A judge used Trump's words to uncover his real agenda

When granting a permanent injunction, which aimed to enforce the executive regulation of President Donald Trump to the Perkins Coie law firm, the US judge Beryl Howell decided that Perkin's Coie arrangement was based on the content of his speech and actions. In order to come to the conclusion that the order was violated against the rights of the first change by Perkins Coie and his customers, Howell was not surprisingly based on the president's text and the accompanying “fact sheet” of his administration. But she also did something else much more unusual: Howell used Trump's subsequent agreements with other companies – and his boast about her – as evidence against his administration.

Trump's command limited Perkin's Coie's lawyers access to state buildings, revoked their security checks and ordered the federal authorities to terminate contracts with the law firm. One of Perkin's Coie's claims in his complaint was that this punishment existed a retaliation for points of view that the company has taken over the years, including the representation of Hillary Clinton and its presidential campaign in 2016. The company showed that it had already lost customers on the basis of the order and that it would probably lose much more if the judge had not permanently hired the order.

When it was determined whether Trump's command “Constitutional retaliation measures for the plaintiff's protected activity”, Howell accepted the company's allegations that she had lost business – which did not compete. But she also went on and turned to the administration business with other law firms.

For Howell, a critical element in its assessment of whether the actions of the administration were punishment and retaliation were the fact that those who had concluded agreements with the administration had had similar damage, whereby the administration either waived the granting of orders that punish these companies or even punished orders provided.

It was not only the business that experienced the judge's eye, but the president and the employee who pretended with the agreements. For Howell, this made it clear that the punishment was primarily the point of the actions of the White House.

Howell not only noticed the promotion of agreements by the White House with these other companies by the president. For example, she quoted his comments at an event in early April:

Powell also quoted Trump and consultant Stephen Miller's statements in the signing of an arrangement that aimed at the law firm Susman Godfrey. At the event, Trump asked Miller to share the value of free legal work that is secured from business with other law firms. “The numbers add up. We will soon be close to one billion,” replied Miller. “With regard to the Susman EO that he had just signed,” Howell wrote, “President Trump then said:” This, we are just starting the process with this. “

Although the “exact conditions of these business” are “somewhat out of focus”, Howell wrote: Howell provided further evidence that President Trump clearly emphasized the companies for retaliation based on whether they have concluded agreements with the administration or not.

Perhaps judge Howell's decision would have been the same if Trump had not trumpet certain companies that bend the knee on him. But this president and this government could not help. They just had to brag about – and Howell used their own words against them.