Isaac Saul (4:36)

Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the transfer of 17 alleged members of the Trende Aragua Gang from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador. All of the individuals had deportation orders or final orders of removal, and their removals were done under Traditional Removal Authority Title eight, rather than the Alien Enemies Act. Number two, the Israel Defense Forces issued an evacuation warning for Palestinians in the entire Rafah area in the southern Gaza Strip, signaling that the military was preparing to resume its ground operation in the area. The order is the largest issued by the IDF since its offensive against Hamas resumed in March. Number three, the Trump administration announced a review of roughly $9 billion in federal contracts and grant commitments with Harvard University. The review will primarily assess whether Harvard has failed to protect students from anti Semitic discrimination on campus. Number four, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether charities run by religious groups have to pay unemployment taxes for their workers. The court appeared likely to side with a Catholic charity that brought the case and argued that it should not be required to pay unemployment taxes because its work is motivated by religious beliefs and the state exempts religious groups from the tax. At number five, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Rally Party, was found guilty of embezzlement and barred from running for public office for five years. Le Pen had been considered a leading candidate in France's 2027 presidential election.

John (6:24)

Tonight, among America's top law firms, a deepening divide the future of the legal.

John (6:29)

Industry is at stake.

John (6:30)

Major firms now facing a dilemma after President Trump revoked some of their lawyers security clearances and threatened to cancel the government contracts of companies that work with them.

Isaac Saul (6:41)

They behave very badly, very wrongly.

John (6:45)

The president targeting firms employing lawyers who previously investigated him, including Wilmer Hale, for decades the legal home of former special counsel Robert Mueller. The firm blasting what they say is the president's personal vendetta retaliation for employing lawyers he dislikes.

Isaac Saul (7:03)

Beginning in February, President Donald Trump issued a series of orders targeting law firms that he claims have engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The firms named in the orders Covington and Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block and Wilmer Hale, have previously represented clients or hired lawyers that opposed Trump and his administration. Several firms have brought lawsuits to challenge the executive orders, while others have sought deals with the White House. On February 25th, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the attorney general to suspend any active security clearances held by the firm Covington and Burling and directed all federal agencies to review existing contracts with Covington and Burling for potential termination. Trump cited the firm's work with former special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump after his first term, as the basis for the order. On March 6, Trump issued an executive order that also suspended security clearances for members of the firm Perkins Coie and called for a review of their federal contracts. Additionally, the order barred the firm's lawyers from entering federal buildings and otherwise engaging with the government. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign and partially funded opposition research into then candidate Trump that led to the publishing of a dossier of unsubstantiated allegations about his campaign's relationship with Russia. Separately, a March 14 order enacted similar measures against a firm, Paul Weiss. Trump cited the firm's relationship to Mark Pomeranz, who worked in the Manhattan district attorney's office when it prosecuted Trump for falsifying business records, as the basis for the order, as well as its pro bono work on cases related to the January 6th riot at the US Capitol. On March 25th and 27th, Trump issued similar orders against the firms Jenner Block and Wilmer Hale respectively. The president said Jenner Block's hiring of Andrew Weissman, who worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged connections to Russia, was part of a series of activities that undermined justice and the interests of the United States. Trump claimed that WilmerHale's employment of Mueller and members of his team demonstrated its efforts to weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice. In addition to these specific orders, Trump issued a memorandum on March 22 that threatened similar action against firms and lawyers engaged in frivolous, unreasonable and and vexatious litigation against the United States, as determined by the attorney general. The firms targeted by these actions have responded in disparate ways. On March 21, Trump had announced that the White House had reached a deal with Paul Weiss to restore its federal contracts and employee security clearances in return for acknowledging wrongdoing by its former employer, Pomeranz, and committing to $40 million in pro bono legal services on behalf of the Trump administration in areas focused on veterans issues, countering antisemitism and fairness in the justice system. Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, wrote in a letter to the firm that the order represented an existential crisis to its future. As justification for making the deal on Friday, Trump announced a similar deal with the firm Skadden, which was reportedly the subject of a forthcoming order that included $100 million in pro bono work for causes backed by the Trump administration. Conversely, Perkins Coie, Jenner Block and Wilmer Hale have sued to challenge the orders, arguing they are unconstitutional retaliatory actions. On March 12, a federal judge blocked portions of the order targeting Perkins Coy, saying it would have a chilling effect on firms representing clients or advancing views unfavorable to the administration. On Friday, two other judges temporarily blocked portions of the orders on Jenner Block and Wilmer Hale, though some aspects, such as the revocation of security clearances, were allowed to remain in place. Today we'll share arguments from the left and the right on the orders and the response from targeted firms, and then Isaac's tape.

Isaac Saul (11:18)

We'll be right back after this quick break.

Marc Maron (11:23)

Hey prime members, Are you tired of ads interfering with your favorite podcasts? Good news. With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad free top podcasts included with your prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to Amazon.com adfreepodcasts that's Amazon.com ad freepodcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the.

John (11:49)

Ads they say opposites attract. That's why the Sleep Number Smart bed is the best bed for couples. You can each choose what's right for you whenever you like. You like a bed that feels firm, but they want soft. Sleep Number does that. You want to sleep cooler while they like to feel warm. Sleep number does that too. Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed so you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. Sleep Number Smart beds start at $999. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. C stor sleepnumber.com for details.

Isaac Saul (12:30)

All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of the orders and suggests Trump is not even attempting to disguise his campaign of retribution. Some urged the targeted firms and their competitors to fight back against Trump's attacks. Others note the growing cracks in the US Legal system. In Vox, Ian Millhiser called the orders the cockiest thing Trump has done so far. All nine of the Supreme Court justices are lawyers. All of them have friends and law school classmates in private practice. All of them sit at the apex of a legal system that depends on lawyers to brief judges on the matters those judges must decide, millhiser wrote. So it's hard to imagine a presidential action that is more likely to antagonize the justices than President Donald Trump needs to uphold his agenda, not to mention every other federal judge who isn't already in the tank for maga than a series of executive orders Trump has recently issued. The striking thing about all the law firm executive orders is that it barely even attempts to justify Trump's decision with a legitimate expansion for why these orders are lawful. The sanctions laid out in these orders, moreover, are extraordinary. They attempt to bar the firm's attorneys and staff from federal buildings and preventing lawyers representing criminal defendants from engaging engaging in plea bargaining with federal prosecutors, Millhiser said. Trump is claiming the power to exterminate multi billion dollar businesses with over a thousand lawyers and as many support staff to punish them for things as innocuous as representing a Democrat in 2016 in MSNBC, Ray Brescia argued if law firms fight back against Trump's attacks, they'll win. Clients and lawyers must band together against these blatantly illegal actions by the Trump administration and flip the script. They need not defend their own actions, but rather force government attorneys who may seek to punish the clients of any disfavored law firms to justify such unconstitutional efforts, which will be impossible to do, brashear wrote. So far, the president has targeted five private law firms and the clients they represent, claiming that his administration will punish those clients who have the temerity to do business with those firms. Two of these firms, Paul Weiss and Skadden Arpst, have capitulated to this pressure, expressing fears that the president's attacks threaten their business model. This fear is certainly real, but if the president can scare clients away from the firms that might take positions against his administration, there will be fewer and fewer lawyers willing to take such stands. And if that happens, our system of rights protected by law and not dispensed at the fiat of the executive will crumble, brescia said. It is in everyone's best interest, even those clients who might fear retaliation from the Trump administration for retaining disfavored firms, to condemn the president's efforts to attack members of the legal profession simply for playing their essential role in our legal system. These clients should stand by their lawyers, and those lawyers must turn the tables on their opponents. In the Hill, J. Edelson said partisan warfare is pushing the American legal system toward collapse. As a center left lawyer who has spent his career fighting powerful interests on behalf of everyday people, I find the current moment deeply alarming. Ironically, despite my skepticism of big law, the first line of defense is going to be these large firms on whom we now must rely to protect both themselves and by extension, the legal system as a whole from many of the powerful interests it has historically served, edelson wrote. Yet conservatives rightly note these developments didn't emerge spontaneously. Many of my friends on the left seem unaware of the backdrop that Trump supporters and allies point to in justifying or contextualizing contextualizing his administration's actions. Conservative judges have faced relentless personal attacks that go beyond legal criticism. I'm not arguing moral equivalence. Trump's recent actions represent a unique threat that is pushing us perilously close to a breaking point. Still, the left's dominance in media and elite institutions, sometimes focused like sunlight through a magnifying glass, has real world consequences, edelson wrote. But passionately advocating against systemic issues or flawed judicial decisions differs fundamentally from personal attacks on judges. Blacklisting lawyers or firms simply for representing clients or causes we oppose politically undermines the adversarial process critical to our legal system. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the orders. Though many say the firms brought this backlash on themselves. Some suggest that Trump retains the upper hand even as his orders face legal challenges. Others say the orders are wrong on principle alone. The New York Post editorial board said Bring the hammer down on Perkins Coie and every other player in the Russiagate scandal. President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances for employees at Perkins Coey, the shady Demps super firm whose lawyers played a key role in setting up the Steele dossier and undermining the results of the 2016 election. This is long overdue, as is the termination of federal contracts with the firm, the board wrote. Trump haters in the American intel community and the Justice Department then used this garbage to justify probes of Trump with allegations fed anonymously to our disinformation loving leftist media who duly trumpeted it to create a Trump crippling Washington frenzy. This was an attempted coup, albeit a bloodless one. It failed to remove the sitting president, but it did massively hamper his agenda during his first term. And Perkins Coy has no business being anywhere near government info that requires any type of clearance to access, the board said. It's yet another reminder of how the powerful spent most of the past decade conspiring against the people and why Trump's whole of government effort to reform the FBI and fight back against the wider intelligence community are justified and necessary in Red State, Streiff wrote about the firms that have decided to make peace with Trump. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner and Block have all sued to obtain partial temporary restraining orders. I would submit that they have achieved counterproductive and ephemeral victories for the sake of the resistance, strife said. The bottom line is that law is a business and businesses require clients no matter what. Any court rules. Trump has the power to set the rules around granting security clearances and access to classified information. Some of the targeted law firms seem to have had on site sensitive compartmented information facilities which would have required federal staff to manage them. Federal agencies can legitimately refuse to contract with any of these firms for services because they are neither cheap nor uniquely qualified to do any work. Companies with business before the federal government might rightfully assume that being represented by a proscribed law firm is not a great tactical move. They might also assume that hiring a law firm currently battling the administration in court might cause them more problems than it is worth, streiff said. When Paul Weiss folded like a cheap suit, its chairman, Brad Karp, emailed the law firm. In it, he spelled out why Paul Weiss and now Skadden Arps settled and why the firms engaged in performative legal challenges will also settle. At least for the next four years, these huge law firms will not be the focal point for lawfare against the administration and people associated with President Trump. In national review, Andrew C. McCarthy argued Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie must be condemned. I'd prefer to ignore the executive order because the Democrats and their base supporters now expressing outrage over it are hypocrites. But the point isn't to reform what can't be reformed. It's to do what's right for its own sake and if you're lucky, to convince the convincible that we can trust each other to do the right thing regardless of which side has done the wrong thing. McCarthy said the defamatory hardball played by Trump's political opponents was appalling. Trump is right to believe that it should have been covered and adjudged a scandal of Watergate dimension rather than casually set aside by the media once the allegations were shown to be a smear. Trump is stubbornly wrong, however, in refusing to accept that the payback he gets extraordinary payback, but the only legitimate payback is his stunning political comeback. The Democrats suffered thunderous defeat in large part because the public saw these and other lawfare abuses as scandalous, McCarthy wrote. Revenge for a more fit man would be to revel in winning the presidency against all odds and try to be a good president for everyone, thus proving his critics wrong. Trump, by contrast, seems determined to prove his critics right by exploiting the awesome might of the presidency to destroy his enemies just as they tried to destroy him. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

Isaac Saul (21:47)

All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. So let me start here. Three democratic societies they rest on several key principles, one of which is that everyone is entitled to representation in our legal system. Lawyers should not have to worry about being punished by the government for taking up particular clients. Similarly, a private citizen shouldn't have to worry about seeking counsel from a specific firm because they worry that firm may be on the government's naughty list. President Trump's actions here, for obvious reasons, put these principles at risk. The president is making little effort to disguise these actions as anything but a revenge tour against lawyers and prosecutors who targeted him in the Mueller investigation during the 2016 campaign over January 6 or through the Stormy Daniels case. If he is targeting specific law firms for taking up work he deems offensive and they are bending the knee, then one can presume that in the immediate future these same firms will resist taking up specific clients that they fear might anger the president. It's easy to imagine a situation where the Trump administration targets a private U.S. citizen. That citizen seeks out counsel from one of these major firms, only to find that their options for representation are limited because the firms fear reprisal from Trump. This is quite obviously dangerous. The entire affair also feels somewhat nonsensical. Take one illustrative example. Trump's order targeting the law firm Paul Weiss. The order is based in part on the firm's employment of attorney mark Pomeranz in 2021. Pomerantz left the firm to work as an unpaid special counsel in Alvin Bragg's pursuit of Trump. I was a regular critic of Bragg's case against Trump, which used a novel and flimsy legal theory to try to take down a former president. I certainly understand why Trump may hold a grudge against Pomerants, who didn't just pursue him in the courts but also through the media, and whose pro bono work for the Manhattan district attorney raised all kinds of ethical questions. Yet Pomerantz left Paul Weiss in order to go work for Bragg. Trump is now punishing an entire firm of thousands of lawyers and employees, in part to get payback on a single lawyer. National Review's Dan McLaughlin made a reasonable case that sanctioning Pomeranz would have been a fair pursuit, but going after the entire law firm is unfair and overkill. The plainly retributive nature of Trump's actions has also prompted a confounding response from some on the left. One notable development is that a lot of people on the left are playing directly into Trump's framing of these firms as somehow on their team. But as Ankish Khaduri, a columnist at Politico who worked at Paul Weiss, noted, that really isn't the case. Khadori points out that one these firms are hardly paragons of progressivism or liberal ideals. They are major corporate organizations trying to maximize profits and find wealthy corporate clients to define. They are bending the knee because their profits are threatened. It's not that complicated. 2 the pro bono work these firms do for liberal causes is a tiny fraction of their operation, and Trump does seem to be targeting them in part because of their work on immigration cases. And three elite law firms generally try to avoid appearing politically ideological because it's bad for business. And several of these larger firms have lawyers who have worked in the first Trump administration. Administration. Kadori's closing thoughts were also surprisingly nonchalant about the entire affair. Like me, he expressed worries about what it means in a democratic society when lawyers fear reprisal from the government for serving certain clients. But he also closed by saying this, quote, the firms that we are talking about, particularly the ones that settled with Trump, are some of the most successful firms in the world, and they work for a very small segment of American society. Most people and even most businesses cannot afford the rates that these firms charge, so they go to local practitioners or smaller firms for their occasional legal needs. In that sense, the practical fallout might be relatively modest. I think this is basically right. It is hard, if not impossible, to measure how this targeting will impact the decisions of law firms across the country. But the immediate and practical threat of these firms promising pro bono work as part of a pseudo settlement with Trump is less about who will or won't get representation and more about the symbolism of these powerful firms caving to the president in the face of pressure we all should hope they'd resist. That part is equal parts frightening and disappointing. But like a lot of what Trump is doing through executive action right now, it likely isn't lasting or all that impactful. Three firms have already sued to challenge the orders against them, and they were granted some temporary relief while the cases play out. In other words, the resistance to Trump's actions is building, and we may have seen this campaign hit its peak. So, yes, while he may have gotten some temporary wins here, it seems just as likely that he could have just antagonized these firms and even the Supreme Court in a way that undermines his administration in the long term. We'll be right back after this quick break.

Marc Maron (26:55)

Hey, folks, it's Marc Maron from wtf. It's spring, a time of renewal, of rebirth, of reintroducing yourself to your fitness goals. And Peloton has what you need to get started. You can take a variety of on demand and live classes that last anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour. There are thousands of peloton members whose lives were changed by taking charge of their fitness routines. Now you can be one of them. Spring into action right now. Find your push. Find your power with Peloton at 1peloton.com.

John (27:29)

Ever wonder what your lashes are destined for? The cards have spoken. Maybelline, N.Y. mascara does it all. Whether you crave fully. Fan lashes with Lash. Sensational big bold volume from the Colossal. A dramatic lift with falsies Lash lift or natural looking volume from Great Lash. Your perfect lash future awaits. Manifest your best mascara today. Shop Maybelline, NY and discover your lash destiny. Shop now at Walmart.

Isaac Saul (28:03)

All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Ann in Fort Collins, Colorado. Ann said, can you expound on the possible benefits to Russia if Trump signs a mineral rights deal with Ukraine? So the conventional read of the US Reaching a mineral rights deal with Ukraine is that it is an outcome Russia would not want. Instead, the US Having a material interest in Ukraine would act as a deterrent on any future Russian aggression because the US Would have an incentive to maintain peace in order to protect its assets. It would not apply any benefit to Russia other than being a softer US Commitment to Ukraine relative to other potential compacts, pledging to share intelligence or weaponry, or supporting Ukraine's NATO membership, which would pledge US Military support along with Canada and much of Europe, to defend Ukraine's borders. That is the conventional read and it's the read that I subscribe to, and it's the one that we put forward in our edition on the mineral rights deal in Tangle from a few weeks ago. However, there is an alternative read that I suppose is worth exploring. It is possible that Putin wants the terms of that deal to be laid out so that Russia can simply outbid Ukraine. Then Putin can tell Trump that as a means of securing peace in the war, Russia will give the US Access to rare earth minerals in Russia and in the disputed territories, implying of course that the US Would be granted rights in Ukraine's eastern territories by Russia if the US Agrees they are Russia's to control. To put it simply, if the US Gets rights in Ukrainian territory, it would be a significant check to Russia. If Putin leverages those discussions to his benefit, it could go the other way in a hurry. Either way, with Trump's famously hard to read foreign policy postures, the peace talks now underway are of course worth keeping a close eye on. All right, that is it for today's listener question. I'm gonna send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.

Isaac Saul (30:03)

Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to address price gouging and other anti competitive ticket resale practices for live events. The order directs the Federal Trade Commission to more strictly enforce existing laws covering the use of bots by ticket scalpers to buy large quantities of tickets to popular events and then resell them at huge markups. Trump also asked the FTC to submit recommendations for additional regulation or legislation to protect consumers within 180 days. The action follows similar efforts by the Biden Justice Department to address allegedly monopolistic behavior by ticket brokers in the concert and entertainment industries. The Wall Street Journal has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description all right, next up is our numbers section. The Law firm Paul Weiss's approximate revenue in 2024 is $2.6 billion, according to Law 360. The approximate value of pro bono work done by Paul Weiss annually is $130 million, according to chairman Brad Karp. The value of the pro bono work Paul Weiss agreed to provide to causes supported by the Trump administration is $40 million. The number of associates at US law firms who have signed an open letter condemning the Trump administration's executive orders targeting law firms as of April 1 is 1,775. The ranks of Paul Weiss, Covington and Berling, Wilmer Hale and Perkins Coie, four of the firms targeted by Trump's executive orders among the largest U.S. law firms by annual revenue, respectively, are 27, 35, 38 and 52, according to AmLaw. And the rank by revenue of Skadden, the firm that recently announced a deal with the Trump administration for $100 million in pro bono, is 6. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. A nonprofit called Force Blue brings together veterans and marine conservation missions. The organization comprises special operations Forces veterans who are retrained and deployed on diverse Marine missions, which include replanting coral, conducting shipwreck surveys, and laying recycled oyster shells to protect. The organization helps reintegrate veterans into civilian life through mission therapy, providing community structure and purpose for the retired volunteers in the military. We were weapons of mass destruction, but now through Force Blue, we are weapons of mass construction, air Force veteran Brian Gebbo said. Nice news has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for AEW newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all.

Lemonade Pet Insurance Representative (33:11)

Peace.

Isaac Saul (33:13)

Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will K Back Daily Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Matt Delena Bova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website@readtangle.com that's readtangle.com.

Isaac Saul (33:51)

Wait, what is that sound? What are you chewing on?

Marc Maron (33:55)

My socks?

Isaac Saul (33:56)

The furniture? Not my new sneakers again.

Instacart Representative (34:02)

Dogs love to chew, but not everything they chew is good for them. That's why Earth Animal created no Hide Chews, the safe, natural alternative to rawhide or whatever else they shouldn't be chewing. Made with simple, sustainable ingredients. Ingredients and flavors dogs love, they're irresistibly good for them and your peace of mind. Give your dog something better to chew. Get no Hide chews today@earthanimal.com Ever wonder.

John (34:29)

What your lashes are destined for? The cards have spoken. Maybelline New York Mascara does it all. Whether you crave fully Fan Lashes with Lash Sensational Big Bold Volume from the Colossal A Dramatic lift with Falsies Lash Lift or Natural Looking Volume from Great Lash. Your perfect lash future awaits. Manifest your best mascara today. Shop Maybelline New York and discover your lash destiny. Shop now at Walmart.

Matt (34:54)

Hey, it's Matt here from P1 with Matt and Tommy and we're currently being sponsored by Peloton. Peloton has what you need to achieve your fitness goals, no matter why you got started. From four week strength building classes to running, indoor and outdoor workouts and everything in between, Peloton is here to push you to achieve your goals. Just like it already has for thousands of members worldwide. I got my first Peloton bike around the Pandemic. It helps keep me on track with my own fitness goals even around my crazy schedule. Find your push Find your power with peloton@onepelaton.com.