Various legal firms have borne the brunt of Donald Trump’s onslaught, as he leverages executive orders designed to economically harm these businesses in retaliation for what he interprets as confronting advocacy. These companies, including Perkins Coie, Paul, Weiss, Covington & Burling, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, have primarily been the focal point of political scandal due to Trump’s actions. To many, this presents a clear and present danger to the First Amendment. But the actions of Trump can be encapsulated in a single word: extortion. Trump’s aggression is not targeted at any illicit activities by these firms, but rather at their usage of lawful measures to oppose him. It’s as if he were saying: It’s a pity if something were to happen to your law firm.
Moreover, the playbook for Trump’s intimidation campaign seems to emanate directly from the Oval Office. This might seem like common sense, but could it possibly meet the legal threshold for extortion? Interestingly, the answer appears to be affirmative. According to New York law where Paul, Weiss is headquartered, the equivalent of commonly understood extortion is termed ‘coercion.’
Delving into specifics, the actions of Trump towards Paul, Weiss capture the essence of coercion. He pressurized the firm to cease their legal activities, even though they were well within their rights to continue, by threatening damage to their operations. Additional threats included misuse of his political position to refuse the firm’s security clearances and obstruct their access to federal property. A critical question arises: was this high standard of coercion achieved here? The response leaves little room for speculation.
Brad Karp, chairperson of Paul, Weiss, stated in his explanatory letter to the firm in regards to their submission to Trump’s coercion: The existential crisis necessitated the leadership of our law firm to make extremely challenging decisions under extreme circumstances. In making those decisions, we were underscored by two vital principles. Paramount among these was our commitment to safeguard the interests of our clients. As we concluded previously, even a litigation victory would not have sufficed, as our firm would have still been viewed as an undesirable entity by the Administration. It wasn’t feasible to practice law in the Paul, Weiss style if the executive order continued to haunt us; it was apparent that this solution was unequivocally in the best interests of our clients.
In other words, the company feared the potential loss of its property—its business operations. This now raises a pertinent question: Should the New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg consider bringing this criminal case before a grand jury?
However, there are clear hurdles to this consideration. The first concern stems from the fact that there’s a tendency amongst executive branch agencies to ensure the protection of the presidential office—it’s their fundamental role. However, it’s essential to differentiate this from the notion that the president can’t be indicted. Tentatively, we could allow the statute of limitations to remain paused. The escalating constitutional crisis, aggravated by the likely criminal deeds of Trump in these instances, requires immediate attention.
In an influential book, both Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way introduced the concept of a ‘competitive authoritarian’ state akin to nations like Hungary, Venezuela, and Turkey. In these states, elections still occur, but the competition is biased, and the executive’s power remains unchecked. As per their interpretation in January, under Trump’s administration, the United States seems to be adopting this ‘competitive authoritarian’ norm.
Time is of the essence here. Bragg should strive to present this case before a grand jury, and if an indictment follows, then so be it. In the instance Trump contests the legitimacy of the indictment and reiterates his abuse of federal powers for his personal vendetta against political opponents—and is supported by the Supreme Court—then evidently, the Constitution fails to uphold its directives and the rule of law loses its significance.
But skeptics might question the utility of such a step. From a different perspective, it’s one thing for Democrats to merely accuse Trump of extortion, but a completely different scenario if this accusation is confirmed by a grand jury comprising his peers. Even media headlines would change from ‘Democrats Accuse Trump of Power Abuse’ to a much more impactful ‘Trump Indicted.’
For future scenarios, if Trump were to issue an executive order against more law firms or similar civil organizations, his indiction for similar past behaviors would naturally weave its way into the narrative. An indictment surpasses a simple protest or speech—it represents the legal determination that there’s a probable cause to believe a person is culpable of a crime. Such a decision isn’t borne of politics, but is decided by a panel of impartial citizens.
The rule of law is under an assault by Donald Trump: An indictment would provide credible evidence that the rule of law is not merely a bystander, but actively defending its integrity. This is a massive realization. On receiving the indictment, if Trump laments the ‘misuse of justice system’—a clear case of his incessant mangle of irony—a simple response could be suggested: Fair enough. Do you believe this is unjust? Let’s take it to trial. Let the jury decide.
However, it’s more than likely that he wouldn’t allow the situation to reach that stage. Still, the potential benefits and the symbolic significance of an indictment remain undiminished.
The post Trump’s Alleged Extortion Tactics Threaten Legal Firms appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
