Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Society

Eric Holder To Receive ABA Award In August

Eric_Holder_official_portrait200px-AbalogoFormer Attorney General Eric Holder remains a controversial figure for civil libertarians and other groups after his tenure in the Clinton and Obama Administrations.  He is one of the principle authors of the “Kill List” policy under which President Barack Obama claimed the right to kill any American without a charge or trial if he unilaterally determined that they are a national security risk.  Despite the view of some of us that Holder deserved to be fired over his abusive investigation of journalists, he will now be given the prestigious Thurgood Marshall Award from the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice on Aug. 4 during the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago.

The Thurgood Marshall Award honors contributions by members of the legal profession to the advancement of civil rights, civil liberties and human rights in the United States.  It is the inclusion of civil liberties and human rights that are troubling in this award.  Holder clearly did accomplish much on civil rights. However, the award brushes over his more controversial actions in these other areas.

Holder’s role in the Kill List policy, the targeting of journalists, and withholding information from Congress are among a variety of actions that remains deeply troubling for many.  Then there is Holder’s involvement in Clinton’s abuse of his pardon power in the infamous pardoning of Democratic donor Marc Rich as well as his own half brother.

Holder’s record is not a subject for celebration for many, but the ABA deemed him to be worthy of a distinction for his contribution to, among other things, civil liberties. Holder’s “contributions” cost civil liberties dearly in this country. If the ABA is to give him this award, it could at least spare civil libertarians and journalists the reference to civil liberties.

115 thoughts on “Eric Holder To Receive ABA Award In August”

  1. As a young attorney, fresh out of law school, I automatically joined the ABA because it seemed to be the thing to do. But shortly thereafter I became aware of just how left leaning the organization is and how it painted bad lawyers and causes as exemplary and celebrated them. Disillusioned, I dropped the ABA. It does nothing to help the oppressed, it just magnifies itself and those who suck up to it for their own political purposes. This pending award to Holder is just one more example of how bankrupt the organization is.

    1. The ABA is just a trade organization that can get you a credit card or a discount on car rentals. That’s about the extent of its utility.

  2. Sad, truly sad.

    ““I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Holder said.

    He was not the last in a long list of terrible Attorneys Generals. Disbarred? yes. Award? sad.

    1. You get ‘terrible attorneys-general’ because presidents don’t want good ones. John Kennedy put his brother in the job, Lyndon Johnson saddled us with Ramsay Clark (who revealed himself to be a kook in his later years, eventually associating with communist organizations), Nixon put one of his law partners in the job, a man whose specialty was supervising municipal bond issues. It then went to a protege of Barry Goldwater and then after that to a politician from Ohio. Reagan favored a highly intelligent BigLaw lawyer whose primary function at his firm (according to some accounts) was bringing in clients. After he left, the position was turned over to a crony who had certain agreeable features and a demonstrated interest in law enforcement, but a mess of shizzy problems with his finances and what looked like cheap favors to people to whom he owed money. When he left the position, he was replaced by the former Governor of Pennsylvania, a man retained by George Bush the Elder because George Bush the Elder is the kind of guy who hires people who belong to his clubs, even if they were on the board of the Pittsburgh ACLU. Clinton was bound and determined to put a broad in the job, but was tripped up when his first two selections were discovered to have hired illegal aliens as au pairs. His third selection was a childless spinster and an experienced prosecutor; alas, she also had a history of abusive behavior in her job (see National Review‘s precis of some of her sex offender prosecutions; the best you can say of her is that she never produced a travesty quite as awful as the Amierault case or the McMartin case); her most notable initiative her first year was the Waco disaster, for which she was never penalized. In between, we were treated to how Democratic Attorneys-General handle accusations of misconduct against Democratic politicians (see Paul Greenberg’s column titled, “Ms Magoo”). Going out the door, we were treated to the spectacle of a federal SWAT team abducting Elian Gonzalez. And, of course, we have Holder and Lynch, who may be the bottom of the barrel.

  3. This cowardly killer has his eyes on the WH. He is also clueless.

  4. The American Bar Association has just demonstrated that it is a political organization with this “award” to the first Attorney General in our nation’s history to earn a Contempt of Congress citation.

    Instead of receiving this “award,” he should be facing a disbarment proceeding for that extreme blemish on his record. He has demonstrated a record of arrogance in regard to his position of Attorney General that is hard to imagine, a case where the truth is stranger than fiction. His actions in the case of Marc Rich set the stage for current President to issue a pardon for Maricopa (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an action that was definitely also politically motivated. He was complicit with all of President Obama’s actions of issuing Executive Orders to “correct” laws that he didn’t like, many of which are now being reversed by the current President in actions that are exacerbating the political divide in our nation.

    Based upon the action of this “award,” I would urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to ignore any representations made by the Association in regards to consideration of any Presidential judicial appointments as the unhinged reactions of a political organization that does not represent the legitimacy of the legal profession.

    1. See James Lindgren’s statistical study of ABA recommendations on judicial appointments, published, IIRC, in 2001. They’ve been an extension of the Democratic Party for some time.

  5. The left never sleeps, and one thing they’ve done is act as parasitoid wasps in regard to the country’s academic and professional associations. Quite a number are corrupted, among them the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Library Association, and the American Bar Association. Robert Bork remarked a generation ago that the ABA was a politicized mess. Any candidate for public office who is a member of the bar needs to be grilled and to explain just why he joined the ABA if in fact he is a member.

  6. I’ve been told that the founding fathers were liberals. Then this guy would fit right in. I’m sure Mr. Holder is a big supporter of the 1st and 2nd amendments. And he never misinterpreted the constitution or any amendments or any of our laws. He was also a big supporter of applying our laws to all citizens in a fair manner across the legal spectrum. He would never get involved in identity politics. He’s the kind of liberal that would have been a great founding father. He’d make a great president.

  7. You can tell that’s an actor not a script writer doing the part of Hollywood. Actors recite anything put in front of them and don’t have the creative skills for much else.

  8. ABA – Defending the Liberties of the Socialist Left and providing Socialist Justice? How does that make them any different from any other garden variety socialist organization other than determining are they National, International, or Progressive Socialists?

    I see there recommendation or approval has not and will not be added to the list of those sought by the President and in the Senate is of interest only to the left wing extremist now openly known as the Socialist party according to DNCor ‘s new leadership Perez-Castro.

    One thing abundantly clear when they take their oath of office and recited the first phrase they are automatically in violation. But for a New Yorker how far to the left are they? Well…. if they are facing Canada it could be straight ahead but for our purposes it would be San Francisco, or Hawaii or the current world leader in Beijing.

    The real but never asked question is not only how they could legally hold office but how do they hold any sort of citizenship? All of which require that Oath of Office or do they just cross two fingers behind their back and smirk?.

    1. Oh yes to stay on topic… Did the ABA give extra points for gun running?

    3. Michael Aarethun, I opine that you should not post after ingesting whatever it is that you take. You verge on word salad…

      1. David Benson owes me five citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks needs to back up everything he says with a citation.

          1. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I am only asking for what is due to me. If you would fulfill your obligations this could all go away.

  9. Funny how some of my comments seem to be “awaiting moderation” for lengthy periods of time. So much for the First Amendment on this site.

    1. You are suipposed to moderate them if iyou are waiting you are waiting on yourself.

    2. You put a word in which triggers the spam filter. I discovered it would sh!tcan any post with the word ‘die***y’ in it. I had to figure Turley Jr. really doesn’t like the cafeteria supervisor at school (or he can’t get a date out of her daughter).

  10. That’s a travesty! Goes along with Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. Oh, yes, it’s Trump that should win the Nobel for giving away the store to Kim!

  11. Honoring Eric Holder with this award is almost as rich as Harvard giving Crooked Hillary the 2018 Radcliffe Medal for her “transformative impact on society.”

    1. Now about those Trump awards….

      Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame
      Honorary

      Doctor of Laws from Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (1988)
      Doctor of Humane Letters from Wagner College in Staten Island, New York (2004)
      Doctor of Business Administration from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (2012)
      Doctor of Laws from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (2017)
      Revoked

      Doctor of Business Administration from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland (honorary degree awarded 2010, revoked 2015)

      1. Impressive list. Now when do you think Harvard will give Trump an award for his “transformative impact on society”?

          1. Exactly. And who will have had an actual transformative, paradigm-shifting impact on society? Hint: not Hillary.

            1. I hope and pray that we can rebound from Trumpism starting in November.

              1. You can’t pray. Progressivist Socialism doesn’t allow the competition in their organization mmmmm unless maybe it’s some form of theocracy like Islamic jihadism.

              2. hollywood – Good luck with that. Rebound from what? lower taxes, historically low unemployment, robust economy, law and order, secure borders, peace in North Korea, fair trade policies — to what exactly? Open borders and socialism? DNC chair Tom Perez said “Socialism is the future of the Democratic party.” No thanks.

                  1. “Illegal immigration to the United States is on the rise again”. –from The Economist, April 10, 2018

                    2. Holywood,…
                      The Mother Jones article presents illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. from 2008 ( or maybe 2007, I don’t remember for sure which year they start with) to the present.
                      The economy tanked in late 2008, and the U.S. unemployment kept rising for the next few years.
                      So Mother Jones started with the “high point”, a peak year of 2008 (or 2007), to the present.
                      It looks like the big dip illegal crossings due to the Great Recession, and the high rate of illegal crossings in a previously busy period, produced the sharpest drop in the few years after 2008.
                      I haven’t found other publications that come up with a 50% + drop in illegal immigrant coming in, even with the select time period used by Mother Jones.
                      And the calculations depend on which time frame is used.
                      So illegal crossings are probably still down from c.10 years ago.
                      But the Economist, the L.A. Times, and others note a sharp rise in 2018 from last year.

                    4. No, I did not ignore the NPR link.
                      And you’ll find that I referred to that link in a comment to you after I read it.

                  2. Tom, you claim your referred to the npr limnk I posted, but you clearly did not. Why lie?

                    1. A better question is why you accuse me of lying when I did respond, and referred to the NPR link.
                      For future reference, though, I’ll probably skip reading any of your numerous links.
                      It’s big assumption to think that readers are going to plow through numerous links, very selectively chosen and plastered throughout the thread.

  12. I’m not sure why anyone would care who some ABA committee chooses to recognize. The ABA is notorious for accrediting fourth-rate law schools which have no business conferring degrees. I would imagine their civil rights award selectees are of the same caliber.

      1. About 1/3 of those who pass the bar cannot make a living in law and move on to something else. Michael D. Cohen has made an excellent living in 26 years in practice in New York, has worked in BigLaw, worked for the Trump Organization, and has maintained business interests on the side. He’s been married for 24 years and has two children.

        Get this. He went to a low-rent law school. What a loser!.

        1. He hasn’t worked in BigLaw (if I get what you mean). He was briefly associated with a big firm on the false assumption that he could provide a source of clients. That ended rather abruptly. He owns a lot of taxi medallions which used to be worth quite a lot (and often have some mob taint to them). He seems to have done well being a bagman for the likes of Trump and his own mobbish family contacts and Ukrainian ties.
          His law school has been called the worst in the US, although I think it has been ABA accredited from time to time.

          1. Thanks for the innuendo. It’s been an education.

      1. David Benson owes me five citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks citation is needed.

    3. The ratio of working lawyers to new entrants is about 15:1. The ratio for most professions hovers around 22.5:1. Actually, the vast majority of law-school graduates (> 90%) pass the bar exam, though many require two or three tries. It’s just that there isn’t enough work for them out there. The state and federal government need to quit subsidizing legal education (or ration the subsidies to aspirants who in number do not exceed a certain ratio to the population of working attorneys and limit such subventions to state schools). State governments can close their lower ranking schools while the market forces the demise of the lesser sort of private institution. A reduction in capacity of 1/3 is called for.

  13. I know two that fell victim of the “kill list.” A third is in Vancouver under an assumed name. She keeps contact of family with a faceless Facebook account.

        1. As long as I have the rights to the screenplay and the merchandising.

  14. The ABA’s credibility will be tarnished the same as the Nobel Peace Prize.

  15. It sounds like those who selected Holder for this award did not really think it through.
    Maybe it was a rushed, “Fast and Furious” decision that was made.

    1. How about the one in California the Universal Life Church that sold me one in Metaphysics, as a Minister, and as an Attorney for $25 a pop????? Isn’t Hollywood near California somewhere?

    1. Next comes the “Fox Guarding The Henhouse Award”.
      *******************
      Are you referring to Bill Shine as Communications Director?

  17. You’d really like that lifetime appointment to the DC Circuit Court (from which the next Justice might come), wouldn’t you? Your obsequiousness is showing.

  18. Amusing that you dis Holder and yet repeatedly either support Trump’s constitutional violations or turn a blind eye to them. The hypocrisy on your part is amazing.
    Amusingly you go not to Obama’s use of pardons but to Clinton’s. And yet you can’t seem to think of Trump’s use of pardons and suggestions of more as part of his ongoing obstruction of justice.
    As for the kill list–who was killed? Nobody I know of. Not like Bush and Cheney committing war crimes.
    Ironically, you cite investigation of journalists but again ignore Trump’s constant war on the media (unless it’s alt-right).
    Basically, you need to do a balancing test. Which is more meaningful for you to do: criticize Clinton and Holder for some real and many theoretical faults while ignoring the rampant corruption and clear constitutional violations of the Trump admin or vice versa? Get real, professor!

    1. Hollywood,…
      The pardon of Marc Rich was one of the most controversial pardons ever issued, and Holder had a key role in getting Rich’s pardon.
      Holder also had the distinction of being cited for contempt of Congress for his evasiness and dishonesty related to the Fast and Furious/ Let Guns Walk program.
      Their are other negative or questionable aspects of his conduct as Obama’s Attorney General friend, ally, politically compliant Dept. of “Justice”, etc.
      The questionable decision of giving Holder this award is the topic of this columm.
      Whether you are unaware of Holder’s record, or just choose to ignore it, your are basically trying to write your own column and make this about your perceived knowledge of quesses about Turley’s ambitions.
      So we’re treated to one column about Holder, and then you decide to change the subject and write another column, rather than actually commenting on this one.

      1. Right. Sure. Uhhuh. The reason Holder was cited for contempt was just politics. Just like the interminable Benghazi investigation that yielded nada. It never came to anything because it was bullshit. The GOP was just on its blame Obama game and anyone associated with him for anything. It was a nothingburger. http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2012/feb/03/politifact-texas-digs-fast-and-furious/ If there was something illegal, he could have been tried and sent to jail. Didn’t happen, did it?
        Meanwhile, Trump for no apparent reason has pardoned Arpaio (a man in contempt of a federal judge’s order and a racist) and the likes of Libby (a felon) and is threatening to pardon any and all his associates (which constitutes obstruction of justice unlike any Clinton pardon).
        The Rich pardon was bad, but in the last analysis no more of a poke in the eye than the Libby pardon.
        “Their [sic] are other negative or questionable aspects of his conduct as Obama’s Attorney General friend, ally, politically compliant Dept. of “Justice”, etc.” And you cite: None.
        Meanwhile, Trump violates our Constitution every day.

        2. hollywood – Joe Arpaio is not a racist, he is the father of a rainbow family, children from many races. Arpaio kept saying he was tried under the wrong statute. Given enough money and time he probably would have won, however, we are in the very liberal and insane 9th Circuit here, so the original conviction was going to be upheld. That meant he was going to have to take it to SCOTUS to have it overturned. That is expensive. It is not how much justice do you deserve, but how much justice can you afford?

        3. Libby’s sentence was commuted; he was not “pardoned”.
          And to put the Libby commutation in the same category as the Marc Rich pardon is a ridiculous stretch.
          The same is true of your statement that the Holder contempt citation was “just politics”.
          You stated that “Trump violates the Constitution every day”.
          And “you cite: None” in the way of examples supporting that claim.
          The Philadelphia voter intimidation investigation was ongoing when Obama/ Holdet took office…they did not waste any time shutting that down.
          That’s an example of what I termed a negative of questionable aspect of Holder’s conduct, and doing Obama’s bidding.
          In reference to the contempt citation, you said that if “there was something illegal, he could have been tried and sent to jail”.
          While there have been contempt of congress citations before, I don’t think there’s been,a prosecution based on those contempt citations in about 75 years.
          It seems that Congress views it, and uses it, more like a “censure” type of declaration for unethical behaviour.
          It probably would not matter if Congress did consider Holder’s conduct criminal and sought prosecution.
          It’s not likely that the D.C. U.S. Attorneys would have taken any action in any event involving the Obama administration.
          I don’t know if there was a serious proposal to prosecute Holder by any members of Congress; I did follow much of the Holder hearings and testimony, but I don’t remember calls for prosecution by Congress.
          There have been numerous accusations of long term criminal offenses committed by Trump; “if there was something illegal, he could have been tried and sent to jail”.

          1. No, Bush commuted Libby’s sentence. Trump pardoned Libby. You are just plain wrong.

        4. hollywood — would a wanna be autocrat be ‘dismantling the administrative state’ and rolling it back? Wouldn’t a dictator seek to expand the reach of government over the people? Trump is doing the opposite. It was Obama who regularly bypassed Congress and ruled unilaterally by his ‘pen and phone’ to expand government power over the people.

          2. “would a wanna be autocrat be ‘dismantling the administrative state’ and rolling it back?”
            What, by terminating his appointees and accepting their resignations at a record pace?

    2. So HW, you write: “support Trump’s constitutional violations or turn a blind eye to them.”

      Sounds like you have a list of these violations, care to share what they are?

      1. Be patient and take the time to read.
        https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/trump-and-the-constitution-a-year-in-review-and-our-coverage
        https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/fresh-hell-trump-crime-familys-grifts-right-front-noses/
        https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion
        brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-final.pdf
        politico.com/f/?id=00000164-3da3-d8b4-aff7-fdef60c10001
        This is only a start. Your president is one corrupt, criminal, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, ethnocentric who repeatedly lies to you and cheats you. But being in denial, I am sure you won’t read these pieces, will criticize the sources, and generally bury your head in the sand.
        It’s time to wake up and see Trump for what he is, a wannabe autocrat, money laundering, tax cheat who should be in jail for life. Unless we apply the Libyan model.

        2. Hollywood,

          You might not be aware but this blog only permits two links per comment. I edited your comment to allow it to be visible.

          If you would like for the readers to view more than two links, this may be accomplished through the use of additional comments.

            1. We don’t have designated Editors, but I have the ability to edit \ approve comments

        3. Again, “if he did something illegal, he could have been tried and put in jail”.
          If you’re going to use that standard, use it consistently.

        4. Due to space constraints, I will address the Constitution Daily article:

          1. emoluments clause….the value of the Trump Organization has devalued since taking office which makes this argument bunk: http://time.com/money/5188095/donald-trump-net-worth-2018/
          2. exec order on immigration….hmm, the SC disagreed with this
          3. dismantling the administrative state….have we seen any departments eliminated? nope
          4. the Mueller investigation…so how is this a constitutional violation?
          5. 25th amendment…if he is unstable as you claim, he isn’t violating the constitution, that would be for others to decide
          6. abuse of pardon power….you’ve got to be kidding!
          7. use of twitter…you’ve got to be kidding even more

          so again, what are his constitutional violations? what charges could possibly be filed?

          please try again, thanks

          1. Mike Peterman,…
            There are so many links posted on some days that it would be a fulltime job to read them all.
            I read the JT columns and some of the comments, but I often skip the links.
            Additionally, in too many cases the links are wild goose chases in that the material in them does not advance the discussion; i.e., there’s nothing compelling in them that “makes a case”, or supports a position.

            1. You are correct but I always feel an affinity to challenge HW on his statements when in the mood.

          2. 1. Your emoluments argument proves too much. There’s no question Trump and his kids have profited from his being President. If I rob the bank and I then go bankrupt, it’s not because I didn’t get money from robbing the bank. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/fresh-hell-trump-crime-familys-grifts-right-front-noses/
            2. It was inevitable that this SC would approve some sort of immigration order, but it took 3 tries before he could get one that even this court could approve.
            3. Dismantling, are you kidding? We don’t even have an ambassador to South Korea. The State Dept. has been decimated and Trump/Tillerson/Pompeo have done nothing to fill the vacancies. Meanwhile Trump proposed merging the Department of Labor and the Education Dept.
            4. The Mueller Investigation is an attempt to address Trump & Co’s constitutional violations.
            5. This is just a legal issue raised for discussion. Ditto, your #7.
            6. Yes, the pardon power is being abused: Arpaio, Libby, and the clear message to Trump’s allies that he might pardon them if they refuse to cooperate with Mueller.
            Trump’s ongoing obstruction of justice is a constitutional violation and a charge that can be filed.
            https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-final.pdf

            1. HW, if the entirety of the organization has plummeted significantly, that clearly shows money has been lost, no matter if there’s a temporary personal gain here or there…that’s basic business….and no way the organization could have been liquidated to become President….so no violation

              the SC only ruled on the final effort….but the facts are still if he even used a total Muslim ban in the EO, it still would have been constitutional since that’s the power given by the Constitution….can’t be a violation when that power is granted

              I won’t dispute he’s attempting to dismantle some useless departments, but he hasn’t written any EOs, so attempting to go through Congress is the lawful way, again not a constitutional violation

              Being investigated is not a constitutional violation….and we are still waiting to hear what crime was committed that the investigation was even taking place….losing an election isn’t a crime

              if he is mentally disturbed and could be removed by the 25th amendment, he is not committing a constitutional violation….let me know when he starts brushing his teeth with shampoo or tints his hair purple

              his pardons have not been abusive….because even though you don’t like them, there has been plenty of support for ALL of his pardons….and again, its his constitutional right so can’t be a violation

              and you can claim obstruction of justice all you want, but he hasn’t shut down any investigation which again is in his constitutional power to do, there has been total cooperation from the entire Trump team members, so how can there be any obstruction?

              I get you can’t stand the guy, but there is ZERO proof of any constitutional violations….

                1. People who flood this site with links are likely to find that most ignore them.

              2. Mike,…
                – Are you completing your “reading assignments” with all of the links?😃😄

                1. I read one which wasn’t factual, just opinion. I did my work for the day. You can certainly say a lot of things about Pres. Trump, but since taking office, he hasn’t done anything remotely in violation of the constitution.

                  But dreamers gotta dream!!

            2. Hollywood,
              – This is actually a reply to your comment with the link to the PBS interview.
              For some reason, I could not reply in sequence.
              I saw it and read it after my last post.
              The soundbite from Trump includes his statement that rate of illegal immigration ” has had its ups and its downs”.
              I don’t think Trump has cited numbers when discussing border problems.
              And I don’t think there’s been a similar period where we had over 80% of the minors who were unaccompanied by a parent.
              I also don’t know what border patrol previously did in the instance where there was a surge of of illegal crossings from that particular category.
              If it was “catch and release”, immediately transporting them back over the border, they could repeat that cycle again and again.
              Those who made repeated tries would either give up, or keep trying until they slipped through.
              That “catch and release” policy is no longer in effect, and it looks like DOJ is going to treat illegal entry as a criminal offense, at least for those over a certain age.
              For the 10,000 of so minors detained, the authorities are holding them until they can determine who their parents are, where they are, verify that they are in fact the parents, and send them back to their parents.
              If their parents are already in the U.S. illegally, I think the entire family is likely to be sent back in most cases.
              So the issues/ problems associated with illegal crossings aren’t determined soley by the numbers of illegal entries.
              They aren’t going to be able to process these 10,000 minors overnight, and that seems to be the most complex problem, and the most difficult category of illegal alien to deal with.
              I don’t know what percentage of the current group of illegals from Central America are claiming refugee status, but the system that processes them seems to be overwhelmed in recent weeks.

              1. The system is overwhelmed because Trump and Sessions had no plan (much less personnel and facilities) in place to deal with their unconstitutional acts. Trump is not a detail oriented person, and Sessions is doing his best to limit immigration to white people.

                  1. A judge in San Diego granted a n injunction against some of their actions.
                    Then we will see how the suit filed by 17 states and DC evolves.

            3. The emoluments allegation against Trump is probably the least likely of any to get any traction.
              With the possible exception of taking a crapshoot based on The Logan Act.
              Richard Painter and CREW have been trying to pursue this since about the time Trump was inaugurated.
              I haven’t seen any recent developments, but every time I saw about the Painter/Crew emoluments project, they were getting shot down by the courts.
              If they do eventually find a willing judge to allow their case to go forward, they’re not likely to get very far.

      2. “Sounds like you have a list of these violations, care to share what they are?”

        Yes, they have quite the lengthy list of infractions for someone who’s only been in office for under two years. Let’s see the one’s from time in public office, please. Of course, dealing with a weaponized department of justice (name change, perhaps??), doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for shenanigans. Once again, the morally bankrupt lefties exchange tit for tat, and ignore the big debacles such as, well… Libya, fast and incompetent, etc. Maybe Holder liked watching reruns of “The Untouchables,” and had fantasies about sending out his guys in a ’36 Packard with tommy guns to preemptively knock off “the bad guys.”

        Of course, Trump could be creating his own baggage in Yemen-Somalia, but we will see. But, lefties, please don’t let that stop you in the meantime, keep digging up non-public realm crap to whine about, and we’ll keep poking at the former “adjunct in chief,” and his gangster secretary of state and attorney general.

  19. The award has a price: damage to the ABA’s credibility and debasement of the award if given to future recipients.

Comments are closed.