Saying that “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years”, former Attorney General Eric Holder said on national television that Trump will be charged with obstruction of justice. Holder does not indicate why he is so confident or the specific basis for an obstruction charge. I have previously stated that I do not see a credible obstruction charge on the available evidence.Continue reading “Holder: Mueller Is Going To Charge Trump With Obstruction”
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the question of whether a president can be indicted while in office. Many academics believe that there is an implied immunity from such indictments in Article II of the Constitution. I do not agree as explained in the column below. Once again, I have stated that I do not see compelling evidence of any prosecutable crimes against President Trump. However, if such evidence did arise and satisfied a grand jury, the Special Counsel could indict even before any impeachment.
Continue reading “Yes, A President Can Be Indicted While In Office”
The Supreme Court turned down the effort of the Trump Administration to circumvent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and hear the challenge over the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The decision not to grant review is clearly a victory for challengers of the Trump policy but it is also important not to read too much into the decision given the procedural posture of the appeal. Notably, on Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled in another immigration case and adopted the type of narrow interpretation sought by the Administration in the DACA litigation. In its decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and rejected the right to twice-a-year bond hearings. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr ruled that “[t]he meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear—and clearly contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals.”Continue reading “Supreme Court Declines To Hear DACA Appeal”
On Sunday,Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar joined the growing call for new regulation of Internet speech, including the imposition of fines on sites that fail to remove posters and comments of suspected “bots.” While the true impact of the Russian trolls and bots is being hotly debated (and I admit that I am skeptical), Democrats are calling for measures that worry many of us in the free speech community.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the Gates plea deal and what Special Counsel Robert Mueller could be hoping to achieve beyond sealing the fate of Paul Manafort. In guaranteeing the testimony of Manafort’s close associate, Mueller may have practically limited the options to a plea or a pardon for Manafort. For the moment, Manafort seems more likely to wait for the latter than the former. He chastised his former aide as lacking “the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence.” Perhaps, but Mueller clearly believes that whatever strength is lacking in Gates as a person will be made up as a witness facing 48-71 months in prison.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Gates Plea: Manafort’s Options May Now Run From Plea to Pardon To Prison”
Below is my column in USA Today looking at the array of threats still present for the Trump White House even if collusion fades as part of the Russian investigation. There still could be evidence discovered or disclosed on collusion. However, after multiple indictments, pleas, and a year of investigation, we have not yet seen any credible criminal allegations linked to collusion. As many on the blog know, I have long been skeptical about the real likelihood of a criminal case based on collusion or obstruction against President Donald Trump. However, even if collusion does recede as a threat, there remain significant areas of risk for the President.
You know you are on the outs with the President when he not only unleashes an army of citizen trolls on you, but demotes you from plural to singular. President Trump posted another controversial tweet this morning in asking why he is being investigated but not his predecessor or the Democrats. He tells supporters to Just “Ask Jeff Session.” Attorney General Sessions appears to still be the persona non grata and, if anything, diminishing by the day.
Continue reading “Singular Demotion: Trump Tells Citizens “Ask Jeff Session!””
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the implications of the Special Counsel indictment of 13 Russians and the express statements of the Special Counsel and the Deputy Attorney General that there is no evidence of any American knowingly working with these Russians. This indictment addresses the core of Russian hacking and misinformation campaigns by the Russian government. The admission of no evidence of collusion is notable and significant. As I mentioned in the column, that does not mean that the investigation will not go forward, including pursuit of any collusion between the Russian and the Trump campaign. However, after a year and multiple pleas, none of the indictments have established the alleged nexus between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
There still remain a number of potential threats for the White House from new collusion evidence to financial-related crimes to new allegations stemming from the alleged payoff of former lovers. However, while Rep. Adam Schiff is still insisting that there is ample evidence of collusion and obstruction, the core (and original) allegation against Trump has moved little in terms of real evidence (at least evidence made public). Moreover, the evidence of the Russian campaign shows that it began in 2014 before Trump ran for president. It seemed to target the presumed victor: Hillary Clinton. However, when Trump ran, it targeted Trump. Both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump rallies were ultimately organized by the Russians to spread division. It was a curious effort since the country was already quite divided and the Russian-led protests paled in comparison to the massive anti-Trump rallies like the Women’s March or the continual protests over Hillary Clinton. The most serious problem was not the trolling or the organizing but the hacking.
Continue reading “Russian Indictments Are Long On Chicanery and Short On Collusion”
I have been critical of the House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, particularly for their claims of highly sensitive material in the Nunes memo (which turned out to be facially devoid of such material). However, I believe that the Democrats (and some Republicans) are on solid ground in considering a contempt sanction against former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. Bannon has refused to answer questions on the grounds of executive privilege but the White House has not asserted executive privilege in prior hearings as far as we can tell. He simply says that he was told not to answer questions. After failing to appear before the Committee or to answer questions previously, Bannon was already looking at a serious possibility of contempt. He then showed up yesterday with a list of 25 questions that he was prepared to answer “yes” or “no.” Bannon spent 20 hours with the Special Counsel’s investigators but gave monosyllabic responses to a congressional oversight committee and then refused to answer material questions. That sounds a lot like contempt to me.
Continue reading “Bannon Moves Closer To Contempt In Defying The House Intelligence Committee”
Below is my column on the ongoing controversy over the majority and minority memos from the House Intelligence Committee. President Donald Trump has sent the Democratic memo — which is much longer and detailed — back to the Committee for revisions. He accused of the Democrats of intentionally loading up the memos with classified information to argue that the White House was withholding embarrassing information. This column below argues for disclosure of not just as much of these memos as possible but underlying material.
Continue reading “In The Case Of The FISA Memos, Transparency Is National Security”
Below is my column in USA Today on the increasing talk of treason by both Democrats and Trump in recent weeks. President Donald Trump has indicated that his comments about Democrats being traitors was only a joke. That is hardly compelling in a speech that also denounced the Democrats as “unAmerican.” Clearly, many in the audience do not take such comments as a joke. At the same time, many Democrats have been calling Trump or his family traitors in the actual rather than rhetorical sense. There is no basis on the existing evidence to charge Trump with treason. These comments are equally reckless and unfounded. The Framers sought to remove this charge from the political discourse by not just adopting a narrow definition but incorporating that definition into the Constitution.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent tweets from former Director James Comey attacking allegations that he (and others) abused the secret FISA surveillance system. It is an ironic twist for Comey who is now acting in the same fashion as Trump in commenting on pending investigations and compromising himself as a potential witness or even target in future investigations.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Twitter War: Comey Drops Pseudonym and Judgment In Social Media Attacks”
I have previously criticized the President for his use of Twitter to attack those conducting the Russian investigation and various critics. Many of these tweets are in my view clearly inappropriate and distinctly unhelpful to his legal team. Indeed, today the Hill posted a column where I criticize James Comey for adopting the same use of social media in lashing out at critics. Now, Trump is attacking Ranking Member Adam Schiff as a “liar and leaker.” I have recently criticized Schiff for his claims about the highly classified content of the recently released four-page memo. However, these attacks on social media — and name calling — only serve to undermine the President in this controversy. Presidents have long strived to maintain a dignified and deliberative position in addressing opposing allegations or critics. These attacks have not worked well for the President and fuel allegations that he is defensive and alarmed by these investigations. For those of us who have questioned the evidence of criminal conduct, the attacks are curious since they fit a narrative put forward by the President’s critics. I served as lead defense counsel in the impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous — the last impeachment trial heard by the Senate. My opposing lead counsel was Rep. Adam Schiff, who I found to be a remarkably competent prosecutor and able opponent.
Continue reading “Schiff “Must Be Stopped”: Trump Attacks Schiff As “Liar” and “Leaker””
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy over the four-page memo continues to simmer in Washington. The memo will not change the course of the Mueller investigation. It may lead however to new investigations. Indeed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has referred the matter to internal investigators while members have called for a new special counsel. There remains considerable questions over representations on both sides in the dispute. For example, various Democrats have publicly stated that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not say that, absent the dossier, the FBI would probably not have received approval of its FISA application. What is clear is that someone is lying to the American people. Indeed, as the column below discusses, the public was already misled on the classified content of the memo.
I will be discussing the memo today in a column in the Hill as well as in the segment with Tucker Carlson. I fail to see the “grave” classified information that would put the national security at risk. Indeed, my column addresses the disconnect between the objections made by the FBI and Democratic members and the actual memo. The use of classification laws to prevent disclosure of embarrassing information is itself an abuse of federal law and standards.
The Republicans may have undermined their case by building up this memo as a smoking gun document. Portrayals seems to make this memo the virtual combination of the Pentagon Papers and the Zimmerman telegram. After all of the build up, anything short of a depiction of Hillary Clinton forcing a judge to sign a secret warrant at gunpoint would disappoint most readers. However, there is plenty in this memo that should deeply concern people.
Civil libertarians have complained for years about the tactical use of classification authority by the federal agencies. This seems a rare and important example of that problem. As to the specific factual representations, they raise clearly troubling questions that need to be addressed on the failure to disclosure information to the FISA court and the alleged heavy reliance on this dossier.
Below is the full memo: