Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the filing by Paul Manafort challenging the scope of the Special Counsel investigation. Manafort’s filing of a civil action is quite telling in this circumstance. As a criminal defendant, he can challenge the basis for the charges. This seems like an effort to make a public case with little likelihood of legal success. However, the public tends not to be particularly sympathetic with accused felons complaining that they were arrested by the wrong cop. It is true that Manafort would likely not have been charged absent the Special Counsel investigation. However, that is like complaining about the weather in Washington.
Here is the column:
Another major case has been thrown out due to prosecutorial abuse by the United States Department of Justice. 
The opening of ANWAR to drilling by President Donald Trump was a major loss for environmentalists. My views in favor of preserving such areas are well known. However, the opening up of the entire coastline of the 
We 
The decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to rescind the Obama policy allowing states to legalize marijuana without federal interference has caused 
Since the first allegations (and denials) in the Roy Moore allegations surfaced, 
I have 
There is an interesting controversy brewing at Fordham University, which has been sued by students over the failure of the school to recognize their pro-Palestinian group. The group is called the Students for Justice in Palestine and the university overturned the student government in recognizing it. 
Attorney Charles Harder has issued a “cease and desist” letter on behalf of his client President Donald Trump. The letter is addressed to author Michael Wolff and the president of the book’s publisher, but is clearly putting Steve Bannon on notice of a possible defamation action for his statements in the forthcoming book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.” The letter alleges violation of confidentiality rules and defamation in the forthcoming book, “Fire and Fury” by Michael Wolff. The threat of legal action is highly dubious and the suggestion of a prior restraint order or injunction would go against decades of precedent. It also leaves the worst possible optics of trying to stop the release of a book (and suggesting that Bannon is releasing bona fide confidential information).
I have 
For free speech advocates, there was another chilling development last week in the expanding censorship of social media and the criminalization of speech in the West. The government is investigating Beatrix von Storch (the deputy leader of far-right party AfD) for a tweet posted on New Year’s Eve in which she accused police of appeasing “barbaric, gang-raping Muslim hordes of men.” The statement was barred on Twitter and Von Storch and others were barred on Twitter and Facebook. Once again, raising the free speech concerns is not an endorsement of such offensive posts. Rather, the Germans have taken their controversial speech regulations and have extended them to social media — forcing these companies to become active players in the censoring of political speech. People may have no objection (and even relish) the crackdown on the AfD but the implications for speech is far greater than these individuals.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the status of the Russian investigation and a look back at the various crimes alleged over the year. A brief search of mainstream media found roughly 5000 stories referring to “bombshell” developments. However, the status has changed little over the year. That could, of course, change. We do not know what Special Counsel Robert Mueller had in terms of new evidence. That did not stop many from declaring conclusive evidence supporting charges over the year despite the paucity of evidence. While we have had four indictments or pleas, but the charges are been notably removed from the core purpose of the Russian collusion investigation. The point of the column is not that new charges are unlikely but that there is little public evidence supporting such charges at the end of 2017. 
Like many football fans, Republican Rep. Milo Smith is fed up with the protests by NFL players during the anthem. However, while many fans are staying away from games (setting record low attendance numbers), Smith wants to require NFL owners to reimburse fans who object to the protests. While I have expressed my own opposition to any demonstrations during the national anthem, I have