We have yet another example of the perils facing academics in some Muslim countries with a death sentence handed down by a Pakistani court against Professor Junaid Hafeez, 33, because he allegedly posted derogatory remarks against Mohammed on social media. Many of our closest allies routinely flog or kill those who simply question religious dogma.
Continue reading “Pakistani Professor Sentenced To Death For Blasphemy”
In the House Judiciary Committee, I had some fundamental disagreements with my friend Professor Noah Feldman on issues ranging from the basis for impeachment on the basis of specific crimes (bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice) as well as his claim that the legal definition of these crimes are immaterial to their use in impeachment. Ultimately, the Judiciary Committee dropped those four theories and went forward with the two articles that I testified would be legitimate, if proven: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Now, however, we have another disagreement. Feldman has written in Bloomberg News that Trump is not actually impeached until the articles of impeachment are transferred to the Senate. I disagree and believe that Feldman is conflating provisions concerning removal with those for impeachment. Frankly, I am mystified by the claim since I see no credible basis for maintaining this view under either the text or the history of the Constitution.
Continue reading “Trump Stands Impeached: A Response To Noah Feldman”
Both Democratic members and various media outfits have continued to castigate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Lindsey Graham for saying that they will not pretend to be unbiased as jurors. I have been critical of such statements treating the Senate trial as simply a political exercise. However, I am concerned over the striking lack of media coverage of Democratic members who continue to signal that they also have made up their minds on the verdict before an actual trial has even begun. I recently discussed the statement of Senator Chris Coons on the dangers of failing to convict and remove Trump. The latest such examples were evident last night at the Democratic debates where Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar pronounced the guilt of Donald Trump before any trial. None of those comments yielded the shock and disgust over their failure to reserve their judgment. Klobuchar declared that the impeachment was nothing less than “global Watergate.”
Continue reading “Democratic Senators Line Up in Declarations Of Guilt Before The Senate Impeachment Trial”
We recently discussed how Hunter Biden was proven to be the father of child that he longed denied and has never supported. Now Lunden Roberts has been forced to seek a court order to force Biden to reveal his finances, a basic requirement in the establishment of child support. The motion submitted to the court reveals that Biden has yet to supply any support for his child and has refused information on his wealth.
Continue reading “Hunter Biden Faces Possible Court Order To Disclose His Finances In Paternity Action”
Yes, that is the question that the Riverside police are asking after circulating a caricature picture of a man who stole an artist’s money but left behind his picture.
Continue reading “Have You Seen This Man?”
I have long been critical of the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (See, e.g., here and here and here). Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major 2-1 ruling striking down the mandate as unconstitutional. The litigation however will continue over the viability of the rest of the Act without the individual. As discussed in an earlier column, pulling out the individual mandate creates a Jenga-like dilemma for the courts.
Continue reading “Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Obamacare’s Individual Mandate”
I have previously criticized President Donald Trump for his attacks on the media and references to “tough” measures in dealing with protesters or immigrants. Yesterday, President Trump made a disturbing comment to the visiting Guatemalan President about House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Trump stated that Guatemala would know how to get “tougher” with Schiff over his controversial speech where he pretended to read from an exchange between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart — a mocking speech that made up incriminating lines. The remark suggested that Trump would prefer a system where legislators and critics could be arrested for such political commentary. No president should express a preference for such abusive legal measures. Trump’s own State Department has documented abuses in the Guatemalan legal system, including mistreatment of political opponents.
Continue reading “Guatemalan Justice For Schiff? Trump Draws Fire Over Wanting A “Tougher” Judicial System”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the striking similarities between the Johnson and Trump impeachments — a comparison that should be unsettling for most voters as history repeats itself with a vengeance.
Here is the column:
Continue reading ““Let Them Impeach And Be Damned”: History Repeats Itself With A Vengeance As The House Impeaches Donald Trump”
I previously wrote about what I viewed as a dangerous trend among New York Democratic politicians pledging to charge former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort under state law to negate any benefit from a federal pardon by President Donald Trump. Democrats rallied supporters to the dubious cause of watering down the state protections against double jeopardy. It was the ultimate example of the mania surrounding Trump where citizens would take an axe to their own constitutional protections to get at Trump and his associates. The highly dubious effort was led by New York state attorney general Letitia James and, thankfully, it has failed. The New York courts are not nearly as dismissive of individual rights. The state charges were thrown out today on the basis of double jeopardy. The question is now whether this will be a prelude to a presidential pardon.
Continue reading “New York Court Dismisses State Charges Against Manafort”
President Donald Trump lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats yesterday on the eve of today’s impeachment vote. The letter, which can be read here, unleashed invective and angry responses to the expected impeachment. While the President quotes me in the letter, most of the letter has the signature style of the President and immediately drew objections over its tenor and assertions. Pelosi called the letter “ridiculous” and “sick.”
The President declares “It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.”
This letter will certainly prove indelible.
Continue reading “An “Indelible Record”: President Sends Incendiary Letter To The House Speaker On Eve Of His Impeachment”
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., has made sensational statements into a signature style over the last couple years. However, this week Swalwell appears to be contesting the touchstone of due process: the presumption of innocence. On Tuesday, Swalwell declared that, President Donald Trump refuses to give Congress the documents and witnesses that it has demanded, he is clearly guilty of all charged offenses. Swalwell declared “We can only conclude that you’re guilty.” Trump has gone to the courts to challenge the demands under presidential immunities and privileges.
Continue reading “Swalwell: Failing To Turn Over Documents Is Proof Of Guilt”
I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg has repeatedly crossed the line of traditional public speaking in discussing political controversies, pending issues before the Court, and even criticizing the President. Despite repeated controversies in speaking publicly on political issues, Ginsburg remains undeterred. Earlier this year, Ginsburg again repeated her view that sexist voters prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected president — a repeat of controversial comments in her 2017 speech. This week, Ginsburg commented on the merits of President Donald Trump’s call for a review of the Supreme Court and even criticized senators who have made public statements about the impeachment.
Indeed, the most ironic part of her commentary was Ginsburg noting how inappropriate it is for senators to be discussing their views of the merits before any actual impeachment. She insisted “if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.” That raises a rather uncomfortable question as to what Ginsburg was doing in that very interview.
Continue reading ““A Judge Would Be Disqualified”: Justice Ginsburg Again Wades Into Political Controversies In Interview”
Various commentators, including Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, have expressed disbelief with the statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea of the extensive FISA abuse found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. I share that view. Schiff’s predecessor at the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, raised many of these abuses which were adamantly denied by Schiff for months. The media for its part virtually mocked such claims as conspiracy theories and false news. Now the media and Schiff is claiming total surprise by the findings (if they acknowledge them at all). The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.
Continue reading “Schiff Under Fire For Denying Any Knowledge Of FBI Abuses”
It is bad enough when a judge refuses to let out your client from a plea deal but it is worse when he then suggests that his lawyer is a plagiarist to boot. That however is what former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and his counsel, Sidney Powell, faced in the 92 page order of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. Flynn has been trying to get out of his plea bargain in light of new information of improper conduct by the FBI in its Russia investigation as well as exculpatory information regarding his guilt. Many of us have criticized the prosecution of Flynn who pleaded guilty to a single false statement in interviews with the FBI. In addition, Flynn may not want to be sentenced by Sullivan whose last major hearing included false allegations against Flynn and dramatic condemnations. One can certainly understand Sullivan’s refusal to let Flynn get out of a plea that he willingly entered. However, the opinion contained an attack on his counsel that seemed gratuitous and unsupported.
Continue reading “Flynn Judge Accuses Defense Counsel In Curious Plagiarism Claim”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on what the recent Horowitz report says about the treatment of former Trump adviser Carter Page. While the media has been quick to call developments as “vindication” for figures like Comey, it is largely silent on the poor treatment shown Page and the lack of evidence against him (and supporting the Russian investigation as a whole). Page has emerged as the Richard Jewell of the Russian investigation.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “An Apology To Carter Page”