Feminist attorney Lisa Bloom is under fire from all sides over her work on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, a producer who is accused of breathtaking attacks of sexual harassment against those under his control or influence. Much of the criticism has accused Bloom as well as Clinton advisors like Lanny Davis. However, there appears to have been push back from her actual clients at the Weinstein company, particularly after Bloom’s television appearances where she seemed to struggle with defending Weinstein. Bloom called Weinstein “an old dinosaur learning new ways,” as if calling women to your room in a bathroom and demanded massages was an acceptable old way in the last two centuries. Bloom also said publicly that her media client engaged in “illegal” conduct — a surprising admission for someone serving as a spokesperson who happens to be a lawyer. Critics raised the hypocrisy in Bloom’s past attacks on accused harassers and her awkward defense of Weinstein. Now reports suggest that company board members raised not only a possible conflict of interest in the case but some remarkably ill-conceived advice from Bloom in managing the scandal. Weinstein himself was fired yesterday. Bloom has responded to conflict issues raised in her Weinstein contracts by distinguishing legal from non-legal conflicts of interests.
Continue reading “Bloom Out As Weinstein Adviser Amidst Questions Over Conflicts and Tactics”
The massacre in Las Vegas has brought out the best of our country in response to the savage and senseless attack by Stephen Paddock as strangers rush into danger to save the wounded. It has also unleashed pent up political passions from 
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the proposals for new gun control measures in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre. As I discuss below, there are some obvious possible measures that could pass constitutional muster like banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic weapons to perform more like automatic weapons) and conversion kits. However, these proposals would not have prevented the massacre. There are many “work arounds” for semi-automatic weapons and Paddock would have likely passed any enhanced background checks. Nevertheless, 
I have received a fair amount of criticism for 
For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would 
Scott Fitzgerald once said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania is a certifiable genius. However, in this case, Murphy’s two opposing views have cost him his seat in Congress. Murphy, who has run on a pro-life platform in securing eight terms in Congress, has struggled to explain emails where he asked his mistress to get an abortion. 
CBS has fired Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network’s vice president and senior counsel, after a bizarre and disgraceful tweet saying that she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.” We have been discussing the free speech concerns over employees being disciplined for expressing their political or religious viewpoints on social media. However, this is a news network that contractually reserves the right to terminate employees for conduct deemed inimical to its journalistic image or mission.
As is often the case, politicians and commentators were fast to draw political meaning from the latest massacre. Of course, the most obvious explanation is that this was an attack by a demented and hateful individual. At the base of this massacre seems utter madness — untractable and unfanthomable madness. However, after saying that this was no time for politics, Hillary Clinton immediately denounced the National Rifle Association. At the same time, televangelist Pat Robertson cited the disrespect for Trump and our flag.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the continuing controversy over President Donald Trump’s remarks over the NFL anthem protest. including the suggestion that his remarks could constitute a case for impeachment. I wrote earlier that the coverage over the anthem protests have been criticized with cameras notably redirected when boos were heard from the crowed. Indeed, yesterday morning, I watched CNN cover the controversy and say that at a particular game there was “both cheers and boos.” However, when they cut to the clip there was overwhelming boos and the reporter admitted that the fans have clearly “not gotten the message” of the players. It does concern me that, again, the coverage seems weighted in downplaying the polls showing that most people (
It has long been the U.S. policy to ignore human rights violations of some of our closest allies as part of a realpolitik. However, that means that our citizens give billions to countries who deny their very humanity and criminalize their very being. A case in point is Egypt. Egyptian authorities previously arrested seven people for simply flying a rainbow flag. Now, 
I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of justices of political discussions. Indeed, justices previously avoided most public speeches where Ginsburg has readily embraced her public persona. Her latest comments occur on the eve of the start of the new term, a term with an array of major cases that arose from highly charged political conflicts over immigration, discrimination, and gun rights. 
We have 
I have been
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent demand by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of material in over a dozen different areas. The most intriguing is likely to be the two documents referenced by Trump personal counsel Ty Cobb in an overheard conversation at a popular D.C. restaurant. The conversation has many in the Beltway scratching their heads and a few smirking. Cobb is an experienced lawyer who sees this investigation as unlikely to produce any compelling basis for a criminal charge. Conversely, White House Counsel Don McGahn is properly concerned with the danger of establishing precedent in the area of executive privilege that could undermine future presidents. Cobb is a bit too experienced in this town to make such an amateurish mistake as discussing loudly an internal fight over the documents in McGahn’s safe — a previously undisclosed dispute. It would certainly be intriguing if the reporter was told to have lunch at BLT and bring his notebook (Technically Cobb did not leak anything in being overheard). It would have been a truly Machiavellian move against McGahn. However, there is no evidence supporting such a theory. Ifthat were the case, the reporter’s story would be highly misleading since he clearly conveyed that this was a pure coincidence and a surprise. Moreover, such an arrangement would be unethical in my view even if Cobb thought it in the best interest of the President. These remain documents under a claim of privilege and presumably there was a decision not to make the disclosure. I am inclined to give Cobb the benefit of the doubt, though that means assuming that he committed a rather rookie error.