Category Archives: Justice

Rudy Giuliani Is Doing Political PR; He’s NOT Protecting The President Legally

Donald Trump, Justice, Law, Politics, Republicans, Russia

“The White House is trying to downplay signs of trouble after the New York Times reported that White House counsel Don McGahn has cooperated extensively with the Russia investigation.”

CNN has learned that McGahn’s attorney did not give President Trump’s lawyers a full debrief after McGahn sat down for almost 30 hours of interviews with Robert Mueller’s team. CNN’s sources are saying that the president’s attorneys, well, did not ask for a debrief. (SEE Transcript)

More worrying is that, in Rudy Giuliani, the president has hired a political noise-maker.

Giuliani’s legal acumen is manifestly poor. When commentators wonder whether he even reads up briefs on the Mueller witch-hunt—one cannot disagree. It always sounds like Giuliani is flying by the seat of his pants.

America’s favorite former mayor is doing political PR; he’s not protecting the president legally.

So, where are all the president’s good men? And yes, Don McGahn is a big, dangerous deal.

 

UPDATED (8/22): Paul Manafort’s Lawyers Decide To … Gamble. What’s There To Lose Except The Rest Of Client’s Life

Justice, Law, Taxation

His life is on the line—the rest of it—yet Paul Manafort’s lawyers have opted for a risky defense strategy. Risky when so much is at stake.

Instead of mounting a defense against the oddly timed prosecution out of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing decides to wing it. His defense relied on cross examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Apparently the belief is that juries are sophisticated enough to discern that “the government has not met its burden of proof.”

“This is very common after prosecution rests to file a motion saying they didn’t meet the burden beyond a reasonable doubt,” said John Cohen, a former homeland security official and ABC New contributor. “Typically, this doesn’t work.”

Manafort’s lawyers clearly felt that gambling was the way to go, here. After all, what’s there to lose? The rest of their client’s life?

UPDATE (8/22):

Dumb lawyer gambled with his client’s life and the client lost.

Comments Off on UPDATED (8/22): Paul Manafort’s Lawyers Decide To … Gamble. What’s There To Lose Except The Rest Of Client’s Life

Written by on

UPDATED (7/30): The Robert Mueller Inquisition Is The Star(r) Chamber By Any Other Name

Donald Trump, Government, Hillary Clinton, Justice, Law, Republicans, Russia, The State

No matter how you slice it, support for the The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, with its “storm-trooper tactic” and overweening, extra-constitutional powers, is WRONG, whether headed by Kenneth Starr or Robert Mueller. The moniker Star(r) Chamber stuck for good reason. Republicans conducted such a witch hunt; Dems are doing it now  Tucker the Great expresses regret for supporting the first.

Another honest man is Democrat Mark Penn.

Via Real-clear Politics:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Mark Penn was for many years one of the highest-level advisors to Hillary Clinton. He’s the author of the new book, “Microtrends Squared”, he joins us tonight. Mark, thanks a lot for coming on.

MARK PENN, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON CHIEF STRATEGIST: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, you wrote kind of an amazing piece the other day in “The Hill,” titled something like, questions I have for Robert Mueller. Tell us some of the questions that if you could ask, you would.

PENN: Well, remember, Tucker, I spent a year working with President Clinton against Ken Starr and that effort.

CARLSON: Well, I remember very well.

PENN: I just find that that was child’s play to what’s going on here. And I think Mueller has some questions about what the president was thinking when he fired Comey. Well, I certainly have some questions about what he was thinking when first he went to apply for the FBI job in the first place with Rosenstein. And then, turns around the next day, didn’t he already have a plan when he turned around.

Boy, when he put that team together, and there wasn’t a single Trump donor, what was he thinking then?

And when he looked at these dossiers and discovered that there was no foundation there, how did he deal with that? How does he justify these kinds of really stormtrooper tactics, I think is perhaps not an exaggeration, when you go guns drawn to political consultants, wiretapped all over the place over payments to porn stars?

This thing has gotten out of control. And while he wants to question the president, it seems that no one could really question either Mueller or Comey or Rosenstein, and that is precisely the problem.

CARLSON: Yes. It is the problem. And I hate to admit it since I supported the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation, and I look back in shame because of that. But that was the case that the Clinton people made at the time, there’s no oversight here. And that’s a huge problem.

And it turns out you were right about that.

In your piece, you made reference to his behavior in Boston when he worked there in the Whitey Bulger case. Briefly summarize that, if you would, because I thought it was really interesting.

PENN: Well, really the question – and I think Professor Dershowitz has really been out on this thing. But in the Bulger case, there were four innocent people in jail due to prosecutorial misconduct. And he was head of the office.

And so, you do not really find him in the legal cases, but that means he waited until the courts overturned things to release the people. And so, what was he thinking when that was happening? How did he permit that? How did he permit these kinds of gross abuses? And how does he then supervise an investigation now that seems to be filled with them?

CARLSON: Mark Penn, again, you have authority on this subject. And so, it’s nice to hear from you. Thanks a lot.

PENN: I went through it once. And I hope America doesn’t go through it again.

CARLSON: Yes. Hillary never would have allowed this. She’s too smart for this. There’s no doubt. Thank you.

An arm of the oppressor:

UPDATE (7/30): Title corrected: “An investigation in search of a crime.”

UPDATED (7/10): Kavanaugh Questions

Constitution, Federalism, Justice, Law, The Courts

Brett Kavanaugh, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has been nominated to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh comes from Administrative Law—was he good at fighting the Deep State?—was appointed and recently praised by George W. Bush, who gave us John Roberts, and George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who approved of Neil Gorsuch, suggests Kavanaugh is not an intellect of Gorsuch’s order.

For his part, libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (R­–Mich.) is openly unhappy. He tweets:

Kavanaugh is not another Gorsuch—not even close. Disappointing pick, particularly with respect to his 4th Amendment record. Future decisions on the constitutionality of government surveillance of Americans will be huge. We can’t afford a rubber stamp for the executive branch.

Randy Barnett, on the other hand, approves.

I don’t know that libertarians want “big fierce nominees,” but I see what Turley, an interesting thinker himself, is saying in the must-read op-ed, “Why ‘big fierce’ nominees are rare.”

An original thinker is always a good thing (and how few of those there are).

Supreme Court nominees. Most are not especially remarkable in their prior rulings or writings. They are selected largely for their ease of confirmation and other political criteria. Big fierce minds take too much time and energy to confirm, so White House teams look for jurists who ideally have never had an interesting thought or written an interesting thing in their increasingly short careers. … The last nominee was a remarkable departure from this judicial ecology rule. As I testified at his confirmation hearing, Neil Gorsuch was an intellect of the first order with a long list of insightful and provocative writings as both a judge and an author. …The history of Supreme Court nominations is largely one of planned mediocrity. The influential legal minds of a generation often are avoided for more furtive minds. … There is a difference between fierce ideology and fierce intellect. Many on the list of 25 judges stand out for commitment to conservative values but are not particularly distinguished in contributions to legal thought. Most fall closer to the mold of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, as opposed to Antonin Scalia and Gorsuch.

Confirmations tend to reward young lawyers who avoid controversies to advancement on the Supreme Court.

Jonathan Turley cites Richard Posner and Robert Bork as examples of “big fierce minds,” which simply could not be countenanced on the mediocrity-necessitating SCOTUS.

Brilliant piece. Turley is brilliant.

UPDATE (7/10):

John G. Roberts Jr.? Please no.