Connect with us

Politics

Donald Trump roars down multiple paths of retribution as he vowed. Some targets yield while others fight

Published

on


Just one day after Paul Weiss’ deal, Columbia University disclosed policy changes under the threat of losing billions of dollars in federal money. A week later, the venerable law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom cut a deal of its own before it could be hit by an executive order. Before that, ABC News and Meta reached multi-million-dollar settlements to resolve lawsuits from Trump.

“The more of them that cave, the more extortion that that invites,” said Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer in Trump’s first term who has since become a sharp critic. “You’ll see other universities and other law firms and other enemies of Trump assaulted and attacked into submission because of that.”

Some within the conservative legal community, by contrast, say the Republican president is acting within his right.

“It’s the president’s prerogative to instruct the executive branch to do business with companies, law firms or contractors that he deems trustworthy — and the converse is true too,” said Jay Town, a U.S. attorney from Alabama during Trump’s first term. “The president, as the commander in chief, can determine who gets a clearance and who doesn’t. It’s as simple as that.”

Some targets have not given in, with two law firms since the Paul Weiss deal suing to block executive orders. Yet no matter their response, the sanctioned firms have generally run afoul of the White House by virtue of association with prosecutors who previously investigated Trump.

If the negotiations have been surprising, consider that Trump telegraphed his approach during the campaign. For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution, he told supporters in March 2023.

Less clear was: Retribution for what exactly? Against whom? By what means?

The answers would come soon enough.

Fresh off surviving four federal and state indictments that threatened to sink his political career, and investigations that shadowed his first term in office, Trump came straight for the prosecutors who investigated him and the elite firms he saw as sheltering them.

His Justice Department moved almost immediately to fire the members of special counsel Jack Smith’s team and some prosecutors who handled cases arising from the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

The White House followed up with an executive order that stripped security clearances from the lawyers at the law firm of Covington & Burling who have provided legal representation for Smith amid the threat of government investigations. Covington has said it looks forward to “defending Mr. Smith’s interests.”

A subsequent order punished Perkins Coie for its representation of then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign and its part in funding opposition research on Trump that took the form of a dossier containing unsubstantiated allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia.

Its business hanging in the balance, Perkins Coie hired Williams & Connolly, a Washington firm with an aggressive litigation style, to challenge the order. A federal judge said the administration’s action sent “chills down my spine” and blocked portions of it from taking effect. That decision could have been a meaningful precedent for other beleaguered firms.

Except that’s not what happened next.

The chairman of Paul Weiss said it, too, was initially prepared to sue over a March 14 order that targeted the firm in part because a former partner, Mark Pomerantzhad several years earlier overseen an investigation into Trump’s finances on behalf of the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

But the firm also came to believe that even a courtroom victory would not erase the perception among clients that it was “persona non grata” with the administration, its chairman, Brad Karp, later told colleagues in an email obtained by The Associated Press.

The order, Karp said, presented an “existential crisis” for a firm that has counted among its powerhouse representations the NFL and ExxonMobil. Some of its clients signaled they might abandon ship. The hoped-for support from fellow firms never materialized and some even sought to exploit Paul Weiss’ woes, Karp said.

“It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration,” he wrote.

When the opportunity came for a White House meeting and the chance to cut a deal, he took it, pledging pro bono legal services for causes such as the fight against antisemitism as well as representation without regard to clients’ political affiliation. In so doing, he wrote, “we have quickly solved a seemingly intractable problem and removed a cloud of uncertainty that was hanging over our law firm.”

The outcry was swift. Lawyers outside the firm ridiculed it. More than 140 Paul Weiss alumni signed a letter assailing the capitulation.

“Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy,” the letter said.

Within days, two other firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, were confronted with executive orders over their affiliation with prosecutors on Robert Mueller’s special counsel team that investigated Trump during his first term. Both sued Friday. WilmerHale, where Mueller is a retired partner, said the order was an “unprecedented assault” on the legal system. After hearing arguments, judges blocked enforcement of key portions of both orders.

Yet that very day, the White House trumpeted a fresh deal with Skadden Arps in which the firm agreed to provide $100 million of pro bono legal services and to disavow the use of diversity, employment and inclusion considerations in its hiring practices.

Trump has expressed satisfaction with his pressure campaign, issuing a directive to sanction lawyers who are seen as bringing “frivolous” litigation against the government. Universities, he marveled, are “bending and saying ‘Sir, thank you very much, we appreciate it.’”

As for law firms, he said, “They’re just saying, ‘Where do I sign?’ Nobody can believe it.’”

Uptown from Paul Weiss’s Midtown Manhattan home base, another elite New York institution was facing its own crucible.

Trump had taken office against the backdrop of disruptive protests at Columbia University tied to Israel’s war with Hamas. The turmoil prompted the resignation of its president and made the Ivy League school a target of critics who said an overly permissive campus environment had let antisemitic rhetoric flourish.

The Trump administration this month arrested a prominent Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident in his university-owned apartment building and opened an investigation into whether Columbia hid students sought by the U.S. over their involvement in the demonstrations.

In a separate action, the administration pulled $400 million from Columbia, canceling grants and contracts because of what the government said was the school’s failure to stamp out antisemitism and demanding a series of changes as a condition for restoring the money or for even considering doing so.

Two weeks later, the then-interim university president, Katrina Armstrong, announced that she would implement nearly all of the changes sought by the White House. Columbia would bar students from protesting in academic buildings, she said, adopt a new definition of antisemitism and put its Middle East studies department under new supervision.

The university’s March 21 rollout of reforms did not challenge the Trump administration’s coercive tactics, but nodded to what it said were “legitimate concerns” raised about antisemitism. The White House has yet to say if it will restore the money.

The Columbia resolution was condemned by some faculty members and free speech advocates.

“Columbia’s capitulation endangers academic freedom and campus expression nationwide,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement at the time.

Armstrong on Friday night announced her exit from the position and her return to her post atop the school’s medical center.

Columbia is not Trump’s sole target in academia. Also this month, the administration suspended about $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania over a transgender swimmer who last competed for the school in 2022.

Trump had not even taken office on Jan. 20 when one legal fight that could have followed him into office abruptly faded.

In December, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.

The following month, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump against the company after it suspended his accounts following the Jan. 6 riot.

The agreement followed a visit by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Trump’s private Florida club to try to mend fences. Such a trip may have seemed unlikely in Trump’s first term, or after the Capitol siege made him, briefly, a pariah within his own party. But it’s something other technology, business and government officials have done.

The administration, meanwhile, has taken action against news organizations whose coverage it disagrees with. The White House last month removed Associated Press reporters and photographers from the small group of journalists who follow the president in the pool and other events after the news agency declined to follow Trump’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico; a suit by the AP is pending.

And the administration has sought to dismantle Voice of America, a U.S. government-funded international news service. On Friday, a federal judge halted plans to fire more than 1,200 journalists, engineers and other staff who were sidelined after Trump ordered a funding cut.

___

Republished with permission of The Associated Press.



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Proposal to let microbreweries distribute their own beer flows through House committee

Published

on


Small-scale beer manufacturers may be able to skip the middleman when it comes to getting lagers, ales and stouts to the masses.

The House State Administration Budget Subcommittee has advanced HB 499, which allows microbreweries producing up to 31,000 gallons a year to self-distribute and to get out of current distribution contracts with 24 months’ notice.

The bill is a priority of the Brewers’ Association, which says it is also a priority of House leadership.

Advocates say that it’s no brew-ha-ha; rather, they frame it as a matter of business survival.

Sarah Curl of Pasco County’s Emerald Coast Brewing Company made a more localized case, noting that her company’s “small and intentional” production leaves it out of larger distributors’ business plans.

“Nobody cares more about the quality of their beer than a small-craft brewer,” Curl said.

Her goal: to be able to walk a keg to a restaurant down the street rather than have that same keg languish on a truck to fit the current “outdated, post-prohibition laws” that block local restaurants from serving local brews on tap.

Veteran brewmaster Timothy Shackton of the Ulele Spring Brewery likewise advocated for “limited self-distribution,” saying it benefited “small brewers” and the “community as a whole,” and arguing the proposal could “level the playing field.”

“Right now, many small brewers face a tough choice: sign long-term contracts with distributors and commit to large capacity orders that financially squeeze them or, worse yet, they’re unable to fulfill. Those demands can be crippling,” Shackton said.

Danielle Snitkar of Florida Hoppy Brands advocated for a coalition of microbreweries that are “not in a position to go with a large distributor” given limited production runs and lack of capital to buy into the three-tier system.

Brian Detweiler of the Florida Brewers Guild said the bill “could be the difference between your constituents keeping and losing part of their community: their beloved local brewery.” He described the bill as a “bridge to the three-tier system” by a “small, scrappy brewery,” and noted that 39 states already allow what Florida is considering.

Yet members of other groups presented more of a bitter beer face.

Jared Ross of the Florida Beer Wholesalers Association said his group “strongly opposes” the bill, which “goes too far” and threatens the “three-tier system” of manufacturers/importers, distributors/wholesalers, and retailers by “allowing smaller manufacturers to self-distribute.”

After the public had its say, legislators weighed in pro and con.

Republican Rep. Taylor Yarkosky said the “awesome” bill was a way to “empower and open the door” for small producers.

Republican Rep. Shane Abbott welcomed further “tweaks,” but backed the bill.

Democratic Rep. Felicia Robinson urged legislators to be “careful” about how rules are changed, expressing her concern that “all players play within the system.” While she was up on the bill, she was concerned about tinkering with the regulation of alcoholic beverages.

While the legislation has one committee to go before the House floor, the Senate may offer a buzzkill. Sen. Jay Collins’ bill (SB 1818) has yet to be put on a committee agenda.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Wisconsin and Florida elections provide early warning signs to Trump and Republicans

Published

on


A trio of spring elections provided early warning signs to Republicans and President Donald Trump on Tuesday, as Democrats rallied against his efforts to slash the federal government and the outsize role being played by billionaire Elon Musk in the early days of his new administration.

In the marquee race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, the conservative judge endorsed by Trump and backed by Musk and his groups to the tune of $21 million lost by 10 percentage points in a state Trump won in November. And while Florida Republicans held two of the most pro-Trump House districts in the country, both candidates underperformed Trump’s November margins.

The elections — the first major contests since Trump’s return to power — were seen as an early measure of voter sentiment as Trump works with unprecedented speed to dramatically upend the federal government, clashing with the courts and seeking revenge as he tests the bounds of presidential power.

The party that loses the presidency in November typically picks up seats in the next midterm elections, and Tuesday’s results provided hope for Democrats — who have faced a barrage of internal and external criticism about their response to Trump — that they can follow that trend.

Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and podcaster whose group worked alongside Musk to boost conservative Brad Schimel in Wisconsin, argued Tuesday’s Supreme Court loss underscored a fundamental challenge for Republicans, particularly in races where Trump is not on the ballot.

“We did a lot in Wisconsin, but we fell short. We must realize and appreciate that we are the LOW PROP party now,” he said in an X post, referring to low-propensity voters who don’t regularly cast ballots. “The party has been remade. Special elections and off-cycle elections will continue to be a problem without a change of strategy.”

Trump won Wisconsin in November by 0.8 percentage points, or fewer than 30,000 votes. In the first major test since he took office in January, the perennial battleground state shifted significantly to the left, and not only in typical Democratic strongholds.

Sauk County, northwest of the state capital of Madison, is a state bellwether. Trump won it in November by 626 votes. Sauk shifted 16 percentage points in the direction of Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal backed by national Democrats and billionaire donors like George Soros.

Besides strong turnout in Democratic-heavy areas, Crawford did measurably better in the suburban Milwaukee counties that Republicans rely on to run up their margins statewide.

Crawford won Kenosha and Racine counties, both of which went for Trump over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. She won by about 10 percentage points there.

Turnout was just under 50%, a full 10 percentage points higher than the previous record high for a Wisconsin Supreme Court election, set just two years ago.

In interviews with dozens of voters across the state, including more than 20 in Waunakee, a politically mixed town north of Madison, many Democrats suggested without prompting that their vote was as much if not more of a repudiation of Trump’s first months in office than a decision on the direction of the state high court.

“This is our chance to say no,” said Linda Grassl, a retired OB-GYN registered nurse, after voting at the Waunakee Public Library corridor Tuesday.

“We have to fight, and this is where the fight is today,” agreed Theresa Peer, a 49-year-old business-owner born and raised in Milwaukee, who called the election a “fight for our democracy.” She said she hoped a Crawford win would serve as a “symbol of opposition” to the Trump administration, particularly on the issues of women’s reproductive rights and slashed education spending.

Others disliked the richest man in the world playing such a prominent role.

“I don’t like Elon Musk spending money for an election he should have no involvement in,” said Antonio Gray, a 38-year-old Milwaukee security guard. “They should let the voters vote for who they want to vote for instead of inserting themselves like they have.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, in a floor speech Wednesday, called the results “a political warning shot from the American people” and a sign that “Democrats’ message is resonating.”

“Just 70 days into Trump 2.0, Americans are tired of the chaos. They are tired of Elon Musk attacking Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare,” he said.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said that part of the challenge for Republicans had been “trying to connect the dots” to turn the state Supreme Court race into one about Trump — a difficult task in a state judicial race. He wondered if the outcome would have been different had Trump paid a visit to the state instead of hosting a telephone town hall.

“If you’re somebody who showed up for Trump because you feel forgotten, you don’t typically show up to vote in” these kinds of elections, he said, imagining voters asking themselves: “What does this have to do with Trump?”

Still, Walker cautioned against reading the tea leaves too closely.

“I’d be a little bit careful about reading too much into what happens nationally,” he said.

Trump had better luck in Florida, where Republican Randy Fine won his special election in the 6th District to replace Mike Waltz, who stepped down to serve as Trump’s national security adviser. But Fine beat his Democratic challenger, Josh Weil, by 14 percentage points less than five months after Waltz won the district by 33.

“This is the functional equivalent of Republicans running a competitive race in the district that is represented by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries beforehand, invoking a liberal favorite whom Trump often denigrates. “Kamala Harris won that district by 30 points. Do you think a Republican would even be competitive in that district in New York, currently held by Alex? Of course, not.”

Jimmy Patronis, the state’s chief financial officer, fended off a challenge from Democrat Gay Valimont to win the northwest Florida seat vacated by Matt Gaetz but also underperformed Gaetz’s last margin of victory.

The pair of wins gave Republicans a 220-213 margin in the House of Representatives, when concerns about a thin GOP majority led Trump to pull the nomination of New York Rep. Elise Stefanik to be United Nations ambassador.

For voters in both districts, the clear draw was Trump.

Teresa Horton, 72, didn’t know much at all about Tuesday’s election — but said she didn’t need to.

“I don’t even know these people that are on there,” she said of her ballot. “I just went with my ticket.”

Brenda Ray, 75, a retired nurse, said she didn’t know a lot about Patronis, either, but cast her ballot for him because she believes he’ll “vote with our president.”

“That’s all we’re looking for,” she said.

Both Patronis and Fine were badly outraised by their Democratic challengers. Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee, argued that what was a GOP concern before Tuesday night had been a sign of the party’s strength.

“The American people sent a clear message tonight: they want elected officials who will advance President Trump’s America First agenda, and their votes can’t be bought by national Democrats,” he said in a statement.

___

Republished with permission of The Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Donna Deegan lets Jax illegal immigration bill become law without her signature

Published

on


Deegan predicts lawsuits are coming once the bill becomes law.

Jacksonville’s Democratic Mayor Donna Deegan is taking a position on the “Jacksonville Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act.”

She won’t veto it. She won’t sign it. She will denounce it.

“I want to be crystal clear. I do not believe this bill is necessary. And I will not sign it. It will become law without signature,” Deegan said.

During a press conference at City Hall, Deegan said immigrants were part of the “beautiful mosaic” of Jacksonville, and that they are “welcome” in the city.

She noted that the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) would get the 25 fingerprint scanners it asked for in the bill, but that the punitive measures making immigration a “local crime” are redundant given state and federal law. She also noted that JSO has had an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since 2008, referring to the cooperative 287(g) deals.

She also said the bill “puts Jacksonville in a lane where it doesn’t belong” and would prompt “an expensive lawsuit.”

She won’t veto it though, saying it would sacrifice “all we have left to do over a bill that does not change anything.”

Deegan’s position comes after Republicans in Tallahassee warned her not to veto it.

Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier said “if a city official takes action to impede or prevent law enforcement from undergoing the necessary training and participating with the feds to get these people back where they came from, then I do believe the law is violated and that there will be penalties for that.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis also wanted the bill to become law.

“Great job to the City of Jacksonville in following Florida law and empowering their law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. I am pleased to see this follow from our work in the special session I called in January to insist that all state and local entities participate in immigration enforcement,” he posted to social media Wednesday.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.