A senior at Livingston Manor High School posted a picture of himself lying on the ground next to a car with another student kneeling on his neck, giving the thumbs up. The picture was taken off school grounds and outside school hours. It did not go over well.

The context of the picture is significant: The day Leroy and his friends took and posted the picture, a jury had just begun to deliberate in the highly publicized trial of Derek Chauvin, a Minnesota police officer, for the murder of George Floyd. The picture is undeniably reminiscent of footage of Chauvin next to a police car kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, killing him. The other students involved in the picture—the student who took the picture (Student B) and the student posing with his knee on Leroy’s neck (Student A)—both acknowledge this resemblance, and Student A testified the resemblance was intentional.

The school punished Leroy, asserting that the image, which Leroy left up for about seven minutes but was captured by another student and left up for about seven months, cause substantial disruption. Continue reading →

The official explanation for the government, by Jonathan Hornok, chief of the criminal division of the DC U.S. attorney’s office, withdrawing the sentencing memo for Taylor Taranto was that it had been “entered in error.” That is a lie.

In their sentencing papers, Mr. Valdivia and Mr. White wrote that Mr. Taranto had been among the “mob of rioters” on Jan. 6 and that he had promoted conspiracy theories concerning the attack. Mr. Taranto was charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct for his role in the Capitol attack, but those charges were dismissed as part of the blanket clemency that President Trump granted to all of the nearly 1,600 people accused of taking part in the riot.

In an extraordinary move, the Justice Department withdrew the sentencing papers on Wednesday afternoon, noting in a federal court database that they had been “entered in error.” Hours later, new sentencing papers were submitted that kept the same recommendation for a 27-month sentence but expunged all references to Jan. 6.

Continue reading →

Chaired by Kentucky Republican James Comer, the House Oversight Committee released a 100-page report entitled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.” It did not speak well of Joe Biden’s mental acuity toward the end of his presidency.

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released its long-anticipated investigative report on former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s cognitive condition, accusing his inner circle of concealing a mental decline and claiming, without evidence, that he was so impaired that he could not make his own decisions.

The 100-page report, entitled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House,” concludes that many of the executive actions Mr. Biden took, including pardons of his family, should be considered “void” because there is no record that he made the decisions himself.

The issuance of pardons is one of the preclusive acts of the presidency. For better or worse, the Constitution gives the president the sole power to grant pardons as he sees fit. Continue reading →

In a curiously pointless New York Times op-ed, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley writes that no American should go to bed hungry.

Congress must not let that happen. America is a great and wealthy nation, and our most important wealth is our generosity of spirit. We help those in need. We provide for the widow and the orphan. Love of neighbor is part of who we are. The Scripture’s injunction to “remember the poor” is a principle Americans have lived by. It’s time Congress does the same.

That’s about as deep as a politician proclaiming that he’s for everything good and against everything bad. Of course, it’s not as if this is a priority for the president, who is off jetting around Asia accepting flattery, gold trinkets and trying to fix problems of his own creation, rather than saving Americans from starvation while sending his buddy Milei $40 billion. “America first” might not mean what you think it means. Continue reading →

As early voting begins in New York City, the frontrunner, 34-year-old Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, is poised to be the next mayor of the Big Apple. Granted, his competition for the job is decidedly less than inspiring, the tainted Andrew Cuomo and the throw-away Curtis Sliwa, but still, electing a candidate who once called for defunding the police and still refuses to condemn Hamas’ October 11th attack is quite a message.

And, it’s argued, it is a message from the Democrats to America: Mamdani is our future. Not necessarily the charismatic and perpetually grinning Zohran, but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party as opposed to the old school moderate wing as reflected by Cuomo. Is this a reflection of what the future holds for Democrats? Continue reading →

For the most part, Richard Nixon excepted, presidents have understood their role to include following the law. That didn’t mean they couldn’t test the law or try to push the edges as far as they would bend, but ultimately concede that they were constrained by the law. But that, of course, doesn’t help a president to know what the law is, and where the outer perimeter lies. So the president would turn to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department for a legal opinion when there was a question as to whether something he wanted to do (or did and got caught) was legal.

OLC is the place where water-boarding torture was rationalized as lawful. OLC said it was okay to use a drone to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlacki. The thing was that OLC put its opinions into memos that provided written explanation for why something was lawful. It wasn’t so much that OLC could not be wrong, as OLC correctness could be determined and challenged. Continue reading →

Friends, I come today to introduce those of you who’ve never heard of him to Ahren Belisle.

This guy basically convinced me to give up writing dumb jokes for good.

Well, not really. But he’s incredibly funny. And he’s a nonverbal guy with cerebral palsy. And I haven’t been able to stop laughing at this guy’s sets since I found him.

So in the spirit of spreading the laughter and introducing you to a hilarious new voice in comedy I’m yielding time at the Friday Funny to Ahren Belisle.

Continue reading →

There is no question but that the pardon power belongs to the president, and only the president, and is unreviewable. And while I remain unconvinced that crypto-currency isn’t the modern equivalent of tulips, I have no personal feelings about Changpeng Zhao, or CZ as he’s called, the richest man in crypto, being pardoned per se. Heck, pardons are good, even bad pardons. Mercy is good. Even mistaken mercy is good.

But was this mercy?

President Trump granted a pardon to Changpeng Zhao, the billionaire founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, wiping away one of the U.S. government’s most significant crackdowns on crypto crime. Continue reading →

Trump says he might give it to charity, or to the White House. Maybe. Maybe not. We might never know anything about it, from whether Trump’s Justice Department, run by Trump’s former lawyers, decided to gift him what he claims to be owed because of the “unfair” federal investigations into the Russian connections with his campaign and the raid at Mar-a-Lago after he lied about, then refused to return, secret documents which he retained and were found during the execution of a search warrant. Either way, Trump has demanded $230 million from the United States for himself.

President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.

Continue reading →

Every lawyer accepts certain limitations on his freedom of speech when he seeks and obtains bar admission. We can’t reveal client confidences, for example, even though it would otherwise be fully within our right of free speech. These are the rules of the profession, and we accept them when we accept our ticket.

But when a lawyer in New Hampshire sent a demand letter to a putative defamation defendant, a non-lawyer, did it violate Rule 4.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because it included a demand for payment of $250,000? Continue reading →