President Donald Trump lashed out at James Comey on the weekend and called him “cowardly.” It was the latest impolitic tweet and it does not appear to be working well for Trump. A new poll shows that the public overwhelmingly believe Comey over Trump by a twenty percent margin. In a truly sad state of affairs if accurate, only 26 percent on the You.Gov/Huff Post poll believes the President. For the moment, Trump may view Comey as “cowardly” but the public views him credible. The poll tracks another poll by Gallup showing the President’s popularity at 38 percent — though, as I mentioned earlier, Trump has been slightly ahead of Bill Clinton at this point in this presidency.
Continue reading “Trump Calls Comey “Cowardly” As Polls Show Public Believes Comey”
Category: Lawyering
Below is my column in USA Today on the current status of the evidence against President Donald Trump for either indictment or impeachment. While I do not agree with the White House that former FBI Director James Comey
“completely vindicated” the President, I do not believe that the testimony materially altered the legal position of the President. I believe that Comey both helped and hurt himself. He did an excellent job in explaining why he only discussed the content of the memos with his staff, but he also admitted to being a leaker and showed repeated failures in ethical confrontations with superiors. There is reportedly a call for Comey to return. He may find the return appearance more challenging than the first.
Continue reading “Comey Testimony Proves To Be Neither Vindicating Nor Incriminating For Trump”
One of the strangest aspects of the troubled start to the Trump Administration has been the role played by Trump’s own words in tweets and interviews. In both litigation and political settings, Trump’s own words have become the greatest liability for the Administration — undercutting allies and unraveling defenses. In the immigration order litigation, his controversial campaign statements have been repeatedly used as the determinative factor against his Administration in both the first and second rounds of litigation. His statements to the Russians and then his rather odd denial in Israel threw his Administration into downward spirals. Now we may see the creation of new precedent entirely due to Trump’s continued unguarded and unwise statements. Trump’s statements in interviews are the primary reason for the appointment of the Special Counsel after he directly contradicted his own staff on the reasons for the Comey termination. Recently, after the London attack, his Twitter statements caused an understandable outcry in Britain after he first tried to use the attack to argue for his immigration order and then attacked London’s mayor by misconstruing the mayor’s statement to the public. It is an incredible record. Absent these unguarded and ill-considered statements, Trump’s Administration would be in a far better legal and political position.
While the London tweets have been discussed primarily for their highly negative impact on people in Great Britain (of all parties), one tweet is equally problematic from a legal perspective. In his controversial tweet, Trump referred to his immigration order as a “Travel ban” — precisely what his lawyers have worked so hard to avoid before the Ninth and Fourth Circuits. As with his Comey comments, he is using the very language that his critics most wanted him to use. It is another example of sending months and hundreds of pages of argument only to be stymied by a mere 140 words.
We recently discussed the controversy surrounding Kathy Griffin and her disgusting image of a bloody severed head of President Donald Trump. Griffin held an equally bizarre press conference on Friday that first took responsibility for the scandal and then insisted that she is being set up by white men and blatant sexism. If this was an effort by attorney Lisa Bloom to repackage the scandal, it was a miserable failure. Indeed, the press conference could be a lesson for all lawyers in high-profile controversies of how not to respond to a scandal. There seemed to be not preparation of Griffin and no development of a single coherent narrative (rather surprising for an entertainer). The set up for the press conference at the law firm was awkward and made the client look like a caged animal. Bloom’s lead in remarks seemed more like a stump speech than a legal defense. Griffin was the object of the exercise rather than a human being in distress. Bloom’s effort to blame Trump for her client’s conduct contradicted one of a number of different narratives being advanced at the same time. The result was a Jackson Pollock press conference of paint splatters. The problem is that they did not make for a pleasing final image. I am not sure what Bloom sought to achieve, but it could not have been what actually occurred. In a rambling press conference, she insisted “Cut the crap, this wouldn’t be happening to a guy.” Indeed, it would. If Anderson Cooper held up the bloody severed head of Donald Trump on CNN, he would also be looking at the end of his journalistic career as would other comedians like Jerry Seinfeld.
Continue reading “Griffin: “This Wouldn’t Be Happening To A Guy.””
With the steady stream of controversies swirling around the White House, there has been little attention given a highly disturbing report that the Obama Administration engaged in previously undisclosed and violations of the Fourth Amendment. Just a few days from the 2016 election, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) reportedly raised a highly unusual alarm over the creation of “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue” by possibly unconstitutional surveillance conducted under President Barack Obama. If true, this should be given equal attention to the other stories crowding our front pages and cable coverage. The Obama Administration has a well-documented history of abuse of surveillance and stands as one of the most antagonistic administrations toward privacy in our history. Indeed, if true, many of the former Obama officials currently testifying against the Trump Administration were responsible for a far broader scope of abusive surveillance programs.
I have previously been critical of the stance taken by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. I remained unconvinced that Yates had the ethical basis to order for the entire Justice Department to stand down and not to assist the president in the defense of his first executive order on immigration. I also questioned Yates’ decision to voluntarily testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. She was testifying as someone who was recently in a prosecutorial position about subjects related to an ongoing investigation where no one has yet to be indicted. Now those concerns have been magnified by Yates’ appearance in the media to talk about matters center to the ongoing investigation at the Justice Department and other related subjects.
Continue reading “Yates Goes On CNN To Declare That Russians Had “Real Leverage” Over Flynn”
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.
When the gun of Atlanta attorney Claud “Tex” McIver went off in a car and killed his wife Diane McIver, he insisted that he pulled out the gun when he thought that they have inadvertently driven into a Black Lives Matter protest. Police however believe that McIver intentionally shot his wife and then sought to cover up the crime with a friend who was driving the car. The case involves a series of factual and legal twists.
Continue reading “Atlanta Attorney Charged In Wife’s Murder”
Below is my recent column about a type of new article of faith for lawyers in opposing President Donald Trump and his Administration. Here is the column:
Continue reading “Opposing Trump Is The New Article Of Faith For Lawyers”
I recently criticized the ethics complaint filed against Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway by 15 ethics law professors. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). I criticized the complaint as highly political with little foundation. The only aspect of the complaint that was not frivolous was the allegation that Conway violated the federal rule against endorsing commercial products in light of her comments about Ivanka’s line of clothing and jewelry. As I stated, Conway did violate the rule and I believe that she should have been punished with an official reprimand or some other equivalent measure. However, I viewed the violation as part of a tongue-in-cheek retort to the controversy. The White House reached the same conclusion that there was no “nefarious” intent but it also declined to impose any formal punishment. That decision has led to a relatively rare rebuke fromOffice of Governmental Ethics Director Walter Shaub. Referring to Conway’s “free commercial,” Shaub expressed dismay over the failure to impose any punishment and further chastised deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino for his explanation for the lack of any discipline.
We just discussed the move in Hawaii to secure a new restraining order to cover the second Trump executive order. That was the most likely move that we previously discussed. The other option was to seek to extend the existing restraining order to cover the second executive order on the grounds that there was not a substantial change. That is the option that Washington state is taking. Today, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson indicated that he will ask that Judge James Robart’s Feb. 3 ruling be extended on the grounds that the second Executive Order contains the same alleged violations as the first.
Continue reading “Washington State To Move To Extend Restraining Order To Second Executive Order”
The United Arab Emirates have supplied the most recent example of the Sharia legal system in the Muslim world. South African Emlyn Culverwell‚ 29, and his Ukrainian fiancée Iryna Nohai, 27, were arrested after Nohai wemt to the doctor over stomach pains. In the UAE doctors appear to have no notion of confidentiality (or humanity) and informed the police when he discovered that she was pregnant. Since she had not yet married Culverwell, that meant that they had violated the Islamic code against sex outside of marriage — even though the impregnation occurred outside of the UAE. They are criminally charged.
I recently discussed the ethics complaint filed against Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway by 15 ethics law professors. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). I criticized the complaint as highly political with little foundation. The only aspect of the complaint that was not frivolous was the allegation that Conway violated the federal rule against endorsing commercial products in light of her comments about Ivanka’s line of clothing and jewelry. As I stated, Conway did violate the rule though I viewed the violation as part of a tongue-in-cheek retort to the controversy. It still warranted a formal reprimand in my view but not an ethics charge or more serious action. The White House appears to have reached essentially the same conclusion though there is no indication of a formal reprimand as opposed to a public confirmation that Conway has been “counseled” and will not commit such a violation again.
Continue reading “White House: Kellyanne Conway Acted “Without Nefarious Motive””
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will have a completed record for its review of the lower court’s stay of the Trump immigration executive order this afternoon. While much has been made of the court declined to issue an immediate stay of the lower court under the earlier emergency motion, the decision was very predictable. The Court instead ordered for an expedited response from the states of Washington and Minnesota. That argument is complete today. What remains is a relatively rare procedural process in seeking to review a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the issuance of a written opinion, let alone a permanent injunction.
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Briefing Completed Today For Ruling On Trump Appeal”
For those brave reformers who have struggled to introduce the semblance of a true judiciary and the rule of law in China, the recent interview of Chief Justice Zhou Qiang must have been devastating. Zhou told lawyers and judges that they needed to avoid the temptation of the West in wanting an independent judiciary that follows the rule of law. With that, Zhou placed himself in history as a voice for injustice — a lawyer who committed his life to fighting against the law.
