the number of commenters whose take is "but Obama/Biden!" Or that this is justified because revenge - I guess wanting our leaders to have integrity and virtue and take the high road is completely out the window.
Third, and relatedly, what's going on with this blog. I expect more discussion of what's going on with this administration (like this post), but crickets apart from Somin and Post. Where's Volokh? Even if this isn't first amendment focused, these EOs have had obvious chilling effects and I'd love to know what Volokh thinks - certainly more than Blackman, who's completely clowned himself by focusing issues like Justice Jacksons voodoo necklace and how Justice Barrett should step down and is dragging down the overall quality of this blog by drowining out other posters with his volume. And Volokhs refusal to implement an upvote downvote system has made the comments section a gigantic waste of time. I don't want to read name calling back-and-forth threads started by some nitwit who may or may not he a Russian asset fomenting dissent. I want to read the best takes and discussion of those takes. I'm sure Volokh has some first amendment rationale for this, but this ignores that much of the free speech in the comments here is garbage and that most people don't have the bandwidth in their daily lives to sift through it (myself included). I'll take the wisdom of crowds over free speech absolutism any day in a privately maintained blog. Marginal revolution uses the vote system and the quality of its comments section is so much better as a result.
You might ask why I'm posting something so long if I say I don't have bandwidth. The relative rarity of posts like the OP given what's going on with this administration and rule of law and the number of nasty and intellectually dishonest comments have made me hit the breaking point. Which is a shame. I've been reading this blog for over a decade and remember when it was more than niche first amendment posts and Blackman blathering nonsense, and when the comments section was intellectually engaging.
Dear TDS sufferer,
If history is any guide, Somin will sustain his current pace of 1-2 peak TDS posts per business day for the entire 4 year term. For all his faults, that's some remarkable volume and stamina. Post on the other hand will be more infrequent and flame out periodically, but the sheer level of hysteria will partly make up for it. There are other contributors like OK that are extremely anti-Trump of course but post about it less frequently. Adler can be relied on to hit some big ticket issues, like offering crappy takes on birthright citizenship, immigration generally and trade policy. I know it won't satisfy the demands of TDS sufferers but just sayin'.
It kinda seems like you're just listing people who have political opinions that aren't the opinions you have, but that aren't really especially extreme, hysterical, or notable opinions other than that? Like, okay, you think birthright citizenship is bad and the constitution doesn't guarantee it. You do you, dude! But is it really surprising, shocking, or delusional that some people out there disagree? I don't really think so.
EV pops up now and then & then goes back to referencing the occasional "interesting lower court ruling," as he did recently regarding a week-old somewhat anti-trans opinion which he posted w/o much comment.
Can we reflect, for a moment, that the real problem here is that the government wields sufficient power to make these kinds of threats and extort these concessions?
I'm not claiming they deserve it, but maybe Big Law needs to reflect on what part they've played in constructing a state so powerful that it can make these threats, both as corporate institutions, and as individuals who operate these firms.
No one deserves to be extorted by the government. But the solution is to not let the state get so powerful that it can extort you so easily.
The government doesn't wield this power, is the thing.
maybe Big Law needs to reflect on
Victim blaming so you can avoid being an actual libertarian.
Fuck you.
Awwww. Are you upset? Did the big bad Twump hurt your feelings?
Is the government not currently wielding this power?
Look, I don't think any company or person deserves to be targeted by the government like this. But if you supported government being big enough that it could wield this kind of influence and power, and then it turns that influence and power on you, are you not responsible to some degree? Even if you didn't deserve it?
(And if any of these law firms is truly innocent and hasn't supported the growth of government by its actions or donations, then I feel doubly bad for them.)
I'm the only one being the actual libertarian here. Shrink the damn government so it isn't so powerful. The government will inevitably be run by irresponsible thugs - stop handing it the power to abuse that. Government should be small enough that you can not care that it doesn't like you.
Look, I don't think any company or person deserves to be targeted by the government like this. But
Like I said, fuck you.
I disagree that "fuck you" is an appropriate response, but your victim blaming is pernicious and in this case appears disingenuous.
"what part they've played in constructing a state so powerful that it can make these threats,"
What part, indeed? Is it your belief that BigLaw partners routinely (and fundamentally) assist in the construction of powerful state institutions? I was not aware. My impression has always been that the architects of such institutions have generally come from within the legislative and executive branches of government--not from within or by BigLaw firms.
How do you arrive at your conclusion?
Well, let's first take everyone who's donated to a political campaign.
-Democrat, supported larger government. (Basically every democrat in the lifetime of anyone still living).
-Republican, probably supported larger government. I doubt many gave to a Republican candidate who meaningfully and non-performatively wanted to reduce the size of government.
Can you find a BigLaw firm or partner who *only* donated Libertarian? Well, they'd *possibly* fall under the truly innocent.
Okay, now, have they ever, in the case of a legal dispute, argued for an interpretation of the law that expanded government's power, or settled in a way that tacitly or explicitly approved such an expansion? Or has the law firm or the individual lawyer lobbied for (or contributed to) particular drafting of legislation that makes government more powerful in any sense. I'd hazard a guess that most have at various points.
Also, the executive/legislative branch and BigLaw aren't exactly disjoint groups. Many lawyers become involved in government, and many go back to practicing law at some point. Take Neil Eggelson, for example. He's bounced back and forth between working for the government and working for law firms, including Kirkland and Ellis. One of the ways this is lucrative is in using your knowledge of overcomplicated government bureaucracy and regulation to help companies navigate that bureaucracy and regulation - which of course creates incentives to complicate that bureaucracy and regulation so that your knowledge is valuable (or otherwise support and defend that complication). Which is exactly what Eggelson did at Kirkland and Ellis - used his insider knowledge of government regulation to help companies navigate it.
(How many specific examples do you want? Because these aren't terribly hard to find).
The reason we can't have a readable tax code is because tax lawyers would be out of jobs, so they lobby against simplifying it. All the loopholes and differential treatment of income sources is a feature, not a bug.
I should say *seems to be* what Eggelson did at Kirkland and Ellis.
Nieporent--you are a lying POS.
Yeah, Page edited the 302.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it/
No matter how many times you say it, it won't change the fact that the 302 wasn't edited, but matched the original notes taken by the interviewers.
Well, given Andy McCarthy is (a) not a big fan of Trump and (b) also researched this stuff extensively, he's authoritative on this point. You're a loser who trashes his own credibility for "the team," and those guys wouldn't give you the time of day. You're a douchebag--own it bro.
100% of what you guys are arguing about is whether the 302 report reflects the notes. I read this blog post you linked multiple times (I'll note the blog post is mostly arguments and not evidence, but let's say the arguments are reasonable) but it doesn't seem to speak to this point. It does seem to suggest the 302 report was assembled in a non-standard way, and it suggests that this is bad. But Nieporent claims the judge saw the original notes and the 302 report. In other words, they could throw out the 302 report entirely and just use the original notes. So I don't really understand how the blog post addresses the thing you're actually arguing about.
Was it necessary to insult the person you're replying to twice?
Just saying (and not to detract from the evident entertainment value), but there is probably a point at which treating the disingenuous as though they were ingenuous is itself disingenuous.
Not sure where that point lies, but, you do you!
Read up on what special counsel did in the Flynn case.
If the influential libertarians that post here are going to take their time to call attention to the injustices being perpetrated by the current administration, I'm not sure the victims at big law are where I would start. I'm quite certain that those folks are, in the grand scheme of things, going to be all right.
Meanwhile we have relatively powerless, voiceless, legal immigrants being disappeared off the streets and I don't see much outrage or discussion about it beyond rather dispassionate blogging about how the AEA probably doesn't apply. I think Reason and the Conspiracy get more worked up about Russia disappearing people than they do when it's their own government doing it. Local media is covering these stories. Some typically liberal news outlets are. Libertarian sources like Reason? Nothing.
Trump appears to be attempting to scare firms away from filing suits to challenge his administration’s actions. That threatens persons illegally detained by immigration authorities, among many others.
It seems to me a perfectly natural place to start. The bloggers (if not the commenters) are mostly lawyers, and this article concerns the state targeting lawyers for doing lawyer things.
Yes, it would be nice if they were to post more about the Trump Administration's new (for the US) dissent-punishing practices, but it's their blog.
And now the deranged lunatic Trump has targeted yet another law firm, WilmerHale.
I swear I don't understand the apparent allergy media outlets have to linking to the actual order. I looked at 5 different articles before I finally gave up and went to the WH site myself, and it was the same way with the last 2-3 that came out. Is the actual wording of the order inconvenient to how they want to portray it, or are they just afraid they're going to turn to stone?
The media does not link to studies, lawsuits, polls, etc. My theory is simply that they don't want to do anything to lead people away from their own website; they don't get revenue from clicks away from their sites.
You didn't manage to link to it either!
David is probably right. Most media seems to have a policy of linking only to their own articles, when what would probably better serve their readership would be links to their sources.
However, at the end of the day, the media is a business, not a public service, and they will generally do what they believe is right for their owners.
One way firms like PW get major cases is the GC of a large company needs to show the board they hired "the best" law firm to represent them in a high-stakes matter (litigation, investigation, or transaction). If something goes wrong, the GC and board at least can point back and say, "well, at least we hired 'the best'." It's a form of CYA, and it happens regularly.
Now, what GC or board will see PW as "the best" they can get in a moment of legal crisis? And, in litigation and white collar matters involving the government, will clients see PW's personal dealing with the administration as a boon, or a burden? PW's lawyers remain as skilled as ever (for now), but the PW "brand" sounds very different in corporate boardrooms today.
Another way firms like PW get clients has little to do with the law firm entity or its "brand." Clients hire lawyers, not firms. They hire their former colleague, or their friend, or the lawyer who represented them last time, or the lawyer who's known as being "the guy" in a particular space. Some prominent PW partners will leave, and their clients will follow them. If you want Ted Wells now, you will also want Ted Wells when he's in another firm's office cross-town. (But, at the moment, maybe you reconsider hiring Ted Wells because of his association, and maybe you just go find his equivalent at another firm.)