In This Issue
     
Midwin Charles talks law and politics with political analyst and comedian John Fugelsang on his SIRIUS XM radio show Tell Me Everything every Thursday at 3:30PM ET; tune in!

Recent News
Midwin Charles recently spoke on Good Morning Britain about Donald Trump's executive order to ban refugees and nationals from seven Muslim majority countries.
-------------------------------
Midwin recently moderated a panel on the prison industrial and prison reform following a screening of Ava DuVernay's Oscar nominated documentary 13th at New York University.



-------------------------------

Volunteering with Vanessa K. DeLuca, Editor in Chief of Essence magazine, and Crystal McCrary, producer and author, to judge applicants for the Women in Entertainment Empowerment Network (WEEN) Academy.  For info on this great organization and its work with young women go to weenonline.org




THE SENATE HAS GONE "NUCLEAR"
In a historic move on Thursday, Senate majority Republicans employed the "nuclear option," allowing them to break the Democrats' filibuster that blocked the nomination of President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. The move permanently changed Senate rules to lower the minimum votes for advancing a Supreme Court nominee from 60 to a simple-majority of 51. The controversial measure disarms the minority party's filibuster option, giving the majority party power to vote in Supreme Court nominees without any bipartisan votes. Without the requirement for at least some bipartisanship, there is fear that presidents will appoint ideological Supreme Court nominees and the majority party will vote them in without any check from across the aisle.

When Senate democrats were the majority in 2013, they changed the rules in the same way to break Republican filibuster of lower court nominees. But, the rules for Supreme Court nominees were left unchanged.  The current change to Senate rules does not affect the legislative filibuster, but does cause concern that eliminating the legislative filibuster will be the likely next step in this increasingly partisan climate.

Critics of the democratic filibuster argue that the move was unnecessary as Gorsuch will be replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative judge, and that it is the next Supreme Court pick that will be the pivotal in determining the Court's future. Democrats respond that Gorsuch is a problematic pick for several reasons, including his judicial penchant for ruling in favor of corporate entities to the detriment of "the little guy." The fervent Democratic opposition to Gorsuch's confirmation is undoubtedly also due to resentment over how Republicans handled Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. Republicans refused to even give Garland a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gorsuch is expected to be confirmed on Friday after a final vote.


FLYNN HAS A "STORY TO TELL"
"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it." Michael Flynn, President Trump's ousted National Security adviser who resigned twenty-four days into his tenure after public reports revealed that he lied about discussing Obama administration sanctions with the Russian Ambassador, is now ready to testify. Flynn, however, is leveraging his testimony in exchange for immunity from the FBI and both the House and Senate Intelligence committees, who are currently investigating whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.  

Those seeking immunity from possible prosecution usually give a preview of what they know before authorities determine whether immunity is warranted.  In that case, it would appear that Flynn's immunity request is premature because he has not told authorities what he has to offer. So, what does Flynn's "story" have to be in order for him to be granted immunity?  Immunity will require the tall order of approval by 2/3 of committee members, therefore nothing short of a bombshell, which in this case would be incriminating information about a bigger fish, i.e. President Trump, is likely to cut it.

Ironically, Flynn himself has said that if you're seeking immunity, then "you've probably committed a crime."  But, that isn't always true. With this highly politicized legal environment and a high-ranking player like Flynn in an administration embroiled in controversy, any lawyer worth his or her hourly rate would seek protection against their client's prosecution while negotiating testimony. Whether the request for immunity was just simply good legal strategy or something more nefarious waits to be revealed. As of now, Flynn has not yet been granted immunity.

9TH CIRCUIT TO DETERMINE THE IMMEDIATE FATE OF TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN... AGAIN
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hold a hearing next month to analyze the legality of President Trump's revised travel ban.  The revised travel ban, which temporarily prohibits immigration from six majority-Muslim countries - Somalia, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Iran - was indefinitely blocked nationwide last month by a Hawaii federal judge who found that the ban's disfavor of Muslims amounted to unconstitutional religious discrimination.

This will be the Trump administration's second attempt at trying to convince the 9th Circuit that the travel ban satisfies constitutional muster.  In February, the 9th Circuit declined to reinstate the first travel ban after a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked it's enforcement.  As a result, the Trump administration scrapped the first ban and drafted the revised ban, which intended to address the ills of the first by removing Iraq from the list, excluding green card holders and those with valid visas and dropping the section that prioritized religious minorities, such as Christians. Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland ruled that the revisions were not sufficient to establish constitutionality, but a Virginia federal judge ruled that they were.  As it stands now, the ban remains on hold nationwide.

Based out of San Francisco, the 9th Circuit has a reputation for being liberal, even being accused of engaging in left-wing activism.  With such a reputation preceding the court, it was no surprise that the court upheld the injunction on the first ban.  And it would stand to reason that the court will likely reach the same decision next month. However, President Trump has some support on the 9th Circuit as several Republican-appointed judges have signaled their support of the president's authority to issue the travel ban.  Nonetheless, the revised travel ban will meet its fate next month in front of a randomly selected three-judge panel.

SUSAN RICE'S "UNMASKING" SCANDAL
Susan Rice, Obama's former national security adviser is now involved in the latest twist to President Trump's surveillance controversy. Rice reportedly requested to obtain the identities of President Trump's associates who were not under surveillance, but were incidentally captured on tape during intelligence surveillance of foreign officials who were under investigation.  
The Trump administration believes that Rice's actions vindicates President Trump's unproven accusation that Obama wiretapped him.  However, Rice defended her actions on Tuesday, stating that they were not politically motivated and refuting any claims that she unlawfully leaked names. Rather, Rice said, any unmasking was approved by other members of the intelligence team as identities were sometimes necessary to understand the context of the intelligence report. Skeptical Republicans are now calling for Rice to testify under oath.

The report about Rice's unmasking may add some context to GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes's recent behavior. Nunes, who is heading the investigation into the wiretap claims, secretly traveled to the White House last month to review intelligence documents provided to him by Trump officials. Without sharing this information with the rest of the committee, the next day, Nunes publicly stated that Trump transition members were caught up in incidental surveillance.    Democrats called for Nunes to step down from heading the investigation, arguing that he is not credible to conduct an impartial investigation. Nunes has refused to step down and declined to state whether Rice was the source of the unmasking in the intelligence reports that he viewed at the White House.

MC&A is firmly committed to our valued clientele.
We provide services in the areas of litigation, criminal law, and general corporate and business law. 
For more information about how we can be of service to you, call us at 212.520.6202 or send an email to: 
Midwin Charles & Associates LLC
3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
Twitter: @MidwinCharles

© 2006 - 2017 Midwin Charles & Associates LLC.  All rights reserved.
Midwin Charles & Associates LLC, 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor, New York City, NY 10019
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Constant Contact
Try email marketing for free today!