Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the latest rationale for opposing any nominee of President Donald Trump: that any nomination or confirmation must wait until the completion of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It is a claim being voiced by both politicians and academics despite the absence of constitutional or historical support.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent reports of how Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was angry over his treatment by the Trump White House and wants Mueller to “vindicate” him. I have said for over a year that Rosenstein should recuse himself if Mueller is seriously investigating the firing of former FBI Director James Comey as an act of obstruction or some other crime. These reports magnify, in my view, those conflict concerns.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Summer Shakespeare: Rosenstein Plays Hamlet On The Potomac”
There was a curious shift that occurred in the 24 hours leading up to the decision of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. News organizations repeatedly emphasized that the travel ban under consideration was, in the words of CNN, “very different” from the one first issued by the Trump Administration and the current order was much narrower. It is certainly true that the current travel ban has a slightly different array of countries and a much enhanced record. Moreover, I was a critic of the poorly drafted and poorly executed original ban. However, it is not true that those differences carried the day with the Court. The two threshold issues remained that same and, until the loss yesterday, challengers maintained that the legal issues had not materially changed.
Continue reading “The Supreme Spin: How The Travel Ban Victory Became A Victory For Critics”
The irresponsibility of our leaders has now given the country a fiscal terminal date: 2028. That is the date that the Congressional Budget Office now calculates as the point where our debt will virtually equal the value of our gross domestic policy. As countries like Greece have gone into a free fall with such reckless spending, both parties have put the United States on the same course for economic meltdown as politicians continue to avoid tough questions with higher spending — including yielding to the Trump Administration’s demand to left balanced budget limits.
Washington Examiner reporter Kelly Cohen’s reaction in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was exactly what many expected from the blockbuster report on the investigation of the FBI. The problem is that Cohen was actually responding to something most DC citizens consider far, far more serious: the stepping down of the Washington Capitals head coach Barry Trotz. Continue reading “Reporter’s Reaction In Senate IG Hearing Captures The Public Shock At The Disclosure Of . . .”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on Giuliani’s statement that the President may “clean up” the entire Mueller investigation with a slew of pardons at the end. After causing an outcry, Giuliani later said that the President would not pardon anyone under investigation. That led to utter confusion, again, about what Giuliani is saying and whether the original statement remains valid for pardons after the investigation.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Pardon Power Is Not A ShamWow For Presidential Scandals”
Below is my column on the implications of the IG report for the obstruction allegations being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I have previously written how the most likely explanation for actions taken by this Administration will be found in Ockham’s Razor and that theory that requires the least number of assumptions. The IG report is an example of following such logic rather than assumptions.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Why The IG Report Undermines Mueller’s Obstruction Investigation”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the recent Senate hearing (in which I testified) on the proposed new AUMF legislation. In the last couple days, an open battle erupted between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., South Carolina) and Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) after Graham called for the addition of North Korea among the ever changing list of countries. Paul called him “a danger to the country.”
Here is the column: Continue reading “Congress Is Again AWOL On War Powers”
It appears that things got ugly in a recent meeting between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and House oversight staff. Rosenstein reportedly threatened to “subpoena” House committee members if they went after him with a contempt sanction for failing to turn over material on the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials. If the account is true, it was a mistake by Rosenstein. To quote The Godfather, oversight is not personal, its oversight business. Continue reading “It’s Not Personal, Mr. Rosenstein, Its Strictly Government Business”
I will be testifying today in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management. The hearing is entitled “War Powers and the Effects of Unauthorized Military Engagements on Federal Spending” and will address the new proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) proposed by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA). As my testimony below discusses, the new legislation would represent an unprecedented change in the law governing war powers. The new AUMF amounts to a statutory revision of one of the most defining elements of the United States Constitution. Putting aside the constitutionality of such a change absent a formal amendment, the proposed legislation completes a long history of this body abdicating its core responsibilities over the declaration of war. Continue reading “Turley To Testify On War Powers In Senate Today”
Emmet Flood, the latest lawyer added to the White House as part of its defense to the Russian investigation, was meant to bring experience and order to the chaotic legal team around President Donald Trump. However, his first public move can only be described as a blunder of the first order. Flood went to yesterday’s much discussed briefing to speak with members of Congress. Two highly classified briefings were scheduled to discuss the use of informants by the FBI in its investigation of Trump campaign associates. It was precisely the type of thoughtless act that has baffled many of us for months. Little would be achieved by Flood briefly addressing the members but, in appearing, Flood undermined the integrity and stated purpose of the meeting. He created the impression that the briefing was first and foremost about the defense of the President personally. In doing so, he undermined the entire exercise with virtually nothing to gain from his attending the meeting. None of this was criminal or unethical. The concern is that it shows a continued failure to mind critical lines of separation as well as a dumbfounding lack of judgment.
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the statement by lead Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had assured the Trump team that he would not seek an indictment against Trump while in office. As I have previously written, I do not agree with those who maintain that a sitting president cannot be indicted. However, what is most striking is how many assume that it is better for the President to face an impeachment (which is part of a political process) than an indictment. For a criminal defense standpoint, the opposite may be true. Indeed, the best possible scenario for Mueller would be to have an impeachment before an indictment. None of this means that there is a strong case for either impeachment or indictment, but the sequencing laid out by Giuliani is no favor to Trump.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Mueller’s Promise Not To Indict Trump In Office Is No Favor”
CIA nominee Gina Haspel reportedly sought to withdraw her nomination last Friday but was convinced to continue by the White House. I have previously written extensively on my views the torture program implemented under the Bush Administration and why it was a clear violation of international laws and treaties. As I wrote recently, CIA nominee Gina Haspel has featured greatly in that torture program. Nevertheless, various Democrats continues to express a willingness to consider making her the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the meantime, Sarah Sanders has echoed the talking point that Senators will be hypocrites if they do not vote for the first woman to be nominated for this post. The problem is that she is also the first person nominated with an admitted history of torture, even though she continues to mislabel the programs as “enhanced interrogation.”
Former FBI Director James Comey continues to market his book – and himself – as a lesson in “ethical leadership.” However, the historical record is proving increasingly at odds with Comey’s account and image. After months of spins and swerves by defenders, a consensus is emerging that Comey is indeed a leaker. The most damaging evidence, however, comes not from Comey’s critics but Comey himself. Indeed, Comey v. Comey could be the most telling conflict in this still unfolding scandal. However, at issue, is not simply whether Comey will be viewed as a leaker or a liar, but a perjurer.