Tag Archives: DOJ

International news, national news, political news

It’s not too early to call for special prosecutor

The White House says it’s too early to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the president’s relationship with Russian government officials.

Actually, it’s not too early. Not at all.

At issue is whether U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should lead that probe. I don’t believe he should. Neither do congressional Democrats. Nor do a number of leading congressional Republicans.

We are entering some seriously rough waters as they regard the president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump has this curious man-crush on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose own government has been accused of trying to manipulate the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Intelligence organizations have declared that the Russians tried to hack into our political computer networks in that endeavor; Trump keeps denying it happened.

There is a compelling need to get to the truth. Sessions is too close, too friendly, too allied with Trump to be trusted to give such an investigation the push it needs.

White House spokespersons are calling on Congress to launch investigations. I, for one, am not sure I can trust Congress to conduct such a thorough, bipartisan probe; I point to the ridiculous investigation into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail “scandal,” which produced nothing on which to prosecute the former secretary of state.

This story has many alleys down which investigators should travel.

Did the president order former national security adviser Michael Flynn to talk to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions leveled against the Russians? When did Flynn lie to the vice president about those discussions and did the president know about it before the vice president knew? Was there a violation of the Logan Act prohibiting unauthorized agents from negotiating with foreign governments?

Who’s going to find the truth?

Special prosecutors aren’t a new concept. Congress has appointed them, they have produced riveting results.

Donald Trump might be in serious trouble. Then again, he might be as clean as he says he is.

Let’s turn a special prosecutor team loose to find the truth.

Now!

national news, political news

GOP lawmaker gets it right: appoint a special prosecutor

2 Comments

Well … as I live and breathe.

Republican U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa of California — one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most fervent nemeses on Capitol Hill — has shown his reasonable side.

Issa believes a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate allegations about Donald J. Trump’s connections to the Russian government.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is the wrong man to lead such a probe, Issa told Bill Maher on his “Real Time” TV show.

Issa said, according to the Associated Press: “You’re right that you cannot have somebody — a friend of mine, Jeff Sessions — who was on the campaign and who is an appointee. You’re going to need to use the special prosecutor’s statute and office.”

How about that?

Issa makes the case that Sessions is too close to the president and too much in Trump’s hip pocket to be a faithful and committed investigator into allegations about the president’s relationships with Russian government officials.

Intelligence agencies have determined that Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump keeps denying it, calling such reporting “fake news.” What’s more, there now are questions about whether the Trump campaign had improper contact with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign while the government was (allegedly) trying to sway the election in Trump’s favor.

Sessions role in the campaign? He was the first U.S. senator to endorse Trump; he spoke in Trump’s favor at the Republican convention this past summer; he joined the campaign as a national security adviser; and then he got appointed attorney general by the same president who should be investigated for improper conduct.

It’s to be expected that Democrats would insist on a special prosecutor. To hear such demands come from Republicans — let alone one who pursued a leading Democratic politician seemingly forever — provides a need push in the drive to find the unvarnished truth in this ongoing story.

legal news

Recuse yourself, Mr. Attorney General

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should have no business — none! — taking part in any investigation of a growing crisis regarding Michael Flynn, the Russians and whatever else might emerge.

Sessions needs to hand this probe over to an independent investigator, wash his hands of it and let the hounds loose on their hunt for the truth. They need to find out the whole truth about who knew what, when and how much regarding the former national security adviser’s contacts with the Russians. They need to get to the bottom of whether Flynn was acting as a lone wolf or whether he was doing the bidding of someone higher up on the chain of command.

Why must the AG recuse himself? Well, Sessions is biased in favor of Donald J. Trump and his administration.

He was the first U.S. senator to endorse Trump’s candidacy for president.

Sessions gave a glowing nominating speech on Trump’s behalf at the Republican National Convention.

The senator served as an adviser to Trump throughout his winning campaign.

He and Trump are friends, allies and have essentially been joined at the proverbial hip for years.

Sessions needs to surrender this probe to an independent investigator. Congress needs to have a hand in it, but only to accept or reject the investigator’s findings.

As for Sessions. Stay away, Mr. Attorney General.

legal news

POTUS fired his own acting AG?

There’s been some interesting reporting overnight about the political earthquake that the president of the United States created.

Donald Trump fired acting U.S. attorney general Sally Yates because of her refusal to defend the president’s order banning refugees entering the United States temporarily from certain countries … where Muslims comprise the majority of the population.

Yates is held over from the Obama administration.

Here’s the weird part: Trump and his team reportedly asked Yates to stay on the job until the president could have his own AG confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The president selected her to be the acting attorney general.

Yates is known to be a dedicated career federal prosecutor who has worked in the Justice Department under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

She said she believed the president’s order was unlawful — under her understanding of federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. I believe it is the duty of the AG — acting or otherwise — to follow the law and not necessarily to do what he or she is told to do by the president.

Trump chose Yates, who then followed the law.

Then the president accused her of “betraying” the Justice Department. Hit the road, he told her.

And now we have our first potential constitutional crisis.

Just think: It’s Day 11 of the Trump administration.

legal news

Trump makes history by firing acting AG

I had not heard of Sally Yates until today.

Now she becomes something of political hero in the eyes of millions of Americans — thanks to Donald J. Trump’s decision tonight to fire her from her job as acting U.S. attorney general.

What did the former assistant AG do? She declined to argue on behalf of the president’s decision to ban refugees trying to enter this country from seven Muslim-majority nations.

Yates questioned whether the executive order was lawful. Oh, yes — she is a holdover from the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

My head continues to spin. My eyes are bugging out. My heart is palpitating.

Ten days into his presidency and Donald Trump’s penchant for pandemonium has claimed its first victim.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-executive-order-234401

Yates was holding down the DOJ post until Jeff Sessions was to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

I’m not yet sure about the legality of the executive order. Perhaps the former assistant AG is right; perhaps she is wrong. Whatever the case, the president chose to fire her summarily without first trying to persuade her that she really ought to do the job she was supposed to do.

Some folks around Washington are bringing up some dark memories. Can you recall the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Nixon sought to remove a special prosecutor who was examining the Watergate caper? Do you recall he then fired — in succession — the attorney general and his assistant AG who refused to dismiss the independent counsel?

The task then fell to the U.S. solicitor general, a fellow named Robert Bork, who went on to earn his own place in our nation’s history.

Honeymoon for this president? It is officially over.

national news, political news

Trump hears critics … calls for vote probe

I’ll take all the credit I deserve for this bit of news.

Donald J. Trump has called for a full investigation of the allegations he has made about illegal immigrants voting en masse for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. He said that so many of them voted illegally that they cost him the popular vote margin — as if it that matters. I mean, c’mon, Mr. President! You won the Electoral College … in a self-described “landslide.” That’s where it counts, right?

Yes, I was one of the many critics of the president’s blind assertion about illegal voting activity. He offered zero evidence, proof or attribution to the assertion that as many as 5 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.

Now he says he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Fine. Go for it, Mr. President.

But perhaps you ought to commission an independent investigation to do the job. I had called on you to sic the Department of Justice on the matter. Now I’m not so sure DOJ would be fully independent and would reach the incontrovertible decision that would settle this matter.

I happen to be among those who doesn’t believe what you have alleged. Thus, I don’t want DOJ investigators to fabricate conclusions based on what you — the boss — have alleged.

Independent investigations aren’t out of the question. They have plenty of precedent.

The president has leveled a full frontal assault on the integrity of the electoral process with his allegations. He has attacked our democratic process. He has implied that our state and local elections officials lack the integrity protect our system against illegal voting activity.

Let’s get to the truth, shall we, wherever it leads us.

national news

Trump continues to promote a lie

The president of the United States is perpetuating another lie … allegedly.

This one involves the phony charge that as many as 5 million “illegal immigrants” cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election — all of them for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It was those votes, Donald J. Trump insists, that cost him the popular vote margin over his challenger.

This is as ridiculous an assertion as anyone can hear from a newly sworn in president of the United States.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-won%E2%80%99t-back-down-from-his-voting-fraud-lie-here-are-the-facts/ar-AAmbXBM?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

White House press spokesman said today — again! — that the president believes it to be true. He hasn’t cited a single provable fact to back any of it up. Trump hasn’t provided a scintilla of evidence of a single vote cast by someone who is in this country illegally.

But this is Trump’s modus operandi: You say something enough and you demonize the target of your falsehood sufficiently to provide a shadow of a doubt. Sound familiar? It should. It was the same kind of shameful/shameless tactic he used to keep alive the lie about President Barack Obama’s place of birth. To this day, polls are showing that most Republican voters actually believe the former president was not qualified constitutionally to hold the office he held for two successful terms. That is Trump’s work.

Here’s an idea for the president to consider.

Why not launch a Justice Department investigation to prove the claims the president is making. Heck, the president has the power to turn the DOJ hounds loose. He should do so. Now!

He’s got a pal running the FBI. James Comey’s letter to Congress casting doubt on those “damn e-mails” from Clinton while she was secretary of state is considered a possible turning point in the election outcome. Sic the FBI boss loose on this caper, Mr. President.

The president continues to make a mockery of our electoral process with this specious allegation about “millions of illegal immigrants” casting ballots.

Oh, wait! We also have that Russian hacking thing, too.

First things first. Either put up, Mr. President, or shut up!

legal news

Note to AG pick: expect a rough ride before Senate inquisitors

Donald J. Trump perhaps selected Jeff Sessions to be the next U.S. attorney general expecting him to get a smooth ride through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I believe he would be mistaken if that is the case.

Sessions has served in the Senate as a Republican from Alabama. However, he brings some heavy baggage along as he preps for what I think will be a rough confirmation hearing.

You see, he once was rebuffed by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him for a federal judgeship. Why? It seems the then-U.S. attorney had said some highly insensitive things about African-Americans — and about an infamous organization known to hate black people.

Sessions once said he believed the Ku Klux Klan was OK until he learned that one of its leaders “had smoked pot.” Sessions said he was joking. Damn, I haven’t stopped laughing at that one!

The Senate couldn’t abide by what Sessions said so it rejected his nomination to the federal bench.

Voters back home, though, apparently didn’t hold that rejection against Sessions when they elected him to the same Senate that had turned him away from his cherished judgeship.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/ar-BBxxdpm?li=BBnb7Kz

As the Washington Post has reported, Sessions’s views are at odds with a lot of mainstream political thought across the nation. For example, according to the Post: “At a 2006 congressional hearing, Sessions said that an entire group of people wouldn’t thrive in America. ‘Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and would indicate their likely success in our society,’ he said.

“In 2009, he voted against a hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming student murdered in 1998, that extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“As state attorney general in 1995, he argued against a decision by the Alabama Circuit Court to order the state to remedy funding inequities between the poorest school districts, which were heavily black, and their wealthiest, which were predominantly white. He did so on the grounds that taxing and spending power lay with the legislature, not the courts.”

The president-elect could do a lot better than Jeff Sessions in seeking an attorney general. I don’t expect the Senate to reject Sessions.

I do, though, expect senators to demand that the AG-designate answer some direct and probing questions about his views relating to equal treatment for all Americans.

national news, political news

Death threats against electors? What the … ?

Members of New York's Electoral College cast their ballots in the New York state Senate Chamber in Albany, N.Y., to elect President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden on Monday, Dec. 17, 2012. Members of the Electoral College cast the official, final votes in the 2012 presidential election, a constitutional formality on President Barack Obama's march to a second term. (AP Photo/Tim Roske)

Donald J. Trump’s fans and followers behaved badly when protestors showed up at the president-elect’s rallies.

They were called down by the media, as they should have been.

Now, though, we’re hearing about death threats — for crying out loud! — against Republican electors who are going to cast their electoral votes for the man who won enough of them to be elected president.

Death threats! Are you kidding me?

Is this what we’ve become, a nation of bullies and boors?

The notion that someone would threaten bodily harm — or death — to another fellow citizen who is doing his or her duty is repugnant on its face.

I get that emotions still are smoldering after a contentious and often insult-driven presidential election campaign.

These reports, though, of death threats against electors suggest a level of insanity that needs to be curbed.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46517

The media need to come down hard on those making such threats. While we’re at it, the U.S. Justice Department needs to unleash its investigative hounds to track down those who are making them — in violation of federal law.

legal news

Tsarnaev is going down

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should die for killing those people during the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, a federal court jury ruled today.

I know a lot of Americans are cheering the decision. I’m not one of them, but perhaps not for the usual reasons.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/boston-marathon-bomber-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death-for-2013-attack/ar-BBjOydK

I oppose capital punishment on principle. I’ve noted that already on this blog and I stand by my belief.

However, if there ever was a case that challenged that principle, the Tsarnaev case stands out as a serious test. The testimony as I understand it was riveting in the extreme. The pictures of the victims, including the young boy who died in the blast, were gut-wrenching.

I don’t pity Tsarnaev in the least and my desire to see him live has nothing to do with wanting to spare his life because of some sense of grace. He needs to seek that himself, which he is not likely to do.

Death for this young man, though, is going to be seen as a “victory.” Tsarnaev’s perverted view of his Muslim faith means he’ll be welcomed into the after-life as a hero. Do we want that for him? Of course not.

I crueler fate would have been to lock the young man up in a super-max prison, keep him in solitary confinement for 23 hours every single day and let him ponder for the remainder of his time on Earth precisely what he did to those innocent victims.

As a non-Muslim, I do not want to give Tsarnaev the satisfaction of obtaining that so-called “victory” by sticking a needle in his arm and watching him die.

The death sentence means a probable lengthy appeals process. Civil liberties groups will intervene on his behalf. Perhaps his legal team will think it can get the death sentence reversed. Every court hearing is going to dredge up more misery for the loved ones of those who died and for the victims who were injured — some of them grievously — by the terrorists’ blast. They do not deserve the endure more pain.

Then again, perhaps Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will waive his appeals and await his fate.

Whatever. If we want to punish this man to the hilt, he would suffer more by rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life.