In the last three years, various experts have made what they called dispositive cases for crimes by President Donald Trump ranging from hate crimes to treason to inciting violence. Now Yale University Professor of Epidemiology Dr. Gregg Gonsalves is adding genocide. Gonsalves is upset with what he views as the “delayed” response by the Trump Administration to the pandemic. That is certainly a legitimate viewpoint that is shared by many and people of good faith can disagree on when the Administration should have acted. However Gonsalves insists that such a failure to respond a couple weeks earlier is “awfully close to genocide.” It is is neither genocide nor close to genocide, but Gonsalves later doubled down to make sure that people understood that this is not just hyperbole but he was “being serious here.” He further suggests that this genocidal strategy could be tied to killing minority voters before the election. Gonsalves has appeared widely as an expert in coverage by CNN, NBC, Politico, Foreign Policy magazine, The Washington Post, and other media outlets.
Below is my column in The Hill on a largely overlooked part of the recent material to be released in the Flynn case as well as the testimony released by the House Intelligence Committee: the focus on the Logan Act as the way to charge former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Indeed, I recently disagreed with former President Barack Obama on clearly false legal statements made about the Flynn case. However, within those false statements was a crushing irony. Obama is mentioned in the documents as discussing the use of the Logan Act against Flynn. While Obama decried (falsely) the lack of precedent for the dismissal of the Flynn case, he previously discussed the use of a clearly unconstitutional statute against Flynn that has never been used successfully to convict a single person since the start of the Republic.
Continue reading “Logan Act Is The Last Refuge For The American Prosecutorial Scoundrel”
The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any such evidence. One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Yesterday, I was critical of a segment by NBC News’ Chuck Todd that addressed the motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, including the use of a statement by President Obama without noting that he was wrong on the underlying charge and wrong on the absence of precedent (including a high-profile case from his own Administration). I previously called for the motion that was filed and criticized those who have ignored the clear evidence of prosecutorial abuse, including possible violations of Brady and standing court orders. It is always unnerving when Todd starts a discussion about the Trump Administration with “it is not partisan to say . . .” During Todd’s questioning of the panel on NBC’s Meet the Press, he used a clearly deceptive clip of a statement by Attorney General Bill Barr to suggest that Barr simply justified his decision as an exercise of raw power. Both the question and carefully clipped soundbite belie the later statement from Todd’s staff that the misrepresentation of Barr’s words as “inadvertently and inaccurately” edited. However, Todd has not issued an apology and NBC has only issued this brief statement. Such expectations seem quant relics in this age of rage and echo journalism. Many in the media seem to have embraced Hunter Thompson’s rejection of “objective journalism” as “a pompous contradiction in terms.” What is a contradiction in terms is this type of inadvertent journalism. (For full disclosure, I testified in favor of Barr’s confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee).
Continue reading ““A Contradiction In Terms”: Chuck Todd’s “Inadvertent” Journalism”
Below is my column in The Hill on the legal foundation for an economic recovery in reopening businesses in the United States. While some often seem to assume a zero tolerance approach for any risk of spread, we have no choice but to try to get this economy out of the current disastrous conditions. Unless we want to reintroduce a barter economy, we need to stop the exponential growth of debt coupled with the perilous decline of employment. The key may be individual choice and an ancient legal doctrine.
Continue reading “The Future Of The Economy May Depend On An Ancient Doctrine Of The Past”
Happy Mother’s Day to all! This holiday holds particular meaning to many of us as we all weather this pandemic by pulling our family closer and tighter. I am still in Chicago with my 92-year-old mother, Angela Piazza Turley. We will be celebrating today on Zoom with the rest of the family.
Former President Barack Obama is being quoted from a private call that the “rule of law is at risk” after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association that “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.” Without doubting the exhaustive search referenced by President Obama, he might have tried calling one “alum”: former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder moved to dismiss such a case based on prosecutorial errors in front of the very same judge, Judge Emmet Sullivan. [Notably, CNN covered the statements this morning without noting the clearly false claim over the lack of any precedent for the Flynn motion]
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Though the state ordered us to Stay at Home and cower, it was of great necessary for me to drive to the Washington State Coast on “essential business travel related to maintaining critical infrastructure”. Yet, I did manage somehow to find a few moments during this noble duty to brave hazardous viral shoals, and pandemically mutated Coho-vid Salmon to bring you a few photographs of the infested outdoors. Please, do not worry for me–I had my cloth facemask somewhere in the glovebox and Geiger counter on a shelf in the garage, so I was protected.
Click on each to enlarge.
Continue reading “Weekend Photos: The Tide is Low But I’m Holdin’ On”
Many in the media have struggled mightily to ignore the highly disturbing evidence that has been released in the Flynn case and to paint the decision to dismiss the case as a raw political act by Attorney General Bill Barr. CNN this morning even called former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who proceeded to make statements about the record that were utterly absurd and untrue. Not only was McCabe not challenged on the statements, it was never mentioned that he was fired after being found by career investigators to have lied to them (the very charge against Flynn). Despite the fact that his false statements were related to this very case, it was not deemed relevant to raise by CNN with CNN’s senior analyst. McCabe however displayed the very bias and maliciousness documented by career investigators before he was fired. The interview reminds one of the recently released text of FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, the Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, remarking that “our utter incompetence actually helps us.”
In an unanimous opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg excoriated the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for “an abuse of discretion” when it brought in third parties to argue the case and ruled on that basis. That approach “drastically” changed the judicial norms of having the parties present arguments. The Ninth Circuit opinion was written by A. Wallace Tashima who ruled with Marsha S. Berzon, and Andrew D. Hurwitz. Hurwitz was brought into the case after Judge Stephen Reinhardt died. Continue reading “A “Radical Transformation”: Supreme Court Unanimously Overrules The Ninth Circuit”
Yesterday, we discussed the astonishing tweet from Lisa Bloom that she believes that Joe Biden is a rapist and continues to lie about raping a former staffer, but she still will endorse him for President. Now Linda Hirshman in the New York Times has run an opinion piece entitled “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.” It is a chilling example of how feminist writers are retaining their “women must be believed” position from Kavanaugh and simply declaring that they will support someone they believe to be a rapist. Imagine if a Republican senator said he believed Dr. Ford that Kavanaugh was clearly a rapist but we need a reliable conservative on the Court.
Continue reading “Linda Hirschman: Yes, Biden Is A Rapist But He Should Be The Next President”
Over a week ago, I wrote a column calling for the Justice Department to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. I have long been a critic of the case but the new evidence undermined not just the legitimacy of the prosecution but of the Justice Department itself. The Justice Department just moved to dismiss the case, a belated but commendable decision. The Flynn case represents one of the most ignoble chapters of the Special Counsel investigation. Notably, the motion itself could lay the foundation for suing on the basis of malicious prosecution.
While Judge Emmet Sullivan could dismiss the charges on the papers (an unopposed motion), I would expect a hearing to be called. There is a great irony here. Sullivan’s last hearing on sentencing led to controversial statements from the bench and a delay in sentencing that resulted in an easier path to dismissal.
The Supreme Court today unanimously threw out the convictions of Bridget Kelly, a former aide to Christie, and Bill Baroni, a former Port Authority official, for their role in “Bridgegate.” The dispute involved the controversial closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic problems for the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who had refused to endorse Christie. Notably, the Court rejected the very arguments raised by some experts against Trump and relied on some of the same analysis that I raised in my testimony in the Trump impeachment against such claims. Continue reading “Supreme Court Unanimously Throws Out Bridgegate Convictions — And Rejects Prior Legal Arguments Against Trump”
We have been discussing most recent case against televangelist Jim Bakker. Bakker was mentioned in my recent column on why some religious claims raised in the pandemic are dubious. Now, Bakker is making sweeping claims that he has a religious right to sell a fraudulent cure for the coronavirus. His new lawyer, former Gov. Jay Nixon, is arguing that the free exercise clause gives Bakker the right to sell (for profit) a cure that could discourage the stricken from getting medical treatment or taking real precautions.
Continue reading “Jim Bakker Claims The Religious Right To Sell Fraudulent Cure To The Coronavirus”
Many of us have criticized the shifting and incomplete excuses of former Vice President Joe Biden in refusing to open his papers held at the University of Delaware. This includes politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer who have declared Biden innocent before the start, let alone the completion, of a search of his papers. However, students at the University of Pennsylvania seem to have taken away the wrong lesson from this controversy. The school’s Coalition Against Fraternity Sexual Assault (CAFSA) has thrown out the Penn Dems for not supporting former Biden staffer Tara Reade after she claimed Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. Our point is not that Biden should face the same presumptions of guilt but that both alleged violators and victims deserve to be heard fairly and both deserve due process.