Category Archives: legal news

legal news

States’ rights … or not?

While he was running for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump said that states should be left to determine the legality of smoking pot.

Now that he is the president of the United States, Trump seems to be saying something else. Or, at least he’s allowing the attorney general to say it for him. AG Jeff Sessions has repealed relaxation of federal prosecution of marijuana laws. He has sicced federal prosecutors loose on those who are accused of smoking pot illegally.

Now comes a question: Which is it, do states’ right prevail on this matter or is this a matter where federal policy overrides them?

California has just legalized the sale of “recreational marijuana,” joining several other states and the District of Columbia in this initiative.

The AG is having none of it.

But to whom does the attorney general answer? Let’s see. It’s the president. And this president is on record saying that states should be left to set marijuana-use rules and laws.

Didn’t he say that? Didn’t he mean it? Wasn’t he speaking from his gut, or his heart, or did he make it up as a throwaway line?

The order Sessions rescinded, of course, came from President Barack H. Obama’s Department of Justice. DOJ said in 2013 it wouldn’t concern itself with marijuana court fights in states where its use is legal. Sessions is taking another attitude altogether.

However, is he speaking for the department he runs or for the president of the United States — or both! If so, has the president changed his mind?

legal news, national news, political news

No, Mr. POTUS, probe makes U.S. look ‘very good’

Donald Trump believes the ongoing investigation into the “Russia thing” makes the United States look “very bad.”

I believe I will take issue with the president of the United States on that one.

Trump told The “failing” New York Times that he didn’t “collude” with Russian agents seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election. He made the point at least 16 times during the conversation, the Times reports.

OK, then. Why is it bad? I am absolutely certain it’s “bad” for the president if special counsel Robert Mueller and his legal team deliver the goods on the Trump campaign.

As for the image this probe casts around the world, I believe the investigation makes the United States look “good” in the eyes of our allies and perhaps even our foes. Why? Because it demonstrates a level of political accountability, which is one of the hallmarks of our representative democracy.

We elect men and women to public office to represent our interests. We expect them to do right by us and for us. If there was collusion, we need to know all about it. How is that a bad thing? How does a Justice Department-appointed special counsel — who happens to be a former FBI director — perform a disservice to the nation if he does his job with skill and precision?

One more time, Mr. President: Let the probe continue. If it comes up empty, then let Robert Mueller draw that conclusion all by himself.

But … if the special counsel reels in The Big One, that’s a different matter altogether.

legal news, local news

Potter, Randall courts may produce political drama

Who would have thought that judicial races would fire up so much interest? Not me, that’s for sure.

Potter and Randall counties are set to produce a lively set of election contests in 2018 for seats that usually go virtually unnoticed by the public at large.

Randall County’s Court at Law No. 2 seat is being vacated by Ronnie Walker. Three challengers are running to replace him in the Republican Party primary. These challengers emerged before Walker decided to retire at the end of his current term. Hmm. Interesting, yes?

Potter County’s Courts at Law No. 1 and 2 both are being vacated by incumbents. Corky Roberts is retiring from No. 1; Pam Sirmon is leaving No. 2 … more on that in a moment.

Now we also have 320th District Judge Don Emerson calling it a career. One of the people seeking to replace him in that Potter County court is the aforementioned Judge Sirmon.

I’ve long detested the idea of electing judges on partisan ballots. The state still allows it for the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals — the top appellate courts in Texas. My dislike of partisan judicial elections extends to counties as well.

But that’s what we have. We elect these men and women based on their party affiliation, not necessarily entirely on their judicial competence, their temperament, their knowledge of the law or their judicial philosophy.

This coming year promises to produce a host of new faces replacing familiar faces that have administered justice — for better or worse — in Potter and Randall counties.

It should be a fascinating drama that unfolds.

legal news

Judicial nominee hits the road after embarrassing moment

Matthew Peterson got himself nominated for a lifetime job as a federal judge.

Then he had to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., had the temerity to ask Peterson a series of questions.

Had he ever tried a criminal case? A civil case? Had he ever argued before an appellate court? Umm. No on all three questions.

The exchange went viral, thanks to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., sending out via Twitter. See the video here.

Peterson withdrew his nomination today. He told Donald Trump he didn’t want to be a “distraction.”

I baffled on where to begin with this one.

I’m glad Peterson pulled out. He doesn’t belong on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. The young man needs some experience, um, trying cases in an actual courtroom. 

The most stunning aspect of this nomination is how in the world the president of the United States could put someone so wholly unqualified up for examination by the Senate judiciary panel. Did the president’s “fine-tuned machine” get all gummed up? It clearly failed to vet this fellow.

Good grief, man! I would think one of the questions one could ask a judicial nominee would be: Have you ever tried a case — in a courtroom? In front of a judge and a jury?

If the answer is “no,” then you move on to the next name on your list. Wouldn’t that work?

legal news, national news

FBI doesn’t deserve bashing from POTUS

Maybe my memory is failing me. Or maybe it isn’t.

I’m having trouble remembering the last president of the United States to disparage the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency, the FBI.

Therein is where Donald J. Trump is doing things so very differently from his predecessors. He’s calling the FBI a lot of names. He alleges that morale is in the crapper; he says its leadership is in shambles; he is saying the FBI needs to be rebuilt.

Oh, and he’s calling the FBI’s role in the examination of Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election a “sham” and a “Democratic hoax.”

I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of an FBI agent. How would I like working for a government being run by a head of state and government who is so distrustful of my agency?

Trump keeps savaging FBI

If the president is going to contend that morale is so lousy, perhaps he is playing a major role in flushing it down a sewer hole.

He’s also been disparaging the attorney general, whose agency — the Justice Department — controls the FBI. Trump dislikes that AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia-election meddling probe, as he should have done. The president’s reaction has been to send signals that Sessions’s time as AG might be dwindling.

Of course, there’s also the issue of Trump questioning the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia did meddle in the election and that Vladimir Putin issued the order to do it. Putin told the president he didn’t meddle — and that denial from the former head of the Soviet spy agency is good enough for Donald Trump.

Strange. Very strange.

legal news

How about ‘extreme vetting’ of judicial nominees?

Donald John Trump wants to employ “extreme vetting” of immigrants seeking entry into the United States of America.

Fine, but how about vetting nominees to the federal bench, Mr. President? I mean, at least a cursory vetting might enable the president to nominate men and women who know certain basics about the law.

Matthew Peterson sat before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this week and managed to utterly fluff simple questions about how he would apply certain legal tenets. He has been nominated to a spot on the U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Columbia.

He, um, didn’t do well at his hearing.

Check it out here.

Peterson has never tried a case. Senators asked him about his criminal law trial experience. None. His civil trial experience. None.

The video of Peterson stumbling and bumbling his way through the excruciating committee interview has gone viral, which is a rarity in itself, given that judicial nominee hearings usually aren’t the stuff of social media tittering.

The president has boasted of his administration running like a “fine-tuned machine.” Mr. President, a fine-tuned machine wouldn’t present judicial candidates who cannot answer basic questions from the men and women who must approve these nominations.

legal news, national news, political news

Sessions vs. Dowd over ‘obstruction of justice’?

Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, says the president “cannot obstruct justice” because the law exempts him from doing so.

Dowd said: The “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer … and has every right to express his view of any case.”

Are you clear on that? Me, neither.

Oh, but now we have this tidbit regarding the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions. Nearly two decades ago, when President Bill Clinton was being tried in the U.S. Senate after the House impeached him, Sessions — then a Republican senator from Alabama — said this while making the case to remove the president from office:

“The facts are disturbing and compelling on the president’s intent to obstruct justice.”

There’s more.

“The chief law officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen.”

Dadgum, man! Who’s right? The president’s personal lawyer or the attorney general?

Dowd is reaching way beyond his — and the president’s — grasp, in my view, in contending that Trump is immune from the obstruction of justice complaint, were it to come from the special counsel probing the Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election.

I disagree with what Sessions said in 1999 about President Clinton, but his statements on the record during that trial put him squarely at odds with what Trump’s personal lawyer is trying to peddle today. If an earlier president can be charged with obstruction of justice, then surely so can the current president face such a charge if one comes forward from the special counsel’s office.

This all begs the question from yours truly: What kind of legal mumbo jumbo is Trump’s lawyer trying to peddle?

legal news

Is this a nation of laws … or what?

If I understand Donald John Trump’s lawyer’s rationale correctly about whether the president can “obstruct justice,” I believe I have heard him suggest something quite dangerous and insidious.

John Dowd says the president’s role as chief of the executive branch of the federal government means he “cannot obstruct justice.” The president enjoys protection in Article II of the U.S. Constitution that others don’t get, according to Dowd.

He came to Trump’s defense after the guilty plea came from former national security adviser Michael Flynn over whether Flynn lied to the FBI about meetings with Russian operatives.

What I believe Dowd has said is that Donald Trump, as president, is above the law. He can do or say whatever the hell he wants without facing any criminal penalty, according to Dowd.

Let’s review quickly: President Nixon faced obstruction charges in 1974 when the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against; President Clinton was impeached in 1998 on a number of allegations, including obstruction of justice.

I believe Trump’s lawyer is, um, wrong!

I also believe John Dowd might be talking himself into some serious trouble, right along with his highly visible legal client.

legal news, national news

Actually, POTUS can ‘obstruct justice’

I am not qualified to argue points of law with a lawyer, but I’ll take a brief moment to challenge a political point that Donald J. Trump’s lawyer has asserted about the president of the United States.

John Dowd says that the president “cannot obstruct justice” because “he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution’s Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case.”

I beg to differ. Dowd is old enough to remember Watergate and the trouble that President Nixon got into when he sought to obstruct justice in that investigation.

Obstruction at issue

Indeed, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s articles of impeachment against the president included an accusation of “obstruction of justice.” Nixon was toast at that point.

He chose to resign the presidency rather than face certain impeachment in the House and virtually certain conviction in a Senate trial.

So, can Donald Trump “obstruct justice” if the special counsel determines he did so by firing FBI director James Comey over that “Russia thing”?

I believe he can.

legal news, national news, political news

Public shouldn’t foot the bill for these settlements

This one not only doesn’t pass the smell test, it is downright putrid in the extreme.

A Texas congressman reportedly paid an $84,000 settlement to a former staffer who sued him for sexual harassment. Where did Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, get the dough to pay the settlement? From your pocket. And from mine.

That’s right. Rep. Farenthold reportedly dipped into a taxpayer funded cash drawer to settle a dispute brought against a member of Congress who allegedly mistreated a female staff member.

Does it stink? Like a dirty dog!

According to Politico: House Administration Committee Chairman Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) told GOP lawmakers in a closed-door Friday morning meeting that only one House office in the past five years had used an Office of Compliance account to settle a sexual harassment complaint. Harper said in that one instance, the settlement totaled $84,000.

In a statement for this story, Farenthold would neither confirm or deny that his office was responsible for that $84,000 payout.

Let me venture a guess. Farenthold paid the settlement with the public’s money.

If I were King of the World, I would strip Congress of that Office of Compliance fund and force any member of Congress to pay any such settlement out of his or her pocket.

I am aware that Farenthold denies sexually harassing his former press aide. The Office of Congressional Ethics sided with Farenthold. See the Politico story here.

Still, if there’s going to be a settlement in a complaint filed against a member of Congress, I happen to dislike intensely the notion of dipping into taxpayers’ pockets to pay the bill.