Democrat leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer message thinly veiled threats of violence to their (increasingly small) number of followers. They are responding in counterproductive ways like torching and defacing Tesla cars and trucks, vehicles most likely owned by Democrats who believe in the climate change fairy tale and want to reduce CO2 emissions. The logical response of Democrat owners is to blame and leave the party that provokes this nonsensical criminal behavior. Even if you are brainwashed enough to think Elon Musk, who opened up the internet for free speech, rescued astronauts Biden left parked in space for months, and is working free round the clock to reduce waste, fraud, and inefficiencies to prevent national bankruptcy, is an evil monster, why target Tesla owners? I suppose that’s too logical an argument for the vandals to grasp. The administration has now tagged such conduct domestic terrorism — which it is, as was the “summer of love” BLM vandalism for which there had been no real consequences for the perpetrators. Three people have been arrested and face sentences upon conviction of from 5-20 years depending on their actions.
It’s not the only countermeasure the Trump team unleashed this week. Nor is the Administration the only force acting to bring consequences to the lawless Left.
ATTACKING ACADEMIC LAWLESSNESS
Sitting atop mountains of endowments and further enriched by billions of dollars in federal grants, contracts, and soaring, extravagant tuitions made possible by federal student loan funding, Columbia University nevertheless found out that it is not above countermeasures to rein them in. Our richest, once most prestigious colleges and universities have arrogated to themselves the right to ignore, if not promote, illegal discrimination against students and faculty, serve as Marxist, anti-American, anti-Israeli breeding grounds, and are at the forefront of denying women athletes the opportunities promise of Title IX. Columbia University which was, perhaps the worst offender, was threatened with a $400 million cut in federal funds. This week it quickly capitulated and promised to do more than was even demanded of it by the Departments of Education and of Health and Human Services.
As Novi Zhukovsky details, it will put the far Left Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies departments under direct administrative supervision. It will enforce existing disciplinary policies and abolish the biased Judiciary Board, placing disciplinary processes instead in the Office of the President of the University. It will implement rules to prevent classroom disruptions and ban masked protesters. It will develop a plan to hold student groups which violate school rules accountable; adopt a formal definition of antisemitism, and empower internal law enforcement. In addition — though not ordered to do so — it pledges to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and offer a free K-12 curriculum designed to foster open inquiry and deal with antisemitism. Perhaps more importantly, it plans to expand “intellectual diversity” among faculty — it will appoint new faculty “with joint positions in the Institute for Jewish Studies and the Departments of Economics, Political Science, and School for International and Public Affairs.”
I expect that this shift will not be confined to Columbia.
The Trump Administration pulled $175 million in funding from the University of Pennsylvania because of its policies allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s events. It threatened to pull funding from Universities in Maine for its policies on transgender athletes. Governor Janet Mills registered her unwillingness to change them, but this week Maine universities have agreed to comply with Trump’s
Executive Order banning men from women’s sports. (It seems even insane academics aren’t insane enough to choose to go broke defending those policies.)
PUNISHING LAW FIRM MALFEASANCE
It’s no secret that because of political inclination of its partners and major clients and the promise of substantial government contracts, several big law firms actively sued to halt Trump and his initiatives and sometimes, like Perkins Coie, participated in <img alt captext="Clarice F” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/righteous-attacks-bringing-the-left-to-heel.jpg” width=”350″>Democrat party actions to thwart him by seeding the Russian collusion hoax. Another big firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, this week acknowledged wrongdoing by a former partner, Mark Pomerantz, who actively engaged in the lawfare against Trump. It has pledged to provide $40 million in free pro bono work for causes of the president’s choosing and the White House stepped back from its Executive Order setting consequences for the firm. As for Perkins Coie, the president withdrew the firm’s security clearances and it has sued. The D.C. judge assigned to hear the case is Beryl Howell, formerly the Chief Judge of the District. This week the Department of Justice filed a detailed pleading in support of its motion seeking Howell’s recusal from the matter. It documents the judge’s open disdain for and hostility to the President and his supporters. (It’s a pity the J6 cases were not televised so more people could have seen when it really mattered the bias of the court, but if you read this pleading, you’ll have a good idea of how unbalanced this court has been. Here’s a representative sample:)
b. This Court’s Conduct in this Case
Simultaneously with filing its complaint in this case, Plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO.See ECF No. 2. Within 24 hours of the complaint being filed, this Court conducted a hearing on the TRO and ruled from the bench, granting the requested relief. See ECF No. 21.
During the course of the hearing, a number of exchanges took place between the Court and Defendants’ counsel regarding the activities of Perkins Coie attorneys and the 2016 election — specifically their involvement in the procurement and distribution of the report by Fusion GPS. ECF No. 22, Hearing Tr. at 31–35, 49–50. This report has now been fully discredited, and the role of Perkins Coie attorneys in the distribution of this report was a centerpiece of the Durham Investigation. Yet this Court stated: “I know the President has just — you know, based on reading these papers, he was upset about that in 2016; he was so upset about this still he filed a lawsuit against Perkins Coie and others in the Southern District of Florida that was dismissed in rapid order. He keeps bringing it up. It’s like he doesn’t want any of us to forget Fusion GPS. He doesn’t want any of us to forget that — any of this. He really has a bee in his bonnet about it.” ECF No. 22, Hearing Tr. at 49:22–50:5 (emphasis added).
As seen in the above exchange, issues of the Durham Investigation, the Fusion GPS report, and the Mueller Report are central to the EO. The Court’s condescending remark that President Trump had “a bee in his bonnet” about Fusion GPS demonstrate a concerning and dismissive approach to the entire Durham Investigation — an Investigation that touched on the Court’s role in the Mueller Report and one in which members of the Plaintiff’s firm played a primary and essential role. The entire Fusion GPS fiasco is a lamentable part of this nation’s history. As demonstrated through comments in this proceeding, other judicial proceedings, and in the public, observers 6
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BAH Document 34 Filed 03/21/25 Page 7 of 8
might reasonably have concerns about the Court’s impartiality in this matter. Recusal is warranted to ensure these proceedings fair and free from concerns about impartiality.
Perkins, Coie and Paul, Weiss are but two of the big law firms which have acted as arms of the Democratic party. Here’s a list of nine of them, including some of their partisan actions and actors.
STRIPPING AWAY THE NGO VEIL
Another significant development this week was not the result of any action by the administration, but it is welcome and long overdue. Greenpeace, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), that bills itself as an outfit working to protect the environment, was ordered by a North Dakota jury to pay $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, a pipeline company, for its conduct in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017.
Notably, the case shows how outfits like Greenpeace operate: They disseminate false statements and disinformation to smear their targets; they transmit the same to lenders and investors to damage the target’s business relations, and worse, “they knowingly coordinated with, supported and fundraised for more radical groups that engaged in unlawful acts of trespassing, property destruction and violence” while contending their role in those protests were minor. In this case, its engagement in illegal conduct was documented — it sent “direct action trainers” which instructed protesters in illegal tactics; they ”knowingly coordinated with ‘direct action’ groups” which engaged in vandalism and violence.
The case should stand as a template for lawsuits by similarly injured targets by mainstream left-wing NGOs which provide money and cover for radicals.
