Stormy Daniels, porn star/stripper extraordinaire, has been denied a starring role – at least for now. On Monday, a Los Angeles federal court tossed out Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump filed in April by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. The suit was based on a tweet by Trump calling her allegation of being threatened by a strange man on a Las Vegas parking lot back in 2011 “a total con job.” According to U.S. District Judge S. James Otero, the president’s message was “rhetorical hyperbole” of the sort one associates with standard political discourse. Avenatti doesn’t think so. He’s already filed an appeal. And thanks in part to the publicity he generated in opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation, he now has widespread support among Democratic senators and the general public.
Stephanie Clifford aka “Stormy Daniels,” age 39, a Louisiana native, has worked in the adult film … Read More ➡
Darren Samuelsohn of Politico today reports, according to a source, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has delivered to President Trump written questions related to his Russia collusion probe. From the article:
Peter Flaherty, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, warned on Thursday against Trump’s submitting written responses “in any way” given the legal consequences.
“Mueller has come up so empty on collusion that this may be a final stab at a perjury trap,” said Flaherty, who runs a conservative nonprofit that is funding a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the special counsel’s appointment.
Upon the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh as the newest Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after he was falsely accused by Democrats of sexual attacks and impropriety, Google lead designer Dave Hogue let loose on Twitter with a profane rant that condemned Republicans to a painful eternal destiny of torment.
And he wasn’t fired for it – at least not that we know of.
The now-deleted tweet said:
You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins.
F***. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL.
I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.
Just as noteworthy and revealing about the corporate culture that Google fosters is the fact that the company, rather than issue a direct repudiation, instead defended its business.
“What employees … Read More ➡
While the Senate has been poring over the youthful misadventures of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, several House lawmakers, with far less fanfare, have been focusing on a more plausible charge of misconduct involving an ex-colleague, Mel Watt. On September 26, Watt, a former 11-term North Carolina congressman who since January 2014 has headed the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), was grilled at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee concerning allegations about his sexual harassment of a female FHFA employee. “She deserves to be heard and she needs to be heard,” said Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex. Watt denies all wrongdoing, but evidence might not be on his side.
Melvin Luther “Mel” Watt, now 73, a trained lawyer and a native of Charlotte, first was elected to Congress in 1992, a beneficiary of gerrymandering to ensure black representation. During his tenure, he specialized in banking, housing and economic development … Read More ➡
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME was a stunning blow to over 40 years of public-sector union monopoly power. Union leaders for their part are pushing back. They have plenty of allies in state governments, and perhaps no state is as vociferous as New York. Indeed, on June 27, the day of the ruling, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order to protect union members from outside intimidation – ironic, given the pressure unions often use to collect dues. The State of New York also has begun deducting dues from the pay of government workers without even checking to see if they are members. And now a prominent lawmaker wants taxpayers to reimburse unions for foregone dues.
State and local officials across the country, especially in non-Right to Work states, are helping to lead a popular resistance to Trump administration policies and court … Read More ➡
View All - What's Hot Posts
On October 9, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his reply to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s brief in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a witness in Mueller’s investigation, who has declined to appear before the Grand Jury convened by Mueller on the basis that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. Miller lost at the District Court level, a decision he is appealing. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
The brief argues, among other things, that Mueller is a “principal officer” under the Constitution and has been granted “wide discretion” by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mueller claims in his brief that … Read More ➡
by Marina Medvin, Townhall
Constitutional law attorney Paul Kamenar has taken Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller to a federal court of appeals, challenging Mueller’s legitimacy and powers as unconstitutional and arguing that Mueller acts like a “U.S. Attorney-at-large or a super U.S. Attorney with almost unlimited resources.” This is the only case to challenge the legitimacy of Mueller’s appointment in a court of appeals.
Kamenar represents Andrew Miller, a former part-time aide to Roger Stone, who was subpoenaed this summer by Mueller to testify against Stone in front of a grand jury. Mueller’s team has spent the past year and a half investigating the “Russian collusion” of Trump’s campaign and has brought criminal charges against numerous individuals, albeit none for “Russian collusion.” Mueller’s reliance on Special Counsel powers to make legal demands of the aide have presented a unique legal opportunity for Kamenar to challenge the arguably illegal powers … Read More ➡
The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 8, two days after the midterm elections, on the challenge by Andrew Miller to the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On Friday, September 28, Mueller filed a 71-page brief making many of the same flawed arguments he made at the District Court level. A reply brief by Paul Kamenar, Miller’s attorney, is due on October 9. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center and its supporters around the country.
Here is Mueller’s brief:
On September 11, 2018, constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar filed his brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals on behalf of his client Andrew Miller, a witness in the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Miller is declining to honor a subpoena to appear before a Grand Jury and is challenging the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment.
Miller lost at the District Court level, allowing his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place in October. In his brief, Kamenar makes a compelling case that Mueller’s appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be ruled invalid. Kamenar’s representation of Miller is made possible by the National Legal and Policy Center, and its supporters around the country.
Here is the brief:
In an op-ed in The Hill, Law Professor Steven Calabresi says that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell erred in upholding the constitutionality of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Her decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefs were due yesterday and oral arguments will take place in October.
Andrew Miller, a witness in the case, is challenging Mueller’s constitutionality. Constitutional and appellate attorney Paul Kamenar, who is supported by the National Legal and Policy Center, represents him. Here’s the op-ed:
In its decision in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, egged on by a power-crazy acting attorney general, reached two startling and alarming conclusions in order to uphold the legality of Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.
The matter involved concerns the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which provides:
… Read More ➡
View All - Muller Challenge Related Posts