Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Comey sets the table

1 Comment

James Comey’s testimony before a U.S. Senate committee is going to send even more shockwaves through the nation’s capital.

The former FBI director is going to tell the Intelligence Committee that Donald J. Trump pressured him repeatedly to back off an investigation into whether Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had done something wrong while conferring with Russian government officials.

Oh, but wait. Now comes the president’s lawyer who says Trump feels “vindicated” because Comey supposedly told the president he wasn’t under “investigation” personally.

Is that vindication? We’ll have to await the Q&A from senators.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336848-comeys-dramatic-account-rocks-washington

Americans are going to hear Comey say he was “concerned” about the president’s repeated pressure. Will we hear the ex-FBI boss declare that he believes there was an attempt to obstruct justice? Don’t hold your breath. My hunch is that such a determination will have to come from special counsel Robert Mueller — Comey’s old friend and former colleague. Mueller has taken the lead on investigation this Russia matter and whether there was “collusion” between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian hackers who were seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome.

I do not believe that Comey’s testimony will “vindicate” the president. Nor will it convict him. It is likely to keep the post at full boil while the special counsel and his team do their work to uncover the truth.

legal news, media news, national news

Let’s call it James Comey Day

I guess some of the TV news networks think Thursday is going to be a big day.

At least one of them, CBS News, is planning to pre-empt its daytime programming to broadcast the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing featuring former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey is going to speak publicly about his firing by Donald J. Trump, as well as the conversations the two men had prior to Comey’s dismissal.

Hey, it’s a big deal, man!

Comey was heading up an FBI investigation into allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government agents and hackers who were seeking to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Then he got canned. Just like that! 

Vice President Pence said the dismissal had “nothing to do” with the Russia probe. Then the president told NBC News that, yep, he fired Comey because of the “Russia thing.”

So, let’s ask former top federal cop what went down, shall we?

Let us also determine which man to believe: a meticulous note-taker such as Comey or a serial liar such as the man who fired him.

Get the popcorn and the soda ready.

legal news

‘Law and order’ pledge takes a back seat

I can’t take credit for posing this question, but I’ll pass it on here.

How does a “law and order” candidate for president of the United States fail to appoint a single federal prosecutor after firing all of those who hadn’t resigned already when he took office?

The question comes from the New York Times editorial board.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opinion/us-attorneys-trump.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Donald Trump got elected president partly on his pledge to battle international terrorism. He vowed to combat the “scourge” of drugs. He promised to prosecute and deport immigrants who are here illegally. Who, then, carries the president’s agenda forward? It would be the federal attorneys assigned to represent judicial districts throughout the nation.

As the Times editorial notes: “United States attorneys are responsible for prosecuting terrorism offenses, serious financial fraud, public corruption, crimes related to gang activity, drug trafficking and all other federal crimes.”

They aren’t on the job. Trump emptied all their offices. He’s been busy with, um, other matters related perhaps to the “Russia thing” that just won’t go away.

The Times does posit a possible reason for the president’s inability to find prosecutors: “It’s possible that Mr. Trump is having a hard time luring competent, experienced candidates to work for an administration mired in perpetual chaos and widening scandal. Since Mr. Trump considers loyalty the highest qualification for federal office, that might be. But United States attorney is a highly coveted job under any president, and there should be no shortage of people eager to be considered.”

But … who out there would be “eager to be considered” for a job in a judicial system that isn’t working?

legal news, State news

Enough of the delays in Texas AG’s fraud case

Texans deserve to know whether their state’s attorney general is crooked.

Many of them believe that Ken Paxton is innocent of the charges leveled against him. Many others do not.

Meanwhile, Paxton’s pending trial on securities fraud is getting caught in a tangled web of legal wrangling that is threatening to delay justice well beyond what is reasonable.

A state appeals court has ruled that District Judge George Gallagher surrendered his jurisdiction in the matter when he moved the trial from Collin County to Harris County. State prosecutors are asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to overturn the lower-court ruling.

Meanwhile, the rest of the state — at least those of us who care about such matters — is waiting to hear whether the Republican attorney general is guilty of defrauding investors before he became the state’s top law enforcement official.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/06/02/paxton-prosecutors-want-high-court-overturn-judge-removal/

The Dallas-based 5th Court of Appeals ordered Gallagher to vacate all rulings related to the Paxton case, including the one that set his trial for September. That means the trial likely will be delayed again.

Meanwhile, the 2018 election is coming up. Paxton likely will want to run for re-election. Does he submit himself to voters once again while awaiting trial for securities fraud?

Voters’ trust in government isn’t too high as it is. Foot-dragging and legal maneuvering such as this only worsens it.

legal news

More chaos in looking for FBI boss? No-o-o-o!

What? Do you mean to say that Donald Trump’s search for a new FBI director has become an exercise in chaos and confusion?

Why, I simply cannot believe it.

Actually, of course I can. And I do believe it.

The president likely didn’t have a hiring plan ready to execute when he canned FBI Director James Comey a few weeks ago. Indeed, the director reportedly didn’t even know he was getting fired until he heard something on TV while he was preparing to meet with FBI agents in California. And then, he thought it was a prank, a joke. Well, it damn sure wasn’t a joke.

Now The Hill reports that Trump’s selection and vetting process is turning into another kind of joke.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/336171-trump-fbi-director-interviews-chaotic-report

The Hill and other media have reported that several candidates have dropped out of the running to replace Comey. Meanwhile, the president’s team reportedly is scrambling to find someone to fill the post much in the manner it is fighting to fill so many other senior positions within the administration.

Indeed, it appears that jobs once thought to be career builders for aspiring public servants now have been seen as career enders.

It well might be that the post of FBI director has joined that dubious roster of government jobs that no one wants.

Indeed, given the chaos throughout the Trump administration we’ve seen to date, who can blame any top-notch law enforcement professional or legal eagle for their reluctance at stepping onto that political minefield?

legal news, national news

Can’t we find a law enforcement pro to lead FBI?

We live in a gigantic country that is full of qualified patriots who are steeped in law enforcement experience.

One of them, somewhere, ought to be able lead the FBI. Don’t you think? One of them ought to be tough enough to withstand the pressure of leading an organization under intense fire at the moment as it probes questions about the president of the United States.

I mention this because a leading politician, former Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, announced that he no longer wants to be considered for the FBI directorship.

Lieberman had received a lot of pushback from U.S. Senate Democrats who, I reckon, haven’t forgiven him for backing Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Lieberman ended up leaving the Democratic Party and served for a time as an independent in the Senate.

In reality, though, Lieberman would have been a terrible choice. Why? He’s a politician. He’s got decades of political experience in Connecticut and in Washington. He’s not a bad guy. He came within just a few votes of being elected vice president in 2000 as Al Gore’s running mate.

The FBI — which has been reeling since Donald J. Trump fired former director James Comey — needs a pro to serve as director. It needs an inherently non-political figure. It needs someone whose integrity cannot be questioned by anyone on either side of the partisan aisle. It needs a director who can withstand the heat that is sure to come as the FBI probe into Donald J. Trump’s Russia connection gets closer to its conclusion.

Who would that person be? I haven’t the faintest idea.

As one of more than 300 million American citizens, I am absolutely certain that someone lives in this great country of ours who fits the bill perfectly.

legal news, national news, political news

It keeps getting deeper and darker for POTUS

The hits just keep on piling up on Donald John Trump.

The latest batch of them involves more media reporting that the president asked intelligence officials to push back on the FBI investigation into that “Russia thing.” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers said, um, “No can do.”

The FBI is looking into allegations that the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russians who were hacking into our electoral system, seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome — in Trump’s favor!

Trump keeps denying any collusion. Yet these reports keep piling up suggesting something quite different.

The Washington Post has reported this latest live grenade to blow up in the president’s face as he travels through the Middle East and Europe on his first overseas venture as leader of the free world.

A special counsel, Robert Mueller, already is on the job. Senate and House intelligence committees are at work as well in the hunt for the truth.

And, yes, so are the media — the scorned “enemy of the American people” and purveyors of “fake news.”

I am not going to predict with — as the late PBS talking head John McLaughlin would say — any “metaphysical certitude” that the president is heading straight for impeachment. But certain elements of the progression of events keep suggesting something such as that might occur.

Michael Flynn is going to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as the FBI looks into the former national security adviser’s Russia involvement; former FBI director James Comey is going to talk publicly with congressional committees about memos he wrote chronicling some alleged attempts by Trump to obstruct justice; and Mueller is going to talk to a current senior White House aide who has been deemed a “person of interest” in this ongoing investigation.

Just think: Donald Trump’s time in the only political office he ever sought is just beginning.

International news, legal news, national news, political news

Invoking the Fifth usually doesn’t imply innocence

What in the world are we to make of this bit of news, that former national security adviser Michael Flynn will reject a U.S. Senate committee subpoena and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights protecting him against self-incrimination?

Let me think. My takeaway is that Gen. Flynn doesn’t want the world to know certain things about, um, certain foreign governments.

Flynn’s role in the still-burgeoning controversy surrounding Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and its potential relationship with the Russian government has taken another, apparently far more serious, turn.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-source-says-flynn-will-invoke-fifth-amendment/ar-BBBowHX?li=BBnb7Kz

The Associated Press is reporting that Flynn won’t appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee and that he’ll clam up under his constitutional protection.

If someone were to ask me, I’d say that he doesn’t want to say something that’s going to get him tossed into prison. What might that be?

Hmm. It might be that he did do something potentially illegal when he went to work for Turkey’s government, drawing a substantial stipend for the Turks as a lobbyist while also serving as the president’s national security adviser.

Gen. Flynn, who also served on Trump’s transition team, also might have said something to say about Russian officials who had worked to undermine the 2016 presidential election. There well might be some collusion between the Trump team and the Russians to be revealed … yes? Well, maybe.

Flynn also reportedly sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony after the president fired him as national security adviser.

I’m smelling something terribly foul. Do you smell it, too?

legal news, national news

Comey set to return to center stage

I understand James Comey is a good lawyer.

He knows the consequences of committing perjury. He understands that when he takes an oath he is bound to tell the whole truth.

The former FBI director, whom Donald J. Trump fired just the other day, is heading to Capitol Hill in a few days to talk to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Reports now are surfacing that Comey is going to tell senators that the president sought to meddle in an investigation Comey was leading. Trump is the focus of the investigation, which now has been taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey said the FBI was examining whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Trump denies collusion. He has told TV networks and other media that he fired Comey because of the “Russia thing” and Comey’s investigation into the actions of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. He also reportedly blabbed as much to Russian dignitaries who were visiting him in the Oval Office; the Russians have denied that Trump said discussed Comey.

Hmmm.

Comey on the stand

Now we’ll get to hear from the former FBI director himself. I’m quite certain that senators — particularly those on the Democratic side of the dais — are going to get right to the heart of the Big Question.

Did the president of the United States — in your opinion — obstruct justice by asking the FBI director to shut down his probe of Flynn and the campaign’s Russia connection?

Be sure you tell us the whole truth, Mr. Comey.

legal news

Does an ‘innocent man’ welcome or resist scrutiny?

The thought keeps popping into my noggin: If Donald John Trump is innocent of what is being alleged against him, why is he resisting so fiercely the effort to find out the truth about those allegations?

The president is now under investigation by a special counsel, Robert Mueller, over questions surrounding whether his campaign had any improper contact with Russian government officials. Mueller also is looking at whether Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey to pull the plug on an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s relationship with foreign governments.

His reaction? He went quiet for about two days. Then he returned to Twitter to accuse his enemies of conducting a “witch hunt”; he opposed the appointment of a special counsel by the Justice Department; he told Coast Guard Academy graduates that he is the most persecuted politician in history.

He keeps insisting the Russian government didn’t seek to influence the 2016 election, despite what multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have said to the contrary. He also insists that “there was no collusion” between his campaign and Russian hackers.

POTUS keeps blabbing about Russia

I’m just wondering whether someone who’s clean would feel the need to fight back so strongly. Why wouldn’t the president welcome the probe, endorse Mueller’s credentials as a pro, then let the man reach a conclusion that verifies what the president has been saying?

Trump’s overheated reaction just doesn’t sound to me like something that an innocent man would do. Maybe it’s just me. I don’t think I’m alone in wondering about the conduct of a politician who keeps insisting he did nothing wrong.