Veteran lawyers question the legal validity of President Trump's agreements with major law firms, which provide $1 billion in pro bono services. Critics highlight that conditions surrounding these deals resemble coercion, undermining the contractual agreement. These arrangements, initially focused on military veterans, have expanded to contentious topics like immigration and police defense. The ambiguity in expectations—especially regarding diverse veteran needs—further complicates the legitimacy of these agreements. As scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers persists, the details of these deals remain opaque, prompting concerns over the implications for legal ethics and civic responsibility.
You know, a contract that you make with a gun to your head is not a contract.
What if the veteran is gay or wants to have transgender surgery? Would they approve of that?
Collection
[
|
...
]