Below is my column in The Hill on the recent opinion blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order sanctioning the law firm of Perkins Coie for its role, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, in the Russian collusion scandal. The opposition to the order has taken on a certain Shakespearean flare that conceals the underlying hypocrisy of many of these lawyers.Here is the column:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Those ominous words from Shakespeare’s Henry IV appeared at the start of the opinion of Senior District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee. She was writing to bar Trump from carrying out his executive order penalizing law firm Perkins Coie for its conduct during the 2016 election.
Howell would have been wise to add the lines that appeared later in the same play: “Presume not that I am the thing I was.” The fact is that many of those objecting today to the targeting of Democratic firms and lawyers were the very same people who targeted Republican lawyers for years — or remained utterly silent as those attacks unfolded.
After Howell’s opinion, Perkins Coie issued a statement to NBC News that the ruling “affirms … the right to select counsel without the fear of retribution.” But that is a luxury that conservative lawyers have not known for years.
For the record, I opposed the executive orders of President Trump targeting law firms. But it will take more than a Shakespearean flourish to erase the hypocrisy of many lawyers, law schools, and bar groups in this controversy.
In prior years, Democratic groups unleashed a campaign to pressure firms to fire lawyers who represented Trump, the Republican Party, or conservative causes. That included boycotts and pressure campaigns targeting their clients. They were using the same tactic others used against figures like Elon Musk when he purchased Twitter and sought to dismantle its censorship system.
Their pressure campaigns worked. I personally know lawyers who were told to drop Republican cases or else find new employment — including partners who had to leave their longstanding firms.
Some of the letters signed recently by deans and law professors protesting Trump’s orders previously purged their schools of Republicans and conservatives. With only 9 percent of law professors identifying as conservative, most faculties have practically no Republicans or conservatives left.
These campaigns went beyond law firms. Trump Accountability Project, led by former Obama and Buttigieg staffers, made lists of Trump administration officials to hound them out of any employment opportunities.
These blacklists later morphed into a demand for the disbarment of dozens of lawyers and members of Congress.
It is true that these efforts are privately driven — much like the censorship campaigns on social media. But these campaigns often sought to target and harass lawyers and law firms to coerce them into not representing certain Republican clients or causes.
In 2021, I wrote about these campaigns, including one well-funded effort by the Lincoln Project calling upon its nearly 3 million followers to hound attorneys assisting the Trump team in legal battles. It named them and tweeted, “Make them famous,” with an emoji depicting a skull-and-crossbones.
The listed donors of the Lincoln Project are a who’s who of leading lawyers at some of the very firms now objecting to the effort to “intimidate” them today. One such lawyer is Randall Eliason, a past donor to the Lincoln Project who previously defended the campaign against other lawyers.
At the time, Eliason insisted that such campaigns are appropriate and even commendable. After all, he insisted, “these mega-law firms are also big businesses. Like any business, they can be held accountable by the public — and by their other customers.” Now, Eliason is appalled by Trump’s effort “to sanction law firms for doing nothing more than representing clients Trump doesn’t like.”
In fairness, the distinction between boycott campaigns and government actions is legally important. However, there remains a glaring inconsistency in the underlying principles in both governmental and non-governmental campaigns to hound and intimidate lawyers. Boycotts are an important form of public protest, but boycotting law firms and blacklisting lawyers due to their clients is both imprudent and dangerous … including when private parties do it.
Even a mere discussion of legal issues can trigger such cancel campaigns, as I discovered decades ago. What was striking was how lawyers joined such efforts to pressure my school to get me fired or silenced. Just last year, a Democratic donor and a senior partner at Dentons LLP, one of the largest firms in Washington, wrote to my dean to pledge his own boycott. Using his firm title and email, he told me (and the dean) that I had better “stop running your mouth” because my opposing views would not be tolerated. Even law professors have joined in such calls.
These “shut up or else” letters have an impact on deans, who are already not especially inclined to hire conservative or libertarian academics.
Lawyers at these same firms are now adopting a truly Shakespearean pose as heroic champions of free speech and free thought. For many conservatives and Republicans, it is about as convincing as MacBeth claiming to be a pacifist.
The media have also joined in this hypocrisy. For example, 60 Minutes recently featured Marc Elias as a victim of a Trump order in a segment that portrayed Trump as akin to a “mob boss.”
Host Scott Pelley never informed the viewers of Elias’s checkered career history as the lawyer solemnly intoned that “Donald Trump is the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American political system.”
That is precisely the accusation leveled by many against Elias, who has been denounced as a Democratic “dirty trickster” and even an “election denier.” He was the general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign when it funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.)
Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier, but it was discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign had hidden its payments for the dossier as “legal fees” paid to Perkins Coie.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias specifically denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman also wrote, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Elias was also present when John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, denied categorically to congressional investigators that there was any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS.
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were ultimately sanctioned by the FEC over the handling of the funding at Perkins Coie. The DNC later cut ties with Elias and, in 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned him for misconduct. In Maryland, his legal group was found to be pushing a gerrymandered map that the court found would “subvert the will of those governed.”
Pelley and CBS did not consider any of that relevant for viewers to know about their purported victim.
Once again, this does not excuse the current targeting of law firms and lawyers. However, there could be a modicum of recognition of the years of systematically purging conservative lawyers and law professors by some of these very critics.
Trump, to quote King Lear, is saying, “The wheel is come full circle, I am here.” He would have done better to preserve the high ground. However, when it comes to some of his critics, this performance can come across as more of a comedy than a tragedy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University
A question for the lawyers – who is the final arbiter on the granting or revocation of security clearances? The court or the President?
The president has near absolute authority regarding security clearances.
Most everyone should undersand this as it has been addressed so many times with so many conflicts over the past two decades+
From the Sandy Berger or John Deutch or Gen Petraus issues, to Hillary, to Trump to Biden.
National security generally, classified material – what is classified and who can access it are near the exclusive domain of the president.
Congress passed the espionage act. That does NOT define what is or is not classified or anything about the process. It merely criminalizes the mishandling of classified documents by those with a duty to protect them.
What is an is not classified – who can classify or declassify, who has clearance to handle what are all accomplished through executive orders.
But……you’re not addressing the real issue. Trump revoked the security clearances of law firms only as a from of retribution. The problem lies in the fact that in order for those law firms to be able to represent their clients and ensure that there is a fair trial they need those security clearances. Revoking the clearances denies plaintiffs their due process rights and their right to a fair trial. Trump is sole reason for revoking them is because he’s a vindictive SOB.
In the case of the law firms the revocation of their security clearance en masse is reviewable by the courts.
Your question exemplifies how poor Professor Turley’s coverage of this issue has been. No one is arguing that the President cannot revoke security clearances. But, the exercise of presidential authority has limits. One of those limits is when it infringes on constitutional rights like free speech. For example, the President cannot use his authority via an executive order to require every American citizen to wear a MAGA hat. Most would agree that would be unconstitutional compelled speech. Relatedly, the President cannot chill free speech rights by imposing a tax on anyone who fails to wear a MAGA hat.
The argument made by Perkins Coie and the other law firms is a similar one. Denial of security clearance was an action, which chilled free speech rights (i.e., a private law firm’s decision to represent clients, which are disfavored by the President).
Thus, the correct answer to your question is that the President has the power to revoke security clearances, provided such action is constitutional, and the courts have the power to adjudicate whether such action is constitution.
😂 they’ve proved to be untrustworthy. Yes, revocation of security clearances. Lock the door.
Both political fringes are low-ethics, high-emotion and believe in guilt by association. Lesson: don’t ever allow zealots access to political power. Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush Jr., all these Presidents allowed zealots into their spheres of influence, with the result of policy blunders.
Bush thought he could reshape a country like Iraq into a stable Euro-style democracy by toppling a despotic govt.
Obama thought the entire Middle East was ready for such a transition in 2011 — thought he could pull it off.
Trump thought Putin, Xi and KJU were his friends…”we get along good”, while their agents were attacking our country every day with the intent to destroy us. His “2 week shutdown” over Covid led to a massive overreaction of state govts.
Biden fell under the spell of social justice zealots. He pursued those priorities while ignoring all the big threats to the economy and national security.
And now, some in the Trump circle want to exact revenge on political opponents. Employing guilt by association.
Sickening.
ATS
Bizarre rant.
Government is going to make mistakes – that is inevitable.
Everyone makes mistakes and government has MILLIONS of employees.
This is one of the reasons for limiting the power of government – because Government is FORCE, and FORCE is something we wish to avoid making mistakes at all possible costs, the smaller government is the less frequent mistakes are.
With respect to your analysis – there is a great deal of difference between what those in power SAY and what they DO.
It has historically been the norm for presidents to be incredibly careful about what they say. It has been the norm that you could attach myriads of layers of meaning to the pauses or comma’s in a presidential communication.
Everything associated with Trump is at nearly the opposite extreme.
Trump will go from calling another world leader evil to stroking their ego in less than a day.
That can be disconcerting – but the purpose is EXACTLY the same as the communications of presidents who are terribly careful about what they say.
The objective is to accomplish goals – such as foreign policy goals.
Whatever may think, Trump has been incredibly effective in foreign policy – and surprisingly so.
Who would have expected that the largest and only 2nd mideast peace deal EVER would be accomplished by Trump ?
With respect to Putin in Trump’s first term – Trump was politically hamstrung by the collusion delusion nonsense. The US should have normalized relations with Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Instead the “deep state” tried to make Russia into a replacement threat matching the USSR to attempt to continue the cold war and to preserve the power and position that gave them.
As a result we have NATO, the EU all in conflict with Russia in a bipolar way.
Obama talked about a russian reset and even attempted to accomplish it, but was undermined by his own people. To a lessor extent Trump was undermined in his first term – and it is clear in his 2nd term he is not going to allow that. While he does not have a collection of “yes men”.
He does have people committed to the Agenda that got him elected.
Regardless, Trump is going to fawn over Putin – when that suits him and pi$$ on Putin when it does not. Trump is very much a carrot and stick president. He is very overt about it. Most of his threats are loud and in public and often extreme and when you give him what he wants he heaps praise on you.
If that is giving you mental whiplash – I sympathize.
But it WORKS.
The Biden administration was a complete disaster in a large number of different ways.
The Russia.Ukraine conflict has been simmering for a long time. Clinton and neocons of both parties screwed things up during Obama’s presidency. Trump managed not to make things worse in his 1st 4 years. Biden doubled down on the stupidity of the “deep state” from Bush and Obama years and end up with a war that is killing millions.
It is proving harder than Trump promised – which most rational people expected,
But Trump is working to end that war. Zelenski has almost no cards. Even Trump has only a few cards. That means a deal will be favorable to Putin. But Putin does appear to be overplaying his hand You can think whatever you want about world leaders – Putin is not a good guy. Nor is Erodigan or MBS and these are our allies. Regardless, unless you are planning global nuclear war, our president is going to have to work with bad people. Sometimes that means stroking their ego’s.
Regardless, you have it backwards – Xi, Putin, …. are not manipulating Trump. Trump’s remarks about them are Trump manipulating them.
Maybe 8 years ago such thinking was excusable. Today it is not. If you think what Trump says of other world leaders – like Putin or Xi or … is anything except negotiation and manipulation, you are not paying any attention.
“ Regardless, you have it backwards – Xi, Putin, …. are not manipulating Trump. Trump’s remarks about them are Trump manipulating them.”
ROFL!
Nope. Trump is a moron and they know it. Your attempt to explain Trump’s stupidity is astounding. Trump is weaker and has almost no leverage. He’s blinked multiple times and he’s been rolled over multiple times.
What you describe as Trump negotiating by being unpredictable as a good thing is pure balderdash. He has no idea what he is doing and he’s just a terrible negotiator. China knows this and so does Russia and Ukraine. Have you looked at the Ukraine rare earth minerals deal? It’s mostly in Uraine’s favor. What did we get out of it? What did we get out of the UK deal? We still get to pay 10% tariffs on UK cars and products. What do we get in return?
Clown georgie, you have no idea what you are talking about.
First and importantly, the US-Ukraine deal gives U.S. 50 percent of future mineral profits to be turned around into Ukraine internal development (much potentially contracted to U.S. companies)
Second, and very important, Ukraine did NOT get any military or financial guarantee from U.S. in its fight with Russia–THIS WAS A KEY HOLDOUT FOR ZELENSKYY which he ultimately lost.
THe UK-US agreement is likewise mutually beneficial–securing the opening of $5 B non-tariff access to UK for US exports of ethanol and beef, while establishing a mutual PREFERENTIAL procurement program between the two countries.
I would say a lot more, but this is not related to today’s subject.
You TRY to pretend to be so knowledgeable, but instead, you simply lift from left-wing sites and pretend it is your own opinion, just like gigi does.
Anonymous, that’s a lot of “potentials”, “possibly’s”, “May”, etc. Ukraine will still retain full control of the mineral rights and determine how much to distribute to the U.S. We still have to rely on China to process it because we have zero capacity to do that.
We didn’t get the better end of the deal. We still pay a 10% tax on British imports. Lowering tariffs on Rolls Royces that only smattering of people can afford does nothing for everone else.
typical georgie, doesn’t answer the specifics mentions, skirts to other, and BTW, the 10% is mutual
George
Trump is a moron.
No, that award goes to Biden.
What is zealotry ?
Is a secure border zealotry ?
Is seeking world peace Zealotry ?
Is seeking fair trade Zealotry ?
Is trying to cut 37T in debt zealotry ?
Trump has a very public agenda – it is short – not even a full page, Trump campaigned on it for 2 years. It is no secret to anyone.
What part of that agenda is Zealotry ?
You do not have to be in perfect alignment with that agenda.
You can reject some bullet points.
But you can not say we did not know what we are getting.
Even democrats – through the election fully accepted that Trump was going to accomplish that agenda if elected. They painted extreme pictures of that agenda, they labeled the agenda as fascist, authoritarian. But aside from the idiotic and extreme labels and the exagerations, even democrats accepted that Trump was going to fight hard as h311 as president to deliver that very public agenda.
So what exactly is Trump doing that the majority of the country did not vote knowing he would do ? And in most cases knowingly support ?
In what world is what the majority of people what “extreme” ?
You rant about Trump seeking revenge.
Democrats went after political enemies. They went after people over policy differences.
They targeted people criminally simply because they were political oponents or because they disagreed on policies.
They did EXACTLY what Levanti Bria requested – “Show me the man, and I will show you the
crime”
Trump and his people are going after CRIMES. Quite often those crimes are committed by political enemies. But the FOCUS is not on political differences – fights over those are saved for the bully pulpit or by implimenting policies, the focus of PROSECUTIONS is on CRIMES.
Holman has been absolutely clear from day one – impeding an ICE agent – or ANY federal officer in the performance of their duties is a federal crime – and you will be arrested – no matter who you are.
You can oppose what ICE is doing, you can protest, you can write your congressman, you can go on TV, But you can NOT actively impede a federal officer.
There have been a number of Arrests of Democrats who have deliberately chosen to impeded federal agents. This has included judges, mayors, and members of the house.
I do not expect draconian punishments for the offenses so far. But there MUST be consequences. I expect the judges involved will be removed from office, lose their law license.
I expect the mayor to be convicted of tresspass, and receive a suspended sentence. Thoe house members should be disciplined by the house – not the courts. While they broke a number of rules and laws they were conducting legitimate business, and despite their efforts to make accomodating them diffcult they we not tresspassing, and the assults though real are deminimus should be treated accordingly.
The law firms that are losing security clearances have engaged in past conduct that demonstrates they can not be trusted with classified information. That is perfectly reasonable.
I am NOT happy with the “negotiated settlements” as what was agreed to had little or nothing to do with security clearances. But the alternative for these firms is to lose their clearances, and these are deals THEY negotiated.
I would prefer to see all federal funding for colleges and universities, for research, for private entites like PBS and NPR terminated. Government should not be leveraging funding for its own policy goals. But LONG AGO SCOTUS decided that was acceptable, and what we are seeing from Trump is only new in its ideological tilt.
I beleive that Title 9 and the portions of the Civil rights act that apply to private actors are unconstitutional. But SCOTUS has disagreed. Given that the courts found them constitutional, the executive must enforce them on private actors like colleges and universities.
If we do not like that – we can change the law and constitution.
The most controversial of Trump’s actions are enforcing the actual laws that currently exist.
Trump is purging the federal government of “the deep state” – those who have tried to impose their ideology through govenrment rather than the will of the elected representatives of the people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Trump is also purging new hires and shrinking the government – ITS ABOUT TIME.
To the extent I am at odds – “Please Sir can I have MORE ?” At minimum 3/4 of government employees should be RIF’d. They should be returned to productive employment in the private sector – and we should be doing the same at the state and local levels as well.
Regardless no job is a right.
There are also criminal investigations of a number of high profile democrats who targeted Trump. These investigations are based on private criminal referals that were not initiated by Trump. Leticia James should have expected her own mortgage history to be gone over with a fine tooth comb when she targeted Trump over mortgages. Just as she is also now getting targeted – not by Trump but by Cuomo aligned democrats for sexual misconduct in her office.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think that the investigations of James, Willis, Schiff and a few others often for the very misconduct they accused others of – and NOT always republicans. is all perfectly appropriate.
Ultimately though politicians should not target political rivals, the more fundimental problem is that the courts can not be trusted to blindly administer justice.
The Trump prosecutions should have been ditched by the courts quickly as meritiless.
But they were not.
It is the judicial branch that we expect to be apolitical. To enforce the law and constitution – not pick and choose what laws and policies they like – or make up knew ones of their own.
When the judicial branch does its job and ONLY its job – we need not fear politicians engaged in political prosecutions.
John Say,
Great comment!
Nope. Everything Trump does is about his massive ego–pushing people around, bullying them, all because of the needs of his massive ego–and everything MAGA media does is to lie and spin it as something desirable or anything other than what it really is–malignant narcissism and sociopathy at work. How many Americans wanted food for starving babies cut off, or USAID to stop? How many of us want massive cuts to Medicaid to give the billionaires who started MAGA media tax cuts, that Trump’s stupid bottle blondie “press secretary” gives priority at “press conferences””, which are really just pro-Trump propaganda sessions? How many of us want the Department of Education to go away, or make vaccinations for things like measles to be discretionary or have our health and human services run by a weirdo heroin addict with a brain worm who has NO medical background? How many of us want cuts to cancer research or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be dismantled? How about allowing his largest campaign donor purchasing the power to go through tax returns and other confidential information and download it onto PCs? Answer–none of us want any of these things, especially since the true REASON for these things is to pay back billionaire oligarchs who started MAGA media to sell Trump by lying and spinning facts–which is why we are taking to the streets to protest.
Trump is deploying Project 2025–something else he lied about–just like he lied about being able to immediately bring down the cost of groceries, which he had no ability to do. He enacted tariffs–again, by lying about a “national emergency” that does not exist– to bully other countries and because he gets off on what he believes is coercing world leaders to “kiss his ass”. Congress could, but won’t stop him–because Republicans are cowards who care more about their own reelection than the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution. His on-again–off-again stance on tariffs is tearing apart the stock market. When told that orders for Christmas goods have to be placed soon, Trump’s answer was that little girls have too many dolls. Trump’s disappearing of people without due process is another item the majority of us oppose. And, John Say, you can keep on claiming that the “majority” of voters “wanted” Trump and all of the bad and stupid things he is doing–but that isn’t true–he failed to receive even half of the votes that were cast, and polls prove that a large percentage of those were based on the lie about groceries. Another huge reason the pig wanted the power of the presidency–to get “retribution” against his perceived enemies, so he gets another dumb bottle blondie to head up the DOJ–what a joke! The sheer and growing numbers of the protesters and consistency of protest marches all over America prove that the American people have figured out Trump is just a lying blowhard with a big ego who doesn’t know what he’s doing, and we don’t like it. This movement won’t stop, either, so you keep on spinning the MAGA BS, but it’s not working.
Based on your non-legal comments, I have a picture of you in my mind. A lower-IQ or under-educated homely person who has been rejected alot and needs to strike out. Very unlady-like and foul mouthed, very vindictive and revengeful. Since you use the word pig alot, you are probably or at one time were overweight and ugly. You are not very clever and copycat what you read elsewhere. As another means to strike back, you tend to “like” George’s comments.
Am I right?
Wow! Tom–what a SUBTANTIVE response to the points I raised–call me names and unflattering accusations. But the simple truth is that you don’t have any facts with which to argue. Trump did NOT receive half of the votes cast. Most Americans oppose what he is doing, the dissatisfaction is growing, as are the protests all over the country. Nothing of what I wrote is either vindictive ore revengeful, much less profane.
Thanks for showing how ignorant and defensive you are. NO ONE called you any names. Not one. Apparently you have no basic understanding of English grammar. “Unflattering accusations” are NOT name calling. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ENGAGES IN NAME CALLING, “fat pig” “bottle blondie” etc. YOU ARE THE ONE who plagiarizes, has no knowledge of how to cite what you lift from others, copycat with George, and engage in tabloid accusations that have nothing to do with merit. It appears you also might have lied about your background. You ALWAYS upvote George and seem driven by personal animosity, not merit. And Good Lord do you copycat. Even the word “substantive” apparently impressed you when you were told to contribute substantive comments instead of personal attacks. You and George share that trait.
Trump won, fair and square. GET OVER IT and stay on topic from now on and keep your personal attacks to yourself..
“Everything Trump does is about his massive ego”
Possibly – bit that is true of all politicians and everyone in government.
This may be hard for you – but TWO (or more) things can be true at once.
Regardless Gigi, really tired of the broken record claims that everything you do not like is a lie.
No one here lies nearly so much and so obviously as you.
I am not sure if Trump is a sociopath – most politicians are.
Sociopaths are very difficult people to deal with.
But they are NOT all or even mostly criminals.
They are just very good at getting their way.
For voters – left or right THAT is an asset – which is why most politicians are sociopaths.
Voters WANT people who do what they say they will.
“How many Americans wanted food for starving babies cut off”
deceptive quesiton. First no one anywhere in the world today starves because of lack of foreign aide. Every country in the world today is capable of feeding its own people.
When that does not happen it is always political – LOCAL politcs, and has nothign to do with ability to produce food or foreign aide.
I would also note – as we saw in the disaster in somalia – Just because the US pays for food to provide to starving people does not mean it gets to them.
Very little of USAID funding did any good anywhere int he world,
and large amounts of that funding were HARMFUL.
“How many of us want the Department of Education to go away”
Can you name anything that the FEDERAL Department of education does that is actually of value AND works ?
“make vaccinations for things like measles to be discretionary”
You do understand that individual rights do NOT require popular support ?
Fauxi ran NIH and gave COVID to the world – no one in the trump administration could do worse.
“How many of us want cuts to cancer research”
I want govenrment out of research and That is enough.
You and 9 others can not steal from me to support things YOU think are good ideas.
You are free to contriburte voluntarial to any research you want.
“the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be dismantled?”
The sooner the better.
Can you name anything that has improved since the CFPB was created ?
The reality is all govenrment is a cost. the CFPB has made financial services more costly or even unavailable for the poor and working class.
“How about allowing his largest campaign donor purchasing the power to go through tax returns and other confidential information and download it onto PCs? ”
Did not happen. DOGE follows exactly the same rules as everyone else in govenrment for accessing confidential information.
Further it is criminal for anyone in government to disclose personal tax information.
Democrats leaked Trump and others taxes – and I guess you forgot Lois Lehner.
No one leaked Joe Biden or democrats tax returns.
“Trump is deploying Project 2025”
It is called agenda 47 – it has been publicly available for more than a year.
“Trump’s disappearing of people without due process”
Who has “disappeared” ? we know exactly where Garcia and TdA members are.
“John Say, you can keep on claiming that the “majority” of voters “wanted” ”
Polls on Every agenda 47 bullet point before the election had supermajority support.
“he failed to receive even half of the votes that were cast”
49.8% – are you claiming once again that but for Jill Stein Harris would be president ?
“polls prove that a large percentage of those were based on the lie about groceries. ”
Nope.
“Another huge reason the pig wanted the power of the presidency–to get “retribution” against his perceived enemies”
False – but if you actually beleive that – then you should not have weaponized government to go after him.
“The sheer and growing numbers of the protesters and consistency of protest marches all over America”
Not all over america – just in supermajority democrat woke places.
And most americans are offended by these usually violent protests.
Regardless, you are free to protest – but if you think your protests are consequential – you live in a bubble.
John Say: NAME SOMETHING I LIED ABOUT—I dare you. According to “Huff Post”, 233 mental health professionals ran an ad in the NY Times calling Trump “deceitful, destructive, deluded and dangerous.” They said he is “unfit for leadership”. According to the Pew Research Center, 80% of Americans of all persuasions believe that the US should provide medicine, medical supplies, food and clothing to needy people. It is a fact that the US is the wealthiest nation on the planet and that we produce far more food than we can consume. Before Trump, we were proud to share our largesse with needy people. Specifically to the DOGE cuts, 45% of Americans oppose the cuts, whle only 35% approve of them. According to the UN, in Sudan, due to displacement of the population as a result of war, there is widespread famine, 24.6 million people have been displaced, including farmers who raise food. USAID was helping these people until Elon Musk came along. Bill Gates, in an interview with CNN, accused Elon Musk of “killing the world’s poorest chldren” with his DOGE cuts. According to “The Partnership to Fight Infectious Diseases”, 90% of parents of small children support following pediatricians’ recommendations regarding vaccination, and 70% are concerned over declining vaccination rates.
None of those DOGE morons employed by Elon Musk was a government employee, none of them took any oaths, and they DID upload our personal financial and other confidential information onto their PCs. Because they are NOT government employees, some agencies tried to physically block them from entering the premises, only to have Musk’s stooges force their way in. NO ONE voted for this. And, you are just making it up when you claim that Dr. Fauci “gave” the world COVID–more MAGA media nonsense. The CFPB saved American consumers $3.5 billion in a year in things like unfair bank overdraft and other charges, like airline add-on fees and other surprise bills–so, of course, since MAGA media that is owned by billionaires who want to see these things reinstated, puts out the lies about the CFPB being bad for consumers. You can try to downplay Trump’s deployment of Project 2025 by calling it Project 47–something I’ve never heard of–and, I note you don’t include any citation to this, but according to Navigator, 52% of Americans still oppose Project 2025, which Trump IS implementing, and he has hired several of the authors thereof in his administration, and only 13% approve of it. And, when MAGA media claims that Americans are in favor of Trump’s agenda, it’s based on generic questions like–“do you favor reducing waste fraud and abuse?” When it comes to specifics about what Trump has actually done, most Americans oppose him. According to “Tom’s Guide” 3 out of 4 Americans oppose DOGE. There are protest marches in all 50 states–including ruby-red ones, so MAGA media can try to claim it is only in blue states or blue cities, but that’s simply not true. Similarly untrue is your claim that these protest marches are “usually violent”–name ONE such protest that was “violent”.
According to CNN, 96% of voters said “high prices for gas, groceries and other goods” factored in to how they cast their ballots, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 registered voters conducted from October 30 to November 5. Among the 40% of people who named that issue the single-most important factor driving their decision, nearly two-thirds voted for President-elect Donald Trump. Trump has actually ordered the AG to go after people like Chris Krebs, his head of Cybersecurity–for what? For telling the truth that the 2020 election was the most-secure in US history. He also went after whistleblower Taylor, and has ordered the firing of any DOJ attorneys who worked on J6 cases–even thought they were just doing their jobs.
You claim that Trump has some kind of popular mandate, which justifies whatever he wants to do–but, he did NOT receive half of the votes cast–THAT does NOT consitute any “mandate”.
John Say: all you do is parrot MAGA media talking points.
oh, I forgot to add that gigi also picked up how to use a colon after someone’s name. The need to copycat others instead of thinking on your own== That’s SUBSTANTIVE PROOF of low intelligence. Also- daily rants criticizing and insulting Turley is not SUBSTANTIVE and is in fact Very childish.
Remarkable how the author glosses over the massive and legally dispositive difference between “pressure campaigns” from clients and from the federal government. These are in no way the same thing and it is a risible false equivalence to suggest otherwise.
Uh, dude. Did you even read his piece? Try again. Jesus.
How can you say “glossed over” when he mentions it more than once?! Read it again.
Excellent piece, Jonathan. On a somewhat related subject, when will you comment, one way or the other, on the media storm brewing on Trump and Trump family alledged buck-raking that, according to these accounts, makes the Biden family look like small-time pick operators. You said the Bidens had raised conflicts of interest to an unprecedented level. Now, what about the Trumps?
I would expect that Turley will comment on some “media storm” – when the media storm manages to come up with something of substance.
You demanded Turley report on graft you alleged – but you did NOT make an actual allegation of graft. You merely presumed that credible allegations exist.
Most of us have grown deeply jaded by the media and pay no attention to such stories without substance.
Accepting a gift from Qatar, a 747-8 that will serve as a temporary air force one and then get the plane for his own use after he leaves office is bribery. it’s for his personal benefit.
Corruption is Turley’s gripe when it comes to Biden, but when Trump manages to out do Biden there seems to be silence. The double standard is pretty obvious.
When you say “jaded” you mean “we are looking the other way because that is bad and we can’t defend it”.
You fool. The plane goes the the US Air-force.
Because Boeing is falling way behind on getting the new AF1 finished.
At lesat their “drama of the week” is utter weaksauce. the pundits can focus on a plane whilst the admin gets more done behind the scenes and without major scrutiny.
-Rabble
Dustoff,
Biden goes to the Saudis, hat in hand, begging them to increase oil production to lower gas prices. They gave him the middle finger by cutting production.
The Qataris gives Trump a plane.
Whwn I was in law school a long, long time ago, I cannot recall one of my professors indicating which political party he or she favored nor do I recall one “editorial” comment about the wisdom of any law law based on that professor’s political leanings. That is the way it should still be. The study of law is an intellectual pursuit that, hoefully ends up allowing new lawyers (and old) to pursue the profession in pursuit of actually helping people through difficult legal issues without campaining for this party or that. I attended a state university law school in a state that back then was very democratic (than is no longer the case) and many of the professors came from other states and were themselves educated in what we might refer to as “Ivy League” law schools. Even considering that, their instructing was the law and not the politics. Just my opinion but since my first years practicing law the way lawyers have teated each other have steadily headed “downwards” so that the intra-respect among them is, to be kind, not very professional.
That’s exactly what this lawyer experienced 1968- 1971. And today we need a lot more Atticus Finch, and a lot less Rambo.
In Texas matters of law school accreditation and admission to the State Bar of Texas is decided by our Supreme Court. In 1983 the Court opted to adopt accreditations made by the ABA, the American Bar Association. In the midst of what Jonathan is describing there is a lot of concern that the ABA has also lost its way. Last week our Supreme Court by order has called for pulling the 1983 measure into drydock, enlisting the Bar and other advisors to look at the the ABA model and alternatives. That looks to me like a coming sea change. Let’s see what happens.
Do you mean hypocrisy like three US House Dems that lead a group who stormed a government detention facility and assaulted a security guard who will walk free, while J6 protesters were tracked down and jailed? The Dem party is ripe with hypocrisy and the Republicans just shake their heads and act surprised. How about implementing some corrective action?
The video I saw, Billy, showed a gang of armed ICE thugs overpowering a group of three peaceful House members who were conducting routine oversight of the detention facility. Trump’s goon squad proceeded to arrest and detain the mayor of Newark,
The convicted felon-in-chief pardoned all the J6 insurrectionists.
US Reps have the legal right to visit illegal detainment facilities. Mayors do not, even when accompanied by US reps. If asked to leave he should have left but he is looking to run for governor and saw an opportunity for some face time. Some jail time might do his campaign some “good.”
As to whether or not the reps assaulted the ICE officers, let the DOJ decide if charges are warranted. Bondi seems off to a weak start…
OldFish: My understanding is that Mayor Baraka did leave when asked but then got arrested for “trespassing “.
Something is rotten in Denmark.
OldFish,
I watched the ICE released body cam video. I saw a bunch of unhinged, screaming and throwing elbows Democrats assaulting LEOs.
What a disgrace they are.
“ After Howell’s opinion, Perkins Coie issued a statement to NBC News that the ruling “affirms … the right to select counsel without the fear of retribution.” But that is a luxury that conservative lawyers have not known for years.”
Turley admits there is a distinction but still tries to conflate it as the same thing Trump is doing. It’s not.
Democrats never used government to sue law firms for doing their jobs. Private groups can and do criticize, and pressure lawyers or call for boycotts. When Turley says “conservative lawyers” he means politicians who are also lawyers.
“ Boycotts are an important form of public protest, but boycotting law firms and blacklisting lawyers due to their clients is both imprudent and dangerous … including when private parties do it.”
They are also….legal and a from of free speech. Turley is not really chastising Trump for his reckless EO. His argument is falls flat once the moment he admits that there is a legal distinction and he doesn’t dive into the details of why Trump’s EO is wrong and why it’s dangerous. He never said judge Howell was wrong. He’s just complaining about a hypocrisy based on a strawman argument of his own making.
Turley’s portrayal of conservatives as “victims” of some sort because they are conservative is well…stupid. Maybe he should focus more on Trump’s attacks on free speech and his agenda of retribution for being “treated unfairly.”
George, you have already opined about 5 times, sit the heck down.
He got sum gud crack from da dealer and he cant wait to smoke it all up b4 his ex bf finds da sTuff
George, the Democrats weaponized all branches of government like I’ve never seen. That you seem unable to see that makes me tired. I don’t understand. You are obviously smart.
Other things that make me tired? The journalism death/rebirth cycle. We’re in the death part. 60 Minutes is committing suicide. Pelley’s plummy tones, as he gives that bum Elias a free ad. Elias. So passes glory.
Whew, George! You must have been asleep in the last several years! Check out this article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/26/kenneth-chesebro-charged-in-wisconsin-here-are-all-the-former-trump-lawyers-now-facing-legal-consequences/ Democrats specialize in using state resources against MAGA attorneys.
Edwardmahl,
Your article explains why they were prosecuted. You made my point for me. Those attorneys were found guilty of violating court rules and ethics laws. They also made plea deals or pled guilty to the charges. Some got disbarred for lyin in court and others for defamation. All got trials and an opportunity to defend themselves.
DA’s and AG’s are prosecutors which is literally their job to prosecurte or press charges in cases such as those. Because they broke state, federal, or court rules.
Looking at the big picture, hypocrisy is another form of deception, specifically a form of insincere deception where someone pretends to be different from what they truly are. However, deception is a widely accepted activity in all areas of human life. Politicians for years have promised what they will not deliver. Advertisers promise results they know will not happen. Novelists invent new worlds showing outcomes that never happen. Special effects in movies are deceptions at heart. Even makeup is deception. Lawyers are specialists at deception, to their clients, to the jury, and even to the judge. It seems worse when called hypocrisy.
“ In prior years, Democratic groups unleashed a campaign to pressure firms to fire lawyers who represented Trump, the Republican Party, or conservative causes. That included boycotts and pressure campaigns targeting their clients.”
Well….Yeah. Because not only is it legal, It’s been par for the course for Republians too. In fact it’s an exercise of free speech. How is Turley not recognizing it?
“ In 2021, I wrote about these campaigns, including one well-funded effort by the Lincoln Project calling upon its nearly 3 million followers to hound attorneys assisting the Trump team in legal battles. It named them and tweeted, “Make them famous,” with an emoji depicting a skull-and-crossbones.”
Turley didn’t bother to mention the Lincoln Project is a bunch or Republican never-Trumpers. A private group. Again the too are exercsing their free speech rights to call for boycotts, issue tweets to encourage people to “make them famous” as in let the public know they are corrupt. All completely legal. Come to think of it, isn’t that what the Heritage Foundation does too?
Oh oh, george the non-lawyer is at it again.
I’m sure he hires a plumber to fix an electrical problem.
George, the non-genius, did you happen to notice that Turley didn’t call for the Lincoln Group to be banned from whatever the heck they are advocating? Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy?
Is it just me or is anyone else sick of George and his moronic and very odd need to be contrarian?
We could have an entire discussion of the mindset of the people that hate Turley, hate Turley’s cogent analysis of free speech and hate anything and everything that isn’t part of the left wing group think…and yet come to this site every single day, opine many times on every column and disagree with 90 % of the people who agree with Turley and the concept of free speech and worry about the left’s attack on it.
Imagine a conservative sitting on his couch, tv on MSNBC, watching one of their far left, dare I say radical, personalities and screaming at the television for the entire hour of the show??? We wouldn’t do it. What we would do is change the channel the minute someone like Elie Mystal, Al Sharpton or Nicole Wallace said something completely off the wall.
Hullbobby
George is our 7/24 cry baby.
Hullbobby, what do you have to offer besides whining and moaning that I post a critique of Turley’s argument?
You do understand that that this is a free speech forum where people are free to criticize, mock, or discuss Turley’s positon on the issues he writes about. Right?
You seem to think this is only a site for praising and giving kudos to Turley only.
It’s not hate. It’s criticism and Turley is fair game the moment he posts a column. Everyone here is fair game, including me. I sincerely hope you do understand that concept.
george… critique? You’re all over the map. Can’t focus on the issues, just blurt out nonsense nonstop. Go feed the pigeons.
No, hullbobby, I couldn’t do that because I have blocked the MSNBC channel. My remote now scans past it without even a mention. Too bad my service provider can not reduce the rate it charges me to have it permanently removed from my cable options.
Hullbobby-well, consider George a whetstone (or wetstone) that we need to sharpen our knives for when we have to deal with real villains out in the political world. He is sort of like target practice and he also reminds us of the morons we will come in contact with. Otherwise I can think of no useful purpose he serves.
when we have to deal with real villains out in the political world. Deal with? what are you ranting about? You are delusional.
GEB,
That is an interesting take, but really, aside from the occasional insight into their sick and twisted, deluded minds, they are not worth consideration. They have no useful purpose in life. They are ever so pathetic.
Believe me, it’s not just you.
HullBobby,
Dont even bother to read the slow and dumb one’s comment. You will be better off for it. Just scroll past.
Yeah sure george.
Put down the bottle.
The Wall Street Journal condemned Trump’s actions against law firms. It said they offended the law profession’s honorable tradition of representing unpopular, even despised individuals and organizations. But that was not the nature of Perkins Coie’s involvement with the Steele dossier. It was not representing “an unpopular client,” though of course Hillary was exactly that. Rather, the firm was part of a coördinated effort with Obama, the FBI and the CIA, first to prevent Trump’s election and then, when that didn’t work, to destroy his presidency.
Nisquire, HIllary wa reprented by the firm as a client. They did exacty that they are paid to do. It’s still no excuse for the government to target them for retribution because Trump didn’t like how he was treated. If he didn’t want to be a target he shouldn’t have run for president int the first place. That’s why politics is not for the meek.
BTW george, there is a code of ethics all lawyers swear to. They knew what they were doing – destroy a presidential candidate – was unethical if not a violation of certain laws with the help of the FBI and DOJ.
Boy you are dumb..
Do you want to actually attempt to flesh that out. What rule of professional responsibility do you think was somehow violated?
Anonymous, it seems you don’t uderstand what ethics is.
They were hired to argue in court their client’s complaints. That’s it. There’s nothing unethical about it. That’s their job.
George, would you allow a firm that used political dirty tricks against Obama to maintain clearance? if you said yes you are lying, if you said no you are a hypocrite. But then again you do seem to be a lying hypocrite.
Were they really political tricks? It seems it’s more like your own personal opinion than facts. Law firms do what their clients want within the law.
“”more like your own personal opinion than facts”
Yet ANOTHER criticism of georgie that he copycats and tries to turn around against hullbobby.
So you admit george. This company was paid to lie about Prez Trump
What the hell do you mean they are being “targeted” by government? They are not entitled to government contracts.
They disqualified themselves from feeding on government money when they chose to help Trump’s opposition destroy him. They voluntarily made that choice – believing they’d get rich(er) on government contracts after Clinton and Biden won their elections.
F them.
Simply put, government officials “cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” NRA v. Vullo,
602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).
I am guessing you took a different perspective when the government was attacking the NRA? Representing clients that are adverse to Trump’s interests is free speech and expression. Trump’s EOs were clear retaliatory behavior meant to chill the speech of disfavored law firms.
If you actually care about this topic, you should read Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 686 (1996), which recognized “the right of independent government contractors not to be terminated for exercising their First Amendment rights.”
George is a gutterborn necrophage, fit only for lying and stupidity while wallowing in filth. Mark Elias didn’t need to lie outright; he had the Georges of the world to do the dirty work. Elias operated through omission, leaving the stench to do the rest.
He didn’t merely sign off on the Steele Dossier; he funneled it to the public, where gutterborn necrophages could devour and spread it. Elias is a textbook reason lawyers are seen as scummy. This is why politics is filthy and why the Democratic Party is a failed party. It leaned on gutterborn necrophages instead of policy.
Recently, we discussed poor business practices and why they’re so hard to eliminate. Elias, the legal rot at the center, is a prime cause, and the Georges, who echo his filth, are his agents in this crime against the American people.
S. Meyer,
Exactly!! Great comment!
S. Meyer, did you need to look up witty insults on google to manage that one?
I wasn’t talking about Elias.
But if you insist…
“ Elias operated through omission, leaving the stench to do the rest.”
What does that mean? Is it illegal? Criminal? You seem more upset about the fact they did some things that were ethically questionable, but does not mean it is certainly illegal. They are lawyers and they know how to thread the needle when it comes to certain actions of conduct. Funny thing is Trump’s lawyers do the exact same thing and I didn’t see you whining about it and making mealy mouthed incohrerent taddle.
Perhaps you should add substance, real substance to your responses instead ad hominem attacks.
“S. Meyer, did you need to look up witty insults on google to manage that one?”
Definitely not, (necrophage) you are such a lover of death and destruction that one can see you consuming the bodies of those lying in the street dead. That is how I picture you, and likely others picture you similarly. That is an awful vision, but not bad enough, so I created an adjective, gutterborn. To my knowledge, gutterborn is not a word, but it describes you perfectly.
“I wasn’t talking about Elias,” you say, but you recognized it in the earlier comment on this thread. “Nisquire, HIllary wa reprented by the firm as a client. They did exacty that they are paid to do.” but does not mean it is indeed illegal. They are lawyers and they know how to thread the needle ” Yes, they do thread the needle because they have the gutterborn do the rest. You are too stupid to remember what I said right before calling you a gutterborn necrophage. ‘Mark Elias didn’t need to lie outright; he had the Georges of the world to do the dirty work. Elias operated through omission, leaving the stench to do the rest.’
The Republicans who are unwilling to roll up their sleeves can thank the lord that the Gutterborns, like George, are the ones most vociferous on the left.
Professor Turley,
You acknowledge the ridiculousness of your own argument with: “In fairness, the distinction between boycott campaigns and government actions is legally important.”
This is exactly why comparing private and public pressure makes no sense. The former is much more like Hobby Lobby – an extension of corporate free speech (i.e., choosing a client base and political stance is an extension of the firm’s First Amendment rights) while the latter is simply punishment by the government of law firms for exercising such speech.
You know this, yet you continue to recklessly choose to fan the flames of the Age of Rage.
Shame.
Don’t read anything into. Its just an opinion. Calm down.
No, Turley describes himself as a defender of free speech, yet he writes an article trying to compare private and public censorship as if they are remotely similar?
It is clear with articles like these that he regards both sidesism over rationality.
censorship is still censorship whether private or public. is there another definition for it?
Private censorship is free speech and expression. Requiring a company to sell a product would not make us more free.
I was just going to point that out. Turley’s argument is a stupid attempt to make Democrats look bad for something that is completely different than what Trump is doing. Notice that he isn’t diving into why Trump’s. EO is wrong. He’s just whining about the “hypocrisy” which there is none. He acknowledged it when he stated the Democratic groups are private vs. Trump’s government attack on law firms free speech rights.
Turley didn’t bother to address the fact that he didn’t say the judge was wrong in his ruling. This was a clear attack on the free speech rights of the law firms for doing their job. I’m not surprised he has not made any comments on the Ozturk case where free speech is clearly an issue. She was arrested for co-writing a column critical of Israel. Turley was and has been very quiet about that.
Then we have the corruption scandal that blew up yesterday with the Qatari “gift” to Trump. A $300 million 747-8. Even by John Say’s standard this is blatant bribery. Will we hear about it from Turley since he is a big opponent of government corruption and influence peddling? I highly doubt it.
crazy george at it again.
The US Air force gets the plane. Not Prez Trump.
Jezzz I see why some call you a fool. You keep proving everyday
No, Trump gets the plane. Once he leaves office it won’t remain with the Air Force. It will go to Trump’s presidential library. Which means he will get to use it as a personal aircraft, one that he got for free.
Plus any “gifts” like that must be approved by congress first. What is clear is that Trump is being bought, did he lower tariffs on Qatar? Surely they got something in return for that lovely…gift.
A decision hasn’t even been made yet; Trump said the lawyers were looking into it.
Best proof so far that George gets all his info from the left-wing rags, then spouts it as fact.
” Notice that he isn’t diving into why Trump’s. EO is wrong.”
Correct – because it isn’t.
No one is attacking law firms free speech rights.
They are losing security clearances – those are a priveledge.
and they are losing them because they have behave badly with respect to national security.
They claimed Russian collusion when there was none – they funded a national security hoax.
Some of that conduct was illegal. But all of it was a reason to lose your security clearance.
“Then we have the corruption scandal that blew up yesterday with the Qatari “gift” to Trump. A $300 million 747-8. Even by John Say’s standard this is blatant bribery.”
How so ? The Jet is not going to Trump personally. There are no strings attached.
The entire transaction is in public.
Personally I do not think it will happen. There is much more to Air Force One than a luxurious 747. While Boeing has screwed up on the AF1 contract, it is still a FACT that there are massive amounts of changes to a 747 to make it capable of protecting the president in ways a normal jet can not, and to make it capable of communications and dealing with national security issues that a normal jet can not. I doubt the Qatari jet could be converted before Trump leaves office.
Trump is trolling Boeing, and he is trolling you.
“Trump is trolling Boeing, and he is trolling you.”
No, Trump is a moron. He’s accepting this gift because he’s impatient about the Boeing delays of “his” new plane. What’s wrong with the current aircraft? Nothing. The current 747 the president uses is immaculately maintained and will continue to be until thenew aircraft is ready. The acceptance of this gift is a bribe, even by your standard it’s a big honking bribe.
“No one is attacking law firms free speech rights.
They are losing security clearances – those are a priveledge.
and they are losing them because they have behave badly with respect to national security.”
Wrong. Trump is attacking law firms because he is seeking revenge for something that is legally their job. Argue for their clients. What did they do to “behave badly”? They did what every lawyer does. Argue their clients position. Trump revoked their security clearce out of spite. Of course it has everything to do with free speech. Trump is using security clearance revocations to chill speech. To silence the firms. That is a valid constitutional question before the courts and it’s already shown they are likely to succeed on the merits.
“ Some of that conduct was illegal. But all of it was a reason to lose your security clearance.“
What conduct was illegal John? Lawyers arguing for their clients is not an illegal act. It’s their job.
“How so ? The Jet is not going to Trump personally. There are no strings attached.
The entire transaction is in public.”
It is going to Trump personally when he’s done with his term. It’s not going to remain in the Air Force inventory as an additional presidential aircraft. It will go to his presidential library “collection.” He will have access to it personally after that. I’m sure you have heard the phrase “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
The Qataris are not just giving away a $300 million aircraft for nothing. If you think there are no strings attached clearly you’re more naive than I thought.
Trump and his family wil benefit from it and according to your own standard anything that benefits Trump personally is a bribe. Then there’s the emoluments clause again. Gifts from foreign leaders is verbotten unless approved by Congress.
Why bother with spending millions on taxpayer dollars to uprade this “gift” to presidential standards when there are already two perfectly good 747’s already available? DOGE would look at this as waste and abuse. Right? It’s not efficient or practical. Trump just wants a more lavish aircraft than the current AF1.
If it were truly a gift it should remain with the Air Force and serve as the third AF1, especially if we got it for free, right? Why should it go to Trump’s presidential library? It’s a 747-8, it’s practically brand new. It would be a huge waste to just let it sit in some hangar to show how nice it was for Trump when he was president. He is going to use it for him self or his family. He needs such an aircraft to carry his massive ego.
FAFO became basic law of physics now. Long overdue. As all laws of physics, these equally apply to Deep State crooked lawyers as well.
Zealotry and hypocrisy are are constant companions.
Many people don’t have core beliefs!
For many Democrats theirs is hypocriticalism!
The important thing is that they’re unhappy.
I don’t see the link
Their worst nightmare living under the rules they in fact put in place themselves.
Right o
It pays to remember that Henry IV defended his murdering of his predecessor on the factually truthful claim that Richard II defied all limits on the king’s ability to finance and wage wars (on both France and the English aristocracy).
And it pays not to forget that Henry IV’s “faithfulness” nevertheless led to the end of the Plantagenet Dynasty and the Wars of the Roses. We’re better off in an age of constitutionalism and endless wrangling over which sides misses the most important constitutional point.
Same in academics . . . suggesting hypocrisy is a deeply embedded human trait?
Why is everyone so upset that Bill Belichick, age 73, is getting some great sex from a 24 year old? Pure jealousy.
who’s talking about that, you st*pid delusional old fart.
Agree. They’re both what they want. The fact that she was almost voted Miss congeniality at the beauty pageant tells you this is a nice person. The fact that she was doing her job is not a reason to dislike her. If she had been a homely woman or a man, nobody would have ever heard about it.
LOL…. OK you.
That may be laugh.
Wiseoldlawyer-consider this question as one for the ages and aged. But it all probably is jealousy.
Envy is not jealousy…