Pardons Off the Table Until After Investigation

In the guise of allaying the public's alarm, President Trump and his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, have signaled potential "flippers" that they should keep their silence, secure in the knowledge that a pardon will be forthcoming before any jail term has to be served. Made to appear that the president and his team will not interfere in the Mueller investigation, the opposite is plainly their intent and their message is clear.

This maneuver is of a piece with the recently promoted notion that the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be held in abeyance until after the November election, another signal that before Mueller can conclude his investigation a new Attorney General may fire him or, at least, handcuff his ability to enforce or report any findings of illegality.

Manafort Aide Attacked as Liar

As a retired judge who handled many criminal court trials, I am deeply disturbed by the behavior of federal judge T.S. Ellis III as he presides at the trial of Paul Manafort. His constant berating of the prosecutors might be excused as a function of an irascible personality, not a prized quality in a jurist, or as a by- product of his pursuit of a speedy trial.

However, Judge Ellis' interruptions of examination of witnesses and his own frequent questioning of witnesses, sometimes accompanied by remarks that suggest the judge's disbelief of the witness' credibility or his disapproval of the witness' behavior, constitute unacceptable and improper judicial demeanor. A trial judge must be sensitive to the influence his perceived views and behavior carry with jurors who often take the judge's apparent perspective as a guidepost for their own deliberations. A judge must not convey his private assessment of a case or a witness to the jurors who are the ultimate deciders of the facts.

I believe the prosecutors should request that Judge Ellis give a curative instruction to the jury advising that they must not draw any inferences or conclusions from the court's interpositions and assure the jurors that he does not have an opinion of the credibility of any witness nor of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Jay Sekulow's Bad Information

Now that it has been established that Donald Trump dictated the statement issued by his son, Donald Jr., falsely asserting that the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians was about adoptions, the president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, says he had "bad information" when he made erroneous statements on behalf of the president denying any involvement by the president in the drafting of the false statement.

Mr. Sekulow has to know that any ethical attorney would first ask his client about the facts before issuing a statement on the client's behalf. So the conclusion is inevitable; one of four possibilities occurred. 1. Mr. Sekulow violated his ethical duty to question his client, or 2. his client lied to him, or 3. his client told him the truth and Mr. Sekulow lied to the public and the press and his client did not contradict him, or 4. perhaps most likely, Mr. Sekulow and Donald Trump conspired to put out a false statement. Under any of these options, Donald Trump is proven a liar and under all but one of the options, Mr. Sekulow merits the same condemnation.