On October 15, 2014, I launched Side bars and published my first message,, on one New York Times A reporter faced with outrageous fees for refusing to identify a source. During the ten years since then, this blog has traveled several different formats and platforms, the most recent change being the decision to substitute almost two years ago. But my goal remained the same: the analysis of current problems in criminal law of white collars.
On this tenth anniversary, I thought it would be interesting to look back and see which one Side bars The publications have generated the most traffic. One thing stood out right away: although I write on a variety of white collar subjects, almost all of my most popular messages have something to do with Donald Trump and the various surveys and prosecutions that surround him. It makes sense for the moment: it was also almost ten years ago that Trump announced for the first time that he presented himself to the presidency. And given its impact on the country, it is not surprising that Trump subjects have aroused the most interest among my readers. Whatever Trump you thought, there is no doubt that he was a great source of equipment for writers on white necklace crime.
So, with this introduction, here is a look at the top ten Side bars Posts of all time.
I am particularly happy that this post managed to make the top ten. He deals with a question fundamental enough for Side bars: What is white collar crime? There is no universally accepted definition, even if the white necklace is clearly recognized as a distinct area of legal practice – not to mention the subject of my law class and the subject of this blog.
This article, since 2014 during the second month of the blog, is my point of view on the definition and the characteristics of the crime of white passes. A point to remember: the name itself is something of an improper term.
This message is an example of a format that I frequently used: Take a current legal problem in the news and use it to write a more general introduction to a first -rate white collar status.
The status of false statements, 18 USC 1001, is a battle horse in the stable of the prosecutor of the white necklace. He largely criminalizes the false written or verbal declarations made to the federal government, even if it is not under oath. At the start of the Mueller survey, there were speculations that individuals, including Trump’s son -in -law, Jared Kushner, and the Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have raped 1001 by hiding various foreign contacts when they filled documents to request security authorization. In this article, I explained the scope and requirements of the law on false declarations and how it could potentially apply in such a case.
During the Chamber Committee investigation into the riot of Capitol Riot of January 6, 2021, representative Liz Cheney raised her eyebrows when she asked if Trump, “by her action or her inaction” on January 6, had sought to hinder the certification of the elections. Cheney focused on the proof that Trump was sitting in the White House watching the riot take place for more than three hours and took no steps to try to stop her.
Committing a crime generally requires a bad act (Actus Reus) accompanied by a bad state of mind (Mens Rea). The emphasis on Trump’s refusal to try to stop the riot raised an interesting and wider question: when criminal responsibility can be based on a failure act? It was the subject of this post, which goes to number 8.
The timing on it was rather fun. In the aftermath of the January 6 riot, criminal investigations, including Trump himself, were managed by career prosecutors at the Ministry of Justice. Then, in November 2022, Trump announced his candidacy in 2024 to the presidency.
Once Trump has officially become a candidate, I thought it was important for the Ministry of Justice to appoint a special lawyer to manage Trump surveys. With Biden as an alleged Democratic candidate of 2024, the fact that his own Ministry of Justice investigates his main political rival posed the type of potential conflict for which the regulations of special councils were created.
A certain number of commentators of the time argued that a special lawyer was not necessary and would unnecessarily slow the investigation. A Widely circulated article was entitled: “Mr. Attorney General, it is too late to appoint a special lawyer. ” I did not agree and I wrote this post to explain why.
Later the same day I published this, the Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith. I’m not saying that Garland subscribes to Side bars, But again. . .
It is another Oldie with a little power. I wrote this post during the Obama administration when the republican congress held the commissioner of the IRS, laws Lerner, in contempt. I explored the weaknesses and legal issues of the law which makes contempt for the congress a crime.
The subject continues to resurface with our increasingly polarized policy, because the congresses controlled by a party seek to hold members of the opposing party in contempt. Usually, the cases have not yet been, for reasons that I explain in the position. But recently, we saw two successful convictions for outrage at Congress: the former advisers of Trump Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were each guilty of having challenged the assignments of the Chamber Committee of January 6 and went to prison. The status can have its faults, but it is not completely steeped.
Remember the Emoluments clause? Even before the president elected Trump took office, there was a controversy as to his vast commercial assets and if he could benefit from the presidency in violation of the clause of emoluments of the Constitution. This obscure constitutional prohibition has become the subject of prosecution, convention audiences and countless indignant publications on social networks. But in the end, the clause proved essentially inapplicable. Trump’s companies have made millions, including foreign leaders and governments, when he was president.
My fifth most popular article, written after the elections, but before Trump was inaugurated, explained the foreign emolument clause, how he relates to the Federal Corruption Act, and if Trump was likely to violate him.
My fourth most popular article (and the most recent in the top ten) was my breakdown in the DC circuit arguments on the presidential immunity affirmations of Trump. The court was indeed skeptical and continued to reject Trump’s claims unanimously. Unfortunately, we all know what happened before the Supreme Court after that.
Several months before the New York affair against Trump was charged, I wrote this article to explain why I was skeptical about the legal theories of the accusation. The case was then charged and Trump was found guilty of 34 charges, so the prosecutors have proven me wrong – at least for the moment.
Since the writing of the publication, on the basis of additional research and discussions with others, I have been less concerned with the “money or property” aspect of fraud. But I am always skeptical about how the government establishes the intention of defraud on the basis of private internal files which have never been shown to anyone else. The former prosecutors of New York State claim that this is not a problem, but apparently, there is no case of the highest New York Court which approves this theory. We will see what’s going on while Trump calls; I expect the challenges of proof of the intention to defraud are an important part of this call.
Remember all the arguments on “collusion”?
In the first days of the Mueller investigation, a frequent refrain from Trump and his supporters was that “collusion” with the Russians by Trump and his campaign, even if it took place, would not be a crime. I wrote this post in response. I explained how the allegations according to which Trump’s campaign led with the Russians to influence the elections, if it is true, could constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States – even if the driving has not directly violated another criminal status. With all the debate on “collusion”, the post has aroused a lot of interest.
My most popular article of all time has also dealt with the question of “collusion”.
In February 2018, the special lawyer Robert Mueller charged thirteen Russian individuals and three Russian companies for having participated in a campaign on social networks to influence the 2016 presidential election. The accusation of this indictment was a conspiracy to defraud the United States by altering, obstructing and beating the legal government functions of the Federal Electoral Commission, of justice. It was the same burden that I had discussed more than a year earlier in my second most popular article, described above.
One of the Russian companies charged appeared before the court and challenged this conspiracy accusation. In November 2018, the federal judge in the case denied this challenge and confirmed the conspiracy theory which effectively makes “collusion” a crime. My article describing the decision of this judge and the possible implications for the Trump campaign have become my most popular post of all time.
Thank you for making me happy this little trip in the past. And thank you very much for reading and supporting Side bars Over the past ten years. I am very grateful.
