Category Archives: legal news

legal news, national news, political news

Giuliani is right: AG Sessions made the correct call

Hell must have frozen over … even in this oppressive heat!

How else does one explain that Rudolph Giuliani has spoken words of wisdom about U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions?

Giuliani said Sessions made the correct call when he decided to recuse himself from anything to do with the Russia controversy surrounding the Trump administration. I happen to agree that, yes, the AG did the right thing. He is too close to the president and could not possibly be considered an unbiased investigator into this matter of whether the Russians sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

It’s entirely possible that Sessions is on his way out. Donald J. Trump might replace him. Giuliani sought to tamp down reports that he would succeed Sessions at Justice by endorsing his decision to recuse himself.

The president has done a masterful job of undercutting his top cop. It’s not that I consider Sessions all that trustworthy. It’s merely that Trump has yet again trampled all over one of his top Cabinet officials. He tweeted over the weekend that the “beleaguered” Sessions should be investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton. Good grief! Sessions is beleaguered because of the president himself! Trump told the New York Times he wouldn’t have selected Sessions if he knew that the AG would recuse himself from “the Russia thing.”

Trump goes after AG

As for the man formerly known as America’s Mayor, Giuliani, he wouldn’t be any better, other than he’s now on record as endorsing Sessions’s decision to bow out of the Russia matter.

And, yes, the chaos continues. Let’s all stay tuned.

legal news, State news

Hoping that texting ban produces tangible result

My wife has many innate talents. One of them is her ability to detect someone who is texting while driving a motor vehicle.

Tooling along the northern edge of Des Moines, Iowa, she spotted a car in front of us; she was quite certain the driver wasn’t paying sufficient attention to the task of driving a motor vehicle. The driver was erratic; the car was weaving back and forth in the lane. Then the driver moved to the exit lane and sure enough, as we passed, we noticed a young woman looking at her texting device while hurtling along at about 60 mph.

I wanted to scream!

My wife then wondered about those electronic signs that the Texas Department of Transportation posts along our state’s highways that give us a running total of the traffic deaths during the calendar year. “I wonder if the state could put the number of fatalities caused by texting while driving,” she said.

I don’t know the answer to that. Then I mentioned that the state does keep some sort of record on the cause of traffic fatalities.

Oh, yes. The Texas Legislature this year finally approved a bill that bans texting while driving throughout the state. It’s now against state law to operate device while driving a motor vehicle. I thank Gov. Greg Abbott for signing the bill into law.

My hope now is that the new law, which takes effect in September, will have a tangible impact on the number of traffic deaths caused by that idiotic behavior, that the ban over time will reduce that number dramatically.

As for the moron we witnessed along the Des Moines freeway, I will say a prayer that she doesn’t hurt someone else — or herself — while acting so damn stupidly.

legal news, national news

POTUS doth protest too much?

Donald J. Trump has declared war on Robert Mueller.

Why? To what end? The president is seeking to discredit the special counsel’s credibility as he continues an investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign had any inappropriate dealings with Russian government officials.

The president himself called it “the Russia thing.” He fired FBI Director James Comey because of the FBI’s probe into Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election.

Then came the Justice Department’s hiring of Mueller — also a former FBI director — as special counsel.

Trump is having none of it.

Here’s my fundamental question: If the president has nothing to hide, then why doesn’t he just step aside and let the special counsel look far and wide … only to come up empty?

But, no-o-o-o-o. Donald Trump is turning the hounds loose to look for conflicts of interest. He’s seeking to discredit Mueller — who’s reputation as a proverbial Boy Scout is impeccable.

The way I am viewing this, the more Trump objects to Mueller continuing his probe the more he acts like something who wants to keep something out of the special counsel’s hands.

What do you suppose that might be?

Keep Mueller on the job.

legal news

Dear Mr. POTUS: Let Mueller do his job

Donald J. Trump requires a lesson in government. Yep, the president of the United States does not understand how many things work.

Take the special counsel hired by the U.S. Department of Justice to examine the president’s potential ties to the Russian government and whether there might be some collusion between that government and the president’s winning campaign in 2016.

He is rattling some sabers, threatening to fire special counsel Robert Mueller if he looks into the Trump family’s financial dealings.

Here’s where the lesson might kick in.

The special counsel has wide latitude to take the examination wherever it leads. Does the president recall what occurred when an earlier special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, began examining a real estate matter involving President and Mrs. Clinton? He sniffed around and then learned about a young White House intern. Starr then learned about a relationship she was having with the president. He decided to ask the president some questions about it. He summoned him to a federal grand jury; the president violated the oath he took to tell the truth; he then was impeached.

That’s what happens, Mr. President. Special counsels are within their legal authority to look where they can find to determine the truth. Indeed, an examination of family business dealings well might help the public learn the whole truth about the relationship between the Trump empire and the Russian government. If it finds nothing there, then Mueller’s office can clear the president.

Technically, the president cannot summarily fire the special counsel. He has to ask the Justice Department to do it. Indeed, a leading congressional Republican, Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, has warned the president about getting rid of Mueller. If he does it, the president faces a bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill.

Let the process continue, Mr. President. You don’t seem to know the trouble you would purchase if you act foolishly.

legal news

A ‘conflict-free life’? Not even close

I had hoped an earlier blog item I wrote about O.J. Simpson would be my final one on the subject. I was wrong. Simpson had to say something during his parole hearing that compels me to offer a brief response.

He was paroled after serving nine years in a Nevada prison. A jury convicted him of assault and robbery in connection with an altercation stemming from Simpson’s attempt to take back sports memorabilia. Yeah, he was acquitted of that other crime, too, the double murder of his wife and her friend.

Then he told parole commissioners that he has “led a conflict-free life.”

The nation’s eyebrows raised.

One of the lawyers on his Dream Team defense, F. Lee Bailey, today said that other than the admitted cases of battery of his then-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson — who was stabbed to death — that O.J. has led a life free of conflict.

Hmm. Interesting, don’t you think?

It kind of reminds me of the time the late Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry said that when you take away the murders that occurred in his city, Washington’s crime rate wasn’t all that bad.

OK. Now I’m done with O.J.

I hope.

legal news, national news, Sports news

O.J. gets parole; now, just disappear, will ya?

The Nevada state parole board did what most experts thought it would do: It granted Orenthal James Simpson parole after serving about nine years in the slammer.

O.J. Simpson was sent to The Joint for a crime unrelated to another one for which he was acquitted — and which the vast majority of Americans believe he committed. A jury convicted Simpson of assault, theft and assorted other felonies relating to his effort to recover some sports memorabilia.

The other crime? The one for which he was found not guilty? That was the double murder of his former wife and her friend.

OK. Simpson gets paroled. He’ll have to behave himself while he walks among the rest of us. If he messes up, he goes back to prison.

What I wish now is for Simpson to vanish. I want him away from the public glare. He’ll get a chance to cash in on that $25,000 monthly pension he gets from the National Football League. He was, after all, once a damn good football player.

I also believe he was guilty of the crime for which he was acquitted. That has no bearing, though, on the parole board’s decision to set him free.

I just want the media to turn to other matters. Indeed, I am hoping that this is the final thing I’ll ever write about O.J. Simpson.

Now, O.J.? Get to work looking for the “real killer” of Nicole and Ron.

International news, legal news, national news, political news

Obstruction of justice, anyone? Anyone?

James Comey believes that Donald J. Trump has obstructed justice.

That is the conclusion of a legal analyst who’s been following “the Russia thing” as closely as anyone in the United States of America.

Comey is the former FBI director whom the president fired because, according to Jeffrey Toobin, Comey declined to pledge complete loyalty to the president. Comey’s agency was conducting an investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government officials who are believed to have hacked into our nation’s electoral process.

Toobin’s article appeared in The New Yorker. He lays out what Comey would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Here’s The New Yorker article.

I encourage you to read it.

So many questions to be asked. So many answers yet to be found.

Something tells me the roughest part of the ride awaits the president and his embattled team.

legal news, national news, political news

No dirt on Hillary? Really!

Let me try to keep this straight.

Donald J. Trump Jr. accepts an invitation to meet with a Russian government operative who tells him she’s got some dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States.

Don Jr. goes to the meeting along with his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, then the campaign chairman for Don’s dad, Donald J. Trump Sr., the Republican presidential nominee.

He meets with the lawyer/government operative. What does Don Jr. get out of it? He says nothing came of it. There was no dirt of any use to the Trump campaign.

In other words, Hillary was clean.

The story, of course, isn’t entirely that the Russians didn’t have the goods on Clinton; it is that Trump the Younger thought they did and that he “loved it.” He didn’t call the FBI to rat out the Russian government. Indeed, the only grownup from the Trump team — Manafort — didn’t bother to blow the whistle, either. Oh, no. Don Jr. was accepting “normal” opposition research — from a hostile government that was hacking into our electoral process, undermining our democratic system.

As for the Hillary story, the Russians came up with as much actionable dirt on the Democratic nominee as congressional Republican investigators were able to find over the course of several years. That would be, um, nothing, man!

What a coincidence!

legal news

Waiting for O.J.’s parole decision

1 Comment

Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of a gruesome double murder.

Then he was found “civilly liable” for the deaths of his former wife and her friend.

And then he decided to take back some memorabilia and was convicted of robbery and assault. He’s been in prison for several years and is now on the verge of getting paroled for that crime.

An amazing debate is taking place: Does he deserve parole or should he be kept locked up because of the acquittal of that previous crime? Give me a break! O.J. Simpson’s parole status should be determined solely on the basis of the time he has served for the crime for which he was convicted. Period. End of argument.

Do not misunderstand me. I don’t give a damn about Simpson. I don’t care if he is denied parole or is granted his freedom after serving a substantial portion of the sentence he was given for the crime.

I also happen to be one of millions of Americans who believes he got away with murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1994. The law, though, saw it differently. After months of testimony and televised drama, that Los Angeles County jury decided in hours that he didn’t do the crime.

The system functioned as the law intended for it to function. Did it produce the desired outcome? Not in my view. But that’s just me.

That case is done. The other one for which he has spent time in the Nevada prison is still playing out — and that’s the case upon which the parole board should determine whether he walks out or stays locked up in The Joint.

Look at it this way, too. If he is released, he can resume his search for Ron and Nicole’s “real killers.” Oh, wait … 

International news, legal news, national news

What do we fear from a deep probe into Russian meddling?

Timothy Snyder is a brilliant young historian who has consented to an interview on a podcast to which I’ve been listening.

He is an admitted anti-Trumpkin. He thinks badly of the president of the United States, as does the interviewer, Sam Harris.

Snyder has written a book, “The Road to Tyranny,” which is the subject of the podcast interview.

His interview is quite lengthy. If you have a good bit of time, I encourage you to listen to it here. I doubt those of you who support the president would want to hear what this fellow has to say. Still, take a listen anyway.

He offers up a lot of theories about current trends and how they relate to where we’ve gone as a nation and what has happened in other places around the world. And, yes, there are plenty of Hitler references.

For this blog post, I want to focus on a tiny snippet of what Snyder said about the investigation into “the Russia thing” by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is examining whether the Trump presidential campaign “colluded” with Russian government spooks seeking to undermine the 2016 election.

Professor Snyder doesn’t quite get why the pro-Trump crowd opposes the probe Mueller is leading. Indeed, why do they? As Snyder points out, if Mueller’s investigation reveals nothing illegal occurred, if it produces a clean bill of political health for Donald Trump, then all that’s left is that “we have an intelligence problem.” The Russians hacked into our democratic process and our intelligence community was unable to detect it and prevent it.

The flip side, of course, is that Mueller’s legal team might uncover something else.

Wherever it goes, the special counsel’s investigation should proceed. We are bound to learn something from it.