Among the many bogus scandal that Democrats have tried to fling at President Trump in the past few months, the one which probably got the most traction was the claim that President Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House after he and his Press Secretary swore they wouldn’t touch it.
That whole story was a lie and at least some of the people who were spreading it back in October knew it was a lie, but there’s no doubt it made an impact. And so, it’s probably no surprise that Democratic operatives are doing their best to make this into a centerpiece of the resistance, possibly for years to come.
Today, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit to prevent construction of the new ballroom designed to replace the East Wing and as the Washington Post explains, they are getting some pro bono work from President Obama’s former White House Counsel.
The lawsuit from the nonprofit National Trust for Historic Preservation, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, represents the first major legal challenge to Trump’s planned 90,000-square-foot addition and is poised to test the limits of his power. The organization argues that the administration failed to undergo legally required reviews or receive congressional authorization for the project, which Trump has rushed to launch in hopes of completing it before his term ends in 2029.
“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Joe Biden, and not anyone else,” the complaint says…
The National Trust is seeking a temporary restraining order on construction as the court reviews its claims, its lawyers said. One of those lawyers is Greg Craig, a Foley Hoag lawyer who previously served as White House counsel to President Barack Obama, and who is working pro bono on the case. Craig also served as President Bill Clinton’s lawyer during Republicans’ efforts to impeach Clinton in the late 1990s.
Greg Craig wrote an Opinion piece for the Post back in April talking about being part of the team that defended Reagan’s shooter John Hinkley. The point of the whole thing, as you can see in his final paragraphs below, was to encourage attorneys to stand up to Trump.
The issue of whether to take on an unpopular client is not quite the same as deciding to stand up to an executive order that seeks to destroy your law firm’s independence. The stakes are much higher when it comes to standing up to President Donald Trump, but the arguments pro and con are much the same and boil down to the same question that the lawyers at Williams & Connolly had to answer in 1981: How much risk is a law firm willing to take to maintain its independence?
If Trump’s executive orders were not so grotesquely unconstitutional and dangerous to a free society, I might be more sympathetic to a law firm that doesn’t want to assume the risk of taking on the president and chooses to walk away from the fight. But the undeniable purpose of Trump’s attacks against America’s law firms is to destroy the independence of the legal profession in the United States and weaken the rule of law. That simple truth should inspire every American lawyer to stand up and join the defense.
Craig is very much urging a legal resistance to Trump, so his decision to work pro bono on this case can be assumed to be about Trump, not just an interest in historical preservation.
In other words, what’s happening here is politics. The East Wing has become a useful symbol for Democrats and preventing Trump from completing a beautiful new ballroom by wrapping the project up in TROs and red tape is a way to deny him a win and extend the negative perception they have created around this.
Several polls have shown that the ballroom project is broadly unpopular, and Democrats have consistently attacked it, eager to contrast the president’s focus on a luxurious ballroom against many Americans’ concerns about affordability…
The National Trust, for example, alleges that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s property clause, which authorizes Congress to oversee property on federal land.
The polls are a reflection of Democrats lying about the demolition. People believed their lies (Karoline Leavitt swore they wouldn’t touch it!) and now, when asked, they regurgitate the same nonsense to pollsters. The media, as ever, let Democrats run with it and now they report on the poll results as if this were some sort of organic groundswell of opinion.
What Democrats would love to do is drag this over to Congress where they could turn this into another show trial and, if they manage to retake the House next year, they can make this a major spectacle. And you have to admit, the subtext here is perfect for them: Trump the destroyer vs. Democrats seeking to preserve America. It’s practically a physical manifestation of the argument that they ran on (and lost on) in 2024, i.e. Trump will destroy America.
Just as importantly, Trump has made clear he’s personally invested in this and hopes to have it done before his last year in office:
Trump has made the ballroom a focus and frequent talking point in the opening year of his second term, and administration officials have acknowledged that he is involved to the point of micromanagement.
“In a very short period of time — like about a year and a half — you’re going to have the best ballroom anywhere in the country,” Trump told lawmakers at the White House on Thursday night.
So going after the ballroom has two other possible benefits for Democrats. First, it frustrates Trump personally, which usually leads to him lashing out in ways that they (and the media) can further capitalize on. Second, if they delay it enough, he’ll never be present for the grand opening which would be a big win for Trump both personally and in terms of his presidential legacy. They really want to deny him that moment when network anchors get a first look and the place is undeniably spectacular.
Are there people involved in this who genuinely care about the issue more than the resistance politics? I’m sure there are some and we’ll probably hear from them as this story drags on. But this has all the hallmarks of another attempt by Democrats to frame the president into a defensive and losing position which they can drag out for years. Hopefully the White House sees the trouble they are brewing and will shut this down quickly.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
