A new article out in Politico explores the disastrous decision of Squire Patton Boggs to bring in Michael Cohen in a blatant scheme to sell access to the President. Edward Newberry, one of the top lobbyists for Squire Patton Boggs, is described as one of the critical players in taking on a lawyer who was already viewed as one of the sleaziest and unethical lawyers in the country. Indeed, the article describes how some members of the struggling firm noted that he could well end up as the next Jack Abramoff, who went to jail for a long pattern of grotesque corruption. What was most interesting however about Theordoric Meyer’s piece however was the defense by the firm spokesperson, Angelo Kakolyris, in the article on the five clients that Cohen brought the firm under his bloated deal: “they are almost all legal clients.” “Almost all”? In reality, Kakolyris was making a finer point, I assume, that the small number of clients were legal not lobbying matters. However, it is an unfortunate choice of words for dealings with a man who seems to be spinning off criminal allegations the way hurricanes spin off tornados.
I have been a long critic of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen for over a year for his thuggish and often incompetent practice of law. He has matched his lack of legal skills with an abundance of greed, including blatant efforts to sell access to Trump to foreigners and private companies. Now people can listen to Cohen in his own voice as he performed his signature function for Trump: threatening a reporter for the Daily Beast and his acquaintances with ruin if he ran a negative story about a 1993 Trump biography.
The resignation of Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens is little surprise given the myriad of criminal charges brought against him for sexual misconduct and campaign violations. This resignation comes after St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner dismissed a felony charge accusing Greitens for allegedly tampering with computer data involving the donor list of a veterans’ charity he founded. What stood out in the agreement with Gardner was a condition that I have always found problematic and should be barred under state law: 
George Washington University is embroiled in a federal challenge against its handling of a case by one of our students accused of sexual assault. The case raises troubling questions of the school’s actions following the disclosure of alleged false statements by an accuser. Many years ago, I wrote a letter to the GW faculty objecting to changes in our rules governing the investigation and adjudication of sexual harassment and assault cases. Like many universities during the Obama Administration, GW was reducing protections for students accused of such misconduct under pressure from the Department of Education (
It is a familiar pattern. It has happened before. Around 10am on Memorial Day, my iPhone can be vibrating with email signals as I was driving one of my children and her friends. Soon they were coming in fast succession and then I knew: The President has tweeted out a quote. The two tweets were followed by a torrent of threats, insults, and profane suggestions involving physical acts that would have been challenging in my teens. In today’s rage-filled environment, the mere fact that Trump quotes you unleashes a tsunami of anger. It seems cathartic for people who cannot tolerate the slightest hint of agreement with Trump. The same is often true on the opposite end of the political spectrum if you challenge or question a position of Trump.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the calls for a constitutional challenge to the new NFL policy against protests during the National Anthem. While many have claimed that the policy violates free speech rights of the players, there is actually little support for such a challenge under constitutional law. The best shot might be procedural in nature in arguing that the collective bargaining agreement requires conferral on such rules with the players. Putting aside the strong defenses to this claim, it would likely only require consultation and not a change in the ultimate policy.
Trump lead counsel Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to struggle in media appearances this weekend with a jumbled and confusing interview. Notably, while expressing his dislike for those who sell access, Giuliani was clear on one point: he likes and respects Michael Cohen. The continued public support for Cohen may reflect a desire to keep him from becoming a cooperating witness, but the professions of respect for Cohen are becoming increasingly incongruous with disclosures of how Cohen shamelessly (and successfully) sought to sell access to Trump to foreign figures and various 
Well, this explains it. Religious author Paul McGuire appeared on the 
Emmet Flood
There is an old joke among criminal defense attorneys that “justice delayed is justice,” a twist of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The joke reflects that fact that the defense almost always benefits from the passage of time and it is the prosecution that often pushes for earlier trial debates to deny the defense enough time to absorb and address evidence. That is not the case with Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has asked federal Judge Dabney L. Friedrich to deny a speedy trial motion and delay any trial of 13 Russians and three Russian companies for efforts to influence the 2016 election. The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case, including 
Multiple defendant cases often resemble a lethal form of musical chairs as targets grab deals — leaving the loser still standing to face a full array of charges and cooperating witnesses. Trump former counsel Michael D. Cohen must be feeling like the music is about to stop after his close business associate Evgeny A. Freidman decided to take a deal from prosecutors. Freidman may be the only figure who could compete with Cohen on the higher Richter scale of sleaze. Update: