Merrick Garland's reluctance to hold Trump & Co. accountable for crimes related to January 6 U.S. Capitol riot, plus other apparent wrongdoing, prompts legal-advocacy group to call for AG's resignation

Merrick Garland

 

Will a Democratic president ever nominate a U.S attorney general who has a spine? That question seems to be at the heart of a legal-advocacy group's call for the resignation of current AG Merrick Garland. Free Speech For People (FSFP) argues that Garland should resign for failing to hold former President Donald Trump and his allies accountable for crimes.

We had high hopes for Garland when Joe Biden nominated him. But we agree with FSFP's position, mainly because we can think of no excuse for Garland's failure to take action against Trump & Co., especially for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and their ongoing false claims regarding the nation's electoral process.

The current situation is particularly dismaying because it appears to continue a trend of Democratic administrations being unwilling to seek justice for apparent criminal acts that took place under their Republican predecessors.  We are reminded of Barack Obama's statement in January 2009, just days before taking office, that he was inclined to "look forward, as opposed to looking backwards" regarding apparent crimes on the watch of George W. Bush.

Obama's stance was doubly damaging: (1) It was contrary to the principle that the U.S. Department of Justice acts independently of the White House; (2) It probably gave us Donald J. Trump, the most unfit, incompetent, and crooked president in American history. If Bush-era unlawfulness had been fully exposed, the Republican political brand likely would have been so badly damaged that Trump would have never gotten close to being elected.

Obama's stance was harmful to the country -- AND the Republican Party. With only two major political parties, the U.S. cannot afford to have one party wallowing in a pit of dysfunction and incompetence -- as has happened with the postmodern GOP. Count me as a Democrat -- heck I gladly answer to the name "libtard" -- but I strongly believe we need a GOP that can lead, govern, and command respect on the world stage. Sadly, not all voters agree with me, so we are going to have times when Republicans are in charge, and we need them to be able to act like, and govern like, adults. If Obama had held Bushies accountable, the GOP would have been forced to rediscover its capacity for governance. The Trumps and McConnells likely would have crawled back under their rocks, and our country would be stronger for it.

In short, Obama's squishiness on the rule of law gave us Donald Trump and more than 700,000 U.S. deaths (5 million worldwide) from a preventable pandemic -- not to mention acts of wrongdoing that are somewhat known -- or have yet to be fully uncovered. And that brings us back to Biden and Garland. Are they headed down the same path as Obama and Holder? From an article at Salon:

A nonpartisan nonprofit is calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to resign over his apparent failure to "hold accountable former president Donald Trump and his co-conspirators for attempting to overthrow the government," suggesting that the Biden appointee is "the wrong person for this job at this time."

The group, Free Speech For People (FSFP) – started back in 2010 to combat the rise of "corporate personhood" in politics – outlined in a Thursday statement a smattering of ways in which the attorney general has allegedly abdicated his duties.

Back in January, the group urged Garland in an op-ed to assemble a specialized task force to independently investigate Trump's role in inciting the Capitol riot, for which he was later impeached. But Garland, they said, never took heed of their advice. 

"If Garland had created a framework for credible, impartial criminal investigations of a former president of the United States, DOJ would have affirmed that no one—not even a former president—is above the law," the group wrote. "Yet while DOJ has charged the low-level insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol, it has not moved against the highly-placed leaders of the insurrection, including Trump himself."

Garland's inaction likely has already hurt the Democratic Party and the country. It has emboldened conservatives and moderates in Congress and made it more difficult for Biden to pass progressive infrastructure and social-welfare legislation. It might have cost Democrat Terry McAuliffe election as Virginia's governor, a race he likely would have won easily if it had looked like Trump & Co were going to pay a price for apparent criminality surrounding Jan. 6. Garland's skittishness is hurting his own party and president, while emboldening a party that has become a glorified cult with almost zero ability to govern. From Salon:

Much of Trump's criminal improprieties took place in the lead-up to the Capitol riot, when the former president stoked baseless outrage over a presidential election "stolen" by President Biden, the group added. 

Back in January, roughly two months after his election loss, Trump made a private call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger asking the state official to effectively "find 11,780" votes in his favor. Furthermore, Trump and his allies put together an official plan – now known as the Eastman memo – outlining a step-by-step process by which they would illegally overturn the election by having former Vice President Mike Pence replace state electors with officials sympathetic to Trump's conspiracies of voter fraud.

"Their actions, no less than those of the individual rioters, may constitute conspiracy to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business, insurrection, seditious conspiracy, and advocating the overthrow of the government," FSFP argued.

Late late month, Rolling Stone reported that several members of Congress – including Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., and Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C. – actively conspired with multiple organizers of the Capitol riot, convening meetings with the organizers during the lead-up to the insurrection. Despite sitting on clear evidence of criminality, Garland has so far "failed to investigate" any of these lawmakers, FSFP said.

"For all these reasons, Garland is no longer fit to serve as Attorney General," the group wrote. "But as long as Trump and his co-conspirators walk free, American democracy is in danger. We need an Attorney General who understands that danger and is willing to take action to protect democracy and the rule of law."

Traffic stops, which are supposed to be routine, increasingly are turning deadly, causing some to call for cops to be removed from a dangerous equation

 

Traffic stops seem to be the most routine of all law-enforcement duties. But such stops are increasingly turning deadly, a new study shows, causing some jurisdictions to consider taking the enforcement of traffic laws out of the hands of police. From an e-newletter of The New York Times, which conducted the investigation:

Over the past five years, police officers have killed more than 400 drivers or passengers who were not wielding a gun or a knife, or who weren’t under pursuit for a violent crime — a rate of more than one a week, a Times investigation found.

Many were stopped for common traffic offenses: a broken taillight, running a red light or swerving across double yellow lines. Relative to the population, Black drivers were overrepresented among those killed.

What could be driving this alarming trend? One factor appears to be money:

Traffic stops — which can be driven by the demand for revenue to fund towns — are the most common interactions between police officers and the public. The police consider them among the most dangerous things they do.

Officers have been charged in 32 cases, and nearly two dozen are pending. Only five officers have been convicted of crimes for the killing of motorists. But The Times found that evidence often contradicted the officers’ accounts. A visual investigation rolled back the footage capturing 120 fatal traffic stops and found that in dozens of incidents, officers made tactical mistakes that put them in positions of danger.

In an opinion piece, aol.com suggests cops could be taken out of the traffic equation:

Traffic stops are the most common way Americans interact with the police. The Brooklyn Center, Minn., police killing of Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man who was shot by an officer who allegedly confused her gun for her Taser while attempting to arrest him, is the latest reminder of how these interactions can quickly turn deadly.

Police conduct roughly 20 million traffic stops a year, according to data from the Stanford Open Policing Project. Though the majority end without major incident, they occasionally result in officers using deadly force. Last year, 121 people were killed by police after being stopped for a traffic violation. Several of the most controversial law enforcement-related deaths in recent years have resulted from traffic stops — including the shooting of Philando Castille in 2016, which occurred miles away from where Wright was killed.

Wright’s killing has also brought attention to so-called pretextual stops, a practice in which police use a minor violation — such as changing lanes without signaling or a broken taillight — as a pretext for investigating an unrelated crime. The Supreme Court has ruled that pretextual stops are constitutional, but critics say these stops fuel racial bias in policing. Researchers have found that Black drivers are 20 percent more likely to be pulled over and up to twice as likely to be searched even though they were “less likely to be carrying drugs, guns or other illegal contraband compared to their white peers.”

We have reported previously on pretext traffic stops. (See here, here, and here, Some good news: The law took a turn in a positive direction in 2015.)

Why there’s debate

Traffic stops, in theory, promote public safety by discouraging unsafe driving and providing police an opportunity to identify more serious crimes. But police reform advocates say the high number of killings and evidence of racial bias show that, in practice, the stops do far more harm than good. A number of potential solutions have been proposed to make traffic enforcement safer and less prone to abuse.

Where could this issue be headed. We have insight from aol.com: 

Supporters of the movement to defund the police have called on local governments to establish separate traffic agencies staffed by unarmed monitors who would handle noncriminal traffic enforcement duties that currently fall under police purview. These agencies, proponents argue, could keep the streets safe from dangerous drivers while reducing the risk of violent incidents. Some reform advocates say less dramatic policy changes, such as ending pretextual stops and only pulling over those who commit the most dangerous violations, could greatly reduce the number of incidents that escalate to violence. Others say technologies like red-light cameras and speed cameras could take a large share of the human element out of traffic enforcement.

Skeptics warn against enacting widespread changes in response to what they see as a small number of high-profile incidents. They say pretextual stops, an element of what’s known as proactive policing, help police keep drugs and guns off the streets. Others say traffic enforcers would face substantial danger while conducting traffic stops without a means to defend themselves. There are also fears that cameras would be prone to mistakes and contribute to a worrisome level of government surveillance.

Despite a moratorium on evictions, Birmingham's Balch & Bingham law firm evicted a senior citizen from his home at the height of the COVID pandemic

(banbalch.com)

 

We have a new reason to wonder about the kooky moral compass that seems to drive  Birmingham's Balch & Bingham law firm. It involves an eviction that took place while a federal moratorium on evictions was in place. Does that suggest Balch & Bingham is such a "big-hearted" firm that it throws people out of their homes, even when it's contrary to a federal mandate? The answer appears to be yes, according to a report at banbalch.com. Writes Publisher K.B. Forbes under the headline "Inhumane! Balch Evicts Habitat for Humanity Resident at Height of Pandemic":

Could Balch’s Mississippi Rental Assistance Debacle get any uglier?

In September of 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and months away from the FDA approval of the first vaccine, Balch & Bingham attorneys in Mississippi evicted a resident from a Habitat for Humanity home.

Even though a federal eviction moratorium was in place, Balch attorneys apparently tossed the alleged senior citizen out of the home!

Called “The Pimps of Mississippi,” Balch, the evictor and collector, received millions in contractual cronyism to allegedly distribute federal rental assistance funds and to manage another federal program to prevent foreclosures, according to a September exposé by The Washington Post.

Mississippi residents in need received practically nothing in assistance. The government-made millionaires at Balch had only distributed a mere 11 percent of $186 million in federal assistance, according to the Post.

How bad is it? Bad enough that Forbes and his nonprofit, Consejo de Latinos Unidos (CDLU), intend to take action:

We, the CDLU, have reviewed court cases in the 82 counties of Mississippi since the start of the pandemic in March of 2020 and the results against Balch & Bingham appear to be painfully damaging and embarrassing. The findings are being provided to multiple federal and congressional investigators.

In June of 2020, as most Americans were locked down in their homes, Balch dispatched a letter to the resident of a home in Mississippi demanding that he vacate and notifying him that he would be evicted.

The man, according to court records, took possession of the home in January of 2020. However, he never signed a lease/purchase agreement. Six months later, at the height of the lockdown, Balch began eviction proceedings.

In September of 2020, Balch filed for and obtained a warrant against the alleged senior citizen even though a federal moratorium was in place.

Like most readers and investigators who have seen the hard evidence, we are in utter disbelief.

The embattled law firm has been involved in so many alleged unsavory and criminal schemes, there are no words to describe this latest revolting act.

Don Siegelman, target of a Bush-era political prosecution, has his law license restored and plans to work on cases involving alleged abuse of power

 

Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, the victim of perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history, has regained his law license, according to Associated Press. From the AP report: 

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman has regained his state law license, years after being released from federal prison in a government corruption case.

The Alabama Bar Association on Monday confirmed that Siegelman’s license was restored in December after he went through an application process.

Siegelman said he hopes to take on cases where he can make a difference, especially where abuse of power is involved:

The former governor, 75, told The Associated Press that he expects to do a mix of criminal and civil work. He said he would like to work with public defenders or advocacy groups to take on criminal defense cases.

“I look forward to finding those special cases in which I believe and feel like I can make a difference and working either pro-bono or with another lawyer,” Siegelman said in a telephone interview.

Siegelman has become an advocate for making changes to the criminal justice system, including “providing a measure of justice to families who lose someone to the abuse of power or use of excessive force by police.”

Siegelman's return to the legal profession marks another chapter in the saga of a Democrat, who until his imprisonment, managed to thrive politically in a heavily Republican state. From AP:

Siegelman for decades was a dominating figure in Alabama politics, holding the offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor. He served as Alabama’s governor from 1999 to 2003. He was the last Democrat to hold the position in the conservative state.

Siegelman was released from prison in 2017 after serving a six-year sentence for his conviction on charges of bribery and obstruction of justice.

A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman on charges that he sold a seat on a state regulatory board to HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy in exchange for $500,000 in donations to Siegelman’s signature political issue — his 1999 campaign to establish a state lottery. Siegelman was convicted on a separate obstruction of justice charge that he tried to hide money he received from a lobbyist.

Siegelman maintained his innocence and unsuccessfully waged a lengthy battle in court, and in the media, to try to overturn his conviction. His lawyers argued his prosecution was motivated by Republicans upset by the Democrat’s political success and that the conviction was backed up by scant evidence.

Young lawyers are hitting the exits at Balch & Bingham as scandal continues to engulf law firm that now seems to offer turmoil instead of prestige and opportunity

Katlyn S. Caldwell and Addison Watson

What does it mean when new arrivals are bailing out at a once-prestigious law firm? It's likely not a good sign. Specifically, it probably means the newbies see the firm as headed in the wrong direction, one that means the firm might not serve as a solid long-term home for a young lawyer.

That is one of many issues swirling around Birmingham's scandal-plauged Balch & Bingham law firm, according to a report at banbalch.com. Writes Publisher K.B. Forbes:

In August, after only two years at Balch & Bingham, Addison Watson departed to the private sector.

This week, after four years as a Balch attorney, Katlyn S. Caldwell looks like she has left the embattled firm abruptly.

With an ex-Balch attorney who allegedly solicited a child for sex online and another ex-Balch partner sitting in the federal penitentiary, young attorneys at Balch are exiting just like the exodus of legacy and money-making partners in the recent past.

Balch, it appears, continues to have problems with its few attorneys of color:

As the alleged racist law firm saw an African-American attorney depart after only eight short months, the embattled firm has hired three African-American attorneys in recent weeks.

Demonstrating alleged racial tokenism, Balch has placed each of them in a different office (Birmingham, Jackson and Atlanta).

Even with these diverse hires, about 95 percent of Balch attorneys are white, while 99 percent of partners are white.

Only 1 percent of Balch partners are people of color.

It all presents an image of a law firm in disarray. Writes Forbes:

Young people running to the exits and not dedicating decades with the firm appears to show turmoil, unsettling turmoil in what was Alabama’s once most respected and feared silk-stocking law firms.

And no matter the amount of window dressing Balch engages in, who can believe a law firm that refuses to apologize for the criminal and alleged racist misconduct in North Birmingham?

And sadly, now not even the freshmen appear to have confidence in Balch.

Magazine portrays Ali Alexander's life as "a grifter's dream come true," but now he's about to be grilled for his role in staging rally that became U.S. Capitol mob

Ali Alexander (from Dissident-mag.com)

 

Not only does Stop the Steal organizer Ali (Akbar) Alexander have a sketchy personal background, his organizations present a flimsy appearance, too. Dissident-mag.com examines both in a post titled “Stop The Steal”: A GOP Grifter’s Dream Come True."

Alexander reportedly has been in hiding, apparently wanted by federal authorities for his role in spearheading a protest that turned into a deadly assault at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Alexander's time in hiding might be coming to an end. He was scheduled to testify last Friday before a U.S. House committee investigating Jan. 6, but that was postponed. The delay, howver, is expected to be brief, so we can look for Alexander to undergo a grilling shortly.

James Allsup, of Dissident-Mag provides enough background on Alexander, including his ties to Alabama, to remove any surprise that might linger about the Capitol riots. Writes Allsup:

The organizer of “Stop The Steal,” and operator of StopTheSteal.us, is a Twitter personality known as Ali Alexander (real name: Ali Abdul Razaq Akbar). The website lists rallies across several states in which voter fraud has been alleged and encourages Trump supporters to attend. . . . 

An IRS organization search finds no tax-exempt organizations named “Stop The Steal,” and a WHOIS record lookup reveals the site was registered by “Vice And Victory,” an Akbar-owned private company. . . 

Clicking the link redirects users to founders.alialexander.org, Akbar’s personal website. There, users have the choice to donate to Akbar’s personal crypto wallets, or via his personal PayPal and CashApp links. This site is archived here.

Users also have the option to buy him things from his Amazon wishlist, including weight benches, mass gainer supplements, and soap.

On November 7, Akbar tweeted that he “[doesn’t get paid to do this],” a statement contradicted by the hamfistedness of his self-enrichment scheme. . . . 

With donations headed to Akbar’s personal bank account, and not the accounts of any legally registered nonprofit bound by disclosure requirements, it is unlikely donors will ever be able to see where their funds were actually used.

 Allsup asks, "Who is Alexander?" -- and the answer isn't pretty:

Before reinventing himself as “Ali Alexander,” he was Ali Abdul Razaq Akbar- a convicted felon and conman with multiple arrests for burglary and credit-card fraud.

Ali’s crime spree began as early as 2006. According to police reports, he stole “Five MP3 Players, Twenty CD’s, Three Camcorders, Two DVD Players, One Back Massager One Clock, Four Shirts, Two Belts and a Piece of Luggage” from someone he knew beginning on or around November 1 until approximately November 26.

An arrest warrant was issued and he was arrested on January 1, 2007.

Seven months later, on August 18, he was arrested again, this time for credit card fraud and burglarizing a vehicle.

Akbar’s campaign against voter fraud is ironic, considering he was once credibly accused of planning to perpetrate voter fraud on behalf of John McCain. As LibertarianRepublican.net reported at the time, Akbar- then a John McCain campaign staffer- was caught planning voter fraud strategies to use against the Ron Paul campaign in the upcoming Nevada caucuses.

One witness, Joey Dauben, Akbar’s boss at the Ellis County Observer, recalled the events:

I sat in on a meeting in my downtown Dallas office and heard an e-campaign staffer with the John McCain campaign – Ali A. Akbar – openly discuss ways to manipulate, rig and otherwise “take” an election.

At the time, Akbar was the “E-Campaign Coordinator” for the McCain campaign, and served as a McCain campaign spokesman in Texas.

Allsup suggests that Akbar was "groomed to grift" and mentions Alabamians he has targeted -- including yours truly and Siegelman-case whistle blower Jill Simpson:

Akbar’s arrests for fraud, burglary, and theft did not seem to hamper his rise as a low-level GOP fixer. In fact, they may have served to pad his resume.

At the time of his Fort Worth arrests, Akbar’s day job was with the Ellis County Observer, a local news site. According to journalist Roger Shuler, “Akbar’s work apparently involved covering up the misdeeds of a former police chief named Michael Meissner, who was charged with posing as a woman and soliciting photos of underaged boys.”

Akbar, who served as the Observer’s executive editor and webmaster, allegedly worked with Meissner to suppress online records of his crimes.

How did Akbar rise from a small-time fraudster to president of the National Bloggers Club by 2012? By making the right (sleazy) connections.

In a now-deleted YouTube video, Akbar acknowledges having worked for GOP fixer Karl Rove. The specifics of Rove and Akbar’s relationship are unclear, but it has been credibly reported that the two were engaged in a homosexual relationship over a number of years.

Akbar’s profile on a gay dating site was discovered by Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson in 2012. Undated screenshots of Akbar’s profile on Grindr, a gay sex hookup app, have also been discovered.

Akbar’s connection to Rove is likely how he was able to insert himself into the orbit of Conservatism Inc. In 2012, he became president of the National Bloggers Club (NBC), which received startup capital from GOP megadonor Foster Friess. Over the next two years, NBC hosted events featuring GOP celebrities including James O’Keefe, Ted Cruz, and Erick Erickson.

NBC, like Stop The Steal, was never registered as a nonprofit organization. . . .

NBC’s corporate charter was revoked in 2014 for failing to pay Texas state taxes.

Despite his sordid personal history and series of failed ventures, Akbar has been able to keep the grift alive. In 2016, a PAC he advised received a $60,000 donation from former Milo Yiannopoulos patron Robert Mercer. . . . 

Ali Akbar’s scheme is perhaps- accidentally- the aptest summation of the Donald Trump presidency: you buy in, thinking you’re getting meaningful systemic change, but you end up beaten by Antifa while a black felon empties your pockets.

One year after Schuyler Allen Baker Jr.'s death, Balch & Bingham law firm remains stuck in scandal, seemingly intent on digging sizable holes even deeper

Schuyler Allen Baker Jr.

 

One year has passed since Schuyler Allen Baker Jr., Balch & Bingham's general counsel and chief partner, died of cancer. But there is little sign the embattled law firm's leadership has made any change in direction, according to a report at banbalch.com. Writes Publisher K.B. Forbes:

The King of Balch & Bingham and dinosaur partner at the embattled law firm Schuyler Allen Baker, Jr. died one year ago today.

Ironically in 2017, Baker vowed to fight the Newsome Conspiracy Case to the death.

Baker, serving as General Counsel at Balch, made an enormously foolish decision.

His fight to the death cost the firm millions, tarnished and damaged Balch’s once-respected reputation, made 18 of 18 D.C. lobbying clients dump the firm, and created the greatest exodus ever of money-making partners.

The ghost of Balch’s past is sadly still present.

What ugly scraps still are clinging to Balch's plate? Forbes spells them out:

Now with an alleged pedophile cover-up, an alleged ongoing Elderly Exploitation Scandal investigation, and the Mississippi Rental Assistance debacle, the unholy trinity of scandal would not be garnering interest by law enforcement or the media if Balch had cleaned up their loose ends after Baker died.

Where is the sensible leadership?

Yesterday, ex-Drummond executive David Roberson and ex-Balch partner Joel I. Gilbert reported to federal prison for criminal acts born at the offices of Balch & Bingham.

And while Baker is dead, the Newsome Conspiracy Case continues alive and vibrant. Having exhausted all state and federal court remedies, a federal civil RICO lawsuit can now proceed.

The RICO will most likely come after additional indictments are handed down.

Could those be indictments that former U.S. attorney Jay Town, the disgraced Trump nominee, let slide on the first go-around of the North Birmingham Superfund scandal? That seems likely:

Like probate lawyers, sensible and responsible Balch leaders would have brought the Newsome Conspiracy Case, the David Roberson civil lawsuit, and other matters to an agreeable resolution and a close after Baker’s death.

Since 2017, we have asked Balch to conduct a top to bottom review of their firm, get rid of any bad apples, and apologize to the African-American community of North Birmingham.

In the summer of 2018, Balch, during a brief moment of mental clarity, attempted to reach out to us to bring matters to a close.

The former Assistant U.S. Attorney who represented Burt Newsome was blind-sided since he did not know what BanBalch.com exactly was or who we, the CDLU, were when they asked him to serve as an interlocutor.

Balch already has dug sizable holes for itself -- and it seems to insist on digging them deeper. Writes Forbes:

                   We wrote three years ago after Balch walked away from the resolution                               discussions:

Balch’s acts of impunity are no longer tolerated by the public; and acts of contrition, reconciliation, and forgiveness are the only path forward to salvage the firm.

Obviously someone with common sense at Balch & Bingham tried, in good faith, to reach out to us and put the matters behind them.

Instead, now, Balch & Bingham have reversed themselves and appears to be on a path of self-destruction.

The many honorable, ethical and professional Balch partners and their colleagues appear to have been ignored again by their leadership.

                    Prophetic.

Baker is dead, Gilbert is sitting in a federal prison, while Balch appears to be slowly hemorrhaging and dying. 

The Crosswhite Scandal involving Alabama Power is bringing a new, heated spotlight on ex-Balch partner Mark A. Crosswhite, “the most powerful man in Alabama” according to his adoring fans.

The unsavory if not criminal conduct linked to alleged secret indemnity agreements is the cherry on top of a spoiled, rotten, inedible banana pudding full of maggots.

Will Balch ever come to their senses? Ever? Or will Balch partners continue to swallow the rotten pudding left behind a year ago?

Football coaches at Chattanooga and Washington State do stupid things to lose their jobs, even tossing online barbs at politician Stacey Abrams, raising questions about the First Amendment and public employees

Stacey Abrams

The 2021 college-football season might become known as the year when coaches did stupid things to get themselves fired and then filed lawsuits they have little chance of winning. The trend could hit home in Alabama, as first-year Auburn head coach Bryan Harsin refuses to disclose his vaccination status in the face of a Dec. 8 deadline for university employees to get vaccinated or face possible termination.

The most recent example of a termination comes from Washington State University where head coach Nick Rolovich and four assistants were fired for failing to comply with Gov. Jay Inslee's vaccine mandate for state employees. An attorney for the head coach said WSU  had denied a religious exemption based on Rolovich's "devout" Catholic faith. A university spokesperson did not confirm denial but said simply that Rolovich's request for accommodations could not be met.

What tenets of the Catholic faith would keep someone from taking a vaccine that has proven safe, effective, and life-saving during a pandemic of historic proportions? Perhaps we will find out when the case reaches court. For now, my guess is that Rolovich's decision to defy a governor's lawful order, which was designed to protect public health, probably will not end well for the coach. It could void a contract that pays him $3 million a year. Rolovich had the Cougars off to a 4-3 start, which is a pretty good record for Washington State, suggesting he might have been in for a pretty strong run. But that run now is over

An even more interesting case comes from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC), where a former assistant football coach has filed  a federal lawsuit over his termination after he posted a disparaging tweet about Georgia political figure Stacey Abrams. Chris Malone, who had been offensive-line coach at Chattanooga, claims school officials violated his free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

What makes the UTC case the most interesting of the three? It involves the intersection of politics and the First Amendment, and we suspect that could spark some legal fireworks. 

At first glance, Malone appears to have a strong case. The general rule is that private employers can fire almost anyone who makes a public statement that the employer considers inappropriate or distasteful. But employees at public institutions, such as state universities, many times have First Amendment protection to comment on matters of public concern. There are, however, exceptions to that general rule, and I suspect Malone will have difficulty getting over those hurdles.

The issue of First Amendment protection for government employees certainly gets our attention here at Legal Schnauzer. As long-time readers know, I was wrongfully terminated after working almost 20 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) for writing this blog, focusing on judicial and political corruption in Alabama -- and beyond. I'm not guessing that I was fired because of my blog. A UAB human-resources official told me that my supervisor, Pam Powell, targeted me because of my reporting about the Don Siegelman case -- even though Powell long has portrayed herself as a Democrat and a Siegelman supporter. I tape-recorded the conversation with HR official Anita Bonasera and was prepared to use it in court to prove the real reason behind my firing, but the late federal judge William Acker granted the university summary judgment without conducting any discovery, which is contrary to longstanding legal precedent and essentially means the case was decided with no evidence. (I'm not making that up.) Acker likely committed fraud on the court, which would void his ruling and possibly give new life to my lawsuit for wrongful termination.

Substantial evidence indicates my firing was not just a matter of running afoul of my immediate supervisor -- with whom I generally had gotten along well and who had always given me positive performance reviews. Rather, political allies of then-governor Bob Riley -- Siegelman's primary political opponent and a member of the university's board of trustees -- likely pushed for my career assassination. Sadly, neither Powell, nor then-UAB President Carol Garrison, nor anyone else in the university hierarchy, had the guts to stand up for the rule of law, which clearly held my speech was protected by the First Amendment -- and, as a public employee, I could not suffer negative job consequences for it. On top of that, my termination was a flagrant violation of UAB's own policies.

Bottom line: I know from firsthand experience that Chris Malone is entering a legal thicket at Chattanooga -- and based on news reports, it appears to be largely of his own making. Malone's attorney, Doug Churdar of Greenville, SC, is talking a solid game about "UTC getting acquainted with the First Amendment." But it might not be that simple. Our research indicates the law on the protections afforded public employees is not fully developed -- and it includes qualifiers that might not work in Malone's favor. (More on that in an upcoming post.)

How did Chris Malone step in doo-doo at UTC. It could have been easily avoided, but Malone apparently could not resist picking on Stacey Abrams at a time of heightened political and racial tensions. From a report at Fox News:

The tweet came in the midst of the Georgia Senate runoff elections.

"Congratulations to the state [of] GA and Fat Albert @staceyabrams because you have truly shown America the true works of cheating in an election, again!!!" Malone wrote. "Enjoy the buffet Big Girl! You earned it!!! Hope the money was good, still not governor!"

Malone deleted the tweet after former players responded negatively. He said in the lawsuit he heard nothing about the tweet until Jan. 6, when [head coach Rusty] Wright allegedly told him the matter had gone "over his head." Malone was then called on to resign the next day.

The school later announced that Malone had been fired.

Wright and Athletics Director Mark Wharton quickly distanced themselves from Malone's statements. From Fox News:

"Our football program has a clear set of standards," Wright said in a statement. "Those standards include respecting others. It is a message our players hear daily. It is a standard I will not waiver on. What was posted on social media by a member of my staff is unacceptable and not any part of what I stand for or what Chattanooga Football stands for. Life is bigger than football and as leaders of young men we have to set that example, first and foremost. With that said, effectively immediately, that individual is no longer a part of my staff."

Wharton added: "The sentiments in that post do not represent the values of our football program, our athletics department or our university."

Malone said he was unfairly treated by the media.

"Calling politicians liars and cheaters is a proud American tradition. Nobody’s got a problem with it until [it's] ‘their’ politician," Malone said in the complaint. "And fat jokes might be unkind, but they aren’t uncommon. Just ask Chris Christie and Donald Trump."

Inside Higher Ed has more details: 

Malone argues in the lawsuit that the tweet was simply a “fat joke” and that university officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. He sent the tweet “as a private citizen -- on his own personal time, at his personal residence, and from his personal Twitter account” and the account did not identify him as an employee of the university, according to the lawsuit.

UT Chattanooga “is a public university and is governed by the First Amendment,” Malone’s attorney, Doug Churdar, said in a press release. “UTC is going to get acquainted with the First Amendment. As a public school, it cannot control what its employees say at social gatherings or on social media. It certainly cannot fire them for criticizing and mocking politicians.”

Will Churdar's view hold the day? That's not clear -- at least not to us. An article from Cornell University indicates the issue of government employers and the First Amendment hardly is a model of clarity and consistency. Could the Malone case cause the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and clear up things? We don't think that is out of the question.

(To be continued)

Alabama-connected extremist Ali Alexander helped Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally turn into a violent, deadly assault on U.S. Capitol, sources tell Rolling Stone

Ali Alexander

Perhaps the most important piece of journalism for 2021 broke earlier this week when Rolling Stone (RS) reported that organizers of the Jan. 6 pro-Trump rally that turned into an assault on the U.S. Capitol held "dozens" of planning meetings with White House officials and House Republicans. Ali (Akbar) Alexander, the right-wing extremist with Alabama ties, is a central character in the story, but it remains unclear just how central he might be.The RS piece, written by Hunter Walker, states that its story is based on at least three anonymous sources, who also have begun communicating with Congressional investigators. 

Is Alexander one of those sources? That remains unclear, but it is becoming clear that high-ranking Republicans were intimately familiar with planning for a rally that led to violence and death. From an article at Salon about the RS report (which is paywall-protected):

White House officials and multiple House Republicans participated in planning meetings with organizers of the Jan. 6 pro-Trump rallies that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol, two of the organizers told Rolling Stone.

Two people involved in the planning of the rallies who have shared information with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack told Rolling Stone they had participated in "dozens" of planning briefings ahead of the rallies.

"I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically," one organizer told the outlet. "I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs."

Other lawmakers who participated in the discussions included Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz; Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; Mo Brooks, R-Ala.; Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C.; and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, according to the report. Greene, Boebert and Cawthorn were all newly-elected members, sworn in only a few days before the events of Jan. 6.

The subject of "blanket pardons" for organizers even came up. Writes Salon's Igor Derysh:

"We would talk to Boebert's team, Cawthorn's team, Gosar's team like back to back to back to back," the organizer told Rolling Stone, adding that Gosar even floated "blanket pardons" in a separate investigation to urge them to organize the rallies.

"Our impression was that it was a done deal, that he'd spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up," the organizer said. "They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support."

The two organizers who spoke to the outlet received "several assurances" about the pardons, the organizer said.

"I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you've been doing," Gosar told them, according to the report.

Could participating members of Congress face serious repercussions? The answer appears to be yes:

Rolling Stone reported that it also received documents showing that both organizers were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6.

Democrats cited the report to call for members involved with the planning to be expelled from Congress.

"Any Member of Congress who plotted with Jan. 6 terrorists must be removed from Congress," tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., also called for the removal of "any member who had knowledge of or helped planned the January 6 attack."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted that any "member of Congress who helped plot a terrorist attack on our nation's capitol must be expelled."

"This was a terror attack. 138 injured, almost 10 dead," she wrote. "Those responsible remain a danger to our democracy, our country, and human life in the vicinity of our Capitol and beyond."

RS sources, however, deny the event was meant to turn violent:

But the organizer interviewed by Rolling Stone insisted that there had been no advance plans to march on the Capitol, telling the magazine that discussions were focused on "evidence" the lawmakers would present in Congress in tandem with the demonstration at the Ellipse. A spokesperson for Greene denied that she was involved in the planning of the rallies and was instead focused on objections to the election certification.

That's where Alexander enters the story, and one RS source says he played a role in turning the rally violent:

"Stop the Steal" organizer Ali Alexander previously said in a video that he, Gosar, Brooks and Biggs had "schemed up" the protests to pressure Congress to block the certification of President Biden's win, which Biggs and Brooks have denied.

A second person who planned the rallies and spoke to Rolling Stone accused Alexander of "ratcheting up" the potential for violence and taking advantage of donor contributions to fund the event, according to the report.

"He just couldn't help himself but go on his live and just talk about everything that he did and who he talked to," the planner said. "So, he, like, really told on himself."

Both organizers aid they had seen Alexander with members of militia groups the Oath Keepers and 1st Amendment Praetorian.

"They knew that they weren't there to sing 'Kumbaya' and, like, put up a peace sign," the planner told Rolling Stone. "These frickin' people were angry."

Knowledge that the events could turn violent went all the way to the White House, sources said:

Both organizers also said White House chief of staff Mark Meadows had played a "major role" in the discussions and was aware of the potential for violence at the events.

"Meadows was 100% made aware of what was going on," the organizer told Rolling Stone. "He's also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers." The organizer said Alexander agreed not to hold his planned "wild protest" and that the main rally at the Ellipse would be the only major demonstration that day. Despite that, the source said, Alexander and his allies "plowed forward with their own thing at the Capitol on Jan. 6 anyway."

"We ended up escalating that to everybody we could, including Meadows," the organizer told Rolling Stone.

The organizer also described former Trump campaign aide Katrina Person as their "go-to girl" in dealings with the White House: "She was like our primary advocate."

The protest planner said that they would share their information with investigators and would "have no problem openly testifying."

The RS report acknowledged that the sources might be acting with self-interest in mind:

The report noted that both organizers have a "clear motivation" to get ahead of potential legal problems stemming from their involvement in planning the protests, especially as the Jan. 6 committee probes the financing for the events, and added that the two sources' accounts depict themselves in a "decidedly favorable light."

"The reason I'm talking to the committee and the reason it's so important is that — despite Republicans refusing to participate … this commission's all we got as far as being able to uncover the truth about what happened at the Capitol that day," the organizer told the outlet. "It's clear that a lot of bad actors set out to cause chaos. … They made us all look like shit."

The organizer added that the "breaking point for me [on Jan. 6 was when] Trump starts talking about walking to the Capitol. I was like. 'Let's get the fuck out of here.'"

The planner said that former Trump [officials] hung them out to dry after the rally turned violent.

"I do kind of feel abandoned by Trump," the planner told Rolling Stone. "I'm actually pretty pissed about it and I'm pissed at him."

U.S. Judge Bill Pryor and new law clerk Crystal Clanton prove blatant racism is a good career move for advancement in postmodern Republican circles

Crystal Clanton, with Clarence and Ginni Thomas

 

Reporters around the Web still seem to be shaking their heads at the story of U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor and his decision to hire an avowed racist for a prestigious clerkship. Let's check out some of the reaction since the story broke about two weeks ago:

(1) Daily Beast, "She Said ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE’—Now She’s a Rising GOP Star": 

If you are young, white, ambitious, and hoping to become a prominent conservative, openly declaring your racism seems like a way to hasten your ascent.

It’s worked so far for Crystal Clanton, who back in 2017 briefly made headlines for a text stating, simply but emphatically, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all...I hate blacks. End of story.”

When that message and others like it she’d sent were made public, Clanton was in her fifth year as second-in-command at the right-wing campus group and hotbed of bigotry Turning Point USA; TPUSA head Charlie Kirk had previously called Clanton the organization’s “best hire” and claimed that “Turning Point needs more Crystals; so does America.” Her next stop was a highly visible media position with Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theorist. This spring, Clanton will graduate from law school at George Mason University School and step into her most prestigious role yet, clerking for federal appeals court judge William Pryor.

 

(2) Raw Story, "‘I hate blacks’: Disgraced activist lands prestigious clerkship after Ginni Thomas gave her a second chance": 

Crystal Clanton left the conservative Turning Points USA organization in 2017 after her racist texts -- "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f*ck them all...I hate blacks. End of story" -- surfaced, but she soon landed a job assisting Ginni Thomas with her right-wing media ventures and then went on to George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. She will now clerk for federal appeals court judge William Pryor, reported The Daily Beast.

"It defies belief that Pryor — or Ginni Thomas or [TPUSA head] Charlie Kirk for that matter — was unaware of Clanton's views,"wrote columnist Kali Holloway. "Thomas hired Clanton right after her stint at TPUSA and kept her on, gushing about her on social media, despite negative coverage. Kirk suggested he was outraged after Clanton's racist texts leaked, but subsequent reporting showed she 'would exchange racist remarks regularly with other TPUSA staffers.' Federal clerkships like the one Clanton just landed with Judge Pryor are highly coveted and prestigious stepping stones and applicants are thoroughly vetted before being selected."

Pryor, who was on Donald Trump's shortlist to replace Scalia, is an outspoken opponent of abortion and voting rights and favors executing the mentally disabled and brutally harsh treatment of prisoners, chose Clanton over numerous candidates despite her clear racist views.

"Clanton didn't cloak her racism in language that could later be disguised in any way; she made a statement that was deliberately clear about her hatred for Black folks," Holloway wrote. "Not only is Pryor cool with that, news of Clanton's selection hasn't seemed to upset anyone in the conservative sphere. If you need proof that conservatives across the board are OK with anti-Black racism and Islamophobia ... their deafening silence is exhibit A."

 

(3) Lawyers, Guns & Money, "Racism as an affirmative job credential":    

 If you want to get ahead in the conservative legal world, some racist trolling is a good idea:

I’d say Crystal Clanton just keeps failing upwards, but given that outrage is currency in right-wing circles, it is more accurate to say that her career is progressing on schedule. Do you remember why Clanton first became a news story? It’s been a minute, so I’ll cover the deets. 

In December of 2017, the New Yorker reported that Clanton, who at the time worked at the conservative student group Turning Point USA, texted co-workers with this hateful message: "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story."

Awful, right? And this was far from a one-off incident, as reported by Mediaite…

Well, even though Clanton was forced out of the right-wing nonprofit, her career prospects were far from damaged. Shortly after she left Turning Point USA, Ginni Thomas — yes, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife — hired Clanton to assist with her media ventures. And Clanton lapped up her connection to the powerful jurist.

But that wasn’t the end of Clanton’s ambitions. She was admitted to ASSLaw — that’s George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, for the uninitiated — and is scheduled to graduate this spring. And now we know that her post-graduation plans include an incredibly prestigious clerkship with Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor for 2023-24.