Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Eggleston

Neil Eggleston joins host Dave Thomas to discuss his journey from growing up in Indiana to clerking for Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and eventually serving as White House Counsel during the Obama administration. He reflects on his early experiences in Washington, including his role in the Iran-Contra investigation and later involvement in the Clinton administration, where he navigated the Monica Lewinsky scandal and various independent counsel inquiries. Throughout the conversation, Eggleston highlights the changes between politics and legal practice, particularly the intersection of executive privilege, congressional scrutiny, and legal ethics.

This Day in Legal History: Former President Taft Becomes Chief JusticeOn July 11, 1921, William Howard Taft was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making history as the only person to have held both the presidency and the chief justiceship. Taft had previously served as the 27th President of the United States from 1909 to 1913. His appointment to the Supreme Court was a lifelong dream come true, as he had always preferred judicial work over executive duties.During his tenure as Chief Justice, Taft made significant contributions to the federal judiciary. He advocated for judicial reforms and was instrumental in the creation of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which helped improve the administration of the courts. His leadership was marked by efforts to enhance the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.Taft's unique perspective as a former president provided him with a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the branches of government. This experience enriched his contributions to the Court's decisions and its operations. His tenure as Chief Justice lasted until his retirement in 1930, leaving a lasting impact on the American legal system.A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has impacted two significant Illinois public-corruption cases involving former state House Speaker Mike Madigan. The ruling in Snyder v. United States clarified that federal law criminalizes bribery when officials accept bribes before performing official acts, but not when they accept gratuities after the fact. Following this decision, defense lawyers in the cases involving Madigan and his associates are seeking acquittals or new trials.Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District of Illinois requested updates from the lawyers involved. Meanwhile, attorneys in U.S. v. McClain indicated they would file motions to acquit or seek new trials for four defendants convicted of conspiring to solicit favors for Madigan. Michael McClain's lawyer argued the Supreme Court's ruling showed the jury was misinformed on the law, potentially invalidating the conviction.Madigan's legal team plans to file motions related to the Snyder decision, while prosecutors maintain their original allegations. Even if some convictions are vacated, the government argues that other charges, such as falsifying records under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, are likely to stand. Former prosecutor Rachel Cannon noted that these additional charges might withstand the impact of the Snyder ruling.The Snyder decision might also influence other prosecutions connected to the Madigan scandal. Besides McClain, Jay Doherty, John Hooker, and Anne Pramaggiore were also convicted and await sentencing, which has been postponed pending the Supreme Court's decision. These cases underscore the significant legal repercussions following the high court's interpretation of bribery statutes. SCOTUS Bribery Ruling Offers Chance to Undo Illinois ConvictionsA California judge has granted Tesla more time to prepare its defense against a proposed class action alleging it overcharged customers for insurance. The case, overseen by Judge Michael Markman of Alameda Superior Court, now has a hearing scheduled for October 2025 to determine whether it will proceed as a class action. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of drivers in 11 states, accuses Tesla of inflating insurance premiums based on false crash warnings instead of actual driving behavior, violating California's unfair competition law and breaching contracts with drivers.Tesla's attorney, Min Kang, cited delays in gathering defense information due to the involvement of multiple states and the recent departure of a key Tesla employee. This personnel change has complicated the process, with Tesla in the midst of hiring a replacement.Tesla, which denies any wrongdoing, previously attempted to dismiss some claims but was unsuccessful. The company's insurance program bases premiums on a "safety score," factoring in vehicle data such as hard-braking and forward collision warning alerts. Plaintiffs argue these scores are unfairly increased by false warnings, raising their premiums. This lawsuit has drawn attention from state regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers, highlighting broader concerns about Tesla's insurance practices.Tesla gets more time to defend against driver class action over insurance | ReutersHarvard University has appointed Jennifer O'Connor as its new general counsel, effective July 29. O'Connor previously held senior roles at Northrop Grumman and the US Department of Defense. This move comes as Harvard faces scrutiny over its policies on antisemitism and calls from some students to sever financial ties with military contractors. O'Connor brings extensive experience from large, complex organizations and has served as general counsel for the Department of Defense and held roles in the White House Counsel's office. She is an alumna of Harvard College and earned her law degree from Georgetown.Interim President Alan Garber praised her experience, emphasizing her readiness to manage Harvard's legal strategy amid congressional probes and lawsuits related to campus antisemitism and the aftermath of Hamas's attack on Israel. O'Connor will also address issues related to Harvard's admissions policies after a recent Supreme Court defeat. Neil Eggleston, who worked with O'Connor during the Obama administration, highlighted her familiarity with Washington's political landscape, which will aid Harvard in navigating upcoming challenges.O'Connor succeeds Eileen Finan, who has served as interim general counsel since March 1, following the retirement of Diane Lopez. This appointment aims to stabilize Harvard's legal department and address ongoing campus controversies.Harvard Hires New Lawyer From Weapons Maker Northrop Grumman (1)Rudolph Giuliani's personal bankruptcy case is likely to be dismissed by a federal bankruptcy judge by the end of the week after nearly seven months of inactivity. Judge Sean Lane of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York indicated during a hearing that he is inclined to dismiss the case entirely, with a final ruling expected on Friday. This dismissal would leave Giuliani without court protection from creditors, to whom he owes over $150 million. Giuliani's lawyers have consented to the proposed dismissal.The bankruptcy case has been fraught with disputes over missed deadlines and transparency issues regarding Giuliani's financial affairs. Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in December, reporting $10.6 million in assets after a $148 million defamation judgment for false accusations against Georgia poll workers in the 2020 election. Wandrea' Arshaye “Shaye” Moss, one of the poll workers, sits on an official creditors' committee that has requested a trustee's appointment.If dismissed, creditors would return to civil court to recover debts, and Giuliani would face continued lawsuits that were paused by his Chapter 11 filing. Attorney Rachel Strickland, representing the Georgia plaintiffs, criticized Giuliani's lack of cooperation and suggested he might commit bankruptcy crimes. This prompted a heated exchange during the hearing, with Giuliani interrupting to refute Strickland's claims.The creditors' committee opposes the dismissal, arguing that resolving the case within bankruptcy would benefit more creditors than civil court proceedings. Despite these arguments, the dismissal seems imminent, leaving significant creditors, particularly the Georgia poll workers, to seek recovery through other means.Giuliani Bankruptcy Is Heading Toward Dismissal, Judge Says (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This teleforum will include a discussion about the Unitary Executive Theory, its judicial and legislative history, and its applicability to the President’s recent termination of EEOC General Counsel Sharon Gustafson. Ms. Gustafson will share her thoughts regarding her duties at the EEOC and the challenges for any individual performing such duties. The panelists will debate and discuss the authority of the President to exercise “at-will” termination authority over Senate-confirmed individuals serving on 'independent' boards and commissions.Featuring: -- Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP-- Hon. Sharon Fast Gustafson, Former General Counsel, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "The Presidency and the Rule of Law."The U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It also requires the President, before taking office, to swear (or affirm) that he or she will “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.” Many believe that the Constitution, in creating a Presidency with sufficient energy to lead the country, contemplates that the President will have considerable discretion in how to go about this. At the same time, over the years, norms have developed to reinforce the idea that in the United States, executive power is to be exercised pursuant to law, and not as a tool to punish political enemies or to protect friends. How does the rule of law both constrain and protect the Presidency? What role do norms play? Have the norms surrounding the President’s exercise of executive power eroded, and if so, why? What role have Congress, the media, social media, and other factors played? The panel will discuss these and other matters including possible reforms.Featuring:Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Former White House CounselHon. Jack L. Goldsmith, Professor of Law, Harvard University; Former Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeAmb. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former White House Counsel; Former Ambassador to the European UnionHon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn; Former United States Solicitor GeneralModerator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Mornings on the Mall  Thursday, May 21, 2020 Hosts; Vince Coglianese and Mary Walter Executive Producer: Heather Hunter Guests: Liz Sheld, Cal Thomas, Erik Kiilunen, Tom Fitton and Shelley Luther SHOW RUNDOWN: 5 AM HOUR: 5-A/B/C -- 5:05 AM - NEW VIRUS GUIDANCE: CDC now says coronavirus ‘does not spread easily’ on surfaces. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now says the coronavirus “does not spread easily” through touching surfaces or objects. In early March, the federal health agency was warning that it “may be possible” to pass on the virus from contaminated surfaces, according to Fox News. Its guidelines now include a section on ways the virus doesn’t easily spread — including from touching surfaces or objects. “It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes,” the CDC webpage states. “This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus.” Other ways the virus doesn’t easily spread is from animals to people or people to animals, the CDC’s updated webpage states. AND LAST MONTH... FDA says there is no evidence groceries can transmit coronavirus Your groceries apparently can’t transmit the coronavirus. There’s no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 can spread through food, or what it’s wrapped in, Dr. Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, said Thursday. “We have no evidence that the virus, the Covid-19 virus, is transmitted by food or by food packaging,” Hahn said during a CNN town hall. [...] As for disinfecting your groceries, that may also be overkill, according to the FDA. VIRUS AND SMIMMING POOLS: ‘No Evidence’ That Coronavirus Spreads In Swimming Pools, According To CDC. As temperatures inch upward and Memorial Day quickly approaches, pools across the country remain closed due to coronavirus restrictions. Many are likely concerned about going for a swim, citing the possibility that coronavirus could be spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), however, says that there is “no evidence” that the virus can be spread to people through pool water, hot tubs, spas, or water play areas, as long as social-distancing measures are taken. “Proper operation and maintenance (including disinfection with chlorine and bromine) of these facilities should inactivate the virus in the water,” the CDC online guideline says. Individuals, pool owners and operators should still take the steps to ensure that the virus isn’t spread, including following local and state guidelines that determine whether pools can reopen. 5-D/E -- LATEST RUSSIA COLLUSION NEWS: CHUCK ROSS: FBI Offered To Pay Christopher Steele ‘Significantly’ To Dig Up Dirt On Michael Flynn. An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released in December. The reference to the FBI proposal, which was made in an Oct. 3, 2016, meeting in an unidentified European city, has received virtually no press attention. But it might have new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom. WAPO: Michael Flynn’s name was never masked in FBI document on his communications with Russian ambassador. But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced this week that he wants to subpoena witnesses over the unmasking of Flynn, as part of a larger effort to unearth information about the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials. On Tuesday, he sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak. Rice penned Inauguration Day email at White House counsel’s direction. On Jan. 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration, Rice penned a memo to herself documenting a Jan. 5 meeting with Obama and others, during which he provided guidance on how law enforcement should address Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race. Parts of the email had been released previously, but the full unredacted email was declassified and made public this week. At the meeting, she, Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and other intelligence officials discussed her successor Michael Flynn’s communications with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Rice spokeswoman Erin Pelton told Fox News on Wednesday that Rice documented the contents of that meeting at the direction of Obama’s White House counsel, Neil Eggleston. UNDERCOVER HUBER with a new theory about leaks from MUELLER'S TEAM to flip TRUMP TEAM LAWYERS AGAINST THEIR OWN CLIENTS... Somebody faked that the Crossfire Hurricane team had a FISA on Paul Manafort & "leaked" this to CNN. And the culprits may have been the Special Counsel's Office, trying to influence D.C's Chief Judge into allowing the SCO to pierce Manafort's Attorney/Client privilege. (THREAD) NYT: Supreme Court Blocks Release of Full Mueller Report for Now. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked the release of parts of the report prepared by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. The court’s order, concerning a request by the House Judiciary Committee for grand jury materials that the Justice Department had blacked out from the report provided to Congress, could mean that the full report would not be made available before the 2020 election. The Supreme Court’s brief order gave no reasons for blocking an appeals court ruling ordering the release of the full report while the justices considered whether to hear the case. It ordered the Justice Department to file a petition seeking review by June 1. There were no noted dissents. The House told the justices that it sought information about whether President Trump had obstructed justice, a topic on which Mr. Mueller failed to reach a conclusion. MICHAEL COHEN TO BE RELEASED EARLY FROM JAIL: President Trump's longtime personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen will be released from federal prison today and is expected to serve the remainder of his sentence at home. Cohen has been serving a federal prison sentence at FCI Otisville in New York after pleading guilty to numerous charges, including campaign finance fraud and lying to Congress. Cohen will be released on furlough with the expectation that he will transition to home confinement for the remainder of his sentence. 6 AM HOUR 6-A -- 6:05 AM -- INTERVIEW - LIZ SHELD - Senior Editor, American Greatness -- discuss yesterday's "Karens" in the media and the "coronavirus Karens" Mika Melts Down, Goes Full 'Karen': Brzezinski Demands Twitter Erase 'Sick, Disgusting' President Trump from Its Platform...  Mika Brzezinski @morningmika: .@twitter need to know why trump is not banned? 9:16 AM - May 20, 2020 Mika Brzezinski @morningmika: I will be reaching out to head of twitter about their policies being violated every day by President Tump. Hope my call is taken. Please retweet if you agree 9:17 AM - May 20, 2020 Video: Mika being a Karen on Morning Joe: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1263238165650800640 CORONAVIRUS KARENS: This woman outside of a grocery store is being called a Karen. She was freaking out in her car. Is she a Karen?  https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1263208102951743488 A SUPER ANNOYING KAREN: This lady went out to video shame everyone who dared to have fun in the sun at the beach. Is she being a Karen?  https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1262173200479379456 ABOUT KARENS: Karen is a slang term that is used to typify a person perceived to be entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is considered appropriate or necessary. One of the most common Karen stereotypes is that of a white middle-aged woman, typically American, who displays aggressive behavior when she is obstructed from getting her way; such women are often depicted as demanding to "speak to the manager" and sometimes have a variation of the bob cut. The origins of Karen as an Internet meme predominately date back to an anonymous Reddit user.  (Wikipedia link) 6-B/C - VOTING NEWS: MICHIGAN MAIL IN BALLOTS: President Trump threatened to hold back federal funding from two election battleground states that are making it easier to vote by mail during the pandemic. He later backed away somewhat from that threat but stuck with his claim that widespread voting by mail promotes "a lot of illegality." Trump targeted Michigan and Nevada on Wednesday. At first he claimed Michigan was sending out more than 7 million mail-in ballots, but after criticism he corrected that to say mail-in ballot "applications." Federal judge rules in favor of mail-in ballots in Texas, says 'lack of immunity' for COVID-19 a physical condition. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said Tuesday that his office would appeal a federal court’s preliminary injunction that allows all registered voters in the state to apply to vote by mail while the country fights the coronavirus pandemic. “The district court’s opinion ignores the evidence and disregards well-established law,” the Texas Republican said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune. "We will seek an immediate review by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." The paper pointed out that the Lone Star State’s current election law only grants permission for those over 65, who have a disability or plan to be abroad at the time of the vote to apply for a mail-in ballot. Democrats are largely in favor of the voting alternative while Republicans have been critical of the option due to the risk of voter fraud. Judge Fred Biery, a district court judge in San Antonio, sided Tuesday with the state’s Democratic party. "The Court finds such fear and anxiety is inextricably intertwined with voters' physical health. Such apprehension will limit citizens' rights to cast their votes in person. The Court also finds that lack of immunity from COVID-19 is indeed a physical condition," he wrote. (Fox News link) Montgomery County Council calls on Maryland's State Board of Elections to hold emergency meeting to protect voting rights. Council expresses concerns over the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election ROCKVILLE, Md., May 20, 2020—Montgomery County Councilmembers sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections expressing their frustration and concern about the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election. Many registered voters in Montgomery County have reported that they have not received their ballots and have reached out to the Council to voice their concerns. All Councilmembers signed the letter. “It is extremely concerning, this close to the June 2nd Maryland primary election, that there are widespread issues in delivering the appropriate absentee ballot to voters,” said Council Vice President Tom Hucker. “This is unacceptable and is increasing public anxiety and eroding confidence in our elections. The State Board of Elections needs to act immediately to ensure voters a fair and timely primary and general election. We are sending this letter to get more information on this situation and to work with the State Board on this crucial issue.” The Council has requested the Maryland State Board of Elections hold an emergency meeting to address urgent issues relating to the primary election including the timely distribution of ballots to all voters in their preferred language and to ensure that Maryland will administer the 2020 primary and general elections securely and effectively. “The Maryland State Board of Elections must do everything within its power to ensure that by perception and in reality, the coming elections are seen to be fair and just,” said Councilmember Nancy Navarro, who chairs the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee. “The issues that threaten to disenfranchise voters in our county and region must be resolved as soon as possible.” (MoCo Govt link)  More Montgomery County ballots being mailed to deceased, non-residents. A few weeks after a man described how his deceased mother was shown to have voted in Montgomery County elections for a decade after her death, another case of an illegal ballot being issued has come to light. Attorney Robin Ficker, a Republican candidate for Maryland governor, reports that his son was mailed a ballot to his old Montgomery County address. Problem: Ficker's son hasn't lived in Montgomery County for 12 years. And as a "live" ballot, it could be illegally filled out and mailed back by someone else. "Election fraud?" Ficker asked in a Facebook post showing the improperly-mailed ballot. "How many of these ballots are being mailed by someone else?" Ficker isn't the only one asking questions.  A watchdog group, Judicial Watch, has successfully sued to receive the voter registration information of all Montgomery County voters, after it found there are more names registered to vote than there are eligible voters in the county. In 2018, anomalous voting results were seen at dozens of precincts across Montgomery County in the County Council At-Large race, if not others. The voter universe in that election also increased by about 100,000 voters in only four years since 2014. Local media outlets have not challenged County officials about either issue so far. Leaving ineligible names on the voter rolls is a key source of voter fraud. Anyone who has the names of deceased or non-resident voters can walk into the appropriate polling place, claim to be that person and provide the few details asked for by judges, and cast a ballot illegally using one of those many names. In this year's by-mail elections, these illegal ballots will be mailed out and ripe for the picking by any organized voter fraud operation, further underlining the urgency in cleaning up Montgomery County's dirty voter rolls. (Robert Dyer blog link)  Flashback in April: Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Maryland to Release Complete Voter Registration Records. (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced that a federal court ordered the State of Maryland to produce the voter list for Montgomery County that includes the registered voters’ date of birth. This court ruling is the latest in a series of victories for Judicial Watch in its lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Judicial Watch filed suit for the Maryland voter list data after uncovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could legally register (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). Ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor, Judge Hollander said: "Judicial Watch need not demonstrate its need for birth date information in order to facilitate its effort to ensure that the voter rolls are properly maintained. Nevertheless, it has put forward reasonable justifications for requiring birth date information, including using birth dates to find duplicate registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls despite “improbable” age." In order to avoid turning over the dates of birth for Maryland voters, the Maryland Administrator of Elections, Linda Lamone, directed her staff to remove date of birth as a field on the voter registration application. Judge Hollander ruled that Lamone could not do this, saying: "Because full voter birth dates appear on completed voter registration applications, the Administrator may not bypass the Act by unilaterally revising the Application." In August 2019, Judge Hollander ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor in the same case, ordering the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County. Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters Registration Act. (Judicial Watch link)  6-D - 6:35 AM --  INTERVIEW - CAL THOMAS - Syndicated columnist and author of new book "America's Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers . . . and the Future of the United States" CAL'S LATEST COLUMN: ‘Snake oil’ cures: Trump should not promote hydroxychloroquine  The name calling between Trump and Pelosi. So unseemly. Win on issues and debate them not who is crazy and who is morbidly obese. 6-E - LOCAL NEWS UPDATE: VIRGINIA / MARYLAND: Ralph Northam: No 'particular timeline' for Northern Virginia to begin first phase of reopening. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that leaders in Northern Virginia were “following the data” in determining not to move into Phase 1 of the reopening plan with the rest of the state. The city of Alexandria and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, which make up most of Northern Virginia and all border either the District of Columbia or Maryland, have the state’s worst coronavirus case numbers. Local leaders told Mr. Northam in a letter that they weren’t ready to enter Phase 1 of reopening until at least May 29. “We haven’t set any particular timeline,” the Democratic governor said. “We will continue to follow that daily. We will be in communication with those (local) leaders, and when they are comfortable, and when the data supports a movement into Phase 1, we will do so.” Arlington County cancels summer camps for 2020. ARLINGTON, Va. - As the novel coronavirus lingers in the Northern Virginia region heading into late fall, Arlington County announced on Wednesday that it is canceling all summer camps for the season. In a statement from the county, officials said the decision was difficult to make. They noted that the camps could not be held with “proper social distancing and appropriate cleaning protocols or other safety measures,” and the county was not confident that it could safely host a camp session. Officials noted there too many variables needed to be accounted for ultimately. “We recognize how important camps are to our residents, and we are truly saddened to have to cancel for the summer. Ultimately, it is the best decision for the safety and health of our community. We will continue to explore opportunities to provide programs and services as national, state and local guidelines allow. We appreciate your patience as we work through this difficult time,” said Parks & Recreation Director Jane Rudolph. Anyone who was registered for an Arlington County Department of Parks and Recreation camp will receive a full refund. Anyone who signed up for a camp with a county contractor should reach out to the contractor directly for information regarding refunds. (Fox5DC link) Montgomery officials say county may start to reopen within a week. Maryland’s most populous county said Wednesday that it may lift some social distancing restrictions within the next week, another tentative step toward reopening the Washington region as the rates of novel coronavirus infections and deaths show signs of slowing. “We are moving in the right direction,” Travis Gayles, head of Montgomery County’s health department, said about plans to join other parts of the state in partially lifting restrictions on gatherings and nonessential businesses. (Washington Post link)  6-F -- Tom Brady blasted for releasing 'immunity' supplement during pandemic. Tom Brady launched a new “immunity” multivitamin supplement this week — and critics quickly tackled the quarterback for the timing of the release during the coronavirus pandemic. Brady, 42, newly signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, announced the release of the “immunity blend supplement,” called Protect, through his company, TB12 Sports, on social media Monday. “Over the years, I’ve learned how important it is to be proactive in taking care of my own body,” Brady said in a video posted to Instagram. “I’m really proud to announce this amazing new product from TB12 that will provide you guys exactly what you need to stay healthy, strong and resilient for whatever comes your way.” It is sold as a 30-day supply, or 60 tablets, for $45, according to the TB12 website. Critics bashed him on Twitter for the not-so-coincidental timing of the release — and for capitalizing on people’s fears amid the pandemic. In Brady’s new home state, nearly 47,000 coronavirus cases and over 2,000 related deaths have been reported, according to the Florida Department of Health. “Oh Tom this is so disappointing,” Julia Offord Pearman tweeted. “The marketing of this product is clearly playing on people’s fears over Covid and a belief that the immune system just needs a boost to recover from it. If it’s an athlete recovery supplement say that, don’t play up to people’s fears about Covid.”“What does your product ‘PROTECT’ us from Tom?” said a person with the handle @katherine_jj6. “Does it protect the millions out of work from being duped to pay a ridiculous amount of money for this? This is a new low for you and [business partner] Alex [Guerrero].” “The reason Tom Brady doesn’t have coronavirus isn’t an immune boosting supplement, it’s because he’s obscenely rich and can isolate unlike delivery drivers, cleaners, meat workers, grocery store workers, nurses and doctors,” wrote Dr. Kate Gregorevic, who identified herself as a geriatrician. “Using this crisis to enrich himself is disgusting.” But TB12 CEO Johns Burns told Yahoo! Sports that “now more than ever, it’s important to have daily support for a healthy immune response as our bodies are subject to constant stressors that deplete its resources.” Brady’s company touts the drug for “supporting natural killer cells” and “replenishing antibodies post-exercise,” helping to “activate your immune system and counter stress-induced immune suppression,” according to a product description. (NY Post link) 7 AM HOUR 7-A -- 7:05 AM - Interview - Erik Kiilunen - organizer of Michigan Take Yourself to Work Day (May 21) Kiilunen, a Michigan business man is leading the effort to make May 21 "Take Yourself to Work Day." He has billboards all over Michigan with the message "All Business is Essential."   Businessman Calls for Peaceful Economic Disobedience in Response to Unconstitutional COVID-19 Lockdown. Ahmeek, MI—As reported by the Associated Press, Erik Kiilunen, business owner, entrepreneur, and founder of All Business is Essential, is calling for peaceful economic disobedience against un-constitutional executive orders which have deprived American citizens of their right to attend to their businesses, their livelihoods, and their jobs. Erik Kiilunen is “encouraging business owners of all sizes to engage in Economic Disobedience" by opening their place of business regardless of "executive orders as Michigan and the USA need commerce. Without it, the poverty created by their absence will cause far greater suffering than anything that COVID-19 will ever lead to now. I’ve opened my business as an example to others.” Over the course of a few days, Mr. Kiilunen's  GoFundMe page has already amassed tens of thousands in contributions from other Americans who support Mr. Kiilunen's message of economic freedom.   As his billboards start to spring up in Grand Rapids, Detroit, and Howell, as well as across the country, Mr. Kiilunen asserts that this is only the beginning. In what is poised to be one of the most fundamentally American uprisings in US history, All Business is Essential is ready to take on anti-constitutional decrees . "All business is essential, and the government, and state governors, do not have the legal authority to pick and choose who has the right to work and feed their families, and who doesn’t....Ask a single mother running a hair salon and using the profits generated to care for her special needs child if her business is essential," says Mr. Kiilunen. 7-B/C -- LATEST ON PELOSI: Speaker Pelosi on President Trump: “It's like a child who comes in with mud on their pants...He comes in with doggy doo on his shoes and everybody who works with him has that on their shoes, too, for a very long time to come." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed confidence Wednesday that the coronavirus stimulus package approved last week will garner enough public backing to force Republicans and the Trump administration to the negotiating table. The $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act would provide funds to local and state government, hazard pay for health care workers and another round of direct cash payments to tens of millions of Americans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the package has “no chance” of passing. Pelosi touts $3.6B vote-by-mail bill, now called ‘Voting at Home,’ after Trump warnings to Michigan, Nevada, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday night touted a $3.6 billion vote-by-mail proposal – which she rechristened “Voting at Home” – adding that the bill also would help bolster the U.S. Postal Service. Pelosi talked about the legislation during an appearance on MSNBC just hours after President Trump warned the states of Michigan and Nevada against implementing absentee-ballot and vote-by-mail plans, arguing the proposals were illegal and could potentially facilitate voter fraud. In both cases, the president threatened to withhold federal dollars from the states if they went ahead with their plans. The legality of using mail ballots is already the basis of a lawsuit in Texas, in which a federal judge sided with Democrats in allowing the forms to be sent out to voters. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately announced his office was appealing the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meantime, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Postal Service, calling it a “joke” and claiming it undercharges online retail giants such as Amazon. The president has said he will not support any bailout legislation for the Postal Service if the organization does not raise its service rates to generate more revenue. But in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Pelosi stressed that the Democrats’ proposal was aimed at making voting and shopping more convenient and safe for Americans amid the coronavirus pandemic – allowing them to perform both tasks at home without exposing themselves to risk of contracting the virus. “We’re now calling it ‘Voting at Home’ because that’s really what it’s all about -- enabling people to vote at home,” Pelosi told host Lawrence O’Donnell. (Fox News link) Trump expresses opposition to extending unemployment benefits enacted in response to pandemic. President Trump on Tuesday privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $600 boost in unemployment insurance for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic, according to three officials familiar with his remarks during a closed-door lunch with Republican senators on Capitol Hill. The increased unemployment benefits — paid by the federal government but administered through individual states — were enacted this year as part of a broader $2 trillion relief package passed by Congress. The boost expires this summer, and House Democrats have proposed extending the aid through January 2021. (Washington Post link) 7-D/E  -- 7:35 AM - INTERVIEW - TOM FITTON - President of Judicial Watch Montgomery County Council calls on Maryland's State Board of Elections to hold emergency meeting to protect voting rights. Council expresses concerns over the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election ROCKVILLE, Md., May 20, 2020—Montgomery County Councilmembers sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections expressing their frustration and concern about the distribution of ballots for Maryland’s June 2 primary election. Many registered voters in Montgomery County have reported that they have not received their ballots and have reached out to the Council to voice their concerns. All Councilmembers signed the letter. “It is extremely concerning, this close to the June 2nd Maryland primary election, that there are widespread issues in delivering the appropriate absentee ballot to voters,” said Council Vice President Tom Hucker. “This is unacceptable and is increasing public anxiety and eroding confidence in our elections. The State Board of Elections needs to act immediately to ensure voters a fair and timely primary and general election. We are sending this letter to get more information on this situation and to work with the State Board on this crucial issue.” The Council has requested the Maryland State Board of Elections hold an emergency meeting to address urgent issues relating to the primary election including the timely distribution of ballots to all voters in their preferred language and to ensure that Maryland will administer the 2020 primary and general elections securely and effectively. “The Maryland State Board of Elections must do everything within its power to ensure that by perception and in reality, the coming elections are seen to be fair and just,” said Councilmember Nancy Navarro, who chairs the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee. “The issues that threaten to disenfranchise voters in our county and region must be resolved as soon as possible.” (MoCo Govt link)  More Montgomery County ballots being mailed to deceased, non-residents. A few weeks after a man described how his deceased mother was shown to have voted in Montgomery County elections for a decade after her death, another case of an illegal ballot being issued has come to light. Attorney Robin Ficker, a Republican candidate for Maryland governor, reports that his son was mailed a ballot to his old Montgomery County address. Problem: Ficker's son hasn't lived in Montgomery County for 12 years. And as a "live" ballot, it could be illegally filled out and mailed back by someone else. "Election fraud?" Ficker asked in a Facebook post showing the improperly-mailed ballot. "How many of these ballots are being mailed by someone else?" Ficker isn't the only one asking questions.  A watchdog group, Judicial Watch, has successfully sued to receive the voter registration information of all Montgomery County voters, after it found there are more names registered to vote than there are eligible voters in the county. In 2018, anomalous voting results were seen at dozens of precincts across Montgomery County in the County Council At-Large race, if not others. The voter universe in that election also increased by about 100,000 voters in only four years since 2014. Local media outlets have not challenged County officials about either issue so far. Leaving ineligible names on the voter rolls is a key source of voter fraud. Anyone who has the names of deceased or non-resident voters can walk into the appropriate polling place, claim to be that person and provide the few details asked for by judges, and cast a ballot illegally using one of those many names. In this year's by-mail elections, these illegal ballots will be mailed out and ripe for the picking by any organized voter fraud operation, further underlining the urgency in cleaning up Montgomery County's dirty voter rolls. (Robert Dyer blog link)  Flashback in April: Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders Maryland to Release Complete Voter Registration Records. (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced that a federal court ordered the State of Maryland to produce the voter list for Montgomery County that includes the registered voters’ date of birth. This court ruling is the latest in a series of victories for Judicial Watch in its lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Judicial Watch filed suit for the Maryland voter list data after uncovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could legally register (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). Ruling in Judicial Watch’s favor, Judge Hollander said: "Judicial Watch need not demonstrate its need for birth date information in order to facilitate its effort to ensure that the voter rolls are properly maintained. Nevertheless, it has put forward reasonable justifications for requiring birth date information, including using birth dates to find duplicate registrations and searching for voters who remain on the rolls despite “improbable” age." In order to avoid turning over the dates of birth for Maryland voters, the Maryland Administrator of Elections, Linda Lamone, directed her staff to remove date of birth as a field on the voter registration application. Judge Hollander ruled that Lamone could not do this, saying: "Because full voter birth dates appear on completed voter registration applications, the Administrator may not bypass the Act by unilaterally revising the Application." In August 2019, Judge Hollander ruled in Judicial Watch’s favor in the same case, ordering the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County. Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the National Voters Registration Act. (Judicial Watch link)  8 AM HOUR 8-A -- 8:05 AM - CHRIS CUOMO AND HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: Flashback: CNN’s Cuomo Mocks Trump Over Hydroxychloroquine — A Version Of It Was Included In His Own COVID-19 Treatment. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo mocked President Donald Trump on Monday for announcing that he had been taking anti-malarial drugs as a preventative treatment for coronavirus even though he had also used a version of the drug in his own COVID-19 treatment regimen. In a late Monday tweet after Trump’s announcement, Cuomo responded to a video of Florida police breaking up a block party by saying “No worries. They can just take some chloroquine.” Cuomo also said in the opening of Monday’s Cuomo Prime Time that “the president knows that Hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science. He knows it has been flagged by people in his own administration” and called it a distraction from “his lack of a plan or real solutions.” Cuomo had been using a version of the anti-malarial drug in his own treatment for coronavirus, according to posts about his treatment protocol written by his wife, Cristina, in her wellness magazine “The Purist.” (Daily Caller link) Kayleigh McEnany Rips CNN’s Chris Cuomo For Taking ‘Less Safe Version’ Of Hydroxychloroquine. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called out CNN anchor Chris Cuomo Wednesday for mocking President Donald Trump for taking hydroxychloroquine after Cuomo took a less safe version of the drug for his coronavirus treatment. “You had Chris Cuomo saying the president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science, he knows it has been flagged by his own people and he’s using it,” McEnany said at Wednesday’s White House press briefing. “Cuomo mocked the president for this” but “it turns out that Chris Cuomo took a less safe version of it called quinine, which the FDA removed from the market in 2006 because it had serious side effects, including death. So really interesting to have that criticism of the president.” ( Daily Caller link) From Chris Cuomo's wife's blog:  I enlisted Dr. Linda Lancaster, who put my husband on a path of natural remedies to strengthen his immune system—and now mine–and it’s working for us. (Blog link)  CRAZY LECTURE FROM the "Doctor" (Dr. Linda Lancaster) that Chris Cuomo's wife was getting coronavirus treatment advice from (that included bathing in bleach...) LAST NIGHT: Chris Cuomo teases brother Andrew Cuomo with giant test swab. Chris Cuomo teases brother Andrew with a prop of a giant test swab. CNN's Chris Cuomo jokes with his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, about the size of his nose. On May 17, the governor was tested for Covid-19 on live television to encourage others to get tested. CNN's Chris Cuomo does prop comedy with NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, fails to ask about nursing-home controversy.CNN anchor Chris Cuomo again did not address the growing nursing-home controversy in his latest interview with his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and instead performed some prop comedy on Wednesday night. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, recently reversed a March 25 order that forced nursing homes to accept patients who tested positive for coronavirus, despite testing deficiencies for both residents and staff. Cuomo signed an executive order on May 11 stopping hospitals from sending infected patients back to nursing homes and ramping up testing for staff. 8-B/C  -- FL GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS SLAPS THE MEDIA: Fla. Gov. DeSantis Scorches Media For Dire Florida Predictions: ‘Hell, We’re 8 Weeks Away From That’. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis unloaded on members of the media Wednesday over their extremely grim predictions for his state, saying that the media “waxed poetically for weeks and weeks” about how bad Florida would look. “Our data is available, our data is transparent, in fact Dr. Birx has talked multiple times about how Florida has the absolute best data, so any insinuation otherwise is just typical partisan narrative trying to be spun,” DeSantis said. “And part of the reason is because you got a lot of people in your profession who waxed poetically for weeks and weeks about how Florida was going to be just like New York: wait two weeks Florida’s going to be next, just like Italy, wait two weeks.” “Well hell, we’re eight weeks away from that, and it hasn’t happened. Not only do we have a lower death rate–well we have way lower deaths generally–we have a lower death rate than the Acela Corridor, DC, everyone up there,” the governor continued. Where Does Ron DeSantis Go to Get His Apology? (By RICH LOWRY/NATIONAL REVIEW) - The Florida governor explains a COVID-19 strategy that has gotten bad press and favorable results. A couple of months ago, the media, almost as one, decided that Governor Ron DeSantis was a public menace who was going to get Floridians killed with his lax response to the coronavirus crisis. In an interview with National Review, DeSantis says he was surprised at “how knee-jerk” the hostile coverage was, but he “also knew that none of these people knew anything about Florida at all, so I didn’t care what they were saying.” The conventional wisdom has begun to change about Florida, as the disaster so widely predicted hasn’t materialized. It’s worth delving into the state’s response — as described by DeSantis and a couple of members of his team — because it is the opposite of the media narrative of a Trump-friendly governor disregarding the facts to pursue a reckless agenda. DeSantis and his team have followed the science closely from the beginning, which is why they forged a nuanced approach, but one that focused like a laser on the most vulnerable population, those in nursing homes. An irony of the national coverage of the coronavirus crisis is that at the same time DeSantis was being made into a villain, New York governor Andrew Cuomo was being elevated as a hero, even though the DeSantis approach to nursing homes was obviously superior to that of Cuomo. Florida went out of its way to get COVID-19-positive people out of nursing homes, while New York went out of its way to get them in, a policy now widely acknowledged to have been a debacle. The media didn’t exactly have their eyes on the ball. “The day that the media had their first big freakout about Florida was March 15th,” DeSantis recalls, “which was, there were people on Clearwater Beach, and it was this big deal. That same day is when we signed the executive order to, one, ban visitation in the nursing homes, and two, ban the reintroduction of a COVID-positive patient back into a nursing home.” DeSantis is bemused by the obsession with Florida’s beaches. When they opened in Jacksonville, it was a big national story, usually relayed with a dire tone. “Jacksonville has almost no COVID activity outside of a nursing-home context,” he says. “Their hospitalizations are down, ICU down since the beaches opened a month ago. And yet, nobody talks about it. It’s just like, ‘Okay, we just move on to the next target.’” 8-D -- 8:35 AM -- INTERVIEW - SHELLEY LUTHER - formerly jailed Dallas salon owner TX SALON OWNER WENT TO MICHIGAN ON MONDAY TO HELP A BARBER REBELLING AGAINST WHITMER’S LOCKDOWN: Dallas salon owner who was jailed over coronavirus rules travels to Michigan to support defiant barber. A Texas salon owner who was sent to jail for opening her business during the coronavirus outbreak called Michigan's governor a "tyrant" on Monday as she stood next to a barber whose license was suspended for cutting hair.  "Gretchen, the state of Michigan will vote you out," Shelley Luther declared, referring to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Luther traveled to Owosso, a small Michigan town, to express support for Karl Manke. The 77-year-old barber reopened his shop for more than a week before state regulators suspended his license. Luther, the owner of Salon a la Mode in Dallas, was sentenced to a week in jail for flouting public health orders intended to slow the spread of the coronavirus. She was released less than 48 hours later when Gov. Greg Abbott dropped jail as a possible punishment for violations. "Why does your governor think that it's OK to open up for marijuana, liquor sales?" said Luther, whose boyfriend grew up an hour away in Frankenmuth. "Can't you get an abortion? But you cannot get your hair cut. What is wrong? "Stop being a tyrant," Luther said of the governor. "Open up. You don't get this control. We control you. We have the power." Whitmer has defended the business restrictions as an important way to stop the virus. She relented a bit Monday by announcing plans to reopen bars and restaurants Friday in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula, which haven't been hit as hard as the rest of Michigan. (CBS News) ‘Operation Haircut’: Michigan Barbers Defy Lockdown, Offer Haircuts On Capitol Lawn. Anti-lockdown protesters gathered in Lansing on the lawn of the Michigan state capitol Wednesday to get a haircut. With barbershops and salons closed indefinitely due to the state’s coronavirus lockdown, barbers are scheduled to cut hair on the capitol lawn for three hours Wednesday afternoon. The protest, called “operation haircut,” was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, and is the latest example of Michiganders clashing with Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has enacted some of the strictest coronavirus restrictions in the nation. The Michigan Department of State Police threatened to issue citations to those giving or receiving haircuts. “All individuals engaging in haircuts are being educated on the law. Those who do not comply will be cited for disorderly conduct,” the department tweeted. (Daily Caller link) LAST WEEK: Michigan Barber Has Licenses Suspended After Defying Shutdown Orders. State officials said Karl Manke’s decision to reopen his shop during the coronavirus pandemic jeopardized public health and safety. A Michigan barber who reopened his shop in defiance of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s orders had his business and professional licenses suspended, the latest step in his escalating battle with the state. The barber, Karl Manke, 77, who has been cutting hair in Owosso, Mich., for almost 60 years, likened Michigan under Ms. Whitmer, a Democrat, to “a police state.” He said he planned to keep cutting hair, despite the suspension of his licenses. “I’m not closing up; I’m not caving in to this,” he said on Wednesday, adding: “I’m not a rabble-rouser and I’m not a scofflaw. I’m a small-town barber. I just want to make my living.” Mr. Manke is just one of the latest business owners to defy orders to keep their doors closed to help slow the spread of the coronavirus. (NY Times link)   ======================================================================= Mornings on the Mall Podcast - 2020-5-21 [00:00:00] 4:59 am - Mornings on the Mall [01:00:16] 6:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [02:00:26] 7:00 am - Mornings on the Mall [03:00:35] 8:00 am - Mornings on the Mall

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.Featuring:Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House CounselHon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of JusticeMr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.Featuring:Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House CounselHon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of JusticeMr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Neil Eggleston, White House Counsel during the last three years of the Obama Administration. He also represented the Office of the President in privilege litigation against the Starr Independent Counsel’s Office during the President Clinton Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation. Together, they take a close look at the lawyers surrounding the president, and at the legal strategies in play as the impeachment process moves into its trial phase. Join us for a live show on February 19th in Washington DC: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-w-dahlia-lithwick-andrew-gillum-and-more.html Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Neil Eggleston, White House Counsel during the last three years of the Obama Administration. He also represented the Office of the President in privilege litigation against the Starr Independent Counsel’s Office during the President Clinton Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation. Together, they take a close look at the lawyers surrounding the president, and at the legal strategies in play as the impeachment process moves into its trial phase. Join us for a live show on February 19th in Washington DC: https://slate.com/live/amicus-live-w-dahlia-lithwick-andrew-gillum-and-more.html Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group held a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The session covered "Executive Power vs. Congressional Power".There are a number of currently unfolding battles, involving important constitutional issues, between Congress and the Executive Branch. At the operational level, they involve the House’s exercise of its oversight, and impeachment powers, pitted against the Administration’s opposition to these efforts. At the more conceptual level, we hear assertions that arguably challenge the Constitution’s core separation of powers architecture, which holds that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal. How much power does the Constitution give to the Executive Branch, and how much to the Legislative Branch, and does the answer depend on whether or not one of these two branches is exercising power against the other?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisHon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitProf. Martin Lederman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law CenterMr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetlerModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group held a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The session covered "Executive Power vs. Congressional Power".There are a number of currently unfolding battles, involving important constitutional issues, between Congress and the Executive Branch. At the operational level, they involve the House’s exercise of its oversight, and impeachment powers, pitted against the Administration’s opposition to these efforts. At the more conceptual level, we hear assertions that arguably challenge the Constitution’s core separation of powers architecture, which holds that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal. How much power does the Constitution give to the Executive Branch, and how much to the Legislative Branch, and does the answer depend on whether or not one of these two branches is exercising power against the other?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisHon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitProf. Martin Lederman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law CenterMr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetlerModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

On July 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's practice groups cosponsored a panel titled "Citizenship: The Road Ahead" at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.After the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Commerce v. New York at the end of the latest term, is there a road forward for addressing citizenship on the US census or otherwise collecting the relevant data? In what ways can executive power be practiced or limited in this subject?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPDavid B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional LitigatorModerator: Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Freelance Journalist and Author

On July 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's practice groups cosponsored a panel titled "Citizenship: The Road Ahead" at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.After the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Commerce v. New York at the end of the latest term, is there a road forward for addressing citizenship on the US census or otherwise collecting the relevant data? In what ways can executive power be practiced or limited in this subject?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPDavid B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional LitigatorModerator: Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Freelance Journalist and Author

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLPMr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLPModerator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPHon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLPMr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLPModerator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent". As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Welcome and Opening Remarks:Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida BarIntroduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law FirmPanelists:W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolRichard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason YeagerProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent". As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Welcome and Opening Remarks:Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida BarIntroduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law FirmPanelists:W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolRichard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason YeagerProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law CenterHon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLPModerator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This is the final episode in our series highlighting the best live panels the Initiative hosted in Washington D.C. in 2017. The recording is of our December 15 panel featuring discussion with Michael Bopp, Machalagh Carr, Hon. Neil Eggleston, and our Moderator, Amanda Neely.

This is the final episode in our series highlighting the best live panels the Initiative hosted in Washington D.C. in 2017. The recording is of our December 15 panel featuring discussion with Michael Bopp, Machalagh Carr, Hon. Neil Eggleston, and our Moderator, Amanda Neely.

The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the Executive branch. However, oversight authority is inherent in many facets of the Legislature's duties and responsibilities. The Supreme Court confirmed this in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) stating:A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information -- which not infrequently is true -- recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. Id. at p.175.From legislating and appropriating to confirmation, impeachment, and war, Congress’ ability to compel information and properly supervise federal activity and policy implementation is essential to its nature.Throughout the history of our country, Congress has exercised oversight via numerous means such as committee hearings, direct Member contact, staff studies and casework, statutory commissions and inspector general reports. Through these methods and others, Congress endeavors to ensure faithful execution of Congressional intent, monitor the efficacy and efficiency of federal programs, protect legislative authority from Executive encroachment, investigate waste, fraud and abuse, assess agency management and financial priorities, and safeguard individual liberties.In recent decades some have observed that the federal growth of agencies, programs, debt, political polarization, and divided government have greatly intensified the environment in which oversight occurs. They assert that oversight has become weaponized and too partisan. Others lament the use of federal time and energy for “show hearings” designed to embarrass individuals or score purely political points. This panel will explore the current oversight landscape, compare it with prior eras, and offer insight for how it may be improved.Featuring:Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMachalagh Carr, Oversight Staff Director, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of RepresentativesHon. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPModerator: Amanda Neely, General Counsel for Senator Rob Portman, and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the Executive branch. However, oversight authority is inherent in many facets of the Legislature's duties and responsibilities. The Supreme Court confirmed this in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) stating:A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information -- which not infrequently is true -- recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. Id. at p.175.From legislating and appropriating to confirmation, impeachment, and war, Congress’ ability to compel information and properly supervise federal activity and policy implementation is essential to its nature.Throughout the history of our country, Congress has exercised oversight via numerous means such as committee hearings, direct Member contact, staff studies and casework, statutory commissions and inspector general reports. Through these methods and others, Congress endeavors to ensure faithful execution of Congressional intent, monitor the efficacy and efficiency of federal programs, protect legislative authority from Executive encroachment, investigate waste, fraud and abuse, assess agency management and financial priorities, and safeguard individual liberties.In recent decades some have observed that the federal growth of agencies, programs, debt, political polarization, and divided government have greatly intensified the environment in which oversight occurs. They assert that oversight has become weaponized and too partisan. Others lament the use of federal time and energy for “show hearings” designed to embarrass individuals or score purely political points. This panel will explore the current oversight landscape, compare it with prior eras, and offer insight for how it may be improved.Featuring:Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMachalagh Carr, Oversight Staff Director, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of RepresentativesHon. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPModerator: Amanda Neely, General Counsel for Senator Rob Portman, and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

The Trump administration is constantly in the news but what's going on behind the scenes? In this episode of Planet Lex, host Daniel Rodriguez talks to former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and former FCC Chairman Newt Minow about their experiences working for past presidents and their concerns about the Trump administration. They discuss the way we elect our presidents, the failings of the media, and whether or not the government is currently experiencing a moment of constitutional crisis. Newton Minow is senior counsel in Sidley Austin’s Chicago office. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed him chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama in 2016. Neil Eggleston is a litigation partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. He was White House counsel to President Obama from 2014 to 2017.

Neil Eggleston, now a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis, speaks about the presidency and his experiences in the Obama administration as White House counsel. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 20, 2017)

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- **Please excuse the below average audio quality of this video.** -- Featuring: Mr. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton. Moderator: Mr. Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.

Assistant to the President and White House Counsel Neil Eggleston delivered this address at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015. He was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.