The build up last night on MSNBC had my phone ringing off the hook. Rachel Maddow proclaimed “we’ve got the Trump returns.” It turned out to be just the 2005 filing. Well, not the 2005 filing, the first two pages. Worse yet, it turned out to be an entirely predictable tax return for a wealthy businessman with tons of deductibles. It seemed like the tax version of Al Capone’s safe with Geraldo Rivera. What was particularly odd is that MSNBC was “all in” — even after seeing that there was little there. Maddow led with a long list of things we want to know from Trump’s tax return. But none of those things were in the return. They lined up experts who seemed a lot like the “weather center” reporters the night before covering the major snow storm in D.C. Reporters literally showed a dusting on cars in parking lots and spoke breathlessly about the possible storm that never came. The tax experts were left in the same curious position — discussing what might have been shown. As a legal commentator, I bowed out. It was like being called as a seismologists to discuss an earthquake that never happened. It is certainly true that Trump and Melania paid is a rate of less than 4 percent on their personal income — $5.3 million. However, they paid an additional $31 million under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. They used every loophole and tactic to reduce payments but those loopholes were legal and used by many in his tax bracket.
Having said that, the White House and others went too far in raising allegations of criminal conduct by Maddow and MSNBC in reporting on the story. There was also a return to the mantra of the “dishonest media.” There was nothing dishonest in publishing the return. It was clearly overplayed but it was not dishonest to cover the leak.
We have often discussed the difficult challenge in dealing recidivists for DUI and other non-violent offenses. Margaret Johnson, however, is virtually in a category onto herself. The 40-year-old English woman has been arrested 153 times and is called the “Pickpocket Queen of Birmingham.”
Zachary Gross, 31, may be the least repentant criminals to face a judge at sentencing. The Kentucky man 
There was a news story this week about a Hawaiian Airlines flight that was diverted to Los Angeles because of an unruly passenger. Frankly, the most important aspect of the story was not the diversion but the reason: 
I have been a long critic of Germany’s criminal speech laws, including its long criminalization of Nazi symbols. Now, Sven Pohl, 37, is 
While most Democratic senators have been somewhat circumspect in characterizing the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “inaccurate” or “misleading,” Minnesota Sen. Al Franken yesterday publicly accused Franken of perjury. It is a weighty charge that I have previously said would be highly difficult to actually prosecute.
Pakistani media is reporting a disturbing series of comments by Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui who has shown the danger of Sharia law and the erosion of the separation of mosque and state. Justice Siddiqui went on a 
With the chorus of calls for an “independent counsel” or “special prosecutor” to investigate the Russian hacking scandal, there has been one element that remains rather ambiguous: what is the specific crime to be investigated? Clearly there is the hacking but that crime is well-known and was committed by Russians who are unlikely to be subject to any real investigation. A special counsel, as opposed to a bipartisan commission, would require the articulation of a crime and the basis for the investigation. I am all in favor of independent investigations of this and other issues. However, if we are going to move beyond a special commission to special counsel we need to have more evidence and a notion of what we are investigating. That may come but we are not there yet. Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the subject — and the moral outrage over hacking.
We
There is a story out of Canada that could make for a fascinating torts case. 