Below is my column in USA Today on the expanding litigation over the Stormy Daniels controversy and specifically the precarious ethical position for Trump’s longtime counsel, Michael Cohen. One interest development was the move by Daniels’ counsel (and my former research assistant) Michael Avenatti to get a new judge in the Daniels case. Avenatti argued that it was inappropriate for the case to be heard by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Feffer because she is seeking a federal judgeship from President Trump. The move was surprisingly successful and the case was transferred to Judge Howard Halm. Like Feffer, Halm was appointed by former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Ultimate Loser In The Stormy Daniels Saga Could Prove To Be Trump’s Lawyer”
The family of the late Democratic National Committee Staffer Seth Rich has sued Fox News for intentional infliction of emotional distress and related torts in the airing of allegations of a conspiracy involving Rich and Wikileaks. Despite my great sympathy for this family in the loss of Seth Rich, the complaint (below) is in my view without serious merit. The causal connections are too attenuated and liability would undermine first amendment protections for the free press.
I have previously written how Trump personal counsel Michael Cohen has left himself utterly exposed ethically in his effort to protect the President from the brewing scandal involving porn star Stormy Daniels. Cohen has struggled to deny any connection of the payoff to Daniels to the President or Trump organization. It is for that reason that a new document released by Daniels’ counsel (and my former research assistant) Michael Avenatti is so curious. The arbitration documents include the listing of Trump Organization Vice President and lawyer Jill A. Martin. Martin is listed as counsel for Essential Consultants LLC, a shell Delaware company formed by Cohen to help disguise the payment of the $130,000 to Daniels (whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford). The arbitration documents in Orange County, California were signed on February 22 — less than a month ago. It is bizarre that, given the huge effort to insulate Trump and his organization from this payment, Martin would effectively intervene in this way.
I recently wrote a column
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the effort of the Trump legal team to reach deal to have the President sit down with the Special Counsel in exchange for certain conditions or concessions. The problem is a matter of timing. As has been a repeated problem, the Trump team seems a couple steps behind the unfolding controversy.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, used the annual 
Like many people, I was 
Today is an important anniversary for former intelligence chief James Clapper. No it is not his marriage anniversary or conventional milestone. Clapper can celebrate the running out of the statute of limitations on his alleged perjury before Congress — five years and Clapper is now beyond the reach of the law.
We have been following the controversy over the claim of Native American ancestry by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the continued criticism from President Donald Trump who continues 
While people of good faith can still debate whether Hillary Clinton and her staff received considerably deference in the criminal investigation into the email scandal, there remains troubling cases where the Justice Department has shown no such deference or restraint told less powerful individuals. The most glaring example was the ridiculous treatment of former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier. Saucier was sentenced to a year in prison for simply taking pictures on a nuclear submarine without any intention of compromising national security. Last week, 
There is an interesting lawsuit in Oregon where Tyler Watson is suing Dick’s Sporting Goods for age discrimination after the store (and Walmart) declared that they would no longer sell guns to people below 21 years old. Since he is entitled to buy guns under state law, he is claiming that the store policy discriminates against him on the basis of age in refusing to sell him a .22 caliber Ruger rifle.
Yesterday, there was 
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reported determination of the Inspector General that former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe misled investigators about a leak to the media. There may be a question of consistency in criminally charging Michael Flynn for the same alleged act. People continue to spin this issue by noting (as the piece states) that Flynn agreed to this false statement crime as part of a plea bargain with more serious potential crimes. However, that misses the point. Prosecutors are required to apply the criminal code evenly. They are not allowed the luxury of a criminal charge that can be easily applied to a wide array of people at their discretion. It makes it very difficult for people to contest a criminal charge when prosecutors can simply criminalize any inaccurate or misleading statement while ignoring the same conduct in others. It is particularly concerning when the favorable parties are fellow prosecutors or government officials. My argument is not that we should have more false statement charges. Rather, there has long been a problem in the use of this provision which has been applied in an arbitrary manner.