Below is my column in USA Today on the legislation proposed to combat Russian trolling and Internet campaigns. There is a serious threat to free speech in these measures, which mirror efforts from (ironically) countries like Russia and China. The serious threat is not a handful of Russians playing on our deep divisions, but rather the hacking operations and attempt to interfere with voting systems.
Here is the column:
President Donald Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu meet today in the White House as a critical moment for both leaders. It is not just a common interest in Middle East peace that they have in common in this meeting. Both men now have key aides who have been cooperating witnesses for prosecutions investigating allegations of wrongdoing. While there is still not direct evidence implicating Trump, Netanyahu is facing a serious threat of indictment, particularly after his former key aides, Nir Hefetz and Shlomo Filber have agreed to testify against him. These witnesses are far closer to Netanyahu and are cooperating on criminal cases directly linked to Netanyahu — as opposed to the collateral crimes thus far addressed by the Special Counsel. One other difference is the respective Constitutional issues. As I discussed recently, Israel has long accepted that a Prime Minister can be indicted in office. I believe that the same is true for a president, but there is a long and good-faith debate over the question.
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”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
A recent case before the Washington Court of Appeals for Division I highlights what has as a direct result of an increasingly punitive legislation become a perilous trap for a homeless, mentally handicapped citizen–and by extension likely many more.
In February 1998, when he was 23 years old, Jayson Lee Boyd had sex with a 15 year old. On May 27, 1999, Boyd pleaded guilty to Rape of a Child in the Third degree. Boyd was sentenced on July 29, 1999. He has not committed a sex offense since his original conviction. Nevertheless, he is required to register as a sex offender under RCW 9A.44.130 and RCW 9A.44.140. Since his original conviction in 1999, Boyd has been convicted of failure to register as a sex offender three times, all in Skagit County.
Thus his station in life: Seemingly perpetual incarceration is his future.
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”
President Donald Trump is embroiled in another controversy this week after dismissing both gun rights and due process rights in a single sentence when he told a bipartisan group of members that the government should “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Trump also said that he was open to the possibility on a ban on certain assault rifles like the AR-15. The result was that the only people more up in arms than civil libertarians were gun rights advocates. Breitbart News ran a headline “Trump the Gun Grabber: Cedes Dems’ Wish List— Bump Stocks, Buying Age, ‘Assault Weapons,’ Background Checks . . . ”
Continue reading “Trump: “Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second””
We have previously discussed the unparalleled bravery of the women fighting discriminatory Islamic law requiring them to wear veils and limiting their freedoms due to their gender. This is particularly true of the women engaged in protests over compulsory headscarves in Iran. Now however the Islamic regime is cracking down and not just arresting women but charging them with “inciting prostitution.” It is the perfect sexist charge to go with deeply sexist legal system. A woman who asserts her most basic right to expression and religious choices is treated by the Islamic government as fostering prostitutes.
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”
The court order for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to share exculpatory evidence with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has raised intriguing questions about whether evidence might have been withheld from Flynn before his plea deal. As I stated on air, I do not believe that the issuance of this order by Judge Sullivan should be assumed as evidence of any second thoughts by Flynn. As I state in my column below in The Hill newspaper, I do not see a real option for Flynn in trying to undo his plea deal. However, the disclosure of the evidence could raise questions for Flynn.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Did Mueller Withhold Evidence From Michael Flynn?”
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!””
I have previously written about the endless calls for impeachment from Democratic members for everything from Trump criticizing NFL players to comments made about protesters to his reference to “shithole countries.” The Framers saw the great abuses caused not only by tyranny of nobility, but tyranny of the majority. They sought to insulate our government from the transient impulses of politics. The danger has been repeatedly shown by members who see virtually any act or comment by Donald Trump as a case for impeachment. It is a trend toward what I have called “the no-confidence impeachment” option and it is not only an abuse of our constitutional standard but a dangerous trend for this country. The latest grounds for impeachment was stated by former Breitbart spokesperson Kurt Bardella who was also spokesperson for Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Brian Bilbray and Senator Olympia Snowe. It appears that the failure to take additional actions or “accept” the fact of Russian interference is now grounds for impeachment and removal from office. His article appears in USA Today entitled President Trump’s Russia Denialism Is Grounds For Impeachment. (For full disclosure, I also write for USA Today).
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”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the scandals involving two women who have claimed affairs with President Donald Trump in prior years. There are real risks here for the White House which has been issuing categorical denials. Some of the greatest threats to a presidency come from the outer edges. That was the legacy of Bill Clinton whose adultery led to public dishonesty and ultimately perjury.
Continue reading “Does Trump Have an Edwards/Clinton Problem?”