I will be testifying this morning at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. The hearing will be on the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and the current controversy (and litigation) over President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration on the southern border. The hearing will be on C-Span and will start at noon at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
As someone who has called for the disbarment of Michael Cohen for well over a year, the belated decision by the New York bar this week to disbar the disgraced lawyer is welcomed news. There are few ex-lawyers that you can say this about, but the removal of Cohen from the bar has materially improved the value of everyone’s license across the country.
As expected, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency proclamation. The vote was 245 to 182 with 13 Republicans voting against the President. The matter now goes to the Senate where Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maine Sen. Susan Collins have indicated that they will likely join Democratic members to rescind the order. However, even if passed, there is a need for a supermajority to override the promised veto from President Trump.
Occasionally we discuss great and not-so-great defenses in litigation. This would fall under the latter. Robert Richter, the attorney for Cardinal George Pell in his sentencing hearing for sexual assault, shocked many with his assurance to the court that one of the incidents was a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.” It is a a statement that seems tailored to destroy any chance of leniency for your client. On the legal Richter scale, that would be a 9 or more level argument with total destruction.
Just when you thought that the politics in Washington, D.C. could not get more grotesque, it does. In a shocking tweet, House Oversight Committee, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a strong supporter of President Donald Trump, tweeted out a clear threat to Michael Cohen that his appearance before Congress just might lead to the disclosure of affairs with multiple women. It is clearly highly inappropriate and, even as one of Cohen’s longest critics, it is outrageous to threaten the release of immaterial personal dirt on a witness who is reportedly ready to implicate the President in wrongdoing.
Harvard students are petitioning for the removal of law professor Ronald Sullivan, the house dean (previously called House Master) of Winthrop House. The school has announced a “climate review” on whether Sullivan can continue as dean after he agreed to represent accused sexual harassers Harvey Weinstein and Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer. It appears that even the representation of people accused of sexual harassment is now considered its a threatening or improper act.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit apparently capped his legendary career with the distinction of both published and being reversed on a decision after he passed away on March 29. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing the opinion to be announced after Reinhardt passed. It was an astonishing and facially improper decision to publish the opinion after the death of a jurist. The Ninth Circuit was unanimously reversed — producing an increasingly rare unanimity on the Court. The per curiam ruling vacated the Ninth Circuit’s en banc ruling in Rizo v. Yovino.
The Court’s holding can be summed up in a single line: “Federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”
President Donald Trump’s long opposition to the release of his tax records has been a legitimate matter of concern for people on both sides of the political aisle. Such records are routinely disclosed by modern presidential candidates and the information could prove relevant to some of the allegations facing the President regarding his personal financial interests as well as past business practices. Moreover, the President’s long excuse that the taxes are subject to ongoing proceedings with the IRS (and being withheld by the advice of counsel) seems dubious at best. However, while vociferously demanding such records from the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has steadfastly refused to release her own. Indeed, Chief of Staff Drew Hammill virtually mocked the suggestion of such transparency in the public interest. Hammill dismissed such suggestions and said that Pelosi “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.” The problem is that Pelosi succeeded in running for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives which not only gives her great ability to advance her own financial interests but puts her just one slot (after the Vice President) from becoming president in an emergency.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the effort in New York to change constitutional protections against double jeopardy to allow prosecutors to charge former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort with state offenses. The effort is to guarantee that Manafort goes to jail if President Donald Trump gives him a pardon. The sight of politicians campaigning on the pledge to jail Manafort raises serious concerns of this highly selective effort. Moreover, the effort to change New York constitutional protection to get Manafort could give Trump precisely the basis for a pardon that Democrats are preemptively trying to deter. I have repeatedly said that a pardon for Manafort would be inexcusable. He has more than earned any sentence that a court chooses to give him and the New York effort should not change that. However, if the Democrats tailor their constitutional protections to get Manafort, they are giving Trump the ability to say that he is responding to selective targeting of Manafort to guarantee that he is not punished twice for the same underlying conduct. More importantly, New York should not sacrifice its commendable protection against double jeopardy to get Manafort. He is not worth it.
I have previously expressed my outrage at the position of the Trump Administration in failing to hold Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accountable in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year. The evidence is overwhelming that the Crown Prince (who has a blood-soaked reign in the Kingdom) ordered the savage murder. Now, the Crown Prince is doing a world tour and assembling fawning leaders to show that he is effectively immune from such quaint notions as murdering journalists. Countries like Pakistan have accepted billions from the Kingdom and are now pandering to the Crown Prince, including giving the accused murderer a gold-plated submachine gun.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on status of the Mueller investigation and what we have learned about Russian collusion. On Friday, Mueller filed what could be his last major filing before the submission of his report to Attorney General Bill Barr. It was the Manafort sentencing report and, once again, it was long on Ukrainian and short on Russian collusion. Indeed, Manafort’s lobbying efforts were designed to help Ukrainian figures on issues stemming from their internal political tensions and investigations. For example, the highly detailed filing discusses how Manafort was given millions to further a “furtive activity in connection with the United States’s consideration of a resolution condemning Ukraine for President Yanukovych’s locking up his political opponent Tymoshenko.” Mueller discusses the focus of Mueller’s work as “lobbying for Ukraine.” While Mueller could still present evidence of Russian collusion, this filing continues a notable trend in the omission of such evidence by key players. If Manafort was an agent for Russia, it would likely have been mentioned in his sentencing report and used as the basis of either a FARA or related charge. Instead, the filing shows Manafort was working for Ukrainian not Russian interests in these criminal enterprises.
It seems increasingly common for me to find myself utterly confused by American politics. I have admittedly always liked Bernie Sanders and I liked his interview on Vermont Public Radio where addressed the upcoming presidential campaign. He said “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society, which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.” If that would seem like an unassailable and uncontroversial statement, guess again.
With the ruling of Judge Kenneth A. Marra of Federal District Court in West Palm Beach on the obscene plea deal with Jeffrey E. Epstein, it is time for Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to resign. Marra found, as many of us have long argued, that the deal cut by Acosta violated federal law and allowed the infamous financier to get a disgracefully low sentence. Many of us objected to his nomination by President Donald Trump and condemned the Senate for confirming him. It is now time for him to resign.
While we discussed another Louisiana case involving the attempted killing of a llama, there is an equally interesting case out of Lafayette (where I once lived) involving Maegan Adkins-Barras, 32. Adkins-Barras has been charged on an obscure state law for sharing a videotape of a fight at her son’s high school. The case raises some significant constitutional concerns.
There is a disturbing case in Richmond, Virginia where Michelle Renay Sutherland, 45, was to be held without bond after recreating the scene from the Virginia flag in a demonstration in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. As shown on the flag, Sutherland exposed one breast and was arrested for a misdemeanor of indecent exposure. The arrest itself raises concerns but the greater concern is the fact that Sutherland was to be held for more than a month without a bond on a misdemeanor charge. Richmond Judge Lawrence B. Cann III initially ordered Sutherland to remain in jail without bond but later apologized and granted a bond after public outcry.
