Normally, you would have a hard time finding any civil plaintiff wanting to sue the president of the United States – in his personal capacity, for much of anything. Of course, this is especially true if one were to be going after the president for possible RICO violations, which – while civil in a lawsuit, scream criminal liability as well. But one normally doesn’t have a bunch of high-powered law firms as victims. Indeed, some of the precious few entities able to bring such immense lawsuits against a president like Trump are the very law firms that he’s already attacked (e.g. Perkins Coie) and they are the ones that are the true victims of his racketeering activities. Now law professor Jonathan Zasloff writes in Slate that it is time to bring those lawsuits.
One thing we know, Donald Trump is not allowing the DOJ to bring a criminal case against him, and we’ve already seen how it goes when the states bring a case against a former president (Not well – just as I predicted about six years ago, when I very very strongly warned against any STATE bringing criminal charges. Such explosive charges should always be brought in all our names, the “United States versus… ” So I will just point out that they didn’t work at all). So for now, the only real option to punish what sure looks like organized crime – or RICO – as practiced from the Oval Office, is within a civil suit. And what better time than when trying to litigate one’s way out of an unconstitutional order of the type directed at law firms that defended “Trump enemies”?
Per reporting by Rawstory, we have a breakdown as to how this works.
RICO, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is the law that makes it ‘‘unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise … to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity,” Zasloff stated.
And what is racketeering? See Trump:
In this case, it would mean that Trump and his aides, including Cabinet officials and those under them. A “pattern of racketeering activity” is two or more acts, he said. He went on to list three actions that could lead to civil charges for Trump, filed by the law firms that he’s targeted. First is extortion. His “threats against and coercion of law firms, as well as universities,” fall under state laws, Zasloff said.
If anyone ever committed extortion from the Oval Office, it would be Donald Trump – who entered into settlement agreements with law firms on the premise that they would do millions of dollars of “pro bono” law work for Trump-associated causes… We haven’t heard whether those “causes” would simply be Trump businesses, but we do know the pattern. Judges recently found the orders against the law firms unconstitutional, putting the agreements into doubt. The firms could be their own plaintiffs and bring the cases themselves. It would be a unique opportunity. Additionally, they have further grounds on which to hold Trump liable:
Second, is bribery and solicitation. Trump marketing his own personal meme coin gives a unique opportunity to “[funnel] money directly to the Trump family and to the president himself—as if the buying up of suites at the Trump Hotel, or the paying of millions of dollars to sit near him at Mar-a-Lago, had not already done so,” said Zasloff.
To be fair, Trump isn’t even trying to hide the fact that he expects to be enriched by being president. He knows no one will convict him of any impeachment charges that a Democratic Congress might bring (Enough Republicans will remain true such that Trump has no fear whatsoever, if they didn’t convict him for January 6th, it would seem that nothing will). But again, civil liability only requires 12 citizens to largely agree that it’s all more likely than not that Trump engaged in the pattern, one on which few facts are contested. The orders made against law firms are on paper, the motivation is crystal clear, and so were the implications (Hindering doing business with the government, THE staple of a power-DC firm.) The liability should be clear. It was always personal.
Unfortunately, for these cases to realistically be brought, it would need to be financed by someone with almost endless cash – as Trump would have the DOJ defend him, rightly or wrongly, and the parties would quickly set about bleeding each other dry in discovery. Or, it would have to be a firm motivated by the original presidential order and doubting the potency of a judicial order going forward against the president in control of government contracts. There is also the chance that one of the universities might list RICO in its suit against the Trump administration’s orders.
We will see. No doubt, everyone would prefer if Trump stopped acting all mobbed up while presidenting. But we’ve seen how all that goes.
****
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and also on X at @JasonMiciak, and please follow me now on Bluesky.
Zoomers, we are always in need of donations. It’s been an especially rough month, and my own health has not been great these past few weeks, which just adds to the frustration. Anything you can spare will be immensely appreciated. And thank you to all who have donated generously already. Ursula
Of all the epithets hurled his way, ‘racketeer’ really does stick.
It describes him and his business behavior to a ‘T’.
“Unfortunately, for these cases to realistically be brought, it would need to be financed by someone with almost endless cash – as Trump would have the DOJ defend him, rightly or wrongly, and the parties would quickly set about bleeding each other dry in discovery.”
Or, one of the first things to do would file an emergency injunction until the Supreme Court is forced to tell the DOJ that it CANNOT act as a *personal* legal system for the President.
I’m not a lawyer but–and especially if I were part of a high-price firm–my first filing would be to cut off Drumpf’s attempt to use the DOJ as his own personal, private legal firm. The DOJ is only expected to represent the President in his position as the leader of the country and defending his OFFICIAL policies, not his personal issues (not even Bill Clinton expected the DOJ to defend him in the Paula Jones case).
A good citizen needs to do a deed.
Going after high-powered law firms is about as bright as the guy in the movie (I forget the name but starred Whoopie Goldberg and Bob Goldthwait) who decided to stick up a bar frequented by cops.
He pulls his gun and shouts “this is a stick-up” only to have every last person in the bar draw down on him.