'Doesn't Have The Facts Or The Law On His Side': Hank Johnson Blasts Trump Attacks On The Judiciary

Forbes Breaking News

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing before the Congressional recess, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) spoke about his disagreements with Trump.

Transcript

00:00Journal article entitled, Why Judge Bosberg's deportation order is invalid, legally invalid,

00:07be placed in the record, and that the Harvard Law Review article entitled, District Court

00:14reforms, reforms, colon, nationwide injunctions, be placed in the record. Without objection,

00:21so ordered. And we now go to the ranking member, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.

00:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of the quote that goes something like,

00:31when the law is not on your side, argue the facts. And when the facts are not on your side,

00:38argue the law. And when neither is on your side, then pound the table. Well, Trump doesn't have the

00:47facts or the law on his side. And so with this exercise today, he is vicariously

00:55pounding the table. Professor Shaw, President Trump has targeted and attacked some very

01:03wealthy and powerful entities to send a message to the less powerful. Trump has attacked Columbia

01:10University. He has attacked the white-shoe, silk-stocking law firms like Paul Weiss and

01:17Scatting Arts. These powerful, wealthy entities can afford to sue to protect their interest and our

01:26rule of law. But instead, they chose to lay down and get steamrolled by the bully. Professor Shaw,

01:35how does laying down and getting steamrolled compromise the rule of law and undermine our democracy?

01:42Let me just say that, you know, there have been targeted entities, right, including a number of

01:48law firms that have, in fact, not laid down, that are, in fact, taking a strong position of resistance

01:54to what they believe to be the unlawful components of some of the targeting orders. So law firms,

01:59including Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, have made their responses and their views of the

02:06impermissibility of the targeting of law firms for no reason other than their decision to take on

02:12disfavored representations and to advance legal arguments that the president has personally

02:17objected to and sometimes been on the receiving end of. And so, you know, I do think that calling out

02:25clearly unlawful executive action is critically important, particularly for entities with

02:31resources and stature. And I think that it encourages the targeting in unlawful ways for

02:40institutions to refuse to take a stand. I think that the orders targeting law firms are clearly

02:46unlawful. I think that some judges have already so found, and I think that the judges that rule on

02:50those orders will continue to find that. And, you know, the last thing I'll say is I think that

02:55law firms that have decided not to fight and that are complying haven't bought themselves any

03:00security necessarily. I'm not sure there's any guarantee that they won't be subject to further

03:05targeting simply because they have acquiesced in sometimes coercive terms in the first instance.

03:10Yeah, when the bully knows that he can bully you, then he's going to continue bullying you until you

03:16stand up. And so I'm glad that these other law firms and other academic institutions have and are

03:24standing up. What would happen to access to justice for the least of these, if these very wealthy and

03:33powerful entities that are being targeted today, if each and every one of them laid down and just

03:39allowed themselves to be steamrolled?

03:42I think there could be a chilling effect in the willingness of law firms to take on disfavored

03:47representations. You know, the targeting has not been limited to law firms either, right? There has been

03:51an effort to suggest that sanctions will be sought by the Department of Justice against

03:57nonprofits and other legal actors that have engaged in litigation against the administration. And so

04:03it does seem quite clearly designed to reduce the amount of courageous litigation against and

04:10challenges to executive action. And so, you know, I think that the cost, the potential costs for

04:16the rule of law are, you know, incalculable.

04:20Yeah, because it's based on the adversarial system. And if you wipe out the adversaries,

04:27then you wipe out the adversarial system or the adversary system.

04:33I think that's right, that attacks on, you know, look, lawyers are not always popular, right? So

04:37attacking lawyers is not something that everyone is always going to object to, but judges need lawyers

04:42to present arguments to them. And our system of justice and the rule of law requires lawyers to

04:48take on representations, including potentially unpopular representations. So I do not think these

04:53attacks on, you know, white shoe law firms should be understood as just about white shoe law firms.

04:58I do think they are attacks on the very idea of access to justice and to the rule of law.

05:04And when you attack, in addition to the lawyers, you attack the judges and claim that they need to be

05:11impeached, not for committing high crimes and misdemeanors, but for simply ruling in a way

05:19that is against the bully. What impact does that have on our justice system and our democracy?

05:26I worry that the intent there is the same, to basically have a chilling effect on the willingness

05:31of judges to rule against the administration. In the same way, the, you know, I think part of the

05:36intent of these executive orders is to create a climate of fear and intimidation and to disincentivize

05:41taking on representations, including against the federal government. So I think the intended

05:45effect is likely the same. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.

05:49He yields back. We now go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massey.

05:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing reminds me of a breakfast I had.

Category

Transcript

Recommended