Archive for the ‘Mueller’ Category

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

“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
Search All Posts
Categories