Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 8099 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 03:41:08 PM by Crafty_Dog »

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Lawfare Blog
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2019, 03:16:17 PM »
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 03:35:53 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Lawfare
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2019, 03:36:07 PM »
That is a really good find BD!

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2019, 03:43:40 PM »
BD:

I had envisioned this thread to cover waging politics by grinding the other side with litigation, but the Law of War is a worthy study of its own so for now let's use this thread for either and I have changed the thread's name in an effort to reflect this.

It may be though that it will be better the Legal Issues Raised by the War with Islamic Fascism thread , , , if I rename it :-D



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
"10th Justice" of the SCOTUS
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2019, 05:31:42 PM »
I would have liked to have seen proper mention of how arch progressive trial court judges are the true problem , , , but an informative read nonetheless:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/429164-supreme-courts-10th-justice-favors-unusual-tactic-for-trump-cases?userid=188403

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
JW weekly report
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2019, 05:45:06 PM »
   

Judicial Watch's Weekly Update: Mueller Report Exonerates President Trump

 
 
Mueller Never Had a Good-Faith Basis to Pursue President Trump
 
The fizzling out of the corrupt Mueller investigation is great victory for the rule of law and our constitutional republic. Here is the statement I issued in response Attorney General Barr’s initial summary of the special counsel’s report.
 
The long, national nightmare is over and President Trump has been vindicated. The corruptly-created and constitutionally abusive Mueller investigation failed to find any evidence to support the big lie that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.
 
We’re pleased that AG Barr rejected Mueller’s attempt to smear President Trump with obstruction of justice innuendo by concluding that no such charges could be credibly sustained. Frankly, Mueller never had a valid basis upon which to investigate President Trump for obstruction of justice.
 
Let’s be clear, neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it was criminal abuse, which is why Judicial Watch has fought and will continue to fight for Russiagate documents in federal court.
 
The targeting of President Trump served to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. Attorney General Barr can begin restoring the credibility of the Justice Department by finally initiating a thorough investigation of the Clinton emails and related pay-to-play scandals and the abuses behind the targeting of President Trump.
 
Judicial Watch has long called for the shutdown of the Mueller special counsel operation and has pursued dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in connection with the illicit targeting and other abuses of President Trump. Judicial Watch FOIA litigation exposed, for example:
•   The dossier-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting President Trump
•   FBI payments to Christopher Steele
•   FBI firing of Steele
•   Extensive DOJ (Ohr) collusion w/Steele, Simpson, Fusion GPS
•   No court hearings by defrauded FISA courts before warrants were issued
•   Anti-Trump bias by Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann

As you would expect, the Democrats are refusing to back down from their collusion lies. As I told the media this week, we must demand accountability for this attack on the Republic. Judicial Watch, not Congress nor the corrupt media, remains the best path forward for getting the full truth about the effort to overthrow President Trump, which is the worst corruption scandal in American history.

 

 
Did Deep State Cover Up Chinese Hack of Clinton Email System?  Judicial Watch Sues to Find Out

 
Back in 2015, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), an office under the Director of National Intelligence, discovered that Hillary Clinton’s emails were being sent to a state-owned Chinese company.
 
Bells went off, and the ICIG sent an emissary to the FBI to meet with Peter Strzok, who was later removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and fired from the FBI after his bias against President Trump was revealed. The FBI was being run at time by James Comey.
 
As you might imagine, nothing happened.
 
We want to know what was discussed at this meeting, and we are suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for details.
 
We sued after the ODNI failed to respond adequately to a July 13, 2018, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Judicial Watch Inc. vs Office of the Director of National Intelligence (No. 1:19-cv-00807)). We are seeking:
 
Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the meeting between Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) official Frank Rucker, ICIG attorney Jeanette Macmillian, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and other regarding security threats associated with the private e-mail server utilized by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
 
This request includes, but is not limited to, the following:
•   Any and all reports, notes, briefing materials, presentations, or similar records created in preparation for, during, and/or pursuant to the meeting.
•   Any and all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the ICIG and any other individual or entity.
For purposes of clarification, the meeting in question was referenced by Rep. Louis Gohmert during the testimony of Mr. Strzok at a House of Representatives hearing on July 12, 2018.
 
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok that the  ICIG reportedly found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source.”
 
Gohmert said the ICIG presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information.
 
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
 
Our lawsuit could further expose how anti-Trump activists like disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok bent over backwards to protect Hillary Clinton from having to answer for her national security crimes. The scandal of the illicit Trump spying is directly tied to the Deep State protection of Hillary Clinton.
 
We had a separate lawsuit against the ODNI that would have required it to conduct, as required by law, an assessment and prepare a report on how and whether Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email practices as U.S. Secretary of State damaged national security.
 
Hillary Clinton was given full cover by the Deep State. Don’t think the Deep State has has given up.
 
What Were Obama’s Spy Chiefs Telling the Media about Trump?
 
President Obama’s top spy chiefs appear to have been ringleaders in the illicit effort to overthrow President Trump. They enlisted the FBI, foreign spies, and the media in their efforts. I’m not at all surprised that they found a warm welcome at CNN.
Now we want to know the details of their connections to the network. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking records of communications between former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and CNN around the time the Clinton-Democrat National Committee anti-Trump dossier was being pitched to key media outlets.
A House report detailed that Clapper leaked information regarding the dossier to CNN in January 2017. The former ODNI chief signed on as an analyst for CNN in August 2017.

We are also seeking records of communications between Clapper and Obama CIA Director John Brennan regarding the dossier, which was authored by former British spy and FBI payee Christopher Steele.

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency (No. 1:19-cv-00776)) after the agencies failed to respond to our April 23, 2018, FOIA request seeking:
 
All records of communication, including emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages and instant chats, between officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, including but not limited to James Clapper, and employees, representatives and contractors of CNN.

The time frame for the records request is May 2016 through May 2017.
 
All records of communications between the office of the Director of Central Intelligence and representatives of CNN; DCI John Brennan and DNI James Clapper regarding the collection of memos known as the “Steele Dossier:” and between DCI John Brennan and DNI James Clapper regarding CNN.

All records of communication, including emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages and instant chats, between officials in the office of the Director of Central Intelligence, including but not limited to DCI John Brennan, and employees, representatives and contractors of CNN. The time frame for the requested records is May 2016 through May 2017.

All records of communication, including emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages and instant chats, between DCI John Brennan and DNI James Clapper regarding the collection of memos known as the “Steele Dossier”. The time frame for records requested in this bullet item is May 2016 through January 2017.

All records of communication, including emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages and instant chats, between DCI John Brennan and DNI James Clapper regarding the news network CNN. The time frame for records requested in this bullet item is May 2016 through January 2017.

In a March 2018, report, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee exposed that:

“Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.” And, “when questioned by the Committee … Clapper admitted that he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media.”

Clapper later admitted he had discussed the Steele dossier with CNN’s Jake Tapper and other journalists in early 2017, shortly before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

In a January 10, 2017 report with bylines from Tapper, Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto and Carl Bernstein, CNN first revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey had briefed then-President-elect Trump on the dossier’s allegations.

The Intelligence Committee’s report detailed that “Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic. Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in ‘early January 2017,’ around the time [intelligence officials] briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information.’”

Shortly after CNN’s January 10, 2017, report, BuzzFeed News published the dossier in full.

The four CNN reporters were awarded the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Merriman Smith Award for their coverage of the dossier story.

Brennan, in an interview with NBC News on February 4, 2018, insisted that the Steele dossier “did not play any role whatsoever” in early intelligence assessments on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Several subsequent reports strongly contradict Brennan’s claim.

We are again in court trying to get the truth about the Obama gang’s illegal leaks and conspiracy targeting President Trump. Clapper and Brennan were key proponents of the big lie, exposed by the Mueller report. President Trump did not collude with the Russians. Once again, our FOIA litigation is the best hope for getting full accountability on this attack on our constitutional republic.

Until next week …

 

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
 











ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2019, 08:30:16 AM »
I tried to find a tally of all cases brought by Trump et al

that came up in front of Federal Judges to see if we could get a score
Obama Clinton Judges vs W or Trump judges but I could not find anything in that regard

If we have enough examples to suggest bias then we could demonstrate to Justice Roberts what we already know to be true.

I just . emailed to Conservative Review this question
If I get some response will let the board know


« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 08:40:54 AM by ccp »




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
POTP (WaPo) Vindication Twelve Years Later
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2019, 10:53:58 AM »
second post

These Marines were falsely accused of war crimes. Twelve years later, they have vindication.
 
Retired Maj. Fred Galvin, pictured at his home in Hono­lulu, fought unproven allegations that members of the elite commando force he led in Afghanistan gunned down unarmed bystanders after an ambush. (Marie Eriel S. Hobro/For The Washington Post)
By Andrew deGrandpre
January 31

A Marine veteran who fought the Pentagon for 12 years over a war-crimes case brought against him and six others will have his permanent record wiped clean, an extraordinary affirmation of his claim that their reputations were destroyed by the military’s effort to imprison the men.

The Marines were members of an elite commando force expelled from Afghanistan in 2007 amid unproven allegations that they massacred innocent bystanders in the frantic minutes following an ambush. They were cleared of wrongdoing more than a year later, after the case was heard by a military court, but have maintained that senior leaders did little to set the record straight and, consequently, fostered the stigma that has dogged them ever since.

A report approved in January by the Navy Department is a major victory for retired Maj. Fred Galvin, the Marines’ commanding officer. Its conclusions, he says, are a rebuke of those who condemned his men before the facts were clear, the investigator whose work was shown in court to be sloppy and the generals who refused Galvin’s pleas for public absolution.


In its ruling, the Board for Correction of Naval Records said Galvin, 49, should be considered for a retroactive promotion. If granted, he would be entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in back salary and future government pension benefits, as he was forced to retire in 2014 after his superiors relied on “inequitable and unjust” performance appraisals, the report states, to prevent him from advancing in rank. Of the seven swept up in the case, Galvin is the only one to pursue such vindication.

More broadly, the board’s determination closes one of the Afghanistan war’s darkest chapters, an episode that unleashed international outrage only to be proved a fabrication engineered by the Taliban to fuel distrust of the U.S. military. Those involved fought for their lives that day only to be denounced by senior officers who had an obligation to protect their presumption of innocence.

“This was a big betrayal,” said Steve Morgan, a retired Marine officer and decorated combat veteran who in 2008 was part of the court panel that found Galvin’s Marines acted honorably on the battlefield. The panel also memorialized the failures committed by the Marines’ superiors during and after the investigation.

ADVERTISING

“Fred has finally come out on the right side of things, but it has come at a very steep price,” Morgan added. “The lies. The deceit. That makes me so mad. That kind of behavior doesn’t inspire confidence in the ethics of our military’s leaders. It corrodes public trust in the institution.”

[69 Afghans’ families get a U.S. apology]

Galvin was the commanding officer of Marine Special Operations Company Fox. On March 4, 2007, as he and 29 others traveled in a six-vehicle convoy through the village of Bati Kot, a suicide bomber driving a van packed with explosives attacked the American vehicles and then fighters on both sides of the road opened fire. The Marines fought back and escaped with only one minor casualty.

But in the fight’s immediate aftermath, images of bullet-riddled vehicles and ambulances loading bloodied Afghan men were transmitted worldwide. Accounts gathered at the scene portrayed the Marines as murderers, and allegations of wrongdoing were fueled by erroneous media coverage and a bogus narrative fostered by American military officials who fed false information to news outlets, the court’s conclusions would later make clear.

 
From left, Lt. Col. Scott Jack, military counsel; Galvin, commander of Fox Company; and Mark Waple, civilian counsel, arrive for a court appearance at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina in January 2008. (Chuck Beckley/Associated Press)
Galvin harbors resentment for many, peers and superiors alike. “That 12-page report is an indictment,” he said. “It shows the decay of ethical and moral leadership in our military. And the people who did this to us got a free pass.”


Chief among his adversaries is John W. Nicholson Jr., who retired from the Army last year after ascending to the rank of four-star general and serving for 2 1 / 2 years as the head of all NATO forces in Afghanistan. When the incident occurred, Nicholson was a colonel and brigade commander overseeing operations in the area, along the mountainous span of Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan that was thought to be harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Francis H. Kearney III, then a two-star Army general with purview of covert Special Operations activity in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East, dispatched his chief of staff, Patrick Pihana, to investigate.

Independent assessments of the casualty count varied widely. Amid widespread protests in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, the country’s president at the time, condemned the Marines. Hoping to contain the backlash, Nicholson broadcast an apologetic statement declaring the incident a “stain” on the U.S. military’s honor.


Privately, officials were suspicious of the unit because of a separate incident involving Galvin’s men in which, days after the ambush, they deceived him and other leaders to undertake a mission in an area declared off limits. Commanders in Afghanistan, still riled by the allegations of indiscriminate killing, pointed to the Marines’ duplicity as evidence that Galvin had lost control of his unit. He was relieved of command and Fox Company was sent home.

The Navy review board sided with Galvin here, too, concluding that his superiors “grossly overreacted” and did not differentiate between the two incidents when ordering the Marines to leave.

Nicholson and Kearney, who retired as a three-star general in 2012, are not named in the new report. However, it makes clear that senior U.S. officials made “gross errors in judgment” leading up to Kearney’s decision to eject the Marines from Afghanistan, and that along with the Taliban’s deception, Army leaders were the “proximate causes” for inciting the chain of events that led to that decision.


The report’s harshest language is directed at Pihana, whose investigation, it notes, was discredited in court years ago, in part because he was found to have suppressed evidence that supported the Marines’ version of events — and was suspected by the court of having been influenced by Kearney, his direct superior.

“The magnitude of his errors,” the report says, “cannot be overstated.” Pihana’s conclusion — that Galvin and the others should be charged with negligent homicide or dereliction of duty — is “explicable only as gross negligence or a mission with a predetermined outcome,” the report says.

Neither Nicholson, Kearney nor Pihana responded to requests for comment.

 
Galvin, who earned a Kuwaiti Liberation Medal, pictured above, deployed in support of numerous military operations over the course of his military career. (Marie Eriel S. Hobro/For The Washington Post)
Morgan has urged members of Congress to push the Pentagon to reexamine whether Nicholson, Kearney or Pihana violated military regulations or laws in their pursuit of a criminal case and, if so, to hold them accountable.


“Nicholson and Kearney perpetuated the myth these Marines did bad things, and they’ve done nothing to set the record straight,” Morgan told The Washington Post. “I’ve got no time for those guys.”

In 2015, when Military Times reexamined this case in a multipart series, Kearney said he ordered the investigation at the Marine Corps’ request because, he recalled, there was pressure on the military to demonstrate accountability in light of two unrelated war-crimes cases involving U.S. personnel in Iraq. “If these Marines have heartburn,” he said, “it should be with the Marine Corps.”

It was Jim Mattis, a revered Marine general and recently departed defense secretary, who convened the tribunal that ultimately determined that none of the Marines should be charged. The hearings spanned three weeks in January 2008. Four months later, at the outset of Memorial Day weekend, Mattis’s successor, having assessed the court’s findings, issued a brief statement affirming that Galvin’s men had “acted appropriately.”


[No charges for two Marines in deaths of Afghans]

That phrase still bothers the Marines, who say it was not a firm enough declaration of their innocence, and that it has been misinterpreted inside and outside the military to mean “we got away with murder,” Galvin said. He also questions the announcement’s timing, calling it a deliberate move to bury the story. As a consequence, those assigned to the unit were ostracized.

“Sometimes now, when I reflect on it, I think that if this didn’t happen, I’d be four years from retirement. I could have stayed in and made that my career,” said one of the Marines who was falsely accused and left the military voluntarily in 2008, when his contract expired. He spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing lingering concerns about retaliation.

“This devastated my life — my family, my legal expenses, being separated from the Marine Corps, not knowing if one day someone was going to knock on my door and take me to Fort Leavenworth,” he added, referring to the Army post in northeast Kansas that is home to the military’s only supermax prison.

 
A scrapbook made by Galvinʻs late sister includes images from his military career along with encouraging messages. (Marie Eriel S. Hobro/For The Washington Post)
The stress — and the shame — has been a burden on all of them, leading to substance abuse, divorce and thoughts of suicide in some cases, Galvin said.

As their former commanding officer, Galvin has continued to press Marine Corps headquarters to do more to set the record straight. Beginning in 2015, with support from five members of Congress, multiple entreaties have been made to the service’s most senior officer: first, to Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff later that year, and then to Dunford’s successor, Gen. Robert B. Neller.


When approached by lawmakers, Dunford and Neller each declined to revisit the matter or make any public statements of support for the Fox Company Marines. In his correspondence to members of Congress, Dunford restated the court’s findings from years prior, saying that neither Galvin nor his men faced any punitive measures. “Nor is there any adverse information in their military records associated with this incident,” the general noted then, incorrectly.

[Pentagon exonerates Marines blackballed by war-crimes case. They doubt the gesture is sincere.]

Galvin grew hopeful when Neller announced in 2016 that he was making suicide prevention a signature focus of his term as the Marine Corps commandant. “We can’t afford to lose a single Marine to anything, whether it be accident, injury or suicide,” Neller told Marine Corps Times then. “I can tell you — giving my solemn word — that the Marine Corps will try to help anyone who comes forward.”

 
Galvin received this letter from Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), who has advocated for Fox Company since 2007. (Marie Eriel S. Hobro/For The Washington Post)
Last February, under pressure from Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), Neller’s staff director at the time, Maj. Gen. Frederick M. Padilla, pledged that the service would provide counseling and other assistance to Galvin and his men. “We are concerned to hear of the challenges many members of Fox Company are facing — which are, unfortunately, all too common among our combat veterans,” Padilla wrote to Jones. “I have asked the Commanding Officer of our Wounded Warrior Regiment to follow-up with these Marines to ensure they are receiving appropriate and all necessary care and support.”

No one from the Marine Corps contacted them, Galvin said, until reading about Padilla’s directive in The Post several weeks later.

At the Pentagon, Dunford and Neller have acknowledged the review board’s determination. “General Dunford was pleased to learn about Maj. Galvin’s exoneration and also appreciates his efforts to take care of the Marines from Fox Company,” said Col. Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for the chairman.

Neller said: “We have a system through which Marines can try to remediate actions believed to have been unfair or incorrect. In this case, it seems the system worked as designed, and Maj. Galvin had his record cleared. We all wish him well.”

The Marines hope the military will do more to demonstrate that they are not outcasts but victims. “Military justice requires that those who . . . have conducted wrongdoing be held accountable,” Galvin said, “not just that those offended be patted on the back.”

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
O bama judge AGAIN
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2019, 05:47:19 AM »
right Justice Roberts ,  no politics in the Courts:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-border-wall-plans-11558747967

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haywood_Gilliam

Wrote :

" “Congress’s ‘absolute’ control over federal expenditures—even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important—is not a bug in our constitutional system,” Judge Gilliam, an Obama appointee, wrote in a 56-page decision. “It is a feature of that system, and an essential one.”

But President is to protect are borders and maintain the nation' security

It is not his fault Congress has and is negligent for political purposes over the past 40 yrs

while we are at it , here is another :

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/24/judge-blocks-mississippi-heartbeat-abortion-law/
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 06:00:05 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2019, 07:20:11 AM »
With regard to the Heartbeat Law, as best as I can tell, the law is in direct contravention to Roe on purpose so as to set up a challenge to Roe that can only be resolved by the SCOTUS.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2019, 07:49:51 AM »
With regard to the Heartbeat Law, as best as I can tell, the law is in direct contravention to Roe on purpose so as to set up a challenge to Roe that can only be resolved by the SCOTUS.

Agree.  It is in contradiction to Roe but aligned with common sense, science and morals.

The Alabama law, ban all abortions, is a step backward  - politically - for the movement.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 07:56:13 AM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
Life Liberty Levin 6.23.19
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2019, 11:06:35 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
Obama activist Judge again
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2019, 06:53:24 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
abuse of whistleblower laws to attack political enemies by the Left
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2019, 09:10:55 AM »
new scandal de jour as per Left wing media propaganda machine

so abusing whistleblower laws is the new method of the day for the democrats to attack political enemies:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-whistleblower-apparently-come-forward-053527744.html
« Last Edit: October 02, 2019, 09:12:41 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
any lawyers who could comment on the SD NY
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2019, 02:38:53 PM »
investigating anything they can think of on a sitting President

Is this with precedent?


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: any lawyers who could comment on the SD NY
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2019, 08:30:32 PM »
investigating anything they can think of on a sitting President

Is this with precedent?

I do not believe so.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
hey Dems and your media thugs
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2019, 03:32:36 PM »
Don't give us and f'ing lectures on the rule of law and constitution etc and democracy in peril


https://apnews.com/14b14afc5d8647858489a2cf5385c28d

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2019, 04:43:32 AM »
Why and about what did Steve Bannon testify against Roger Stone?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Left still going after Kavanaugh
« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2019, 09:49:36 AM »
Hat tip Doug

21 Reasons Not To Believe Christine Blasey Ford’s Claims About Justice Kavanaugh
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/02/21-reasons-not-to-believe-christine-blasey-fords-claims-about-justice-kavanaugh/

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California recently presented Christine Blasey Ford with its Roger Baldwin Courage Award. Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape, nearly derailing his Supreme Court nomination.

Many Democratic politicians and members of corporate media proudly announce that they “believe” Ford and believe that Kavanaugh should be impeached.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is a profile in courage. One year later, I still believe her. pic.twitter.com/ufqGKm7QKr

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) September 27, 2019

It’s been one year since Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believed her then and I believe it now: she is a true profile in courage. pic.twitter.com/bG36lOA7AD

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 27, 2019

I still believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. And like the man who appointed him, Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 28, 2019

I believed Christine Blasey Ford a year ago. I believe Christine Blasey Ford today. The default position should be to believe the women especially when they take on powerful men with nothing to gain.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 27, 2019

It is unclear why these politicians and pundits claim to believe Ford, given the lack of evidence in support of her serious accusations. Here are 21 reasons reasonable people may doubt Ford’s claims about Kavanaugh.

1. There Is No Evidence that Ford and Kavanaugh Ever Met
Apart from Ford’s claim, no evidence was ever provided that Ford and Kavanaugh had ever met, much less that the party she described had occurred, much less that the assault she described occurred.

2. Leland Keyser Said She Did Not Have ‘Any Confidence’ in Her Friend’s Story
Ford said a close childhood friend named Leland Keyser was a witness to the event where the alleged assault occurred, and later told people that she was sure Keyser had driven her home. While Keyser initially felt horrible that the assault had occurred unbeknownst to her, upon a rigorous examination of her memory of the summer in question, she came to lack confidence in the tale her friend told.

Keyser was a lifelong liberal who did not want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. This was first reported in our book “Justice on Trial,” and added to in “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.”

3. Friends Pressured Keyser to Change Her Story
When Keyser publicly said she had no recollection of the event in question, mutual friends of hers and Ford’s pressured her to change her story. She issued another statement, still noting she had no memory of the event while adding that she believed her friend. Later, the pressure campaign to get her to change her story rubbed her the wrong way.

A recent book revealed that these friends considered releasing disparaging information about Keyser because her public statements about her lifelong friend were such a “problem.”

4. All Alleged Witnesses Strongly Dispute the Claim
In addition to Keyser, the other alleged witnesses also said they had no memory of the event in question.

It wasn’t just that they said they had no recollection of the incident, but that the allegations were difficult to believe. For instance, P.J. Smyth said, “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

5. Ford’s Father Supported Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
The Blasey family stayed conspicuously silent about the veracity of her allegations. A public letter of support for Ford that began “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family . . .” wasn’t signed by a single blood relative. Reached for comment by the Washington Post, her father simply said, “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” before hanging up.

Privately, however, it appears the Blasey family had significant doubts about what Ford was trying to accomplish by making unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh. Within days of Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, a fascinating encounter took place. Kavanaugh’s father was approached by Ford’s father at the golf club where they are both members.

Ralph Blasey, Ford’s father, went out of his way to offer to Ed Kavanaugh his support of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, according to multiple people familiar with the conversation that took place at Burning Tree Club in Bethesda, Maryland. “I’m glad Brett was confirmed,” Ralph Blasey told Ed Kavanaugh, shaking his hand. Blasey added that the ordeal had been tough for both families.

The encounter immediately caused a stir at the close-knit private golf club as staff and members shared the news. The conversation between the two men echoed a letter Blasey had previously sent to the elder Kavanaugh. Neither man returned requests for comment about the exchanges.

Blasey never explicitly addressed the credibility of his daughter’s allegations, but he presumably wouldn’t have supported the nomination of a man he believed tried to rape his daughter.

It wasn’t just Ford’s father. The national drama played out on a decidedly local scale as the D.C.-based family and friends of Ford’s quietly apologized to friends and family of Kavanaugh, even as the toxic political environment made it punitive for them to speak up publicly.

6. Ford Doesn’t Know the Location
Ford was unable to identify the location of the alleged assault.

After being asked under oath whether she remembered any more details about the event, she said she did not. However, in later interviews with friendly journalists (for “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh”), she elaborated on her earlier description of the house where the event allegedly occurred, speculating that it was a bachelor pad and noting that it lacked a lived-in feel. She also has changed her description of the location of the event from within a 1-mile radius of the country club to between her house and the club.

7. Ford Doesn’t Know How She Arrived
Ford was unable to say how she arrived at the location of the party where she claimed the assault occurred. Her recent retelling of the story include new speculation that she arrived with Keyser and that Keyser was her entree to the party because Keyser knew Mark Judge, details she was unable to provide when asked at the hearing.

8. Ford Does Not Know How She Got Home
Ford was unable to say how she got home, although in later versions of the story she said Keyser drove her home. Ford was frequently driven around by Keyser and by one of Ford’s brothers, making their inability to support her story a particular problem.

9. Ford Does Not Know the Date or Even What Time of Week
Ford’s lack of memory about the event included no memory of whether the event took place on a weekday or weekend.

10. Ford Somehow Remembers She Had Only One Beer, But Not Other Details
While Ford didn’t remember the location of the alleged event, when it happened, how she got there, or how she got home, she claims to remember she had precisely one beer. Ford’s high school friends reported that she was a heavy drinker at the time. It was unclear why she remembered the one beer detail and almost no other details.

11. Kavanaugh’s Contemporaneous Calendars Support His Claim
While the lack of specificity about Ford’s claims made them difficult to dispute, Kavanaugh had surprising contemporaneous evidence. He kept calendars of his daily schedule, including specifics about who attended which gatherings noted after the events. He did not have a free weekend during the summer of 1982, limiting the possible dates for the gathering that was claimed. Nor were there any events recorded similar to the one Ford described.

12. Ford Changed the Date of the Incident by Years from Her Initial Stories
Ford’s story changed many details over the years, including the year in which the assault was alleged to have occurred. She initially stated that the event occurred in the “mid-1980s” when texting the Washington Post hotline, told Sen. Dianne Feinstein that it occurred in the “early 80s,” and then finally settled on the specific summer of 1982 in the article published by the Post. She was unable to explain why her assessment of the date changed or how she ultimately determined 1982 was the correct year.

13. Character Witnesses from the Time Support Kavanaugh
When the allegations of sexual misconduct broke in the Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s female friends from high school quickly attested to his character. Some 65 women he knew in high school signed a letter about his conduct that they released in his defense. Additional groups of women signed letters after additional allegations — such as that he was a serial gang rapist who roamed the streets of suburban Maryland — were made by a client of Michael Avenatti’s.

While many Holton Arms alumnae signed a letter in support of Ford, an alumna, few attended the school at the same time as Ford or even claimed to know her.

14. Ford’s First Mention of Kavanaugh’s Name is 2012, After He Became a National Figure
Kavanaugh had been a public figure since working on Kenneth Starr’s independent counsel in the mid-1990s. From there he worked in the George W. Bush White House and went through two contentious confirmation battles to be a federal judge.

By 2012, he was identified in The New Yorker as the next likely nominee to the Supreme Court under a Republican presidency. There is no record of Ford naming Kavanaugh until that year, at best. In recent accounts, she acknowledges this year was the one in which she realized Kavanaugh had a national profile.

15. False Claims Were Made about Ford’s Inability to Fly
When the allegations were published in the Washington Post, the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear from Ford immediately. After her lawyers stated publicly that she was willing to testify, the Judiciary Committee offered to fly to her and hear her testimony in an open or closed setting. While the offers to fly to her were not responded to, her lawyers told the committee she could not make an early hearing date in DC due to her fear of flying.

Under questioning from Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor, it was revealed that Ford did in fact fly to DC and flies regularly for pleasure, including to support her habit of global surf travel to remote islands. It was unclear why the false claims about fear of flying were made, although recent reporting suggests it may have been part of an attempt by her lawyers to delay the hearing date because, contrary to their statements, they knew their client did not want to testify and needed more time to convince her to change her mind.

16. Ford Scrubbed Her Social Media
When Ford’s claim went public, there was no social media footprint for her, while she was repeatedly presented as not particularly political. Her high school friends found that curious since she had been an active Facebook user, described as being “crazy” liberal.

17. Ford Said She Wanted to Stay Confidential, But First Call Was to Washington Post
The claim was made that Ford desired to keep her claims private. However, the first call she made about the matter was to the Washington Post tip line. And when she didn’t receive a response quickly enough, she said she would go to The New York Times if they didn’t respond soon.

Her other contact was with her members of Congress, although she claimed that she wasn’t quite sure how to contact her senator yet was able to reach her House member. Ford is a university professor with a Ph.D.

18. Ford’s Attorney Admitted a Motive of Desiring an Asterisk by Kavanaugh’s Name
Ford’s attorney admitted that she and her client were motivated by their support for abortion. The admission, first reported in Ryan Lovelace’s new book “Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign Against Brett Kavanaugh,” was confirmed with video footage. The forthcoming pro-Ford book “Supreme Ambition” attempts to excuse Katz by claiming Lovelace misheard garbled audio of the event, but her words are in fact quite clear on the recording.

Tarnishing the reputation of a justice who would have the power to overturn abortion precedent Roe v. Wade “was part of what motivated Christine,” her attorney Debra Katz said. “Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name,” she said of Kavanaugh.

19. Ford Has Benefited Politically, Financially, and Socially
The ACLU’s “Courage” award was not the first award bestowed on Ford. She has received several awards and accolades from liberal organizations, ranging from Sports Illustrated and Time Magazine to the YWCA, and near universal acclaim from the politicians whose views she shares. Nearly $1 million was raised for her in GoFundMe accounts. Ford has also been able to recast her troubled adolescence as a result of trauma at Kavanaugh’s hands.

20. Nothing in Kavanaugh’s Past Remotely Similar to the Claim for 37 Years
While sexual assailants usually don’t stop at one violent sexual assault, nothing in Kavanaugh’s past even remotely matches Ford’s claims. His dozens, if not hundreds, of female friends — including several ex-girlfriends — vouch for his character and have done so against unbelievable pressure campaigns. Even the anti-Kavanaugh authors of “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh” acknowledge that they were unable to find any evidence of sexual misconduct in the past 30 years despite extensive digging.

21. Memory Manipulation?
Believing, in keeping with the evidence, that Ford’s story is not accurate does not require a conclusion that she is lying. Scientific research shows that memories of traumatic events are malleable and that some types of therapy are particularly likely to introduce false elements into memory.

Ford has attempted to use discussions with her marriage therapist as evidence for her recalling this event as early as 2012, but has refused to release those notes to confirm that claim or to allow an assessment of whether therapeutic techniques known to introduce false memories were employed in those sessions. Without external corroboration of her story — and there is none — it is impossible to conclude that her allegations are true even if one believes she is completely sincere in making them.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12481
    • View Profile
leftist DOJ and judges against Barr
« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2020, 06:57:24 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/federal-judges-association-barr-trump-meeting-010916447.html

2000. DOJ alumni have signed on that Barr should resign.

I read there are 117,000 DOJ employees at present and over 8,000 prosecutors or attornies on staff

I can't imagine it being too hard to find 2,000 Trump haters such as the above Bush appointee and Democrat s among the alumni.

No peep amongst them about the totally political way in which the law has been applied to Trump people vs crats

Or no fed employee citizens vs fed employees who seem immune to justice with some few exceptions.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: leftist DOJ and judges against Barr
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2020, 07:51:49 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/federal-judges-association-barr-trump-meeting-010916447.html

2000. DOJ alumni have signed on that Barr should resign.

I read there are 117,000 DOJ employees at present and over 8,000 prosecutors or attornies on staff

I can't imagine it being too hard to find 2,000 Trump haters such as the above Bush appointee and Democrat s among the alumni.

No peep amongst them about the totally political way in which the law has been applied to Trump people vs crats

Or no fed employee citizens vs fed employees who seem immune to justice with some few exceptions.

It's nice to have the enemy from within identify itself.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: Chief Justice quashes a political stunt
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2020, 12:55:44 PM »


The Chief Justice Quashes a Political Stunt
Roberts says there’s no basis for a liberal smear against a retiring judge.
By The Editorial Board
May 10, 2020 6:04 pm ET


The Democratic campaign to delegitimize conservative judges goes beyond Senate threats to restructure the Supreme Court. Consider the progressive stunt that Chief Justice John Roberts put to bed Friday.

Judge Tom Griffith, a 65-year-old George W. Bush appointee on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, announced in March he is retiring. A progressive group called Demand Justice, run by two Obama Administration alumni, began promoting a conspiracy theory that Judge Griffith had taken a bribe to step down. The real goal was to prevent President Trump from filling the seat, to which he has since nominated Justin Walker.

The group submitted a letter to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit asking for “an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Judge Thomas Griffith’s intended retirement” including whether he “accepted anything of value in exchange for his retirement.” The letter cited no evidence. It pointed to a New York Times article that claimed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had urged some conservative judges to step down while the Republican Senate could confirm replacements.

If that’s improper, then the chorus of liberals who called for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire in President Obama’s second term had better watch out. Federal judges are entitled to weigh the political environment in deciding when to retire, and Senators have no leverage over judges with lifetime appointments. In any case the smears prompted Mr. Griffith, who is known for his integrity, to give a statement to NPR last week that “the sole reason” for his decision is his wife’s “debilitating chronic illness,” and that he had told his family and clerks last year.

The Demand Justice letter ought to have been ignored. Instead Judge Srinivasan on May 1 kicked it up to Chief Justice John Roberts. Judge Srinivasan, a Barack Obama nominee, is young enough to be considered for the Supreme Court in a Joe Biden administration (but insufficiently left-wing to make Demand Justice’s Supreme Court shortlist). Perhaps fearing progressive wrath, he asked that the complaint be reviewed by a different circuit.

The request was tossed by the Chief Justice. Judge Srinivasan’s order “does not meet the prerequisites” for a judicial conduct complaint, so “the Chief Justice has determined that a transfer of the matter is not appropriate at this juncture,” said a terse note Friday to the D.C. Circuit from the Supreme Court. Put differently, there is no evidence of wrongdoing and judges shouldn’t entertain the wild conspiracies manufactured by Demand Justice.

Good for the Chief. Obama alumni laundered through the D.C. Circuit a corruption smear against a judge ending a distinguished career to care for his wife. This is the latest gambit in a comprehensive progressive campaign to intimidate and control the judiciary. The Chief can continue to protect judicial independence by putting the kibosh on the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee’s attempt to bar judges from the Federalist Society.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
RBG vs. Judge Sullivan
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2020, 12:29:58 PM »
Judge Sullivan vs. Justice Ginsburg
By inviting outside help, the Flynn jurist is acting ‘beyond the pale.’
By WSJ The Editorial Board
May 14, 2020 7:29 pm ET

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is displayed on a laptop computer during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on May 6.
PHOTO: ANDREW HARRER/BLOOMBERG NEWS
In his zeal to convict Michael Flynn of something, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan is harming his own reputation. He’s also violating the law, as he’d know if he had read Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion last week overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Wednesday Judge Sullivan appointed an ex-judge to explore whether former Mr. Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury even though prosecutors have sought to drop the charges against the former national security adviser. The relevant case is U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, in which the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling striking down a criminal statute involving immigration as unconstitutionally overbroad. The case was overturned because instead of adjudicating the issues raised by the parties, the Ninth Circuit panel invited outside groups to brief them about a defense the defendant never raised.

This is akin to what Judge Sullivan is trying to do with Mr. Flynn by asking outside parties to make new arguments for prosecution—and even appointing former judge John Gleeson, who has shown clear public bias (in an op-ed) against Mr. Flynn, to make the case. Judge Sullivan’s abuse is more egregious given that the real prosecutors now say they don’t believe they can honestly prosecute Mr. Flynn.

Justice Ginsburg’s argument is that the job of judges is to judge, not to substitute for prosecutors. As she wrote in a 2008 case, in our system of justice “courts follow the principle of party presentation, i.e., the parties frame the issues for decision and the courts generally serve as neutral arbiters of matters the parties present.” Last week in Sineneng-Smith, she wrote that “the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”

The 9-0 ruling doesn’t bode well for Judge Sullivan on appeal, and it makes us wonder if in his rage at the prosecution he has lost his legal, and maybe emotional, bearings. Judge Sullivan is acting like Justice Ginsburg said the Ninth Circuit judges did: “beyond the pale.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Dershowitz on Sullivan
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2020, 12:44:24 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2020, 03:47:15 PM »
Emmet Sullivan vs. the D.C. Circuit
Another precedent that rebuts the judge’s ruling in the Flynn case.
By The Editorial Board
May 15, 2020 6:52 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
391

Sri Srinivasan in 2013.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has refused to accept the prosecution and defense agreement to drop the charges against Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI, despite a mountain of law saying he doesn’t have the authority. We wrote Friday about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent ruling that cuts against his decision to solicit outside briefs. And now we’re reminded of another precedent that is even more on point about the judge’s wayward logic.

Unmasking the Michael Flynn Unmaskers


SUBSCRIBE
The 2016 ruling in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concerned another judge’s challenge to a prosecution and defense agreement. In U.S. v. Fokker Services, Judge Richard Leon refused to accept a deferred prosecution agreement between the Obama Justice Department and a Dutch aerospace services company. He thought it was too lenient.

Unable to persuade the judge to budge, the parties filed a writ of mandamus for relief with the D.C. Circuit. The ruling by a three-judge panel wasn’t gentle in rebuking Judge Leon’s decision as contrary to law and constitutional understanding—and for reasons that bear directly on Judge Sullivan’s misguided attempt to supplant the executive power of prosecution with his own judicial authority.

“[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” said the court. It quoted the court’s 1967 precedent, Newman v. U.S.: “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.”

Who wrote that opinion? None other than Sri Srinivasan, a Barack Obama appointee and now chief judge of the D.C. Circuit. He was joined by conservative giants Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle. The court didn’t dismiss Judge Leon from the case, but it did overrule his objections to the deal and remanded the case back to him with those instructions.

Here’s the kicker: If the Justice Department files a writ of mandamus to remove Judge Sullivan from the case, it would go to the D.C. Circuit. A different panel might get the case but the judges would have to consider Judge Srinivasan’s precedent. It’s true the Flynn case is politically charged, but on the legal merits Judge Sullivan would be wise to stand down before he does further harm to his reputation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
The Flynn 302
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2020, 04:08:44 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: Constitutional Response to Trump's firing of IGs
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2020, 08:09:54 AM »
https://www.lawfareblog.com/constitutional-response-trumps-firings-inspectors-general

Murky waters, I'm not sure what to make of this.  Is an IG a "principle Officer" of the United States, like a Treasury Secretary or any cabinet official is?  It's not an official named in the constitution or running a federal agency. 

Who does the IG report to?  If it is the executive branch, doesn't Congress have the power to order its own investigations?

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended:
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/igactasof1010(1).pdf

What about Mueller investigatiing the agencies and the administration?  He wasn't appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, but had massive powers and budget.  My understanding is that the President could have fired him at any time constitutionally, but didn't because of political constraints.  Different statute:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

Any law that redefines the constitutional separation of the defined branches is not a constitutional law, IMHO.  If these are constitutional officers, why not define them in a constitutional amendment which is much harder by design than passing a law with simple majorities signed by one President.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Berman Affair
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2020, 03:49:09 AM »
The Berman Resistance
The grandstanding former U.S. Attorney is no political martyr.
By The Editorial Board
June 21, 2020 12:46 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
497

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman in New York, Oct. 10, 2019
PHOTO: JUSTIN LANE/SHUTTERSTOCK

So here’s the plan. We need to remove a U.S. Attorney because he’s investigating associates of the President. Let’s wait until four months before the election, and let’s do it on a Friday night so it looks suspicious and the guy can refuse to step down and make himself a martyr to the Resistance. Yeah, that’ll fool everybody.

That’s what the media and Democrats want everyone to believe about President Trump’s weekend dismissal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman. It’s more accurate to say this looks like a fiasco of bungled execution by the Administration and self-indulgence by Mr. Berman that is being overplayed as an abuse of power. In other words, it’s your average Trump melodrama.

Trump, Dreamers And The Supreme Court


SUBSCRIBE
Mr. Berman has been U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for more than two years under a judicial appointment but was never nominated or confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Trump has every right to fire Mr. Berman as an inferior officer in the executive branch. Attorney General Bill Barr was negotiating with Mr. Berman over a transfer to another senior job on Friday when the Justice Department issued a statement that Mr. Berman is “stepping down,” which is standard Justice Department language in these cases.

The White House said at about the same time that the President would nominate SEC Chairman Jay Clayton to replace Mr. Berman. The highly competent Mr. Clayton, a New Yorker, had planned to leave the Administration but said he’d stay for the U.S. Attorney job.

Mr. Berman then issued a grandstanding press release late Friday saying he wouldn’t go until a successor was nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Trump finally fired him on Saturday at Mr. Barr’s recommendation, and Mr. Barr said in a letter to Mr. Berman that his deputy, Audrey Strauss, will replace him until a successor is confirmed.

That should end this as a legal matter. Mr. Berman doesn’t have squatter’s rights to the job, and there is no violation of law or abuse of power here.

The political cost is a different story. The Washington Resistance to Mr. Trump is portraying this as an attempt to protect his political allies. Mr. Berman has prosecuted Mr. Trump’s former associates, including attorney Michael Cohen, and the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. He’s also said to be investigating Deutsche Bank’s business dealings with the Trump Organization before Mr. Trump was President.

But our Justice sources say Mr. Berman’s active investigations don’t involve Mr. Trump’s allies, except a minor one related to Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani. Replacing Mr. Berman with Mr. Clayton or anyone else won’t make investigations go away. The minute anyone moved to shut one of them down, the news would leak and career prosecutors would resign. Mr. Barr’s Saturday letter to Mr. Berman said he tasked Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz with examining any “improper interference” with current investigations. If this is a coverup, it’s the most inept in history.

The shame is that all of this wastes more of Mr. Barr’s political capital. The AG is trying to clean up the Justice Department after its 2016 campaign abuses, and U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating what happened and why. But the media and the FBI and Justice officials who spied on Trump campaign officials, promoted the false Steele dossier, and lied to the FISA court are desperate to tarnish Mr. Barr before Mr. Durham reports. That’s what’s really behind all the outrage over what should be a routine replacement of a U.S. Attorney.