Yesterday, we told you about President Trump revoking the security clearance of a law firm involved with the Russia hoax (as he should). Now, they have responded and they are not happy.
New: A Perkins Coie spox sends this response to Trump’s EO targeting the firm: “We have reviewed the Executive Order. It is patently unlawful, and we intend to challenge it.” https://t.co/oIQgpjpnUp
— Alex Mallin (@alex_mallin) March 6, 2025
That is to be expected. How will they nose around to make up another false claim to try and derail President Trump without that access?
Good luck with “we’re entitled to forever have our security clearances no matter what we do, because they make us rich” https://t.co/WdsxlnK6l6
— Sunny (@sunnyright) March 7, 2025
They're power hungry creeps (allegedly and for educational purposes only), so they don't see how that looks really bad.
And you as the President in charge of the executive branch are not allowed to change your legal team.
— Colin Eddington (@colineddington) March 7, 2025
You're stuck with us even though we tried to put you in jail.
If Marc Elias had his way, this is exactly how it would be.
The question is, which judge feels he is entitled to determine who keeps a security clearance?
— MAGA. Still not tired. (@Ralph_Laurentz) March 7, 2025
Oh, they are definitely judge shopping as we speak.
There are so many active security clearances, that it's a joke.
— VigilantVet 🇺🇸 (@_____USA___) March 7, 2025
Yet another thing that needs to change.
As an attorney that has litigated against clients of Perkins Coie, this is ridiculous. They’re good attorneys and this EO is mindless political retaliation. The country’s bar associations must immediately condemn this illegal travesty.
— Richard J Oparil (@ROparil) March 6, 2025
Of course, there are the pearl-clutchers in the comments. Marc Elias is hardly one of the good guys, but even if he was, is every 'good attorney' in the United States entitled to security clearance? Of course not. Neither is this particular firm. Elections have consequences and stuff.
No one is entitled to a security clearance.
— Attas (@TxRecon1) March 7, 2025
Guess we'll see them in court.
They think the president has to keep them on the payroll advising his actions through the executive branch, even though they tried to put him in jail.
— Colin Eddington (@colineddington) March 7, 2025
You're not allowed to seek alternate legal advice in their corrupt minds.
LOL, Perkins Coie in the FO phase after trying to FA
— SowellFood (@SowellFood) March 7, 2025
Indeed, and they seem to not like it, at all.
Have at it. Speaking strictly for me, the opposition to the choice of the American people should have no access to their secrets.
— MsMarji56 (@MsMarji56) March 7, 2025
That sounds fair.
So their claim is the Commander-in-Chief doesn't have the authority to grant or terminate security clearances to civilians? I'm curious to know who they think has that authority and where that authority comes from.
— Andrew Wooddell (@AndrewWooddell) March 7, 2025
To clarify, they think Republican Presidents don't have that right. They believe Democrats should control all the things, all the time, even when they lose the election.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member