Trump 2.0 - You will bow down

 

That's not all.  They promise not to "pursue any DEI policies."  They agree to be audited (by mutually agreed upon "experts").

And the law firm's chairman "acknowledged the wrongdoing of former ... partner Mark Pomerantz."

Members of the legal profession said in interviews that they were surprised by the deal, as it appears as if the firm — which is dominated by Democrats and has long prided itself in being at the forefront of the fight against the government for civil rights — was capitulating to Mr. Trump over an executive order that is likely illegal.

[...]

Mr. Pomerantz had tried to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump several years ago while working at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. It was not clear what wrongdoing Mr. Trump was referring to.

  NYT

It's not clear because there was none. At least not in the world before Trump Uber Alles.

“The president is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.”

Weaponization is exactly what is happening to everything in our system. Weaponization on behalf of Trump.

Along with Mr. Pomerantz’s status as a former partner, the firm represented him as recently as 2023 in connection with efforts by congressional Republicans to question him as they sought to undermine charges brought against Mr. Trump by prosecutors in Manhattan.

Thursday’s deal applies only to the executive order against Paul, Weiss. It’s not clear what effect, if any, it will have on the orders targeting other firms or whether it will lead Mr. Trump to back off his stated intention to go after more of them.

NB: It won't. And the more who bow to Trump's tyrannical demands, the more he'll try to make others.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders targeting top law firms introduced a new element to his retribution campaign. They have raised deep concerns among legal experts and threatened to pose serious financial problems for the firms, creating a chilling effect that has deterred them from taking on clients at odds with the Trump administration.

The first order targeted Covington & Burling, a large firm that had done legal work for Jack Smith, who as special counsel during the Biden administration had brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.

Last week, a federal judge in Washington ruled that a subsequent executive order Mr. Trump signed targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which is also aligned with Democrats, was likely unconstitutional and issued a restraining order halting it.

But two days later, Mr. Trump signed a nearly identical executive order against Paul, Weiss. Mr. Trump said he was taking the action to punish the firm for its ties to a lawyer who had pushed for him to be indicted and another who had brought a lawsuit against Jan. 6 rioters.

Clearly admitting unlawful behavior.

The order barred the firm’s lawyers from dealing with the federal government and raised the possibility that its clients would lose their government contracts.

[...]

Throughout the legal community, the firm is well known for having a stable of Democratic-leaning partners and has prominent former Obama administration officials in its ranks. Mr. Karp helped host a “Lawyers for Biden” fund-raiser for President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s re-election campaign in 2023 and one of its top lawyers oversaw then-Vice President Kamala Harris’s preparation for her debates with Mr. Trump.

[...]

The firm has long prided itself on breaking barriers and standing up to the government on issues like civil rights. Its website trumpets how it was the first major New York City firm to have Jewish lawyers working alongside Gentiles, to hire a Black associate and to have a female partner.

How proud are they now?

According to two people familiar with the matter, the White House and Mr. Karp had reached an agreement on the wording of the statement. But despite that agreement, the wording of the statement changed, including a reference to the fact that the firm would “not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.”

Is that legal?

UPDATE 07:17 pm: