Tag: Trump attack on the rule of law

Judge Sullivan Will Seek Additional Hearing On Flynn Sentence

Last December, Judge Emmet Sullivan made clear what he thought about Michael Flynn’s claim of being “ambushed” by FBI investigators with a one-sentence ruling: “The court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn’s arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements.”

The idea that Flynn—who has pleaded guilty twice to lying in connection with his phone calls to the former Russian ambassador—was trapped has been ludicrous all along. Flynn is guilty—and of a lot more than he has been charged with in court. The trivial charges of perjury were supposed to be the former national security advisor’s slap-on-the-wrist exchange for providing information that kept both Flynn and his son from facing far more serious charges.

Flynn’s only hope for avoiding sentencing doesn’t lie with any legal claim. It’s with the White House, and with Attorney General William Barr’s effort to give Flynn a pardon without Trump having to dirty his pardon pen by withdrawing the case. Two weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals shockingly went along with Barr and told Flynn to go home, grab a beer, and revel in the ability of Trump to run rampant over the law. But now Judge Sullivan has replied with a not-so-fast, sending the case back to the Washington, D.C. Court in full—where the outcome is likely to be considerably different. Continue reading.

Federal judge slams Trump and his allies for targeting juror in Roger Stone case

AlterNet logoTomeka Hart, who served as the forewoman on veteran GOP operative Roger Stone’s criminal trial last year, has been lambasted by President Donald Trump as well as by some well-known figures in the right-wing media — including InfoWars’ Alex Jones and Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. And Judge Amy Berman Jackson, according to CNN, asserted on Tuesday that attacks on Hart are part of a campaign of intimidation against the jurors.

Jackson, who presided over Stone’s trial, sentenced him to three years and four months in federal prison on February 20. Stone has requested a retrial, and Jackson — during a hearing on Tuesday — stressed that making the identities of the jurors public “would put them at substantial risk of harm.” Although Hart has spoken publicly about Stone’s trial, Jackson asserted that the privacy of the jurors must be respected.

“While judges may have volunteered for their positions … jurors are not volunteers,” Jackson explained. “They are deserving of the public’s respect.”  Continue reading.

‘Outrageous’: Legal experts condemn Trump for demanding Sotomayor and Ginsburg recusals

President Donald Trump Monday night called on Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from any cases involving the president, a demand critics denounced as an “outrageous” attack on the nation’s highest legal body.

Trump’s demand came in response to Sotomayor’s scathing dissent in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to allow the president’s so-called “wealth test” for immigrants—also known as the public charge rule—to take effect in Illinois. Sotomayor accused the court’s five conservative justices of favoring one litigant over all others—the Trump administration—in their ruling.

“This is a terrible thing to say,” Trump tweeted of Sotomayor’s dissent. “Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsburg when she called me a ‘faker.’” Continue reading.

Trump maintains he can intervene in cases after Barr urges him to curb tweeting

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Friday asserted he has “the legal right” to insert himself into the Justice Department’s handling of criminal cases one day after Attorney General William Barr said the president’s tweets were making his job more difficult.

Trump cited Barr’s comments from an ABC News interview in which the attorney general said Trump had not asked him to take certain action in a criminal case.

“This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” Trump tweeted. Continue reading.

Barr takes control of legal matters of interest to Trump, including Stone sentencing

Barr’s intervention in Roger Stone’s case wasn’t the first time senior political appointees reached into a case involving an ex-Trump aide, officials say.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. attorney who had presided over an inconclusive criminal investigation into former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe was abruptly removed from that job last month in one of several recent moves by Attorney General William Barr to take control of legal matters of personal interest to President Donald Trump, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

A person familiar with the matter has confirmed to NBC News that President Trump has now rescinded the nomination of the U.S. attorney, Jessie Liu, for a job as an undersecretary at the Treasury Department.

On Tuesday, all four line prosecutors withdrew from the case against Trump associate Roger Stone — and one quit the Justice Department altogether — after Barr and his top aides intervened to reverse a stiff sentencing recommendation of up to nine years in prison that the line prosecutors had filed with the court Monday. Continue reading.

Georgetown law professor explains why Alan Dershowitz’s legal argument will crumble under Senate questioning: ‘No sound basis’

AlterNet logoGeorgetown law professor John Mikhail suggested on Sunday that the portion of President Donald Trump’s defense which is being covered by Alan Dershowitz is destined to fail because it has “no sound basis” in history and law.

“There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. In addition to being at odds with common sense, this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence,” Mikhail stated.

The law professor cited the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s. Continue reading.

Trump’s Impeachable Conduct Strikes at the Heart of the Rule of Law: Part 2

Find more about Trump’s Constitutional Crisis as it develops here.

This is part two in a series documenting the ways in which President Trump’s actions related to Ukraine violate basic tenets of American law. Read the first installment, which focuses on bribery and extortion, here.

Center for American Progress logoThere is substantial evidence to show that President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. Pressuring a foreign government to interfere in U.S. elections by, among other things, withholding military aid undermines America’s democracy and national security. In fact, concern over foreign interference is one of the reasons the founders provided for the constitutional power of impeachment in the first place.

President Trump continues to claim that his actions in the Ukraine-related scandal have been “perfect.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. While a president need not break any specific laws in order to be impeached and removed from office, the type of behavior exhibited by President Trump is prohibited by a range of federal laws.

Trump’s impeachable conduct

Here are some of the major events that have occurred so far in the Ukraine-related scandal:

View the complete October 18 article by Maggie Jo Buchanan, William Roberts and Michael Sozan on the Center for American Progress website here.

Trump’s Conduct Strikes at the Heart of the Rule of Law

Center for American Progress logoThis week, President Donald Trump feigned surprise that his “perfect” conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be considered an impeachable offense. Both the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call and the allegations in the whistleblower complaint, however, make it clear that Trump’s actions are in direct conflict with core tenets of American law.

Here is what we know so far: Before speaking with President Zelensky, Trump blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine. This week, Trump claimed that he did so in response to Ukrainian corruption. A Pentagon letter contradicted this claim, however, certifying that Ukraine had made the institutional reforms needed to receive the aid.

During his call with Zelensky, Trump noted that the United States does “a lot for Ukraine,” but that such help isn’t “reciprocal necessarily.” Trump then asked for a “favor”—for Ukraine to investigate conspiracy theories that could benefit Trump politically. Most notably, he asked Zelensky to investigate the family of one of Trump’s political rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump ended the call by noting that he would have his allies—personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Attorney General William Barr—follow up about that investigation. Underpinning all of this is Ukraine’s need for U.S. support and reported understanding that such support was tied to a “willingness to ‘play ball’ on the issues that had been publicly aired.”

View the complete September 27 article by Maggie Jo Buchanan on the Center for American Progress website here.

‘This is nuts’: Former federal prosecutor argues Trump’s justification for blocking McGahn’s testimony will cripple the US Constitution

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig this week admitted he was stunned by President Donald Trump’s justification for blocking the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn — and he called the legal rationale behind it “nuts.”

Writing on CNN, Honig said he was aghast at the lengths the Trump White House is going to prevent Congress from conducting any oversight.

“The White House previously invoked executive privilege in an effort to prevent McGahn from producing documents to Congress,” he writes. “Now the White House — perhaps recognizing that its executive privilege invocation would likely fail on the legal merits — has changed tack and instead made an even broader claim that Congress cannot ever compel testimony from a senior adviser to the President. This is nuts.”

View the complete May 21 article by Brad Reed from Real Story on the AlterNet website here.

Trump And Pence Launch Autocratic Attack On Federal Courts

Here’s a proposed step towards the new autocracy that Donald Trump is promoting that we ought to stop in its tracks.

Vice President Mike Pence told the Federalist Society on Wednesday that the Trump administration intends to challenge the right of federal district courts to issue rulings blocking nationwide policies, arguing that such injunctions are obstructing Trump’s agenda on immigration, health care and other issues.

It’s a perfect distillation of what’s wrong about the direction of the Trump presidency. It is a call for disruption – again – of judicial procedures and jurisdictions, all with the intent to protect any policy announcement by an imperial White House to be questioned. And it is not the White House’s jurisdiction to change.

View the complete May 12 article by Terry H. Schwadron of DCReport.org on the National Memo website here.