Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and various commentators have called for Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from any decision on the 2020 general election. There is no reason for such a recusal, which would be unprecedented in these circumstances. Moreover, it would establish a dangerous precedent of nominees securing their positions by promising results or positions if confirmed by the Senate. Continue reading “No, Barrett Should Not Recuse Herself From Any Election Challenge”
Last night’s NBC’s town hall in Miami with former Vice President Joe Biden was panned, to quote Politico’s Marc Caputo, as another “Biden Informercial” that protected the candidate from both tough questions and skeptical voters. There was not a single question on Biden refusing to answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court, a move supported by his running mate Kamala Harris and various top Democrats in this election. However, Biden did make one notable comment about the Court and nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He said that, if Barrett helped reverse Roe v. Wade, he would make “Roe the law of the land.” Continue reading “Biden Pledges To Make “Roe The Law Of The Land” If Overturned By The Supreme Court”
Alan Dershowitz just filed a whale of a lawsuit against CNN, though it could end up beached in short order under controlling case law. The Harvard Law professor emeritus is demanding $300,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from CNN for misrepresenting his legal arguments in the Trump impeachment trial. In fairness to Dershowitz, the coverage of the trial by CNN was dreadful with intentionally and consistently slanted coverage of the evidence, standards, and arguments. However, the objections raised by Dershowitz are likely to be treated as part of the peril for high-profile figures operating in the public domain. In other words, you can complain about the weather but you cannot sue the storm. Continue reading “Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action”
We have previously discussed courts in the United States seeking to punish lawyers for making critical comments about judges or legal commissions on social media. We have also followed such actions taken against lawyers in other countries like Saudi Arabia. As will come as no surprise on a blog emphasizing free speech, I have long been critical of such actions. However, India is facing a far more serious controversy after the Supreme Court demanded an apology from one of India’s most prominent lawyers for, among other things, blaming the Supreme Court for its role in undermining democracy in India. The justices proceeded to make his point by threatening him with jail unless he offered an unconditional and public apology. Continue reading “Prominent Indian Lawyer Accuses Supreme Court Of Destroying Democracies . . . Supreme Court Threatens Imprisonment”
There is an interesting ruling in the ongoing saga over Stormy Daniels and the Trump Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). A California court ordered President Donald Trump to pay $44,100 to Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, to cover her legal fees regarding her nondisclosure agreement. The amount is trivial but the symbolism could not be greater. The decision is based on the view that not only was Daniels the prevailing party in the dispute but that President Trump cannot claim that he was a non-party to the NDA or by extension the controversy. Continue reading “Court Orders President Trump To Pay Stormy Daniels’ Attorneys Fees”
Below is my column in the Hill on the announced criminal plea by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith and the continued calls by Democratic leaders to end the John Durham investigation. This week I discussed the call of Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for DOJ lawyers to refuse to help in the investigation despite his own conflict of interest. When the Clinesmith plea was announced, Weissmann proceeded to deride the charge and make spurious legal and factual claims about its basis. The Weissmann call for DOJ lawyers to hinder this investigation is unprofessional and unwarranted but hardly uncommon in this rage-filled environment.
I recently wrote a column discussing how Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden, have argued against continuing the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham despite growing evidence of misconduct by Justice Department officials and now the first guilty plea by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Now, Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has derided the Clinesmith plea while actually calling on Justice Department attorneys to refuse to help on ongoing investigations that could implicate aspects of his own prior work. [Update: I have include a longer quote from the column by the two authors and I have written another posting to address objections raised by Professor Goodman.]
In a murder that has shocked the nation, the son of federal judge Esther Salas was killed and her husband wounded in their home in North Brunswick, New Jersey. Daniel Anderl, 20, was a student at Catholic University with hopes to go to law school. His father is a criminal defense attorney. Such attacks on federal judges are thankfully rare and there is much speculation about high-profile cases that Judge Salas has handled or taken on recently, including a lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein and another past case involving “The Real Housewives of New Jersey” star Teresa Giudice. While the crime had the markings of premeditation and even professional elements, police are looking into a body found after the shooting as possibly linked. The apparent suicide in another town involved a lawyer who was being contacted reportedly about a connection to the gun recovered near the scene.
I recently received a letter contesting my statements concerning Attorney General Bill Barr in columns (here and here and here and here) and congressional testimony (here and here). The letter is from Ralph Nader, Lou Fisher, and Bruce Fein. I have known all three signatories for many years and I have the utmost respect for them. They offer detailed and thoughtful disagreements with my past statements and the record of Attorney General Bill Barr. I asked them if they would allow me to share their arguments with the blog and they have agreed to do so. As with the prior posting of Professor Morrison, I strongly encourage you to consider the analysis from three of the most influential minds in Washington.
These are figures who require little introduction. They are well known throughout the world for their contributions to the law and public policy. Ralph Nader is as legendary figure who has fought his entire life for consumer protection, environmental protection and good government. He has run for president repeatedly (indeed I voted for him) and is widely viewed as one of the most influential figures in the world on public policy. Lou Fisher spent four decades at the Congressional Research Service and is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in the shaping of congressional legislation and policies. He is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts on constitutional and congressional issues. Bruce Fein was a high ranking Justice Department figure in the Reagan Administration and has been one of the most influential conservative voices in print and television for decades. He is known for his independent and principled analysis of legal and constitutional issues.
As I stated in Attorney General Barr’s confirmation, he comes to this position with long-established and robust views of executive privilege and powers. While I have long disagreed with him on many of these issues, I view many of the current controversies to reflect policy and interpretative differences, not ethical or criminal or impeachable misconduct. I do not agree with presumptions made about his improper motivations or designs in carrying out his duties, for a second time, as Attorney General of the United States. Despite my many friends on the other side, my view has not changed. Nevertheless, people of good-faith can disagree and that is precisely what is offered by Messrs. Nader, Fisher, and Fein (sounds like a great law firm!)
Here is their letter for your consideration:
Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley has called upon Attorney General Bill Barr to launch a federal civil rights investigation of the St. Louis couple who wielded guns outside of their house during a protest in their gated community. I have previously written about the possible charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey and expressed my skepticism over the apparent effort of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner to find a criminal charge. However, Attorney General Barr should decline this request from Sen. Hawley. There is no civil rights violation in this investigation. Indeed, while I thought the charges could be defeated in trial or on appeal, I previously wrote that the vague criminal provisions could be used to bring a charge. The issue turns on how the guns were used. While I find the criminal provisions to be vague and the application in this case to be unwarranted, it is not a civil rights violation to advance such an interpretation of the law.
Many years ago, I had the pleasure of speaking at Tsinghua University, considered one of the best educational institutions in China. I was impressed as faculty at the university struggled to remain intellectually active under the repressive controls of the Communist regime. It is a perilous existence as academics fear that they will write anything that annoys the government. Now, one of the best known law professors in China, Xu Zhangrun, has been arrested. Xu predicted the crackdown after he recently wrote a piece criticizing the government’s response to the coronavirus. His colleagues have been forced into silence at the risk of their own arrest. The arrest comes at a time when many are concerned about the loss of free speech in this country, not by the government but private companies and universities. I have chastised faculty around the country for their silence in the face of the increasing intolerance for opposing views on campuses and actions against professors raising dissenting views of the current protests. Indeed, many have joined in the call for such punitive measures. Xu is an example of the courage that academics in places like China have shown in the face of imminent threats to their liberty and even their lives.
In a surprising move, Ghislaine Maxwell, the British heiress and confidante to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested in New Hampshire. Maxwell’s arrest could have a ripple effect on both criminal and civil matters ranging from the still uncertain status of Prince Andrew to a number of defamation lawsuits. One of Maxwell’s principal accuser was Virginia Roberts Giuffre who has filed lawsuits against Maxwell as well as figures like Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz. It appears that the charges derive from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, another indication that the recent controversy of the replacement of the U.S. Attorney has not impacted underlying investigations.
Two lawyers in St. Louis are in the middle of a firestorm after they were shown outside of their house with guns in a confrontation with protesters en route to the nearby house of Mayor Lyda Krewson. Mark and Patricia McCloskey are shown aiming their weapons at the protestors, including Mark McCloskey’s assault-style rifle. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has publicly declared that she is looking for criminal charges to bring against the two lawyers. That has led to many in the criminal defense field (including many who reached out to me) to speculate on what charges she might bring under these facts. While many have suggested that this would be a slam dunk prosecution or that the fact easily satisfy criminal definitions, it may be easier to get a charge than a sustainable conviction.
This afternoon, I am testifying on the hearing on the controversy surrounding the clearing of Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020. I was called to appear to address the underlying legal and constitutional standards governing such mass demonstrations. For roughly 14 years, I was one of the lead counsels in the World Bank litigation that helped establish guidelines and case law governing such operations. I have been critical of the force used to clear the park as well as the attack on a team of Australian journalists covered the protests.
The operation to clear the Park began two days before with the plan to install fencing. By Monday, a small barrier was in place around the park itself and the clearing operation was to push back the crowd to a perimeter to allow the higher fencing to be installed beyond the range of debris or objects. The crowd was pushed back to I St. from H St. by the line of officers. (The hearing title and the testimony refers to the “Lafayette Park” or “Lafayette Square Park” generally. In fact, the immediate park was closed off and we are discussing the operation to clear the area for the installation of the higher fence).
As I state in the testimony, I believe the order to clear the area would be found lawful. It is the level of force (and a charging of the line of officers) that is likely to be the focus of any court. I still do not see the need for this level of force in the use of batons and pepper spray.
I have attached my testimony below.
The hearing went until after 2 pm.