A GW law student, Andrew Miller, 23, is being celebrated as a hero this week after he came to the aid of John Rowley, 62. Rowley was attacked by a group of teens in a D.C. Metro station and Miller ran to his aid. Miller suffered a concussion in the incident while Rowley was left with facial swelling and bruises.
Continue reading “GW Student Heralded As Hero After Intervening In Assault Of Lawyer”
The New York Times is reporting (and the White House has reportedly confirmed) that President Donald Trump made some truly disturbing comments in his controversial meeting with the Russians. Not only did Trump call former FBI Director James Comey “a real nut job” but told the Russians that the firing has taken pressure off of him in terms of Russia. The leaked summary will fuel the allegations that Trump fired Comey to try to shutdown the Russian investigation to relieve pressure on himself. While I have discussed my skepticism over the evidence of an actual crime by the President, Trump appears committed to leaving the greatest incriminating impression possible in such meeting.
Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the chorus of commentators suggesting that the Comey memo is compelling evidence for either a charge of obstruction of justice or an actual impeachment. I have been cautioning against such sweeping assumptions. Obstruction is a crime and crimes have elements. The elements are not satisfied by this memorandum. Yesterday senators revealed that Rod Rosenstein suggested that he was already informed that Comey would be fired before he wrote his memorandum supporting termination. That would not materially alter the legal analysis. Rosenstein’s memo confirms that he believed that Comey should be fired. He had met with Comey and clearly left with reservations over his continued fitness for the position. The fact that Trump may have made what Rosenstein thought was the right decision for the wrong reason is marginally relevant. Comey’s immediate boss was not supporting his retention. Moreover, Trump’s conflicting statements do not improve the case for prosecution. It it true that Trump has contradicted his staff and seemingly himself. Yet, Trump has insisted that he felt Comey was doing a poor job and yesterday he reaffirmed his position that he never asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. However, even if he said such an incredibly inappropriate thing, it would not meet the standards of obstruction for the purposes of a criminal charge in my view. In other words, this is a question of law not fact and the law is not on the side of those calling for criminal counts or articles of impeachment.
Critics increasingly sound like my kids when we drive across country and start to chant “are we there yet?” before we are even a block from the house. Many view a criminal charge or impeachment as the only hope for America. However, neither the criminal code nor Article II were meant as post hoc political options for unpopular presidents. Indeed, both are designed to be insulated from public distempers and passions.
None of this means that this is not a valid basis for investigation. It is. Moreover, the White House staff appears encircled like a wagon train on the Plains with no ammunition and no nearby fort. The difference is that they seem encircled by their own president who continued to prevent any movement to better ground. What is fascinating is that Trump appears intent on creating the most self-incriminating appearance without evidence of an actual crime on his part.
Here is the column:
In what may be the most curious police APB, detectives in Leeds are looking for the witness to an assault. The only description however is that the man was dressed as a giant penis.
Continue reading “Cock of the Walk: English Police Seek Witness Dressed As Large . . .”
British murderer Ian Brady was nothing if not consistent. He lived his life as a heartless monster and he died that way. Brady with his accomplice Myra Hindley were convicted of a series of murders of children around Manchester, England. All of the bodies of their victims were found but one: Keith Bennett (left), 12. As Brady laid on his death bed, officials begged him to bring closure to the family and reveal the location of Keith. He refused and died with the secret. He died this week an unrepentant and repulsive man.
There has been comparatively little coverage of an allegation voiced by Sen. Rand Paul that another Senator confided in him that he was also subjected to surveillance under the Obama Administration. Paul previously voiced his belief that he may have been the subject of surveillance and asked the intelligence committee for confirmation of any such evidence. The surveillance of members of the Senate would raise extremely serious questions on the abuse of surveillance authority and threat to the independence of Congress. If this is untrue, I would have expected a reassuring denial to be issued. Even if the Senators were not the target of surveillance, it would be highly troubling if the government monitored conversations with members of Congress.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the Comey termination and comparisons to the Nixon presidency. Those analogies deepened this weekend after the President repeated that he thinks that they should just get rid of the daily press briefings that have been such a central part of White House operations for decades. What is most striking is how, again, the White House has engineered its own undoing. Many people had called for Comey to be fired, particularly Democrats. However, the timing and manner of the termination has created yet another scandal for the Administration. Only 27 percent of citizens support the decision according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The growing credibility crisis has made the appointment of a Special Prosecutor (or even the resurrection of the Independent Counsel Act) a priority for many. While I have been a dissenting voice regarding the need for a Special Prosecutor, the Comey debacle has changed my view. The public deserves an independent investigation into these allegations and related issues. Perhaps people will be satisfied with the FBI investigation under a new director, but the last week has been so damaging to public confidence that the need for an independent investigation is obvious. Having said that, I am still unsure of the major crime being investigated under the facts that are currently known. For the moment, this Administration appears intent of self-incriminating actions in the absence of an actual crime.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Trump’s Inner Nixon: Is It Possible To Have a Cover Up Without An Actual Crime?”
There is an extremely disturbing videotape below of an elderly woman in Florida being abused and assaulted at a pool as teenagers cheered and jeered. At one point, Leon Balfour Jr., 16, picks up Nancy James, 68, and throws her to the ground. He then picks her up and tosses her into the pool. It is a level of unprovoked and spontaneous violence that is truly shocking. The question is how to deal with a teenager with his level of rage.
Just when you thought you had heard of everything . . . In Saginaw, Michigan Jordan Haskins, 26, has been sentenced to five years probation and sex offender treatment for “cranking” — a sexual fetish where men engage in rough pedal pumping, a type of foot fetishism characterized by an interest in looking at feet pumping the pedals.
Continue reading “Michigan Man Sentenced In Cranking Fetish Case”
White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders assured the media yesterday that there was nothing inappropriate with President Donald Trump asking former FBI Director James Comey if he was a target of the ongoing investigation over Russian influence or collusion in the presidential election. She insisted that the White House had reached out to legal experts and “several legal scholars who have weighed in on it and said there’s nothing wrong with it.” She also said that “many legal scholars and others that have been commenting on it for the last hour.” While I cannot speak for all legal scholars, I find it surprising that the White House could find “several” who would sign off on such an inquiry. It was clearly improper for Trump to ask the question and it would have been equally improper for Comey to answer in this fashion.
To make matters worse, Sanders said that, by removing Comey, the White House hoped to bring the investigation to a sooner conclusion. In her defense, I took her comment as meaning that the White House has nothing to fear from the investigation and wants it to come to a conclusion: “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity. And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.” However, it was another uniquely ham-handed treatment of the controversy from a White House that continues to struggle with maintaining a single coherent message. The overwhelming thrust of the coverage of the Comey termination was that it was meant to bring an end to the Russian investigation. To connect the firing of Comey with the hope for a faster conclusion to the investigation is incredibly daft.
The testimony of Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on Thursday grabbed headlines in his direct contradiction of the White House claim that former FBI Director James Comey has lost the support of career agents. McCabe made clear that the rank and file were (and remain) entirely supportive of Comey. However, I thought the most interesting aspect of the hearing was a brief discussion of the 2016 decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. McCabe, who is viewed by many Republicans as having problematic links to the Clinton camp (through his wife who ran for office with their financial support), said that the failure to indict Clinton produced “vocal” opposition from the agents investigating her conduct.
Below is my USA Today column on the testimony of Sally Yates, former acting Attorney General, on her unprecedented order to the Justice Department not to assist President Donald Trump in the defense of his immigration executive order. While the hearing was focused on her warning with regard to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, some of us were more interested in how she would respond to criticism over the order that led to her being fired. Both Democratic and Republican lawyers have raised serious ethical misgivings over her decision. The hearing however only magnified the questions over the basis for her actions. Here is the column.
President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey this evening in a surprise move. Various politicians and the media have openly referred to the act as “Nixonian” and “another Saturday Night Massacre.” I have previously stated how the Saturday Day Massacre has been misrepresented. I also do not agree with Jeff Toobin on CNN tonight that the decision was clearly due to the fact that Comey’s investigation was getting “too close” to President Trump. I do not see how one can reach that conclusion after months of criticism over Comey’s past conduct, including widespread anger from Democrats over his public statements on Hillary Clinton. I agree that the timing is concerning and legitimately questioned. However, the Administration may also have waited for the Deputy Attorney General to be confirmed to allow a career prosecutor to review the matter and to concur with the decision. Democrats denounced Comey over his actions regarding the Clinton Administration. The matter was given to the Deputy Attorney General who was just confirmed recently.
Houston Judge Hilary Green is the subject of an extraordinary report from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Texas Supreme Court was given a detailed account that alleges that the justice of the peace used illegal drugs like ecstasy and marijuana as well as abused the cough syrup Tussionex. Some of the marijuana had been confiscated by the court bailiff. It also alleged that she engaged in extramarital affairs and hired prostitutes. She is also accused of sexting a court employee. Finally, she is accused of ruling in favor of a convicted conman despite her personal relationship with the defendant. There is an interesting technicality being claimed by Green to bar consideration of much of her misconduct.
For many voters, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee , is the embodiment of much that is wrong with the Democratic establishment. She was accused of working to rig the primaries for Hillary Clinton and repeatedly lying to the public. Given that history, one would think that Wasserman Schultz would avoid any questions that remotely deal with ethics or honesty or influence peddling. However, that is not how Washington works. Wasserman Schultz’s supporters enthusiastically re-elected her and most folks in Washington view voters as having the attention span of a Golden Retriever. Thus, Wasserman Schultz was trotted out on CNN to assure the public that President Obama receiving obscene amounts of money from Wall Street interests is none of their business.