Is He Dishonest or an Imbecile? Take Your Pick to Explain Brett Talley's Disclosure Form
In the Trump administration, disclosure is for suckers. Just ask the nominee for the Middle District of Alabama, who neglected to mention that his wife is a senior White House lawyer.
November 13, 2017 at 07:34 PM
12 minute read
Trump judicial nominee Brett Talley has never tried a case.
But you know, so what? Plenty of lawyers haven't tried cases to verdict and might still make great district court judges. No. That alone is not why the 36-year-old is such an appalling choice for the Middle District of Alabama. Nor is it his “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. Or his bombastic, partisan blogging.
It's this: The New York Times reported on Monday that Talley failed to mention in his publicly available Senate questionnaire that he is married to Annie Donaldson, a former Jones Day associate who is now a senior lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office.
Just … how? Did he forget? Intentionally omit it to dodge questions about why he was nominated? Not view it as a potential conflict of interest?
There is no answer that doesn't show him to be either a) an imbecile b) fundamentally dishonest c) both.
The form specifically asks, “Identify the family members or other persons, parties, categories of litigation and financial arrangements that are likely to present potential conflicts-of-interest when you first assume the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you would address any such conflict if it were to arise.”
Like, say, every single Trump administration initiative vetted by the White House Counsel's Office?
Talley's answer: “If confirmed, I will recuse in any litigation where I have ever played a role. I will also recuse in any case that was handled by the Solicitor General's Office during my time with the Alabama Attorney General. I will evaluate any other real or potential conflict, or relationship that could give rise to appearance of conflict, on a case by case basis and determine appropriate action with the advice of parties and their counsel, including recusal where necessary.”
Mmmkay that's fine as far as it goes. But what about the part where he was specifically asked to identify “family members” who could present conflicts of interest? Like his wife? The woman he married on August 15, 2015 “at a ceremony in Tuscaloosa, Ala., where they met as undergraduates at the University of Alabama 15 years prior to their marriage,” according to the Richmond Register?
She carried red roses? He wore a salmon-colored tie?
The woman who is now special counsel to the president and chief of staff to the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II?
How do you fail to mention that?
A one-time associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and former deputy solicitor general for the state of Alabama, Talley is currently working at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy.
The Senate form also asked about “the dates of all interviews or communications you had with the White House staff or the Justice Department regarding this nomination.”
Talley offered that he “interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office” and that he has “been in contact with officials from the White House Counsel's Office,” without mentioning that he (presumably) sleeps in the same bed as one of them.
It calls to mind Jared Kushner and his mind-bogglingly incomplete security clearance and financial disclosure forms, where, whoopsie-daisy, he forgot to list at least $10 million in assets.
If there's one consistent message from the Trump administration, it's this: Disclosure is for suckers. How's that audit on your tax returns coming, Mr. President?
The only consolation is that Kushner and Trump will be gone by 2020 or 2024 at the latest. But if Talley is confirmed—the Senate Judiciary Committee approved him on a party-line vote last week—we could be stuck with him for decades. And he has already shown he lacks the basic fitness of character to serve on the bench.
Trump judicial nominee Brett Talley has never tried a case.
But you know, so what? Plenty of lawyers haven't tried cases to verdict and might still make great district court judges. No. That alone is not why the 36-year-old is such an appalling choice for the Middle District of Alabama. Nor is it his “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. Or his bombastic, partisan blogging.
It's this: The
Just … how? Did he forget? Intentionally omit it to dodge questions about why he was nominated? Not view it as a potential conflict of interest?
There is no answer that doesn't show him to be either a) an imbecile b) fundamentally dishonest c) both.
The form specifically asks, “Identify the family members or other persons, parties, categories of litigation and financial arrangements that are likely to present potential conflicts-of-interest when you first assume the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you would address any such conflict if it were to arise.”
Like, say, every single Trump administration initiative vetted by the White House Counsel's Office?
Talley's answer: “If confirmed, I will recuse in any litigation where I have ever played a role. I will also recuse in any case that was handled by the Solicitor General's Office during my time with the Alabama Attorney General. I will evaluate any other real or potential conflict, or relationship that could give rise to appearance of conflict, on a case by case basis and determine appropriate action with the advice of parties and their counsel, including recusal where necessary.”
Mmmkay that's fine as far as it goes. But what about the part where he was specifically asked to identify “family members” who could present conflicts of interest? Like his wife? The woman he married on August 15, 2015 “at a ceremony in Tuscaloosa, Ala., where they met as undergraduates at the University of Alabama 15 years prior to their marriage,” according to the Richmond Register?
She carried red roses? He wore a salmon-colored tie?
The woman who is now special counsel to the president and chief of staff to the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II?
How do you fail to mention that?
A one-time associate at
The Senate form also asked about “the dates of all interviews or communications you had with the White House staff or the Justice Department regarding this nomination.”
Talley offered that he “interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel's Office” and that he has “been in contact with officials from the White House Counsel's Office,” without mentioning that he (presumably) sleeps in the same bed as one of them.
It calls to mind Jared Kushner and his mind-bogglingly incomplete security clearance and financial disclosure forms, where, whoopsie-daisy, he forgot to list at least $10 million in assets.
If there's one consistent message from the Trump administration, it's this: Disclosure is for suckers. How's that audit on your tax returns coming, Mr. President?
The only consolation is that Kushner and Trump will be gone by 2020 or 2024 at the latest. But if Talley is confirmed—the Senate Judiciary Committee approved him on a party-line vote last week—we could be stuck with him for decades. And he has already shown he lacks the basic fitness of character to serve on the bench.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShould It Be Left to the Plaintiffs Bar to Enforce Judicial Privacy Laws?
7 minute readA Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Of Predictive Analytics and Robots: A First-Year Federal Judge's Thoughts on AI
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250