Trump Targets Law Firms in a Series of Executive Orders

PAULA NEWTON, ANCHOR: Now, to another one of President Trump’s executive orders, and it is under scrutiny, is termination of security clearances for two prominent law firms, both of which have represented his opponents, such as the 2016 democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. And Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by the Biden administration that brought criminal charges against the current president. Former acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ, Mary McCord, speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about the chilling effect of these attacks on the legal system.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT:

MARY MCCORD, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, DOJ:

SREENIVASAN: Paula, thanks. Mary McCord, thanks so much for joining us. On Friday, the president went and addressed the Department of Justice. He wanted to lay out his case for about an hour on law and order. But instead, there were a lot of times where he spent an enormous amount of energy attacking his adversaries, his enemies, perceived or real. But what, what did you make of that speech?

MCCORD: Well, first of all, as someone who has sat through numerous speeches in the Great Hall of Department of Justice, because I was, you know, in the department for almost 25 years, it was an extraordinary speech. It was a political rally, and it was a real promise of vengeance. It was pretty clear, even though we couldn’t see the audience, that that was not an audience made up of career and long, long term Department of Justice lawyers and staff. It seemed to have been a handpicked audience of political appointees and allies. And he spoke to them directly. And, you know, normally if the – first of all, it’s rare for the President to come speak to the Department of Justice at all. In part, that is because that everyone usually in the White House, and the department wants to maintain that sort of independence and that perception of independence. But if a president does come, it’s to, you know, talk about a new initiative. And I think the thought here was maybe he was gonna be talking specifically about the Fentanyl crisis or something of that nature, but no, this was, this was something that you might have seen during his campaign at a rally, you know, anywhere across America speaking to his supporters.

SREENIVASAN: What have you noticed in both the, the tenor, tone and actually even the substance of what the Department of Justice lawyers are taking to court just in these past two months?

MCCORD: Well, he, he tried to make – I think he said at one point we were going from the Department of Injustice to the Department of Justice, and he suggested that what the court, what the men and women of the department were going to be doing was to hold accountable government attorneys and others within government from the previous administration, accountable for what, remains to be seen. But of course, part of his narrative is that the department had been weaponized against him, had prosecuted him for political purposes. And he made clear, I think his words were something that we will, you know, root out the rogue actors within the government to hold them accountable. And he specifically pointed to attorneys that he had put into the department leadership, which remember are basically his personal criminal defense team. He has Todd Blanche and Imel Bove as his Deputy Attorney General and Principal Deputy Attorney General. They were, of course, his primary criminal defense counsel. Pam Bondi, as the Attorney General, was his first impeachment defense counsel. And even John Sauer as his solicitor general was his defense counsel in the January 6th case that argued in the US Supreme Court resulting in the immunity decision. So he was speaking directly to them as well as to the new FBI director Kash Patel, about what he expected them to do. In terms of the other attorneys and staff in the department, I don’t think he gave them really any credit for the good work the department over does over the years. Because if you were sitting there listening, you would think that everything up until that moment when he’s speaking to you and, and saying, we’re basically turning the page, that everything up to that moment had been corrupt, when of course, those who’ve worked there for decades know that that’s not the case.

SREENIVASAN: Okay. Someone listening to you says, you know what he is rewarding the president’s rewarding people who have been loyal to him, who he thinks understands his worldview and thinks that will carry out sort of his interest. Now, why is that different than what any other president does?

MCCORD: So, and as a matter of policy, that’s absolutely correct. Correct. And as someone who worked in the department through multiple administrations, Republican presidents, Democratic presidents I can say that the policies did change. So, for example, the focus on immigration as President Trump and his Attorney General and Department of Justice Leadership want to do, that is something we’ve seen before. That it’s something that career department attorneys and AUSAs that is Assistant United States attorneys at the different US attorney’s offices around the country, that’s something they’re used to. We’re going to prioritize one thing this administration over maybe something else. That’s a very different thing than using the mechanisms and tools of investigations and intelligence collection and prosecution to actually go after enemies. There’s nothing he was saying that suggested that those in the department previously, or Jack Smith’s team, Jack Smith being the special Counsel, of course, who investigated both the Mar-a-Lago matter and the January 6th matter involving Donald Trump, as well as the prosecutors who prosecuted the attackers, those who attacked the capitol on January 6th. There’s nothing he says other than just labeling with adjectives that these are horrible people. Nothing that supports that they did anything in violation of law, in violation of ethical codes or anything other than pursue justice. And recall that during the last administration, it was not only Donald Trump who was investigated and prosecuted, but also Joe Biden himself, while a sitting president not prosecuted, but investigated with respect to whether any classified documents or national defense information had been mishandled. Hunter Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, investigated and prosecuted. What the attorneys in the Department of Justice do is they follow the facts where they lead, and they apply to the law, to those facts. And what we’re hearing now is sort of the same alternate reality that Donald Trump was preaching really to his base throughout the campaign, which is that something different than what all of us could see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Something different happened on January 6th, and that those who were prosecuted were political prisoners and hostages. And so he continues, essentially that false narrative and continued that in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice on Friday.

SREENIVASAN: Last week there was one law firm, Perkins Coie which has a couple of thousand lawyers, is nationally known. It faced off against the administration in court. They were fighting against an executive order written by the White House that said that essentially you know, this law firm should no longer be able to deal with the government. And not only that, but really clients of the law firm that have any contracts with the government should be scrutinized. What, what did you make of that mandate?

MCCORD: Well, this is a pretty extraordinary executive action, and clearly the judge thought so as well. Judge Howell in the DC District Court, the Federal District Court in District of Columbia, she did issue a, an injunction, a a restraining order against provisions of that executive order. This was really an outright attack on the legal profession, and it was followed on Friday by a similar executive order against another major international law firm, Paul Weiss. Very similarly starting out talking about what a danger large law firms are to sort of the country and, and blacklisting Paul Weiss much in the same way that the executive order about Perkins Coie blacklisted Perkins Coie, to your point, did things like say stripped sec security clearances of attorneys there restricted any type of, or, you know, said all, any type of government contracts with these law firms should be terminated, even sought in both of these orders to limit access by those attorneys at these major firms into government buildings or to meeting with government officials. So imagine a firm that does government contracts work that is involved in litigation before the federal government is involved in representing regulated entities in, you know, with their regulations that are administered by the departments and agencies. It means essentially they cannot do their work. And in these – and that seems to me to be a very pointed effort, because the reason for the, the stated reason in the executive orders in both cases, and I also mention a third one, which is directed at the lawyers at Covington and Burling who are representing Jack Smith. It’s directed purely out of personal vengeance. In the case of Perkins Coie, it’s because the firm – and this is stated in the executive order, I’m just not speculating about this – it’s because the firm had represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign back in 2016. It’s because it had piled litigation on voting rights that the Trump administration disfavors, and it’s because they asserted that Perkins Coie engaged in different types of programs to increase the minority representation within its lawyers and its staff. And similarly, as directed at Paul Weiss, it’s based on the actions of an attorney that used to be work there that President Trump doesn’t like and their own, you know, diversity, equity inclusion policies. So these are targeted because of personal vengeances of this administration, but they’re also a shot across the bow. They’re meant to intimidate other big law firms into not filing litigation against the government, into not coming to sort of the aid of those who might be targeted to the government, really to try to get the lawyers out of the way.

SREENIVASAN: In the president’s rationale in writing, as you say, he has gone out and said, look, “I was the target of corrupt politicians for four years, and then four years after that, so don’t talk to me about targeting.” He feels that this, these legal teams and these actions against him were part of an attack. And he in his mind and in writing is saying that I am trying to right these wrongs. He is – where is sort of his logic not connecting?

MCCORD: Well, because you don’t use the, you know the defense bar goes back historically to the founding of the country, right? In, in cases, whether it’s criminal prosecution or even a civil case, people are entitled to attorneys to defend their position. And he has well taken advantage of this throughout his whole career. Most recently, of course, in the, in the prosecutions he’s talking about, he’s had a, a legal team working really 24/7 defending him in criminal cases, brought against him not only federal criminal cases, but state criminal cases, civil cases brought against him, the E. Jean Carroll matter, for example the case brought by the New York Attorney General regarding corporate business fraud. He’s benefited throughout his life from defense attorneys doing their jobs. Similarly, he has used attorneys to bring cases, many, many, many cases over the course of his career, particularly in his business endeavors. So he well understands that these are the job of lawyers not to break the law, and no one has accused his lawyers of breaking the law, but to provide representation consistent with constitutional rights, including, particularly in criminal cases, the right to due process of law and the right to counsel. And so where he breaks here is he is – is in trying to punish those law firms who are doing the very thing that our entire system depends on, which is lawyers providing legal counsel to clients, whether in criminal matters or civil matters, to ensure that they have that right of counsel, that they have due process, and that any proceedings against them are done fairly and consistent with constitutional rights. Again, it, it’s, it’s the pointing fingers and suggesting criminal misfeasance, criminal malfeasance of anyone who has ever challenged him. That’s where I think he goes really awry. It is – what’s really ironic about this is from day one in his executive order about ending the weaponization of the federal government, and in subsequent statements he’s made about ending the weaponization of the federal government. He’s, his, his implementation plan seems to be weaponizing the federal government, and particularly the Department of Justice. And I think that’s a very dangerous thing.

SREENIVASAN: Know the American Bar Association put out a statement because in response to the, the firms that are being targeted I wanna read part of it. It said, “if a court issues a decision, this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties and it’s speak with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties, the administration does not like lawyers are targeted, these actions highlight escalating government efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.” This is the American Bar Association responding now. But I wonder, is the damage already done? Is the chilling effect kind of underway? Right. I mean, while a specific law firm, like any business can say, listen, you are impeding my ability to E two, make money and have clients. But this other notion that as soon as you pick off two or three major firms and attack them, is there an effect kind of through Washington and other places that for business reasons or headache reasons, or for whatever reasons other firms might just choose to say, I, I’m just gonna steer clear of this.

MCCORD: There’s no question. It’s already having that chilling, that chilling effect. I will not say the damage is done and can’t be repaired, but it is clearly having the effect it was intended to. I mean, we are seeing, certainly there are some major law firms that are litigating against the government right now, or participating in cases being brought, challenging various ex executive actions. There certainly are law firms who are stepping up to defend some of the people who have been targeted by Donald Trump or by his Department of Justice. And there are many, many nonprofits that are doing that type of work. Those that do public interest work, including my own organization at Georgetown Law, which has litigated challenging the birthright citizenship executive order among other things. For example, there are a lot of lawyers that are not being chilled, but the impact is clear when you are in the legal field, particularly here in Washington dc we know we can notice which firms are not being involved, you know, not involved in the cases. We know from talk amongst ourselves that in certain firms the direction has been, no, we’re not gonna get involved in that. We know that there are some sort of attorneys within firms who are interested in doing some things pro bono behind the scenes so that she, they can support challenges to overreaching executive action, but it can’t have the imprimatur or the, or the name of the major law firm in which they work. So these things are happening, but the, the chilling effect is real, and that’s what was intended. Yeah. But if, if if people don’t stand up for their rights, if they don’t challenge overreaching and unlawful, and in many cases unconstitutional conduct by this administration, that allows the administration to just keep on doing it.

SREENIVASAN: Pam Bondi, the new Attorney General said recently, quote, “there are a lot of people in the FBI and also in the Department of Justice who despise Donald Trump despise us, don’t want to be there. We will find them. Because you have to believe in transparency. You have to believe in honesty, you have to do the right thing. And right now, we’re going to root them out. We will find them, and they will no longer be employed.” And you worked at the Department of Justice in the National Security Room. Tell us kind of your reaction to hearing the Attorney General say that about, well, technically, her, her colleagues.

MCCORD: So notably, there was nothing there suggesting that attorneys or employees at the Department of Justice were not fulfilling their responsibilities, their duties, their obligation, the oath that they took to the Constitution, that they were doing anything unethical or immoral or illegal. Not even that they were not furthering the, the policies and values and legal arguments of the Department of Justice. Simply her words were, they despise Donald Trump, and we will root them out, and we will find them, and they will not have a job. This is, this is, I hate to overuse the word extraordinary, but it’s extraordinary. It’s basically saying, if you don’t like the president personally or you don’t agree with his views, you, you need to be rooted out and fired. And, you know, that’s not what the department’s built on. So to hear somebody say, if you don’t like this president, I mean, she used a stronger word despise, which I’m not sure what she bases that on. I mean, this was a completely baseless statement. If you despise tushis, you need to be out. That’s a loyalty test. Hari, that’s just a loyalty test.

SREENIVASAN: Mary McCord, the former acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice, and now the executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection under Georgetown Law. Thanks so much for joining us.

MCCORD: My pleasure.