promptly reported everything they said. the president has also had a man named rudy giuliani working as part of his legal team, and i m not going to say anything about that. he has also had a fox news talk radio lawyer guy representing him whose previous legal experience was mostly like ten commandments monuments. and whatever you think of that roster, for a president facing such serious legal problems, like the ones president trump is facing, it has been a weird thing that his legal representation has not been like a-list folks, or even b-list. it s been like a grab bag. they re the white elephant lawyers who were otherwise available. it s been a strange mismatch between the presidential legal jeopardy here and the presidential legal defense. up until now. now that would seem to be changing, if in fact the new white house counsel really has
flipped against him and is now awaiting the start of his federal prison term. there are the unusual hires, the unusual choices he made for his initial counsel to handle the russia investigation. they both flamed out, but not before distinguishing themselves by having loud conversations about very sensitive aspects of the president s legal defense at an outdoor table at a washington restaurant while they were seated next to a reporter from the new york times who promptly reported everything they said. the president has also had a man named rudy giuliani working as part of his legal team, and i m not going to say anything about that. he has also had a fox news talk radio lawyer guy representing him whose previous legal experience was mostly about, like, ten commandments monuments. and whatever you think of that roster, for a president facing such serious legal problems, like the ones president trump is facing, it has been a weird thing that his legal
interview with mike cox, how would you feel sitting there as a gay person or someone who respects gay rights, which includes a lot of people who aren t gay, and see this guy representing the state of michigan? because he s not a private lawyer. he is up there representing the entire state of michigan. and i think many people in the employer position, in mike cox s position, would say of course he can t represent the state of michigan because people who express those kind of hateful sentiments are not representative of my office or of the state. professor turley, what do you make of this? you re a big defender of the first amendment. well, first of all, i think that jeff is right about the trend that there certainly is more and more upheld restrictions on the free speech of public employees. on my blog i ve actually detailed a lot of these cases involving police officers, teachers, a great variety of public employees. in fairness to mr. cox, there is
interview with mike cox, how would you feel sitting there as a gay person or someone who respects gay rights, which includes a lot of people who aren t gay, and see this guy representing the state of michigan? because he s not a private lawyer. he is up there representing the entire state of michigan. and i think many people in the employer position, in mike cox s position, would say, of course, he can t represent the state of michigan because people who express those kind of hateful sentiments are not representative of my office or of the state. professor turley, what do you make of this? you re a big defender of the first amendment. well, first of all, i think that jeff is right about the trend that there certainly is more and more upheld restrictions on the free speech of public employees. on my blog i ve actually detailed a lot of these cases involving police officers, teachers, a great variety of public employees. in fairness to mr. cox, there is a legitimate free speech issue
with his work. and as you pointed out in your interview with mike cox, how would you feel sitting there as a gay person or someone who respects gay rights, which includes a lot of people who aren t gay, and see this guy representing the state of michigan? because he s not a private lawyer. he is up there representing the entire state of michigan. and i think many people in the employer position, in mike cox s position, would say of course he can t represent the state of michigan because people who express those kind of hateful sentiments are not representative of my office or of the state. professor turley, what do you make of this? you re a big defender of the first amendment. well, first of all, i think that jeff is right about the trend that there certainly is more and more upheld restrictions on the free speech of public employees. on my blog i ve actually detailed a lot of these cases involving police officers, teachers, a great variety of public employees.