As we await the release of the Special Counsel report, there are some curious standards being suggested for the release of grand jury information. Various media organizations have featured experts insisting that Barr could release such information called Rule 6(e) information. That is news for me. I was counsel in one of the largest Rule 6(e) cases, the Rocky Flats Grand Jury case, years ago in Denver. Yet, the Nation has posted an explanation by Columbia University Law Professor Jeffrey Fagan that the rules for such disclosure are “elastic” and Barr could be “creative” in making releases. In my view, that is in direct contradiction with not just long-standing but recent precedent. There should not be just a wildly different account by legal experts on such a question so I would like to explain why such views are misplaced.Continue reading “Columbia Professor: Barr Can Release Grand Jury Information But Does Not Want To Do So”
Below is my column in USA Today on the Julian Assange arrest. We are still learning more about Assange’s confinement, including bizarre accounts of Assange’s conduct in the Ecaudorian Embassy in London. The key question will be the highly generalized allegation in the single count indictment from the Justice Department that Assange played an active role in the hacking. That would cross the Rubicon for journalists and make this an even more difficult case for those worried about free speech and the free press. Yet, the indictment is strikingly silent on details or an assertion that Assange actually used the password. We will likely learn more as the May hearing approaches for his extradition.
Here is the column:Continue reading ““He Is Our Property”: The D.C. Establishment Awaits Assange With A Glee And Grudge”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the rising attacks against Attorney General Bill Barr even before the redacted report has been released. Many in the media has notably omitted critical facts like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein helped write the summary and also concluded that there was not case for criminal obstruction to be made against President Trump. There may be grounds to criticize Barr for his redactions, but critics omit the fact that Robert Mueller’s office is assisting in those redactions. I have a long relationship with Barr and testified in favor of his confirmation. However, I will not hesitate to criticize his actions when it is warranted. For example, I do not approve of the Justice Department refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act — disregarding the function of the Department to defend duly passed laws. Yet, Barr’s conduct with regard to the report and thus far been open and consistent with what he said in this confirmation hearing.
Here is the column:Continue reading “The Trolling Of Bill Barr: How Politics Has Outstripped Meaning”
There is a controversy out of the University of Virginia where federal Judge Carlton Reeves gave a scathing speech against President Donald Trump — likening his conduct to that of the Kl Klux Klan and segregationists from the Jim Crow period. The speech (accepting an award) raising troubling issues about Reeves engaging in political speech in violation of core judicial ethical rules.Continue reading “Federal Judge Attacks Trump As Adopting The Same Rhetoric and Tactics As The KKK”
Below is my column in the Los Angeles Times on the calls by various Democrats to “pack” the Supreme Court to break the conservative majority. Like the FDR scheme, it is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason and in the wrong way. As a longtime advocate of expansion (here and here and here and here), the column advocates an alternative approach — not to pack but to unpack the Court. While my approach has been criticized by justices who oppose any expansion, it would address some of the most dysfunctional aspects of the Court.
Here is the column:Continue reading “Unpacking The Court: Democrats Seek Expansion For The Wrong Reason And In The Wrong Way”
I have the honor of speaking on a distinguished panel at the American Bar Association’s 33rd Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime in New Orleans. The panel is the final event for the conference entitled “Ethical Challenges Raised by the Conduct of Prosecutors, Defense Counsel, and Legal Commentators During High Profile Cases.” The panel will start on Friday from 9:45 – 11:45 at the Hilton Riverside.Continue reading “Turley To Speak At ABA Conference in New Orleans”
Comal County Judge Jack Robison has caused a considerable controversy in Texas after he told a jury to go back after it reached a guilty verdict in a sex trafficking case because God told him the defendant was innocent. There have been long debates over what a court can use as a matter of “judicial notice” but divine intervention is not one of them.Continue reading ““When God Tells Me I Gotta Do Something, I Gotta Do It”: Texas Judge Tells Jury To Reconsider Guilty Verdict After Divine Intervention”
Below is my column for the BBC on the controversy over President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration. Sixteen states, led by California’s Attorney General, are now suing. Others lawsuits have been filed on behalf of landowners and others. The lawsuits appear to challenge both the basis for an emergency declaration and the funding. I still expect Trump to prevail in the long-run if this goes to the Supreme Court. Ironically, House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff said this weekend that this controversy would be the “test” of his colleagues integrity and principles. Yet, Republicans could easily point out that Schiff never objected or took action when President Barack Obama circumvented Congress, including ordering the payment of potentially billions out of the Treasury after Congress refused to fund part of the Affordable Care Act. He was also silent when Obama not only refused to get authorization for the Libyan War but used undedicated funds to pay for it without an appropriation from Congress.
As this column discusses, there was at one time a much easier way to resolve the most bitter differences among political figures.Continue reading “Open Windows and Open Borders: A Lesson From The Founders On Conflict Resolution”
According to the Italian edition of The Local via LiveSicilia, workers on personal breaks have a protected right to watch pornography. The Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome said Fiat had no right to sack the worker, who enjoyed “just a glimpse of the film during a meal break.” The United States may inadvertently go even further in actually paying for employees to watch porn. This is one of the few industries that appears to be booming in the shutdown. There is a reported sharp increase in the watching of porn after federal workers were put on leave. Since these workers will eventually be paid for their missing time, we may outstrip Italy on the provocative issue.Continue reading “Italian Supreme Court Rules That Watching Porn At Work Is A Protected Right”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on a growing mythology building around the nomination of Bill Barr for Attorney General of the United States. One of the most prominent is that Barr was intentionally evasive about releasing any report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Members of both parties have overwhelmingly called for the release of the report. However, Democratic members pushed Barr to promise to release the entire report before he actually reads it.
Barr said repeatedly that he believed that not only the completion of the Special Counsel investigation but the release of the information was in the public interest. Barr was repeating the standard from the regulation, which is precisely what he should do. That standard says that the Attorney General has discretion to conclude that “these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.” What the Democratic senators were demanding would have been an unethical pledge to release a report without knowing its contents. Federal law prevents the disclosure of a myriad of different types of material from Grand jury (or Rule 6(e)) material to classified material to material covered in privacy or confidentiality laws as well as possible privileged material. After pushing him on whether he would act ethically, it was a curious request for a facially unethical and unprofessional pledge.
Here is what Barr said:
“I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work . . .For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political or other improper interests influence my decision.”
Here is the column:Continue reading “Five Myths About Bill Barr”
This morning I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearing for William Barr for United States Attorney General. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.Continue reading “TURLEY TESTIFIES IN BARR CONFIRMATION HEARING”
It is called In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 18-3071 and it just might be the first ruling on an issue in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled on the matter under seal involving a corporation presumably owned by a foreign government. The corporation lost in its bid to quash the subpoena under the protections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The D.C. Circuit imposed a daily fine, which was enjoined by Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday night. While not a ruling on the merit, it could be a historical moment as the first Mueller matter to make it to the Court.Read more
Below is my column in USA Today on the nomination of Bill Barr and why he is precisely the type of figure who can bring stability to the long embattled Justice Department.
Here is the column:Continue reading “William Barr Deserves To Be The United States Attorney General . . . Again”
Below is a column on the Flynn’s sentencing hearing and the curious turn of events in the case. He is now scheduled for a new sentencing hearing in March 2019. Interestingly, while I have repeatedly stated in print and television that Flynn does not deserve sympathy, I have been widely quoted as saying that I have called for such sympathy. My point is simply that there are serious concerns raised by how this interview was handled, including the intentional effort to have Flynn interviewed without counsel. Moreover, it is possible to denounce such false statements without exaggerating the specific crime itself. It is still unclear why Flynn lied when the conversation of such sanctions was not strange or improper. Indeed, the Administration publicly was saying that it wanted a new start with Russia and would reexamine all aspects of the relationship. The hearing however quickly went off the rails. I have a great deal of respect for Judge Emmet Sullivan and have appeared before him on countless occasions. But this hearing took a radical departure from the record and the specific crime being addressed in sentencing.Continue reading “The Curious Tale Of The Flynn Sentencing Hearing”
Below is my column in USA Today on the recent decision effectively striking down the Affordable Care Act. While Judge O’Connor technically ruled only on the individual mandate, he found that the unconstitutional provision could not be severed from the rest of the Act. Nevertheless, he will have to address the remaining issue and the question of the injunctive relief. There is a good chance that the severability ruling will be reversed but that could still leave the ruling on the individual mandate.
Here is the column:Continue reading “Health Care Jenga: The Future Of The ACA May Rest With Its Past”