Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the move by the House Intelligence Committee to release the four-page memo on alleged FBI abuse. The FBI has objected that “omissions” have made the memo “inaccurate.” However, that does not sound like a classification defense. Indeed, a long-standing objection is that the intelligence agencies classify material that is embarrassing or damaging to the agency politically. Since the memo reportedly deals with the use of the dossier for a FISA warrant, it would seem possible to draft a memo that did not compromise methods and sources. We will soon likely know, according to reports that President Donald Trump has reviewed the document and decided to release it. He is ultimately the final word on classification status in the Executive Branch.
Here is the column:
The plot thickened last night over the anticipated release of a four-page memo from the House Intelligence Committee. California Rep. 
According to Bloomberg, FBI Director Christopher 
President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address covered a wide array of domestic and international issues. At eighty minutes, it was long of the longest such speeches. Putting the policies aside, Trump’s delivery last night was one of his strongest. Indeed, while many have objected to the content, it was a much better delivery than his inauguration in my opinion. 
The early departure of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has led to a spasm of speculation and criticism ranging from Comey’s warning of the destruction of FBI knuckling under President Donald Trump to overwrought analogies to the 
At the Davos conference in Switzerland, President Donald Trump denied the New York Times account that he ordered the firing of Special Counsel in June but was prevented by doing so when White House Counsel Don McGahn threatened to resign. It is a highly disturbing allegation since such an act would have been catastrophic for the Trump Administration. Now however President Trump is denying the story — 
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the new California law that the state Attorney General is pledging to enforce against employers who are cooperating with federal immigration authorities. There are ample grounds for either businesses or the federal government or both to bring a legal action. The arguments of California in Arizona v. United States — and the holding in that case — could prove damaging to the position of the state.
Below is an expanded version of my column that ran in USA Today on the approaching expiration of the statute of limitations for prosecuting former National Intelligence Director 
I have 
Steve Bannon is now under subpoena by both House investigators and the Special Counsel after he refused to answer questions before Congress. Following a problematic pattern of current and former Administration figures, 
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the recent major indictment handed down in the Uranium One scandal. As I have stated in the media, the indictment does not alter my skepticism over the likelihood of any criminal charges against Clinton. However, it does reaffirm lingering questions over the many millions of dollars pocketed by the Clintons personally or given to their Foundation I think that there is little question about this money being given with the hopes of influencing the Clintons, and particularly Hillary Clinton. The only question is whether it succeeded. For that, we would need an independent and full investigation.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the controversy surrounding demand letters sent out by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — and the scope of the discovery sought by its lead Democratic counsel. The scope of discovery is always a difficult issue in litigation and lawyers resist efforts to limit the scope of evidence. However, reasonable limits are usually worked out between counsel but, in this case, the Senate counsel appears to have doubled down on a definition that is facially too broad. More importantly, it raises serious constitutional concerns. The definition reads too much like a street cry to “bring out your Russians.”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the filing by Paul Manafort challenging the scope of the Special Counsel investigation. Manafort’s filing of a civil action is quite telling in this circumstance. As a criminal defendant, he can challenge the basis for the charges. This seems like an effort to make a public case with little likelihood of legal success. However, the public tends not to be particularly sympathetic with accused felons complaining that they were arrested by the wrong cop. It is true that Manafort would likely not have been charged absent the Special Counsel investigation. However, that is like complaining about the weather in Washington.
I have