I was at CNN the night of the firing of James Comey. Frankly, it was utter chaos as Washington exploded with the news. (The green room was packed with folks waiting to go on. I left rather than wait all night for an uncertain hit. I was far more interested at that point in the Cubs-Rockies game). I was in other words an “eyewitness” in the crowded green room when White House counselor Kellyanne Conway was interviewed by Anderson Cooper who noticeably rolled his eyes. Some in the green room were thrilled by the demonstration. One person who was not thrilled was Conway herself who leveled a charge of sexism the next morning on Fox News. (For the record, Conway is my former student at GW Law School). For the record, having worked with Anderson for years, I do not believe that he has a sexist bone in his body. That does not excuse the lapse of professionalism and it will magnify criticism of the network as openly anti-Trump.
Category: Politics
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who wrote the memorandum firing James Comey is back in the news today. Various news organizations are reporting that he allegedly threatened to quit after the White House represented that Comey was fired based on his recommendation. Both the Washington Post and ABC News are reporting that Rosenstein was sufficiently outraged by the White House statements that he was prepared to walk. The reporting is highly disturbing on a number of levels. The White House made a notable change in its account of the decision yesterday — admitting that Trump decided that he wanted Comey gone over a week earlier. Of course, this does not change the fact that Rosenstein recommended the firing of Comey in the memo but it raises serious questions of the veracity of the White House. UPDATE: The White House is categorically denying that Rosenstein threatened to resign. More importantly, Rosenstein has denied that he threatened to resign though it is not clear if he denied calling the White House to object to its portrayal of the facts leading to the termination.
Below is my USA Today column on the testimony of Sally Yates, former acting Attorney General, on her unprecedented order to the Justice Department not to assist President Donald Trump in the defense of his immigration executive order. While the hearing was focused on her warning with regard to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, some of us were more interested in how she would respond to criticism over the order that led to her being fired. Both Democratic and Republican lawyers have raised serious ethical misgivings over her decision. The hearing however only magnified the questions over the basis for her actions. Here is the column.
With the firing of FBI Director James Comey, politics seems to be following art in one important fashion: your work becomes more popular after you’re dead. Jim Croce was barely known as a singer until his plane crashed and burned. Van Gogh sold only one picture in his lifetime . . . until he shot himself. Comey’s work appears to be on the same track of retrospective popularity. He is now the rage. Democratic Senators and liberal commentators who only recently denounced him as a political hack and manipulator were suddenly speaking of Comey as the second Publicus. More importantly, news outlets like CNN went into a virtual echo chamber with their experts, like Jeff Toobin, declaring that the President was lying and that there was no other explanation for firing Comey other than that fact that the Russian investigation was “getting too close” to Trump. One CNN guest historian, Douglas Brinkley, even declared, from a purely historical perspective of course, that the firing shows that Trump acts like a “tyrant.”
Continue reading “James Comey and Posthumous Acclaim In Art and Politics”
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the implications of a rumored retirement by Justice Anthony Kennedy. If nothing else, it allowed me to discuss the anniversary of the Ypres Salient explosion in World War I — the mining of the German line with massive bombs. While we often discuss how a nominee could change the Court on issues like Roe v. Wade, the replacement of either Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would potentially collapse the long static lines on the Court. Like trench warfare, the 4-4 split on the Court has moved little in areas like abortion. It could now evaporate in the flash of a confirmation (assuming that Chief Justice John Roberts does not step into the role of swing vote on the Court).
Here is the column:
President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey this evening in a surprise move. Various politicians and the media have openly referred to the act as “Nixonian” and “another Saturday Night Massacre.” I have previously stated how the Saturday Day Massacre has been misrepresented. I also do not agree with Jeff Toobin on CNN tonight that the decision was clearly due to the fact that Comey’s investigation was getting “too close” to President Trump. I do not see how one can reach that conclusion after months of criticism over Comey’s past conduct, including widespread anger from Democrats over his public statements on Hillary Clinton. I agree that the timing is concerning and legitimately questioned. However, the Administration may also have waited for the Deputy Attorney General to be confirmed to allow a career prosecutor to review the matter and to concur with the decision. Democrats denounced Comey over his actions regarding the Clinton Administration. The matter was given to the Deputy Attorney General who was just confirmed recently.
For many voters, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee , is the embodiment of much that is wrong with the Democratic establishment. She was accused of working to rig the primaries for Hillary Clinton and repeatedly lying to the public. Given that history, one would think that Wasserman Schultz would avoid any questions that remotely deal with ethics or honesty or influence peddling. However, that is not how Washington works. Wasserman Schultz’s supporters enthusiastically re-elected her and most folks in Washington view voters as having the attention span of a Golden Retriever. Thus, Wasserman Schultz was trotted out on CNN to assure the public that President Obama receiving obscene amounts of money from Wall Street interests is none of their business.
There is a disturbing video just posted on an encounter of a Muslim woman with another woman at the Trader Joe’s in Reston, Virginia — not far from my home. On the video below, the rude woman allegedly tells the Muslim “I wish they didn’t let you in the country” during their encounter on Saturday. The Muslim woman is a friend of comedian Jeremy McLellan and he shared the videotape. He said that his friend was wearing a hijab identifying her as a Muslim. Since the woman is clearly shown, the question is whether the woman has a case if she is falsely depicted. Conversely, we have previously discussed whether people should be disciplined by employers for conduct or statements in their private lives.
The Red Sox management is moving aggressively in the wake of the allegation by Baltimore Orioles outfielder Adam Jones of racist taunts at Fenway Park , including the banning for life of a fan who made a racist comment to another fan during a recent game. Boston police are also looking into any possible criminal conduct, including the throwing of peanuts at Jones and others. Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the proposal for a new federal crime for prosecuting racist fans. Putting aside the serious constitutional issues, it is entirely unnecessary. The problem with both rowdy and racist fans is the inaction of ballparks, not the insufficiency of criminal laws.
Continue reading “Calling Out Foul Fans: It Is Time For An Unsportsmanlike Conduct Rule For Fans”
Below is my Hill column this week on the confirmation from both Trump’s Chief of Staff and the White House Spokesperson that the Administration is working on possible changes in our libel laws — changes that by definition would require altering the First Amendment. The decision in New York Times v. Sullivan is decades old and celebrated as one of the Court’s greatest decisions. It has never been challenged by a president . . . until now. The case clearly states that the libel standard is a constitutional rule and thus the Court would have to overturned the decision or the President would have to amend the First Amendment. Whatever must be shown under the “actual malice” standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, it pales in comparison to the actual malice shown by this Administration toward the free press. Here is the column:
Continue reading “A SHOWING OF ACTUAL MALICE: THE WHITE HOUSE “TIRES” OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT”
We have been discussing the alarming erosion of free speech on our campuses and the increasingly twisted view of free speech by students calling for speech codes and regulations. At the same time, we have seen campus police denounced as being a “triggering” element on campuses (Here and here). Both trends were evident this month at the University of California at Berkeley, including the alarming published comments of a student senator, Juniper Angelica Cordova-Goff. Cordova-Goff denounced the large presence of campus police to deal with the protests as triggering while reaffirmed that free speech should not protect speakers who she views as part of a “violent conversation” like conservative Ann Coulter.
Hillary Clinton has been speaking publicly about her electoral defeat and offering a long list of reasons for the loss except one: Hillary Clinton herself. A new study by the New York Times however concludes that there was not a failure of Democratic turnout, as often suggested by Clinton supporters spinning the election. Rather, voters simply rejected Clinton herself. While Clinton has offered the perfunctory statement that she takes responsibility for the loss, she has been blaming everyone else except herself from the Russians to the FBI Director to self-hating women. Yesterday, she sat through an interview with Christaine Amanpour at the Women for Women event in New York and proclaimed that, if it weren’t for FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, and “[i]f the election had been on October 27, I would be your president.” Update: President Donald Trump has fired back at Clinton saying that he simply ran a great campaign. That assertion is equally debatable since Trump remained equally unpopular with most voters who simply felt that they had no choice (again) offered by the two parties. As discussed below, I think that the election turned on the manifest demand of the voters for someone outside of the establishment.
There has been considerable criticism over Trump’s description of the bombing of Syria over a dinner with Chinese President Xi where he seemed to have as much recollection of the chocolate cake as he did the decision itself. (“I was sitting at the table. We had finished dinner. We’re now having dessert. And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen, and President Xi was enjoying it.”) That comment now looks decidedly presidential in comparison to the comment made by his dinner mate at Mar-a-Lago, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the bombing of Syria: “It was in lieu of after-dinner entertainment.” Even as a joke, speaking of acts of war like they are versions of the Roman games is distasteful. Even missile strikes involve American sailors or soldiers and airman placing themselves into harm’s way. Having them referred to as “entertainment” at a conference by a wealthy Commerce Secretary to his well-heeled friends is insulting to those who must pay the price of wars.
Continue reading “Commerce Secretary: Syria Bombing Was Dinner “Entertainment” At Mar-O-Lago”
The call by President Donald Trump to break up the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have been echoed by members of Congress, including most recently Sen. Ted Cruz (R., TX). Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the controversy.