Media Appearance: Elections and Courts with Kendall Coffey

Attorney Kendall Coffey discusses topical issues related to issues before the courts and legal ramifications of elections.

Kendall Coffey on Fox News: What happens next after Comey ousting? – May 10th, 2017

Posted on May 17, 2017 in Media Appearance: Elections and Courts with Kendall Coffey

Kendall Coffey, one of the country’s top litigators presently working as a partner at Coffey Burlington in Miami, Florida, appeared on Fox News’ Fox & Friend to discuss the recent firing of FBI Director James Comey. For more from Mr. Coffey, follow him on Twitter. Abby Huntsman: Welcome back. FBI Director James Comey fired, and to no one’s surprise, the left immediately attacking the president. Jeffrey Toobin: This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies. Chuck Schumer: I told the President, Mr. President, with all due respect, you are making a big mistake. AH: So what happens next? Here to weigh in is Kendall Coffey. He is a former U.S. attorney, under President Bill Clinton. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. Kendall Coffey: Thanks for including me. AH: So you’re an important voice to talk to, as this is all breaking, and there are so many important questions still left to answer.  But the biggest one is, what happens next, and how hard is it going to be to find that perfect replacement for him? KC: Well, they thought Comey was the perfect choice in the first place, so I think there’re going to be that much more careful this time. But the profile that you need at this point is someone with solid law enforcement credentials, obviously bi-partisan support to an extent, and some demonstrated independence. I think that person exists, and the most important thing about all of this, despite the present commotion, is getting somebody who the public respects and who will restore all credibility to the FBI. Martha McCallum: Well as for now, it’s Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director. He’s going to be filling in for a short time. Can you tell us a little more about him? He’s going to be next in line for a couple of days, so to speak. KC: Yeah, he’s a career guy, been there more than 20 years. A little bit of a controversy because his wife had been a Democratic legislative candidate a couple of years ago. But the important thing to remember is that this has never been the James Comey investigation, and it’s not now the Andrew McCabe investigation. This is an investigation by career FBI agents, their supervisors, prosecutors—including, by the way, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who launched some subpoenas recently in the matter, and he was an Obama appointee. So there’s a lot of reason to trust this process going forward, but I think McCabe is going to get some extra looks because of his connection with the Democratic Party. AH: Well, you mentioned Democratic Party, Kendall. A lot of politics always involved with something like this. Democrats, though, they are telling Trump he should not have fired James Comey. But they were the ones calling foul for how [it took] long...

Read More »

Kendall Coffey on The Lars Larson Show – March 9th, 2017

Posted on Mar 21, 2017 in Media Appearance: Elections and Courts with Kendall Coffey

Kendall Coffey is a founding Partner at Coffey Burlington, PL, former U.S. Attorney, and frequent guest legal analyst on international television networks. He is also an adjunct professor at University of Miami School of Law. Kendall Coffey joined the Lars Larson Show on March 9th, 2017 to discuss the recent lawsuits against President Trump’s Executive Order restricting travel from six Muslim-majority countries. Lars Larson: Mr. Coffey, thanks a lot for joining us again. Tell me what you think of these lawsuits and if they will find any traction in the federal courts. Kendall Coffey: Well, I think it’s going to be so much tougher this time. The basic theme of the lawsuit seems to be, “Well, this is just another version of the original executive order that was found invalid.” If it looks like a duck, walk likes a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s, after all, a duck. As people read this, they’ll see that in legal terms, at least, it’s a bird of a different feather. It’s more thoughtfully drafted. It clearly avoids the major legal pitfalls of the original executive order, which was, you will recall, a statement prohibiting green card holders from the 7 countries. This problem was something that I think most analysts thought would be very difficult to overcome in the original order. This order is not only thoughtful in the way it’s drafted, but it explains some of the concerns of each of the 6 remaining countries that are subject to this. Just to put in context, what the executive order focuses on, it states that there is a need to deal with countries where we don’t trust their informational processes to tell us who is coming to this country from their countries. It’s very specific about that. It says that it requires a process by the major agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, to see if these countries can correct their current informational concerns, and at the same time, it calls upon Homeland Security and other agencies to examine the information we’re receiving from all the other countries to make sure that we go through a delivered process and see if there are other countries as well as the 6 that are not giving us reliable information about their citizens when their citizens try to come to this country. I don’t think that, fairly read, this document is subjected to a strong legal challenge, but the challenges continue, and I certainly won’t predict what may happen. Could there be a federal district court that rules for the challengers? Maybe. But I think if this gets to an appeals court, they’re going to have to look at this document and apply the many decisions of the Supreme Court, which says, basically, that the president has the right to do this order in the name of national security. Lars Larson: Shouldn’t...

Read More »

Forced Voting and the Constitution

Posted on Jun 16, 2015 in Media Appearance: Elections and Courts with Kendall Coffey

Forced Voting and the Constitution

  Transcript: Obama: In Australia and some other countries there is mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.   Steve Malzberg: You mean fundamentally change the political map? Welcome back folks, Kendall Coffey, a partner at Coffey & Burlington LLC, former U.S. attorney, author of Spinning the Law is going to spin the law with us a little bit. Kendall: a lot of talk about the fact that the president has suggested mandatory voting…what would have to happen for that to happen?   Kendall Coffey: Well, I think Steve, you’d probably have to amend the United States constitution. I mean, voting is a fundamental right just like the right of religion is a fundamental right. But also, I think having a fundamental right means you have a fundamental right to choose not to participate. One of the reasons people don’t vote, and there are a varied number of reasons and we’d all prefer a much higher level of voting, is that they are alienated from the system and they are in a way expressing their disenchantment with what is happening in the government by not registering and not voting. So, in effect, to put some sort of legal gun to their head and to say “you gotta vote anyway” I think would be a violation of the constitution as it currently exists.   Could you change the constitution? Yeah, and then we could have a long conversation about whether that’s a good idea to force somebody to do what they don’t want to do is really a spectacular privilege in a democracy. If somebody doesn’t want to avail themselves to this great privilege and this great society then that’s their prerogative.   Malzberg: Do you agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano who said it’s a totalitarian idea?   Coffey: Well, it’s certainly not consistent with the liberty and freedom we have. Again, we’ve had a number of court cases that have stated that you have the right to practice your religion, but you also have a right not to practice a religion. So whether we agree with that or not, it is in our constitutional fabric. So, to move closer in a direction that adds things that you have to do, especially something like you have to vote, I think it’s not only unconstitutional but I think it would be a mistake.”   Malzberg: Okay, let’s move on to the Eric Garner case. A judge yesterday denied the request to release the grand jury testimony, all the details from the grand jury, and when I hear this reported it’s shock, it’s almost as if “Oh, boy they really do want to cover this thing up” when the fact of the matter is, as the judge stated somewhere...

Read More »