're all going to get half a dozen because even if you did it randomly, they're just so many cases that they're just all going to come up half a dozen times. That's exactly what's happening. But I don't believe it's random. Here's what I think. I think it depends who filed the lawsuit. I think if one of the 300, which is really one of a half dozen, I think there are some lawyers that if they're involved they seem to get the right judge. I don't think that it's a coincidence that Judge Cobb has 10 cases and I've never heard that name. They can't be the important ones. So I've got a feeling it's not random even though a lot of people have a lot of cases.

So Trump, also according to the Washington Times, Jeff Mauro's writing about this, Trump is stripping security clearance from yet another law firm. What is it? WilmerHale. It's a high-powered Washington law firm and they had once employed special counsel Robert Mueller. And this is what the executive order banning them from working on government stuff says. It says that the law firm has abandoned the profession's highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine the justice and interest of the United States. And it gives some examples. It supported efforts to discriminate based on race. I assume that means DEI stuff. Backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our border and furthers a degradation of the quality of American elections, including supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote.

Here's my problem. That's sort of the job of lawyers. Lawyers don't just represent innocent people who are angels. Our system completely depends on qualified lawyers also taking cases that you and I hate and say why are you doing that? Why are you doing that pro bono thing for these terrible people? So to me this looks like lawfare. And remember I said from the beginning, I've told you if it looks like lawfare to me I'm going to call it out. It's a little hard to be a team player and be in favor of lawfare. However, I'm going to soften it a little bit because there's so much lawfare against the president that is completely out of the norm that this looks like a brushback pitch to me. As in, if I keep getting lawfared, I'm going to take you all down. And even if I lose every one of these in some upper court, I'm going to make sure you're spending all your time, wasting your time trying to fight this because you all suck and you're all political and you can pretend that you're just helping your clients but you're obviously just a lawfare organ of the Democrats. And we have a completely broken system where the lawyers are trying to basically run the whole country. Now under those conditions I'm okay with lawfare because the lawfare is a brushback pitch. I'm not in favor of going to a baseball game and watching the pitcher throw unlimited pitches at the head of the opposing batter. No, I don't want to watch that. But if that team does something really messed up and the pitcher decides to put one right into the body of the batter, you understand that, don't you? You understand that they're trying to get balance back. Now you might not love it because it's violent. I'm not recommending it. But we do see that in the real world. If you don't have mutually assured destruction, everything falls apart. So if you look at it as just lawfare, it's bad. But if you look at it as a response to lawfare, which is what it is, it's a response to lawfare. If they lawfare them back just as hard, that is establishing mutually assured destruction. And it may have more to do with suppressing the next thing they do than it does with addressing anything in the past. So I'm in favor of it. I'm in favor of it. And I think it's lawfare and I think it's appropriate.

According to Breitbart News, Simon Kent is writing that the Trump administration is going to suspend contributions to the WTO, the World Trade Organization. So I had to look up what the heck does the World Trade Organization do. What it does is allegedly, at least up till now, it has opened markets to 160 different countries and lowered tariffs and made it easier to dispute trade problems across borders and basically greased the wheels to make it easier for every country to do business with every other country. So you might ask why do we want to suspend our contribution to that? And I think the answer is because if your organization is trying to find a middle ground where everybody's happy, it's not America first. It could be, well let's make sure that China and the United States are both kind of happy but kind of unhappy, but maybe we could have done a better deal. So I don't know if this will work out or not work out. But the idea that we can handle our own tariffs and our own disputes and we've got enough market muscle to say look, if you don't handle this dispute we're just not going to do business with you or we're going to tear the bejesus out of you. So tentatively this looks like a good idea because the WTO is not meant to be America first. So maybe we can do better on our own. We'll see. That wouldn't be true for smaller countries I suppose, but for America maybe.

Well, as you know, this story you've heard before, that Jasmine Crockett called Governor Abbott of Texas Governor Hot Wheels because Abbott's in a wheelchair. And this of course caused the Democrats to bring up what they probably t