Posted on 04/02/2025 7:16:37 AM PDT by MtnClimber
President Trump has been issuing executive orders aimed at law firms that employed key figures in the Russiagate saga. Now, federal judges have blocked many of Trump's efforts, some calling it retribution for the lawfare waged against him by the previous administration.
Multiple judges have blocked efforts by President Donald Trump to hold “Big Law” firms accountable for their connections to lawyers closely tied to the Russia collusion hoax.
The executive orders make allegations against some of the most powerful law firms in the nation: the WilmerHale law firm for previously employing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two of his top prosecutors; against Jenner & Block in part for previously employing top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann; and against Perkins Coie in large part for previously employing Democratic-party-aligned election lawyer Marc Elias, for helping Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign fund British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s debunked anti-Trump dossier.
Elias, who worked at Perkins for many years as the chair of the Political Law Group, went on to serve also as the general counsel for now-former Vice President Kamala Harris’s failed 2020 presidential bid. Perkins announced in 2021 that Elias and others were leaving to form Elias Law Group.
Judges have blocked significant portions of Trump’s executive orders aimed at each of those firms, although the Paul Weiss law firm — targeted by Trump in part for employing former Mueller prosecutor Jeannie Rhee — acquiesced to Trump’s demands, with Trump announcing last week that the firm would now be "taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' policies; [and] dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism."
Trump has used similar language in multiple executive orders addressing the "significant risks” posed by so-called “Big Law” firms which “engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.”
“Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles,” Trump said in these executive orders. “Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.”...SNIP
The DOJ should look closely at these judges and families for corrupt influences.
“Judge blocked . . .”
This has gotten really old, really quick . . .
Whoda thunk?
Was Old Billy right, or what?
“Lookie here, only we can do lawfare, got it?”
If Trump’s agenda fails in his first year, we can be certain that the Time Person of the Year will be a panel of judges against Trump. In fact, that would only be fair.
I want to see one of these judges try to block info on the attempt at assassinating Trump.
Popcorn time that would be.
THAT JUDGE IS OUT OF HIS/HER LANE AND LOST IN EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL SPACE.
BAN THAT JUDGE FROM USING ALL U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS, AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.
Federal judges - except for the USSC - use federal facilities and communications that are on the Executive Branch foundation.
(The USSC building, and its immediately adjacent property “to the curb” are on the Judicial Branch foundation.)
Federal judges are NOT the management of Executive Branch operations.
The Executive Branch - as a courtesy and with some deference - “respects” the LAWFUL Judicial Branch functions that occur on the Executive Branch foundation.
But the federal judges DO NOT have any Constitutional right to operate there, on the Executive Branch foundation.
NOBODY has an obligation to obey any law, any order, that is un-Constitutional.
Extra-Constitutional is also un-Constitutional.
“Legal” is not necessarily “Lawful.”
Follow the lawful; be aware of the foundations.
This is an April 1 joke, right?
Of course it is... but what legal reason does he have for (trying) to block the orders?
These lawyers colluded with a foreign spy, Steele. That alone should be grounds to deny a security clearance to anyone involved.
The House and Senate both have bills to rein in judicial overreach. It can’t happen soon enough.
EC
It’s looking like they’re distributing fill-in-the-blanks Microsoft Office templates starting with “Federal judge blocks Trump’s...”
So sick of this crap!
We are, at this moment in time, ruled by robes.
Why this Russia collusion business was not considered ELECTION INTERFERENCE, I don’t know. Oh, wait... it’s okay when Democrats do it. That’s right, I forgot. Sorry.
Why can’t any citizen get a security clearance? Why are these lawyers accorded such a privileged position? What about 14th amendment?
This security clearance stuff seems like a license. If so, the feds need to vet, set standards, regulate and charge applicants for the privilege.
AG Blondi needs to issue arrest warrants for these judges on charges of giving aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States.
So now judges think they are in charge of national security decisions?
Lol. FO, judge.
So when will a federal judge just declare Trump be removed and Harris and stakes as president? (Sarc)
These judges are committing TREASON by usurping Presidential powers and ruling the country like petty political hacks they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.