A wise man: a brilliant legal mind takes on the Trump regime

In the battle against the Evil Empire, recently relocated from old Moscow to the new Washington, D.C. — Reagan would be appalled — there is no more articulate spokesman for the rebel forces than Andrew Weissmann, who served as chief counsel to Bob Mueller in what became a debacle regarding Trump's Russia, Russia, Russia collusion. The crime was factual, and Mueller's report would have, could have said just that had it not been for Trump & White House Associates' 10 instances of obstruction of justice. The Trump campaign's conspicuous surface crime could not be proven by prosecutors given the potential

defendants' tiered underlayers of stonewalling and dedicated misdirections. Hence, following what appears to be legal custom, career criminal Trump skated free once again.

Weissmann's surname is also factual; in German it means "wise man." He cuts through complex legalese with the soft-spoken, easy air of a weather forecaster rattling off temps and wind speeds — not what you'd call deep material. His rhetorical equinimity can be deceiving; the words he speaks with such collected calm belie powerful assaults on America's most insidious traitor since Benedict Arnold. The objection may be raised that reasoned, gently delivered intellectual attacks on the monstrous malefactor inhabiting the White House are inferior in force to emotional outbursts of righteously seething anger; that the frisson of cathartic rants and raves is what's called for in these times that trouble men and women's souls. With that I disagree insomuch as I have not — not yet, anyway — forsaken the concept of learned rationality as the only serviceable means of flatlining the roar of splenetic offensives. The latter is Trumpism's sole tactic, which it delivers with Hitlerian excellence. In the long run, however, it's lethally vulnerable to Reason. Mr. Weissmann understands this by nature and craft, thus his analyses are superior in form and content to others' of less quiet self-assurance.

My introduction to his latest offerings I intended to be shorter, but words, they do grow in numbers as one writes. What Weissmann addresses here in both written and video formats are exquisitely tailored pushbacks against the Trump junta's principal competence: the means by which a functioning judiciary can be laid low and impotent, a vital avenue for the scofflaw to travel if he's not to encounter daily headlines of his brazen lawlessness — headlines that otherwise would incrementally weaken in the public's mind the many pillars of his criminal regime. Weissmann ticks off the threats posed in characteristically superb fashion. If any criticism were to be leveled it would be pointed at his suggestion for joining him in this crucial battle, which is to say, the reliance he places on citizens' willingness to do so. But such criticism would be unfair; it's not Weissmann's job to mobilize the segmented public that thinks; he's able only to provide them the thoughtful weapons with which they can stage counterassaults.

With thanks to Charlie Sykes and his "To the Contrary" post which I'm pilfering, what I have to re-offer here are two Weissmann addresses: a short one in writing, the other, longer, in video. The second is 25 minutes in duration and I recommend watching every last minute; there he expands on the rudiments supplied in written form, which I'm posting.

I want to talk directly about something deeply troubling—and increasingly dangerous—that I’ve been watching unfold: the concerted attacks on lawyers, law firms, and judges.

These aren’t isolated incidents. They appear as a coordinated strategy to discredit and intimidate legal actors who dare to challenge the Trump administration. At stake is preservation of the ability of our legal system to function without fear or favor. When lawyers are targeted for representing unpopular clients, and judges face threats for upholding the law, we risk undoing the very prerequisites that make justice possible.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve seen White House executive orders targeting three of the country’s most respected law firms—Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss. I was especially alarmed by Paul Weiss’s decision not to fight back in court, despite precedent suggesting they could prevail (as Perkins Coie did). Instead, reports suggest it reached a quiet agreement that includes tens of millions in pro bono work aligned with the administration’s values, and a review and chilling of its DEI commitments. That kind of capitulation sends a dire message to the entire profession: that upholding principle might come at too high a cost. It undermines our ability to stand up for the rule of law when it matters most.

Equally distressful are efforts that intimidate judges—through public threats, articles of impeachment, and improvident motions to remove them from cases. This is not how our justice system works: we don’t get to swap out referees mid-game because we don’t like the calls. And yet that’s exactly what’s happening.

Judges need to know the public—and the profession—has their backs. If we allow these tactics to go unchecked, we’re conceding ground that once lost, will be difficult to regain. That’s why I hope, if you concur, we must stand together and be heard in defense of our institutions, our profession, and the rule of law itself.

–Andrew

The shocking capitulation shown to the thuggish animals at 1600 Penn. Ave. by the unwise Paul Weiss law firm tends to eviscerate hope that other legal giants won't also cave. The firm's bossmen might as well have hung a banner outside declaring the wretched truth: Profit is our singular goal, principles be damned. Still, perhaps conscientious law firms (do I presume too much?) will read Paul Weiss' nakedly reprehensible decision for what it was and, furthermore, recognize that the firm traded (maybe) short-term profits for the imminent loss of respectable clients. In the world of legal p.r., this firm chose the absolute dumbest action conceivable: trying to appease an unquenchable leviathan of rank corruption. (Just ask Neville Chamberlain, even though he had far better reason for doing so; militarily, 1938's unprepared Britain would have been swiftly crushed by Nazi Germany's massive war machine. Nevertheless, other factors being equal, the lesson stands).

The video I cited is comprehensive in Weissmann's condemnation, especially of Paul Weiss' "solution" to Trump's unconstitutional intimidation. Nothing, for instance, could have been more mindlessly accommodating to the ghoulish wrongdoers than agreeing to $40 million of pro bono work on behalf of Trump's reactionary causes — all in an effort to forego a fight in court which the plaintiff unquestionably would have won. Yet into the gentle night of public-relations death the law firm waltzed, greedily, unthinkingly, and worst of all, willingly. If that's the best that Ivy League law educations can do, then we must hang our hopes on firms whose hired guns earned their licenses to practice in Belize. Better to Call Saul.

For now, listen to Andrew Weissmann, take notes, and follow up with supportive letter-writing to attorneys, law firms and judges, state and federal, in your area. Fence-sitters among them might well be swayed by piles of the written word demonstrating disgust with the brutish coercers and admiration of those who resist them. Nothing lands in the minds of decision-makers like letters — not phone calls, not texts, not emails. Letters. They show the writer was seriously determined enough to take the time to lay out a formal entreaty; ask any congressperson and you'll find agreement on this.

It's 3:01 a.m. and after a long, physically disagreeable preceding day I really wish I could find agreement from my platform host on embedding the Weissmann video, but some temporary glitch appears to be violently opposed. So I'll simply post the YouTube URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQTRbHx3w78. You'll be thankful you watched it.

The immense challenges presented to this liberal democracy by its illiberal goons of totalitarianism are many and wide in scope. But no challenge surpasses in effectiveness the gauntlet to be taken up by the nation's truest believers in pre-Trump America. It had its faults, some wide in scope as well. But never was it plagued by a chief executive who detested its better angels; a first-rate con artist of a third-rate mind and his historically unprecedented, wholesale absence of any commendable traits. Donald Trump is more of a bottom-feeding scumsucker than any demagogic firebreather of the sectional crisis, in that his war against the United States of America is founded only on his grievances stemming from petty vengeance and an intense desire for scattergunned retribution. He's a whining three-year-old 78 years of age intent on doing as much damage to his national inheritance as the Grim Reaper will permit. There's but one force formidable enough to stop him: an informed, incensed public. It hasn't yet organized into its teleological pro-democracy, anti-fascism body and the Doomsday Clock is ticking. What the fail-safe point is, I do not know. But why take the chance of overshooting it? Decent Americans would be wise to listen to wise men such as Andrew, follow up as advised and bring others of decency into the act. Personal activism can be contagious — and to the forces of malice, deadly. I can't recall having ever climbed onto a soapbox of urgings, but then again, we've never faced a sick, demented, ghastly threat to America's well-being as what we face today. Kill it.