Category: Politics

Biden’s Inner Trudeau: On Guns, the President seems to be Operating Under the Wrong Constitution

Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for gun bans after the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. The massacre has already been used as the basis for calls to end the filibuster, pack the court, limits on gun ownership, and outright bans. One member called for all of the above. The rhetoric is again outstripping the reality of constitutional and practical limits for gun control. Last night, President Joe Biden formally called for banning “assault weapons” while repeating the dubious claim that an earlier ban sharply reduced mass shootings.

Here is the column:

Continue reading “Biden’s Inner Trudeau: On Guns, the President seems to be Operating Under the Wrong Constitution”

The Depp Trial and the Demise of the ACLU: How a Celebrity Trial Exposed the Collapse of a Once Celebrated Group

In yesterday’s massive defamation award to actor Johnny Depp, his ex-wife Amber Heard was left holding a bill for $15,000,000. Even after a reduction for her own award and a statutory reduction of the punitive damage portion, Heard is still looking at $8,350,000 in damages. Many view that amount (which is $1.35 million more than her divorce settlement) to be justified in light of the damage caused to Depp’s reputation and career. However, the stain of  this verdict should be shared with others, even if they avoided the sting of actual damages. That includes many in the media (including the Washington Post staff) who rushed to paint Heard as a victim and Depp as an abuser. Yet, the greatest condemnation should be reserved for the organization that not only pushed that narrative but actually helped draft the defamatory column: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Continue reading “The Depp Trial and the Demise of the ACLU: How a Celebrity Trial Exposed the Collapse of a Once Celebrated Group”

Sussmann Juror: “There are Bigger Things … Than a Possible Lie to the FBI”

The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.”  The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.

Continue reading “Sussmann Juror: “There are Bigger Things … Than a Possible Lie to the FBI””

Second Amendment Showdown: Beto O’Rourke Resumes Call for Gun Confiscation

Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke has been ping-ponging on gun confiscation ever since his presidential candidacy in 2019 when he famously declared “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” When he decided to run for Texas governor, he then dialed down that pledge. With the Uvalde massacre (and critics allege his poor polling numbers), O’Rourke seems to have moved back to the position on confiscation. He declared this week that, not only should they be banned, but AR-15 owners should not “be able to keep them.” Once again, however, O’Rourke omits any explanation of how constitutionally or practically he intends to carry out this confiscation plan.

Continue reading “Second Amendment Showdown: Beto O’Rourke Resumes Call for Gun Confiscation”

President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban

We previously discussed how President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified. However, he also repeated another dubious claim this weekend. The comments have received considerable coverage after the President seemed to target 9mm guns for possible legislative bans, stating that “high-caliber weapons” like the 9mm handgun should not be needed and told the public that “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.” Critics pushed back on that claim, but such statements can be written off as part of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding gun rights and gun control. Yet, he made a separate factual claim about the record of the earlier assault weapons ban that is more questionable. Continue reading “President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban”

Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment

Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the Hill on Sussmann trial and what it revealed about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the combined Russian collusion investigations. It also looks down the road at whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to write the same type of public report that concluded the Mueller investigation.

Here is the column: Continue reading “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment”

Showdown on the Second Amendment: Harris Calls for Ban on “Assault Weapons”

We recently discussed how President Joe Biden has not only repeated false statements about the history of the Second Amendment, but has failed to acknowledge the limits imposed by the Second Amendment in calling for a crackdown on “assault weapons.” He recently has not, however, called specifically for a ban, which would run into serious constitutional challenges. Now Vice President Kamala Harris has taken that step forward in demanding a ban on “assault weapons.” (Notably, this week, a Republican house member also came out in favor of a ban on “assault weapons.”)

Continue reading “Showdown on the Second Amendment: Harris Calls for Ban on “Assault Weapons””

It is the Second Amendment, Not the “Gun Lobby” That Must Be Satisfied on Gun Control

Below is my column in The Hill on the call for bans and limits on guns like the AR-15 since the massacre in Texas.  Both President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama have blamed the gun lobby for the violence in calling for new major gun controls. However, the barrier to banning weapons like the AR-15 rests more with the Second Amendment than the gun lobby. Any effort to reach some “commonsense” solutions will depend on the willingness to end the sweeping rhetoric and deal with the realities of the constitutional limits on gun control.

Here is the column: Continue reading “It is the Second Amendment, Not the “Gun Lobby” That Must Be Satisfied on Gun Control”

President Biden Repeats False Claim about the Second Amendment

President Joe Biden on Wednesday repeated a claim about the Second Amendment that some of us have repeatedly challenged as untrue.  In asserting that “the Second Amendment is not absolute,” President Biden repeated his claim that certain weapons were prohibited at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. That is simply untrue. Continue reading “President Biden Repeats False Claim about the Second Amendment”

Abortion Absolutism: How Some Leaders Are Adopting Extreme Interpretations of the Right to Abortion

Below is my column in USA Today on the strikingly absolutist language being used by Democratic leaders in defining the right to abortion after the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Yet, when pressed, these same politicians have been declining to address the implications of leaving the decision entirely to the woman at all stages of a pregnancy. Addressing the scope of this right is key to defining and supporting this right in constitutional law. Many Americans are open to protecting the right to choose, particularly in the first trimester. However, many politicians are pushing an unlimited view of the right that raises both constitutional and political questions — an approach that far exceeds what the current Roe case law supports. Conversely, Republicans are dealing with their own extreme responses to the pending decision in both the Senate and the states.

Here is the column:

Continue reading “Abortion Absolutism: How Some Leaders Are Adopting Extreme Interpretations of the Right to Abortion”

“Undermining Secularism”: French Court Suspends City’s Approval of “Burkinis” in Public Pools

There is a controversial decision out of a French administrative court this week to suspend a policy allowing for Muslim women to wear “burkinis” in municipal pools in the city of Grenoble. The court ruled that such policies “undermin[ed] secularism.” While a long advocate of the separation of church and state, I have opposed these bans on burkas and burkinis as inimical to religious rights. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and devout Muslim women can only use the pools with such coverings under Islamic teachings. France also has a long and proud history of supporting women in making their own choices — the very essence of Joan of Arc who followed her own religious dictates to heroic ends. This is a denial of such self-determination and self-expression for French Muslim women.

The ruling is reportedly based on a 2021 “separatism” law passed in President Emmanuel Macron’s first term, which allows the suspension of measures that would “undermine secularism and the neutrality of public services.”

Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin publicly supported his ministry filing an objection against the burkini policy in Grenoble. He announced that “The administrative court considers that the mayor of Grenoble, with his decision allowing burkinis in municipal pools, is seriously undermining secularism.”

Many opposed the proposal by Mayor Eric Piolle and conservative leader Marine Le Pen declared that she wants to introduce a law banning burkinis in municipal pools.

The ban undermines free speech and associational rights as well as the free exercise of religion. Many people find such coverings sexist and offensive. However, this is a long-established matter of religious faith within the Islamic community. I fail to see how this harms others or society as a whole. French society can remain neutral and secular by neither opposing nor endorsing such clothing choices. If France supports the right of women to make their own choices in society, that freedom should include the right to choose to follow a devout religious lifestyle.

Joan of Arc famously declared “I was in my thirteenth year when I heard a voice from God to help me govern my conduct. And the first time I was very much afraid.” While she wore armor rather than a burkini, the same religious imperative dictated her actions and she is now celebrated as martyr for France.

Whatever harm is perceived from burkinis, it pales in comparison to the harm from banning such swimwear in a nation committed to the freedoms of religion, expression, and association.

How the Sussmann Trial Inadvertently Revealed the Role of Clinton in the Alfa Bank Scandal

Below is an expanded version of my column in The Hill on the implication of Hillary Clinton in false Alfa Bank claims of Russian collusion. While most media ignored the testimony of Clinton’s former campaign manager in the Sussmann trial, it adds to a damning record on how the Clinton campaign was behind arguably the most successful disinformation campaign in American political history with both the Steele dossier and the Alfa bank claims. Ironically, despite Sussmann efforts to conceal his connections to Clinton in the FBI meeting, it was his counsel who effectively outed Clinton in the scandal. Former Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook then violated the Eleventh Commandment of Democrats: Thou shalt not name a Clinton in a scandal.

Here is the column:

Continue reading “How the Sussmann Trial Inadvertently Revealed the Role of Clinton in the Alfa Bank Scandal”

No Laughing Matter: The Third Circuit Reverses NLRB Sanction Over Joke

In our age of rage, humor was one of the earliest victims. It is not that humor is not allowed, it is merely selectively tolerated. Thus, Twitter suspended the satirical site, Babylon Bee, with the support of many who claim to support free speech. In Canada, a comedian was actually prosecuted for trash talking in a comedy club. Even non-comedians can find themselves on the wrong side of a punch line. Recently, Ben Domenech of The Federalist found himself pursued over a single tweet teasing the employees at his publication. After referencing the struggle of Vox Media with a union, Domenech joked in a tweet that the salt mines await any employees who spoke of unionizing. No one was calling for a union at The Federalist and it was received by the staff as an obvious joke. However, a liberal lawyer from Massachusetts, Joel Fleming, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. In a highly controversial opinion, NLRB administrative law judge, Kenneth Chu, ruled against The Federalist. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit just overturned Chu and stated the obvious: it was a joke. Continue reading “No Laughing Matter: The Third Circuit Reverses NLRB Sanction Over Joke”

Did the Biden Administration Just Give a Boost To the Hunter Biden Defense?

Below is my column in the New York Post on the implications of the recent civil lawsuit against Steve Wynn for allegedly working as an agent for China. The lawsuit was brought under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The timing of the shift to civil penalties is significant given the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden for possible FARA violations. The decision of the Biden Administration to move away from criminal charges under FARA could prove highly advantageous for Hunter Biden.

Here is the column: Continue reading “Did the Biden Administration Just Give a Boost To the Hunter Biden Defense?”

Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn

Judge Christopher Cooper
Judge Emmet Sullivan

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  The court has limited the evidence available to the prosecution, the scope of questioning, and cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. A jury of your peers is not supposed to literal with an array of fellow Clinton supporters. Those negative rulings continued during the trial, including a refusal to dismiss a juror whose daughter is playing on the same team with Sussmann’s daughter.  For John Durham, it may seem that the only person missing from the jury at this point is Chelsea Clinton.

Here is the column: Continue reading “Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn”

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks