April 2, 2025 • 26 mins
In this episode of One Thing Trump Did, we take a look at how the President has been targeting major law firms that have aided his perceived political enemies. Jeremy is joined by former United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. #Trump #OTTD #AG #lawfirms #ruleoflaw #law #JackSmith #PerkinsCoie #PaulWeiss #Skadden
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome to One Thing Trump Did, exclusively available on the
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. Each week on this podcast,
we are looking at one thing President Trump did. Since
there is so much happening, we try to break things
down in the same rational, nonpartisan, factual way we do
on the Middle. In this episode, we're looking at Trump's
targeting of law firms. It started with an executive order
(00:37):
against the storied law firm Covington and Burling at the
end of February, stripping its lawyers of security clearances, among
other things, in retribution for providing pro bono legal services
to Jack Smith, who was prosecuting cases against Trump for
the Justice Department. Then Trump went after Perkins Coy, which
is challenging his order in court. He's also gone after
(00:57):
Paul Weiss, which reached a settlement with the President. Then
he targeted Jenner and Block Wilmer Hale and reached another
deal with a law firm known in Shorthand as Scattin
big picture, the president is seeking retribution against law firms
for representing his perceived political enemies. Some are fighting back,
some are settling, and the entire legal profession is in
(01:18):
a bit of a state of panic. Here's the president
speaking last week.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,
and we've proven that we have others that want to
make a settlement. Also having to do with the election
and other things. They behave very badly, very wrongly, and
I appreciate the one. You know, these are the biggest firms,
and they all came back realizing that they did wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
So what does this mean for the legal profession and
the rule of law in America? Joining me now is
former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He served under President George W.
Bush from two thousand and five to two thousand and seven.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Alberta.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Gonzalez, Welcome, Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So what do you think, just first of all, of
what the president is doing here?
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Well, I'm going to differ with you just a bit
in terms of you keep referring to retribution. It certainly
appears to be retribution. I guess I've had a conversation
with him. I would ask him, is this solely based
on retribution? But it may also be a calculated way
(02:25):
to minimize the effectiveness of challenges to what he's doing.
As president today, because many of these are being challenged,
they're going to be challenging court, which means law firms
have to be involved, and so this may be his
way of handicapping or hurting those firms and thus making
the challenges against his policies less effective. So it could
(02:49):
be that I don't know the man, I've only met
him once. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of
the doubt, but I would have to admit it certainly
appears to be retribution. I think it's first one, it's petty. Secondly,
I think it's dangerous given the enormous power of the
president United States, every president wields, and I think to
(03:13):
do something like this petty purposes. As I said, I
think it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
For people who are not law school graduates. Why is
this such a big deal to even if it's not retribution,
even if it's just to try to handicap some of
these law firms from being able to represent anybody who's
suing him and trying to stop his agenda. Why is
it a big deal for the President of the United
States to be specifically signing executive orders against some of
(03:39):
the biggest law firms in the country.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well, I mean, because it is the law firms that
vindicate the rights of every American citizen, a very American company,
you know, going to court requires, particularly on difficult legal issues,
the assistance the guy. It's the expertise of law firms.
(04:02):
And if they're unwilling to do that because they're going
to be scared of making the administration angry, I think
that's a dangerous place to be. That's not the America,
certainly not the America that I know. I think that
lawyers and law firms have a special obligation to protect
the rule of law. The rule of law is what
(04:23):
gives us predictability in our lives. It makes sure that
our property rights are respected, that our personal privileges are protected,
and all of us play a role in advancing the
rule of law. For example, simply serving on a jury
that advance is the rule of law, or when you vote,
that advance is the rule of law. It just happens
(04:45):
to be that lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer,
plays a critical role with respect to protecting the rule
of law. And if lawyers aren't stepping up and speaking
out against these kinds of attacks, that's that's disappointing and dangerous.
I must confess some level of disappointment in the silence
(05:08):
that I'm hearing amongst a lot of firms. Obviously, we're
seeing some pushback, most recently, and I think I think
that is a good thing. But it's it's something that
I think all Americans should be watching very very carefully,
because you and I may be in need of the
(05:29):
services of a lawyer someday, and uh, the government shouldn't
be in the shouldn't be in the business of telling
us who we should or should not hire to represent
us in court.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
What do you think of the firms like Paul Weiss
and Scatten that have settled the matter to try to
just stop the stop the bleeding, I guess, but but
also upset a lot of their employees and others.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I don't know the financial situation of these firms. I'm
assuming they're quite quite profitable. I don't know what kind
of pressure they got from key clients, so let me
put that aside. But as a general matter, I too,
am disappointed because I don't think it is going to
(06:14):
any kind of pressure from the administration is going to
go away. I think it will encourage the administration to
do this to other firms. I think it'll raise the
price of appeasing the administration, and so I tend to
lean towards being in support of those firms who filed
(06:35):
suit to oppose the president. The rhetor from the judges
tell me that they're equally appalled at these kinds of
tactics by the administration. Now it remains to be seen,
of course, when the litigation is ultimately concluded, what the
final outcome is going to be. But certainly I think
the judges who've had an opportunity to look at the
(06:59):
situation based on the pleadings, have some very serious questions
about the actions of this administration. And again, for me,
one of the most disappointing aspects of this is that,
in fact, this is simply about retribution. I mean, get
over it, it's over. He's been elected president. We got
a lot of important things that we need the president's
(07:21):
attention on, and to me, this simply confirms that perhaps
President Trump lacks the integrity, certainly lacks the maturity to
serve as president United States.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
For those firms that are suing and have taken this
to court, what kind of case do you think they have.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I think they have a very good case, and I
equate it to all the lawyers who worked on the
January sixth cases and were fired, Okay, because they did that.
They did their job, that's what they're supposed to do
at the Department of Justice. They were successful at it,
and what's the reward they get. They are betrayed by
(08:07):
their government, and so I think that's that is the
ultimate betrayal as far as far as as I'm concerned,
and I think for the firms, I think that the
pressure that's being put on them because of a relationship
they had with someone the president did not like, or
(08:29):
because they were involved in litigation in which the outcome
was adverse to the president. Again, I think that's just wrong.
If in fact he lost, it's because it's because he
didn't have you know, the law was not on his side,
and the firms should not be penalized for simply doing
their job and doing it well.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
These firms are businesses. Of course, one of the reasons
they need security clearances is so they can serve their clients.
If they've got cases involving the government, they've also got
would tract. Top lawyers are you seeing an effect on
where young lawyers want to work because of what these
firms are doing and how they're handling this.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
I'm not aware of any negative impact. What the truth
of the matter is. I think most law students, the
first you know, responsibility or obligation or goal they have
as a approach graduation is to simply get some kind
of legal job. You know. I don't know whether or
not there's how much interest we have in our students
in terms of going to work in New York or
(09:29):
Washington or Los Angeles for some of these major firms.
We honestly have some interest. But I think that law
students across the country are paying attention. They're paying attention
to what pressure law firms are feeling for the administration,
but they're paying more attention to how the law firms
are responding to that pressure. It says a lot about
(09:50):
the culture of the firm in terms of how they're
going to respond to this kind of pressure, which I
think is going to tell all our graduates gates around
the country, well, is this the kind of firm? Are
these kind of individuals that you want to work with?
And maybe it is, maybe it's not. Listen, I was
a partner at a big firm in Houston a lifetime ago.
(10:13):
I left because I wanted to do something that I
thought might be more satisfying. So it's good to make money,
but you have a lifetime to make money. And the
truth of the matter is, you know, there are a
lot of other things you can do with a law
degree besides working in a firm and making making a
good salary.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
One former judge that we reached out to said that
she felt because of this, like her entire profession was
crumbling around her. Do you feel that way or have
you spoken to other lawyers who feel that way?
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say crumbling around me. No. Again,
we're seeing firms now suing and fighting back, and there
are a lot of law firms in this country. So
I know, I'm not willing to go so far as
to say that things are crumbling, but we need to
pay attention. And you know, it's not just about this issue.
(11:12):
As I travel the country and I talk to a
lot of people and they ask me, they say, well,
what can what can I do? What can I do?
I'm just so and so, And the thing that I
always urge him is you have to pay attention, no,
keep up with what's going on, and don't just rely
upon one source. Consult multiple sources. You need to be informed,
and you know, in terms of what you can actually do,
(11:34):
try to think more locally as opposed to globally or
you know, across America, because you're right, and the normal
citizen really can't do much about what's going on in Washington,
but they can certainly do something about what's going on
in their neighborhood, within their own family, within their city
or state, and so they need to kind of focus
on where they can make a difference. Because every every
(11:57):
American citizen has a voice. From my perspective, I think
every American systens should be using that voice to express
their concerns to the extent they have any.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Well, stay with us. We're going to be right back
with more from former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on One
Thing Trump Did.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Will be right back.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump Did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This episode, we're talking
about President Trump's targeting of a number of big law
firms that have represented or aided his perceived political enemies
in the past. I'm joined by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Alberto Gonzalez. One of the things I remember about one
(12:55):
of our founding fathers, John Adams, is that before he
was president, as a lawyer, he represented British soldiers involved
in the Boston massacre. Because that's what we do in
this country. Everyone has a right to representation. What does
it mean for the president to go after lawyers who
represented people on the other side of a case that
(13:15):
he was in.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Well, as I said at the outset, I mean, what
he's trying to do is limit the number of great
lawyers or good lawyers that can take positions represent clients
in opposition to what he wants to accomplish or wants
to do. And in a republic like ours, I think
that's very, very dangerous. The President United States obviously wields
(13:39):
a great deal of power in our country under our constitution,
and he obviously has the discretion to exercise that power
as he sees fit. But one of the great things
about the rule of law, the rule of law also
exists in addition to protecting your rights and your property,
(14:00):
it exists to check abuses of power. And we want
to make sure that the most powerful office in the
world that the decisions made there are always going to
be based on what is best for this country, not
what is based on political or personal gains of the
individual who sits in that office. And so that is
(14:24):
extremely important as far as I'm concerned, is providing a
check on abuse of power.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Speaking of power, how powerful do you think these law
firms are in the grand scheme of our politics? Are
they as powerful as say, the big banks?
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Oh, I don't know if I'm qualified to offered opinion
as to whether or not law firms are as powerful
as the big banks. Obviously, the rule of law. Without
the rule of law, you have no America, you have
no democracy. On the other hand, you know, obviously economics,
finance is a very important commerce is very important part
(15:02):
of who we are as a country, and of the
opportunities are afforded to every to most, if not all Americans.
So those are very very important and both very powerful
as far as I'm concerned, I think if if you
had to press me, i'd probably I'd probably say the banks. No,
I take that bank. As a lawyer, I feel compelled,
(15:26):
I feel like I have to say that the rule
of law is the most important.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Well, I asked that question because you know, consumers, all
kinds of people have interaction with these big banks. We
know that JP, Morgan, Chase and City and all the
other bank Bank of America are huge players in our economy.
But we may not know the names of these law firms,
but they're very powerful as well.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Oh, there's no question about it. I mean, the big
firms represent the biggest clients generally, and they employ a
large number of lawyers, and so they can be very
influce and there's no question about it. They get involved
in elections, both national, state and local, that can be
(16:08):
very influential there. And obviously, from my perspective, I tell
our students we are teaching to be the next generation
of leaders. Certainly, throughout our history, many of the members
of Congress have been lawyers. Many of our presidents have
been lawyers. You don't have to become a lawyer in
(16:30):
practice law. When you earn a JD. You have the
opportunity to do so many other things. I have led
a state agency, a federal agency. I've been a judge.
I've been in academia as a dean. I've been a
counselor to a governor, a counselor to a president. I've
been a partner at a major firm. I've done all
of that with a JD.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What was your favorite one of those jobs?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Candidly, it was White House counsel If you're an American
citizen and going to work every day in the White
Now for a president you really admired. It just doesn't
get any better than that. During a story time during
nine to eleven, so that was it was a special time.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Right.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
You have said here that you believe that one of
the main aims of what the president is doing here
is to try to keep some of the best lawyers
from attacking pieces of his agenda. But even if the
firms do settle with the president or fight him in
court and win, do you think that he's already done
(17:29):
what he needs to do, which is essentially to bully
them into not representing clients who might be opposed to
him politically.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Maybe, well, up to wait and see. You're right, I mean,
it's certainly since a message chilling message somewhat might say,
but I don't think I don't think we're really going
to have the outcome of this, of this battle, and
I do consider it sort of a battle or a struggle,
So you know, I think it's I think as more
(17:56):
and more firms step up, I think you're going to
see the tie turn. And I think at least I'm
at least hopeful that you'll see the efforts by the
administration to cause fear in the halls of law firms
around the country. I'm hopeful that those efforts will diminish.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
There is so much going on right now. I means
one of the reasons why we decided to create this
podcast is just to try to focus on one thing
each week and dig deep into it. But there's a
lot that's going on that many people feel is outside
the law, including sending migrants to a third country without
any due process, or deciding not to spend money that
Congress has already appropriated. How does what's happening with the
(18:38):
law firms play into that, and how do you feel
about it as a former Attorney General of the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Well, I think securing our borders, particularly in a post
non level world, we have to know who is in
this country and why. So I'm certainly sympathetic. I'm with
virtually every American, A dangerous immigrant in this country unlawfully,
you need to be deported. However, there are a number
(19:10):
of immigrants that are here who may be undocumented, but
there are contributors to society, contributors to social security. Without them,
various economies like in agriculture, in hospitality would be severely damaged.
And so we've got to figure out a way to
(19:32):
put them in some kind of legal status relatively quickly.
There shouldn't be anybody in this country here in an
unlawful status. We need to know who they are, what
they're doing. And I think most Americans would agree with that,
and all Americans I know would agree that if you're
a dangerous undocumented immigrant in this country, you should not
(19:55):
be in this country. You should be deported. The danger, however,
is making that determination. How do we know who you
are and what risk you pose and what benefits you
provide as an employee or as a worker rather, And
that's where you need to have I think, an ordered process,
not one that's rushed in the dead of night. People
(20:17):
are rounded up and simply flown away. And I suspect
most of the individuals, if not virtually all, who are
rounded up a few weekends ago deserve to be rounded
up and deported, and they are dangerous, but there may
be some that are not in that category. But we
just don't know. And I think that's what the judge
(20:38):
is trying to find out. He's not saying that the
president doesn't have authority, because in the area of naw
security and an immigration and foreign policy, the president's given
a great deal of discretion by the Congress and by
the courts. But what we don't know here yet are
the facts. And the facts may bear out the righteousness
(20:59):
of this action by this administration, but it may not
with respect to one individual or two individuals or whatever.
And that's what the judge is trying to ascertain. Okay,
who have you got? What was the process? And I
think we all would rest easy or knowing that there
was an order process and the government's routing up people
(21:21):
that we don't want in this country and have no
business being in this country.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
But I guess the question would be about the due
process that those people are due, whether they can be
sent without any due process to a prison in El Salvador.
And I ask you that, by the way, you know,
it's like the Trump administration is trying to figure out
how far they can go? Are these people that they
say are so bad that we've got to just treat
them in this way and send them there? And I
(21:47):
ask you that as somebody who you think back to
two thousand and two and when you were a White
House lawyer arguing that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to
al Qaeda or Taliban attainees.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Yes, and the courts told us that, you know, we
had to provide a process to determine whether or not
the person that we were focused on was in fact
an enemy combatant and enemy detain me. So they're all
entitled some kind of process. And I believe that that
is certainly true. And that's what the judge, I think
(22:18):
is trying to ascertain is by simply knowing what the
facts are with respect to each individual, that is going
to provide a level of process that I think may
meet or should meet constitutional muster.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Okay, let me just finally come back to the law
firms and ask you. You said you think that they
should be speaking up more. What would your advice to
the big firms be right now?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
I think my advice would be that the rule of
law is being attacked and that lawyers, above anyone else
in this country have an obligation to defend the rule
of law and law firms and lawyers should not be
penalized for actions for representations that they engage in in
(23:06):
the past, and to penalize them is bad for the
law firms and it certainly bad for potential clients and
the average American citizen who should be able to decide
who they want to hire to represent them in our
legal system. That's what I would tell them that sometimes
there are things that are more important than the bottom line,
(23:29):
and this may be one of those instances.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
How far do you think the president is going to
go with this.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I think he will go as far as we might
possibly imagine until someone like the court say say, you know,
enough is enough. Again in this space, the president is
going to be afforded a great deal of discretion, but
there have to be limits on that discretions. We're dealing
(23:56):
with human beings. Some of those may be American citizens,
and I'm reminded that phrase at santradale O'Connor provided in
connection I think with the Hondi case that a state
of war is not a blank check to the president
United States when it comes to the rights of American citizens,
and so the same would be true. You know that
(24:17):
our immigration challenges is not a blank check with respect
to the president's power in dealing with American citizens. You
only know you're dealing with American citizens if, in fact,
you provide them some level of due process so that
we can ascertain who they are, and they have the
ability to know what the charges may be against some
(24:38):
and to respond, have an opportunity to respond before a
neutral decision maker.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
You mentioned Santradale O'Connor, former Supreme Court justice. Do you
think that these cases are going to make it all
the way to the Supreme Court of the United States
to decide whether what President Trump is doing is legal?
Speaker 3 (24:55):
I think certainly some of them are going to make
it to the Supreme Court. And I don't know President
Trump very well, but my sense is that he will
test it, and he will want to know what is
the ultimate limit of his authority in this space.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
That is former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, thank you
so much for being.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
With us, thanks for having me, and thanks.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
To you for listening to One thing Trump did. It
was produced by Harrison Pattino. Our next middle episode will
be in your podcast feed later this week. We'll be
asking you what can be done to improve legal immigration
in this country. And if you like this podcast, please
rate it wherever you get your podcasts, tell your friends,
and sign up for automatic downloads. Our theme music was
composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Talk to you soon.
Welcome to One Thing Trump Did, exclusively available on the
Middle podcast feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. Each week on this podcast,
we are looking at one thing President Trump did. Since
there is so much happening, we try to break things
down in the same rational, nonpartisan, factual way we do
on the Middle. In this episode, we're looking at Trump's
targeting of law firms. It started with an executive order
(00:37):
against the storied law firm Covington and Burling at the
end of February, stripping its lawyers of security clearances, among
other things, in retribution for providing pro bono legal services
to Jack Smith, who was prosecuting cases against Trump for
the Justice Department. Then Trump went after Perkins Coy, which
is challenging his order in court. He's also gone after
(00:57):
Paul Weiss, which reached a settlement with the President. Then
he targeted Jenner and Block Wilmer Hale and reached another
deal with a law firm known in Shorthand as Scattin
big picture, the president is seeking retribution against law firms
for representing his perceived political enemies. Some are fighting back,
some are settling, and the entire legal profession is in
(01:18):
a bit of a state of panic. Here's the president
speaking last week.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,
and we've proven that we have others that want to
make a settlement. Also having to do with the election
and other things. They behave very badly, very wrongly, and
I appreciate the one. You know, these are the biggest firms,
and they all came back realizing that they did wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
So what does this mean for the legal profession and
the rule of law in America? Joining me now is
former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He served under President George W.
Bush from two thousand and five to two thousand and seven.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Alberta.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Gonzalez, Welcome, Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So what do you think, just first of all, of
what the president is doing here?
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Well, I'm going to differ with you just a bit
in terms of you keep referring to retribution. It certainly
appears to be retribution. I guess I've had a conversation
with him. I would ask him, is this solely based
on retribution? But it may also be a calculated way
(02:25):
to minimize the effectiveness of challenges to what he's doing.
As president today, because many of these are being challenged,
they're going to be challenging court, which means law firms
have to be involved, and so this may be his
way of handicapping or hurting those firms and thus making
the challenges against his policies less effective. So it could
(02:49):
be that I don't know the man, I've only met
him once. I'm inclined to give people the benefit of
the doubt, but I would have to admit it certainly
appears to be retribution. I think it's first one, it's petty. Secondly,
I think it's dangerous given the enormous power of the
president United States, every president wields, and I think to
(03:13):
do something like this petty purposes. As I said, I
think it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
For people who are not law school graduates. Why is
this such a big deal to even if it's not retribution,
even if it's just to try to handicap some of
these law firms from being able to represent anybody who's
suing him and trying to stop his agenda. Why is
it a big deal for the President of the United
States to be specifically signing executive orders against some of
(03:39):
the biggest law firms in the country.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Well, I mean, because it is the law firms that
vindicate the rights of every American citizen, a very American company,
you know, going to court requires, particularly on difficult legal issues,
the assistance the guy. It's the expertise of law firms.
(04:02):
And if they're unwilling to do that because they're going
to be scared of making the administration angry, I think
that's a dangerous place to be. That's not the America,
certainly not the America that I know. I think that
lawyers and law firms have a special obligation to protect
the rule of law. The rule of law is what
(04:23):
gives us predictability in our lives. It makes sure that
our property rights are respected, that our personal privileges are protected,
and all of us play a role in advancing the
rule of law. For example, simply serving on a jury
that advance is the rule of law, or when you vote,
that advance is the rule of law. It just happens
(04:45):
to be that lawyers, and I happen to be a lawyer,
plays a critical role with respect to protecting the rule
of law. And if lawyers aren't stepping up and speaking
out against these kinds of attacks, that's that's disappointing and dangerous.
I must confess some level of disappointment in the silence
(05:08):
that I'm hearing amongst a lot of firms. Obviously, we're
seeing some pushback, most recently, and I think I think
that is a good thing. But it's it's something that
I think all Americans should be watching very very carefully,
because you and I may be in need of the
(05:29):
services of a lawyer someday, and uh, the government shouldn't
be in the shouldn't be in the business of telling
us who we should or should not hire to represent
us in court.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
What do you think of the firms like Paul Weiss
and Scatten that have settled the matter to try to
just stop the stop the bleeding, I guess, but but
also upset a lot of their employees and others.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I don't know the financial situation of these firms. I'm
assuming they're quite quite profitable. I don't know what kind
of pressure they got from key clients, so let me
put that aside. But as a general matter, I too,
am disappointed because I don't think it is going to
(06:14):
any kind of pressure from the administration is going to
go away. I think it will encourage the administration to
do this to other firms. I think it'll raise the
price of appeasing the administration, and so I tend to
lean towards being in support of those firms who filed
(06:35):
suit to oppose the president. The rhetor from the judges
tell me that they're equally appalled at these kinds of
tactics by the administration. Now it remains to be seen,
of course, when the litigation is ultimately concluded, what the
final outcome is going to be. But certainly I think
the judges who've had an opportunity to look at the
(06:59):
situation based on the pleadings, have some very serious questions
about the actions of this administration. And again, for me,
one of the most disappointing aspects of this is that,
in fact, this is simply about retribution. I mean, get
over it, it's over. He's been elected president. We got
a lot of important things that we need the president's
(07:21):
attention on, and to me, this simply confirms that perhaps
President Trump lacks the integrity, certainly lacks the maturity to
serve as president United States.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
For those firms that are suing and have taken this
to court, what kind of case do you think they have.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I think they have a very good case, and I
equate it to all the lawyers who worked on the
January sixth cases and were fired, Okay, because they did that.
They did their job, that's what they're supposed to do
at the Department of Justice. They were successful at it,
and what's the reward they get. They are betrayed by
(08:07):
their government, and so I think that's that is the
ultimate betrayal as far as far as as I'm concerned,
and I think for the firms, I think that the
pressure that's being put on them because of a relationship
they had with someone the president did not like, or
(08:29):
because they were involved in litigation in which the outcome
was adverse to the president. Again, I think that's just wrong.
If in fact he lost, it's because it's because he
didn't have you know, the law was not on his side,
and the firms should not be penalized for simply doing
their job and doing it well.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
These firms are businesses. Of course, one of the reasons
they need security clearances is so they can serve their clients.
If they've got cases involving the government, they've also got
would tract. Top lawyers are you seeing an effect on
where young lawyers want to work because of what these
firms are doing and how they're handling this.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
I'm not aware of any negative impact. What the truth
of the matter is. I think most law students, the
first you know, responsibility or obligation or goal they have
as a approach graduation is to simply get some kind
of legal job. You know. I don't know whether or
not there's how much interest we have in our students
in terms of going to work in New York or
(09:29):
Washington or Los Angeles for some of these major firms.
We honestly have some interest. But I think that law
students across the country are paying attention. They're paying attention
to what pressure law firms are feeling for the administration,
but they're paying more attention to how the law firms
are responding to that pressure. It says a lot about
(09:50):
the culture of the firm in terms of how they're
going to respond to this kind of pressure, which I
think is going to tell all our graduates gates around
the country, well, is this the kind of firm? Are
these kind of individuals that you want to work with?
And maybe it is, maybe it's not. Listen, I was
a partner at a big firm in Houston a lifetime ago.
(10:13):
I left because I wanted to do something that I
thought might be more satisfying. So it's good to make money,
but you have a lifetime to make money. And the
truth of the matter is, you know, there are a
lot of other things you can do with a law
degree besides working in a firm and making making a
good salary.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
One former judge that we reached out to said that
she felt because of this, like her entire profession was
crumbling around her. Do you feel that way or have
you spoken to other lawyers who feel that way?
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say crumbling around me. No. Again,
we're seeing firms now suing and fighting back, and there
are a lot of law firms in this country. So
I know, I'm not willing to go so far as
to say that things are crumbling, but we need to
pay attention. And you know, it's not just about this issue.
(11:12):
As I travel the country and I talk to a
lot of people and they ask me, they say, well,
what can what can I do? What can I do?
I'm just so and so, And the thing that I
always urge him is you have to pay attention, no,
keep up with what's going on, and don't just rely
upon one source. Consult multiple sources. You need to be informed,
and you know, in terms of what you can actually do,
(11:34):
try to think more locally as opposed to globally or
you know, across America, because you're right, and the normal
citizen really can't do much about what's going on in Washington,
but they can certainly do something about what's going on
in their neighborhood, within their own family, within their city
or state, and so they need to kind of focus
on where they can make a difference. Because every every
(11:57):
American citizen has a voice. From my perspective, I think
every American systens should be using that voice to express
their concerns to the extent they have any.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Well, stay with us. We're going to be right back
with more from former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on One
Thing Trump Did.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Will be right back.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Welcome back to One Thing Trump Did exclusively on the
Middle Podcast Feed. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This episode, we're talking
about President Trump's targeting of a number of big law
firms that have represented or aided his perceived political enemies
in the past. I'm joined by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Alberto Gonzalez. One of the things I remember about one
(12:55):
of our founding fathers, John Adams, is that before he
was president, as a lawyer, he represented British soldiers involved
in the Boston massacre. Because that's what we do in
this country. Everyone has a right to representation. What does
it mean for the president to go after lawyers who
represented people on the other side of a case that
(13:15):
he was in.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Well, as I said at the outset, I mean, what
he's trying to do is limit the number of great
lawyers or good lawyers that can take positions represent clients
in opposition to what he wants to accomplish or wants
to do. And in a republic like ours, I think
that's very, very dangerous. The President United States obviously wields
(13:39):
a great deal of power in our country under our constitution,
and he obviously has the discretion to exercise that power
as he sees fit. But one of the great things
about the rule of law, the rule of law also
exists in addition to protecting your rights and your property,
(14:00):
it exists to check abuses of power. And we want
to make sure that the most powerful office in the
world that the decisions made there are always going to
be based on what is best for this country, not
what is based on political or personal gains of the
individual who sits in that office. And so that is
(14:24):
extremely important as far as I'm concerned, is providing a
check on abuse of power.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Speaking of power, how powerful do you think these law
firms are in the grand scheme of our politics? Are
they as powerful as say, the big banks?
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Oh, I don't know if I'm qualified to offered opinion
as to whether or not law firms are as powerful
as the big banks. Obviously, the rule of law. Without
the rule of law, you have no America, you have
no democracy. On the other hand, you know, obviously economics,
finance is a very important commerce is very important part
(15:02):
of who we are as a country, and of the
opportunities are afforded to every to most, if not all Americans.
So those are very very important and both very powerful
as far as I'm concerned, I think if if you
had to press me, i'd probably I'd probably say the banks. No,
I take that bank. As a lawyer, I feel compelled,
(15:26):
I feel like I have to say that the rule
of law is the most important.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Well, I asked that question because you know, consumers, all
kinds of people have interaction with these big banks. We
know that JP, Morgan, Chase and City and all the
other bank Bank of America are huge players in our economy.
But we may not know the names of these law firms,
but they're very powerful as well.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Oh, there's no question about it. I mean, the big
firms represent the biggest clients generally, and they employ a
large number of lawyers, and so they can be very
influce and there's no question about it. They get involved
in elections, both national, state and local, that can be
(16:08):
very influential there. And obviously, from my perspective, I tell
our students we are teaching to be the next generation
of leaders. Certainly, throughout our history, many of the members
of Congress have been lawyers. Many of our presidents have
been lawyers. You don't have to become a lawyer in
(16:30):
practice law. When you earn a JD. You have the
opportunity to do so many other things. I have led
a state agency, a federal agency. I've been a judge.
I've been in academia as a dean. I've been a
counselor to a governor, a counselor to a president. I've
been a partner at a major firm. I've done all
of that with a JD.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What was your favorite one of those jobs?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Candidly, it was White House counsel If you're an American
citizen and going to work every day in the White
Now for a president you really admired. It just doesn't
get any better than that. During a story time during
nine to eleven, so that was it was a special time.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Right.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
You have said here that you believe that one of
the main aims of what the president is doing here
is to try to keep some of the best lawyers
from attacking pieces of his agenda. But even if the
firms do settle with the president or fight him in
court and win, do you think that he's already done
(17:29):
what he needs to do, which is essentially to bully
them into not representing clients who might be opposed to
him politically.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Maybe, well, up to wait and see. You're right, I mean,
it's certainly since a message chilling message somewhat might say,
but I don't think I don't think we're really going
to have the outcome of this, of this battle, and
I do consider it sort of a battle or a struggle,
So you know, I think it's I think as more
(17:56):
and more firms step up, I think you're going to
see the tie turn. And I think at least I'm
at least hopeful that you'll see the efforts by the
administration to cause fear in the halls of law firms
around the country. I'm hopeful that those efforts will diminish.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
There is so much going on right now. I means
one of the reasons why we decided to create this
podcast is just to try to focus on one thing
each week and dig deep into it. But there's a
lot that's going on that many people feel is outside
the law, including sending migrants to a third country without
any due process, or deciding not to spend money that
Congress has already appropriated. How does what's happening with the
(18:38):
law firms play into that, and how do you feel
about it as a former Attorney General of the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Well, I think securing our borders, particularly in a post
non level world, we have to know who is in
this country and why. So I'm certainly sympathetic. I'm with
virtually every American, A dangerous immigrant in this country unlawfully,
you need to be deported. However, there are a number
(19:10):
of immigrants that are here who may be undocumented, but
there are contributors to society, contributors to social security. Without them,
various economies like in agriculture, in hospitality would be severely damaged.
And so we've got to figure out a way to
(19:32):
put them in some kind of legal status relatively quickly.
There shouldn't be anybody in this country here in an
unlawful status. We need to know who they are, what
they're doing. And I think most Americans would agree with that,
and all Americans I know would agree that if you're
a dangerous undocumented immigrant in this country, you should not
(19:55):
be in this country. You should be deported. The danger, however,
is making that determination. How do we know who you
are and what risk you pose and what benefits you
provide as an employee or as a worker rather, And
that's where you need to have I think, an ordered process,
not one that's rushed in the dead of night. People
(20:17):
are rounded up and simply flown away. And I suspect
most of the individuals, if not virtually all, who are
rounded up a few weekends ago deserve to be rounded
up and deported, and they are dangerous, but there may
be some that are not in that category. But we
just don't know. And I think that's what the judge
(20:38):
is trying to find out. He's not saying that the
president doesn't have authority, because in the area of naw
security and an immigration and foreign policy, the president's given
a great deal of discretion by the Congress and by
the courts. But what we don't know here yet are
the facts. And the facts may bear out the righteousness
(20:59):
of this action by this administration, but it may not
with respect to one individual or two individuals or whatever.
And that's what the judge is trying to ascertain. Okay,
who have you got? What was the process? And I
think we all would rest easy or knowing that there
was an order process and the government's routing up people
(21:21):
that we don't want in this country and have no
business being in this country.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
But I guess the question would be about the due
process that those people are due, whether they can be
sent without any due process to a prison in El Salvador.
And I ask you that, by the way, you know,
it's like the Trump administration is trying to figure out
how far they can go? Are these people that they
say are so bad that we've got to just treat
them in this way and send them there? And I
(21:47):
ask you that as somebody who you think back to
two thousand and two and when you were a White
House lawyer arguing that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to
al Qaeda or Taliban attainees.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
Yes, and the courts told us that, you know, we
had to provide a process to determine whether or not
the person that we were focused on was in fact
an enemy combatant and enemy detain me. So they're all
entitled some kind of process. And I believe that that
is certainly true. And that's what the judge, I think
(22:18):
is trying to ascertain is by simply knowing what the
facts are with respect to each individual, that is going
to provide a level of process that I think may
meet or should meet constitutional muster.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Okay, let me just finally come back to the law
firms and ask you. You said you think that they
should be speaking up more. What would your advice to
the big firms be right now?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
I think my advice would be that the rule of
law is being attacked and that lawyers, above anyone else
in this country have an obligation to defend the rule
of law and law firms and lawyers should not be
penalized for actions for representations that they engage in in
(23:06):
the past, and to penalize them is bad for the
law firms and it certainly bad for potential clients and
the average American citizen who should be able to decide
who they want to hire to represent them in our
legal system. That's what I would tell them that sometimes
there are things that are more important than the bottom line,
(23:29):
and this may be one of those instances.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
How far do you think the president is going to
go with this.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I think he will go as far as we might
possibly imagine until someone like the court say say, you know,
enough is enough. Again in this space, the president is
going to be afforded a great deal of discretion, but
there have to be limits on that discretions. We're dealing
(23:56):
with human beings. Some of those may be American citizens,
and I'm reminded that phrase at santradale O'Connor provided in
connection I think with the Hondi case that a state
of war is not a blank check to the president
United States when it comes to the rights of American citizens,
and so the same would be true. You know that
(24:17):
our immigration challenges is not a blank check with respect
to the president's power in dealing with American citizens. You
only know you're dealing with American citizens if, in fact,
you provide them some level of due process so that
we can ascertain who they are, and they have the
ability to know what the charges may be against some
(24:38):
and to respond, have an opportunity to respond before a
neutral decision maker.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
You mentioned Santradale O'Connor, former Supreme Court justice. Do you
think that these cases are going to make it all
the way to the Supreme Court of the United States
to decide whether what President Trump is doing is legal?
Speaker 3 (24:55):
I think certainly some of them are going to make
it to the Supreme Court. And I don't know President
Trump very well, but my sense is that he will
test it, and he will want to know what is
the ultimate limit of his authority in this space.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
That is former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, thank you
so much for being.
Speaker 3 (25:18):
With us, thanks for having me, and thanks.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
To you for listening to One thing Trump did. It
was produced by Harrison Pattino. Our next middle episode will
be in your podcast feed later this week. We'll be
asking you what can be done to improve legal immigration
in this country. And if you like this podcast, please
rate it wherever you get your podcasts, tell your friends,
and sign up for automatic downloads. Our theme music was
composed by Noah Haidu. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
Talk to you soon.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com