Category Archives: legal news

Timing well could spell doom for Trump

James Comey apparently prefers to write memoranda to record important events.

When the then-FBI director met with Donald J. Trump in the White House — and when the president allegedly “asked” Comey to shut down an investigation — Comey wrote it down.

This occurred in February. The Trump administration was just a few days old. Comey was looking into the activities involving the just-fired national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Fast-forward to this past week. Trump fired Comey from his job as FBI director.

So, is there a connection? Is there linkage between the president’s so-called “request” for Comey to end the Flynn probe and Comey’s dismissal? Are the events tied together?

It looks that way to me. Does it to you? You don’t have to answer.

This is where this latest blockbuster revelation gets its legs. This is how a conversation threatens to swallow the president of the United States.

There are many more dots to connect. What about the former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who Trump also fired? She warned the president that Flynn could be blackmailed because he had some sort of connection with Russian government officials. Then she’s out! Is there linkage to that dismissal as well to what we are learning today about what the president reportedly sought from the FBI boss?

At this point, absolutely nothing — not a single thing — is going to surprise me as this story continues to evolve.

I will not predict the president is going to pay a hefty political price. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m out of the predicting business.

This story, however, ain’t lookin’ good for the president.

‘Less than ideal,’ Sen. Rubio?

“Certainly it’s less than ideal, but it is what it is.”

Those words of “wisdom” came from U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who once battled with Donald John Trump for his party’s presidential nomination.

He got involved in that juvenile and petulant verbal p****** match with the eventual GOP nominee and president.

So now that Trump has become entangled in what is looking more and more like a serious constitutional crisis, his former foe says “it is what it is”? That’s it?

Young man, it’s a lot worse than that!

What we have on our hands, Sen. Rubio, is a situation in which the president of the United States of America reportedly has asked the then-FBI director to back off an investigation of a former national security adviser.

Rubio is too young to remember an earlier constitutional crisis, but Richard Nixon did something quite similar regarding a break-in at the Watergate office and hotel complex. He had it on tape. The Senate got its hands on that tape and, well, that was all she wrote for President Nixon.

I am not about to predict a similar outcome for the current president, but as of this evening, it doesn’t look good.

Does this president have an inherent hatred for his enemies? Or is he just clueless about the consequences of his actions? I am going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and presume that he just doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing as president of the United States.

Whatever the context or the circumstance, the Senate and the House of Representatives will need to hear from James Comey personally and will need to know precisely what he gleaned from the president’s “request” for him to drop the FBI probe of Michael Flynn.

Merrick Garland at FBI? Holy cow, man!

What in the name of political contrition might be happening in Washington, D.C.?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch “The Obstructionist” McConnell has just endorsed someone for FBI director that he fought tooth and nail to keep off the U.S. Supreme Court.

That would be U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland, whom then-President Barack Obama nominated for the high court in 2016, only to be rebuffed when McConnell refused to let Garland have so much as a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The FBI has a vacancy at the top, thanks to Donald John Trump’s firing of Director James Comey. Now we hear that Garland might be considered for the job. And with McConnell’s blessing to boot!

Is McConnell trying to make nice with someone he stiffed?

According to The Hill: “I think if he picks someone with a deep background in law enforcement, who has no history of political involvement, a genuine expert — and the reason I mention Garland is he’s an example of that — it will serve him well, serve the country well and lead to a more bipartisan approach,” McConnell said.

Sounds like a good choice for the Supreme Court, too, don’t you think?

Whatever. The notion that Merrick Garland would be considered for the FBI director’s job is nearly as shocking as Comey’s firing by Trump. Still, as McConnell noted, Garland does have prosecutorial experience, given that he led the federal government’s case against the late Timothy McVeigh, the monster who blew up the Murrah Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City in April 1995.

Do I think Garland would be a good pick to lead the FBI? I understand that he happens to be a straight arrow, a Boy Scout, a guy with an impeccable judicial reputation. It seems to me those traits would serve him well as head of the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency.

I am just wondering, though: Does he want the job?

If he does, and the president nominates him, then I believe hell will have frozen over and that the sun will rise the next day above the western horizon.

Cornyn pulls out of FBI search … good!

John Cornyn issued a statement today that says this: “Now more than ever the country needs a well-credentialed, independent FBI director. I’ve informed the administration that I’m committed to helping them find such an individual, and that the best way I can serve is continuing to fight for a conservative agenda in the U.S. Senate.”

The Republican U.S. senator from Texas had been considered a prime candidate for the FBI directorship. After all, he had served as a trial judge in Bexar County, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and Texas attorney general before being elected to the Senate.

He would have been a terrible pick for Donald Trump to make to replace the fired FBI boss James Comey. Cornyn is too partisan, too political, too friendly — I only can assume — with the president to be the kind of “well-credentialed, independent FBI director” the agency needs in this critical time.

He has pulled his name out of the running for the FBI job. Good deal.

Many Americans’ hope now is that the president will find someone who fits the description of a tough-minded independent law enforcement official to lead the FBI.

Let’s get busy, Mr. President.

Listen to your fellow GOPers, Mr. President

Lindsey Graham isn’t exactly a huge fan of Donald J. Trump.

He ran against him for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Trump hurled a few insults at him. Graham said some unkind things in return.

But the U.S. senator from South Carolina is trying to implore the president to do the right thing — and avoid naming a politician to become the next director of the FBI.

Sen. Graham is talking specifically about Texas Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who has emerged as one of the favorites to succeed James Comey at the FBI, whom Trump fired this past week.

Cornyn could face stiff resistance in the Senate if Trump selects him, even though Cornyn has been part of the “world’s greatest deliberative body” for some time now. He’s known to have friends on both sides of the aisle.

But the FBI needs a decidedly non-political director in this difficult time, Graham said. “I think it’s now time to pick somebody that comes from within the ranks or is such a reputation that has no political background at all,” he said. “John Cornyn is a wonderful man. Under normal circumstances, he would be a superb choice to be FBI director. But these are not normal circumstances. We’ve got a chance to reset here as a nation.”

“Reset” is a mild term. I prefer to think the FBI leadership needs a major overhaul.

It’s not that Comey was a bad director, despite what the president said about him. Word filtering out of Washington by those who know Comey well say the president’s description of him as a “showboat” just doesn’t square with the man’s reputation.

Sen. Graham’s assessment of a successor, though, is on target. The FBI needs to be led by someone who knows how to pursue an investigation to a comprehensive conclusion. I would have thought Comey is capable of doing that, which likely got him in trouble with Trump.

Cornyn may have great political skill. The agency needs someone who would cooperate fully with a special prosecutor — whom the Justice Department should name to handle this probe.

Sen. Cornyn’s political background is precisely the wrong fit for this job — at this time.

Now it’s the Democrats’ turn to play hardball

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer laid it on the line.

There shouldn’t be a Senate vote on the next FBI director until we get a special prosecutor appointed to continue the investigation into whether Donald John Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians who sought to swing the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.

Sounds pretty straightforward, yes? Of course it does. I get it. I’ll bet the president gets it, too.

The president fired the former FBI director, James Comey, in a stunning personnel move that has confounded even the FBI and White House staffs. The message over why Trump acted has been muddled and uncertain; it remains so to this very day!

Democrats want a special prosecutor named; so do a growing number of Senate Republicans. I reckon that’s the hand Schumer is playing now as he threatens to hold up a vote on anyone nominated to lead the FBI.

My own bias and political leaning allows me to suggest that Schumer is on to something with this demand.

FBI must bow out of this probe

As Schumer noted to CNN, the FBI is linked to the Department of Justice, which is led by an attorney general who has recused himself from any Russia dealings. At least that Jeff Sessions has said, despite his reported involvement in recommending that Trump fire Comey … which the president said he decided to do before getting the recommendation. Do you see what I mean about muddled messages?

The point, though, is that we need to get a special prosecutor appointed and that person needs to get his or her feet planted firmly before we move ahead with a new FBI director.

Look at it this way: If the Republican leadership can block a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court for no other reason than to play politics with the federal court system, it seems to me that Senate Democrats are standing on pretty firm ground in demanding a special prosecutor before considering an FBI appointment.

Don’t pick Sen. Cornyn to lead FBI, Mr. POTUS

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has shown up on Donald J. Trump’s short list of possible nominees to become FBI director.

In the name of non-bias, non-political leanings and law enforcement professionalism, I am hoping that the president does not pick Sen. Cornyn to lead the FBI in this critical time.

James Comey got the boot from the FBI’s top job because — if we are to believe anything that comes out of the president’s mouth — he was spending too much time and energy on the “Russia thing.”

Truth be told, in my view, the next FBI director needs to spend a whole lot more time on Russia and related matters. Is John Cornyn the man to do the job? No way, dude!

Cornyn may get a good look

I’ve known Cornyn for a number of years in my capacity as a journalist first in Beaumont and then in Amarillo. We have had a nice professional relationship during those years. I’ve known him as a Texas Supreme Court justice, as a state attorney general and as a U.S. senator. I disagree with him politically, but he’s a gentleman.

Over the years, as my hair got grayer, Sen. Cornyn would needle me that I eventually would get as gray as he has been for decades. I’m still not there yet, although I’m close.

All that said, he is as wrong for the job of FBI director as anyone being considered. Why? He is a partisan hatchet man for the Senate’s Republican caucus. He’s the No. 2 man in the Senate GOP hierarchy and his main task in recent Senate sessions has been to ensure the election of more Republicans. I understand that’s part of his job and I respect that someone has to do it, that they need to fill the ranks with partisans on both sides of the aisle.

Cornyn’s highly political profile, though, makes him a terrible fit for the FBI director’s job. Comey was in the middle of an investigation that was looking into allegations that the Trump campaign was complicit in efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election — seeking to help Trump get elected president.

Are we to believe that a member of the president’s own party who would get the task of leading the FBI and, presumably, continue that investigation will shed his partisan leanings?

The president needs to look within the law enforcement community to find a new FBI director. He needs to find someone who has no political axe to grind. He needs to nominate someone with zero political ties to the White House, or to the Congress.

John Cornyn is not the man for this job.

Congressional clown act isn’t so funny

The clowns who comprise a substantial portion of the U.S. Congress seem intent on deflecting criticism of the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey.

They are staking out an openly transparent — and dubious — strategy in that attempt.

Donald J. Trump canned Comey while the FBI director was in the midst of an investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government’s effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It’s the timing of the dismissal that has drawn the incoming fire.

Congressional Republicans are defending the president’s action by saying something like this: Leftists are angry because Trump did something they wanted done this past autumn when Comey sent Congress that letter regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; so now that they’re getting what they wanted in the first place, they should be happy, not angry.

I heard Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., make that argument this morning. I damn near pitched something heavy at my TV set.

That is not the issue, Sen. Paul!

It’s the timing, dude. The timing!

I’m one of those Americans who was angry at Comey for releasing that letter to Congress just 11 days before the presidential election. He sought to inform lawmakers that his office had found some more e-mails that needed some examination. It likely helped stall Clinton’s march to victory, although I am not going to heap all the cause for Hillary’s defeat on the FBI director; she and her campaign made plenty of mistakes all by themselves while Trump and his team were doing things right.

Did I ever think Comey should resign, or should be fired?

In addition to the timing of Trump’s dismissing of Comey we have this White House’s stumble-bum explanation, which simply doesn’t hold up. The president said he was upset at the way Comey handled the Hillary e-mail matter. What the …?! Donald Trump the candidate thought Comey had done exactly the correct thing at the time — and he said so repeatedly as news was breaking in October.

Then we hear that Trump became angry because Comey was exerting too much energy on the Russia hacking matter, but then comes word from some in the White House that the firing had nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Holy mackerel!

Deputy White House press flack Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it’s time to “move on,” away from the Russia matter. Oh, no it isn’t, young lady! Far from it.

But this crap from congressional Republicans and Trumpkins all across the land that those who are critical of the firing are the same folks who wanted Comey canned in the first place are missing the point by a country mile.

Timing, as they say, is everything.

Break up the 9th U.S. Circuit? C’mon, get real

Donald J. Trump keeps ratcheting up his open combat with the federal judicial system.

The president wants to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because — doggone it, anyway! — the judges keep issuing rulings with which he disagrees.

Poor guy. That’s how it goes sometimes, Mr. President.

The 9th Circuit has ruled against the president’s ban on refugees seeking entry into this country from majority-Muslim countries. That just won’t stand in Trump’s world. So his solution is to dismember the court, which is based in San Francisco and is considered to be arguably the most liberal appellate court in the federal judicial network.

He said lawyers shop for friendly judicial venues and the president believes the 9th Circuit is a favorite forum to hear cases pitting the federal government against anyone else.

Give me a break.

Conservative courts have ruled against liberal presidents. Indeed, liberal courts have ruled against conservative presidents as well. Have presidents of either stripe been so thin-skinned that they’ve sought to break up an appellate court? Not until this one took office.

Leave the court alone, Mr. President.

A better option for the president would be to craft laws that can withstand judicial challenge. Federal judges in Hawaii, Washington state and Maryland all have found sufficient fault with the Trump administration’s effort to ban refugees to rule against them. Appellate judges have upheld the lower court rulings.

In a strange way this kind of reminds me of when President Franklin Roosevelt sought to tinker with the federal judiciary by “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court with justices more to his liking; he sought to expand the number of justices on the nation’s highest court. He didn’t succeed — thank goodness.

To be sure, Trump isn’t the only recent president to bully the federal judiciary. Barack Obama called out the Supreme Court while delivering a State of the Union speech in 2010 over its Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited political contributions by corporations. The president was wrong to do so — in that venue — with the justices sitting directly in front of him.

The nation’s founders sought to establish an independent federal judiciary that ostensibly should be immune from political pressure. The president is seeking to bully the court system through a number of methods: He calls out judges individually and criticizes the courts’ decisions openly and with extreme harshness.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals needs to remain intact and the president needs to live with the consequences of how it interprets the U.S. Constitution.

RIP, Racehorse Haynes

I just heard that one of the more fascinating characters I’ve had the pleasure of meeting has passed away.

Richard “Racehorse” Haynes died early today. He was 90.

Man, I’ve got a short story I want to tell. So I believe I will.

Many years ago, when I was living and working in Beaumont, Texas, I walked down the street from the Beaumont Enterprise — where I worked as editorial page editor — to the Jefferson County Courthouse.

I approached the front door and waved at a fellow I knew, a local lawyer named Gilbert Adams, who motioned for me to approach. I did and at that, Adams introduced me to Racehorse Haynes, who standing next to Adams puffing on a pipe. “Hey, Race,” Adams said, “I want you to meet this fellow.” We shook hands and Adams then informed Haynes that I was editor of the local newspaper.

So help, as God is my witness, when Haynes heard that that I was a member of the media, his eyes lit up like a Christmas tree. We stood there for seemingly hours. I barely got a word in edge-wise. Haynes regaled me with his tales of his relationships with the media; he managed to tell me why he was in Beaumont in the first place, which was to assist Adams on a case that Adams was working on.

I ended up having to break off the visit. I am pretty sure it would have gone on until the next great flood.

Two things stood out about Haynes, whose reputation as one of the nation’s top criminal defense lawyers was well-known; I certainly knew of him. I knew that he was from Houston and that he had defended some very high-profile defendants.

The first thing I recalled at the time was how grandfatherly he appeared. He was not a physically imposing man. He was dressed in a plain dark suit and he looked like, well, anything but a flamboyant barrister.

The second thing, of course, was how he garrulous he was with a media guy. His status as a “famed” lawyer didn’t seem to impede his willingness to talk about anything with yours truly.

We said goodbye and went our separate ways.

Years later, I moved to Amarillo to become editorial page editor of the Globe-News. Then I learned of Haynes’ connection to the Texas Panhandle. It was where a Tarrant County judge had moved the trial of one Cullen Davis, the Fort Worth millionaire who was accused of murdering the live-in boyfriend of his estranged wife and his 12-year-old stepdaughter. Davis was thought at the time to be the richest man ever accused of a capital crime in the United States.

A Potter County jury acquitted Davis, whose lead counsel in that trial was Racehorse Haynes.

So, one of the nation’s more notable lawyers has passed from the scene. I just felt compelled to tell you my Racehorse Haynes Story.

May you rest in peace … “Race.”