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
Did anyone notice a few weeks ago that Trump appeared to throw his own Attorney General and Solicitor General under the bus?
Now Trump is playing plausible deniability, saying he no longer knows so he’s deferring to his attorneys that have revocable law licenses.
All these frivolous lawsuits will come back to bite his attorneys. Pretty slick move!
So a president consulting with subject matter experts on issues that left wing nuts and the press raise is now somehow bad ?
a bit more than 100 days ago – the president consulted with no one – it was the alleged experts that were really running the country.
There’s a lawyer in Houston that claims he paid to lie.
Is that legal?
The details are all important. Please provide some, or your question has little meaning.
I’m sorry, I meant to say
There’s a lawyer in Houston that claims he is paid to lie.
I have no legal training, and I don’t want to go into details.
I just thought that an officer of the court can’t lie without some sort of penalty, otherwise our courts are worthless.
https://youtu.be/O0Mr4ST9EtY?t=5
The story didn’t mention that Perkins Coie law firm employs about 1200 employees. Trump’s executive order is essentially targeting about 5 lawyers (out of 1200 employees) punishing the entire law firm.
Those approximately 5 lawyers no longer worked at the law firm when Trump signed the order.
In the actual court transcripts, it mentions that Trump has no legal jurisdiction to oversee law firms or attorneys.
Put another way. If the Trump Corporations had 1200 employees, should 5 employees be able to penalize the entire organization?
That’s BS, Don’t tell me that 5 Bad apples ‘did not’ ruin the whole bushel basket at Perkins Coie.
The persecution of the Trumps was made well aware to the entire Perkins Coie Counsel Members.
From the Top to the 5 Bad Apples, Perkins Coie knew what it was doing and for Whom they were doing it for.
Not all of the Firm’s 1,124 Lawyers may have agreed, but they were on the Team like it or not.
Those lawyers represented the firm. Whether you like it or not ALL professional companies are liable for the actions of the professionals they hire.
You can not game ethics or the law by hiring someone who will violate it for you, and then pretending after they leave that you had nothing to do with it.
List of world’s largest law firms by revenue
Rank: #53 Perkins Coie
Revenue: $1,155,565,000
Lawyers 1,124
Revenue per Lawyer $1,028,000
Profit per Partner $1,660,000
United States US
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by_revenue
These Law Firms are Big Business and in their entirety completely encompass Legal Globalization. it is a Global U.S.Monopoly vs. the idea that the sphere of law is a Oligopoly. So when you read that Google was fined in the EU for X-$Billion, it was conducted by a US Law Firm and the billable hours reach the pockets of the Partners here in the U.S.. So to dismiss that these Law Firm Entities are not or exempt for the Rules of Big Business is ridiculous. I’m surprised that some Countries haven’t taken on this situation head to head. The President willing to do so, is a very good move to break the hegemony of Law Firms. (It starts at Home here in the U.S.)
(Ret. and what is this situation doing to the sphere of Law?)
I agree with Randall Eliason’s previous position: “these mega-law firms are also big businesses. Like any business, they can be held accountable by the public — and by their other customers.” But Eliason SOLD-OUT, and made the “Faustian bargain” (made a Deal with the Devil).
Since Trump is a Battleship firing all it’s guns, Why not put Tariffs of Law Firms? (Ret.)
The War is against GREED. Greed is what drives these Firms and their Armies of Lawyers to compromise their spiritual & moral conviction in desperation or pursuit of worldly gain. (The Evils of Money $$$). It is what drove Perkins Coie to do the Evil deeds it did.
(7 Sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.)
–
Note: By comparison of Law Firms to the GDP of Countries:
The Total Income of the Top 10 Law firms would rank at #105 out of 191 Countries GDP (Almost in the middle of the list)
Top 10 Law Firms: $36,985,986,000 (Just the Top 10 of the list’s Top 100)
#105 El Salvador GDP: $36,749,000,000
(and 86 Countries below this $ Number)
[Link] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
The Follow Up:
Court Order Blocking Trump From Targeting Perkins Coie Is Overreach
Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s injunction prohibiting the implementation of Donald Trump’s executive order restricting the Perkins Coie law firm spoils a righteous core with judicial activism.
On March 6, Trump issued an executive order asserting that “the dishonest and dangerous activity of…Perkins Coie has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election…. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws….”
By: Kenin Spivak ~ May 10, 2025
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2025/05/10/court_order_blocking_trump_from_targeting_perkins_coie_is_overreach_152775.html
Really: when one strips away the verbiage, all I see anymore is that the modern left is a machine that must be stopped. We have heard this a million times. The modern left has ignored it a million times. I am very grateful for the legal insight, but the accusations of being hypocritical are hardly something new. We are up against a legitimate regime that doesn’t care one whit about the rule of law. So, in all earnestness, what do we that still care about a free society do? Clearly, after the Obama entrenchment, voting virtually the entire country red was not enough. Wake. The. Eff. Up. Modern dems.
From a constitutional view, Trump supporters are leftist on the constitutional rule of law system. Constitutional-conservatives follow constitutional due process, obey court rulings and respect the separation of powers by the three co-equal branches of government.
Trump’s dictatorship model is very, very liberal view of the Constitution in the USA!
So your position is that a liberal view means dictatorship and discarding the Constitution? Thanks for that clarification.
Dictatorship and discarding the Constitution?
Ah, the essence of Abraham Lincoln!
ATS – it would be nice if you actually had a clue about the constitution – or the facts.
Trump has Obeyed Court orders., he continues to obey court orders.
In the vast majority of these cases he will ultimately win – Why ? Because the court orders themselves are unconstitutional.
Please cite the clause in the constitution that says that unconstitutional court order must be obeyed ?
Boasberg has been stripped of jurisdiction of the case – and he is STILL issuing court orders and demanding things of the government.
Does the executive have to wait until he is impeached before they can ignore a court order that the supreme court has ALREADY said he has no authority to issue ?
So lets address the big questions:
The president is the executive of the united states. The powers of ALL executives include staffing – hiring and firing. The constitution gives ALL executive powers tot he president.
So every single judicial order limited this or any presidents power to hire or fire members of the executive is unconstitutional.
Also in the powers of ALL executives is the power to mange spending – to eliminate waste fraud and abuse. The president is obligated by law to accomplish the policies that congress has dictated and use the funds congress has budgeted to do so.
Prior SCOTUS decisions have correctly decided that the president can not use his executive power over spending to thwart the intentions of congress.
But nowhere in the constitution or law or the budget does it say that the president Must waste money to accomplish policies that congress never authorized.
Further even if the President was defying the budget priorities passed by congress, it is Congress that must challenge the president for doing so – not some random left wing nuts.
The courts do not have constitutional jurisdiction over executive spending without a plantiff which has standing – which would be either the house or the senate, AND a credible claim that the spending cuts specifically violated the budget.
Pretty sure that the budge does NOT specify that people who have been dead for decades must continue to receive social security, or that the president must fund trans opera’s in columbia.
With respect to immigration – NORMAL immigration process – not expedited processes like AEA, have Article II courts – Immigration courts, holding hearings on each alleged illegal alien. In most instances those hearings are short.
The most relevant issue is “Are you in the US legally ?” if the answer is no – a deportation order will be issued. The alleged illegal alien can challenge that order in Article III courts,
but the scope of that challenge is extremely limited – it is rarely more than habeaus – i.e. Are you the person the deportation order specifies to be deported ?
Why is it easy to deport illegal immigrants ? The same reason it is easy for law enforcement to convict you or a parking ticket. Because you hare going to be sent home – not to h311.
By law you must request asylum at the closest US consulate or embassy to your home country. You can not enter the US illegally and then claim asylum.
The left has been fixating on asylum claims of late. But the FACT is even under Biden extremely few – only abotu 20-30,000 asylum claims a year are granted.
President Biden ignored the law and directed the federal government to accept asylum claims made lawlessly. But all that accomplished was overwhelming asylum courts and delying the inevitable. Asylum is still nearly impossible to get.
If you do not like that CHANGE the law. The left controlled congress for 2 years from 2021-2023, you could have changed asylum law had you wanted.
The point is that all the major issues Trump is being sued over are dead bang losers for those doing the suing. The courts are supposed to require bonds to cover the costs should the plaintiffs lose – but they are not.
Put simply the lawlessness is almost entirely the courts who ARE NOT following “due process” in addressing the those challenging Trump’s EO’s.
Due process is a two way street. It is not a means to engage in obstructing constitutional policies.
Isn’t this the jurisdiction of state level bar associations to investigate and penalize law firms? Since when do presidents have authority over the bar associations?
If we are going to open this figurative “can of worms” why not have bar associations investigate and penalize the George W. Bush torture attorneys that violated Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty?
None – not one – of Bush’s torture attorneys were penalized in any way. Instead of being disbarred, they were promoted! One is even a federal appeals court judge standing in judgement of litigants more law abiding than he was.
Can you identify a rule of professional responsibility that those lawyers violated? I’ll wait.
It is the role of the bar (NOT bar associations) to discipline lawyers who violate rules of professional responsibility. Trump’s actions are not meting out that kind of discipline. He is taking action within his area of authority. He would be out of line if he sought to suspend or disbar an attorney, but that is not what he’s doing.
As usual, you make no sense at all. You display your complete ignorance of how the legal profession works. If you were a wiser person, you’d keep your mouth shut rather than demonstrate your foolishness to all readers. You can tell that to your communist overlords in the CCP who are paying you to be here while Svelaz/George is on vacay.
Presidents have EXCLUSIVE constitutional power over national security – including security clearances.
In real practice, there are at least 3 categories here not being talked about:
Constitutionally-legal practices by Democrats, Constitutionally-legal practices by Republicans and then Constitutionally-Subversive practices.
Not denouncing real Republicans (Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan Republicans) but many Trump Republicans support Constitutionally-Subversive practices (practices used by foreign regimes, not legal in the USA).
Every Trump official – including Pam Bondi – made a promise to her GOD to follow the U.S. Constitution. In order for Bondi to be faithful to the Florida State Bar, she must follow court rulings and follow the U.S. Supreme Court. Bondi appears to be a religious person of faith, so she should remain loyal to her Oath of Office.
In this third category of Subversive-Practices there is no need for lawyers to exist at all. No need for judges to exist at all. No need for Congress to exist. No need for courts to exist. Really no need for Jonathan Turley or constitutional scholars to exist – since the dictator model doesn’t follow a constitutional rule of law system.
Why would any lawyer be silent with Trump publicly stating he supports the government systems used by foreign regimes? Trump publicly stated he wanted to be a dictator. When asked last week if he was required to uphold his constitutional Oath of Office to follow the Constitution, Trump said he didn’t know!
ATS – where do left wing nuts learn logic ?
Possibly the least consequential fallacy in your argument is numerous non-sequiturs.
But one of the biggest problems is you somewhat close to correctly state ONE or TWO premises for your argument – and then just assume that the facts required to reach your conclusions exist, and you do so without even mentioning the missing facts and premises.
You ASSUME that Bondi or others have failed to do something they are required to do,
without ever naming the thing they are required to do, and providing any facts to support that.
BTW a working system of govenrment requires that court orders are obeyed.
It ALSO requires that courts only issue valid and constitutional orders.
The REASON that court processes are so complex, is to make it extremely difficult for courts who follow those procedures from issuing invalid or unconstitutional orders.
But when the courts fail to follow the rules – the only remedy may be to disobey.
Courts are not god. They are also not president. The constitution and law limits their jurisdiction and subjects them to complex processes to attempt to thwart the disaster that we get when the courts try to play god or president.
Turley– “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.”
I agree with the sentiment but that is for civilized people.
With significant portions of the deep state, including certain law firms, having the morality of Bolsheviks or Jacobins there is little left of your high ground. They lie. They cheat. They subvert. They destroy.
There is no room for reasoned arguments. They mock and manipulate them.
It is a struggle for survival that we, and Western Civilization, cannot afford to lose unless we are prepared to submit to a new Dark Age. So far as I am concerned I want Trump to destroy these subversives and their tools and their structures and their organizations so thoroughly that they dare not rise again for many years.
It doesn’t really matter what we observers say. Trump is Shane. He won’t leave until there are no more guns in the valley. He’ll be wounded by the conflict (already is), and civilization will be possible again.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/
OT, is it okay for Democrat members of Congress to physically assault and obstruct federal officials who are trying to carry out their duties? If not, what should the consequences be for the assailants. Here’s the video. The Congresswoman in red is definitely engaging in assaultive behavior. I do not call her the “gentlelady from New Jersey” because she’s clearly not one.
https://x.com/TriciaOhio/status/1921264096885833980
No, Trump is Don Quixote. The man is attacking windmills because he’s knows they are bad dudes.
Looks like Georgie’s communist overlords have cut short his vacation and are making him spout garbage on this site again.
Border closed. Trade deal with China ending unfair advantages to our geopolitical rival. India and Pakistan back from the brink of nuclear war. Criminals self-deporting. The saving of women’s sports from weak men and even weaker minds (like yours). That doesn’t sound like Don Quixote. That sounds like winning!
RE:
Rep. Rob Menendez
@RepMenendez
No matter what this Administration tells the American people, the law is very clear: Members of Congress have a legal right to enter any DHS detention facility to conduct oversight without prior notice – something I’ve done twice this year without issue.
Perhaps the ‘Tag-along Mayor’ and accompanying cast of thousands have something to do with the ensuing fracas.
Egan vs Navy
Judicial Watch vs Archives
Obama E.O. 13526 Sec 3
All establish that
a) The President is the final authority as to who enjoys access to classified information and who doesn’t.
b) What constitutes classified material and what isn’t.
This should not be an issue with obstructionist judges like Beryl Howard – especially since one of her colleagues on the DC circuit authored those decisions.
Its time Congress acted to reign in these judges. The Constitution empowered Congress to create district courts – it DOES NOT restrict Congress from eliminating or creating more district courts.
Time to man up Congress.
Deception as defined by Merriam-Webster: “the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.” I proffer this is a fitting example of the Democratic Party, in the simplest example: a person born as a male can with snap of his fingers become a female, or a more complex example we were just representing our client ‘that’s what lawyers do’, even though we knew our client was being deceitful. Who at these firms utilized deceit to foster false narratives about a presidential candidate or the president elect, was it a committee or a senior partner or some subordinate? The law firms used in today topic also have lost the right to classified government documents, I question if they were not behind the efforts to remove President Trumps classified privileges.
Retribution: this is a unique word as it can mean past, present or future and has a positive and negative possibility. That being said the fanatics of today’s topic deserve to feel the retribution of their actions of deceit as a reward to President Trump!
Hans Richter an orchestral conductor of yore: “Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, Never”.
Its the DNA dummy.
OT
“The Trump administration, despite a broad refugee freeze, plans to bring the first group of white South Africans into the US under a ‘refugee program.”
– Reuters
____________
It has taken so long, and finally, the first constitutional and legal immigration since January 1, 1863, is about to occur. A planeload of real, actual, genuine American-Founder-Approved immigrants who are to be admitted to become citizens arrives today. Hopefully, the “Great Fake Asylum Fraud” will be terminated soon bringing and end to the illegal alien invasion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 [four iterations for maximal clarity]
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
The south africans actually qualify for asylum under the extremely narrow terms of US asylum law.
The government of their country is lawless and is a threat to their lives.
The defendant states, he knows nothing of this culture
So what’s new. The Biden administration had a team dedicated to pressuring Twitter not to post comments by conservatives. They sent their handymen at the FBI to Facebook to police what people could post. Threats are just a common tool in their toolbox. Trump knows that the major thing that will result from his actions is that Perkins Coie will have to spend a considerable amount of it’s fortune defending itself. If it keeps the RussiaGate scam in the news I’m all for it. The Democrats want it to go away but Trump keeping it front and center is gamesmanship at its finest. Chess on a national stage. Those who think themselves to be Kings are trapped.
TiT,
Great comment! I am really enjoying seeing to the level the Democrat’s continue to prove they are not only hypocrites but the real, true fascists.
Elias and the other participant lawyers in Perkins Coe deserved to have their licenses suspended or revoked for their conduct. Oh, no, only the pro-Trump lawyers get their licenses taken away.
Suspended, revoked. What for?
To Be or Not To Be…..Has a nice ring
So does Que Sera, Sera Whatever Will Be, Will Be
Professor Turley writes, “For the record, I opposed the executive orders of President Trump targeting law firms.”
I understand the professor’s opposition, but I also understand the need for payback: The Democrats didn’t enlist the government to harass law firms because they didn’t need to. Silicon Valley had to be pressured by the FBI, but the law firms were already enforcing the Biden administrations wishes without even being asked. The law firms were in fact willing coconspirators in many of the Democrats’ dirty tricks and coverups, so screw ’em.
Once these Democrat law firms have had a full dose of their own medicine, we should withdraw the executive orders… but not before. As for any objections from the Supreme Court, where were they when we needed them???
Disagree. “Payback” will only continue the cycle of weaponizing the law as a political tool. And it will get worse every time the White House is won by the party out of power. If Elias or any other lawyer broke the law or ethical rules, go after them for those explicit violations. Don’t turn it into an excuse for a vendetta against your perceived political “enemies”.
“‘Payback’ will only continue the cycle of weaponizing the law as a political tool.”
Maybe; doing nothing will definitely continue the weaponization of the law. These are Marxists. When they jam up your courts and persecute your lawyers, you use what you got or the persecution keeps happening.
Without question, Diogenes had it right. I don’t support lawlessness, but it’s time Republicans rolled up their sleeves and fought back with the same ferocity and cunning that Democrats use, only within the boundaries of the law. This doesn’t mean violence or disregard for legal norms, which has become business as usual for Democrats. It means turning their own tactics against them. Trump isn’t jailing Democrat lawyers; he’s making them face their actions, keeping their misdeeds in the spotlight. They hate that. We need more, not less.
Hear, hear!!
Excellent post
Real 3rd world huh? When the opposition understands nothing but force. It’s the reason for wars. After all diplomacy is exhausted then there’s force and forever vigilant.
Correct – the objective is NOT payback.
it is following the law.
These lawfirms mishandled national security matters. The proper consequence is to loose their access to classified information.
There are lots of other law firms that can replace them.
HTC2 – you do not get to violate the law and the constitution – and then claim no one can impose even relatively benign consequestions because subjecting you to the consequences of your own acts is somehow weaponizing the law.
The issue is NOT can an administration of AG or DA go after political enemies.
The issue is can they manufacture crimes to do so.
So far the Trump DOJ has been “conservative” in its prosecution of democrats – including many who targeted Trump. It has only used its power where there was a valid legal referal – usually one originating outside of govenrment, and where there is probable cause a crime was committed.
Similarly outside of DOJ there have been lessor consequences for actions that were unconstitutional, often illegal, but not with certainty criminal.
Firing people who engaged in lawfare and/or taking away the priviledge of a security clearances. Is a consequence for a bad act,
not punishment for an unpopular ideology.
I do not understand Turley’s oposition.
The behavior of the lawfirms in question impaired the national security of the united states.
They are not being prosecuted criminally.
They are merely having their security clearances revoked.
They demonstrated that they do not take national security seriously and their should be consequences.
adding to this …raises the serious query about why a private law firm, whom does not have a need to know secrets of the executive would even have a skif? why it would need clearances that seem to be permanent and over broad?
isn’t THAT the responsibility of each and every case and the judge that presides over it? to determine to what extent, narrowly construed, what material document relevant to a case, any attorney may have to represent a client?
The danger, very real, and probably true, is that by giving overbroad secret clearances and access to classmat, when there is no active legal case filed before a judge, national security becomes pourous, uncontrolled, and subject to all manner of shennanigans.
oerhaps this case of PC, will force the national security posture of the United States to reign in this open hall pass …and definitely establish some methods of evaluating whether an attorney and law firm is abusing access and manipulating clearance access to score political points, and ultimately committing criminal acts?
I’m very uncomfortable with the current nature of classified access by attorneys….even senate confirmed lawyers at FBI and DOJ!
for example: how was it exactly that BoasTURD had lightning fast access to classified secret information about plane deportation schedules? How did he know so quickly and was able to act so fast? Simple intuition reveals he either had direct access to highly classified information (he is after all a FISC judge), OR he was informed by someone who did have access to this information.
Houston, we have a problem. The issue is far more problematic, when you realize just how many very wicked people have access and use that access to do very real harmful things against the security of this country.
I believe boasTURD should have his security clearance status removed. He rubber stamped several fisa warrants, KNOWING (or should have known) them to be false and intentionally developed from a political opposition “research” firm…Perkins Coe.
Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts should have his clearance nulled. he is in fact the President of the FISC> He not only allowed these criminal fisa warrants to be issued, but he has never removed any of the judges who broke the law!!! That shows he is unfit to have security access. and not just from the appearances of bad judgement. He has proven incapable of presiding over the FISA court!
God Bless America
Mr. Turley,
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you’re criticizing President Trump for doing what he can to stop Perkins Coie (i.e. Executive Order). On the other side of your mouth you list all the evil these evildoers and evil law firms have done to viciously destroy Republicans and Conservatives. This also includes you, a democrat. How are these evil lawyers and law firms supposed to be stopped? Stop trying to play both sides Turley! Both side may very well be wrong, but only one of these side maybe justified!
You are not properly comprehending what he wrote.
Perhaps prof Turley objects to the EO? It isn’t explained in this article? A big lasso is needed to round up the anti constitutional bunch from every system.
It’s barbarism and goes to biology. It’s feed and breed. It’s what all living organisms do. It’s what all living organisms have in common. We really aren’t talking about a political system in such cases. There’s little to none reasoning happening. There isn’t a great idea present.
The political system has remained stable over the years but the economic system has changed repeatedly in great leaps and surges. The dems say it’s been conflated. They say the economic system has usurped the political.
Let’s not forget President Obama used his counsel the founder of the Brookings Institute to launder payment thru Perkins Coir which transferred the money to Fusion GPS. The lawyer forced to resign, returned to the Brookings Institute, the payment purpose never accounted for. Also how many private law firms have Top Secret SCIFF in their office. Thirdly (turdly) how many of the members of these private law firms rotate in and out of government agencies. They would do a dirty deal or sign an official document and then quit so an IG couldn’t question them.
I wish more interviewers had the skills and ability that Bret Baier has. He asks the other side of the issues quite often. Many on FoxNews don’t.