ADVERTISEMENT

For you lawyers -- what would you do if targeted by Trump?

U

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 1, 2001
41,964
49,248
113
Looks like Trump is now targeting the law firm that Doug Emhoff is employed by, along with all the others that have had the temerity to challenge him.

So, asking the lawyers only, what would you do if you and/or your firm was targeted like this? Knuckle under and fire Doug? Come to a "settlement"? Quietly capitulate for the sake of the firm? Or do you tell them to pound sand and fight them tooth and nail?

I really have to believe Trump's actions have no chance of holding up, and so far it sounds like the courts agree, but would you do what you have to do to put this behind you, or would you stand on principle and tell them to fvck off, no matter what the cost?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Principle?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
UncleMark said:
Looks like Trump is now targeting the law firm that Doug Emhoff is employed by, along with all the others that have had the temerity to challenge him.

So, asking the lawyers only, what would you do if you and/or your firm was targeted like this? Knuckle under and fire Doug? Come to a "settlement"? Quietly capitulate for the sake of the firm? Or do you tell them to pound sand and fight them tooth and nail?

I really have to believe Trump's actions have no chance of holding up, and so far it sounds like the courts agree, but would you do what you have to do to put this behind you, or would you stand on principle and tell them to fvck off, no matter what the cost?
Click to expand...
His job at the firm is to advise re reputational crisis 🤣. Come on.

They’re in nyc. Tell trump to go F himself
 
UncleMark said:
Looks like Trump is now targeting the law firm that Doug Emhoff is employed by, along with all the others that have had the temerity to challenge him.

So, asking the lawyers only, what would you do if you and/or your firm was targeted like this? Knuckle under and fire Doug? Come to a "settlement"? Quietly capitulate for the sake of the firm? Or do you tell them to pound sand and fight them tooth and nail?

I really have to believe Trump's actions have no chance of holding up, and so far it sounds like the courts agree, but would you do what you have to do to put this behind you, or would you stand on principle and tell them to fvck off, no matter what the cost?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I asked about this like two weeks ago.... Also pretty sure your thread responses will be equally empty
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier and UncleMark
UncleMark said:
Looks like Trump is now targeting the law firm that Doug Emhoff is employed by, along with all the others that have had the temerity to challenge him.

So, asking the lawyers only, what would you do if you and/or your firm was targeted like this? Knuckle under and fire Doug? Come to a "settlement"? Quietly capitulate for the sake of the firm? Or do you tell them to pound sand and fight them tooth and nail?

I really have to believe Trump's actions have no chance of holding up, and so far it sounds like the courts agree, but would you do what you have to do to put this behind you, or would you stand on principle and tell them to fvck off, no matter what the cost?
Click to expand...
If it were me, I'd be flattered.

Then I'd sue him and the admin and make as big a stink out of it as possible to raise my name recognition and try to make money off of that.

If I'm a named partner at one of these BigFirms, I capitulate rather quickly, I'd think. One doesn't get to the top of those firms by holding onto principle vs. an instinct to make money or have a connection to power. Big Business clients aren't really interested in hiring the firm that gets attacked by the Prez, and might now become an enemy to half the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU, Mark Milton and mcmurtry66
BradStevens said:
If I'm a named partner at one of these BigFirms, I capitulate rather quickly, I'd think. One doesn't get to the top of those firms by holding onto principle vs. an instinct to make money or have a connection to power. Big Business clients aren't really interested in hiring the firm that gets attacked by the Prez, and might now become an enemy to half the country.
Click to expand...

Sad.
 
twenty02 said:
Pretty sure I asked about this like two weeks ago.... Also pretty sure your thread responses will be equally empty
Click to expand...

Appears so. Interesting. You'd think they would jump at the chance to tell us how they would take the high ground, regardless of how they would actually respond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier, UncleMark and Ohio Guy
BradStevens said:
If it were me, I'd be flattered.

Then I'd sue him and the admin and make as big a stink out of it as possible to raise my name recognition and try to make money off of that.

If I'm a named partner at one of these BigFirms, I capitulate rather quickly, I'd think. One doesn't get to the top of those firms by holding onto principle vs. an instinct to make money or have a connection to power. Big Business clients aren't really interested in hiring the firm that gets attacked by the Prez, and might now become an enemy to half the country.
Click to expand...
To be fair, probably going to become an enemy to half the country either way (assuming it gets enough press). That is why businesses should steer clear of politics.
 
BradStevens said:
If it were me, I'd be flattered.

Then I'd sue him and the admin and make as big a stink out of it as possible to raise my name recognition and try to make money off of that.

If I'm a named partner at one of these BigFirms, I capitulate rather quickly, I'd think. One doesn't get to the top of those firms by holding onto principle vs. an instinct to make money or have a connection to power. Big Business clients aren't really interested in hiring the firm that gets attacked by the Prez, and might now become an enemy to half the country.
Click to expand...
Is a security clearance a property right?
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Is a security clearance a property right?
Click to expand...
No, but not having one in those legal circles is a big disadvantage. They can't take high level sensitive cases in which some of the evidence might be classified and they can't even get into some of the government buildings where potential clients are without one, or they will be limited to certain areas of the building where clearances aren't required. I know buildings that no one without a Top Secret clearance can enter even though it's not like people are talking classified all the time. I still have my Top Secret clearance, but I have no doubt that if the President knew who I was he'd order it removed solely because I don't like him. These Executive Orders are pure retribution and pettiness aimed at law firms that did nothing illegal or deserving of them. One was to a law firm that only hired a prominent Trump critic - and that guy isn't even employed by the law firm any longer. This is all ridiculous and should be universally condemned. That includes by you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie, larsIU, UncleMark and 1 other person
Aloha Hoosier said:
No, but not having one in those legal circles is a big disadvantage. They can't take high level sensitive cases in which some of the evidence might be classified and they can't even get into some of the government buildings where potential clients are without one, or they will be limited to certain areas of the building where clearances aren't required. I know buildings that no one without a Top Secret clearance can enter even though it's not like people are talking classified all the time. I still have my Top Secret clearance, but I have no doubt that if the President knew who I was he'd order it removed solely because I don't like him. These Executive Orders are pure retribution and pettiness aimed at law firms that did nothing illegal or deserving of them. One was to a law firm that only hired a prominent Trump critic - and that guy isn't even employed by the law firm any longer. This is all ridiculous and should be universally condemned. That includes by you.
Click to expand...
Actions taken within the scope of authority for improper reasons are generally not actionable.

Sounds like these firms have general clearances whether they are actively using them or not. Is it possible for a clearance to be attached to a particular case and it is terminated when the case is over? Sounds like these clearances are pretty loosey goosey and some have them who don’t need them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark
CO. Hoosier said:
Actions taken within the scope of authority for improper reasons are generally not actionable.

Sounds like these firms have general clearances whether they are actively using them or not. Is it possible for a clearance to be attached to a particular case and it is terminated when the case is over? Sounds like these clearances are pretty loosey goosey and some have them who don’t need them.
Click to expand...
can always count on CO for a Trump defense.

Apparently bend over should be one of the options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUINSB, Bowlmania, Aloha Hoosier and 1 other person
CO. Hoosier said:
Actions taken within the scope of authority for improper reasons are generally not actionable.

Sounds like these firms have general clearances whether they are actively using them or not. Is it possible for a clearance to be attached to a particular case and it is terminated when the case is over? Sounds like these clearances are pretty loosey goosey and some have them who don’t need them.
Click to expand...
Not everyone in the firms is likely to have a clearance. I'm sure they're selective. If they do contract work for the government, some contracts require everyone that will be performing on that contract to have a certain level of clearance, Confidential to Top Secret. Taking away their clearances mean nullifying their contracts or prevents them from winning certain contracts.

The background check required to obtain a clearance is the same for them as it is for me. So they're not loosey goosey in that respect at all. Also, having a clearance does not mean they have access to information classified at that clearance level. There are two parts to this, the personal clearance and the need to know. For example, I have a Top Secret clearance and have had one since 1985. I went years, including the last 15 years before I retired from the Navy and then my civilian job without seeing or hearing anything at all at the Top Secret level and probably only a few times even at the Confidential level. I primarily saw or heard Top Secret material when serving in ships and at one school. I had no need to see or hear anything above that Confidential most of the time so I was never given access to it, but if the circumstances arose in which I needed to see or hear Top Secret I could have been invited to see or hear it. That's the reason we have clearances.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
Aloha Hoosier said:
Not everyone in the firms is likely to have a clearance. I'm sure they're selective. If they do contract work for the government, some contracts require everyone that will be performing on that contract to have a certain level of clearance, Confidential to Top Secret. Taking away their clearances mean nullifying their contracts or prevents them from winning certain contracts.

The background check required to obtain a clearance is the same for them as it is for me. So they're not loosey goosey in that respect at all. Also, having a clearance does not mean they have access to information classified at that clearance level. There are two parts to this, the personal clearance and the need to know. For example, I have a Top Secret clearance and have had one since 1985. I went years, including the last 15 years before I retired from the Navy and then my civilian job without seeing or hearing anything at all at the Top Secret level and probably only a few times even at the Confidential level. I primarily saw or heard Top Secret material when serving in ships and at one school. I had no need to see or hear anything above that Confidential most of the time so I was never given access to it, but if the circumstances arose in which I needed to see or hear Top Secret I could have been invited to see or hear it. That's the reason we have clearances.
Click to expand...
Being retired, why do you have a clearance?
 
CO. Hoosier said:
Being retired, why do you have a clearance?
Click to expand...
Why not? As I explained, there are two, really three, parts to seeing or hearing classified information. The first is the individual has to have the appropriate level of clearance, and the second part is the individual has to have a need to know and then be granted access. I have no need to know so I wasn't privy to any Top Secret information for years. Probably never will have again. I've been offered some part-time work at really good pay which may entail accessing some Confidential information. So, it's good that I have a clearance already. However, if I didn't, I'd quickly have it again. They have all my background information already at the adjudicating authority.

It costs the government money to do all that's required for a clearance (companies will pay for it if it's for their employees) and it also cost money to pull them and update all the records. It's really no harm, no foul, no cost, for me to maintain my clearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
CO. Hoosier said:
What in my post is a Trump defense.? Who has a larger rent free space in your head? Me or Trump.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm still waiting on those 6 things you don't agree with Trump on. So far it seems no one has hit on any of those and I'm guessing never will since you'll be a hypocrite for Trump regardless of subject.
 
Trump is going after my BIL's law firm. He has personally been directly involved in at least a dozen Trump lawsuits since 2017 including up to the SC in one capacity or another.

I told my sister that she can see out their sunset years, where the sun always shines in my neck of the woods, as opposed to wearing orange the rest of their lives. (Based on the simple fact that chinese skin colour doesnt do well with orange jumpsuits.)

Also suggested to her that Columbia's new motto (both their alma mater) ought to be Ubi liberum mori (or Where free speech goes to die.)

I have yet to hear back from her on WhatsApp.
 
UncleMark said:
Looks like Trump is now targeting the law firm that Doug Emhoff is employed by, along with all the others that have had the temerity to challenge him.

So, asking the lawyers only, what would you do if you and/or your firm was targeted like this? Knuckle under and fire Doug? Come to a "settlement"? Quietly capitulate for the sake of the firm? Or do you tell them to pound sand and fight them tooth and nail?

I really have to believe Trump's actions have no chance of holding up, and so far it sounds like the courts agree, but would you do what you have to do to put this behind you, or would you stand on principle and tell them to fvck off, no matter what the cost?
Click to expand...
How come you never asked this question when Trump was being targeted by your boy Biden?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
bailey777 said:
How come you never asked this question when Trump was being targeted by your boy Biden?
Click to expand...

how come you never ask that question when other criminals get caught red handed? Oh, only Trump is worthy of no consequences...ever.

And how could Biden target anyone when he was so mentally gone that he couldn't finish a sentence? (according to Trumpers)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IUclover

What did John Roberts do for Trump?

Replies
0
Views
159
The Water Cooler
IUclover
IUclover
UTFO

Trump waited an hour on the phone for Putin the other day.

Replies
17
Views
668
The Water Cooler
IUfan1957
IUfan1957
UTFO

Prepare yourselves for the fall of Kiev or death of Zelensky.

Replies
18
Views
826
The Water Cooler
Mark Milton
Mark Milton
outside shooter

Most of what makes MAGA hate the Dept of Education is rooted in lies about what they do

Replies
203
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
BCCHoosier
B
larsIU

What will we do about the looming retirement crisis?

Replies
243
Views
6K
The Water Cooler
Doc Brule
D
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back