10 December 2015

Legal Schadenfreude: An Epic Pwning of Donald Trump's Lawyer

"Should your client actually be elected Commander-in-Chief, will you be the one writing the cease and desist letters to Vladimir Putin, or will that be handled by outside counsel?" - Counsel for Republican PAC to Counsel for Donald Trump
Law can be fun sometimes, especially if you're willing to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude. And when the schadenfreude is at the expense of one of Donald Trump's cronies, it's doubly sweet.  As I'm sure you know, The Donald has been known to threaten litigation from time to time - particularly when he feels like he's been unjustly maligned. At least a few of the cease and desist letters threatening litigation on behalf of The World's Worst Hairdo have been signed by one Alan Garten, General Counsel to both The Trump Organization (the The itself) and Donald J. Trump. 

It seems that Mr. Garten's most recent experiment in the C&D genre might possibly not have worked out as well as he would have liked. He apparently decided that (1) he had correctly identified the Political Action Committee that funded an attack ad directed at Trump's campaign-trail activity; (2) there is a universe where it would be appropriate for Donald Trump's for-profit business enterprise to send a cease-and-desist letter in an attempt to halt that ad campaign; and (3) that he actually lives in that universe. Sadly for Mr. Garten, none of those things turned out to be true. 

As a result, Mr. Garten sent a cease and desist letter to the wrong organization. This has resulted in a (probably meritorious) Federal Elections Commission complaint against his client, and the publication by the Washington Post of his letter, their reply, and the complaint.  All in all, probably not Mr. Garten's best-ever day at work. 

Let's hit the highlights, shall we? 

Mr. Garten's C&D was sent on Trump Organization letterhead. It was also short, to the point, and clearly the work of a flaming asshole. In reads, in relevant part: 

"It has come to my attention that you plan on producing and disseminating certain [...] advertisements directly and personally attacking my client. Though we believe your decision is fool hearted [sic], please be advised that in the even your ads contain any false, misleading, defamatory, inaccurate, or otherwise tortious statements or representations concerning Mr. Trump, his businesses or his brand, we will not hesitate to seek immediate legal action to prevent such distribution and hold you jointly and severally liable to the fullest extent of the law for any damages resulting therefrom ... and will look forward to doing it. [ellipsis in original]
Please be guided accordingly."
That is seriously the kind of lawyer letter that makes people hate lawyers. It's also aggressive, obnoxious, and utterly classless - in other words, completely consistent with everything the Trump brand stands for.

Apparently, it was not well received. (Go figure.) To begin with, it was sent to the wrong organization. Trump's guy, it seems, directed the letter to the Right to Rise PAC, Inc. Unfortunately, Right to Rise, Inc. is Jeb Bush's leadership PAC, and leadership PACs don't produce ads. The ads are produced by "Super PACs," such as the independent pro-Jeb Bush Right to Rise USA. If you're confused, don't worry. No, actually, do worry - this shows just how confusing and hard to follow the flow of big money into campaigns has become since Citizens United - but know that you're not alone in your confusion. To keep things simple, from here out I'll refer to Right to Rise, Inc. as "Inc." 

Of course, it's one thing for you to be confused about the difference between Inc. and Right to Rise USA. It's another for an experienced corporate counsel to make a mistake like that. It was, as the WaPo put it, a "rookie mistake" on Mr. Garten's part.  Inc's lawyers, Charles Spies and James Tyrrell III, begin by pointing the error out and helpfully (if condescendingly) point Garten to such helpful resources as the FEC website and the Citizens United decision. They then continue:

"[W]e are intrigued (but not surprised) by your continued efforts to silence critics of your client's campaign by employing litigious threats and bullying. Should your client actually be elected Commander-in-Chief, will you be the one writing the cease and desist letters to Vladimir Putin, or will that be handled by outside counsel? As a candidate for President, your client is a public figure and his campaign should, and will, be fact-checked. The ability to criticize a candidate's record, policies and matters of public importance lies at the heart of the First Amendment, as courts have repeatedly recognized. If you have the time between bankruptcy filings and editing reality show contracts, we urge you to flip through the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.  If your client is so thin-skinned that he cannot handle his critics' presentation of his own public statements, policies and record to the voting public, and if such communications hurts his feelings, he is welcome to purchase airtime to defend his record. After all, a wall can be built around many things, but not around the First Amendment.  
Lastly, in light of your confusion between Leadership PACs and Super PACs, we have to assume you may also be unaware of the FEC's prohibition on a federal candidate's use of corporate resources for campaign purposes. Although your client may think he is above the law and be accustomed to using lawsuits to bail out his failed business deals, the Federal Election Campaign Act and the FEC's Regulations nonetheless apply to him and his campaign. Perhaps the attached complaint, filed today, will serve as a reminder of your client's legal obligations under federal election laws. Just as your client is attempting to quickly learn the basics of foreign policy, we wish you personally the best in your attempts to learn election law.  
Cordially, 
That's not the snarkiest response to a cease-and-desist I've ever seen, but it's up there. In addition to the amusement value, it's noteworthy for a few other reasons. 

First: The Eleventh Commandment has clearly gone out the window, and at a very early stage in the primaries. The letter itself is very negative to begin with, and then there's the fact that it found its way into the hands of the Washington Post. 

Second: There is a good chance that the few remaining "mainstream" Republicans hate Trump even more than the Democrats do. This shows, if nothing else, that they may not be entirely willing to admit their own role in creating the monster that is consuming the GOP. 

Finally: It's extremely likely that the Trump Organization's cease and desist letters are, in addition to being bullying and juvenile attempts at smothering dissent, violations of federal law. There are a number of statutes that could apply, most of which were cited by Inc's counsel in their FEC complaint, but they all go to the same principle: using your for-profit corporation to bully campaign opponents constitutes an illegal contribution of valuable services to a political campaign. 

The Trump Organization appears to think otherwise - they issued a statement claiming that they are just "zealously protect[ing] Mr. Trump's brand." That's not going to fly as an excuse. Setting aside the fact that the biggest threat to the Trump image is Trump, their cease and desist was directed squarely at Trump's political opponents. It will be interesting to see how thoroughly they get smacked down if they try to argue that point to the FEC. It will also be interesting to see how the notoriously thin-skinned Trump and his staff deal with the strengthening opposition from the Republican Old Guard. 

Yup. It's popcorn time. 

09 December 2015

Pernicious Right-Wing Nonsense: The "Donald Trump is no worse than Jimmy Carter" meme.

Apparently, there is nothing Donald Trump can say that is so outrageous that you will not find a right-wing apologist willing to defend it. Case in point: his call for a ban on allowing Muslims to enter the United States.  The idea itself is abhorrent to me, and goes against everything we stand for and believe in as Americans. And when that's what Dick freaking Chaney is saying about your plan, you really have gone off into the wilds of reactionary lunacy. So, naturally, justifications for Trump's remarks have started showing up in my Facebook feed. 

The one I've seen the most often, probably because it's the one that pretends to almost make an attempt at avoiding blanket bigotry, is one that goes like this: "Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims is just like Jimmy Carter's actual ban on Iranians." Actually, Trump's proposed ban on Muslims is almost completely unlike Jimmy Carter's actual ban on Iranians. Here's why:

Iran is a country. Islam is a religion. Those are two very different things, particularly when it comes to things like international law. 
It is absolutely a fact that Jimmy Carter issued orders barring Iranians from entering the US during the Iran hostage crisis. (Of course, it's also true that Carter's order contained an exception for "compelling and proven humanitarian reasons," while the frothing Islamophobia spewing forth from even the more respectably mainstream portions of the American political right - such as the elected government of the State of Texas - seems to be largely directed at keeping Muslims with "compelling and proven humanitarian reasons" to flee their homes from entering the USA, but let's put that issue to the side for now.)

During the Iran hostage crisis, the US Embassy was taken over and US citizens were held hostage. The new government of Iran was refusing to return the hostages to the US, despite (by the time of Carter's declaration) an order from the International Court of Justice.  (By the way, the Frontpage article I linked earlier asserts that "Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country," but this is legally incorrect - the ICJ in fact found otherwise in their final order in the case.) Carter's acts were not taken against a religion; they were part of a series of steps taken by a nation against another nation during an international crisis. 

Carter's ban on Iranian entry to the US was one of several parts of the same order. The other measures included breaking off remaining diplomatic relations, imposing a ban on exports to Iran, and beginning to inventory Iranian assets in the USA (which had already been frozen). These are all fairly common trade embargo measures; trade embargoes have been one of the more common ways that nation-to-nation disputes play out for centuries.

A blanket ban against members of a particular religion, on the other hand, is not a typical part of national conflicts. Even if it is legally possible under US law to ban Muslims from entering the United States, it would violate any number of international obligations, including some that could easily lead to the US having to pay monetary damages. 

Barring citizens of a specific nation from entering the US at a time when we are at or near a state of war with that country: morally and legally acceptable. Barring 1.6 billion people from an enormous number of countries from entering the United States because they nominally share a religion with terrorists: not morally acceptable, not legally permissible, and bloody stupid by any reasonable definition. 


08 December 2015

*tap* *tap* Is this thing still on?

It's been a long time, baby. But it turns out that I actually miss blogging - even if I'm my only reader. 

I clearly haven't updated this thing for nearly a decade. I bailed from here to ScienceBlogs, from ScienceBlogs to Scientopia, and then wandered away from blogging altogether for a few years. But I still like to rant, still like to try to explain things, and still like to do both those things with text. Blogging might have become your father's communications method of choice since I walked away, but that's my demographic these days. 

Anyway. . .

This blog started around the time I first started grad school in 2005. That was in a Zoology program. I dropped out of that in 2007, spent a few years on a semi-involuntary tour of the South, got back to Hawai‘i, started law school in 2012, graduated this summer, passed the bar, and now I'm back in grad school again. (This time in law.) Feels like a whole circle of life kind of thing, but hopefully without the stampeding wildebeests.  

I'm making no promises on updates. My next steps from here are to try and get the various social media tools working - I'm playing around with ifttt.com and a couple of other things - and to look at how well (if at all) I'll be able to post from my phone. But I'm going to try to start moving at least my longer Facebook rants here, and may get a few other things up in the next few days.


Oh - and there are ads here now. I have no expectation that they will actually earn me anything, and will turn them off if they get too annoying (unless, of course, I'm actually earning something). I'm mostly curious about how they work. They're toward the bottom of the page now, but I'm likely to play with that a bit over time. 

09 June 2006

Moving day

Well, it's moving day here at The Questionable Authority. I've been picked up as part of the newest group of bloggers to move over to scienceblogs.com. I've been working on the new site for a few days now, and I've actually got several posts up over there.

You can find the new blog at: http://scienceblogs.com/authority/

The posts that are already here will stay here, but I probably won't be updating much anymore. Hope to see you all at the new place!

07 June 2006

The hydra

It's just been reported that the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been killed by an American air strike. I hope it's true, but even if it is I don't know how much good it will do. We've lopped another head off the beast, but there are plenty more where that one came from.

05 June 2006

Elections, RFK, Rolling Stone, and Salon.com

A couple of days ago, I posted a link to a Rolling Stone article written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In that article, RFK Jr presented what he considered to be evidence that the Ohio presidential vote suffered from widespread fraud, and that Kerry was robbed of the presidency as a direct result. In the comments for that thread, Jason presented a link to an article at salon.com that rebutted the RFK piece. I had some time this weekend to read the salon article and to go back and re-read the Kennedy piece. Some thoughts:

There seems to be little doubt that RFK Jr. at best misinterpreted and at worst played fast and loose with his statistics. Many, if not most, of his most sweeping allegations seem to be much, much less well supported than he made them appear. Kennedy's conclusions - particularly the conclusion that the election was stolen - should be taken with a grain of salt.

At the same time, there also does seem to be more to some of the allegations than Manjoo's Salon article indicates. One example of this can be found in the county-by-county vote totals. Manjoo rightly points out that Kennedy's focus on how Kerry did compared to "down-ticket" candidates is not supported by past history. At the same time, there do seem to be some slightly strange numbers out there. In Agulaize County, for example, 3,142 more votes were cast in 2004 than in 2000. Bush received 3,246 more votes in 2004 than in 2000. Kerry received more votes than Gore did, but fewer than the total received by Gore and Nader in 2000 (Nader was not on the ballot in 2004 in Ohio. There were more registered voters in 2004, so the percentage turnout between the elections wasn't huge - it was 69.3% in 2000, and 70.4 in 2004. For the vote count in that county to be legitimate, the Democrats would have had to have had an enormous drop in turnout while the Republicans received a massive gain, or every single new voter would have had to vote for Bush, and 104 votes would have had to flip to Bush from the 3rd party candidates in 2000. Neither scenario is impossible, and the numbers are not a smoking gun. But they strike me as highly improbable.

Do I think that Bush stole the election in Ohio? I don't think that there's enough evidence to say that for certain. I do think that there is more than enough evidence of misconduct there to make watching them closely this year a very, very good idea.

02 June 2006

Read This

Go read this article. And remember it in November.

Friday Random Ten: The Conservative Edition

With the recent online publication of National Review's list of the top 50 Conservative Rock Songs, I decided to see if I could force a conservative worldview onto this weeks list of the ten songs randomly selected by my iPod.

1: Pave Paradise
Lilith Fair Live Version
This song has compelling lyrics ("Took all the trees, put 'em in a tree museum/charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em") that demonstrate the basic compatability between environmental conservation and an unregulated free market syste.

2: Life's Been Good to Me So Far
Joe Walsh
While some might see this as a being all about Hollywood values, it's really about that great American dream - wild success.

3: Cats in the Cradle
Harry Chapin
A sweet and loving tribute to the special relationship that fathers can have with their sons in modern suburban America

4: Radio Free Europe
REM
Becaues Europe wouldn't have any freedoms without us, so they damn well better remember to agree with everything that we say and do.

5: Taxman
The Beatles
OK, this one's really on their list. Hell, it's probably Grover Norquist's ring tone.

6: Born in the USA
Bruce Springsteen
Conservative to the core, this song trumpets American Pride at full volume. Just remember to ignore the lyrics.

7: The Imperial March
John Williams
I can't do it. There's clearly no way I could possibly draw any kind of connection between this one and modern conservativism, no matter how hard I try.

8: Lola
The Kinks
A nice, traditional values account of boy meets girl, girl takes boy home, girl turns out...

9: The Times, They Are A Changing
Bob Dylan
That's right, you liberals have had it all your way for way too long now. We conservatives are gaining ground, and we'll start to govern any day now.

10: The Proclaimers
King of the Road
This remake of the depression-era hobo classic should make us downright nostalgic for the days before those communistic, New-Deal, so-called safty net programs.