Laura Loomer from the conservative website The Rebel ran on to the stage on Friday of the controversial production of Julius Caesar in Central Park. The show has been criticized for its characters modeled on President Donald Trump and others. Trump, as Caesar, is killed in the show to the delight of the crowd. Many find the show to be distasteful and hateful. However, for those of us who have actively criticized liberals who shutdown conservative speakers on campuses and other public events, this is an equally objectionable effort to stop free speech. Indeed, it seeks to prevent both artistic and political expression.
Democrats are clamoring for the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week in the wake of his testimony before the Senate. I fail to see the good-faith basis for these calls, particularly after his testimony. Sessions shot down the claims of a third meeting with Russians that was the subject of breathless media reports for days. He also did an excellent job in explaining the steps that he took in recusing himself, including declining to play any role in the Russian investigation long before his formal recusal. He was also on good ground in declining to discuss conversations with the President in the Oval Office. Despite the shock expressed by Democratic Senators, he is in a long line of cabinet members declining to disclose such presidential communications. Nevertheless, the Democrats were right that you should have a formal invocation of executive privilege before declining to answer questions from Congress. However, as discussed in the column below, that is not uncommon.
Yet, the Administration had just gone through a controversial hearing with top intelligence officials refusing to answer such questions and clearly knew that these questions were coming. What did not make sense in the testimony of National Security Agency director Adm. Mike Rogers and National Intelligence Director Dan Coats was their refusal to answer on the ground that it would be “inappropriate.” That makes no sense in isolation without an indication that the questions will be reviewed and addressed by White House counsel in whether executive privilege will be invoked. The same problem arose with the testimony of Sessions (which was magnified by the fact that the White House has been pummeled over the earlier hearing).
The White House should have simply invoked the privilege with regard to presidential communications in the Oval Office in advance while stating an intention to try to answer as many of the questions of the Committee as possible within those long-standing constitutional confines. It is not unheard of to decline to answer questions pending review but Sessions did not promise to have questions reviewed. If he does not secure an invocation (or permission to disclose), he would simply be refusing to answer questions of Congress which constitutes contempt of Congress. This is not necessary. The White House Counsel should have sent a letter in advance of the hearing either invoking or waiving privilege. Alternatively, he needs to send a letter to address the outstanding questions. Congress has a right to have its questions answered unless the White House claims privilege. Even with an invocation, Congress can overcome the privilege with a proper showing to a court. The process requires a firm answer from the White House on the basis for refusing to answer questions and it cannot be a categorical denial based on unease or discomfort.
Here is the column in the Hill Newspaper.
Continue reading “Both Sessions and the Senators Were Right in the Fight Over Executive Privilege”
I had the honor of attending the investiture of Neil Gorsuch yesterday. It was an event steeped in history and the Court’s version of pomp and circumstance. I actually love the Court’s staid and understated style at such moments. The investiture is short and dignified in the courtroom with the reading of his his commission and Gorsuch taking his chair among the nine. President Donald Trump and the First Lady were present as were as array of dignitaries. The investiture was followed by a reception that was incredibly elegant with the justices in my favorite rooms in the Supreme Court with the famous portraits of prior Chief Justices. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein presented the commission to the Court which was read by the Supreme Court Clerk. There was a notable sound of whispers when the commission from Trump mentioned that Gorsuch was entitle to all of the “emoluments” of his office.
Continue reading “The Supreme Court Holds The Investiture of Neil Gorsuch”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is close to reaching a statistical zero for support. According to a new poll, Christie is supported by only 15 percent of voters. Given the error rate of standard polls, Christie is rapidly reducing his support to his immediate family. This is the lowest approval rating “for any governor in any state surveyed by Quinnipiac University in more than 20 years.”
This includes a now 81 percent disapproval rating. Yes, you read that correctly. Eighty-one percent disapproval.
Washington was awaken this morning with our now regular sound of a tweet from the President. At 6:55 am, President Donald Trump blasted the report that Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating him for obstruction of justice. He called the whole thing based on a “phony story” — a likely dig at former FBI Director James Comey. I previously raised my concern about the alleged leak from the Special Counsel’s office. The fact that the office is investigating obstruction is hardly news. Even those of us who have expressed substantial reservations about the legal basis for an obstruction charge against the President have said that there was ample reason to investigate such allegations. However, the leak in the Washington Post undermines the credibility not of the President but the Special Counsel. Similarly, I have previously said that these tweets from the President are highly damaging to both his public and legal case. Recent polling finds that only one in five voters support Trump’s firing of Comey and a majority now believe that he did meddle in the Russian investigation.
The Washington Post is reporting that Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has now expanded to look into whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice. What is most notable is not the investigation of obstruction of justice. Rather it is the fact of the leak that is alarming. Former FBI Director James Comey (who followed Mueller at the Bureau and has had a long relationship with Mueller) just admitted to leaking damaging information against Trump. Comey, who was tasked with investigating leakers, became a leaker himself. Now, the Special Counsel’s office is accused by Trump’s counsel of leaking informing damaging to Trump — an office that could be asked to consider unauthorized leaks as part of its investigation. While such leaks could come from witnesses, those witnesses appear in large part high-ranking members of the Trump administration unless they came from a briefing with members of Congress.
Continue reading “Did The Special Counsel’s Office Just Leak Against Trump?”
There is an interesting free speech controversy in Florida where Vero Beach High School junior J.P. Krause won the election for class president only to be told that he would be retroactively disqualified. The reason was his tongue-in-cheek campaign speech using Trump slogans. Vero High Principal Shawn O’Keefe accused Krause of harassing an opponent with his speech invoking President Trump’s proposed border wall. The Superintendent had to reverse O’Keefe’s decision after a public outcry.
President Donald Trump has pledged to reduce red tape and regulations for businesses in the United States. It is a worthy goal, but it has led to some curious decisions. For example, the Administration just tossed a new rule intended to limit the numbers of endangered whales and sea turtles getting caught in fishing nets. This rule however was supported by the fishing industry. Thus, this was a rare case where conservationists and corporations agreed. It was the Trump Administration that did not agree. Not only was the rule proposed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council had proposed the new regulation in 2015, but the federal government has been implementing the plan.
This is James T. Hodgkinson, 66, who has been identified as the shooter in today’s tragedy. He is from Belleville, Illinois and appears a political activist. He is the owner of JTH Inspections. He has a criminal record, including battery.
There is an interesting article in the Washington Post entitled “As A Prosecutor, Kamala Harris’s Doggedness Was Praised. As a Senator, She’s Deemed ‘Hysterical.'” The Los Angeles Times also described Harris’ style as prosecutorial in nature and referenced her skills in court examination. The articles raise a common comparison between court and congressional hearings in terms of questioning. When I served as lead counsel in the last impeachment, I constantly spared with Senators over the failure to follow basic rules of evidence or practice. The Senators would respond that such rules do not apply to them — which is technically correct though good practices are not always required practices.
Former Trump aide Jason Miller was confronted by USA Today columnist over his description of Harris as “hysterical” in the hearing. Her point is a valid one but the Washington Post suggests that this type of questioning would be considered praise worthy in a prosecutor. The comparison between actual litigation and congressional examinations is an interesting one. I have great respect for Sen. Harris and her experience. However, while her questioning began well, it quickly fell into improper questioning if viewed from a litigation viewpoint. As a criminal defense attorney, I can say that it would not only be viewed as improper but judges would immediately sustain objections to such badgering of a witnesses. Indeed, I was surprised watching the hearing as Democratic senators pummeled Sessions with questions and demanded rapid answers. Sessions had just been attacked for failing to fully and truthfully answer an earlier (and rather unclear) question from Sen. Al Franken. Now however they were giving him rapid questions and cutting off his answers. Harris was the most extreme in that respect.
I was in Fox studios in Washington this morning when the news came out of the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Rep. Roger Williams and others at a baseball field in Alexandria. It was a horrific story made all the more surreal by the fact that I used to take my kids to that field when I lived in Alexandria. This is a very peaceful area where families gather regularly near the Del Rey neighborhood. There is still differing accounts of whether the shooter is dead. If he is alive, there are specific federal offenses for this type of act that makes this a federal offense as well as a state offense. Such an assault on a member is deemed attempted assassination under the federal law due to the status of the victim (and likely motivation of the crime).Continue reading “House Majority Whip and Others Shot During Baseball Practice [UPDATED]”
I guess Jimmy Neutron will have to live with “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius . Cambridge University examiners are being told to avoid the words “flair”, “brilliance” and “genius” in the review of student work because these terms are sexist and “carry assumptions of gender inequality.” It appears Madam Curie was just a really solid researcher.
Missouri Representative Mike Moon (R-Ash Grove) takes a more literal meaning to the classic political pledge of a “chicken in every pot.” In a truly bizarre video below, the Republican legislator decapitated a chicken while discussing a special session and then pulled out its heart.
This is the type of thing that I find thrilling. An effort to preserve a hut at Cape Adare in Antarctica led to the discovery of this beautiful 118-year-old painting by Dr. Edward Wilson. The British polar explorer died in Antarctica on an expedition led by Capt. Robert Falcon Scott. This incredible picture sat in a pile of papers unnoticed for over a century.
It is the presidential version of death by cop. Recently, I wrote a column on how Trump had become a witness against himself by, again, tweeting highly damaging observations about pending litigation and even contradicting the statements of his own legal team in the immigration order litigation. As predicted, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit not only ruled against his Administration but relied on his damaging recent tweet to seal the deal. The lack of message discipline extended to Trump friends this week after his friend, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, said Trump was considering firing Mueller: “I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he’s weighing that option. I think it’s pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television recently.” The statement sent a chill throughout Congress. Such a move would not only push Congress to pass a renewal of the Independent Counsel Act but magnify allegations of obstruction.