Archive for the ‘Justice Department’ Category

ILLEGAL ALIENS QUIETLY RELOCATED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

 

Judicial Watch is an extremely important source of information. The following link
www.judicialwatch.org/video-update/tom-fittons-video-weekly-update-january-19-2018/      is the weekly video address by Tom Fitton of Judical Watch regarding the latest revelations of Hillary Clinton’s emails and how government departments are stonewalling the release of these emails and other information regarding Uranium One .

Thanks to Sallye Wentz for sharing the Judicial Watch article below.   Nancy

JUDICIAL WATCH.ORG

Illegal Aliens Quietly Being Relocated Throughout U.S. on Commercial Flights

JANUARY 19, 2018

Immigrants entering the United States illegally through the southern border are quietly being relocated to different parts of the country on commercial flights, high-ranking Homeland Security officials told Judicial Watch this week. In the last few days alone, groups of illegal aliens boarded planes at airports in Texas and Arizona accompanied by a taxpayer-funded government escort in civilian clothes to avoid drawing attention. The first flight originated at Valley International Airport in Harlingen, Texas and was bound for Minneapolis. The second left from Tucson International Airport and arrived in Salt Lake City, Utah, federal sources said. In both locations the illegal aliens appeared to be in their late teens and were escorted by a Health and Human Services (HHS) chaperone. Judicial Watch reached out to HHS for comment but did not hear back from the agency.

The illegal aliens wear red HHS wrist bands and receive “the gold glove treatment,” according to a veteran federal official, who added that the undocumented immigrants get priority boarding ahead of all other passengers, including law enforcement personnel. “It is shameful and dangerous,” said a seasoned Homeland Security agent with direct knowledge of the secret operations. Labor personnel from front-line Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies have complained about the cost and security risk of flying illegal alien minors to any destination of their choosing within the U.S., according to a longtime Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official present at the meetings. One of the closed-door meetings, late last year, included President Donald Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly.

It appears that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore the concerns of rank-and-file federal agents, instead opting to quietly extend the controversial Obama-era policy that relocates illegal immigrants to unsuspecting communities nationwide. It is known as “Catch and Release” and frustrated DHS sources tell Judicial Watch the Trump administration is essentially facilitating the ongoing commission of a federal immigration crime despite its tough border security rhetoric. In a recent newspaper article Border Patrol agents in Texas say they’ve been ordered to release illegal immigrants caught entering through Mexico because there is no bed space at detention facilities. This has provoked a surge in illegal crossings, Border Patrol officials say, because there is no punishment to deter the lawbreakers.

In the same news story, the head of the ICE officers’ union (Chris Crane) and the National Border Patrol Council (Brandon Judd) said detrimental old policies remain in place because Obama managers are still running their agencies. Crane, a veteran ICE agent, refers to the Obama holdovers as “incompetent, corrupt and anti-enforcement.” Judd said word is getting back to Mexico and Central America that illegal border crossers will be released if caught, resulting in a huge increase in crossings. In a period of a few months, border crossings skyrocketed from 11,100 in a single month to 26,000, according to figures provided in the news story. Immigrants from Asia are also entering the U.S. through Mexico, federal officials say. In San Diego, California agents apprehended dozens of illegal aliens from Asian countries in the last few months, including more than 60 from India.

There was tremendous hope that Trump would finally put an end—as promised—to the dangerous Obama policies that released scores of illegal immigrants into different parts of the country. Judicial Watch has reported on it extensively and in 2016 exposed a covert DHS program that transported illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and released them without proper processing. The government classified them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and transferred them 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. The OTMs were from Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Guatemala and a security company contracted by the U.S. government drove the OTMs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix. Outraged Border Patrol agents and supervisors on the front lines said the illegal aliens were released in droves because there was no room to keep them in detention. “They’re telling us to put them on a bus and let them go,” one Arizona law enforcement official told Judicial Watch at the time. “Just move those bodies across the country.” A year into the Trump administration, it seems that little has changed.

(more…)

Share

UNDERCOVER VIDEO – PROJECT VERITAS – TWITTER AND TRUMP

Thursday, January 11th, 2018

 

Thanks to Charlie Hendrix of Ohio for sharing this extremely interesting video   James O’Keefe is at it again !   Nancy

PROJECT VERITAS  -VIDEO   UNDERCOVER VIDEO  –

SENIOR  NETWORK SECURITY ENGINEER REVEALS TWITTER READY TO GIVE TRUMP’S PRIVATE DMs TO DOJ

Ok, tweeters… be careful.

www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/09/undercover-video-sr-network-security-engineer-reveals-twitter-ready-to-give-trumps-private-dms-to-doj/

Share

INTIMIDATION BY THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATORS

Friday, January 5th, 2018

 

This is the second article that has been sent out regarding Wisconsin’s infamous John Doe investigation where conservatives were targeted for their support for Governor Scott Walker .  The conservatives  who were being investigated were warned not to discuss this investigation with anyone as a gag order was placed on them.  If they did, they would be facing a jail sentence.
 What happened to free speech in this country?   This could happen to any of us.     Thanks to Luonne Dumak of Wisconsin for sharing this article.  Nancy

 RIGHTWISCONSIN.COM

IS THIS JUSTICE? DEBORAH JORDAHL AND HER FAMILY LIVED THE REAL JOHN DOE

Is This Justice? Deborah Jordahl And Her Family Lived The Real John Doe

 

MacIver News Service

By M.D. Kittle

MADISON, Wis. – Deborah Jordahl and her family felt like they woke up in another country in the predawn hours of Oct. 3, 2013.

That’s when law enforcement officials, directed by the prosecutors of Wisconsin’s infamous John Doe investigation, showed up with warrants and raided the homes of several Wisconsin conservatives – including the one in Jordahl’s middle-class Middleton neighborhood.

. Deborah JordahlIt certainly didn’t feel like America.

“It was surreal,” Jordahl recently told MacIver News Service on the Jay Weber Show, on NewsTalk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee.

“I woke up to some sounds in the yard. It was still dark out. The door bell rang. My husband and I were met by an armed deputy sheriff who told us she had a warrant to search the house. Wouldn’t say why,” recalled Jordahl, one of scores of right-of-center activists and other conservatives swept up in the campaign finance probe.

“They would not let me wake my children by myself. They followed me into their rooms. My children, at the time, were 15 and 17, and they woke up to an armed deputy standing over their bed,” Jordahl continued.

She found out months later that her son – 17 at the time of the raid – feared that his father had died, “because why else would there be people crawling around” the house at that hour of the morning. “I couldn’t really say anything. I had to keep them moving. I was terrified,” Jordahl said.

Law enforcement corralled this family of four into their living room. For the next few hours these John Doe raiders searched every closet, every drawer, in every room of the house. Then they went through the basement, then the garage, and the Jordahls’ vehicles. They hauled out boxes of paper and all kinds of electronic equipment.

Jordahl, a successful political consultant who, alongside her partner R.J. Johnson had advised Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign, was the target named on the search warrant. But that didn’t stop deputies and John Doe agents from rooting through her husband’s, daughter’s and son’s possessions – their computers, their cellphones, hard drives, more.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

Share

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM – 2018 ISSUE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP

Sunday, December 31st, 2017
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Big, Beautiful Trump 2018 Issue

Civil-service reform could get bipartisan support, even in a rough election year.

 

 

Share

WISCONSIN, THE SURVEILLANCE STATE

Thursday, December 28th, 2017

 

This information regarding intimidation and harassment by the Left  of Wisconsin conservatives who supported Governor Scott Walker has received very little media coverage.  Please share with your email lists and let’s let a little sunshine in.  It has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant !   Nancy
THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Wisconsin, the Surveillance State

The ‘John Doe’ scandal widens.
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  John Doe proceedings are initiated by a judge to see if a crime has been committed; investigators and suspects are prohibited from discussing the case. The Wisconsin law, dating to 1889, was intended to protect the identities of those being investigated. Yet the inquiries into Walker and his supporters achieved the exact opposite effect. While confidential details about Republicans leaked freely to the media, those under investigation were barred from defending themselves. The gag order against the investigation’s targets prompted U.S. Circuit Court judge Frank Easterbrook to call the John Doe framework “screamingly unconstitutional.”In 2012, the Milwaukee County district attorney asked for a second John Doe probe, into Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. This one gained national notoriety in October 2013, when law enforcement officers began making paramilitary-style, pre-dawn raids on the homes of unsuspecting private citizens. With floodlights trained on the targets’ homes, armed officers threatened to beat doors down with battering rams; rifled through rooms; and seized phones, computers, and bank records without allowing the subjects to contact their attorneys. Groggy families awakened to the sound of police boots running through their homes were told that they could not tell anyone what had happened.

Their crime? Supporting conservative causes in Wisconsin.


On May 23, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (WisDOJ) received a call from the state’s ethics board. An employee rummaging around in the basement of the building had found a filing cabinet full of material from the now-defunct “John Doe” investigations into the state’s Republican governor, Scott Walker, and his supporters.

WisDOJ was investigating the illegal 2016 leak to the Guardian of confidential details from the investigations, and in January, it had ordered that all John Doe records be turned over immediately. Yet this unexpected trove appeared four months later. The new evidence included three hard drives, 10 optical disk drives, a thumb drive, and paper files, which contained nearly 500,000 private emails and text messages collected from Republican political aides and staffers between 2009 and 2012. Among the millions of pages were discussions of the most personal nature—Wisconsin GOP staffers talking with family members about illness, helping friends through precarious relationships, and discussing money troubles with their spouses. Not knowing government bureaucrats were monitoring their discussions, some saved sensitive passwords in Gmail accounts; others sent pictures of themselves trying on clothes to friends and asked how they looked. Many of these messages were filed in a folder marked “opposition research.”

On December 6, the WisDOJ released a 91-page report on the leak, and what it shows is that Wisconsin public officials set up what amounts to a political spying operation.

The John Doe investigations have been a fixture of Wisconsin politics and courts for more than half a decade. Originating in 2010 with a request from Milwaukee County executive Scott Walker—who was running for governor—to investigate some missing money in his own office, they metastasized into a series of wide-ranging witch hunts used to harass and intimidate conservatives. In both the 2012 recall election to unseat Walker and the 2014 gubernatorial race, Democrats frequently cited the investigations as evidence of his “corruption.”

John Doe proceedings are initiated by a judge to see if a crime has been committed; investigators and suspects are prohibited from discussing the case. The Wisconsin law, dating to 1889, was intended to protect the identities of those being investigated. Yet the inquiries into Walker and his supporters achieved the exact opposite effect. While confidential details about Republicans leaked freely to the media, those under investigation were barred from defending themselves. The gag order against the investigation’s targets prompted U.S. Circuit Court judge Frank Easterbrook to call the John Doe framework “screamingly unconstitutional.”

In 2012, the Milwaukee County district attorney asked for a second John Doe probe, into Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. This one gained national notoriety in October 2013, when law enforcement officers began making paramilitary-style, pre-dawn raids on the homes of unsuspecting private citizens. With floodlights trained on the targets’ homes, armed officers threatened to beat doors down with battering rams; rifled through rooms; and seized phones, computers, and bank records without allowing the subjects to contact their attorneys. Groggy families awakened to the sound of police boots running through their homes were told that they could not tell anyone what had happened.

Their crime? Supporting conservative causes in Wisconsin.

The legal basis for the second investigation was specious as prosecutors were accusing Walker of illegally coordinating with third-party groups during the recall elections in 2012. But that interpretation of state law relied on an outdated reading of election law—which had been overturned by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In January 2014, Judge Gregory Peterson effectively shut the second investigation down, noting that the conservative groups were engaged in constitutionally protected speech. In July 2015, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ended the investigation for good and ordered that all the evidence be destroyed or returned to its owners.

It was only after this court order that dozens of conservative activists learned that three years’ worth of their private email and text messages had been seized. With the release of the WisDOJ report, the public found out that this mountain of intimate, private correspondence had been sitting for years in an unsecured filing cabinet in the basement of what used to be the offices of the Government Accountability Board (GAB), which enforced the state’s ethics and elections laws until 2015, when it was replaced by two separate watchdogs. Much of this material had been reviewed and filed by GAB staff when they began the secret investigation that WisDOJ calls “John Doe III.”

The existence of this third investigation came as a complete surprise to the state’s attorney general when he learned of it last year. WisDOJ agents surmised it was instigated by staff at the GAB when they had caught wind of “illegal” campaigning by legislative staff during the 2012 recall elections that swept Wisconsin in the wake of Scott Walker’s controversial union reforms.

It was many of these staffers whose private emails and chats showed up in the basement. Investigators identified 35 campaign workers whose personal accounts had been obtained by search warrant, and in its report, WisDOJ said it was “deeply concerned by what appears to have been the weaponizing of GAB by partisans in furtherance of political goals.” The list of people subjected to the search includes not just people who worked on the 2012 recall campaigns, but also Republican Party of Wisconsin staffers and Scott Walker aides. One former Senate aide says he had spent two weeks in Wisconsin’s North Woods in 2012 volunteering for a Republican candidate, and for this innocuous act, three years of his emails were seized.

Republican state senator Leah Vukmir, who will be running for the U.S. Senate in 2018, was also subject to the spying. WisDOJ found files with more than 150 emails between Vukmir and her daughter—many of which contained “private medical information and other highly personal information.” In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on December 10, an outraged Vukmir announced she was looking into her legal options for the violation of her privacy. “This was criminal behavior, and the individuals involved ought to see jail time,” she wrote. Vukmir says that despite the court order, she was never notified that her emails had been seized.

As Vukmir’s daughter’s case demonstrates, it wasn’t simply the targets of the investigation whose personal information ended up before the leering eyes of the GAB staff. All those who emailed one of the subjects on the list were unwittingly spilling their personal secrets to government bureaucrats, whether they had any connection to the ill-fated investigation or not.

WisDOJ investigators never conclusively identified where the leak to the Guardian came from, but the report noted that the only place where all the relevant documents were ever held all together was a portable hard drive belonging to a GAB investigator named Shane Falk. According to the same report, the file cabinet holding all the seized personal emails and documents was adorned by Post-it notes suggesting that Falk was also its owner.

A Democratic appointee to the GAB, Falk made the news in 2015 when his zeal to take down Scott Walker was revealed in leaked emails. In an email to prosecutors in November 2013, Falk wrote that the alleged coordination between Walker’s campaign and conservative groups was a “bastardization of politics” and that the state was being run “by corporations and billionaires.” According to emails released by WisDOJ, Falk frequently harangued other John Doe prosecutors for not going after Walker vigorously enough and questioned their knowledge of campaign finance law. Ironically, it was Falk’s legal reasoning that was repeatedly rejected in court after court.

In interviews since the WisDOJ report was released, Falk has said he doesn’t know anything about the leak and that he doesn’t know how the personal emails obtained by GAB came to be marked “opposition research.” In its report, WisDOJ called the leak a crime, but concluded that it couldn’t identify who had made it—so instead of criminal charges, Wisconsin attorney general Brad Schimel forwarded contempt of court charges against Falk and eight other GAB investigators for their reckless handling of records.

Those records include numerous details of state Republicans’ private lives, collected with little probable cause in the course of a bogus investigation. To date, WisDOJ agents have not been able to locate Falk’s external hard drive, which mysteriously went missing after he resigned from the board.

 

 

Christian Schneider is a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

(more…)

Share

“OBAMA’S ENFORCER: ERIC HOLDER’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT”

Saturday, December 16th, 2017

 

The co-author of the book mentioned in the article below,  “Obama’s Enforcer:  Eric Holder’s Justice Department”,  is Hans A. von Spakovsky who will be guest speaker at ICON in Chapel Hill on Tuesday, April 17, 2018.  Season tickets for all of ICON’s lectures are now available at www.iconlectureseries.com     Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A TALE OF TWO CULTURES
– – Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

“Prospect of New Special Counsel Rattles Justice” was the scary front-page headline on a recent, worried edition of The Washington Post. The faux fuss was caused by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ suggestion that after weighing recommendations from senior prosecutors, he might appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal.

The key facts of that deal, for those whose attention has been wholly absorbed by the all-day coverage of the corruption trial of Sen. Bob Menendez (New Jersey Democrat, of course), are: First, Russian interests gave the Clinton Foundation $145 million dollars; second, paid (now finally, not after Harvey Weinstein but only after Roy Moore) disgraced former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a short speech on tying shoelaces; following which, third, the sale of Uranium One to the Russians was cleared by the State Department then run by (now mostly disgraced for covering shamelessly for the now finally and fully disgraced said Bill ClintonHillary Clinton.

It’s true that eight other government agencies also had to approve the sale, but does anyone really think that either a low-level bureaucrat, a mid-level Democratic appointee, or a possible future Democratic candidate for any office in the land (even canine collector) would have crossed the Democratic Party’s very own Wicked Witch of the West?

Democratic Louis Renaults, who are rattled at what they claim is politicization of the Justice Department, should turn the clock back (any conservative can show them how) to the Eric Holder Justice Department days for a master class on politicizing.

John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

People may differ on what kind of actions they think rise to the level of politicization. That is not only inevitable, but increasingly likely in our increasingly polarized political world.

The real issue, slouching slowly toward our conscientiousness, is: Can two major cultures coexist in our democracy? In any democracy?

American politics has always been rambunctious. One need only read accounts of some of America’s early political campaigns to get a sense of the permanence of political hyperbole — doing business as mudslinging.

Even so, perhaps, but only perhaps, we think the administration of justice should be different. It would be satisfying to blame the high-octane politicization of the courts on Sen. Edward Kennedy’s unspeakable campaign in 1987 against Robert Bork’s confirmation to be a justice on the Supreme Court. In fact, the uber-politicization of the courts began years earlier, perhaps in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion. That decision was simply legislation from the bench; divisive then, divisive now. And more legislation, and more divisiveness, came with the Supreme Court’s decisions legalizing sodomy, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and marriage between homosexuals, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

But now the party’s over, for the left. And you can see why they’re worried. There are 18 vacancies on the Courts of Appeal and 127 in the Federal District Courts. The Senate has already confirmed 12 of President Trump’s nominees. He may fill most of the remaining vacancies during his first term, and will certainly fill them all if he gets a second term. Because the judges serve for life, their influence will be felt for decades to come.

But there are still two cultures. One lives according to traditional Western Civ. morality, the other pushes a feel-good cocktail of new-age practices; one believes in limited government, the other that government power should reign supreme. And the struggle will continue. The leftist side has been most prominently represented by the Clintons, though it does look now as if their day, finally, is passing. It’s passing because of Hillary’s defeat, and because of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, and that of so many of the left-wing cinematic glitterati whose behavior was just like his and, just like his, known to the rest of the denizens of the glitterati galaxy — including, undoubtedly, the Clintons.

Is it any wonder the Deplorables say, “Lock her up”?

Lock her up, indeed. Tempting. Better, probably — more fun, certainly — to put one of those ankle bracelets on her and on Bill, and sentence them to stay close to each other, always. Till death do them part.

A better slogan might be: “Lock her up — and give culture a chance.” But the rattled writers of scary headlines know that traditional Western Civ. culture may now get a chance even if she stays free.

• Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

 

Share

CAN A PRESIDENT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Wednesday, December 13th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Can a President Obstruct Justice?

Yes, but not by doing any of the things we know Trump to have done.

Monday, December 11, 2017
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A Casey    Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Speculation about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has turned toward obstruction of justice—specifically, whether President Trump can be criminally prosecuted for firing James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or for earlier asking Mr. Comey to go easy on onetime national security adviser Mike Flynn. The answer is no. The Constitution forbids Congress to criminalize such conduct by a president, and applying existing statutes in such a manner would violate the separation of powers.

The Constitution creates three coequal branches of government, and no branch may exercise its authority in a manner that would negate or fundamentally undercut the power of another. The power to appoint and remove high-level executive-branch officers, such as the FBI director, is a core aspect of the president’s executive authority. It is the principal means by which a president disciplines the exercise of the executive power the Constitution vests in him.

 

The same is true of Mr. Trump’s request, as purported by Mr. Comey: “I hope you can see your way clear . . . to letting Flynn go.” The FBI director wields core presidential powers when conducting an investigation, and the president is entirely within his rights to inquire about, and to direct, such investigations. The director is free to ignore the president’s inquiries or directions and risk dismissal, or to resign if he believes the president is wrong. Such officials serve at the president’s pleasure and have no right to be free of such dilemmas.

A law criminalizing the president’s removal of an officer for a nefarious motive, or the application of a general law in that way, would be unconstitutional even if the president’s action interferes with a criminal investigation. Such a constraint would subject every exercise of presidential discretion to congressional sanction and judicial review. That would vitiate the executive branch’s coequal status and, when combined with Congress’s impeachment power, establish legislative supremacy—a result the Framers particularly feared.

Mr. Trump’s critics claim that subjecting the president’s actions to scrutiny as potential obstructions of justice is simply a matter of asking judges to do what they do every day in other contexts—determine the purpose or intent behind an action. That is also wrong. The president is not only an individual, but head of the executive branch. Separating his motives between public interests and personal ones—partisan, financial or otherwise—would require the courts to delve into matters that are inherently political. Under Supreme Court precedent stretching back to Marbury v. Madison (1803), the judiciary has no power to do so. And lawmakers enjoy an analogous immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause.

The president’s independence from the other branches does not merely support “energy” in the chief executive, as the Framers intended. It also ensures that he, and he alone, is politically accountable for his subordinates’ conduct. If officials as critical to the executive branch’s core functions as the FBI director could determine whom and how to investigate free from presidential supervision, they would wield the most awesome powers of government with no political accountability. History has demonstrated that even when subject to presidential authority, the FBI director can become a power unto himself—as J. Edgar Hoover was for decades, severely damaging civil liberties.

There are limits to presidential power. The Constitution requires the Senate’s consent for appointment of the highest-level executive-branch officers—a critical check on presidential power. The Supreme Court has upheld statutory limits—although never involving criminal sanction—on the removal of certain kinds of officials. But the decision to fire principal executive-branch officers like the FBI director remains within the president’s discretion. A sitting president can also be subjected to civil lawsuits—but only in a carefully circumscribed fashion, to avoid impeding his ability to discharge the powers of his office.

The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment. Even though Mr. Trump cannot have violated criminal law in dismissing Mr. Comey, if a majority of representatives believe he acted improperly or corruptly, they are free to impeach him. If two-thirds of senators agree, they can remove him from office. Congress would then be politically accountable for its action. Such is the genius of our Constitution’s checks and balances.

None of this is to suggest the president has absolute immunity from criminal obstruction-of-justice laws. He simply cannot be prosecuted for an otherwise lawful exercise of his constitutional powers. The cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton —the latter impeached, and the former nearly so, for obstruction of justice—have contributed to today’s confusion. These were not criminal charges but articulations of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment.

And in neither case was the accusation based on the president’s exercise of his lawful constitutional powers. If a president authorizes the bribery of a witness to suppress truthful testimony, as Nixon was accused of doing, he can be said to have obstructed justice. Likewise if a president asks a potential witness to commit perjury in a judicial action having nothing to do with the exercise of his office, as Mr. Clinton was accused of doing.

Although neither man could have been prosecuted while in office without his consent, either could have been after leaving office. That’s why President Ford pardoned Nixon—to avoid the spectacle and poisonous political atmosphere of a criminal trial. In Mr. Trump’s case, by contrast, the president exercised the power to fire an executive-branch official whom he may dismiss for any reason, good or bad, or for no reason at all. To construe that as a crime would unravel America’s entire constitutional structure.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

 

 

 

 

 

Share

MUELLER, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI AREN’T HELPING THE LAWMAKERS’ PROBE

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obstruction of Congress

Mueller, the Justice Department and the FBI aren’t helping the lawmakers’ probe.

Share

WHY DID FLYNN LIE AND WHY DID MUELLER CHARGE HIM WITH LYING?

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

 

Why Did Flynn Lie and Why Did Mueller Charge Him with Lying?

by Alan M. Dershowitz        Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.”


December 5, 2017 at 3:00 am

www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11488/why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him

The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

 

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. (Image source: Defense Intelligence Agency/Staff Sgt. Jonathan Lovelady)

 

Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

(more…)

Share

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

 

Where does  Jeff Sessions stand, as the new Director of  the Justice Department,  in all of this stonewalling that the Dept of Justice is doing? ( See link below of Jeff Sessions before Congress)  The smell of this whole investigation is nauseating !    Nancy
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w0pQWsHQmk  –  Heated exchange between Jeff Sessions and Jim Jordan of  Congress
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mueller’s Credibility Problem

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories