Now for some good news. We have been following efforts to have professors stripped of academic positions or outright fired for voicing opposing views of police shootings, Black Lives Matter movement or aspects of recent protests from the University of Chicago to Harvard to Cornell to other schools. Now we have a professor at Creighton University who has triggered an outcry by calling support for police officers an expression of white supremacy. The University later issued an apology on behalf of Associate Professor of Theology Zachary Smith but no one has called for his termination. Today, that is progress. We can only hope that if Smith’s comments were directed at groups or issues associated with the current protests, the university and his colleagues would have the same measured or muted response.
One of the most controversial figures selected by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his investigative team was Andrew Weissmann. While some criticized Weissmann for perceived bias, many of us focused on his record of prosecutorial excess. Now a law professor at New York University, Weissmann appears eager to fulfill both criticisms. After the commutation of Roger Stone, Weissmann called for Stone to be pulled in front of a grand jury. It did not matter that there was no crime under investigation or likely criminal charge based on the use of a presidential power that is virtually absolute. Weissmann seemed to call for the use of the grand jury for a fishing expedition — precisely the type of alleged excessive use of prosecutorial power that he faced at the Justice Department. Weissmann is reportedly writing a book on the investigation with the reported titled “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.”
Continue reading “Top Mueller Aide Andrew Weissmann Calls For Stone To Be Called Into Grand Jury”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the commutation of the sentence of Roger Stone and the objections from various commentators and politicians that it was an unprecedented abuse of this constitutional power. The political outcry was predictable but it was also accompanied by an ahistorical treatment in Congress and the press. Many leaders lined up to cast the first Stone comment on how it was an unprecedented act despite their own relative silence during past abuses of presidential clemency. Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that the commutation was “an act of staggering corruption” for someone who “could directly implicate him in criminal misconduct.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff declared that the commutation left him “nauseous.” Of course, Pelosi, Schiff, and other Democrats seemed to have greater stability and intestinal fortitude after Bill Clinton’s pardoning of his own brother (Roger Clinton), a fugitive Democratic donor (Marc Rich), or his longtime friend (Susan McDougal) who was convicted in an investigation that implicated both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Likewise, Mitt Romney seemed to echo Toobin’s view (below) in declaring this an “unprecedented, historic corruption” when “an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.” However, Romney long heralded his respect and support of President George H.W. Bush despite Bush’s executive clemency actions for six former senior government officials implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, including former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Bush himself was implicated in that scandal and some alleged was protected by their silence. Nevertheless, this Society of Historical Revisionism appears to be expanding with members expressing utter shock at the notion of a president abusing the pardon power. There were no calls for investigations or new legislation from these politicians at the time. So, to paraphrase John 8:7, let he or she “without sin among you,” cast the first Stone criticism.
Here is the column:
Fifty years ago, Ford Motor Company started production on the Pinto, a car that was billed as the be-all, end-all for the automotive industry. The only problem was that the car seemed to burst into flames if it hit a mid- to large-sized squirrel. The Pinto’s combustibility did not stop its advocates from pushing its use until it finally was pulled from the roads. The Pinto came to mind this week with the reappearance of a poorly conceived product from the legal world: the Trump bribery theory. Various legal experts have insisted President Trump could be prosecuted or impeached under bribery laws, including for his dealings with Ukraine. I have written repeatedly that this theory was discredited by controlling case law, and I testified against its use as an article in the House impeachment hearing last year. As Ralph Nader once said about the Chevrolet Corvair, this theory is “unsafe at any speed” on Capitol Hill. The decision to pull out this discredited theory of bribery is just the latest example of choosing combustibility over credibility in legal analysis. The difference is that when unstable automotive products are exposed, they are taken off the road. Unstable legal products just keep rolling along.
This week saw the unwelcomed return of dentist Walter Palmer, 60, to international media coverage. Palmer was widely denounced over his shooting of “Cecil the Lion” for a trophy five years ago. He is now back with a series of gruesome pictures with a dead ram from Mongolia. The argali ram is considered “near threatened” but are a favorite for trophy hunters including a similar hunting trip by Donald Trump Jr. Continue reading “Minnesota Dentist Walter Palmer Under Fire For Renewed Trophy Hunting”
A New York City education council meeting recent attracted national attention after one member of the council (and its past President), Robin Broshi, accused another member, Thomas Wrocklage, of racism after he was seen in a zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap. The video below is rather breathtaking but the incident has led to countervailing claims of racism and slander. As is often the case, we tend to jump on any novel torts claims and this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates. It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world. However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to condemn the destruction of a statue of Christopher Columbus in the city of Baltimore (where she was born and raised) yesterday in the latest example of politicians enabling such mob action with their silence. When asked about a mob pulling down the statue and dumping it in the harbor (with no interference from police), Pelosi simply declared “People will do what they do.” Indeed, they will when leaders refuse to condemn their conduct. Her comment explains why a recently arrested supporter of Antifa declared that they are winning in the campaign to destroy statues and memorials. Update: Maryland Governor Larry Hogan blasted Pelosi for being out of touch with her comments. Rather than pander to the most extreme elements of these protests, Hogan insisted “while efforts towards peaceful change are welcome, there is no place in Maryland for lawlessness, vandalism, and destruction of public property.”
Continue reading ““People Will Do What They Do”: Pelosi Refuses To Condemn Statue Destruction”
Today we discussed the formal censuring of a conservative student at Georgetown for his criticism of Black Lives Matter as an organization and his objections to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. Georgetown University has remained silent as the student has been declared a racist and the student government called for his investigation. At Penn State, the university took an important step in this time of rising intolerance and actually included conservative students in a welcoming message. It did not last. After an outcry from students, the university deleted the tweet — thereby sending precisely the opposite message to conservative students.
Continue reading “Penn State Deletes Tweet Welcoming Conservative Students After Outcry”
We have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the University of Chicago to Cornell to Harvard to other schools. However, student face even greater pressure to conform to a new orthodoxy enforced on our campuses. An example is conservative Georgetown University junior Billy Torgerson who was the subject of a formal resolution of condemnation by the Georgetown University Student Association as well as a call for a bias complaint to the university. The reason is a column posted on his own website entitled “A Nation Of Virtuous Individuals” in which he espouses widely held conservative views of the law and patriotic views of the country.
I previously discussed on Twitter that Michael Cohen seemed to me to be in violation of the standard obligations of federal prisoners given furloughs during the pandemic when he was seen at a high-end restaurant. His lawyer strongly disagreed that Cohen’s conduct violated the conditions but Cohen has now been taken back into custody according to media reports. This is not the first time that Cohen’s culinary impulses have gotten him into hot water.
There has been exhaustive coverage over the latest tell-all book targeting President Donald Trump. Mary Trump’s book, “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” slams her uncle for a series of horrible acts and a lifetime of deceit. However, one allegation has drawn much attention and raises a related issue repeatedly discussed on this blog: Trump allegedly used a friend as a surrogate to take his college entrance test in order to secure a place at the elite Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. The problem is that this allegation appears to be untrue if the widow of the named individual is telling the truth. That raises the issue of “defaming the dead” and a common law doctrine that I have spent many years criticizing as unfair and harmful.
Continue reading ““Too Much and Never Enough”: Did Mary Trump Defame The Dead In Her Tell-All Book?”
By any measure, Harvard Professor Steven Pinker, who holds the Johnstone Family Chair of Psychology, is one of the most influential intellectual leaders in the world. He is also someone who believes in robust intellectual discourse and free thought and speech. That propensity for academic freedom has now made him a target of hundreds of academics and graduate students who are seeking his removal from the Linguistic Society of America. The letter is one of the most chilling examples of the new orthodoxy that has taken over our academic institutions. The signatories seek his removal for holding opposing views on issues like underlying causes of police shootings and other research. The cited grievances are at best nuanced and at worst nonsensical. Yet, hundreds signed their names and academic affiliations to try to punish a professor for holding opposing views to their own. We have been discussing these cases across the country including a similar effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago. It is part of a wave of intolerance sweeping over our colleges and our newsrooms — a campaign that will devour its own in the loss of academic freedoms and free speech. (I should note that I do not know Dr. Pinker and, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met him).
Continue reading “Harvard Professor Under Fire In Latest Attack On Free Speech”
Rep. Iihan Omar has been much in the news for her extreme positions on defunding police departments and yesterday calling for the dismantling of not just the American economy but the political system. In declaring her support for sweeping legislation yesterday, Omar railed against the American economic and political systems as a “system of oppression” and insisted that we cannot allow people to “prioritize profit without considering who is profiting.” That question however is now being raised in growing ethical concerns over Omar giving her husband’s company a massive amount of her campaign funds. This has been an issue that I have written about for over two decades as a legal but corrupt practice. The two stories show once again that the only defining element in Washington greater than irony is hypocrisy in both of our political parties. Update: Omar may have given as much as one million dollars to her husband’s company.
We have been discussing protest related charges that raises troubling or novel issues. The charges against two protesters Viet Tran, 21, and Alexandria Dea, 26, are both. They are charged under a little known (and even less used) law barring unauthorized dissemination of intelligence data. The data came in the form of a Des Moines Police Department bulletin that was pulled from the back pocket of a police officer during struggles with protesters.
We previously discussed the arrest of Samantha Shader, 27, and her sister, Darian, 21, in one of the Molotov cocktail attacks on police in New York City. There is now a twist where a third individual is being charged as an accomplice. Samantha Shader reportedly blamed a black male for giving her the explosive. The FBI however has alleged that the accomplice was a friend from upstate New York who is white. At issue is a Bulleit whiskey bottle that Samantha Shader is accused of throwing at a police van on May 30th. The allegations against three African Americans by a self-described social justice activist is a rather unexpected twist in an already bizarre case. It could present an difficult issue for the defense in pre-trial admissibility challenges.