Smells like extortion

Democrats sniffing out the Hobbs Act in Trump's pressure campaign on law firms and universities

The first trial I ever covered as a court reporter was a federal extortion case — a member of the Maryland General Assembly who squeezed contractors for cash in return for his help in securing municipal contracts to clean and repoint the brick walls of Baltimore public schools. It was a Hobbs Act case — a delegate from East Baltimore employing “the color of official right” to pressure the contractors for thousands of dollars.

The contractors turned out to be FBI agents working an undercover sting — a sort of practice run for the bureau’s ABSCAM investigation a year or two later in New Jersey. (The 2013 film, “American Hustle” was based on that investigation.)

The prosecutor who won the conviction in the Maryland case went on to a long and stellar career as a defense attorney. He’s been watching Trump’s pressure campaign on law firms and universities, and he smelled, as I did, the same old unsavory aroma of extortion.

“Trump’s demands on law firms and universities seem to me to fit squarely within the federal extortion laws, like the Hobbs Act (18 USC Sec. 1981),” the attorney wrote in an email. “That law has been used against scores of politicians and businessmen as well as mafia leaders. It is illegal to demand that one do something against his or her will under threat of using one’s official position to cause harm to the victim — like cancelling security clearances, stopping payment of funds already appropriated by Congress, threatening to deny a law firm entrance to public buildings, not to mention forcing some to forego constitutional rights like freedom of speech, the right to counsel of one’s choice, etc).”

Some weak-kneed law firms already caved to Trump’s demands. But, on Wednesday, two major firms asked judges to block Trump’s executive orders that were meant to punish them and harm their business operations. Those firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — say the orders are unconstitutional assaults on the legal profession, threaten their relationships with clients and constitute retaliation for their past legal representations or associations with attorneys Trump considers adversaries.

They might just call it extortion.

Democrats in Congress are on this.

Several of them, including a new member from Maryland, have sniffed the same foul smell we sniffed when reports of Trump’s demands on law firms first surfaced.

In a series of letters this week, the Democrats have asked the law firms to render documents detailing their agreements with Trump.

“Agreements of this kind,” wrote Rep. April McClain Delaney of Maryland (above) and Rep. David Min of California, “signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda.”

Both Min and Delaney are attorneys.

Their letters went to the following firms: Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; and Milbank LLP.

“These firms allegedly entered into these arrangements either to seek the reversal of specific executive orders issued by President Trump or to avoid being targeted by such orders,” Min and Delaney said in a joint statement. “These agreements require, among other concessions, that the law firms dedicate millions of dollars in pro bono legal services and cease the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their hiring practices.”

The representatives specifically mentioned federal laws that might have been violated with Trump’s heavy-handed action. Min and Delaney want to know if the firms determined if the agreements with Trump “pass legal muster or potentially open these firms up to liability under federal and state statutes.”

The Hobbs Act, “prohibiting obstruction, delay, or affecting commerce by extortion under color of official right,” was specifically mentioned, as were:

• Federal anti-fraud “honest services” statutes, (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341/1343, 1346, 1349);

• The federal racketeering law, making unlawful the participation in an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1962);

• State laws that prohibit offering bribes or benefits to influence the actions of a public official.

“As members of the United States House of Representatives, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States,” Min and Delaney wrote to each firm. “Several of us have worked at major law firms. We have deep respect for the long tradition that your firm carries, and we urge you to reconsider your decision – one which we can sympathize with but which we think is a clear mistake – to seemingly capitulate to clear abuse of the law by the Trump administration.”

Trump’s heavy-handed actions against universities also smell of extortion. Good that Harvard did not cave to the felon’s meddling demands and the withholding of federal money. “See you in court” should be a rally cry of the resistance.