Tag Archives: trump

Losing a Two-Front War

16 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This week has proven to be a difficult one for President Trump. As both civil and criminal investigations draw near and his tight spot becomes tighter, one can only begin to imagine his discomfort.

The world of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has gotten a little brighter with the cooperation of Paul Manafort. Trump’s former Campaign chairman finally struck a plea deal last Friday and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of justice. Though Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, argues that the charges against Manafort have nothing to do with the President and could not incriminate him, Manafort apparently possesses information valuable enough for Mueller to agree to waive 5 of his 7 charges and argue leniency in his sentencing. Especially valuable is Manafort’s participation in the Russian lawyer meeting and any insight he may be able to give as to what happened there. Some theorize that Manafort’s cooperation promises the end of Mueller’s investigation.

On top of Mueller’s progress, Trump faces discovery requests pursuant to a civil suit in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The suit alleges that Trump violated the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the United States Constitution through operation of the Trump International Hotel near the White House. Pursuant to those allegations, the plaintiffs, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Peter Frosh, are seeking communications between Trump and foreign and U.S. state government officials related to use of the hotel, records of the hotel’s business with foreign officials, records of cash transferred from the trust which collects the hotel’s funds to Trump, and documents from the General Services Administration and the U.S. Treasury Department which lease the hotel building to Trump.

The likely result of these two investigations is that allegations of impeachable offenses committed by Trump, conspiracy to defraud the American people, obstruction of justice, and violation of the emoluments clauses, will soon either be substantiated or refutable. And with midterm elections looming, this information could not have come at a better time. Soon there will be a Congress that can transform all of this discovery into articles of impeachment.

GettyImages-578331186-trump-manafort-2016-1120.jpgBill Clark, CQ Roll Call, Getty Images

Getting to Know Jane Raskin

12 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Readers might be interested in an article published by Bloomberg today entitled “Trump’s Little-Known Lawyer on the Front Lines Against Mueller.” It details the background of Jane Raskin, a white-collar defense lawyer from Florida. Though she is less talked about than Giuliani, Raskin has been working as President Trump’s lawyer since April, shortly after John Dowd left the position. She has gone head-to-head with Special Counsel Mueller’s deputy, Jim Quarles, over permissible communications with President Trump, conducted much of the research behind Trump defense, and is the lead writer of a report meant to counter Mueller’s eventual findings. Interestingly the lawyer has personal ties to Mueller: “both lawyers were prosecutors in Boston early in their careers — Raskin tried organized crime and racketeering cases for the Justice Department while Mueller investigated financial fraud, terrorism and money laundering for the U.S. attorney’s office.”

raskin.jpgraskinlaw.com

 

The Anonymous Letter

06 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The nation is abuzz with talk of the anonymous op-ed piece published by the New York Times. The writer is apparently a senior official in the Trump Administration and names him-or-herself  as part of the “quiet resistance.” The piece describes efforts taken by its author and others to walk-back, avoid, and otherwise subvert the President’s more rash decisions. In essence, it paints Trump as an out-of-control child. Some readers will wonder how this is news; however the piece is significant for several reasons. 1) It corroborates other, similar accounts of the Trump administration, such as those leaked by aides and those written in “Fear,” Bob Woodward’s book; 2)  it simultaneously bolsters and rebuffs the 25th amendment theory of removal. The author of the piece wrote that Trump’s cabinet considered removing the President for incompetence, but ultimately decided against it because “no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.” This confirms both that at some point use of the 25th amendment was a real possibility and also that it will likely never happen. That being said, confirmation of the President’s incompetence could add strength to other removal proceedings, such as through impeachment in the House; 3) perhaps most importantly, it helps to resolve the mixed relationship the Trump Administration has with Russia. The author wrote that though Trump has complained about Russian sanctions, the ‘resistance’ has worked to ensure it sanctioned and otherwise punished the nation for stepping out of line. Trump has boasted in the past that “there’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been.” Now we know that the punitive steps that the Trump Administration has taken towards Russia may very well have had nothing to do with Trump or have been done in spite of him. Though it may seem a small thing in light of evidence mounting elsewhere, this strengthens the case for collusion and could perhaps help to usher in impeachment.

920x920.jpgSusan Walsh, AP

Suing Trump over Free Speech Violations

29 Wednesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

It was reported today that Donald Trump unblocked several more Twitter accounts pursuant to a ruling from May 23rd. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan held that government official’s twitter accounts were public forums and that blocking users based on their political beliefs was a violation of their first amendment rights. Sonja R. West, of the University of Georgia School of Law, offers a more in depth analysis of the intricacies of bringing a first amendment lawsuit against the President in her article entitled Suing the President for First Amendment Violations. Though she expresses some doubt about the capacity of one to sue the President for first amendment violations, West concludes: “courts should take into account the potential damage to our public debate if the President cannot be held accountable for violating the expressive rights of the people.” It would seem that Judge Buchwald agreed.

trump-on-phone.pngTheHustle.co

The Value of Weisselberg

25 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This Bloomberg article, written by Justin Sink, accounts for each of the Trump associates which are now helping to build a case against the President. Interestingly, included among their numbers is Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. Information from Weisselberg could prove especially threatening to Trump.  He has been the C.F.O of the Trump Organization for years,  has worked with the Trump family in some capacity since 1970, serves as treasurer to President Trump’s personal foundation, and is the only non-family member that serves as a trustee to the trust that owns the Trump Organizations business interests. This is significant, because investigators have been previously unable to access Trump’s financial records. Now they have the next best thing. Weisselberg, with his intimate knowledge of the President’s finances, could provide the information previously sought from the records, such as evidence of Russian dealings or violations of the foreign emoluments clause. Even if this information is not sufficient to build a case, it could very well be sufficient enough to get a subpoena for the President’s records.

im-23399.jpgThe Wall  Street Journal

The Consequences of Pardoning Manafort

18 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today marked the second day of jury deliberations for the trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is being tried for 18 criminal charges for bank and tax fraud related to the time he spent working for a Ukrainian political party. Manafort refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and it has been theorized that this decision was based on a belief that President Trump would pardon him if he were convicted.

Whether Trump will pardon Manafort is unknown; however he has used his pardon power politically in the past, and his former lawyer, John Down, apparently broached the subject of a possible pardon with Manafort’s lawyers. When asked whether he would consider pardoning Manafort, the President refused to say, but did comment that  “the whole . . .  trial is very sad.”

In an article written for the American Constitutional Society, entitled Why President Trump Can’t Pardon His Way Out of the Special Counsel and Cohen Investigations, Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, Caroline Fredrickson, and Conor Shaw write that “a prospective pardon of a witness in the Russia investigation might . . . constitute an obstruction of a criminal investigation . . . .” They are referring to section 1510 of title 18 of the the United States Code, which makes the “[willful endeavoring], by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator” a federal crime. If President Trump did, directly or indirectly, promise Manafort a pardon in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with Mueller, then he may not only be subject to criminal indictment but yet another article of impeachment as well.

5b3f9a219e2a102f008b47ed-750-375.jpgDrew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh

10 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Have you heard? A new Supreme Court Justice has been appointed. His name is Brett Kavanaugh, he hails from the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, and he’s got Democrats a little bit nervous. Why? Because they think he may try to shield Trump from the Mueller investigation.

Kavanaugh argued in an article written for the Minnesota Law Review in 2009 that sitting presidents should be immune from civil suit and criminal indictment. He cited the investigation of Clinton as a reason for this view, and has implied “that the Starr investigation distracted Clinton from focusing on Osama bin Laden.” Some find this view alarming — however, take a deep breath. As Noah Feldman points out, in an article published by Bloomberg Law, what Kavanaugh actually suggests is that Congress should pass a law that would protect the President. Inherent in that suggestion is an admission that the Supreme Court does not have the power to immunize the President itself. So worries that the Justices may, for instance, enjoin Mueller’s invesitgation, are probably unfounded.

That being said,  that doesn’t mean Kavanaugh cannot be of use to the President in other ways. Kavanaugh may rule that the President can pardon himself, as Trump has suggested in the past. Alternatively, Congress may just take Kavanaugh up on his suggestion and pass a law immunizing Trump. Much remains to be seen.

1200x-1.jpgAl Drago/Bloomberg

Trump and Stone can’t be Sued in D.C.

04 Wednesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle, of Washington, D.C., decided yesterday that her court lacks personal jurisdiction, or alternatively that it constitutes improper venue, to entertain a suit brought against the Trump Campaign and Roger Stone by members of the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”). The suit alleged that Stone and the Campaign conspired with unidentified Russian Agents and Wikileaks to hack the DNC’s emails, a tort amounting to conspiracy to violate their privacy rights, to inflict emotional harm,  and to  interfere with their right to support the candidate of their choice. The judge ruled that D.C. lacked sufficient contacts with the allegations to make it a viable place for suit, but avoided making any ruling on the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s evidence.

So what’s this result mean? We keep holding our breath, while hoping they can find a place to bring their suit. Should these Plaintiffs manage to find a court willing to entertain their action, then they will be able to bring the power of liberal civil discovery procedure against the Trump campaign, and perhaps expedite the collusion investigation. Fingers crossed. Interested readers can find the opinion here.

BCWin17_F_Huvelle_Slide2-690x414.jpgJudge Ellen Huvelle, Picture taken from lawmagazine.bc.edu

The Travel Ban, Constitutionality, and Impeachment

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Supreme Court held, yesterday, that the Trump Administration’s travel ban had “sufficient national security justification to survive a rational basis review,” and that therefore it would reverse the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court. This is an indication that the travel ban is constitutional, and allows it to go forth unhindered, at least for the time being. Because the travel ban has been cited in at least Representative Green’s impeachment resolution as evidence of the President’s “bigotry,” one might wonder what effect this decision will have on the President’s chances of impeachment.

While it could be argued that the Supreme Court decision could set some, perhaps ethereal, precedent, it is still Congress that decides whether the President will be removed. And while the Supreme Court’s decision could in some way be construed as an endorsement of the executive order, so too can Justice Sotomayor’s dissent remind Congress of the reason the travel ban was cited as an impeachable offense in the first place:  “[the] appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created.” Though Trump’s “muslim ban,” may have been rolled back enough to be constitutional, it can still evidence the  President’s bigotry, and therefore could still contribute to his impeachment.

ap_18115517534302_custom-de2433708c26b21f70c27b24fa1da4764a5b7a5d-s1600-c85.jpgAndrew Harnik/AP