Below is my column in USA Today on one of the lines of inquiry by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: the stated desire of President Donald Trump to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his poor public criticism of the Attorney General for recusing. That inquiry has become more damaging with recent disclosures of an effort by Trump to convince or coerce Sessions to reverse his decision to recuse himself. Despite renewed calls for obstruction charges or impeachment counts, there is a clear defense emerging for Trump based on recent comments. Indeed, it may be the only viable defense that accepts these facts while rejecting the claim of criminal obstruction (other than the untested claim that Trump is effectively immune from such a charge).
Here is the column:
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the continuing attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There is obviously an effort to push Sessions into resigning while laying the groundwork for firing him if he is still around after the completion of the Mueller report. Sessions on the other hand is standing firm, a position that is clearly encouraged by career officers at Justice who view the threats as undermining the integrity of the department.
The recent disclosure of a memo from former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on a conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on an alleged “cover story” demanded by President Donald Trump for his memo on the firing of McCabe’s boss James Comey: I have already said that the memo may shed more light on the mindset of McCabe than Trump. It is most likely that Trump was asking (as he did with everyone of these individuals) for a statement that he was not a target of the Russian investigation. That is not a cover story. However, the memo does raise the question of why Rosenstein has not recused himself. 
I have been a long critic of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen for over a year for
We have
George Washington University is embroiled in a federal challenge against its handling of a case by one of our students accused of sexual assault. The case raises troubling questions of the school’s actions following the disclosure of alleged false statements by an accuser. Many years ago, I wrote a letter to the GW faculty objecting to changes in our rules governing the investigation and adjudication of sexual harassment and assault cases. Like many universities during the Obama Administration, GW was reducing protections for students accused of such misconduct under pressure from the Department of Education (
It is a familiar pattern. It has happened before. Around 10am on Memorial Day, my iPhone can be vibrating with email signals as I was driving one of my children and her friends. Soon they were coming in fast succession and then I knew: The President has tweeted out a quote. The two tweets were followed by a torrent of threats, insults, and profane suggestions involving physical acts that would have been challenging in my teens. In today’s rage-filled environment, the mere fact that Trump quotes you unleashes a tsunami of anger. It seems cathartic for people who cannot tolerate the slightest hint of agreement with Trump. The same is often true on the opposite end of the political spectrum if you challenge or question a position of Trump.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the calls for a constitutional challenge to the new NFL policy against protests during the National Anthem. While many have claimed that the policy violates free speech rights of the players, there is actually little support for such a challenge under constitutional law. The best shot might be procedural in nature in arguing that the collective bargaining agreement requires conferral on such rules with the players. Putting aside the strong defenses to this claim, it would likely only require consultation and not a change in the ultimate policy.
Trump lead counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to struggle in media appearances this weekend with a jumbled and confusing interview. Notably, while expressing his dislike for those who sell access, Giuliani was clear on one point: he likes and respects Michael Cohen. The continued public support for Cohen may reflect a desire to keep him from becoming a cooperating witness, but the professions of respect for Cohen are becoming increasingly incongruous with disclosures of how Cohen shamelessly (and successfully) sought to sell access to Trump to foreign figures and various 
A new article out in Politico explores the disastrous decision of Squire Patton Boggs to bring in Michael Cohen in a blatant scheme to sell access to the President. Edward Newberry, one of the top lobbyists for Squire Patton Boggs, is described as one of the critical players in taking on a lawyer who was already viewed as one of the sleaziest and unethical lawyers in the country. Indeed, the article describes how some members of the struggling firm noted that he could well end up as the next Jack Abramoff, who went to jail for a long pattern of grotesque corruption. What was most interesting however about 
Emmet Flood
New York lawyer (and GW Law graduate) Aaron Schlossberg who 
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the release of the transcripts from the investigation into the infamous Trump Tower meeting. The testimony of key players is consistent with a reckless effort to get dirt of Hillary Clinton but, if anything, it undermines claims of collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. The answer may lie in the writings of 13th Century English 
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told a supportive audience at the progressive Center for American Progress Ideas Festival that gender alone could make a difference in finance crises: “If it wasn’t Lehman Brothers but Lehman Sisters, we might not have had the financial collapse.” The problem, critics have noted, is that Lehman Brothers 
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on how liberals in New York are supplying the Supreme Court ample reason to rule for a Colorado cake shop owner in the