The Moves To Dictatorship Begin

[steve_bank]

A Trump execute order sanctio0ned a law form essentially for DEI policy.

Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose. The

www.whitehouse.gov

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:


Section 1. Purpose. The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election. This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification. In one such case, a court was forced to sanction Perkins Coie attorneys for an unethical lack of candor before the court.


In addition to undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.


My Administration is committed to ending discrimination under “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process. Those who engage in blatant race-based and sex-based discrimination, including quotas, but purposefully hide the nature of such discrimination through deceiving language, have engaged in a serious violation of the public trust. Their disrespect for the bedrock principle of equality represents good cause to conclude that they neither have access to our Nation’s secrets nor be deemed responsible stewards of any Federal funds.

Our fate is in the hands of the courts.

A Trump executive order sanctioning a law firm.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-order-targeting-law-firm-perkins-coie-2025-03-12/

Legal profession 'watching in horror,' judge says in blocking Trump order against Perkins Coie

WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge blocked provisions of President Donald Trump's order targeting attorneys at Perkins Coie on Wednesday, saying the legal profession was "watching in horror" at what the law firm was experiencing.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Perkins Coie was likely to ultimately prevail in court with its challenge of Trump's executive order, which was prompted by the firm's diversity, equity and inclusion policies and its prior work for Trump's political opponent Hillary Clinton.

 

[laughing dog]

Where have you been? The movement started with Trump's re-election campaign. The move started the day after the election. Officially, it started with the first slew of executive orders on Jan. 20th, 2025.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Don't limit it to 2025. Its true genesis was years earlier...approximately 1950, on some random day, at Jamaica Estates. It was bath time.

Nettie: Okay, Donnie Don Don, it is bath time.
Donald: Scram.
Nettie: Now Donnie, you know your mama wants you to take a bath before beddy time.
Donald: If you have eyes, you see that I am watching the television.
Nettie: Now Donnie, you'll get me in trouble if you don't take your bath. Come on, child.
Donald: Fuck you. You stupid maid.
Nettie: Ooh child, the mouth on you!! How old are you again?
Donald: (flips her off) This many.
Nettie: Now precious, you don't even know what that means.
Donald: It means, fuck off!! Don't bother me, you doody-head.
Nettie: Nice boys do not call names.
Donald: You're a doody head!! You have a face like my butt!!
Nettie: (switches off television) It is bath time.
(Donald hurls glass ash tray at her head, which she ducks just in time)
Nettie: You is a spawn of the devil!! You come for your bath...now!!
Donald: I don't gotta do nothin that I don't wanna do!! You go to hell, you poor poor doody head!! You're POOR.
Nettie: Child, I am going straight to your mama. You are in trouble now.
Donald: You don't get it. I'm NEVER in trouble. (Low voice) If you try anything I will come to your room tonight and cut off your head.

End of scene. Nettie is doged the next day.

 

[steve_bank]

We had McCarthyism and the communist witch hunt that destroyed peoples lives.

 

[crazyfingers]

We had McCarthyism and the communist witch hunt that destroyed peoples lives.

Trump has long relished destroying other people's lives. It's a big part of his MO.

And yes, there are strong parallels to McCarthyism with Trump

 

[Derec]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?
Did Obama and Biden administrations not go after entities that they believed violated federal law?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?

Is that all that’s happening? An Investigation?

Does an investigation of a potential crime typically require a presidential executive order to begin?

Is revoking security clearances a typical action that precedes a determination of guilt?

 

[Jarhyn]

Where have you been? The movement started with Trump's re-election campaign. The move started the day after the election. Officially, it started with the first slew of executive orders on Jan. 20th, 2025.

I'm pretty sure it started with McConnell's predecessor Bob Dole.

I've been watching this whole thing playing out, and that was really the turning point was Bob Dole's career to enshittify they Republican party and the GOP. Him and Rush Limbaugh were the ones who laid the stage, from my memory of rural America in the 90's and early 00's.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?
Did Obama and Biden administrations not go after entities that they believed violated federal law?

It can be done via due process involving lawyers and courts. But simply making an executive order, that is not valid.
Would you like it if Trump made an executive order stating that Derec was a criminal and must be imprisoned for ten years?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?
Did Obama and Biden administrations not go after entities that they believed violated federal law?

It can be done via due process involving lawyers and courts. But simply making an executive order, that is not valid.
Would you like it if Trump made an executive order stating that Derec was a criminal and must be imprisoned for ten years?

If this is true, and Derec is a criminal then what is wrong with the federal government investigating him?

 

[Bomb#20]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?
Did Obama and Biden administrations not go after entities that they believed violated federal law?

It can be done via due process involving lawyers and courts. But simply making an executive order, that is not valid.
Would you like it if Trump made an executive order stating that Derec was a criminal and must be imprisoned for ten years?

You can't seriously think that's a good analogy, can you? The executive order didn't inflict any criminal penalty on Perkins Coie. The analogous question would be "Would you like it if Trump made an executive order stating that Derec was a criminal and must be barred from employment with the federal government and denied a a security clearance?". To which I presume Derec would say "What do I care? The law I broke is stupid; and I never wanted a security clearance or a fed job." We have a constitutional right to not be imprisoned without due process; but there's nothing in the BoR about the feds having to give money or secrets to all and sundry until proven guilty in a court of law. Deciding whom the feds will do business with is pretty obviously within the discretion* of the executive branch.

(* Unless specified otherwise by Act of Congress. IANAL; I'm not defending Trump; I have no idea whether what he did to Perkins Coie was legal. I'm just commenting on your analogy.)

 

[Patooka]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?
Did Obama and Biden administrations not go after entities that they believed violated federal law?

It can be done via due process involving lawyers and courts. But simply making an executive order, that is not valid.
Would you like it if Trump made an executive order stating that Derec was a criminal and must be imprisoned for ten years?

Yes, but I gather you weren't asking me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

If this is true, and this law firm is violating civil rights law by discriminating against some employees and applicants on the basis of race, what is wrong with the federal government investigating them?

Isn't this an interesting question. In fact, your question betrays the whole concept.

If this is true... there should be an investigation!

If this is true? The Executive Branch has already concluded it is true... without an investigation... without due process. That is called a red flag.

(* Unless specified otherwise by Act of Congress. IANAL; I'm not defending Trump; I have no idea whether what he did to Perkins Coie was legal. I'm just commenting on your analogy.)

The Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection comes to mind. Also to the mind of Perkin Coie.... among other things.

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

All of the lawyers in the Trump Admin appeared to have skipped the class where Due Process was taught.

 

[Bomb#20]

(* Unless specified otherwise by Act of Congress. IANAL; I'm not defending Trump; I have no idea whether what he did to Perkins Coie was legal. I'm just commenting on your analogy.)

The Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection comes to mind. Also to the mind of Perkin Coie.... among other things.

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

All of the lawyers in the Trump Admin appeared to have skipped the class where Due Process was taught.

Unlikely. From what I've seen, the TA has a staff of expert shysters who know the technicalities and are prepared to push them all to the limit of what they think they can get away with. As far as the Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection go, the 5th Amendment says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". What Trump deprived the PC employees of without due process was not life, liberty or property. The 14th Amendment says "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Trump is not a state. Whether there's merit in PC's contentions will play out in court, probably with stronger legal arguments on both sides than you and I can anticipate, probably with a lot less reference to the constitution and a lot more to acts of Congress and precedents.

The larger issue here, though, is that the administrative state has been dishing out administrative punishments for purported business misconduct with wild abandon for about ninety years and adjudicating them itself without regard to separation of powers. It only got worse when the Obama administration started threatening banks to stop doing business with payday lenders and other companies its agencies were trying to shut down extrajudicially. And for the portion of that time when Chevron was the law of the land, purported "judicial review" of its decisions was just adding insult to injury. Businesses have been complaining about high-handedness like this from the feds for ages, and getting nowhere. Which of you here said that was a move to dictatorship?

 

[Elixir]

If this is true, and Derec is a criminal then what is wrong with the federal government investigating him?

Nothing! Investigate your heart out - The Felon will pardon him.

 

[Axulus]

(* Unless specified otherwise by Act of Congress. IANAL; I'm not defending Trump; I have no idea whether what he did to Perkins Coie was legal. I'm just commenting on your analogy.)

The Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection comes to mind. Also to the mind of Perkin Coie.... among other things.

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

All of the lawyers in the Trump Admin appeared to have skipped the class where Due Process was taught.

Unlikely. From what I've seen, the TA has a staff of expert shysters who know the technicalities and are prepared to push them all to the limit of what they think they can get away with. As far as the Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection go, the 5th Amendment says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". What Trump deprived the PC employees of without due process was not life, liberty or property. The 14th Amendment says "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Trump is not a state. Whether there's merit in PC's contentions will play out in court, probably with stronger legal arguments on both sides than you and I can anticipate, probably with a lot less reference to the constitution and a lot more to acts of Congress and precedents.

The larger issue here, though, is that the administrative state has been dishing out administrative punishments for purported business misconduct with wild abandon for about ninety years and adjudicating them itself without regard to separation of powers. It only got worse when the Obama administration started threatening banks to stop doing business with payday lenders and other companies its agencies were trying to shut down extrajudicially. And for the portion of that time when Chevron was the law of the land, purported "judicial review" of its decisions was just adding insult to injury. Businesses have been complaining about high-handedness like this from the feds for ages, and getting nowhere. Which of you here said that was a move to dictatorship?

What do you mean Trump didn't deprive them of property? The order, if it is allowed to stand, will nearly kill off the law firm. Massive economic value is being destroyed to the owners of the firm. An ownership stake is property. The Trump Admin declared them a national security risk without presenting any evidence and banned them from entering federal buildings. Any client that has legal business before the government is dropping them as a result.

And the knock on effects are truly chilling, effectively giving Trump the power to kill off any law firm that opposes him or advocates for his opponents by simply declaring them a national security threat.

This "both sides" bs is completely missing what is happening here.

 

[Bomb#20]

All of the lawyers in the Trump Admin appeared to have skipped the class where Due Process was taught.

Unlikely. From what I've seen, the TA has a staff of expert shysters who know the technicalities and are prepared to push them all to the limit of what they think they can get away with. As far as the Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection go, the 5th Amendment says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". What Trump deprived the PC employees of without due process was not life, liberty or property. The 14th Amendment says "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Trump is not a state. Whether there's merit in PC's contentions will play out in court, probably with stronger legal arguments on both sides than you and I can anticipate, probably with a lot less reference to the constitution and a lot more to acts of Congress and precedents.

The larger issue here, though, is that the administrative state has been dishing out administrative punishments for purported business misconduct with wild abandon for about ninety years and adjudicating them itself without regard to separation of powers. It only got worse when the Obama administration started threatening banks to stop doing business with payday lenders and other companies its agencies were trying to shut down extrajudicially. And for the portion of that time when Chevron was the law of the land, purported "judicial review" of its decisions was just adding insult to injury. Businesses have been complaining about high-handedness like this from the feds for ages, and getting nowhere. Which of you here said that was a move to dictatorship?

What do you mean Trump didn't deprive them of property? The order, if it is allowed to stand, will nearly kill off the law firm. Massive economic value is being destroyed to the owners of the firm. An ownership stake is property.

And? Reducing potential future customers' potential future incentives to give you more potential future property has never been held to count as depriving a person of property. The federal and state governments' actions affect people's business prospects and their property values all the time and it doesn't fall under 5th Amendment protections. "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law..." means "No person shall ... be deprived of ... his or her property, without due process of law...". You think when the FAA redirected three jet flight paths to all pass right over my house it didn't destroy massive economic value to me? It's still my house, so they didn't deprive me of my property.

The Trump Admin declared them a national security risk without presenting any evidence and banned them from entering federal buildings. Any client that has legal business before the government is dropping them as a result.

And the knock on effects are truly chilling, effectively giving Trump the power to kill off any law firm that opposes him or advocates for his opponents by simply declaring them a national security threat.

This "both sides" bs is completely missing what is happening here.

No, you are completely missing what has been happening in America for years. The Obama and Biden* administrations declared businesses "reputational risks" and declared people "politically exposed persons" without presenting any evidence, and coerced banks to drop them as customers. Any client that had financial business with the business or person was dropping them as a result of them, for example, not being able to take payment by credit card. The knock on effects are chilling, effectively giving every sitting president the power to kill off any company that opposes him or advocates for his opponents by simply declaring doing business with it to be fiduciarily irresponsible. The decades-long continual increase in power of the regulatory bureaucracy made this development inevitable.

Operation Choke Point - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(* And the 1st Trump administration probably did it too, just to different targets.)

 

[Elixir]

Reducing potential future customers' potential future incentives to give you more potential future property has never been held to count as depriving a person of property.

It may be soon.
Musk seems to think that not advertising on his shitty platform deprives him of property. I guess SCOTUS will have to weigh in on that real soon.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reducing potential future customers' potential future incentives to give you more potential future property has never been held to count as depriving a person of property.

It may be soon.
Musk seems to think that not advertising on his shitty platform deprives him of property. I guess SCOTUS will have to weigh in on that real soon.

You are arguing with someone who is running interference for a party that is re-invoking the same law that put Japanese Americans in internment camps.

He's acting, momentarily, like there's no way that the thing we all know will happen will happen (a constitutional crisis).

He'll be shocked Pikachu and "oops, guess that's gone then, too bad" when it's a line crossed, rather than up in literal arms to oppose the shredding of our rights right now.

Because I think he has always wanted to shred our rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are arguing with someone who is running interference for a party that is re-invoking the same law that put Japanese Americans in internment camps.

He's acting, momentarily, like there's no way that the thing we all know will happen will happen (a constitutional crisis).

He'll be shocked Pikachu and "oops, guess that's gone then, too bad" when it's a line crossed, rather than up in literal arms to oppose the shredding of our rights right now.

Because I think he has always wanted to shred our rights.

You are making false damaging claims about me with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Business as usual for you.