Tag: Trump disregard for the U.S. Constitution

Conservative legal expert explains why Trump’s latest ‘frivolous lawsuits’ show his ‘appalling constitutional ignorance’

AlterNet Logo

Last week in a federal court in his adopted state of Florida, former President Donald Trump filed a civil lawsuit against three major tech companies: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, claiming that all them of them have violated the 1st Amendment rights he enjoys under the United States Constitution. Law professor Kimberly Wehle, in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on July 14, explains why Trump’s “frivolous lawsuits” have absolutely no merit.

Following the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building — an insurrectionist attack that Trump incited, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, arch-conservative Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and others who voted to impeach him — Trump’s Twitter and Facebook accounts were suspended. And his YouTube channel was suspended as well.

Wehle, who teaches law at the University of Baltimore and is a former assistant federal prosecutor, explains, “Given his utter ignorance about the U.S. Constitution, it remains shocking that Donald Trump was — as recently as half a year ago! — charged with preserving, protecting and defending it. The latest evidence of his appalling constitutional ignorance comes in the form of a series of frivolous lawsuits that reveal an embarrassingly distorted understanding of our national charter. At least this legal mess has one silver lining: It’s an opportunity for another mini-lesson in basic civics.” Continue reading.

‘Emotion’ from Trump’s legal team wins presidential plaudits

The Hill logoThe American public and U.S. Senate got its first real introduction on Tuesday to Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel who has been a key player on impeachment for President Trump.

The former corporate lawyer had not been a major public face for the president until Tuesday, when he offered a passionate defense of Trump that might have even surprised his boss with its made-for-a-television audience salvos.

“Pat Cipollone is a high-quality human being. I was very impressed with Pat. He had great emotion yesterday,” Trump told reporters at a news conference in Davos. “Pat is a brilliant guy but I’ve never seen that emotion and that’s real emotion.” Continue reading.

Law professor details 4 glaring ‘deficiencies’ with Trump lawyers’ impeachment trial brief: ‘We’ve seen this before with the tantrums’

AlterNet logoOn Monday, January 20, attorneys representing President Donald Trump during his impeachment trial submitted a legal brief voicing their reasons for objecting to the trial. The 109-page brief has been drawing a great deal of criticism from Trump’s opponents, who argue that the attorneys’ reasoning is badly flawed in multiple ways. And law professor Michael J. Gerhardt, analyzing the brief in an article published by Just Security on January 21, cites four fundamental “deficiencies that make it more of a political screed than a legal document deserving of respect and serious consideration by senators, the public, historians and constitutional scholars.”

Deficiency #1, according to Gerhardt, is the “table pounding” tone of the memo — which the law professor criticizes for being “replete with bluster” and using over-the-top rhetoric like “an affront to the Constitution” and “a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 presidential election.”

“— I am being precise and literal with that choice of words — thrown by Republican members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees,” observes Gerhardt, who teaches at the University of North Carolina. “The only thing this kind of rhetoric seemingly achieves is energizing the president’s base.” Continue reading.

The Memo: Day One shows conflicting narratives on impeachment

The Hill logoThe third impeachment trial of an American president got underway in earnest on Tuesday, amid an atmosphere of instant recrimination and polarization.

One small exception came when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a last-minute concession, announcing that each side would have three days — not two as he had previously asserted — to make its case.

But that was a rare, and relatively minor, shift from McConnell, who has previously said that he would coordinate the conduct of the trial with the White House. Continue reading.

An embarrassing moment for Trump’s legal team

Washington Post logoPresident Trump’s impeachment managers made little secret Tuesday that they’d rather put House Democrats on trial than Trump. They repeatedly alleged mistreatment of Trump in his impeachment rather than dwelling upon the evidence against him.

But in one instance, one of them badly overreached.

Appearing shortly after 6 p.m. on the Senate floor, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Jay Sekulow offered an indignant rebuke of the Democrats’ impeachment managers. What he was so incensed about: that they had allegedly referred to “lawyer lawsuits” in prosecuting the case against Trump. Continue reading.

1999 Trial vs. McConnell Rules

Mitch McConnell is trying to gaslight the American people. He wants us to believe that his ridiculously unfair, biased impeachment rules follow past precedent and he’s repeatedly lied that his procedures mirror the 1999 impeachment trial.

McConnell: “And all we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago.”

McConnell: “What was good enough for President Clinton in an impeachment trial should have been good enough for President Trump.”

That’s a lie. Here are the facts: Continue reading “1999 Trial vs. McConnell Rules”

Senate blocks push to subpoena Bolton in impeachment trial

The Hill logoSenate Republicans blocked an attempt by Democrats to include a deal on former national security adviser John Bolton‘s testimony in the impeachment trial rules.

Democrats forced a vote in the early morning hours Wednesday on calling Bolton to testify, but it was tabled, effectively pigeonholing it, in a 53-47 party-line vote.

The proposal from Democrats would have inserted language into the trial rules resolution, which is expected to be passed later on Tuesday, to subpoena Bolton. The failed vote followed a similar unsuccessful effort to subpoena acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), speaking for the first time from the Senate floor, said Republicans and Trump were “afraid” to let Bolton testify because “they know he knows too much.” Continue reading.

Senate rejects subpoenaing Mulvaney to testify in impeachment trial

The Hill logoSenate Republicans rejected an effort by Democrats to call White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to testify at the outset of the impeachment trial.

Democrats forced a vote to get language included in the resolution on the trial rules that would subpoena Mulvaney, who previously defied a subpoena to appear as part of the House impeachment inquiry.

But senators voted 53-47 along party lines to table the amendment, effectively killing it. Democrats needed four Republican senators to support their efforts to get a deal on calling Mulvaney to testify as part of the rules resolution.  Continue reading.

Barr Once Contradicted Trump’s Claim That Abuse of Power Is Not Impeachable

New York Times logoIn a memo for the Trump team during the Russia investigation, the attorney general wrote that presidents who misuse their authority are subject to impeachment.

WASHINGTON — Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense. But it turns out that another important legal figure has contradicted that idea: Mr. Trump’s attorney general and close ally, William P. Barr.

In summer 2018, when he was still in private practice, Mr. Barr wrote a confidential memo for the Justice Department and Mr. Trump’s legal team to help the president get out of a problem. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was pressuring him to answer questions about whether he had illegally impeded the Russia investigation.

Mr. Trump should not talk to investigators about his actions as president, even under a subpoena, Mr. Barr wrote in his 19-page memo, which became public during his confirmation. Mr. Barr based his advice on a sweeping theory of executive power under which obstruction of justice laws do not apply to presidents, even if they misuse their authority over the Justice Department to block investigations into themselves or their associates for corrupt reasons.

Adam Schiff brilliantly used Trump’s own words against him at the start of the impeachment trial

AlterNet logoAddressing the Senate on the first official day of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) delivered a persuasive and impassioned speech that urged senators to conduct a robust and thorough proceeding — rather than rushing through the trial as many Republicans would like.

Schiff repeatedly dismantled many of the arguments against hearing new witnesses and obtaining new evidence that have been put forward by the president’s defenders, and he rebutted the arguments that the impeachment inquiry he led in the House of Representatives was too swift. The House, he said, has a constitutional right conduct impeachment in the manner it sees fit, and it was obligated to move forward once it had a compelling and urgent case against Trump. And while some critics have said that he should have fought to obtain more witness testimony and documents, he pointed out that the president obstructed many efforts to get this evidence and that going to the courts would have been unnecessary and far too slow.

In a clever and compelling move, Schiff used video clips of Trump’s own words to bolster his arguments. He played a clip of Trump saying, for instance, that he would like to see witnesses at the Senate trial. Continue reading.