Bloomberg Link to Prison Labor

News accounts of the use of prisoners to make campaign calls, and the Bloomberg campaign's negative reaction (12//25, A-16), have done a disservice to updated attitudes about penal reform and rehabilitation. Instead of treating the news that incarcerated persons have been given an opportunity to gain new skills, earn money and participate in the democratic process, an accomplishment which rightfully should be celebrated, the disclosure has been treated as a minor scandal.

Bloomberg's response, to fire the contractors and promise stricter vetting to prevent recurrence, only compounds the distortion of what should have been an uplifting story

Trial of Impeachment

To resolve the standoff in the senate, on the appropriate process for the impeachment trial of President Trump, and particularly, whether both sides should be able to subpoena and examine witnesses with first hand knowledge of relevant events, I propose the following.

Democrats and Republicans should agree to make application to and be bound by the rulings of Chief Justice John Roberts. Presumably Justice Roberts, who has the trust of Republicans, will bring to bear his judicial insights on the need to hear from fact witnesses and the relevancy of offered testimony, a role traditionally delegated to judges. Hopefully, Justice Roberts, in making his rulings, will be guided by his legal expertise and concern for the historical legacy of the court he leads.

Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump's Financial Records

The Supreme Court's announcement, that it has accepted for appeal three cases in which the lower courts ruled that Donald Trump's accountants and bankers must produce certain of his tax returns and other financial records, is an ominous development. If, as many legal analysts had predicted, the right of Congress (and a local prosecutor) to obtain these records was a "slam dunk", the Supreme Court simply would have denied certiorari effectively sanctioning the lower courts' rulings.

Given the makeup of the Court, I suspect there is an appetite to step in to protect Mr. Trump. What is likely to happen is a 5 to 4 split with the outcome dependent upon whether Chief Justice Roberts' concern for the verdict of history and the public's perception of the Court as an impartial arbiter outweighs his demonstrated tendency to uphold conservative, Republican interests.

The members of the Court who will favor Mr. Trump will first proclaim that they are not imposing a broad prohibition shielding a president from all investigation. Then, they will attempt to justify their position by arguing that the subpoenas were politically motivated and part of an unjustified campaign of harassment; that Congress has not adequately identified a legitimate legislative purpose; that the articles of impeachment do not broaden Congress' investigative authority because they do not relate to the president's alleged financial misconduct and that a local prosecutor may not investigate a sitting president.

All of these arguments are specious and would not pass  the red-face test, let alone unbiased constitutional analysis. One can only hope that the better angels of CJ Roberts' judicial persona overcome his conservative mindset and save the Constitution.

Barr Attacks FBI

Attorney-General William Barr's shamelessness knows no bounds. The country's supposedly independent chief law enforcement officer has shed any pretext that he is anything other than consigliere to President Donald Trump. Beginning with his misrepresentation and virtual suppression of the Mueller Report  and injudicious absolution of Mr. Trump's criminal obstruction of that investigation, the list of Mr. Barr's partisan pandering has grown exponentially. 

Among other things, the Attorney-General has echoed the "witch hunt" catechism, accused his own FBI of spying, disputed the findings of his agency's Inspector-General, initiated a redundant probe of the Russian interference investigators, promoted an imperial presidency and blamed secularists for the country's moral decline. 

Mr. Barr's distortion of the duties of his office will irreparably damage the independence of the Department of Justice and destroy the morale of its many dedicated professionals.