Trump's lawyers began the impeachment trial with a blizzard of lies

Trump’s lawyers began the
impeachment trial with a
blizzard of lies
“The opening debate of the Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday
afternoon was supposed to be merely about the trial rules. But
members of President Donald Trump’s legal team wasted no time
telling a number of lies before things really got going.”
reports Vox.

“Though getting facts wrong might be somewhat understandable
in the context of extemporaneous statements, these falsehoods
came in the context of prepared remarks read by White House
counsel Pat Cipollone and personal Trump attorney Jay
Sekulow.”

                     Read Vox‘s article.

NYC Bar Urges Congressional
Inquiry  Into   AG   Barr’s
Conduct
Newsweek reports that the New York City Bar Association has
asked congressional leaders to launch a formal inquiry into
Attorney General William Barr’s conduct, claiming it
threatened the public’s confidence in the “fair and impartial
administration of justice.”

“Mr. Barr’s recent actions and statements position the
Attorney General and, by extension, the United States

Department of Justice (DOJ) as political partisans willing to
use the levers of government to empower certain groups over
others,” the letter to the congressional leaders stated.

The letter to the leaders highlighted four public statements
the AG made that the association found troubling.

                 Read the   Newsweek article.

Impeachment Maelstrom Pulls
Chief Justice Into Politics
He Shuns
Chief Justice John Roberts faces the challenge of trying to
bring judicial independence — and a modicum of decorum — into
the political maelstrom of a Senate impeachment trial, writes
Greg Stohr for Bloomberg.

“Roberts, 64, will take up those duties as a singular figure
in American public life,” Stohr explains. “Even as he has
steered the court to the right over the past 15 years, the
Republican-appointed Roberts has staunchly defended the
judiciary’s independence and shown an occasional willingness
to push back against Trump.”

The extent of Roberts’ role in the impeachment trial of
President Trump may be limited, however. Roberts may not want
to call a vote on every issue, and he could use some disputes
as an opportunity to try to give the proceedings an aura of

fairness.

                 Read the Bloomberg article.

Dueling Counsel Will Take
Focus at Next Impeachment
Hearing
Attorneys representing both sides of the aisle will present
evidence, but no witnesses, when the House Judiciary Committee
holds its next hearing in the impeachment inquiry Monday,
reports Courthouse News Service.

Reporter Brandi Buchman explains the process that in the
potential impeachment of President Trump:

  “According to the rules authorizing the inquiry passed in
  October, attorneys for both the Democratic and Republican
  parties will have a chance during the 9 a.m. hearing Monday
  to give written statements explaining the scope of evidence
  they wish to put forward for articles, as well as a
  ‘detailed presentation’ of that evidence ‘other than the
  testimony of the witnesses.’”

              Read the Courthouse News article.

How   John   Roberts   Might
Oversee a Senate Impeachment
Trial

Chief Justice
John Roberts

CNN takes a look back at how Chief Justice William Rehnquist
captured unprecedented attention as he presided over the
Senate trial of a president, a role that would fall to Chief
Justice John Roberts if the U.S. House were to impeach
President Donald Trump and a Senate trial were launched.

“The magnitude of an impeachment trial for a US president —
only two have been held in US history — is underscored by the
Constitution’s specific mention that the chief justice
presides,” writes CNN’s Joan Biskupic.

                    Read the CNN article.

Impeachment                    Lawyers:  Mob
Buster   vs.                    GOP  Veteran
Counsel
The public impeachment inquiry hearings set to begin Wednesday
will pit a Democratic attorney who built his reputation as a
federal mob and securities fraud prosecutor against a GOP
House Oversight investigator who helped steer some of the most
notable probes of the Obama administration, the Associated
Press reports.

For the Democrats, Daniel Goldman will lead the questioning of
witnesses. The Washington Post reports that Goldman “made his
bones as a prosecutor by sending mobsters, stock swindlers and
a multimillion-dollar insider trader to prison, cases in which
colleagues said he mixed brains and ‘swagger’ to win
convictions.”

Steve Castor, House Intelligence Committee counsel for the
minority, will ask questions on behalf of the GOP. “Castor was
brought over from the House Oversight Committee by Rep. Jim
Jordan, R-Ohio, who recently joined the Intelligence
Committee,” reports Fox News.

                     Read the AP article.

Why Trump Impeachment Could
Be a Nightmare for Chief
Justice; Recusal Rumblings
Heard
If the U.S. House of Representatives impeaches President
Trump, that would put John Roberts, a man known for his
temperance and modest view of judicial power, in an
uncomfortable place: at the direct center of a bitter
political battle, reports Time magazine.

If the impeachment goes through the House, then the Senate
will conduct the trial, with the chief justice of the United
States overseeing the proceedings.

That eventuality, reports Time, “would force him to engage
very publicly in helping determine the fate of the president
who has called him an ‘absolute disaster.'”

The Washington Times reports that the prospect of Roberts
presiding over the proceedings has caused rumblings in
Washington that the chief justice should recuse himself.

                   Read the Time article.

John Roberts Won’t Let Mitch
McConnell Derail a Trump
Impeachment Trial

Chief Justice
John Roberts

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that — if
President Trump is impeached — he wants the subsequent trial
in the Senate to be handled briskly. But the presiding officer
at an impeachment will be the chief justice of the United
States, John Roberts.

In an essay at Slate, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman
writes: “Given his deep commitment to professionalism, John
Roberts can be counted on to deflect any behind-the-scenes
pressures for speed. These inclinations would be reinforced,
moreover, by the recent controversy surrounding the
appointment of Brett Kavanaugh. Everybody remembers McConnell
ramming the nomination through without a full investigation of
multiple allegations of misconduct; Roberts cannot allow the
same hardball tactics to repeat themselves.”

And a handful of skeptical Republican senators may deny
McConnell the majority support he would require to force
through a revision of the rules that could marginalize the
chief justice’s role, Ackerman explains.

                   Read the Slate article.

The Lawyer at the Center of
the Ukraine Vortex
John Eisenberg, the attorney who is emerging as a central
figure in the Ukraine scandal, is a quiet and unassuming
presence in a White House dominated by more colorful
personalities, according to a Politico report.

“He says little, frequently keeping his head down as he walks
the halls of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building,” writes
Politico’s Daniel Lippman. “He has few internal enemies. He’s
not known to speak to reporters. He keeps such a low profile
that, for a while, the president didn’t even know his name,
repeatedly referring to him as ‘Mike.’”

One former colleague at the National Security Counsel called
him “extremely paranoid,” while another said he never
says anything when he can nod his approval and never puts
anything in emails if he can say it to your face.

                  Read the Politico report.

Senate Panel Holds Over Some
Trump   Court   Picks;   Two
Nominees      Rated     ‘Not
Qualified’
Bloomberg Law reports      that the Senate Judiciary Committee
delayed action on a       number of President Donald Trump’s
judicial nominees Oct.    17, including circuit court picks who
faced pushback at their   confirmation hearings.

“White House lawyer Steven Menashi and U.S. District Judge
Halil Suleyman Ozerden likely will have to wait at least a
week for the committee to again consider their nominations to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively,” writes Bloomberg’s Madison Alder.

Two district court nominees, Justin Walker in Kentucky and
Sarah Pitlyk in Missouri, have been rated not qualified by the
American Bar Association. The panel approved Walker’s
selection, but held over Pitlyk’s.

               Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Trump Finally Has His Lawyer
In his 10 months in the administration, White House counsel
Pat Cipollone seems to have earned the president’s trust in a

way that few aides have done. He is both discreet, and more to
the point, clear in his admiration for the president,
according to a report in The Atlantic.

“Cipollone—aggressive, dedicated, and at times controlling,
according to his colleagues—has helped to frustrate Democratic
attempts at oversight, challenging subpoenas and crafting
legal arguments to block aides’ testimony before Congress,”
write Peter Nicholas and Elaina Plott.

Above the Law reports that last week Cipollone “wrote an
eight-page letter to Congressional Democrats, where he openly
mocked the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, stating
not only that the president could not ‘permit his
administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under
these circumstances,’ but that it ‘lack[ed] any legitimate
constitutional foundation’ and violated ‘the Constitution, the
rule of law, and every past precedent.’”

                  Read the Atlantic article.

Federal Appeals Court Revives
Ethics Lawsuit Against Trump
in Emoluments Case

A federal appeals court on Friday revived an
               ethics lawsuit against President Donald Trump
               that argues his business interests are
               conflicts of interest and violate the US
               Constitution, reports CNN.

Plaintiffs, including a hotel operator and a group of
restaurants, claimed Trump’s “vast, complicated and secret”
business arrangements violate a constitutional provision, the
Emoluments Clause, which bars the president from accepting
gifts from foreign governments without the permission of
Congress, writes CNN’s Erica Orden.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a
lower-court judge improperly threw out the lawsuit in December
2017. Now, plaintiffs are hoping this victory will allow them
to seek detailed records on Trump’s transactions with foreign
officials, according to a Washington Post report.

                    Read the CNN article.

Census    Plaintiffs                               Seek
Sanctions   Against                               Trump
Administration   for                              Trial

‘Fraud’
Reuters reports that civil rights groups who successfully
blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship
question to the 2020 U.S. census are seeking sanctions against
government officials, saying they brazenly hid the truth about
the inquiry’s origins during trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked a New York court to
grant new discovery into the alleged misconduct, as well as
monetary sanctions for the government’s “concerted campaign of
delay and obfuscation” during trial last November.

Reuters’ Nick Brown writes that the plaintiffs cited a list of
“false or misleading” testimonies that amounted to “fraud on
the court,” perpetrated by officers of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, DOJ and Census Bureau.

                  Read the Reuters article.

24 Tense Cases Over Two
Weeks: Chief Justice John
Roberts is About to Show His

Cards
For the first time in John Roberts’ 14 years as chief justice
of the United States, he will likely be the deciding vote on
several final, tense cases — a total of 24 over the next two
weeks, according to CNN.

“Two of the most politically charged cases awaiting
resolution, testing 2020 census questions and partisan
gerrymanders, could lead to decisions favoring Republican
Party interests and reinforce the partisan character of a
court comprising five GOP appointees and four Democratic
ones,” writes CNN’s Joan Biskupic.

“That is a signal Roberts — always insisting the court is a
neutral actor — does not want to send, despite past sentiment
that would put him on the Republican side in both.”
                     Read the CNN article.

Are   Contracting     Parties
Treated the Same When it
Comes to Notice Obligations?
Two separate decisions in the United States Court of Federal
Claims contain lessons that are generally helpful in all
projects involving notice of contract changes, reports G.
Scott Walters for Smith, Currie & Hancock.

“Prudent construction professionals, particularly those doing
business with the government, should understand and comply
with all notice provisions in their contract. Even if strict
notice may not be required, it should be given early and
often. Moreover, when notice is received, the prudent
contractor must endeavor to understand what it means,” Walters
writes.

“The court’s decisions on the notice issues may, at first,
appear to contradict each other or to favor one party over the
other,” he explains. “A closer look at these two decisions
reveals that notice requirements, in the context of federal
government construction contracts, can come in multiple forms
and notice is not a ‘one size fits all’ proposition.”

                      Read the article.

Foley    Adds   Former   US
Congressman Michael Capuano
in Boston
Foley & Lardner LLP announced former U.S. Congressman Michael
Capuano has joined the firm’s Government Solutions Practice as
a public affairs director, splitting his time between the
firm’s Boston and Washington D.C. offices.

He joins Foley’s team of former congressmen, which includes
public affairs directors Dennis Cardoza and Scott Klug, both
previously members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Capuano served as the U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’
7th Congressional District from 1999 to 2019. He was a senior
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Financial Services Committee, and chair of the Special
Task Force on Ethics Enforcement.

Prior to his congressional career, Capuano was the mayor of
Somerville, MA from 1990 to 1999.

Border Wall Needs Private
Property. But Some Texans
Won’t Give Up Their Land
Without a Fight.

Image by U.S.
Customs    and
Border
Protection

Government lawyers have taken the first step in trying to
seize private property using the power of eminent domain to

build a border wall — a contentious step that could put a
lengthy legal wrinkle into President Trump’s plans to build
hundreds of miles of wall, reports The Washington Post.

Previous eminent domain attempts along the Texas border have
led to more than a decade of court battles, some of which date
to George W. Bush’s administration and have yet to be
resolved, according to the Post‘s Katie Zezima and Mark
Berman. Many landowners are vowing to fight anew.

The reporters quoted Gerald S. Dickinson, an assistant
professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh, who said
this newest fight will be different because the earlier effort
mostly included federal government land.

“If it’s going to be a contiguous wall across the entire
southwest border, you’re talking about a massive land seizure
of private property,” he said.

                    Read the Post article.

In  8-Month   Tenure, Non-
Elected NY AG Was Leading
Trump Antagonist
Barbara Underwood was an apolitical force in New York, quietly
serving as solicitor general before getting an unexpected
promotion to become the state’s first female attorney general,
writes the Associated Press.

In her eight months in the AG’s role, she sued to put
President Donald Trump’s charitable foundation out of
business, accusing him of running it as a wing of his private
businesses and political campaign. She also used the courts to
challenge his administration on a multitude of policy fronts,
including opposing its push to add a citizenship question to
the 2020 census.

Underwood was appointed attorney general by the state
legislature in May after the surprise resignation of Eric
Schneiderman, explains AP’s Michael R. Sisak.

Now she’s going back to the solicitor general’s office, but
Trump still faces challenges from New York, from the new
AG, Letitia James.

                     Read the AP article.

Morrison & Foerster Will Eat
$16M in Fees, Costs Pursuing
Vets’ Claims
The law firm that spent nine years fighting and winning health
care for veterans subjected to government-administered human
testing of chemicals including sarin, mustard gas, and LSD was
awarded $3.4 million in fees, a small fraction of the value of
the hours the firm said it put into the case.

Bloomberg Law reports that Morrison & Foerster LLP accepted a

fee award from the U.S. Army that’s $16 million less than the
fee the firm could have sought.

“The fee award is the latest and nearly last chapter in the
litigation by soldiers subjected to the government’s decades-
long human testing program who were seeking recognition and
health care above what they could get at the Veterans
Administration for injuries they suffered,” writes Bloomberg’s
Joyce Cutler.

               Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Inside the Private Justice
Department Meeting That Could
Lead to New Investigations of
Tech Giants
The Washington Post reports on a meeting of the country’s top
federal and state law enforcement officials on Tuesday that
could presage sweeping new investigations of Amazon, Facebook,
Google and their tech industry peers.

Participants voiced lingering frustrations that these
companies are too big, fail to safeguard users’ private data
and don’t cooperate with legal demands.

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened the meeting by raising
questions of possible ideological bias among the tech
companies and sought to bring the conversation back to that
topic at least twice more, according to D.C. Attorney General
Karl A. Racine,” according to reporters Brian Fung and Tony
Romm.

But other participants steered the conversation toward the
privacy practices of Silicon Valley.

              Read the Washington Post article.