Of course he is going after lawyers. He is going after everything that makes for a free society. He is an authoritarian, and everyone is cowering and letting him do it. Protests by left-wing activists are no resistance at all. The resistance has to come from mainstream America.
Actually, much of the resistance (in the form of protesting) is coming from mainstream America; from people who have never been political activists, but are now rising to address the threat this moment in history is creating. Longitudinal research done by Harvard political scientist, Erica Chenowith (and others), has concluded that, historically, it only takes 3.5% of a nation’s population to rise up, protest and push back for change to occur. I would discourage any of us from writing off these protests too lightly
Protests can work, as demonstrated in the US and in other countries. But it has to be much more broad-based protest, not just activists on the left. Protests helped drive LBJ from office and helped change the government in Ukraine.
I greatly admire the law firms that have filed legal briefs in opposition to the extortionate conduct perpetrated by Trump against Paul Weiss, for whom I have little sympathy and much disdain.
I think that the court(s) before whom these briefs are filed by these courageous lawyers should be supplemented by a tidal wave of Friend of the Court (Amicus Curiae) briefs not only by lawyers and law firms around the country but by Attorneys General, universities and colleges and other impacted professions by Trump's extortionate and/or punitive measures in violation of many statutes and Constitutionally vested rights, including the Right to Counsel, Freedom of Speech, the right to due process and as victims of Trump's violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1951 by engaging in extortionate conduct under color of right.
While Trump's cheerleaders on the U.S. Supreme Court may stretch to include Trump's felonious and illegal conduct under the vast swarth of immunity they have clothed him with, it does not mean that what he has done and continues to do is legal, only that he cannot be criminally prosecuted for it.
They need to band together. They have almost unlimited resources to fight this. To me they appear to be worried about their bottom line the defending the rule of law. As I remember it was Trump's lawyers that were sanctioned or were disbarred. He is just the President he can't make laws by himself unless we truly have a king.
The problem is that Trump should be arrested but he is immune thanks to the bias Supreme Court. He should be impeached but Congress has totally capitulated including democrats. The Senate is impotent and won’t support an impeachment. The DOJ, FBI, Homeland Security have been neutered at best but more probably weaponized to do Trump’s bidding. We are ruled by the “Mad King”.
Are they wanting to remove every judge who asks for records which should have been preserved but instead got deleted by Signal?
The memo:
Quit chasing every manufactured outrage like dogs on a lure course and Benghazi the hell out of Signalgate!!!!
Everyone who serves or has served in the military can understand how bad this is and will be able to see the lies for what they are. I did not (wish I had), and I understand how bad this is.
US Citizens detained by ICE and held for hours without the enforcement action being documented? Were they using signal for that action - is that why documentation is missing?
Missing service members? Are they missing because their movements were discussed on Signal?
_____ outrage: how does it relate to Signal? Frame it that way.
Signalgate is akin to the abusive man getting caught inviting his wife into a groupchat with his swinger friends. Many MAGA women understand this all too well.
In addition to the law firm of Paul Weiss signing on to support Trump's fanatical, far right-wing pursuits in return for lavish client profits, the large Wall Street law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom signed on to provide $100 million dollars worth of pro bono services in support of Trump's Project 2025 and other far right-wing initiatives in return for Trump's blessings to continue to rake in the big bucks for its partners and associates. This all goes to prove that lawyers are just as capable of being whores as are women of the night.
Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps are a disgrace to the legal profession and should be stigmatized and shunned by anyone and everyone who wants to preserve our democracy.
How long before we understand that anticipating and predicting the outrageous injustices awaiting us is the only way to outmaneuver the party of Mass Manipulation? If we are ever to overcome the power of MAGA and everything it represents, we MUST learn the art of pre-emptive strikes. Therein lies our greatest weakness - reacting to outrage can never overcome the willfully outrageous.
This idiot needs stopped. He used the court system with abuse already and now he’ll forbid it from doing anything that might ruffle his orange feathers. He needs stopped now. Help
What can you expect from a lifelong criminal who probably always saw the law as the main impediment to his getting what he wanted? Unlike the old days when he was just a young thug being hauled into court with his father to answer for illegally discriminating against Black people in their apartment complexes, he now has the power to bring the entire legal system to heel--or at least, he's trying.
The name and email address of Skadden Arps' managing partner are just a simple search away.
It wouldn't take more than a sentence or two to chide his firm for paying $100 million in pro bono protection money to America's up-and-coming authoritarian-in-chief, Donald Trump.
Want to do something about the rule of law. It’s a start, but email me at citypark3695@gmail.com and I’ll send you a DIY Guide on how to print and distribute yard signs that say Respect the Rule of Law. We have distributed 400 already in Sacramento, and want to share the idea. See them on my Facebook page Jeff Cook. It’s therapeutic and more rewarding and fun than I imagined.
What are you guys smoking? I am a retirned attorney and after practicing for more than 25 years, I never saw any "independent" legal system in my life. That concept is a farce. The only reason that I can even say this, is because I am now retired and do not have to tow the line, so to speak. For example, just look at how the state of Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot. So you can drop the pretense (nonsense) about the independent legal profession or the "rule of law", etc. ....
Should the president have the power to determine whether it's okay for the legality of his own actions to be challenged in courts of law?
Is a court not "independent" if it reaches a judgment you dislike?
It was citizens of Colorado - not "the state of Colorado" - who filed suit to keep Trump off the ballot in accordance with the constitutional provision under which he had disqualified himself by refusing to accept an election loss, pressuring state officials to overturn the result, concocting a fake-electors scheme, and inciting a mob to attack the Capitol Police in his name and gleefully watching them do it for three hours.
J. Michael Luttig, a highly regarded conservative jurist, called it the gravest crime that a president has ever committed against the Constriction, and one that was disqualifying under the letter of the Constitution.
SCOTUS did not dispute the state court finding that Trump had disqualified himself under the Constitution. Instead, they made a prudential argument and invented a prerequisite that is not in the Constitution - just as they later invented an immunity doctrine that is not in the Constitution. Oddly, Trump apologists don't think those decisions were contrary to the rule of law.
No previous president has so openly bashed courts that rule against him as Trump. He calls them "radical left judges" - even though Republican-appointed judges have ruled against him at about the same rate as Democrat-appointed judges.
No previous president has so often praised "iron-fisted" despots, or taken such aggressive measures to suppress unfavorable reporting, or tried to seize control over the nation's entire voting system. Etc.
A dictator-admiring president keeps doing things that appear to be consolidating dictatorial power, yet his defenders keep making nonsensical claims that he's just "fighting corruption" and "saving America."
Thank you for your lengthy reply. However, after reading it, I fail to see anywhere that you mentioned that Trump had been charged with "... constitutional provision under which he had disqualified himself by refusing to accept an election loss, pressuring state officials to overturn the result, concocting a fake-electors scheme, and inciting a mob to attack the Capitol Police in his name and gleefully watching them do it for three hours."etc. This is why the whole case was a complete sham. Anyone with two brain cells still firing knows that the US Constitution provides for due process such as first charging someone and then giving that individual a fair trial, etc. This NEVER happened. And that is just one reason the Supreme Court ruled 9/0 without any dissenting opinion against the State of Colorado (or as you like to frame it, "the people of Colorado), in that case.
None of your claims (all of which I disagree with) appear in the opinion you cite. That opinion gave an entirely different rationale, that somehow states, although charged with making the presidential ballot, cannot decide constitutional eligibility questions. (A laughable one, of course, that will be abandoned the second some state tries to put Obama on the ballot, but I don't write the stuff.) I would guess the Supreme Court didn't give that rationale because the constitutional provision rides neither on a conviction nor a statutory definition. Being President is neither a liberty interest nor a fundamental right.
Mercedes. BMW. Paul, Weiss.
Any firm that calculates the income to be gained from a fascist assault on its competition can join the list. Failure to fight fascism is complicity.
Of course he is going after lawyers. He is going after everything that makes for a free society. He is an authoritarian, and everyone is cowering and letting him do it. Protests by left-wing activists are no resistance at all. The resistance has to come from mainstream America.
Actually, much of the resistance (in the form of protesting) is coming from mainstream America; from people who have never been political activists, but are now rising to address the threat this moment in history is creating. Longitudinal research done by Harvard political scientist, Erica Chenowith (and others), has concluded that, historically, it only takes 3.5% of a nation’s population to rise up, protest and push back for change to occur. I would discourage any of us from writing off these protests too lightly
Protests, especially the antisocial media driven pop-up type, are really just group virtue signaling. Glorified "pep" rallies.
Protests can work, as demonstrated in the US and in other countries. But it has to be much more broad-based protest, not just activists on the left. Protests helped drive LBJ from office and helped change the government in Ukraine.
Yes they can work. But in order to work they need to have planning and discipline. Like you say the broader the base the more likely to be successful.
Please read From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr Gene Sharp
Having Immunity Doesn't Make it Legal
I greatly admire the law firms that have filed legal briefs in opposition to the extortionate conduct perpetrated by Trump against Paul Weiss, for whom I have little sympathy and much disdain.
I think that the court(s) before whom these briefs are filed by these courageous lawyers should be supplemented by a tidal wave of Friend of the Court (Amicus Curiae) briefs not only by lawyers and law firms around the country but by Attorneys General, universities and colleges and other impacted professions by Trump's extortionate and/or punitive measures in violation of many statutes and Constitutionally vested rights, including the Right to Counsel, Freedom of Speech, the right to due process and as victims of Trump's violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1951 by engaging in extortionate conduct under color of right.
While Trump's cheerleaders on the U.S. Supreme Court may stretch to include Trump's felonious and illegal conduct under the vast swarth of immunity they have clothed him with, it does not mean that what he has done and continues to do is legal, only that he cannot be criminally prosecuted for it.
Again. Trump’s simplistic but effective plan: Avoid getting caught in a scam by eliminating all lawyers who might prosecute you.
They need to band together. They have almost unlimited resources to fight this. To me they appear to be worried about their bottom line the defending the rule of law. As I remember it was Trump's lawyers that were sanctioned or were disbarred. He is just the President he can't make laws by himself unless we truly have a king.
He has to be stopped and I pray people don’t let musk buy their votes !
Yay to Wisconsin!!!!
I can only laugh thinking that this guy, the king of frivolous lawsuits, wants to curtail frivolous lawsuits. Haha!
The problem is that Trump should be arrested but he is immune thanks to the bias Supreme Court. He should be impeached but Congress has totally capitulated including democrats. The Senate is impotent and won’t support an impeachment. The DOJ, FBI, Homeland Security have been neutered at best but more probably weaponized to do Trump’s bidding. We are ruled by the “Mad King”.
Are they wanting to remove every judge who asks for records which should have been preserved but instead got deleted by Signal?
The memo:
Quit chasing every manufactured outrage like dogs on a lure course and Benghazi the hell out of Signalgate!!!!
Everyone who serves or has served in the military can understand how bad this is and will be able to see the lies for what they are. I did not (wish I had), and I understand how bad this is.
US Citizens detained by ICE and held for hours without the enforcement action being documented? Were they using signal for that action - is that why documentation is missing?
Missing service members? Are they missing because their movements were discussed on Signal?
_____ outrage: how does it relate to Signal? Frame it that way.
Signalgate is akin to the abusive man getting caught inviting his wife into a groupchat with his swinger friends. Many MAGA women understand this all too well.
In addition to the law firm of Paul Weiss signing on to support Trump's fanatical, far right-wing pursuits in return for lavish client profits, the large Wall Street law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom signed on to provide $100 million dollars worth of pro bono services in support of Trump's Project 2025 and other far right-wing initiatives in return for Trump's blessings to continue to rake in the big bucks for its partners and associates. This all goes to prove that lawyers are just as capable of being whores as are women of the night.
Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps are a disgrace to the legal profession and should be stigmatized and shunned by anyone and everyone who wants to preserve our democracy.
How long before we understand that anticipating and predicting the outrageous injustices awaiting us is the only way to outmaneuver the party of Mass Manipulation? If we are ever to overcome the power of MAGA and everything it represents, we MUST learn the art of pre-emptive strikes. Therein lies our greatest weakness - reacting to outrage can never overcome the willfully outrageous.
Please read From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr Gene Sharp
I will most certainly read it, Susan, and I thank you for the suggestion.
This idiot needs stopped. He used the court system with abuse already and now he’ll forbid it from doing anything that might ruffle his orange feathers. He needs stopped now. Help
What can you expect from a lifelong criminal who probably always saw the law as the main impediment to his getting what he wanted? Unlike the old days when he was just a young thug being hauled into court with his father to answer for illegally discriminating against Black people in their apartment complexes, he now has the power to bring the entire legal system to heel--or at least, he's trying.
The name and email address of Skadden Arps' managing partner are just a simple search away.
It wouldn't take more than a sentence or two to chide his firm for paying $100 million in pro bono protection money to America's up-and-coming authoritarian-in-chief, Donald Trump.
Want to do something about the rule of law. It’s a start, but email me at citypark3695@gmail.com and I’ll send you a DIY Guide on how to print and distribute yard signs that say Respect the Rule of Law. We have distributed 400 already in Sacramento, and want to share the idea. See them on my Facebook page Jeff Cook. It’s therapeutic and more rewarding and fun than I imagined.
What are you guys smoking? I am a retirned attorney and after practicing for more than 25 years, I never saw any "independent" legal system in my life. That concept is a farce. The only reason that I can even say this, is because I am now retired and do not have to tow the line, so to speak. For example, just look at how the state of Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot. So you can drop the pretense (nonsense) about the independent legal profession or the "rule of law", etc. ....
Should the president have the power to determine whether it's okay for the legality of his own actions to be challenged in courts of law?
Is a court not "independent" if it reaches a judgment you dislike?
It was citizens of Colorado - not "the state of Colorado" - who filed suit to keep Trump off the ballot in accordance with the constitutional provision under which he had disqualified himself by refusing to accept an election loss, pressuring state officials to overturn the result, concocting a fake-electors scheme, and inciting a mob to attack the Capitol Police in his name and gleefully watching them do it for three hours.
J. Michael Luttig, a highly regarded conservative jurist, called it the gravest crime that a president has ever committed against the Constriction, and one that was disqualifying under the letter of the Constitution.
SCOTUS did not dispute the state court finding that Trump had disqualified himself under the Constitution. Instead, they made a prudential argument and invented a prerequisite that is not in the Constitution - just as they later invented an immunity doctrine that is not in the Constitution. Oddly, Trump apologists don't think those decisions were contrary to the rule of law.
No previous president has so openly bashed courts that rule against him as Trump. He calls them "radical left judges" - even though Republican-appointed judges have ruled against him at about the same rate as Democrat-appointed judges.
No previous president has so often praised "iron-fisted" despots, or taken such aggressive measures to suppress unfavorable reporting, or tried to seize control over the nation's entire voting system. Etc.
A dictator-admiring president keeps doing things that appear to be consolidating dictatorial power, yet his defenders keep making nonsensical claims that he's just "fighting corruption" and "saving America."
Thank you for your lengthy reply. However, after reading it, I fail to see anywhere that you mentioned that Trump had been charged with "... constitutional provision under which he had disqualified himself by refusing to accept an election loss, pressuring state officials to overturn the result, concocting a fake-electors scheme, and inciting a mob to attack the Capitol Police in his name and gleefully watching them do it for three hours."etc. This is why the whole case was a complete sham. Anyone with two brain cells still firing knows that the US Constitution provides for due process such as first charging someone and then giving that individual a fair trial, etc. This NEVER happened. And that is just one reason the Supreme Court ruled 9/0 without any dissenting opinion against the State of Colorado (or as you like to frame it, "the people of Colorado), in that case.
None of your claims (all of which I disagree with) appear in the opinion you cite. That opinion gave an entirely different rationale, that somehow states, although charged with making the presidential ballot, cannot decide constitutional eligibility questions. (A laughable one, of course, that will be abandoned the second some state tries to put Obama on the ballot, but I don't write the stuff.) I would guess the Supreme Court didn't give that rationale because the constitutional provision rides neither on a conviction nor a statutory definition. Being President is neither a liberty interest nor a fundamental right.
As an attorney, you should know that the phrase is "toe the line," not "tow the line." I feel sorry for your clients.