Below is my column in USA Today on the pledge of President Donald Trump that he would adjourn Congress under a never used and rarely discussed power of Article II. While Trump pledged to do so a week ago, there has been no mention of the invocation since that time.
In the White House press conference, President Trump stated:
“If the House will not agree to that adjournment, I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both Chambers of Congress. The current practice of leaving town while conducting phony, pro forma sessions is a dereliction of duty that the American people cannot afford during this crisis. It is a scam. What they do. It’s a scam and everybody knows it, and it’s been that way for a long time, and perhaps it’s never done before. It’s never been done before. Nobody’s even sure if it has, but we’re going to do it.”
He later added:
“[Congressional leaders] know. They’ve been warned and they are being warned right now. If they don’t approve it, then we’re going to go this route, and we’ll probably be challenged in court and we’ll see who wins, but when the court hears that we aren’t getting people approved . . . for two and a half years for an important position that we need because of this crisis. We needed these people before, but now we really need these people.”
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Constitutional Defibrillator: Trump To Invoke Unprecedented Power To Adjourn Congress”
In the crush of news this week, one story was a bit buried. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial. It was an expected ruling but one that eviscerates the notion of an unbiased jury. I previously discussed the issue of the bias of the head juror and the need for a new trial. What is interesting is that Jackson does not seriously question her political bias but effectively gives a shrug and says “go to jail anyway.”
Continue reading “Federal Judge Dismisses Stone Motion … and Premise Of An Unbiased Jury”
The video below shows just how intense some panic buying has become in some stores as demonstrated by a Kentucky couple who was prevented from buying 23 cases of Mountain Dew with 552 individual cans.
Continue reading “Mountain Don’t: Kentucky Couple Has Meltdown After Being Prevented From Mass Purchase Of Mountain Dew”
The D.C. Circuit has ruled that Justice Department must turn over grand jury (Rule 6e) material to Congress — affirming a lower court in ruling against the Trump Administration. What was most interesting about the decision was the overriding necessity: to allow the House to decide if it needs to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time.
Continue reading “A Second Impeachment? D.C. Circuit Orders Justice To Turn Over Mueller Grand Jury Material To Congress”
I have previously written that some Democrats appear to be adopting Trump-like tactics while denouncing Trump for the very same conduct. The trend is spreading with name calling and increasingly outlandish criticisms. The Democrats will not out-Trump Trump, but they will erase any distinction between them if this trend continues. That was evident yesterday when Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only expressed pride in shattering decades of tradition in her conduct at the State of the Union, but changing the role of the Speaker at the SOTU from a strictly neutral figure to an openly partisan one — a change that was widely celebrated by Democrats without any self-awareness at the hypocrisy of the position. Pelosi then added an entirely unexplained allegation that the President was drugged or medicated at the address to the two houses. The media again seemed relatively mild in the face of that allegation as well as the unprecedented conduct of Pelosi.
Continue reading “Pelosi Accuses Trump Of Looking “Sedated” At State Of The Union”
Yesterday, we passed the 39,000,000 mark in views on the blog. We have used these moments to give thanks for our many regular readers around the world and give you an idea of the current profile of readers on the blog. We continue to rank in the top legal blogs in the world and I am particularly proud of our growing international readership. As always, I want to offer special thanks for Darren Smith who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems.
So here is our current profile:
Continue reading “RES IPSA HITS 39,000,000”
It might be easier for the New York Times to simply say who it is not endorsing. I have long been a critic of media endorsements which I view as self-obsessed as well as inimical to journalistic values of neutrality. For decades I have argued that media should end endorsements of political candidates. The Times however seems to be literally doubling down with its much ridiculed endorsement of both Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. I can certainly understand endorsing either candidate given their achievements and leadership but endorsing both is rather bizarre since they present sharply different policies and approaches. While the editorial board wrote that in choosing these two candidates was “radical” but “realist,” many of us view it as just ridiculous.
Continue reading “The New York Times Triggers Widespread Ridicule Over Endorsing Both Warren and Klobuchar”
Below is my column on history — and some dubious historical claims — related to Senate impeachment trials. As with the conflicting position on witnesses of some senators, the growing narrative in the media that Republicans senators have departed from the tradition of the Senate in commenting on trial has more hypocrisy than history behind it. I have repeatedly encouraged senators not to discuss the evidence or their likely votes, but that is a rule honored historically in the breach by members of this curious trial jury.
Here is column: Continue reading “What History Really Tells Us About Senate Trials”
I have been writing on the obvious relevance of Hunter Biden as a defense witness and the equally obvious hypocrisy of some Democrats in demanding their own witnesses while refusing to consider key White House witnesses. Now. House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract? That is a considerable price to pay to protect Joe Biden. It is also another reason why the decision to rush the impeachment vote was such a historic blunder by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If they had waited a couple months as I called for in my testimony, they could have called these witnesses and not handed over control to the Senate. Instead, they impeached by Christmas and then waited a month. Continue reading “Nadler: Hunter Biden Must Not Be Called”
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., will be one of the seven Democratic impeachment managers prosecuting President Trump this week in his Senate trial. However, he seems a tad unclear on what the trial is about or at least what the defendant is facing as the allegations of impeachable conduct. Crow declared on CNN’s State of the Union that Trump was really guilty of bribery. The problem is that bribery was rejected as an article of impeachment. Not only is it grossly unfair to go to trial while alluding to uncharged conduct, it is especially bizarre when the Supreme Court seems prepared to reaffirm the very case law that I cited earlier in rejecting such expansive interpretations.
Continue reading “House Manager Declares President Guilty Of . . . Attempted Bribery”
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the real possibility that the Supreme Court could be pulled into the Senate impeachment trial if witnesses are allowed. If you hated Bush v. Gore, this could be one sequel that you will not want to see. Certainly few on the Court are eager to play a role in the possible removal of an American president.
Here is the column: Continue reading “How The Supreme Court Could Be Pulled Into The Trump Impeachment”
Some of us have been highly critical of the trend in media toward “echo-journalism” where cable networks tailor their coverage to reinforce and repeat the expectations of their viewers. Few hosts are willing to admit to the formula coverage, though there have been telling moments. None have been open than Lawrence O’Donnell on The Al Franken Podcast when he declared that MCNBC was completely over the need to present two sides of coverage on Trump because defenders of Trump are “liars” and “I don’t bring on a liar.” It is that simple. The other side is just lies so only our side needs to be reported.
Continue reading “MSNBC Host Lawrence O’Donnell Declares Trump Supporters “Liars” And Refuses To Have Them On Show”
I have long respected Sen. Chris Coons (D, Del.) as a highly intelligent and effective senator. I was surprised today to be watching Michael Smercomish (who I also respect greatly) to hear Sen. Coons following the party line in arguing implausibly that Hunter Biden is not a relevant witness in any trial despite his centrality to the Trump defense. I previously addressed how Biden would be deemed relevant in a conventional trial and Smercomish quoted one of my Washington Post column at length to offer the opposing view. Sen. Coons responded not by addressing the relevancy argument but by dismissing such arguments as clever lawyering and “a stretch . . . a leap of logic worthy of Evel Knievel.” I should note that this analogy was lost on my youngest son, Aidan, who immediately asked “who is Evel Knievel?” When I explained, he responded, “isn’t that a good comparison?” Continue reading “A Leap or Perpetuating Evel? A Response To Sen. Chris Coons”