Category: News Feeds

Calling All Legal Ops Leaders: The 2019 LDO Survey Is Live

Calling All Legal Ops Leaders: The 2019 LDO Survey Is Live

LDO and Above the Law

You’ve got to be a special kind of law enforcement officer to have two lawsuits filed against you in the same day. Hamilton County Deputy Daniel Wilkey is that kind of special. The Tennessee law enforcement officer managed to violate rights against enough people that two of them retained lawyers. This suggests Deputy Wilkey violates rights on a regular basis, but maybe not egregiously enough to merit a lawsuit in every case.

Both cases here are disturbing. And they’re disturbing in very different ways. I’ve never read a civil rights lawsuit against an officer that included claims of a forcible religious experience, but here we are. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

The first lawsuit [PDF], filed by Shandle Riley, alleges that Deputy Wilkey followed her to a friend’s house from a nearby gas station. Once he had (sort of) pulled her over, things got weird quick.

First, Deputy Wilkey claimed Riley was holding meth. To prove this, he engaged in a full body patdown. Then he ordered her to take off her bra and “shake her bra and shirt” to prove she hadn’t stashed any meth there. Riley asked for a female officer to be present during this “search” but the deputy told her the law doesn’t require female cops to search female citizens.

He then asked if she had anything illegal in her car. She said she had a marijuana roach stashed in a pack of cigarettes. At that point, Deputy Wilkey became verbally abusive. Then he decided to strike a deal with the alleged criminal. We’ll go to the lawsuit for that because… well, it offers the driest recounting of a positively insane situation.

Wilkey then approached Plaintiff and asked her if she was “saved” and believed in Jesus Christ.

Plaintiff stated that she believed in Jesus Christ, but that she was not “saved” by her own choice.

Wilkey then told Plaintiff that God was talking to him during the vehicle search, and Wilkey felt the Lord wanted him to baptize the Plaintiff.

Wilkey further told Plaintiff that he felt “the spirit.”

Um. Do what now?

These are words coming from the mouth of a sworn peace officer. And that’s not the end of it. The option given to Riley was to participate in this highly-unconventional baptism presided over by an officer of the law or get thrown into the gaping maw of the criminal justice system with as much force as Deputy Wilkey could muster. If Riley agreed to a baptism, Wilkey said he would only cite her for marijuana possession and speak to the judge on her behalf. Riley complied with Wilkey’s demands, which included grabbing towels from her friends house and following Wilkey’s cruiser out to a nearby lake.

At the lake, Riley and Wilkey were joined by Deputy Jacob Goforth, who did nothing as Wilkey proceeded with the “baptism.”

Wilkey told Plaintiff that Goforth was present because, in order for a baptism to be valid, a witness must “attest” to the ritual.

Wilkey then stripped nearly naked, with only his boxer shorts on.

Wilkey then gave Plaintiff the option to strip too, but Plaintiff declined.

Wilkey then lead Plaintiff into the near waist deep and frigid water, placed one hand on Plaintiff’s back, and his other hand on Plaintiff’s breasts, and completely submerged Plaintiff under the water.

Wilkey held Plaintiff under water for several moments, then with his hands still positioned on her back and breasts, raised Plaintiff from the cold water.

Plaintiff was shivering uncontrollably, and felt horribly violated.

Unfortunately for Riley, I doubt there’s a case on point that will easily eliminate Wilkey’s qualified immunity defense. But hopefully, the court will recognize this is batshit insane enough it doesn’t need to find a case on point to find Wilkey violated her rights. To top it all off, Riley held up her end of the under-the-color-of-law bargain. Deputy Wilkey did not.

At no time did Wilkey ever [go to] court on Plaintiff’s behalf and speak to the judge.

If that was the only thing Wilkey was being sued about, it would be enough to question his fitness for duty. But as you already know, this isn’t the end of the accusations against the deputy.

The second lawsuit, filed in the same court on the same day, alleges Deputy Wilkey engaged in a suspicionless stop that turned into an impromptu roadside anal cavity search and the beating of a handcuffed man. And oh my god does it start with one of the dumbest things an officer has ever said to defend a pretextual stop. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

Wilkey followed Plaintiffs, and conducted a traffic stop of the Plaintiffs on the false claims of “window tint violation” and that he could smell the odor of marijuana as Wilkey followed the plaintiffs.

This assertion of Wilkey’s exceptional olfactory senses is followed by a parade of brutalities inflicted on the passenger of the pulled-over vehicle at the hands of the deputy. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, this whole interaction was recorded.

Here’s the lawsuit’s description of those events:

Wilkey handcuffed James, and the individual Defendants took James to the front of one of their police vehicles.

Wilkey then began to grab James’ genitals. When James told Wilkey that James had an untreated and large hernia and that Wilkey’s actions were causing James pain, Brewer and Wilkey jerked James’ arms high above his back, and slammed James face-down onto the hot engine hood, causing injury to James.

Wilkey and Brewer then beat James with fists, knees, and feet, slammed James to the ground, and continued their brutalization of James.

Wilkey and Brewer then removed James’ pants and shoes, while still beating James.

Wilkey and Brewer then forced James’ face back onto the hot hood of the same police vehicle and continued to jerk his arms high above his back, and beat James.

While Brewer continued to force James’ face back onto the hot hood of the same police vehicle and jerk his arms high above his back Wilkey donned a set of gloves, pulled down James’ underwear, and conducted an anal cavity search of James.

The lawsuit goes on to note that James suffered numerous injuries including “tearing of his anus” and an aggravation of his existing hernia. The charges brought against James (the deputies discovered drugs in his underwear) were all dropped after the dashcam video was made public.

Deputy Wilkey has been suspended, but it’s the nice kind that means he’ll be paid to do nothing while the Sheriff’s Office decides what to do with him. It would seem obvious he’s too expensive to keep around.

Tennessee Deputy Sued Twice In The Same Day Over A Roadside Anal Search And A Forced Baptism

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

States Rush To Protect Net Neutrality On Heels Of Court Ruling
Marc Benioff Calls For Section 230 To Be Abolished At The Same Time His Company Is Relying On 230 To Get Out Of A Lawsuit
The Ultimate Aim Of China’s 2016 Cybersecurity Law Is Now Clear: Nothing Digital Can Be Secret From The Authorities

Justin Walker is 37, has never tried a case in court + earned a rare and embarrassing “not qualified” rating by the American Bar Association.

So naturally, Republicans just voted to move forward with making him a lifetime federal judge. https://t.co/fPLsJN75qn

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) October 17, 2019

Good team culture is not only being able to work together in the office but being able to come together, in a non-work environment, to grow, build stronger relationships, and most importantly, to have fun together.

We know the business aspect is important, but we also like to have a bit of fun at Lateral Link. We believe it is important to bring all of our colleagues together, from across the globe, annually at our company retreats.

Here are the highlights from the 2019 Lateral Link Las Vegas Retreat:

Informative and Inspirational Speakers

It is important to bring everyone together to discuss growth, ways to be successful at recruiting, and to understand diversity.

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

 Team Bonding

Teams are able to grow relationships, meet new employees, and form bonds together when they are having fun with one another.

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

(Image via Lateral Link)

Lateral Link is always looking to bring in the best recruiters. If you are interested in joining our dedicated, hardworking, determined, and most importantly, fun team, reach out to us today.

See you next year, team!

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click here to find out more about us.

As I briefly discussed back in April, prior to their current respective roles as co-host of Thinking Like a Lawyer and host of The Jabot podcasts, I joined Joe Patrice and Kathryn Rubio as the host of our own podcast entitled Recess Appointment.  Not surprising for a show that first aired in the midst of the 2012 presidential election, especially when our unofficial tagline was “four liberals agreeing,” we spent a lot of time discussing the economy.  Despite discussing economic matters for more than a year, I am hesitant to claim any sort of expertise in the field, especially since the bulk of my contribution on the topic was regurgitating points that Justin Wolfers had tweeted.  But while I am not going to be teaching in Vanderbilt’s Law & Economic Ph.D. program any time soon, I can still look at the below chart from Deutsche Bank, courtesy of the New York Times’ Ben Casselman, and understand it is not painting a rosy picture of the American economy in the near future.

Indeed, it might have been Pete Campbell himself who best summed up how some economic indicators are currently looking

(Image via Giphy)

The bearish economic view is not merely reflected in viral tweets and memes.  As recently reported in The American Lawyer, McDermott Will & Emery is expanding the ranks of its restructuring and insolvency group not in anticipation of a future recession, but to deal with the recession that “‘we’re at the beginnings of . . . right now.’”  A recession that is either already upon us or just waiting off stage should not be too surprising given that the United States is currently in the midst of its longest period of economic expansion in its history.  At some point, the economic cycle will have to shift to a contraction stage, as is the case with every other national economy — Australia serving as the bizarre exception, having now entered its 27th consecutive year of economic growth.

Talk of an economic downturn can spook those in the legal world old enough to have lived through the Great Recession.  My personal recollections are a bit skewed as I always seem to straddle generational lines.  Born in 1980, I am either a member of Generation X or a Millennial, depending on which article I read, see, e.g., Pew vs. NPR — though I personally reject either classification, preferring instead the Oregon Trail microgeneration label (please never say the word Xennial within 100 feet of me): played Oregon Trail in elementary school; got online with AOL in middle/high school; experienced the joys of Napster in college; and never had to deal with social media until a full-fledged adult? Check, check (it was actually Prodigy), check, and check.

Similarly, as someone who graduated from law school in 2008, I managed to just avoid being a part of the Lost Generation.  2L OCI at NYU in Fall 2006 could best be described as being a fat kid set loose in a candy store after hours and as I have been telling my 1L students over the last several weeks, while I cannot provide a first hand account of what it is like to be a Biglaw Summer Associate in 2019 or 2020, I can tell you what it was like in 2007 and the short description would be “great.”  But my friends and classmates who graduated with me were soon enveloped by the tsunami that was washing ashore the legal industry.  I spent 2008-09 clerking and thus was able to witness the bloodshed from the safety of my Article III bubble.  Whether texting with those close to me and hearing about hallways of people who were working one day and gone the next, or reading on this website about firms I interviewed with two years prior going under, it was a surreal period.  To this day, it remains jarring to see a firm whose offices during the Great Recession would best be described as an abattoir sit nearly at the top of the Am Law 100.

(Image via Frinkiac)

If a recession is truly in the offing, what can law students be doing now to help ensure they do not become a downturn statistic?  First and foremost, do not panic.  The reasons for this are twofold: First, it is highly unlikely that the American economy will fall to the depths of what we experienced during the Great Recession.  Once in a century events tend not to happen every decade or so, unless we are talking about extreme weather calamities being spurred by climate change.  Then again, it typically takes a steady hand to negotiate the country through trying economic times, and I would not call the hand that penned this letter particularly steady.

While the macroeconomic environment is not likely to be as dire as was seen a decade ago, the same is true for the piece of the American economy that is the legal industry.  The good news is that those who are now running private law firms were almost assuredly in practice during the Great Recession and have no desire to live through that horror show again.  Thus, many employers are being proactive.  During the course of this “Fall” Recruiting Cycle, I have noticed numerous Biglaw firms hiring summer associate classes that are markedly smaller than what had been seen in years past.  While non-economic reasons are often given, when you dig a bit deeper, it becomes quickly evident that a lot of firms are trying to become as lean as possible, and thus have pared back their hiring.  It is far easier to hire more junior associates as laterals if the economy does not go south than it is to deal with a triple-digit class of first-year associates for whom there is no work.  Truth be told, paying out year-long sabbaticals can get pretty expensive.

Second, do your diligence on employer finances.  During my aforementioned great summer associate experience of 2007, I remember a presentation in which the gathered summers were told, among other facts about Sidley, that the firm carried no debt.  At the time, that did not seem to be a trivial detail.  A year later, it became VERY important.  Making sure that your employer is on stable financial footing can help ensure you do not have to familiarize yourself with the particulars of the WARN Act.  While some of this information is available online, not surprisingly, financial information can be kept close to the chest.  The best way to pry it loose is also the simplest, ask.  This is not to say that students should begin OCI interviews demanding to see accounting documents, but especially when you get to the offer stage, inquire about finances.  If the employer is financially secure, they will want to share that information in the hopes it will positively distinguish them from the competition; if the employer is being strangely secretive or not forthcoming, that’s typically a sign.  Furthermore, look for employers who are willing to zig while everyone is zagging during times of economic peril.  It is a pretty good sign if a firm is able to open offices during the Great Recession and have them remaining open more than a decade hence.

Finally, consider some recession proof, or at least resistant, employment options.  As mentioned above, I spent the early portion of the Great Recession in a federal clerkship.  While I have previously written why I think clerkships are a fantastic opportunity regardless of the economic climate, they can be especially valuable in recessionary times.  A big benefit of working for someone whose job is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is that they are unlikely to lose their position, regardless of how the economy is faring, and those with life tenure would not be too jazzed about the idea of losing their clerks.  Plus, legal layoffs often abide by the same principle found in the business world, “last one in, first one out.”  This can rob students of their chance at gaining some experience and developing their skills.  It is also why so many 2008/09 law school graduates had issues finding their second job if they were fired within the first year of their employment.  Hard to have a year’s worth of legal experience if you got fired within the first couple of months for economic reasons outside your control. Clerking for a year gives a newly graduated student at least a year reprieve from the economically depressed job search. Plus, said student will be considered an “experienced” attorney by the end of the clerkship, opening up an array of lateral associate opportunities as well as some governmental opportunities like the Department of Justice Honors program.

Whether or not it is already here, a U.S. recession is almost assuredly inevitable.  While the legal employment scars from the Great Depression have not yet fully healed, it is unlikely that the industry will be dealt such a devastating blow the next time around.  But this more mild prediction is not a substitute for law students taking action to protect themselves from becoming “Lathamed” the next time around.

Nicholas Alexiou is the Director of LL.M. and Alumni Advising as well as the Associate Director of Career Services at Vanderbilt University Law School. He will, hopefully, respond to your emails at abovethelawcso@gmail.com.

I admit a certain admiration for the anonymous England-based street artist known as “Banksy” — the unique style of street art combined with the artist’s political activism spiked with a healthy dose of dark satire is something to behold.  Usually fixing his/her works on publicly visible surfaces and walls as well as physical prop pieces made by the artist, Banksy has become renowned the world over. This is not ordinary street artist — in 2018, the artist’s work Balloon Girl was auctioned at Sotheby’s for over $1.4 million dollars; however, once the auction ended with the strike of the gavel, an alarm sounded the work and it was partially shredded by a mechanism hidden within its frame (oddly, probably making the work even more valuable).  Now that is a statement.  This is also an artist that famously stated that “copyright is for losers.”  Notwithstanding this position, the artist doesn’t seem to feel that way about trademarks, and it is no less a sight to behold.

Here’s some background: Banksy recently opened up a storefront in London called “GrossDomesticProduct.”  Oddly, this storefront is not designed to be a traditional brick-and-mortar operation.  In fact, it is designed to solely display products depicting the artist’s works for purchase online.  That’s right — the artist literally has a shop window to display products that cannot be bought there, but rather, must be purchased online.  Why?  Apparently, Banksy is embroiled in a trademark dispute with Full Color Black in the United Kingdom, a small greeting card company that sells greeting cards depicting the artist’s works. Full Color Black is challenging the artist’s trademark based upon the artist’s Flower Thrower work. In fact, Banksy has a number of trademark registrations in the UK (registered through an entity (Pest Control) that authenticates his art on the artist’s behalf), an interesting proposition for an artist who seems to disparage intellectual property rights (well, at least copyrights). As trademarks require use in commerce to maintain trademark rights, such a storefront seems to be a rather thinly veiled effort to show use for the trademark at issue.

For those of you who have followed my writings regarding trademarks, it should come as no surprise that this tactic is tenuous at best.  Banksy’s artwork is depicted on many different goods throughout the world — goods that are not manufactured on behalf of or otherwise sold by (or on behalf of) Banksy.  As trademarks are designed to help distinguish the goods and services from those of another and to designate origin, such third-party products do not support the artist’s trademarks as such sales do not inure to the benefit of the artist as a trademark licensor (as no such licenses exist).  Interestingly, Full Color Black apparently offered to pay a license fee to the artist (ostensibly under copyright); however, the artist apparently declined (likely in no small part to the “copyrights are for losers” position). This got me thinking about artworks as trademarks, but not for the reasons you may think.

From a trademark perspective, there is no reason that artists couldn’t register trademarks in their artwork, but it is not a given.  As stated above, so long as the artwork can be identified with the artist and otherwise meets the criteria to function as a trademark, it is registrable.  That said, the mark must indicate the artist as the source and function to distinguish the artist’s products from others as well — not something likely for all an artist’s works.  To the extent the artwork is an original work fixed in a tangible medium, it is of course also copyrightable.  As such, the artwork can function as both and such rights are not mutually exclusive.  When it comes to works of art, copyright is the most common IP right to enforce because it attaches upon fixation and, quite frankly, is designed to protect such unique artistic expression. With respect to Banksy, however, it seems that the artist has decided to take a different tack (no surprise there), focusing instead on trademark law.  Whatever the reasons (the biggest of which may be that the artist would need to reveal his/her identity in a copyright infringement action), the artist is relying on trademarks to “protect” his/her works.

Aside from the issues of origin and use in commerce, there is another difference between copyright and trademark with respect to works of art that bears mentioning — term of protection.  In the United States, the United States Copyright Office FAQ provides some guidance:

The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.  For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors.

The U.S. Copyright Office Circular 15a provides even more clarification on the duration of copyright, but the point here is that there is a definite (albeit long) statutory term for protection.  Trademarks, on the other hand, can enjoy trademark protection so long as the trademark remains in use (and with respect to registered trademarks, so long as evidence of such continued use is provided to the appropriate trademark registration office, such as the USPTO for federally registered trademarks in the U.S.).  That said, copyrights and trademarks in works of art are not mutually exclusive — these IP rights simply protect different things (protectable expression for copyright; commercial indicia for trademarks).  As a result, an artist can obtain protection under both copyright and trademark law so long as the requisite elements and requirements for each are met.

It seems ironic that an artist known to buck the system appears to be using that very system to assert rights, but it is understandable — Banksy is painted into a corner regarding the artist’s copyright position (with an arguable waiver of such copyrights in and to such works) and existing trademark use and registration requirements.  Trademark owners have a duty to police their marks, but it will be interesting to see how this dispute plays out. From my perspective, there is a real possibility of non-use that places such registration(s) in jeopardy.  In any event, however, we can probably count on the artist to incorporate this experience into future artistic expression.  For the rest of us, let this matter serve as a warning to artists: don’t get painted into a corner the it comes to trademarks in works of art — there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Yes, Donald Trump’s decision to award himself the G-7 Summit at his Doral Resort is a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. And it’s probably a violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause. In fact, it’s probably the most obvious violation of those clauses in American history. It’s self-dealing; it’s corrupt; it’s an impeachable offense on its own. The House Judiciary Committee is going to “investigate” the self-dealing, because they pretty much have to.

Trump has, of course, violated the Emoluments Clause before. He’s actually facing two lawsuits about that. In fact, the Fourth Circuit just agreed to hold an en banc rehearing of one of the emoluments lawsuit.

“Emoluments Clause” is probably enough “law” for the political press to handle for one scandal. But, just among us chickens, can we also talk about how the Trump administration is potentially violating laws regarding the assignment of government contracts? Like, ALL of the them?

This isn’t ‘Nam, there are rules. Hosting the G-7 is, at base, the awarding of a government contract. We have multiple, overlapping statutes regarding that process. There are procedures. There are forms. Those forms require signatures. Getting a government contract is a big part of our economy. Since our economy is based on competition, as opposed to central planning, it’s simply NOT A THING for the President of the United States to just “pick winners” of that economy, before we even get to the part where picking himself the winner is a violation of the Constitution.

I’m no expert on the laws regarding government contracts, because “government compliance lawyer” has never been my calling. But, unlike anybody at the White House apparently, I can Google. Here’s the header from the Legal Information Institute — which is just Wikipedia for people who don’t want to pay Westlaw:

The United States Government is the single largest procurer of goods and services in the world, and the Department of Defense (DOD) accounts for the lion’s share of federal acquisitions. Three major characteristics distinguish Government acquisitions from private sector contracts. First, Government contracts are subject to myriad statutes, regulations, and policies which encourage competition to the maximum extent practicable, ensure proper spending of taxpayer money, and advance socioeconomic goals. Second, Government contracts contain mandatory clauses which afford the Government special contractual rights, including the right to unilaterally change contract terms and conditions or terminate the contract. The most important clauses are the “Changes” clause, the “Termination for Convenience” clause, and the “Default” clause. Third, due to the Government’s special status as a sovereign entity, claims and litigation follow the unique procedures of the Contract Disputes Act.

Government contracts are subject to several statutes, including the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. In addition to statutes, there are a multitude of regulations which govern acquisitions by executive branch agencies. Foremost among these is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which is codified in Parts 1 through 53 of Title 48, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Executive branch agencies may issue their own regulatory supplements to the FAR, such as the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The FAR is amended pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, with proposed changes issued jointly by the DOD, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in coordination with the FAR Council.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is a dense section of law, codified in Title 48 of the U.S. Code. The prohibition against self-dealing in this space is not one of those ephemeral “norms” that Trump disregards all the time. The self-dealing prohibition is codified right in the statute:

48 CFR § 3.601 – Policy.

(a) Except as specified in 3.602, a contracting officer shall not knowingly award a contract to a Government employee or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees. This policy is intended to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its employees.

(b) For purposes of this subpart, special Government employees (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202) performing services as experts, advisors, or consultants, or as members of advisory committees, are not considered Government employees unless –

(1) The contract arises directly out of the individual’s activity as a special Government employee;

(2) In the individual’s capacity as a special Government employee, the individual is in a position to influence the award of the contract; or

(3) Another conflict of interest is determined to exist.

Again, the law is complicated and full of exceptions and I’m no compliance wonk. But the point is that this law EXISTS. So do others. The Trump administration needs to show that it complied with the law, or show that it doesn’t need to comply with the law because it is eligible for some sort of exception. ALL OF THAT MUST BE WRITTEN DOWN. If those arguments don’t hold water, Trump is in violation of statute. If those arguments are lies, on official government documents, those lies are crimes.

Making the Emoluments Clause argument against the president for this deal is valid, but it’s a little bit like pursuing a Fourth Amendment violation against the president for a car-jacking. Sure, it probably is. But, also, THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST CAR-JACKING.

President Trump and his administration, including his administration’s lawyers, act like our laws are mere guidelines that don’t apply to a “strong” president. That’s just not true. Awarding yourself a government contract is, at least, a facial violation of law. Does Trump have a defense? Mick Mulvaney suggests that he just won’t show us the government’s defense to these… CHARGES… which is also not an acceptable answer.

Trump, obviously, isn’t allowed to do this. WHO IS GOING TO TELL HIM?

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.