Is Trump intimidating judges and lawyers and, if so, is that OK?

8,874 Views | 183 Replies | Last: 9 mo ago by Ellis Wyatt
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:15a, 3/24/25
IMHO, judges continue to face intense pressure from Trump for opinions he considers unfavorable to him. This is not the first time, but it does appear that it has scaled up and has brushed against the USSC with the chief justice issuing a repudiation of the President's calls to impeach a federal judge. Here are the most recent applicable posts from the President's social media account regarding his disagreement with Judge Boasberg. I find it interesting that his arguments tend to focus on a logical fallacy often used here, the Ad hominem, rather that the legal arguments being discussed in court.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114215433044457113
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114214664818267546
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114214664818267546
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114208486518221446
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114206663969557983
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114200269495299138
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114197257776642416
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114197120302143482
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114190461039179793

In addition to Trump's pressure on judges, he has recently pressured three law firms with EOs directed specifically at them - Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono legal services to former special counsel Jack Smith, who indicted Trump multiple times; Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and worked with an opposition research firm that compiled a discredited dossier against Trump; and Paul Weiss, where a former firm partner, Mark Pomerantz, tried to build a criminal case against Trump while he was working at the Manhattan district attorney's office several years ago. The EOs suspended the security clearances of the firms' employees, barred them from some federal buildings, and they faced cancelation of their federal contracts.

In a leaked email to Paul Weiss law firm employees, Brad Karp, the chair who was criticized for striking a deal with Trump last week, said "The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm." "In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers."

In an executive memorandum issued Saturday, the President instructed the US AG to "review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years." Based on the Presidents past actions, I think it is reasonable to expect further EOs to be issued against law firms.

If judges and lawyers are put in fear of retaliation for challenging the President, they will be discouraged from performing their proper duties, regardless of the legal merits.


Reply Quote
14
zephyr88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 3/24/25
AG
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, they wouldn't be "targeted".
Reply Quote
235
1 edit
Slicer97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 10:17a, 3/24/25
AG
rgvag11 said:
If judges and lawyers are put in fear of retaliation for challenging the President, they will be discouraged from performing their proper duties, regardless of the legal merits.
If their actions had legal merit to begin with, they wouldn't find themselves in their current situation.
Reply Quote
145
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 3/24/25
AG
So you are saying that these ******* can't take being criticized and cry like little *****es when they are confronted. The one crying about the executive order is the best. He just shows what type of loser he is.

By the way they can learn to code if they don't like it.
Reply Quote
92
VaultingChemist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 3/24/25
AG
If only the judges and lawyers actually followed the law……
Reply Quote
65
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 3/24/25
AG
Reply Quote
60
schmellba99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 3/24/25
AG
Judges and lawyers should have a fear of the repercussions of their actions, decisions or lack of decisions.

Color me shocked that somebody in the judicial system is lobbying to protect another person in the judicial system regardless of the actions of that person in the judicial system.

I notice you have no posts about the years of democrats doing exactly what Trump is being accused of. Not shocking, just an observation given who the OP is.

What will your next TDS topic be?
Reply Quote
82
Aggieland Proud
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 3/24/25
AG
"If judges and lawyers are put in fear of retaliation for challenging the President, they will be discouraged from performing their proper duties, regardless of the legal merits."

It didn't stop them the first time. Why would Trump fighting back stop them this time.

Nice try!!
Reply Quote
31
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:19a, 3/24/25
I do not think Trump is attempting to intimidate judges, or lawyers.

This is all PR by him. In addition to the legal aspect of these cases, there is also a political aspect too many of them. The department of justice is fighting the legal battle, Trump has to fight the political battle.
Reply Quote
27
Serotonin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20a, 3/24/25
AG
NEWS ALERT:

Man subjected to non-stop lawfare by his enemies decides to use lawfare against them.
Reply Quote
70
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to zephyr88 • 10:21a, 3/24/25
S
zephyr88 said:
Call it what you want, but if the judges weren't over-reaching their authority, the wouldn't be "targeted".
Exactly. What is wrong with him calling on the only remedy, Congressional action? Its certainly warranted---and immediately.
Reply Quote
22
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:21a, 3/24/25
AG
DNC weakly talking point email is out...nfw OP typed that himself.
Reply Quote
48
LOYAL AG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:21a, 3/24/25
AG
Well at least one of the justices has a substantial conflict of interest with the EO he's trying to block. If he doesn't have the integrity to recuse himself when his family has a clear vested interest in the outcome then he probably should be impeached.

Trump isn't attacking all federal justices just the ones trying to punch above their weight class with nationwide injunctions from a district bench. Then add in the seemingly inevitable conflict of interest and here we are.
The federal government was never meant to be this powerful.
Reply Quote
29
AlexNguyen
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24a, 3/24/25
Trump absolutely should use his pulpit when warranted. He was elected to do exactly the things these Obama judges are blocking him from doing. The district judges are seizing powers that do not belong to them and Trump needs to bear pressure and bring accountability onto these lifetime appointed officials.
Reply Quote
28
fullback44
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24a, 3/24/25
AG
OP is worried the right is firing back at the lefts tactics .. everyone run and hide under the big rock in the back yard, and put your mask on while your at it (and stay 6 feet away) - these leftist think we all forgot about what they did
Reply Quote
20
Owlagdad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:26a, 3/24/25
Geez, OP. Get a grip.
Reply Quote
23
Bulldog73
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 3/24/25
AG
Quote:
Is Trump intimidating judges and lawyers and, if so, is that OK?
Not only ok, but necessary.

We have seen what happens when these judges and attorneys are free to follow Saul Alinsky without consequence.
Reply Quote
23
1 edit
v1rotate92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31a, 3/24/25
AG
Judges Trump is fighting are socialists. OP needs to travel around the world a little. I just returned from London and met many native Brits absolutely disgusted with what's become of their country. Same experience in Argentina. Socialism destroys people and countries.
Slick
Reply Quote
13
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 10:32a, 3/24/25
BMX Bandit said:
I do not think Trump is attempting to intimidate judges, or lawyers.

This is all PR by him. In addition to the legal aspect of these cases, there is also a political aspect too many of them. The department of justice is fighting the legal battle, Trump has to fight the political battle.


This. Plus, it sounds like he understands the Constitution better than them (if they actually think he's intimidating) since he has no power over them. You know...."checks and balances"/separation of power....the thing these judges don't seem to understand in the first place.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
93MarineHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 3/24/25
OP, do you remember a few years ago when leftist protestors were literally outside the homes of SC justices?
Reply Quote
45
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 10:34a, 3/24/25
Why I wonder whatever in the world could make Trump want to act this way?

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
9
akm91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:38a, 3/24/25
AG
There's a difference between criticizing and intimidating. Trump is criticizing, in his bombastic way, but is no way intimidating.
Reply Quote
17
titan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to akm91 • 10:40a, 3/24/25
S
akm91 said:
There's a difference between criticizing and intimidating. Trump is criticizing, in his bombastic way, but is no way intimidating.
Yes, not like how Zuckerberg was "directed" by the Bidenites that he described.
Reply Quote
6
Omperlodge
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 3/24/25
This is the same group that targeted lawyers who chose to represent Trump in legal matters. They tried to leave him without legal counsel to defend himself. That seems way worse to me.
Reply Quote
25
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 3/24/25
If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind /Trump to SCOTUS
Reply Quote
7
AgGrad99
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 3/24/25
AG
Wait....

So the suggestion is dont say anything about the continual and overwhelming judicial over-reach, because if you do, you're 'intimidating' them?

Isn't that like saying "dont tell the teacher about a bully, because it might hurt the bully's feelings?"

Lawfare is a problem. He's calling them out on the abuse and perpetuating the problem. He's allowed to disagree with them, vehemently.

I wish he was more eloquent, but I'm certainly glad he's calling a spade a spade, and highlighting the abuse from the bench. I wish more people cared, or paid attention.
Reply Quote
17
1 edit
Gradin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:45a, 3/24/25
AG
Yeah Trump and team are trying to intimidate.
Reply Quote
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AlexNguyen • 10:50a, 3/24/25
AG
AlexNguyen said:
Trump absolutely should use his pulpit when warranted. He was elected to do exactly the things these Obama judges are blocking him from doing. The district judges are seizing powers that do not belong to them and Trump needs to bear pressure and bring accountability onto these lifetime appointed officials.
Trump is just protecting our "Democracy". I've been told that is the most important thing imaginable.
Reply Quote
1
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51a, 3/24/25
A friendly reminder to those who keep bashing judges and calling for judicial impeachments.


Separation of powers facts for kids

https://kids.kiddle.co/Separation_of_powers

Separation of Powers means that the three branches of government are separated.
The three branches are
  • the Legislative- the part that makes laws
  • the Executive - the part that carries out (executes) the laws, and
  • the Judicial Branch - the courts that decide if the law has been broken.

Separation of Powers helps to make sure people are safe. The executive branch carries out the laws but cannot make laws to make themselves powerful. Also the judiciary is responsible for making sure that criminals are punished so that members of the government or legislature cannot ignore the law as the judiciary can check on them.

Separation of powers is also called a system of checks and balances because the branches can check up on each other and if any of the branches get too strong, that branch will be balanced by the others.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 10:53a, 3/24/25
D'Oh!
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
kag00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:53a, 3/24/25
AG
Intimidating how? He is using his first amendment rights to criticize and call for legal action as framing the constitution. He doesn't have the ability to do anything to the judges without Congress so it is basically "mean tweets".

Talk to me when he starts send out their addresses and advising mobs to shown up at their house. THAT is intimidation and is a real tactic used by the left.

As always the left is criticizing that something "may" happen because they have actually done the thing already or want to as soon as possible.
Reply Quote
25
Noctilucent
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LOYAL AG • 10:54a, 3/24/25
AG
LOYAL AG said:
Well at least one of the justices has a substantial conflict of interest with the EO he's trying to block. If he doesn't have the integrity to recuse himself when his family has a clear vested interest in the outcome then he probably should be impeached.

Trump isn't attacking all federal justices just the ones trying to punch above their weight class with nationwide injunctions from a district bench. Then add in the seemingly inevitable conflict of interest and here we are.
Since when has any far left extremist judge EVER recused themselves from a case when there's been a conflict of interest? I coming up with ZERO times they have recused themselves. Something like that should be easy to find since the lamestream media would've sainted any such leftist judge, and *****ed about it through all of their "reporting".
Reply Quote
6
heteroscedasticity
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Noctilucent • 11:08a, 3/24/25
Noctilucent said:
LOYAL AG said:
Well at least one of the justices has a substantial conflict of interest with the EO he's trying to block. If he doesn't have the integrity to recuse himself when his family has a clear vested interest in the outcome then he probably should be impeached.

Trump isn't attacking all federal justices just the ones trying to punch above their weight class with nationwide injunctions from a district bench. Then add in the seemingly inevitable conflict of interest and here we are.
Since when has any far left extremist judge EVER recused themselves from a case when there's been a conflict of interest? I coming up with ZERO times they have recused themselves. Something like that should be easy to find since the lamestream media would've sainted any such leftist judge, and *****ed about it through all of their "reporting".
Give some examples of the conflicts of interest you speak of
Reply Quote
1
HDeathstar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:13a, 3/24/25
sometimes firms need to assess risk on taking on certain clients. If their security clearance is so important to them, they should not take on clients or do work that jeopardizes that "gov't" contracts. This is normal course of events. Can't complain if a firm is controversial and upsets other clients.
Reply Quote
2
akm91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heteroscedasticity • 11:15a, 3/24/25
AG
heteroscedasticity said:
Noctilucent said:
LOYAL AG said:
Well at least one of the justices has a substantial conflict of interest with the EO he's trying to block. If he doesn't have the integrity to recuse himself when his family has a clear vested interest in the outcome then he probably should be impeached.

Trump isn't attacking all federal justices just the ones trying to punch above their weight class with nationwide injunctions from a district bench. Then add in the seemingly inevitable conflict of interest and here we are.
Since when has any far left extremist judge EVER recused themselves from a case when there's been a conflict of interest? I coming up with ZERO times they have recused themselves. Something like that should be easy to find since the lamestream media would've sainted any such leftist judge, and *****ed about it through all of their "reporting".
Give some examples of the conflicts of interest you speak of
Let's see, the daughter of the judge presiding over a case involving Trump stands to make millions off the decision.
Reply Quote
21
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.