The first business day after being pardoned, the toughest sheriff is on the attack. Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed a motion on Monday seeking to dismiss his conviction. He insists he was found guilty by a biased judge. But, he accused the first judge of being biased, as well. Accusing a federal judge of bias is a dubious claim in any case. But, when you have been there, done that already, it does seem insincere.

In any event, the toughest sheriff says he may run for office again. See CBS news report.

The motion will lead to an interesting legal issue. A pardon does not indicate innocence. It is more of a forgiveness. As far as I know, there is no requirement that the judge now withdraw her conviction of the toughest sheriff. Good luck, Sheriff.

The toughest Sheriff in the country and the President both hinted the President would pardon Sherrif Arpaio and he has indeed done just that. Pres. Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio, even though, technically, the toughest sheriff has not yet been sentenced. See CBS news report. The toughest sheriff has been a loyal supporter of the President and that loyalty has now paid off. But, unfortunately, the toughest sheriff in the country is now excused from profiling Hispanics.

First Sheriff Arpaio hinted that he would like a pardon. Then, Pres. Trump said he might pardon the “toughest sheriff” in the country. He has “done a lot” to oppose illegal immigration in this country and is a “great American patriot,” said the President. See CBS news report. I previoulsy wrote about the trial of the toughest sheriff here and here. So, now the toughest sheriff needs a little help…..

The toughest sheriff in America is dropping hints that he would like a pardon from the President. Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio told the Arizona Republic that he would accept a pardon from Pres. Trump. See Politico news report here. I recently wrote about the court finding him guilty of contempt here. He says he talks with the President now and then, but will not brag about it.

So, he does have some self-restraint, after all.

There must be something in the water at Fox News. They keep having issues with sexual harassment. Eroic Bolling, a news host, has been accused by several female co-workers of sending photos of his genitals via text messages. Huffington Post reported that more than a dozen sources said he had sent unsolicited photos of his private parts. Fox News has placed Mr. Bolling on suspension pending an investigation. A lawyer for Mr,. Bolling denies the claims.

See CNN News report. Not surprisingly, Mr. Bolling has been a strong supporter of Pres. Trump. Roger Ailes was accused of sexual harassment and was also a friend of the President. The President seems to favor men who harass women. I previously wrote about Roger Ailes here and here. And, then there were the reports of Bill O’Reilly harassing women and then reaching large settlements with them to keep them quiet. I wrote about Bill O’Reilly here and here. And, of course, Pres. Trump supported Bill O’Reilly when he was accused of sexual harassment, as well.

Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky in 2016 is again in the news. As I have mentioned here previously here and here, the President and his campaign have been sued for roughing up protesters at that rally. One of the defendants with the President is Mathew Heimbach, a white nationalist. He is chairman of the Traditionalist Worker Party in Indiana. He was charged with assault for his actions at that campaign rally. He plead a form of “no contest” to a charge of disorderly conduct. See CBS news report.The Traditionalist Worker Party describes itself as “fighting” to secure the future of white children. As part of his plea deal, Mr. Heimbach was ordered to attend anger management classes, a suspended jail sentence and ordered to pay a fine.

In the civil lawsuit against Mr. trump. Mr. Heimbach has claimed he was indeed encouraged by Mr. Trump to rough protesters up.

Some folks refer to the President as the Twitter-in-Chief. Well, he should also be considered as the Litigator-in-Chief. He tossed out provocative statements at campaign rallies like they were candy. At one rally in Louisville, he exhorted his supporters to rough up a couple of protesters. He also added, as the protesters were being forced to leave, “Don’t hurt ’em. Don’t hurt ’em.” Now, those protesters have sued the President and his campaign for encouraging violence. The U.S. District Judge hearing the matter denied a motion to dismiss a few months ago. I previously wrote about this lawsuit here.

Pres. Trump’s attorneys offered creative, if weak arguments, as his lawyers often do. They argued then Candidate Trump was engaging in his First Amendment rights. It was free speech, they argued. The lawyers also argued that Mr. Trump did not encourage violence. He did, after all, encourage the supporters not to harm the protesters. The judge rejected those arguments when he denied the motion to dismiss.

Now, the issue before the court is whether Mr. Trump should appear for a deposition. The President’s lawyers claim his words are clear and do not need explanation. But, in arguing his words have clear meaning, they make a deposition very likely. His words do not have clear meaning. In one passage, he exhorted violence. In a separate set of words he asked them not to harm the protesters. No, his meaning was not clear. In any normal lawsuit, absolutely, Mr. Trump would be deposed. The Litigator-in-Chief has dug his hole. He said things he should not have said, at a time when he should not have said them. People like that often end up in a lawsuit. That is partly why he spent over $500,000 in legal fees in the second quarter of 2017 and almost $200,000 in the first quarter of the year. See Politico news report.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court accepted an appeal regarding the administration’s travel ban. It also partially overruled the injunctions against the travel ban issued by the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit. The injunctions were issued to stop the ravel ban pending appeal. The administration is appealing the injunctions, but it is likely the court will hear the entire appeal. not just the injunctions. Oral arguments are set for October regarding the much criticized travel ban. See CBS news report here. This is the first court victory for the administration regarding the two travel bans. I previously wrote about the second ban here and here.

The Ninth Circuit has joined the Fourth Circuit in upholding the injunction against Pres. Trump’s travel ban. The unanimous three-judge decision found that of the six countries identified in the ban, none had ever posed a risk to the United States. I wrote about the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision here. The Ninth Circuit pointed to the same two travel bans. But, the Ninth Circuit did not devote as much attention to Pres. Trump’s statements about the travel bans. The opinion notes the complete lack of a link between the nationality of the six countries and any terrorist organization. The second travel ban points to no link between those persons seeking entry to this country and any unsettled conditions in those six countries. In short, the second travel ban did not provide any basis foe a complete ban on travel from those six countries. The court did point to a statement by Pres. Trump on June 5 in a tweet that he was concerned with the six countries themselves, not the 180 million persons living in those six countries. Slip opinion, p. 40 n.14.

The President tweeted: “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” The court noted that Sean Spicer has said the President’s tweets represent official U.S. policy.

It also cited the 1965 statute, the immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibits discrimination against any one nationality in the country’s immigration policies. That act specifically provides that no preference on immigration will be based on “nationality.” See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1157. See the decision in Hawaii v. Trump, No. 17-00050 (9th Cir. 6/12/2017) here.

And, of course, the next day, the President continued his assault on the judiciary by suggesting the Ninth Circuit was not concerned with national security. See Politico report about his tweet.

Against my better judgment, sometime back, I let the company representative talk to my client at a mediation. I am always interested in trying something different. The employer suggested the company rep talk directly to my client, the employee who had sued that company. Always interested in trying something different, I thought, “let’s give it a try.” The meeting did not last long. After just a few minutes, the representative started pointing out all the things the plaintiff should have done differently: she should have called the HR hotline, she should have done this, she should have done that. He was blaming the victim.

We see that blaming the victim thinking when former Director of the FBI explains a difficult meeting with Pres. Trump. The President asked him to let up on the Flynn investigation. Mike Flynn, he assured the Director, was a “good guy.” So, when Director Comey testified to the Senate last week, he was asked several times why he did not prevent that one-on-one meeting? Why didn’t he insist on someone staying in the room? Dir. Comey is a big, tough guy, after all.

Pres. Trump placed Director Comey in an untenable position. Mr. Comey did not arrange the meeting. He was not the supervisor. He was still new to working with a new president. Like my client, the victim of extended harassment, she was not the boss. She wanted to make a difficult relationship with her boss work. She did talk to HR, but did not call the HR hotline. She tried to resolve her problems with her boss as quietly as possible. She hoped to save her job, not end it. As did Director Comey.

The Director was honest. He said he was a coward. Maybe, he would handle it differently if there was another such meeting with the president. All victims of an overbearing boss try to make it work. And, all victims of an overbearing boss shrink from the challenge, at first.