Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump Jr. Met With Russian Lawyer Who Offered Damaging Info on Clinton

Over the weekend, news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, who promised him damaging information about Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. Donald Trump’s then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort also attended the meeting, as did Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting reportedly took place at Trump Tower on June 2016, only two weeks after Trump became the Republican nominee. Despite a long period of accusations and speculation of collusion with Russia, this is the first confirmed private meeting between people in Trump’s inner circle and someone connected to the Russian government.

So. We’ve learned unequivocally that Trump Jr. acted on behalf of the campaign and that they were willing to get materials from Russia.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 10, 2017

It is unclear what exactly went down at the meeting. But when Trump Jr. was first asked about it, he said they mainly discussed adoptions of Russian children. When asked again, after the New York Times had published a second story, he changed his account and claimed that he met the lawyer after an acquaintance requested it, and that she claimed to have information that people with links to Russia were funding Clinton’s campaign. The information was “vague, ambiguous and made no sense,” Trump Jr. said. This morning, Moscow denied knowing anything about the meeting.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year in the spotlight as an important member of Donald Trump’s family, son-in-law Jared Kushner has finally made his first public remarks since becoming an adviser to his father-in-law. So, after plenty of speculation, the world now knows what his voice sounds like.

Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has gained unprecedented access to the White House for an in-law. Since President Donald Trump took office, Kushner has been given access to the National Security Council and confidential information. He has also been tasked with brokering a peace deal in the Middle East and acting as a diplomat in talks with Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Yet America was still left wondering what Kushner sounded like. Even “SNL” made fun of Kushner’s silence in this clip from April.

Comedian John Oliver joined the fun on one of his shows: “For someone with the amount of power that he has, have you ever heard him speak? Seriously, what does his voice sound like? You don’t know, do you?”

On Monday, Kushner made his first recent public speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Behind a podium, Kushner spoke about the Trump Administration’s commitment to technological modernization. Two months ago Kushner was tapped to head the Office of American Innovation, which attempts to use the private sector to modernize government, according to the Washington Post.

As Kushner spoke on technological modernization, some people on Twitter joked that Kushner’s voice itself should be a bit more futuristic.

Kind of disappointed. Jared Kushner’s making his first public remarks and he hasn’t been hiding a cool Darth Vader voice. At all.

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

Others on Twitter compared his voice to actor Michael Cera, who is often mocked for his young, high-pitched voice.

In the tragicomedy film version of the Trump era, Jared Kushner will be played by Michael Cera.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

Many had fun at his expense, but others took note that the disparaging comments about Kushner’s voice may come from him not fitting a “masculine” ideal. There was plenty of fodder to criticize as people mocked Kushner’s “feminine” voice on Twitter.

There is so much that’s fair to critique Kushner on that’s fair. But, making fun of his voice hurts so many men and boys for no reason.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

But does how Kushner’s voice sound actually matter? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has incorporated his family into more power positions than prior administrations, so Kushner’s actions matter more than his voice. What really matters is how Kushner can use his powerful platform to influence his wife and father-in-law when it comes to technological advancement or whatever other important issue he’s tasked with.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Finally Gets to Hear Jared Kushner’s Voice appeared first on Law Street.

Two Chinese labor activists investigating a factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump’s brand have gone missing, and a third was recently arrested. The three men work for China Labor Watch and were looking into the alleged abuse of workers at the Huajian International shoe factory. The group is based in New York but focuses on workers’ rights in China.

According to the Associated Press, Hua Haifeng was arrested for illegal surveillance after working undercover at the factory since April. The group lost touch with the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. The parent company of the particular factory, Huajian Group, produces between 10,000 and 20,000 shoes for Ivanka’s brand every year. It also makes shoes for brands like Coach and Nine West.

According to the director of China Labor Watch, Li Qiang, his employees found evidence that workers were forced to work overtime without pay, and that workers who left were fired. They also could be fired if they took sick leave, and were forced to sign false time sheets.

JUST IN: One arrested, two missing after investigating working conditions at Ivanka Trump shoe factory in China https://t.co/nB6f48k2eh pic.twitter.com/OzCQjJjIFF

— The Hill (@thehill) May 30, 2017

Chinese police claimed that the men had used illegal surveillance technology, but according to Li Qiang they just used their cellphones to shoot video. He said he thinks the police are protecting the factory since it is affiliated with the U.S. president’s daughter, considering he has investigated hundreds of Chinese factories before without any incident like this.

The wife of the man who was arrested said that she received a phone call from the police saying that Hua had been detained, and that she didn’t need to know anything more than that. “I understand and support my husband’s work,” she said. “I feel his work is legal and meaningful, so why should they arrest him?”

Li Qiang said that his company was planning on releasing a report on the factory next month. The Democratic National Committee responded to the news by releasing a statement calling for the White House to act on China’s human rights abuses:

We deeply hope that these detained or missing human rights workers are safe and can be reunited with their families as soon as possible. For years, Ivanka Trump has ignored public reports of awful labor conditions at a factory that makes her shoes. Now, she must decide whether she can ignore the Chinese government’s apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Activists Investigating Factory Used for Ivanka Trump’s Brand Are Missing appeared first on Law Street.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump’s recent attire for a visit with Pope Francis has garnered a bit of controversy, as she joins her husband on his first foreign tour as president of the United States.

While visiting the Vatican Wednesday, both the first lady and first daughter Ivanka Trump adhered to the traditional dress code for a private papal audience at the Vatican.

Melania donned a mantilla, the lace veil traditionally worn in the Roman Catholic Church, and honored the nearby nation of Italy in a demure long-sleeved black dress by Italian fashion label Dolce & Gabanna. Ivanka dressed similarly, wearing a more voluminous sheer veil.

Pope Francis appears to have left a mark on Trump. “Thank you. I won’t forget what you said,” Trump tells the Pope https://t.co/VpBEp8XUPP pic.twitter.com/T796zQXLfH

— CNN (@CNN) May 24, 2017

“Per Vatican protocol, women who have an audience with the Pope are required to wear long sleeves, formal black clothing, and a veil to cover the head,” Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s communications director, told CNN.

But when asked why Melania wore a veil at the Vatican but eschewed a headscarf during her visit days earlier in Saudi Arabia, a conservative Muslim country where women are expected to wear head coverings, Grisham said there was no request or requirement for her attire from that country.

Melania isn’t the first first lady to forgo a headscarf in the Middle East, but her decision, however, directly contradicts her husband’s criticism of former first lady Michelle Obama, who chose not to wear one during her visit in 2015. President Donald Trump was quick to chastise the move at the time, tweeting:

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2015

Obama also wore a black veil and a black dress when she met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in 2009.

Despite foregoing the headscarf, Melania still received rave reviews from local Saudi Arabian press for her “classy” and “conservative” outfit.

According to CNN, Melania prepared extensively, with the help of State Department officials, on the proper protocol and customs for each of the stops on the foreign trip.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversy After Melania Trump Covers Hair at the Vatican, But Not in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is Getting Rid of Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn”

Michelle Obama’s signature initiative for girls’ education, “Let Girls Learn,” will exist no longer. The program started in 2015 and focuses on education for girls in developing countries. White House officials have leaked that the program’s operations will end right away. Some aspects of the program will continue, but the name will no longer be used and it will cease to be a standalone program.

Tina Chen, Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, said that it was a disappointment considering the global recognition the initiative had. It also had bipartisan support and several years of funding already in place. Also yesterday, the new agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, announced changes to another one of Michelle’s initiatives–healthy school lunches. Perdue claimed that kids don’t like the healthier food with less sodium. “If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition, thus undermining the intent of the program,” he said.

How is this moving the country forward and “Making America Great Again”? #trump100days https://t.co/0ijsKBj1LZ

— Delal Pektas (@delalpektas) May 1, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

People are Outraged at “Stealthing”

There’s a name for a man removing a condom during sex without his partner’s consent: stealthing. The phenomenon is reportedly on the rise in the U.S., according to a new study by Alexandra Brodsky in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Rape victims’ organizations say this kind of behavior needs to be classified as rape. And a lot of people are outraged that this is a “thing.”

Given that “stealthing” puts a victim at risk of pregnancy or disease, and that many people only consent to sex with a condom, this is “experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity,” the study says. And according to Sandra Paul, who is a specialist in sexual crimes, this could amount to legal rape. “There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal. If that person then doesn’t stick to those rules then the law says you don’t have consent,” she said.

It’s both affirming and terrible to write about an under-acknowledged form of gender violence and hear a chorus of “me, too” in response

— Alexandra Brodsky (@azbrodsky) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Steve Bannon Removed From the National Security Council

One of President Trump’s closest advisers, former Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon, was removed from his seat on the National Security Council yesterday. The new national security adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn, reportedly orchestrated the move. According to a White House source, Bannon was so upset that he threatened to resign altogether, but publicly, his spokespeople said that it was all part of the natural evolution of his role. The White House claims that Bannon was put on the council to keep an eye on Flynn, and now that Flynn is gone, Bannon has other priorities.

HOWEVER, Bannon’s removal from National Security Council doesn’t indicate any erosion of his influence in White House, the official told me. https://t.co/994bUUZ0Sf

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) April 5, 2017

But critics of Bannon say it was a very bad idea to put him on the NSC in the first place. Now, there are rumors that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played an important role in Bannon’s removal. It’s pretty safe to say that the drama in the White House is far from over.

Sen Cardin on Bannon being off the NSC: “If that is true..I’d be very pleased…my hope is that he has no role in government at all.”

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) April 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ivanka Trump is used to defending her family name in the court of public opinion, but soon she may find herself having to do it in a real courtroom. A California company is suing Ivanka, claiming her fashion line bearing her famous moniker has an unfair advantage.

The class action lawsuit filed by Modern Apparel Clothing (MAC), a San Francisco clothing and accessories company, alleges that Ivanka has gained unfair advantage “from Donald J. Trump being the President of the United States and from Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared, working for the President of the United States.”

MAC argues that the first daughter’s businesses received a boost in sales after President Trump blasted Nordstrom on Twitter in February, after it dropped Ivanka’s line from its store. Trump tweeted:

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

Political adviser Kellyanne Conway made matters worse the following day when she ended an interview with “Fox and Friends” by urging customers to “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff”–resulting in an ethics investigation.

The lawsuit claims that both instances resulted in “reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of MAC and the Class it seeks to represent.”

According to data from Lyst, an e-commerce aggregator offering goods and tracking purchasing data from thousands of retailers, from January to February, Ivanka Trump sales increased 346 percent. If you compare her February 2017 sales to her average monthly orders in 2016, there was a 557 percent increase.

While Ivanka’s line has notably gained a boost in sales, its also suffered tremendous setbacks. Aside from Nordstrom, a string of other major retailers have dropped her line from their shelves due to declining sales, and the #GrabYourWallet boycott has led many people to avoid shopping at companies that support Trump family products.

MAC is seeking unspecified damages and a restraining order to preventing Ivanka’s line from being sold in California.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Ivanka Trump’s Name an Unfair Competitive Advantage? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

U.S. Government Restricts Flying With Electronics from Eight Muslim-Majority Countries

The U.S. government has issued a restriction banning electronic devices such as laptops and iPads on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries. The countries affected by this restriction are not the same ones included in the now-infamous travel ban. The affected countries are Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Passengers from these eight countries will not be allowed to travel with electronics bigger than a cellphone in their carry on luggage, but they can place them in their checked luggage.

This is sure to pose an inconvenience for passengers traveling from the Middle East to the U.S. who will not be able to use their devices for work or entertainment on long flights. And most people are confused by the rules, as the new list includes countries that traditionally have been U.S. allies and are not included on the travel ban. Experts are also criticizing the logic behind the rule. If someone placed a bomb inside a laptop, it would be just as dangerous in the cargo hold as it would be in the cabin of a plane.

It is strange that this electronics ban is about security, but includes no countries on the #MuslimBan, which was also about security.

— Adrienne Mahsa (@AdrienneMahsa) March 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You’re Fired: U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara

Over the weekend, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara tweeted that the Trump Administration had fired him. This comes after the Trump Administration asked 46 Obama-appointed federal prosecutors to resign last week. Bharara refused, claiming that Trump had asked him to stay on when they met in November. Bharara is perhaps best known for fighting corruption in New York City. Bharara later tweeted that he now knows “what the Moreland Commission must have felt like,” referring to a commission that investigated corruption in politics in 2013.

By the way, now I know what the Moreland Commission must have felt like.

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) March 12, 2017

A lot of people are confused about what is going on behind the scenes with the Trump Administration. Trump still has many empty seats to fill in the federal government, and experts from both parties say that the process is way behind schedule.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Will Tiffany Trump’s family name help or hurt her chances of getting into law school?

It’s a question that some people are asking about the first daughter. In a recent article, the Washington Post’s Roxanne Roberts weighed whether President Donald Trump’s youngest daughter would have a harder time getting into her preferred law school because of her controversial father–or if her high-profile connections could land her a spot at Harvard, Columbia, or New York University (which she toured recently), or any other school to which she might have applied.

Last year, Tiffany Trump published an image of her practice Law School Admission Test (LSAT) on Instagram which, according to the Post, revealed multiple wrong answers. But even if she aces the entrance exam, which she took in December, and is accepted to a top institution based on her qualifications, Roberts noted that Trump will still face accusations that she only got in because of her connections. As an undergrad, Trump attended University of Pennsylvania, the institution from which her father and her sister Ivanka also graduated.

Donald Trump himself has been criticized, particularly during the election season, for relying on family connections to advance his career, which differs from narratives he has pushed about being a self-made business man. He drew a lot of attention at the beginning of the campaign season for saying that he started off with “a small loan of a million dollars” from his own father, real estate mogul Fred Trump.

Since taking office, President Trump even faced accusations of nepotism when he hired his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Ivanka’s husband, as one of his advisers. Ivanka has also been very involved in the White House, often joining meetings with foreign leaders and other conferences.

If Tiffany Trump winds up at an elite law school, she’ll be joining a long list of first daughters and sons who attended prestigious institutions. Most recently, former President Barack Obama’s daughter Malia Obama announced she would be enrolling at Harvard University next fall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Will Tiffany Trump End Up for Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Intelligence Officials: Trump Campaign Had Regular Contact With Russia Before Election

Donald Trump’s campaign team had regular communication with Russian officials before the election, U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday. Though contact between campaigns and foreign governments is not unusual, the frequency of these incidents and the fact that the interactions involved some high-level members of Trump’s team raised suspicions. The reasons for the communication are unknown, but officials claim it happened concurrently with Russia’s apparent election-related hacking. Some are claiming that Trump aides collaborated with Russian intelligence to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but there is currently no evidence to prove that claim.

This raises fundamental questions about Russia’s influence on the presidential election. We need answers now. https://t.co/EGTNYpxTi8

— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) February 15, 2017

This morning, Donald Trump took to Twitter (of course) to criticize the “fake news media,” Russia, the NSA, and the FBI. He also tweeted that the “illegal” leaking is an attempt to “cover up” mistakes made by Clinton’s campaign.

This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Wednesday–it’s the middle of the week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Silence Elizabeth Warren for Reading Letter by Coretta Scott King

Last night, Senator Elizabeth Warren protested Senator Jeff Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General today. When she started reading a letter written by Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly interrupted her and said that it “impugned the motives and conduct” of Sessions. McConnell invoked rule XIX, which prohibits senators from implying that another senator could be unworthy of his post. The incident ended with 49 Republican senators voting to prohibit Warren from talking about Sessions until his nomination process is done.

.@SenWarren cut off as @SenateMajLdr says she “impugned the motives” of Jeff Sessions by quoting Coretta Scott King https://t.co/UHcNv2eia8 pic.twitter.com/tntBWZ4oxc

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2017

King wrote the letter opposing Sessions when he was nominated for a federal judgeship in the 1980s. Part of it reads, “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.” But McConnell’s silencing of Warren seems to have inspired many–the hashtag #ShePersisted began trending to praise Warren.

Attention Women! Please Share! #RESIST #PERSIST #ShePersisted pic.twitter.com/OzO5o2D6LB

— Liz Thurmond (@countmystars) February 8, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will be a senior advisor in the White House, President-elect Donald Trump’s team announced on Monday. The appointment of Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, raises some questions about the legality of hiring family members for public positions. Ethics experts are split on whether or not the appointment will hold. Some claim it breaches a federal anti-nepotism law, while others say that law does not apply to White House appointments.

After being elected president in 1960, John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, as the U.S. attorney general. The appointment of a family member to a top cabinet post stirred up a national debate on nepotism. In 1967, that debate was, for the time being, settled with a federal law that barred public officials from employing family members to serve in public posts. The law states:

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.

Trump’s appointment of Kushner, who Trump called “a tremendous asset and trusted adviser throughout the campaign and transition” in a statement on Monday, poses a challenge to the anti-nepotism statute. But some ethics experts say that a 1978 law narrowed the purview of the anti-nepotism law, and effectively allows White House officials, including the president, to appoint family members to a role within the administration.

A previous case involving a former foe of Kushner’s father-in-law, Hillary Clinton, also bodes well for Kushner. In 1993, President Bill Clinton selected his wife to head a health care initiative. The appointment was challenged in a federal court. D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman ruled in favor of the Clintons, saying he doubts “Congress intended to include the White House or the Executive Office of the President” in the anti-nepotism law. “So, for example, a President would be barred from appointing his brother as Attorney General, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant,” he added.

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner says the President-elect didn’t believe the conspiracy theories he pushed https://t.co/qotveI7KAg pic.twitter.com/dkxNpnTJ0v

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 9, 2017

Kushner, 36, has business entanglements in the U.S. and abroad that some worry could compromise his ability to work in the White House. But Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer, confirmed that Kushner will divest from his holdings and step-down from various real estate and publishing positions. Kushner is a lifelong Democrat and offers liberals, including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who called him a “very reasonable person,” on Monday, a moderating voice in the Trump Administration.

Kushner is expected to have an equal role to Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. His focus will be on free trade, forging private-public partnerships, and issues involving the Middle East and Israel. Gorelick, who served as the deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration, is confident that her client will have no problem in his new post. “I am not saying there’s no legal argument on the other side,” she said on Monday. “I’m just saying we have the better argument and will prevail.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump’s Appointment of Jared Kushner Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

There are few things more unsavory than manipulative gifts and bribes, especially when they are received by someone holding a public office. To protect against such foreign meddling and intrusion in American politics, the framers of the Constitution decided to embed language in the document strictly prohibiting such conduct. The Emoluments Clause was established to ensure the new government of America was insulated from corruption.

However, there is increasing concern among politicians and citizens that President-elect Donald Trump, with his vast corporation that has interests all over the world, will violate the Emoluments Clause when he steps into the office. Moreover, the President-elect will be in an extremely unique position; since he has not yet divested himself fully of his business holdings. He’s poised to make a profit as money comes into his privately-held corporation, the Trump Organization. Read on to learn more about the Emoluments Clause and these concerns.

What is the Emoluments Clause?

The framers of the Constitution were deeply afraid of foreign interference in the American political system, particularly after seeing its effects in Europe. Thus, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, prohibits any person “holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Additionally, it prohibits the federal government from bestowing titles of nobility. Explicit congressional consent has the ability to validate these particular exchanges, otherwise these payments are strictly prohibited. In 1787, America was still a brand-new government, one highly vulnerable to manipulation by world powers; thus, those who gathered to construct the Constitution wanted to break from the corrupt practices of previous governments.

Generally, America’s Founding Fathers were very cognizant of how private financial interests could potentially sway even the most moral of leaders. Historical evidence has even suggested that some of our Founding Fathers saw the Emoluments Clause as a broad anti-corruption measure. While the basis of the clause was to reject gifts that pertained specifically to diplomacy, it was also deemed a way to reject any corruption or foreign influence.

Emoluments is a broad term, but the construction of it is meant to be as broad as possible. So, an emolument is any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state, in which the benefits are inconsistent with a fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction. There is not a firm consensus in the community regarding the definition of the term, but arguably emoluments could cover ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder.

Foreign Interference in the U.S. Political System

There is substantial evidence that a foreign power interfered in the American political system during the 2016 presidential election. According to many on Capitol Hill, the CIA, and the White House, Russia actively attempted to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. This was accomplished via the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political arms of the Democratic Party, resulting in the release of thousands of emails.

Strictly prohibiting foreign government presents and emoluments, of any kind, is even more important for national security purposes. Mitigating conflicts of interest with foreign governments is of the utmost importance as America ushers in a new administration in 2017.

Trump, Conflicts of Interest, and Foreign Entanglements

President-elect Trump has diverse business interests on a global scale. Even after Trump takes his oath of office on January 20, 2017, he will still continue to receive steady streams of income from a vast array of entities and foreign powers. Trump’s continued interest in the Trump Organization, as well as his stake in hundreds of other entities, make him arguably the most entangled president-elect in conflicts of interest in American history. As one political ethics and compliance lawyer in Washington noted, any sort of business with a foreign corporation, whether it is owned in part or completely controlled by a foreign government, that benefits Trump could be a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

In the domestic arena alone, there are over ten cases challenging Trump’s labor practices that are pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with two vacancies to be filled by Trump himself. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service auditing Trump will soon pick its new chief. Trump will become both the landlord and tenant of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and he is now responsible for picking the new Treasury Secretary while owing several hundred million dollars to banks.

On the global scale, Trump has business holdings all over the world. While many transactions may not involve a bit of impropriety, it is still highly possible that they have the ability to cause blurred lines. Moreover, Trump has consistently declined to make his business dealings transparent, enshrouding the full extent of potential issues with his businesses in secrecy.

The full extent of his businesses, which include real estate, clothing, jewelry, golf courses, and much more, give rise to a variety of ethical considerations. When Ivanka Trump appeared on “60 Minutes” in November 2016, the business took advantage of a potential marketing opportunity by urging reporters to write about the $10,800 gold bangle bracelet she wore during the interview. Furthermore, Trump’s sons and their Texas nonprofit organization came under fire in December 2016 for soliciting million-dollar donations for unnamed “conservation” charities in exchange for access to Trump during inauguration weekend. Eric Trump stopped fundraising for his charity, which raised money for childhood cancer, after the foundation came under scrutiny for posting an online auction for coffee with Ivanka.

There are a lot of questions about how Trump’s businesses will function while he is in office. Currently, all Trump has identified is that he would leave his businesses before inauguration, leaving his children, Don and Eric, to manage them. He has also commented that no new deals will be done during his term(s) in office.

Does the Emoluments Clause Even Apply to the President?

Some scholars contend that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President. Many point out that there’s no real case law or precedent as to how courts could interpret the clause. But throughout American history, U.S. presidents have acted as though it does apply to them. There is evidence that at least one president, however, did not follow the Emoluments Clause. President George Washington, during his time in office, received gifts from both the French ambassador to the U.S. as well as the Marquis de Lafayette. Scholars also dispute whether the clause applies to a specific kind of payment, such as a gratuity or a gift, or if all types of payments are subject to the clause. Additionally, there is disagreement over whether the payment must be favorable or any fair market payment.

“Trump Vodka” Courtesy of Michael Lehet : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Congressional Research Service has also noted that the Emoluments Clause is one of a few ethics statutes that potentially apply to the president. However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel specifically affirmed in 2009–when President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize–that the president holds an “Office of Profit or Trust.” Moreover, the Constitution explicitly refers to the president as holding an “Office.” A record going back even before the OLC and DOJ further shows a litany of government lawyers and previous presidents applying the clause to the presidency.

Trump, as a business man, is navigating in uncharted territory with his position in the Trump Organization. It is unprecedented that payments going to a corporation will eventually materialize as a profit for Trump. Since the business is a privately-held corporation, it is essentially an extension of Trump; conversely, if the Trump Organization were a publicly-held corporation, such questions would likely not arise even if potential conflicts of interest could still exist.

Potential Legislation to Force Trump to Divest His Empire

Some in Washington are extremely concerned about foreign influence and conflicts of interest in American politics because of Trump’s businesses. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has promised that she and four other Democratic senators will introduce a bill to implement and enforce the Emoluments Clause in January 2017. Such a bill, if passed, would force Trump to divest himself of his empire, placing his assets in a true blind trust.

A true blind trust would likely mean no involvement in his businesses from any of his family members, Don and Eric included. It would require a completely independent manager, not closely tied to the holder, to run the business. Presidents are certainly held to a higher standard than other Americans. Considering Trump’s platform was to root out corruption in Washington, his critics argue that divesting himself of the Trump Organization may be in the best interest for the country.

Conclusion

Despite these concerns, Trump has demonstrated no real intent to divest himself fully from his business interests once he steps into the White House. If the bill presented by Senator Warren and other supporters is passed, then Trump’s current plans may drastically change. One thing is quite clear: Trump, a billionaire with business holdings all over the globe, may find himself knee-deep in many conflicts of interest. Maintaining a presidency free from bribery, corruption, and self-motivated profits is absolutely critical, just as the Constitutional Convention intended.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Could the Emoluments Clause Affect Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

What do a Turkish investment manager, the president of Gringo’s Mexican Kitchen, a Tex-Mex chain owner in Texas, and a Florida-based real estate executive have in common? They all bid thousands of dollars to “Enjoy Coffee with Ivanka Trump in NYC or DC,” as listed on Charitybuzz, a website that raises money for charities through dates or meet-and-greets with celebrities. But as of Friday morning, the “coffee with Ivanka” listing has been yanked from the auction site. Eric Trump, whose foundation posted the event, expressed concern after The New York Times first reported the story on Thursday.

With her father, President-elect Donald Trump, set to take office in a few weeks, questions have been raised about the ethics of allowing people to meet with Ivanka and potentially influence her father’s policies. She has expressed interest in helping her father in the areas of climate change and women’s health. Ozan Ozkural, the investment manager, told The Times he wished to glean more about Trump’s future interactions with Turkey and other countries Ozkural invests in through the “coffee with Ivanka” event.

For Russell Ybarra, the owner of the Tex-Mex chain who bid $67,888 for a word with Ivanka, the coffee meeting was a chance to tell the president-elect’s daughter how important immigrant workers are to his restaurant, and to the industry as a whole. “I believe Ivanka is more open-minded a person you can reason with,” he said in an interview with The Times.

Early Friday morning, before the event was pulled from Charitybuzz, the highest bid for coffee with Ivanka was $72,888. The coffee date was to be held after Inauguration Day on January 20, at either the Trump Tower in New York, or the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Eric Trump’s foundation benefits the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee.

In an interview with The Times on Thursday, Eric said auctioning off a meeting with a member of the Trump family was an annual tradition to raise money for his foundation. He said: “We utilized Charitybuzz to raise significant funds. Every single year we’ve auctioned off a lunch with one of ourselves. It’s nothing more than an effort to raise a lot of money in an effort to help sick children.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Does it Cost to Have Coffee with Ivanka Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s not exactly surprising when President-elect Donald Trump contradicts himself on certain policy views: he’s taken differing stances on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and gay marriage, among many others. But his inconsistency on climate change just this week has been causing some major whiplash for anyone following Trump’s opinions on the issue closely.

Earlier this week, in a meeting reportedly set up by Ivanka Trump, Al Gore met with the President-elect to discuss the issue of climate change. While the details of the discussion have not been disclosed, Gore told reporters that the two looked for “areas of common ground” in the “interesting discussion.” Trump also allegedly met with Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss green jobs, and was gifted a copy of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, which he reportedly promised to watch.

While those meetings may have offered some hope to environmental activists, those hopes came crashing down after Trump announced yesterday that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt would be his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has called the issue of climate change “far from settled” and referred to himself as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” in his official bio.

The appointment of Pruitt falls more in line with the Donald Trump who has called climate change a “hoax” and has called for abandoning Obama’s climate change actions such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Clean Power Plan.

Trump has continuously stated that he’s “not a huge believer” in man-made global warming, and while he’s claimed that the research as it stands isn’t conclusive on the issue, he also doesn’t seem to be interested in investing in further research.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

On the other hand, Politico has reported that Ivanka Trump plans on making climate change one of her “signature issues.” While this might just reflect a difference of opinion between the President-elect and his daughter, Trump has also made comments that have shown a more balanced approach on the issue, such as his comments to the New York Times post-election:

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016

If this inconsistency indicates anything besides Trump’s own lack of convictions, it’s that Trump will likely take a backseat on the issue and allow his advisors and appointees to decide what role the U.S. will play in the fight against climate change. While Ivanka puts on a deceptive show of being a climate change spokeswoman, our new EPA director will likely be rolling back the progress made during the Obama administration.

If anything’s certain, it’s that we’re in for an unpredictable four years.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump’s Confusing Stances on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Both Donald Trump and Eric Trump have made some truly upsetting comments about women and workplace sexual harassment over the last few days–statements that show that neither have any idea about the issues that many women face in the workplace. And it’s worth asking: is this the kind of treatment women can expect in the Trumps’ America?

It all started when Donald Trump was asked about the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, who is stepping down as chairman and CEO. Chuck Todd was interviewing Trump and asked about his thoughts on the allegations against Ailes, and Trump spouted off some routine victim-blamey rhetoric about how women who praised Ailes in the past couldn’t possibly have done so if he had been less than polite to them in any way. Trump said:

Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he’s helped them…And when they write books….and say wonderful things about him….[N]ow, all of a sudden, they’re saying these horrible things about him.

Trump, is obviously ignoring the fact that oftentimes women have to turn a blind eye to inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment from a boss or higher up at a company if they fear retribution at work in any way.

Then, Kirsten Powers, a journalist for USA Today, followed up with Trump on the topic. She framed it as a more personal issue–how would he feel if his beloved daughter, Ivanka, experienced sexual harassment at work. His answer?

He hopes that she would find a new job.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Trump is advocating that if a woman experiences harassment at work, it should be on her to go out and find a new job. Never mind the fact that she could have to relocate for this new job, could have to give up other work relationships she has cultivated, will have to consider whether she can transfer her benefits, and so many other related issues. Nope, it’s on the woman to leave that environment, not on men to treat women fairly in the workplace.

Then, Trump’s son, Eric Trump, was asked a similar question. He was asked by Charlie Rose whether a woman leaving her job was really the solution his father was advocating for, or whether “perhaps, a better answer would be drawing it to the attention of Human Resources and other things that we can do with regard to sexual harassment in the workplace.” The younger Trump’s response was just as illuminating–he said:

Hey, listen, we all run a company, my father runs a company, we take this – that is an absolute no-go anywhere, and that’s very much the case. I think what he’s saying is, Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman, she wouldn’t allow herself to be objected to it, and by the way, you should take it up with Human Resources, and I think she would as a strong person, at the same time, I don’t think she would allow herself to be subjected to that. I think that’s a point he was making, and I think he did so well.

So while Eric Trump conceded that if someone is being harassed they should take it up with HR, he also managed to imply that only non-strong women “allow” themselves to be subjected to sexual harassment. Again, the younger Trump puts on the onus of sexual harassment on women–not men.

Suppose that Trump does become president. What does this mean for his presidency? What if a woman in say, his cabinet, is sexually harassed, is she supposed to leave that job? Is it because she’s a weak woman? That’s obviously an extreme example, but as we get closer to the general election in November, it’s worth asking–will Trump’s actions speak as loud as his words?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Talk About the Trump Family’s WTF Comments on Sexual Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Let The Sexist Commentary Begin!

Last night at the DNC, Hillary Clinton officially accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. Many viewers, including myself, were in awe of such a historic moment. I’m sure the opposition seized in disbelief. We all have a lot to say about what went on last night, from Katy Perry’s performance to Hillary Clinton’s killer white pantsuit (loved it!). But for some reason, the hot topic this morning is not what Hillary said during her acceptance speech, but how she sounded.

James Naughtie, a BBC commentator on the “Today Programme,” responded to a question about whether Clinton had a “woman problem” saying:

 She does. There’s something about her which puts some people off. It’s partly the history. It’s partly the slightly shrill tone which she tends to adopt sometimes in speeches.

And during her speech on Thursday night, many on Twitter couldn’t resist telling Clinton to smile and commenting about her voice. I guess we’ve got a lot of sexist coverage to look forward to.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.