I have long been critical of the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (See, e.g., here and here and here). Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major 2-1 ruling striking down the mandate as unconstitutional. The litigation however will continue over the viability of the rest of the Act without the individual. As discussed in an earlier column, pulling out the individual mandate creates a Jenga-like dilemma for the courts.
I have previously criticized President Donald Trump for his attacks on the media and references to “tough” measures in dealing with protesters or immigrants. Yesterday, President Trump made a disturbing comment to the visiting Guatemalan President about House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Trump stated that Guatemala would know how to get “tougher” with Schiff over his controversial speech where he pretended to read from an exchange between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart — a mocking speech that made up incriminating lines. The remark suggested that Trump would prefer a system where legislators and critics could be arrested for such political commentary. No president should express a preference for such abusive legal measures. Trump’s own State Department has documented abuses in the Guatemalan legal system, including mistreatment of political opponents.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the striking similarities between the Johnson and Trump impeachments — a comparison that should be unsettling for most voters as history repeats itself with a vengeance.
I previously wrote about what I viewed as a dangerous trend among New York Democratic politicians pledging to charge former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort under state law to negate any benefit from a federal pardon by President Donald Trump. Democrats rallied supporters to the dubious cause of watering down the state protections against double jeopardy. It was the ultimate example of the mania surrounding Trump where citizens would take an axe to their own constitutional protections to get at Trump and his associates. The highly dubious effort was led by New York state attorney general Letitia James and, thankfully, it has failed. The New York courts are not nearly as dismissive of individual rights. The state charges were thrown out today on the basis of double jeopardy. The question is now whether this will be a prelude to a presidential pardon.
President Donald Trump lashed out at Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats yesterday on the eve of today’s impeachment vote. The letter, which can be read here, unleashed invective and angry responses to the expected impeachment. While the President quotes me in the letter, most of the letter has the signature style of the President and immediately drew objections over its tenor and assertions. Pelosi called the letter “ridiculous” and “sick.”
The President declares “It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.”
Various commentators, including Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, have expressed disbelief with the statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea of the extensive FISA abuse found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. I share that view. Schiff’s predecessor at the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, raised many of these abuses which were adamantly denied by Schiff for months. The media for its part virtually mocked such claims as conspiracy theories and false news. Now the media and Schiff is claiming total surprise by the findings (if they acknowledge them at all). The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on what the recent Horowitz report says about the treatment of former Trump adviser Carter Page. While the media has been quick to call developments as “vindication” for figures like Comey, it is largely silent on the poor treatment shown Page and the lack of evidence against him (and supporting the Russian investigation as a whole). Page has emerged as the Richard Jewell of the Russian investigation.
I often remark that my Senate trial defending Judge Thomas Porteous has a jury that I would normally strike for cause en masse. An impeachment jury composed of politicians can be akin to a maritime inquiry with a jury composed of the Pirates of Penzance. This week, Senators in both parties seemed to signal their votes before an actual impeachment has occurred, let alone a trial,. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) declared “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.” While the media focuses on Graham’s statement, Democratic senators have also made comments indicating that they have made up their minds. Indeed, yesterday, Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) declared that “if the Senate Republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment he will be unbounded.” It smacks of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.”
A Sudanese court sentenced former Sudan President and accused genocidist Omar al-Bashir to two years imprisonment following his recent conviction for corruption. Additionally, the Court ordered forfeiture of millions in Euros and Sudanese Pounds discovered at his residence after being deposed by a military coup. He faces the likelihood of additional charges levied against him in the near future.
From a foreign perspective, there still remains the unresolved matter of Mr. al-Bashir’s two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague stemming from accusations of genocide and other crimes against humanity.
The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible. It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history. However, the Democrats know that they have combined those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts. The Democrats know that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings. Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.
During the testimony last week, I expressed various concerns with the artificially short period allowed for the impeachment investigation due to the Democratic pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. Not only will that abbreviated period leave a thin and incomplete record, but it will leave “half of this country behind.” That appears to be exactly the right estimate. A new Monmouth poll shows that 50 percent of the country now opposes impeachment. The polling in some swing states is even worse. In other words, this impeachment is playing to the Democratic base and little beyond it — precisely what Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged that she would not allow to happen.
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is suing the FBI and Department of Justice for violating the Federal Privacy Act in the release of their test messages to former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok. President Donald Trump has made repeated and mocking references to the texts, including salacious and romantic messages between the two former FBI employees who engaged in an extramarital affair. Many of us have recoiled at the level of disclosure of this affair and particularly the President’s inappropriate taunts, including last night at a rally in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit could raise some interesting questions of the privacy affords such records, but it is unlikely to prevail.
In a highly disturbing moment last night, President Donald Trump launched into an attack on former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strozk with a shocking reference to a restraining order that Page allegedly had to take out on Strozk after their affair. President Trump has previously attacked the couple, even mocking them in a made-up, seemingly orgasmic conversation in bed. Those were highly inappropriate and unpresidential moments but this could be defamation, if untrue. [Some media sites like the Daily Beast are saying that the allegation is being denied as untrue] Even if it is not actionable, occupying the space somewhere between defamation and demagoguery is no place for a president. (Note Lisa Page just filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act on the disclosure of her emails with Strozk).
The Democratic leadership announced today that it has decided that President Donald Trump will be accused of just two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I commend the Committee in dropping the previous claims of bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice. While my fellow witnesses made good-faith arguments for those articles, my testimony primarily focused on the legal and constitutional flaws in claiming those criminal acts. I also commend the Committee in not following the suggested course of many in ignoring the legal definitions of those crimes to claim an impeachable offense. Finally, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is correct as he stated yesterday that I repeatedly stated that President Donald Trump could be impeached for a non-criminal act like abuse of power if it could be proven. I also said that he could be impeached for obstruction of Congress, if proven. However, this record falls considerably short of the record needed to support such claims for a submission to the Senate.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the insistence of the Democrats to stick to the abbreviated schedule to allow an impeachment vote by Christmas.
