House Republicans Invade a Deposition

As the evidence of President Trump's abuse of power and corruption mounts and his shifting defenses have fallen to the wayside, House Republicans have resorted to specious claims of unconstitutionality and lack of due process in the conduct of the impeachment investigation. Never mind that such investigations, like grand jury proceedings and the practice of past special counsels, must be and have been conducted in private until charges are recommended. Or that, notwithstanding their claims to the contrary, Republican representatives and their staff are present at the depositions of witnesses and have a full opportunity to cross-examine. 

The president and his congressional accessories falsely assert that the impeachment will occur in secret and will amount to a "Soviet style" coupe, though they know full well that the investigation will lead to open hearings and a vote in the House to be followed by a full public trial in the Senate where the President's lawyers will be free to present his defense with all of the protections afforded an accused.

Their deceit having failed, House Republicans, with the encouragement of the president and egged on by the far right media, have now adopted the tactics of the mob, invading the hearing room, disrupting proceedings, intimidating witnesses and violating House rules prohibiting cameras, phones and recording devices in secure facilities. If this dangerous and undemocratic turn to violence is not called out immediately by responsible Republicans, and reacted against by an outraged citizenry, the foundation of our democracy will be seriously at risk.

Replacing Rikers

The importance of closing Rikers Island cannot be overstated, both because of its practical consequences and its symbolic message. As a former Chair of the New York City Board of Correction and a retired Criminal Court Judge, I believe I have a fairly unique perspective on how that jail complex impacted lives and communities and how its closing will usher in a new and humane response by the criminal justice system to addressing crime, punishment and rehabilitation.
Unquestionably, incarceration on Rikers is an horrific experience, especially for inmates awaiting trial ( a majority), who are held because of their inability to post bail. Violence committed by inmates and correction officers alike is a daily occurrence. Inhospitable living conditions, lack of proper medical and psychiatric care and, most debilitating, solitary confinement, have resulted in suicides, homicides and emotional dysfunction. While there has been some remediation, such as curtailing isolation, conditions on the island are little improved and remain grossly unacceptable.
Even for those who have been convicted and are serving short sentences, the ever present specter of violence and the substandard living conditions impose an unduly punitive and threatening existence. The inadequacy of educational opportunity, job training and medical and  psychiatric care for this cohort make more problematic their release to society and increase the likelihood of repeated offenses.
The jails to be built as a replacement for Rikers will have the virtues of housing fewer inmates, having modern and more humane facilities and of being located in neighborhoods convenient for family visitation and in close proximity to the courts where the cases are heard. The long delays inherent in transporting defendants to distant courthouses, a major vexation for judges and jurors, will be obviated.
Some argue that the projected decrease in prison population is overly optimistic and that the capacity of the proposed new jails will be inadequate to house all those detained. That fear will prove illusory given the recently enacted measures to end cash bail and to decriminalize minor offenses. Further, as a former judge and current judicial hearing officer, I am hopeful that more judges will have the wisdom and courage to recognize that most accused non-violent offenders can be released pending trial without risk of flight or threat to safety. The combination of these factors undoubtedly will reduce the prison population to an even more humane level (small steps in ending the evil of mass incarceration) that can be served by the new facilities.

Citizen Comey's Dilemma

:

Former FBI Director James Comey's patriotism, regard for the truth and dedication to public service should be beyond question. (Oct.13, p.1)His judgement and egoism not so much. The dilemma which upended Mr. Comey's professional life, and which haunts him still, could have been avoided by a clearer and more just protocol governing the conduct and disclosure of  criminal investigations by the FBI of candidates for elective office.

There must be a statutory, inviolate rule that such investigations may not be disclosed unless they result in the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. The validity of any such indictment would be subject to prompt, in camera judicial review. The trial and any appeal must be expedited. The same law should override the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department, that a sitting president may not be criminally prosecuted for unlawful conduct. This will insure that investigations need not be rushed unduly nor defanged by the prospect that the subject of the investigation may be elected to office before its conclusion.

AG Barr Seeks Foreign Assistance to Discredit Mueller

It is now Attorney General Barr's highest priority to travel the world seeking evidence to impugn the motives of the investigators who uncovered and reported on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Manifestly, neither Mr. Barr nor his presidential client have any interest in preventing ongoing and further meddling by Russia in the forthcoming election despite dire warnings from the intelligence community and Robert Mueller. Indeed, Mr. Trump has made it clear that he would welcome such illicit aid.

With the integrity of our election in peril and the foundation of our democracy gravely threatened, the Democrats in Congress must take on the responsibility shirked by our Chief Executive. They must empanel a special blue-ribbon commission whose mission is to devise measures to counter the assault on our political process and insure the integrity of our elections. In other words, take the protective steps one would have expected from our president and attorney general who appear more interested in giving comfort to Russia than safeguarding America.

The Historical Record

If this country survives and its history written in the decades and centuries to come,

I suspect that the current era will be denominated “The Age of Unreason”. It will be recorded
that a nation founded by immigrants and populated by their descendants closed its doors to those seeking asylum and a better life.
That its youth emulated the salutes and symbols and adopted the hatred and vitriol of those whom their grandfathers had fought to the death to defeat. Historians will express befuddlement
that a man with no historical knowledge or interest, no sense of mission save self-adulation, no
moral fiber and possessing acute criminal instincts, was elevated to leadership of what was then labeled the “Free World”.
Chroniclers will wonder how men and women of high elective office, fully aware of the destructive and disruptive nature of their leader, chose to ignore the chaos and conflict reigning about them in their pursuit of self promotion. Historians likely will question how a Supreme Court dominated by originalists and professing aversion to activist judging could bend the constitution to justify a private right to bear arms and a corporate right to use wealth to dominate the electoral process; the same court that pronounced itself powerless to remedy patent deprivation of voting rights by ultra-partisan electoral mapping.
Finally, much will be written about a nation once united in common purpose that was splintered
into tribal cohorts exuding venom for one another and a congress paralyzed and cowered into inaction, fearful of retribution by an egomaniacal ignoramus and his blindly devoted base.
Then, hopefully, it will document how the darkness receded, the nation found its way and the grand experiment that is American democracy was saved.  

U.S. Investigates Emissions Pledge

If anyone needed more proof that William Barr acts as the personal attorney of President Trump, his "Roy Cohen", rather than as  an independent Attorney General, look no further. After wrongly absolving Mr. Trump of obstruction of justice, notwithstanding the factual findings of Special Counsel Mueller, and by commencing investigations of those who probed or "spied on" the president, Mr. Barr's Justice Department has now opened an antitrust investigation of the automakers who struck a deal with California to reduce tailpipe emissions beyond the limits preferred by Mr. Trump. The Department has also sent an intimidating warning letter to California officials. 

Never mind that this latest investigation turns antitrust law on its head (there is no violation absent collusion between the companies), Mr. Barr is sending a clear signal that anyone who defies the wishes of his client, in this case Mr. Trump's desire to enrich Big Oil and undo anything put in place by President Obama, will be subjected to massive scrutiny and legal harassment. 

U.S. to Challenge California's Right to Set Pollution Rules

The Trump-directed EPA has indicated it is considering revoking California's legal authority to set tailpipe pollutions standards that are stricter than federal regulations. (NYT, 9/6, P.B4) This action is being taken despite the fact that 13 other states have adopted California's forward-looking effort to curtail global warming and air pollution and that major auto makers have announced their approval of and commitment to the higher standards.

In contemplating this environmentally destructive retreat from sensible measures to combat the life-threatening menace of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the EPA must heed the caution voiced by Sen. James Imhofe of Oklahoma, who happens to be a global-warming denier and apologist for Big Oil. At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, held in July, 2007, Sen. Barbara Boxer, the committee chair, berated the EPA for unduly delaying action on California's request for a waiver allowing the state to set its own standards. In defending EPA's inaction, Sen. Imhofe stated:

" In making a decision of this magnitude, it would be improper for the EPA not to involve the public and formally solicit notice and comment". The Senator added that the EPA needed time to read, assess and compare the comments and to thoroughly investigate the issues raised by California, analyze each and every document, examine every argument raised in opposition and determine the ramifications of a decision. He concluded, " then, and only then, EPA needs to make a decision... rushing this process is unacceptable. In fact, it would be arbitrary and capricious in law and in fact. "

Amen.