It Is Long Past Time For Democrats To Start Pounding The Impeachment Drum

Politics

from the dormant-doormat dept

The big deal today is DC police and fire departments!). But the larger point made here stands, because the cowardice on display in this budget showdown is the cowardice that been keeping Democrats from doing what they should have been doing all along—finally saying NO to Trump—and enough is enough. If we’re going to survive it’s time for Democrats to start taking a stand. On the budget, on DOGE, on EVERYTHING.

Someone asked a ranking House Democrat several weeks ago whether they would float impeachment articles against Trump, to which the answer was something along the lines of, “Find me a few Republicans and I will.” I’m not sure which one it was—perhaps Raskin?—but the fact that it is so hard to locate the comment, and nothing else on the impeachment topic is readily surfacing either, indicates why it was the wrong answer, one now lost to the sands of time instead of serving as the opening volley of a serious campaign to do what needs to be done and finally remove Trump from the office he has been abusing from the moment he entered it.

Because the question is not whether impeachment can yet succeed (although in a sane Congress there would be no question). The question is whether and when Democrats are going to collectively put their foot down and finally say no to the lawless, unconstitutional sledgehammer Trump and his associates have been taking to our federal government and constitutional order. The question is how much are they going to allow to be destroyed—how many lives are they going to allow to be destroyed—before they finally say enough is enough. How much scientific discovery will be squandered, disease spread, expertise ignored, government services gutted, agencies dismantled, public servants fired, infrastructure vandalized, contracts breached, resources wasted, bigotry celebrated, voices censored, persecutions pursued, civil rights violated, human beings disappeared, rule of law upended, national security compromised, military readiness forfeited, veterans betrayed, allies attacked, alliances trashed, wars threatened, businesses bankrupted, taxes uncollected, corruption enabled, and economies crashed before the national Democratic party shows up to be the party against all these things.

So far some individual Democrats have been able to make a piecemeal show of displeasure or even resistance at particular Trump-generated disasters, but the national party as a whole has done little to suggest that it even understands the problem, let alone demonstrate willingness to do what it takes to actually solve it. It can’t be left up to the courts to fix—while the litigation has helped mitigate some of the damage Trump has caused, it only does a bit at a time, only after the damage has already accrued, and generally only because other people marshaled the resources together to bring these challenges. The only way to truly stem the seemingly endless tide of malfeasance is to cut it off at the source. But Democrats’ refusal to even talk about doing the one thing their own offices allow them to do to stop all the madness turns them into a party that stands for all these things they refuse to use their own power as elected representatives to meaningfully oppose.

By instead largely proceeding as though everything were normal politics as usual, the party has been telling the GOP, the nation, the world, and even Trump himself that everything is fine when everything is most definitely not fine. Their complicity makes the Democrats even worse than useless, because their passive, cowardly acquiescence, if not outright surrender, to Trump’s lawless power only enables and exacerbates the harm he causes by effectively giving it their blessing to continue. And it also hangs out to dry all those who would have been ready to stand against him, dissipating and demoralizing the civic resistance the country so desperately needs, plus essentially abandoning those who voted them into office at the moment when their leadership is the most needed to protect them.

The kindest view of the Democrats’ refusal to respond in the way the moment calls for is that they are waiting for something to happen before starting to pursue it, but it’s not clear what they are waiting for, or what could be worth the cost of the wait as daily Trump destroys more and more. And it is a serious miscalculation to wait. For one thing, it gives him a chance to inflict an amount of harm that may be irreversible, or at least prohibitively expensive to try. Worse, it gives him time to dig in so that even if impeachment does finally come to pass he will be in a position to try to resist removal. Impeachment with removal is of course a big deal—historically unprecedented in America—and perhaps it will take time for enough people to get used to the idea before it can happen. But this historical inertia is why it is important to start pounding the drum now, to start to get everyone acclimated to the idea, so that hopefully it can at last happen before it is too late.

And because the waiting misapprehends the political calculus. So far, Democrats seem to be pinning everything on the electorate being so disgusted with the GOP that it votes them all out in 2026, but Democrats don’t seem to be accounting for how disgusted everyone is getting with them for standing idly by, letting so much fall apart in the meantime. There is a ton of fear and outrage out there in the country, and a great deal of it is directed at Democrats for being so unwilling to lead through this moment as a united opposition. If Democrats are going to be able to count on anyone’s votes in 2026, or ever again, then they will need to start showing some respect for those who already elected them to be stewards of our republic and demonstrate that they are worthy of that trust.  And finally, finally, take a stand.

There is only one way this crisis ends: with either the premature end of Trump’s presidency, or of America itself. Yet as long as the Democrats do nothing to advance the former through impeachment, they tell everyone that they are fine inviting the latter. But if that’s the fate they welcome then they have no business being in government either, and the public is starting to notice. It is bad enough that the GOP is unable to stand against Trump, but when both major parties are lost then so is our democracy. It is time for Democrats to finally wake up to reality of what is going on and get in the game to fix it.

In sum, removing Trump from office is the only cure for this disease, and if there is to still be a political way to achieve it there is no time to lose pursuing it. Even if the cancer cannot be excised right away it is still important to start laying the groundwork for it, and now, for several reasons.

For one thing, it would send a needed sign that Democrats at last understand the assignment. The argument here is also not that impeachment articles need to be formally introduced yet. The object is to get to the point where they viably can. Even just getting articles drafted to be displayed and discussed is an important start, because by putting impeachment on the table it tells everyone what we are working toward. And that messaging is important if we are going to get everyone needed on board so that it can finally actually happen.

For Congress, beginning to talk about impeachment begins the project of cultivating the political support it needs to pull it off. Even if there are not yet the votes for it, it starts the process of collecting them. As the political pressure builds it can then prod Republicans (plus wayward Democrats) to grow a spine and rethink their resistance to such a move. Indeed, it is even a carrot for those more malleable and moderate in the GOP frustrated by how Trump has angered their own constituencies, because all they would need to do, if they want the pain to stop, is just join the Democrats and finally get the impeachment done. With impeachment finally on the table everyone could now see a light at the end of the tunnel offering some relief from this mess. But with the GOP too enfeebled to resist Trump’s spell it will have to be up to the Democrats to provide the path forward.

For the public, when Democrats get busy on impeachment it means people can finally direct their energies toward the real danger to democracy and not have to keep expending so much effort pushing forward those recalcitrant leaders who should instead have been pulling everyone forward. By even just getting articles drafted for the public to read Democrats would be at last telling an outraged America that they are not alone in their appalled, terrified horror. It would also tell them that Democrats have their backs. Which matters because not only would it help organize needed resistance—right now the public is as splintered as Democrats have been, having to fight each Trump-made crisis separately, but what if we could all be united in pushing for the one thing that will get all of these horrors at last to stop—but because it would help generate the groundswell of support Democrats will need to ultimately uproot Trump. Already more of the public is ready to fight for our country than Democrats seem to realize, but we’re all in a holding pattern waiting to find out if the fight is finally on. Once impeachment becomes the project, we’ll all know that it is.

For the world, moving toward impeachment gives some indication that the cavalry might finally be coming. It might take a while to get here, but right now it looks like there is none being organized at all, and Democrats’ silence on this front has been speaking volumes. How other nations respond to the destructive force currently occupying the White House will vary depending on whether it appears to be something America itself wants. If the rest of the world sees the country as a victim of Trump’s tyranny our friends will stand by and help support us in our hour of difficulty, ready to greet us on the other side. But when submission to this malevolence instead appears to be what we are affirmatively choosing, what friend could possibly afford to remain by our side. Democrats’ refusal so far to meaningfully push back to save our democracy keeps conveying that we don’t think it’s worth fighting for anymore, not even for ourselves. The world is receiving that message loud and clear and will react accordingly. So if we don’t want to be treated as a pariah nation, Democrats need to start showing some sign that America is still in the democracy business by doing what it takes to preserve it.

And, for Trump, constructively threatening impeachment would send the message that the clock is ticking. While such information could in theory cause him to act more recklessly and autocratically to try to pre-emptively stop Congress from effecting his removal, doing nothing has itself been inviting him to keep upping his destructive game anyway by teaching him that he’s immune from all political consequences. But such a message is the last thing that Democrats should be sending. It is important to make Trump realize that by acting so aggressively he weakens his hold on the office he so desperately wants to keep. Too many Democrats have been, inexplicably, treating him like a business-as-usual president, but the more they want to return to politics as normal the more important that Trump start to face the normal sort of consequences that a rogue president is supposed to face. By shielding him from them we keep handing him the kingdom he thinks he rules, one where the top autocrat can act with impunity. If that’s not the system we want to live in, then it needs to stop being the system we are living in.

Filed Under: impeachment, not normal

Meta, Apparently, Really Wants Everyone To Read This Book (By Trying To Ban It)

Failures

from the well-NOW-the-book-sounds-interesting dept

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg, for giving me yet another exhibit in my museum of those who fail to understand the Streisand Effect. Meta is so desperate to silence a former employee’s book that it’s doing everything possible to ensure maximum publicity for the allegations within it. You might think that a company like Meta would understand the Streisand Effect, but apparently Mark Zuckerberg’s newfound commitment to “free speech” only goes so far.

You may have heard about a new book by a former Meta (then Facebook) policy person, Sarah Wynn-Williams, making some pretty explosive allegations about the company. Having spoken to a few former Meta employees, the general response I’ve gotten about the book is that it is a mix of known awful things the company did that have mostly been reported on, mixed with some more questionable claims. I heard from multiple people that some of the claims don’t sound right, though no one wanted to go further than that.

Either way, it appears that Meta is so unhappy with the book that it’s trying to silence the author. It claims she violated a non-disparagement agreement she signed when she was let go from the company years ago.

Let’s talk about Meta’s legal/media strategy here, because it’s a special kind of puzzling. The company’s plan appears to be:

1. Drag both the author and her publisher into arbitration over a severance agreement
2. Hope nobody notices that the publisher never signed any agreement with Meta
3. Get an arbitrator to order them to stop distributing a book that’s already on sale
4. ???
5. Profit! (Or at least, less embarrassing publicity)

According to the arbitrator’s interim award, Wynn-Williams simply ignored the proceedings (more on that decision in a moment). Meanwhile, Macmillan showed up just long enough to point out the blazingly obvious: they never signed any agreement with Meta and thus can’t be bound by arbitration. The arbitrator, displaying basic common sense, had to admit they had no jurisdiction over Macmillan.

On March 7, 2025, Claimant filed an Emergency Motion seeking interim and emergency measures pursuant to AAA Employment Rule 0-4 concerning the publication of Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism. On March 10, 2025, the Emergency Arbitrator was appointed and scheduled an emergency telephonic hearing with the parties to occur on March 11, 2025 at 3:15 p.m. (CT) / 4:15 p.m. (ET). On March 11, 2025, the Emergency Arbitrator held the telephonic hearing. Claimant, through its counsel, appeared and presented oral argument. Respondent Wynn-Williams did not appear, despite notice being provided by email. Respondent Macmillian, through its counsel, did specially appear (while preserving its objections to jurisdiction) and was provided the opportunity to be heard, and argued, among other points, that the Emergency Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over Respondent Macmillian, and that Respondent Macmillian should not be specifically named in this award.

On March 12, 2025 at 11:16 a.m. (ET), the Emergency Arbitrator informed the parties that he would provide Respondent Wynn-Williams additional time until 9:00 a.m. (ET) on March 13, 2025 to file any written objection to Claimant’s Motion. Shortly thereafter at 12:19 p.m. (ET), Claimant provided the Arbitrator and the parties additional evidence regarding Respondent Wynn-Williams knowledge of the proceedings. On the morning of March 12, 2025, Respondent Wynn-Williams apparently appeared on a popular podcast where she discussed her book and Claimant’s attempts to “shut this book down.” The Emergency Arbitrator will consider Claimant’s March 12 submission of the podcast’s partial transcript as a further exhibit in support of its Emergency Motion. Accordingly, the Emergency Arbitrator finds that Respondent Wynn-Williams is on notice of this emergency proceeding.

So Meta filed an emergency motion on March 7th, got a hearing on March 11th, and then frantically submitted evidence that Wynn-Williams knew about the proceedings because she went on a podcast to talk about how Meta was trying to “shut this book down.” Which, of course, is exactly what was happening.

Yeah, so, no one comes out of this looking particularly good. Meta’s aggressive move in trying to silence the book (which is clearly backfiring and driving more attention to the book) seems absurd. Just put out a bland statement (as the company already did) saying that the book is full of “out-of-date” claims and “false accusations.” If there’s anything particularly egregiously wrong, present some receipts, and let the whole thing fade away.

By going to arbitration and trying to block publication, then, suddenly, it all gets that much more attention.

The arbitrator’s ruling reads like a corporate revenge fantasy rather than enforceable legal reality. Yes, Wynn-Williams probably should have engaged with the arbitration process rather than just appearing on podcasts to discuss Meta’s attempts to silence her. But the arbitrator’s order is nonsensical: telling her not to make disparaging remarks about Meta, not to promote a book that’s already on sale, and to stop distribution “to the extent within [her] control” (which is effectively zero since Macmillan controls distribution and isn’t bound by the arbitration).

This fits a pattern for Meta. For all of Zuckerberg’s grand pronouncements about free speech and open dialogue, the company seems pretty quick to freak out when strong criticism comes along.

The timing here is particularly rich. Just months after Zuckerberg made grand proclamations about Meta’s renewed commitment to “free speech,” here we are watching his company flail around trying to legally mandate silence. It turns out Zuckerberg’s version of “free speech” comes with some pretty significant terms and conditions.

The irony, of course, is that Meta’s heavy-handed response has only amplified Wynn-Williams’ message. Perhaps instead of paying lawyers to draft emergency arbitration motions, someone at Meta should have invested in a quick course on the Streisand Effect (I know a good instructor). Though given the company’s track record, they’d probably try to get an arbitrator to block that too.

Filed Under: sarah wynn-williams, tell all books
Companies: meta

DHS Ensures The Leaks Will Continue By Rolling Out Lie Detectors In Hopes Of Finding Leakers

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the dumb-keeps-getting-dumber dept

If there’s anything guaranteed to increase the number of leaks emanating from an entity, it’s letting people know you’re trying to track down leakers. The private sector knows this. And yet, the same thing happens again and again: a deterrent appears and everyone treats it like an instigator.

Even Trump knows this. Or, at least, he should. His first administration was plagued by leaks, resulting in a memo being issued to State Department employees, a few of which apparently leaked it to the press pretty much as soon as they’d finished reading it.

Given this history, we should be expecting many more leaks from the DHS, now that it’s actively engaged in trying to prevent future leaks. How do we know this? It’s right there in Ellen Gilmer’s report for Bloomberg.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warned employees that polygraph tests will be used to help crack down on leaks that agency officials say have foiled immigration enforcement plans.

Noem last week issued an internal directive that all polygraphs the Department of Homeland Security administers must include a question about unauthorized communications with media and nonprofit organizations, according to a memo described to Bloomberg Government by two people without authorization to speak publicly.

There it is: the new deterrent to leaking has been leaked. And what a stupid deterrent it is. Lie detector tests? What is this, the 1970s? Almost no one believes lie detectors are capable of accurately detecting lies has been busted so often it’s almost as much of a cliché as the one it replaced: some dude strapped to a polygraph, dripping with sweat, and making the needle move like it’s a seismograph and he’s an anthropomorphic San Andreas fault.

What this move will do is (1) encourage more leaks and (2) give Noem’s DHS an easy way to fire people it doesn’t like, whether or not they’re actually engaged in leaking. It’s not like the employees are polygraph experts. Lies can be in the eye of the beholder, especially when the beholder has the machine, the graphs, and whatever interpretation of whatever has been measured proves most useful at that point in time.

Unfortunately, the DHS is doubling down on this stupidity. When reached for a statement on the deployment of extremely dubious tech to suss out leakers, the agency had this to say:

“DHS is a national security agency,” spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an email to Bloomberg Government. “As such, it should and will polygraph personnel.”

As such, it should recognize the tech is unreliable and beatable. And it definitely shouldn’t expect this magic box to discover the sources of leaks with any accuracy or regularity. Finally, the DHS should know that treating every employee like a criminal is only going to generate more leaks, with the most damaging internal stuff being thrown to the nearest source of disinfecting sunlight first.

All that’s really on display here is the paranoia of Trump appointees.

Noem and White House border czar Tom Homan blamed alleged leaks for disrupting planned immigration enforcement operations in Colorado and California over the past month.

Take that with the largest grains of salt you can ingest, even unsafely. Noem previously claimed the DHS had rooted out the leakers that supposedly compromised ICE raids and is referring their cases to the DOJ for prosecution. But mere days before that, both she and Homan were convinced the leaks were coming from “crooked Deep State agents” working for the “corrupt FBI.”

This is what’s known as “compounding idiocy.” Neither of these dipshits actually knows or cares to know what they’re doing. They just want to score as many points as possible with Trump by finding scapegoats for ICE’s failure to eject hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the nation on a weekly basis while simultaneously humoring the president’s enduring “deep state” fantasies about the federal agencies that aligned so effectively against him that he’s now serving his second term as president. None of these people should be taken seriously. The problem is that they’ve been given massive amounts of power. You can’t fix stupid, but stupid certainly can break anything it touches.

Filed Under: lie detector tests, trump administration

Daily Deal: Curiosity Stream Standard Plan

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Whether you’re a science enthusiast, history buff, or technology geek, Curiosity Stream has something for everyone. Unleash the power of on-demand streaming that allows you to choose what you want to watch, when you want to watch it, and where you want to watch it. From the comfort of your living room to the remote corners of the globe, your favorite documentaries are just a click away. Discover a vast library of content with Curiosity Stream’s standard plan, spanning science, technology, history, nature, and art. Delve into an array of engaging topics with breathtaking visuals and unparalleled storytelling. With new content added weekly, you’ll never run out of things to watch. It’s on sale for $200.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Judge To Trump: No, You Can’t Just Declare ‘Off With Their Heads’ To Political Enemies

Legal Issues

from the alice-in-wonderland-times dept

Generally speaking, if a judge says this to you, your client is unlikely to succeed in their case:

“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects… but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”

That was Judge Beryl Howell yesterday, as she swiftly blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie. The judge’s literary reference captured perfectly why this unprecedented attempt to destroy a law firm for representing political opponents represents such a dangerous assault on constitutional principles.

Just a few days ago, I went into great detail about how ridiculous President Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie was. Most people recognized how petty and vindictive it was for a President to use an executive order to punish a law firm for a couple of its clients, but the problems with the executive order went much deeper, showing how the Trump administration was sowing the seeds to effectively destroy any lawyers who sought to challenge the Trump administration’s unlawful behavior.

Later that day, Perkins Coie sued the US government to challenge the executive order, and it’s quite a read. It’s really worth reprinting the ten paragraphs in the complaint that describe what this case is about, because it lays it out in precise detail just how fucked up the situation is:

This case concerns an Executive Order issued on March 6, 2025, entitled, “Addressing Risks From Perkins Coie LLP” (“the Order”). The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The Order’s peculiar title betrays its oddity as an Executive Order, for its purpose is not executive in nature. Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie,” “the law firm,” or “the firm”) engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them by: (1) terminating government contracts with firm clients, thereby driving away current and prospective clients; (2) denying all members and employees of the firm access to federal buildings and meetings or other engagement with federal employees; and (3) immediately suspending, and possibly revoking, security clearances for all firm employees.

The Order imposes these punishments on the entire law firm even though the attorneys involved in the purported misconduct numbered a mere handful of the more than 1,200 attorneys in the firm, and even though the two attorneys the Order appears to target have not been with the firm for years

The Order imposes these punishments ex post facto—the President having already supposedly adjudicated the matters—determining that Perkins Coie engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity,” “manufactured” evidence in connection with the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, engaged in “a pattern” of “egregious activity” by challenging (and defending) election laws, and “racially discriminated against” its employees and applicants, all without giving notice to Perkins Coie and without giving Perkins Coie an opportunity to be heard and contest these and other false and disparaging claims made in the Order.

The Order imposes these punishments as retaliation for the firm’s association with, and representation of, clients that the President perceives as his political opponents. Many law firms represented candidates, parties, and related political committees and organizations in the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. But the Order targets only one firm—Perkins Coie—because the President views it, more than any other firm, as aligned with the Democratic Party by reason of its representation of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and its successful handling of challenges brought by the Trump campaign seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as victories the firm won for its clients in a significant number of voting rights cases, including cases where Perkins Coie succeeded in upholding existing laws, in connection with the 2020 election.

During the campaign, the President promised to retaliate against his political opponents, including the attorneys who represented them (“WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law…. Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers….”). And, in signing the Order, he insisted that Perkins Coie engaged in weaponization “against a political opponent” (i.e., himself) and justified the Order for the chilling effect it would have (“it should never be allowed to happen again”).

The retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients. The Associated Press wrote that “the actions appear designed not only to settle scores from years past but also to deter both government officials and private sector workers from participating in new inquiries into his conduct.” And that aim is also obvious to the profession, many of whom will only comment anonymously, as Law.com reported (“most law firm leaders are choosing to stay anonymous when speaking about the administration’s orders”).

The principal claims made by the Order have already been raised in the proper forum and resolved by the branch of government with constitutional authority to do so. Regarding the claim that the firm engaged in misconduct in connection with its representation of the Clinton campaign, the President filed a federal court lawsuit in March 2022 against Perkins Coie, Hillary Clinton, and others. That lawsuit asserted RICO claims concerning the campaign and allegedly falsified documents. The district court dismissed that lawsuit in September 2022. Regarding the assertion that the firm “pushed” false claims about ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, a Special Counsel appointed during the first Trump Administration indicted Michael Sussmann, a former partner of the firm, in connection with evidence he brought to the attention of the FBI, allegedly without disclosing his ties to the Clinton campaign. That case went to trial in this Court in May 2022, and the jury quickly and unanimously acquitted him. Regardless, Mr. Sussmann is now at a different firm. And regarding the claim that former members of the firm were not candid with the court, the court concerned—the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit— sanctioned three lawyers in 2021 by requiring them to pay $8,700 in legal fees in connection with one duplicative motion to supplement the record on appeal. None of those lawyers work for Perkins Coie today.

The Order also seeks to impermissibly punish Perkins Coie because of its disfavored support of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Perkins Coie has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion. Perkins Coie, however, does not discriminate against its attorneys or employees on the basis of race or otherwise. Rather, fostering an environment where attorneys from diverse backgrounds and experiences can thrive and make meaningful contributions enables Perkins Coie to attract top talent and deliver exceptional legal counsel to its clients. Perkins Coie does not have, and has never had, percentage quotas for hiring or promoting minorities. The lawsuit referenced in the Order challenging the firm’s diversity fellowship was quickly dismissed by the plaintiff after clarification that the program is open to all, regardless of race. Perkins Coie’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is not unlawful and the Order’s allegations are a thinly veiled pretext for further punishing the firm for a disfavored viewpoint.

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

The sheer volume of constitutional violations flowing from this administration has created a kind of normalization of lawlessness — where even the most brazen attacks on democratic institutions get treated as mere boundary-pushing rather than the authoritarian power grabs they are.

But Judge Howell wasn’t having any of it. Within hours of the hearing, she issued a Temporary Restraining Order that didn’t just block the order — it required the government to actively tell all federal employees to disregard the original order entirely.

While the written TRO is pretty straightforward, it appears that during the hearing held earlier in the day, Judge Beryl Howell saw this for what it is:

Howell said the “retaliatory animus” of Trump’s order is “clear on its face” and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination.” The executive order, which Trump issued last week, “runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections,” the judge concluded.

She also apparently called out the very obvious chilling effects created by the executive order:

“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here… The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession.”

She also called out the due process issues, referencing some classic literature in the process:

The judge said Trump’s order was also flawed because it was issued without any notice to the firm or due process to challenge his determination.

“This may be amusing in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ where the Queen of Hearts yells, ‘Off with their heads!’ at annoying subjects … and announces a sentence before a verdict,” Howell said, “but this cannot be the reality we are living under.”

The hearing itself revealed just how far the administration was willing to go to defend this unconstitutional order. In an unusual move, DOJ’s number three official and chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, personally appeared to argue the case — raising questions about whether career DOJ attorneys had refused to defend such a blatantly unconstitutional action.

Mizelle’s arguments laid bare the order’s authoritarian foundations. He insisted the President has “sole authority” to declare any person or company untrustworthy, while claiming — apparently with a straight face — that the devastating impact on Perkins Coie’s business was merely “speculative.”

“The president of the United States … is authorized under the Constitution to find certain individuals and certain companies are not trustworthy with the nations’ secrets,” Mizelle said.

Judge Howell’s response was appropriately scathing. She recognized what this claim really meant: that a president could unilaterally destroy any law firm by simply declaring it a “national security threat” — no evidence or due process required.

This case represents more than just another example of the administration’s willingness to fabricate justifications for punishing its perceived enemies. It’s a stark reminder that the judiciary remains one of the few institutions still willing to call out raw authoritarianism for what it is. The question is: how long can courts hold the line when the attacks on constitutional principles grow more brazen by the day?

Filed Under: doj, retaliation, temporary restraining order
Companies: perkins coie

More Washington Post Staffers Resign Over Bezos’ Mismanagement And Authoritarian Ass Kissing

Journalism

from the driving-another-institution-straight-into-the-ground dept

Last month U.S. oligarch Jeff Bezos noted at the time, it was an obvious trampling of editorial discretion by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos that will further undermine already sagging trust in U.S. journalism.

Not coincidentally just as the country stares down the barrel of radical authoritarianism.

This week we got a better look at what these new restrictions look like in practice. Post columnist and Associate Editor Ruth Marcus, who has worked at the Post for four decades, resigned on Monday. According to Marcus, she resigned after Post chief executive and publisher Will Lewis killed a piece criticizing Bezos’ recent managerial decisions:

“Jeff’s announcement that the opinion section will henceforth not publish views that deviate from the pillars of individual liberties and free markets threatens to break the trust of readers that columnists are writing what they believe, not what the owner has deemed acceptable,” Marcus wrote in a resignation letter obtained by NPR.”

If Marcus, a four decade veteran, couldn’t get some light criticism of Bezos approved, you hate to wonder what would happen to authors trying to write about issues like billionaire tax reform, consumer protection, or labor rights, subjects already disproportionately left less covered in billionaire owned U.S. media outlets.

Bezos so far hasn’t trampled as heavily on the hard news half of Washington Post coverage. But there’s concern that could be coming. And in many ways it already exists, covertly dictated by the types of staffers who can get employed at major papers in the first place (quite often ivy league white kids nursing trust funds who will inevitably fail upward into completely unearned positions of mismanagement).

Marcus’ resignation comes on the heels of the resignation of Post opinion editor David Shipley shortly after Bezos’ began retooling the paper’s op-ed section. To be clear: most paper op-ed sections had already shifted away from platforms for unique, intelligent ideas, to being contrarian troll factories to goose engagement and launder the lazy thinking of shitty, affluent opportunists.

But the Washington Post’s shift toward being ever-more amenable to corporatist and right wing ideals comes as other major outlets, from CBS to the Los Angeles Times, have more broadly responded to surging U.S. authoritarianism by softening their criticism of Republicans and shifting their editorial positions further rightward.

This gets muddied in U.S. media coverage of itself, but consolidated U.S. media ownership isn’t doing this suddenly in a vacuum. They like what Trump is promising them: a lower corporate tax rate, a concentrated war on labor, mindless deregulation, the evisceration of all corporate oversight, and the rubber stamping (support their attack on civil rights) of their latest giant mergers.

In exchange, Republicans are pleased that major media institutions can be so easily bullied into softening or outright distorting journalistic coverage of their generally unpopular ideas; part of a broader 50+ year campaign to dismantle informed consensus and quality journalism to their direct benefit.

Corporate media ownership like what Trump is up to so much, that even managers like Jeff Bezos — who had resisted impulses historically to meddle in the editorial choices of the paper — have gone full mask off in their bid to further soften the corporatist, center-right “objectivity” the consolidated media industry already clung to as the standard baseline for established truth.

Bezos, and the Rupert-Murdoch linked staffers he’s brought in to retool the paper’s identity, will sell this transition as a way to “restore trust in news” and boost readership engagement.

But Bezos’ self-serving behaviors have caused little more than mass cancellations so far, and the pre-emptive appeasement of authoritarian zealots never works out the way companies hope. The doubling down on feckless, republican-friendly, center-right, barely-informed, corporate apologia — a market already rife with competitors — will only drive audiences to more credible, less truth-averse independent alternatives like the one you’re reading right now. So thanks, Jeffrey.

Filed Under: media, view from nowhere
Companies: washington post