We have previously discussed how President Donald Trump has repeatedly been used by federal courts as the most important witness against his own policies due to his ongoing and ill-advised tweets. Indeed, in all three rounds of the immigration litigation, Trump’s tweets and comments were critically important to courts in ruling against his Administration, including the most recent injunction rulings of the third travel ban order. Now a judge in Washington has relied on Trump’s tweets to rule against him on his ban on transgender military personnel. Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly of the US District Court for the District of Columbia in Jane Doe v. Donald Trump (pdf), found that the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on their claims that the ban is discriminatory. The court decision, again, features a Trump tweet.
Category: Media
Last night, the media was thrown into a frenzy with news that special counsel Robert Mueller has secured the first charges in his investigation into Russian election interference. Despite the fact that the name or names of those indicted have not been released and the specific charges were not disclosed, the report was heralded as a breakthrough moment in the Russian investigation. CNN contributor David Gergen stated “Well, it certainly looks like the dam is starting to break now.” It could be and then again it might not be. Again, the breathless desire among some commentators is out-stripping the available information. For months, many of us have been saying that it was extremely unlikely that Mueller would assemble this huge prosecutorial team and spend millions without charging someone on something. The core question is whether he is going to move on the two primary allegations in the Russian investigation — collusion and obstruction — that might implicate Trump or his family. In other words, we may have to wait for the arrest or surrender to know if Mueller has unveiled a mountain or a molehill.
Yesterday, we discussed the potentially precarious ethical position of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias, who allegedly denied media reports that the Clinton campaign had any connection to the controversial Russian Dossier. After the Washington Post ran an extensive story on how the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee hired controversial research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in Russia in the “Russian Dossier” matter. Reporters at the New York Times have accused Elias of lying in past categorical denials of any connection to Clinton or the DNC. The reports indicate that not only did the Clinton team fund the opposition research but that Elias may have been the person handling much of the arrangements. Now Elias’ position has worsened after a report out of Congress that he was present in an interview when campaign chairman John Podesta denied any campaign role in the funding or acquisition of the dossier.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the effort to remove President Donald Trump through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. I ran a column a couple days ago in the Washington Post on the constitutional and procedural issues of a 25th Amendment attempt. This column looks at the medical and historical aspects of the controversy. The effort appears to have picked up steam this week with reports of Democrats reaching out to psychologists — just as they did against Barry Goldwater. The demise of the “Goldwater Rule” is a dangerous development. I have no more idea of Trump’s mental state than I do other leaders. What I do know is that claims of narcissism or other conditions are unfounded absent an evaluation and far more serious evidence of mental illness to justify a 25th Amendment effort.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Trump, the 25th Amendment and The Demise of “The Goldwater Rule””
Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias is under fire today after the Washington Post ran an extensive story on how the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee hired controversial research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in Russia in the “Russian Dossier” matter. Reporters at the New York Times have accused Elias of lying in past categorical denials of any connection to Clinton or the DNC. The reports indicate that not only did the Clinton team fund the opposition research but that Elias may have been the person handling much of the arrangements. Update: Brian Fallon, former spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, has said that this was “money well spent.” On CNN, Fallon said that the “sensitive nature” of the project meant that it was kept to a small number of people that did not include him. Fallon’s expression of satisfaction with the work however conflicts with what reporters say Elias told them. He notably sounded a lot like Trump in saying “opposition research occurs all the time.” Christoper Steele is a foreign national who was seeking information from foreign sources to use against Trump.
I have often criticized Saudi Arabia for its application of a medieval Sharia system of law and its intolerance for both free speech and freedom of religion. It is important however to recognize improvements in the Kingdom, such as the recent decision to allow women to drive and the expanding political rights of women. This week brought another such positive development. Saudi Arabia’s next king, Mohammed bin Salman, gave a surprising speech where he clearly set the Kingdom apart from the long domination of Saudi clerics. He declared “We are returning to what we were before, a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world.” If true, that would be a moment of true leadership by the Crown Prince and a real hope for the citizens of Saudi Arabia.
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the movement to remove President Donald Trump through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush recently declared the “answer” to Trump suggestion of a Democrat and Russian collusion in the election is “Amendment 25.” Previously, Painter wrote a piece with clinical psychologist Leanne Watt, Ph.D. where they discussed the “downward mental health spiral” of Trump. They identified the illness as “extreme narcissism or self-centeredness” as well as “an extreme anti-social tendency, an inability to understand how other people feel.” That, Painter suggests, is enough for the first removal of a president under the 25th Amendment in the history of the country. If so, half of the presidents could have been removed for their “self-centeredness” and “anti-social tendencies.” I strongly disagree with such interpretations.
Here is the column:
We recently discussed the debacle over Lisa Bloom’s work with Harvey Weinstein leading to termination of her contract. This followed an embarrassing representation of comedian Kathy Griffin during her disastrous press conference over her picture holding the severed head of Donald Trump. Now Griffin and Bloom have publicly gone after each other in a spat that has raised ethical questions over Bloom’s disclosures and criticism regarding her former client. Indeed, Bloom actually suggests that Griffin is sexist in her attacking her for her representation. (Griffin is also in a very public squabble with her neighbor and secured a restraining order against him.)
We have previously discussed how the Democratic establishment has held on to power despite the disaster in the last presidential election. The Democratic leadership and members were virtually unanimous in guaranteeing the nomination for Hillary Clinton despite the clear anti-establishment mood of the electorate and Clinton’s record negative polling. By the end of the campaign, the Democrats were largely arguing for an anti-Trump vote rather than a pro-Clinton vote. Despite the loss to the least popular presidential candidate in history, Nancy Pelosi and various other Democratic leaders have tightened their grip on power. The establishment then fought off a challenge from Bernie Sanders supporters and elected close Clinton ally Tom Perez to lead the Democratic National Committee. Now Perez has moved to fill high-ranking positions with establishment figures and Clinton allies. Among them is Donna Brazile who lied about her violation of DNC rules in sharing debate questions with Clinton. While the DNC staff rallied around Brazile, others saw Brazile as the very embodiment of the rigged primary and the hard-wired Clinton support in the media. Her unethical conduct led to the termination of her CNN contract, but Perez now wants her on the DNC rules committee.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on third round of litigation over the immigration orders issued by President Donald Trump. On Friday, in Honolulu, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson converted the earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. With the two decisions in Hawaii and Maryland, the appeals should move on an expedited basis back to the Supreme Court (which is expected to dismiss the second immigration case from the second round of litigation this week). Like T3, EO3 could be named “Redemption” as the Administration gears up for what is likely (and hopefully) the final round in this series.
Here is the column:
Continue reading ““REDEMPTION”: EO3 AND THE TRAVEL BAN 3.0 SEQUEL”
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on latest statement on the cause of her electoral defeat . . . other than herself. Clinton’s use of prison lingo is only marginally better than her curious decision to compare herself to Cersei Lannister,the murderous, incestuous queen in Game of Thrones. Notably, after the column posted, it was confirmed that there were roughly 3000 government communications found on Weiner’s laptop — leading to the re-opening of the investigation. As noted below, the belated discovery (and the delay in resolving the controversy) can be laid at the feet of Clinton and her staff. The Clinton team delayed turning over material and participating in interviews. Their disclosure of material was incomplete and ultimately lead to the “shiv” referenced by Clinton.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Orange is the New Black: Clinton Complained Of Being “Shivved” By Comey”
In one of the most reckless and chilling attacks on free speech, the 
There are now eighteen states and the District of Columbia lined up to challenge the executive order by President Donald Trump to rescind the Obama order giving insurance companies billions in subsidies . . . without an appropriation of Congress. As explained below, this challenge advances a rather curious claim that Trump cannot rescind an earlier order found to be flagrantly unconstitutional by a federal court. In most high-profile litigation cases, counsel spends considerable time exploring whether a challenge will allow a bad case to make bad law on appeal. That would seem the most likely outcome here but much of the litigation by Democratic Attorneys General have been driven more by political than legal calculations. Voters now expect every act of Trump to be challenged and no Democratic AG wants to be the only one to sit out a challenge to an unpopular order. The result is a type of perpetual litigation machine where bad precedent is being cranked out because it is viewed as good politics.
Here is the column:
We have been discussing the increasing scrutiny being applied to teachers and professors over their political views and social media commentary. A particularly problematic case has been taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) involving Kansas teacher Esther Koontz. The long-time math teacher (and something called a “curriculum coach”) at Horace Mann Dual Language Magnet School in Wichita, Kansas, Koontz was barred from renewing her contract as teacher because she supports the boycott of Israel over the occupation of Palestinian territories. This is not simply reflective of her political views but a religious based obligation as a member of the Mennonite Church USA. The church in July voted to divest itself from American companies that profit off of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Kansas law therefore collides head on with the rights of free speech, free exercise, and free association.
Continue reading “Kansas Teacher Barred From Employment Due To Her Support For Boycott Movement”
Many of us have been warning for years about the anti-free speech activities of various protest groups in barring speakers and even taking over classrooms. I have long advocated suspending students who prevent others from speaking or attending such events and expelling those who are repeat offenders. Now the University of Wisconsin system has adopted such an approach, though some of the terminology is problematic in my view. Nevertheless, while the policy (found here) could be more specific in defining terms like “disrupt,” it is a move that could go a long way in restoring free speech protections.