#Mueller overreach

[theculturedmarxist]

By Roger D. Harris  –   Sep 30, 2024

Left-liberals plea every four years that this really is the most important election ever and time to hold our noses and send a Democrat to the White House. The manifest destiny of US world leadership, we are told, is at stake, as is our precious democracy which we have so generously been exporting abroad.

Let’s leave aside the existential threats of climate change or nuclear war. However important, these issues are not on the November 5 ballot. Nor are they addressed in even minimally meaningful ways by the platforms of either of the major parties.

The USA, with its first-strike policy and upgrading its nuclear war fighting capacity, bears responsibility for Armageddon risk. And, in fact, the land-of-the-free has contributed more greenhouse gases to the world’s stockpile than any other country.

But the US electorate never voted these conditions in, so is it realistic to think that we can vote them out? The electoral arena has its limits. Nevertheless, we are admonished, our vote is very important.

But do the two major parties offer meaningful choices? Apparently, the 700 national security apparatchiks who signed a letter endorsing Kamala Harris think so. They fear that Trump is too soft on world domination. They find a comforting succor in Harris’s promise “to preserve the American military’s status as the most ‘lethal’ force in the world.” And oddly so do some left-liberals who welcome the security state, largely because they too don’t trust Trump with guiding the US empire.

Although a major left-liberal talking point is the imminent threat of fascism, their fear is focused on Trump’s dysfunctionality and his “deplorable” working class minions; not on the security apparatus of the state, which they have learned to love.

But fascism is not a personality disorder. The ruling class – whether its nominal head wears a red or blue hat – has no reason to impose a fascist dictatorship as long as left-liberals and their confederates embrace rather than oppose the security state.

Not only were the left-liberals enamored with the FBI’s “Saint” Robert Mueller, but they have welcomed the likes of George W. Bush and now Dick Cheney, because these war criminals also see the danger of Trump.

The Democratic Party has been captured by the foreign policy neoconservatives, who are jumping the red ship for the blue one. It’s not that Donald Trump is in any way an anti-imperialist, but Kamala Harris is seen as a more effective imperialist and defender of elite rule.

The ruling class is united in supporting US imperial hegemony, but needs to work out how best to achieve it. The blue team is confident that the empire has the capability to aim the canons full blast at both Russia and China at the same time. And they tend to take a more multilateral approach to empire building.

The red team is a little more circumspect, concerned with imperial overreach. They advocate a staged strategy of China as the primary target and only secondarily against Russia. This suggests why Ukraine’s president-for-life, who is at war with Russia, in effect campaigned for Kamala in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

The inauthenticity of the left-liberals While some left-liberals support a decisive Russian defeat in Ukraine, their overall concern is beating Trump.

The Democratic Party was transformed some time ago by the Clintons’ now defunct but successful Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which advocated abandonment of its progressive constituencies in order to more effectively attract corporate support. While both parties vie to serve the wealthy class, the Democrats are now by a significant margin the ones favored by big money.

The triumph of the DLC signaled the demise of liberalism and the ascendancy of neoliberalism. Much more could be said about that transition (viz the Democratic Party has always been capitalist, with neoliberalism being its most recent expression), but suffice it to say the Democratic Party is the graveyard of progressive movements.

Liberals no longer even pretend to have an agenda other than defeating Trump. Their neglect of economic issues that benefit working people has created a vacuum, which opens the political arena for faux populists like Trump.

The now moribund liberal movement is thus relegated to two functions: (1) providing a bogus progressive patina to reactionary politics (2) and attacking those who still hold leftist principles. “Progressive Democrat,” sociologist James Petras argues, is an oxymoron.

Left-liberals have the habit of prefacing their capitulations with a recitation of their former leftist credentials. But what makes them inauthentic is their abandonment of principles. No transgression by the Democrats, absolutely none – not even genocide – deters this inauthentic left from supporting the Democratic presidential candidate.

We can respect, though disagree, with the right-wing for having principled red lines, such as abortion. In contrast, left-liberals not only find themselves bedfellows with Cheney, but they swallow anything and everything that the Democratic wing of the two-party duopoly feeds them.

Consequences of supporting the lesser of the two evils Although today the Democratic Party is arguably the leading war party, we would have cold comfort with the Republicans in power. And domestically the Democrats talk a better line on some social wedge issues that don’t threaten elite rule, such as women’s reproductive rights, although – as will be argued – their walk is not as good as their talk.

Getting back to “this year more than ever we have to support the Democratic presidential candidate,” the plea contains two truths. First, the “more than ever” part exposes a tendency to cry wolf in the past.

Remember that the world did not fall apart with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. No lesser an authority than Noam Chomsky is nostalgic for Tricky Dick, who is now viewed as the last true liberal president. Nor did the planet stop spinning in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ascended to the Oval Office. Barack Obama now boasts that his policies differed little from the Gipper’s.

Which brings us to the second truth revealed in the plea. The entire body politic has been staggering to the right regardless of which wing of the duopoly is in power. This is in spite of the fact that the voting public is well to the left of them on almost every issue, from universal public healthcare to opposition to endless war.

Moreover, the left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting strategy itself bears some degree of responsibility for this reactionary tide.

The genius of the Clintons’ DLC was that the progressive New Deal coalition of labor and minority groups that supported the Democratic Party could be thrown under the bus with impunity, while the party courts the right. As long as purported progressives support the Democrats no matter what, the party has an incentive to sell out its left-leaning “captured constituents.”

Thus, we witnessed what passed for a presidential debate, with both contestants competing to prove who was more in favor of genocide for Palestinians and an ever expanding military.

The campaign for reproductive rights aborted But one may protest, let’s not let squeamishness about genocide blind us to the hope that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on at least the key issue of abortion.

However, this is the exception that proves the rule. As Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report noted, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there were protests everywhere but at Barack Obama’s house, “the person who could have acted to protect the Roe decision.”

When Obama ran in 2008, he made passage of a ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act the centerpiece of his campaign. Once elected with majorities in Congress, he could have enshrined abortion rights into law and out of the purview of the Supreme Court. Instead, he never followed through on his promise.

This was a direct outcome of the logic of lesser evil in a two-party system. The folks who supported abortion rights had nowhere to go, so they were betrayed. Why embarrass Blue Dog Democrats and antagonize pro-lifers when the progressive dupes will always give the Democrats a pass?

Angst is not a substitute for action The Republican and Democratic parties are part of the same corporate duopoly, both of which support the US empire. Given there are two wings, there will inevitably be a lesser and greater evil on every issue and even in every election.

However, we need a less myopic view and to look beyond a given election to see the bigger picture of the historical reactionary trend exacerbated by lesser-evil voting. That is, to understand that the function of lesser-evil voting in the overarching two-party system is to allow the narrative to shift rightward.

If one’s game plan for system change includes electoral engagement, which both Marx and Lenin advocated (through an independent working class party, not by supporting a bourgeois party), the pressure needs to be applied when it counts. And that might mean taking a tip from the Tea Party by withholding the vote if your candidate crosses a red line. But that requires principles, which left-liberals have failed to evidence. Angst, however heartfelt, is not a substitute for action.

The left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting, which disregards third-parties with genuinely progressive politics, contributes to the rightward trajectory of US politics. It is not the only factor, but it is a step in the wrong direction. As for November 5th, we already know who will win…the ruling class.

[your-krazy-uncle-bob]

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday held a belated press conference to explain that he had personally approved the FBI’s raid of Donald Trump’s Florida residence to seize documents deemed U.S. government property. 

A clearly agitated and nervous Garland sought to exude confidence in the raid. He went on to heatedly defend the professionalism and integrity of the Justice Department and FBI. 

But almost immediately after his sermon, the Justice Department and its affiliates were back to their usual selective leaking (“sources say” . . . “according to people familiar with the investigation”) to liberal newspapers. 

In no time, the Washington Post claimed the raid was aimed at finding Trump Administration documents relating to “nuclear secrets.” The now-familiar desired effect was achieved. “Presidential historian” Michael Beschloss quickly tweeted a picture of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, noting that in the past revealing such nuclear secrets had led to the death penalty. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, previously known for comparing Trump’s border detention facilities to Auschwitz and falsely claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian “disinformation,” replied: “Sounds about right.” That is, without any proof, it was legitimate to imagine that the former president of the United States, like the Rosenbergs, should be executed for passing nuclear secrets.

So, as intended, the Justice Department and FBI leaks touched off a round of intended liberal hysteria of the sort we saw during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian collusion with Trump’s 2016 campaign aimed at disguising government misdeeds or overreach. 

Sources Tell Us

Despite Garland’s pious assertions, we know the modus operandi of selective leaking from the career of Andrew McCabe. The disgraced former interim FBI director admitted to lying to federal investigators about his role in leaking to the Wall Street Journal. And the inspector general found McCabe lied on several other occasions about his efforts to leak to and massage the media. At this point, we should assume that “sources tell us” and “according to unnamed sources” are indications that the sources are Justice Department and FBI contacts who were given the green light to manipulate the news by their superiors.

Let’s put Garland’s decision to approve the raid on Mar-a-Lago in the context of the past seven years. The Justice Department and FBI in 2016 interfered in a presidential election in two major ways: They exonerated Hillary Clinton’s clearly illegal use of a private server and her destruction of subpoenaed data. The FBI hired Clinton operative Christopher Steele as an informant and gave its “Crossfire Hurricane” imprimatur to the entire Russian collusion hoax, feeding a 2016 left-wing mantra that Trump was a Russian “asset.” 

In 2015, we learned that candidate Hillary Clinton, as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, had emailed classified government materials using her own private server, likely as a way of skirting Freedom of Information Act requirements. 

In the thick of the 2016 campaign a year later, FBI Director James Comey reported that Clinton had, in fact, broken the law. Yet he assumed a role of federal attorney that was not his own, deciding Clinton’s wrongdoing should not lead to an indictment. 

In that improper role, Comey, not U.S. attorneys, declined to hold Clinton accountable. We learned later that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had met secretly on an airport tarmac (“a brief, casual, social meeting”) with Bill Clinton. 

Somewhere within this tangle of lies (both said they met only to talk about their grandchildren, not about whether the Justice Department would charge Hillary Clinton), we learned: 1) Lynch abdicated her role and simply let Comey play the role of investigator and prosecutor, and 2) Hillary Clinton had “bleached” thousands of emails, some of them under federal subpoena, and destroyed her communication devices and records—all federal felonies.

Trump won the election in 2016, but he never controlled the federal government. For 22 months, at a cost of $40 million, Robert Mueller investigated whether Trump had “colluded” with the Russians to take the White House. Ironically, there was ample evidence to show that Hillary Clinton may, in fact, have done exactly that. 

After all, Clinton worked with the Democratic National Committee,  which, in turn, hired the Perkins Coie legal firm, which hired Fusion GPS, which hired ex-spy Christopher Steele, who hired Russian disinformation source Igor Dyachenko, who used Moscow-based former Clintonite Charles Dolan to find dirt on Trump. Where Dyachenko and Dolan located their false dirt for Steele, no one knows for certain. Some Russian source is most likely the culprit. 

In the end, the ruse was exposed. But in the process of exposing that scandal, the Justice Department’s inspector general found that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith had altered an application for a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make it appear Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page was a Russian agent. (In reality, Page was working with the CIA.) Clinesmith’s FBI superiors had signed off on that fraudulent document that contained legions of errors. 

We learned also that two of the FBI investigators working for Mueller in 2017 were rank partisans and in their amorous exchanges before the 2016 election had texted about how to “stop” Trump amid  slanders and slurs about his candidacy and supporters. Until they were “reassigned,” both had played key roles in investigating Trump.

We also learned that the FBI had “lost” key cell phone data under court request. We were told that the point man of Mueller’s “dream team,” “all-stars,” and “hunter-killer team”—as the Left gushed of the liberal legal ensemble—former Justice Department attorney Andrew Weismann, before, during, and after his tenure on Mueller’s team was a self-admitted anti-Trump partisan. 

Mueller closed shop in 2019, finding no evidence of collusion, after putting two years of a presidency under a constant cloud of implied criminality. Mueller under oath admitted he knew nothing of the Steele dossier or the role of Fusion GPS in disseminating the fraud. No sane person could believe Mueller, given that the role of the dossier and Fusion GPS were the two chief catalysts leading to his own appointment. Was Mueller addled or simply not telling the truth?

The Walls Are Forever Closing In

Throughout this sordid nightmare, the FBI and Justice Department routinely leaked details the left-wing media serially blared were “bombshells” and evidence that the “walls are closing in.” All assured the public that Trump and his family would soon be behind bars for their ties to Russia and sundry other crimes 

No one has been held accountable for these lies. James Comey hired the lying Christopher Steele as an informant. The FBI fired him when they discovered he kept leaking secret information to his own media friends. When Comey was finally called to testify by Congress, he swore under oath 245 times that he had no memory or knowledge of the questions asked. 

Comey did admit, however, that after a private one-on-one conversation with President Trump, he immediately memorialized his version of the confidential discussion using FBI time and devices. He then acknowledged that he later leaked his version of events to the media through a third party. The goal was to prompt the appointment of a special counsel, eventually to be his friend Robert Mueller. Comey went to great but vain lengths to explain how leaking a government memo of a confidential presidential conversation, which was either classified or confidential, was not illegal. 

Comey also later bragged publicly how he sent agent Peter Strzok on a preplanned mission to surprise National Security Advisor Michael Flynn in hopes of finding Flynn in violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that has never been prosecuted successfully. Nevertheless, the threat of prosecution was enough to take down a high-profile Trump appointee.

After Comey was rightly fired, his deputy Andrew McCabe assumed control of the FBI. Again, he lied serially to federal investigators. McCabe oversaw the notorious email investigation that exonerated Hillary Clinton—at the very time his wife was running for office in Virginia, aided by funding from a political action committee with ties to the Clintons. McCabe, remember, also purportedly discussed wearing a wire stealthily to monitor Trump, in hopes of recording embarrassing private conversations that would help convince the cabinet to remove him under the 25th Amendment.

In 2020, the FBI sat on the Hunter Biden laptop and its analysts helped feed leaks protecting Joe Biden’s presidential campaign  from otherwise damaging disclosures. 

Some of the laptop’s contents, however, were in the public domain prior to FBI confiscation, and they had variously suggested that Joe Biden and his family were likely involved in selling influence for sizable sums to foreign governments. The laptop evidence suggested, additionally, that Hunter Biden had committed a series of tax, drug, and sex felonies. 

Yet somehow, 50 former CIA and other intelligence officials—among them prior intelligence heads John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, and James Clapper—believed they had enough knowledge of the laptop on the eve of the election to assure the country it was “Russian disinformation.” Note that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other senators believe that an FBI agent and or analyst had deliberately mischaracterized the laptop as “disinformation” to protect Biden.

Merrick Garland can defend but cannot explain the strange role of the FBI informants. Aside from the infamous Steele, informants keep reappearing in almost every sensationalized political event. Twelve of them apparently were the de facto architects in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. 

Their nefarious role is one of the reasons why two of the charged defendants were acquitted and two were not found guilty due to mistrials. 

Nor could Garland explain the strange statement from New York Times reporter Michael Rosenberg: “There were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol” on January 6, 2021. 

There is also the strange asymmetry of the FBI. It routinely now resorts to pre-dawn SWAT raids, shackling the legs and hands of elderly men, and swooping in on would-be targets on the street. Trump associates Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman have all been confronted by the FBI, and either arrested, had their offices searched, or had their phones seized, or all three. But so far only Roger Stone, the target of an FBI SWAT team—which CNN just happened to be on hand to cover—was charged and convicted of a crime. 

Last week’s events at Mar-a-Lago are part of this pattern—raiding the home of the current Republican presidential frontrunner who would beat Joe Biden and Kamala Harris if the general election were held today.

The FBI: What Not to Do

So, to answer Merrick Garland’s scolding, how might the FBI not have lost the faith of the American people? 

It might not have altered documents to ruin the life of an American citizen. When subpoenas arrived for phone records, it could have submitted them rather than wipe them clean.

Its directors might not have stonewalled Congress while under oath or lied to federal investigators or leaked confidential government memos to the press. The FBI did not have to mislead about the contents of a controversial laptop. There was no need to hire foreign nationals during a presidential election to supply dirt on one of the two candidates. 

The attorney general did not need to meet secretly with the husband of someone under FBI investigation. Just as the FBI apparently did not need to raid Kevin Clinesmith’s home to find information about his doctoring of an email, or to put legs irons on Andrew McCabe for lying to a federal prosecutor, or to ambush Christopher Steele and grab his cell phone to ensure he stopped leaking FBI information and lying to the bureau, so too it had no need of shackling Peter Navarro or publicly seizing the phone of Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.).

Finally, there are existential threats to the United States on the open southern border, from cartel drug runners and terrorists to child traffickers. For 120 days in 2020, Antifa and Black Lives Matter coordinated violent riots that led to over 35 dead, $2 billion in property damage, and over 1,500 law enforcement officers injured. A federal courthouse, a police precinct, and the historic St. James Episcopal Church in Washington were at various times torched. Rioters attempted to storm the White House grounds and sent the Secret Service scrambling to a secure bunker with the president. 

All of the above were mostly ignored by the FBI. Yet these and other violence and illegality posed far more dangers to the American people than do the worried Virginia parents upset about the critical race theory indoctrination of their children.

Finally, Garland has failed to explain why he had sought out a particular federal magistrate to approve the warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago—a magistrate who earlier had recused himself from another case involving Trump. Apparently, Magistrate Bruce Reinhart felt that either his own past partisanship or prior legal work made it impossible for him to remain unbiased in cases involving the former president—except on the present occasion to empower the FBI to raid Trump’s home.

But again, Garland did give a spirited, almost angry defense of the Justice Department and FBI. He was in hot denial that they were anything but professional civil servants. Yet he did not explain why “nuclear secrets,” long sitting in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago, were suddenly putting the nation in harm’s way in a manner they had not eight or 18 months ago.

That raises the question whether Garland is disingenuous or simply naïve. After all, the American people have long trusted their FBI. They want to remain confident in its leadership. Yet it was not the public, but high-ranking Justice and FBI officials themselves—among them most recently Merrick Garland himself—who squandered that confidence. And they should now look inward rather than blast critics for what they have done to themselves and to the country.

[go-redgirl]

President Donald Trump Pardons Sixteen People Including Charlie Kushner, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone

President Donald Trump issued another round of pardons on Wednesday to sixteen people, including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, his sometimes adviser Roger Stone, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father, Charlie Kushner.

Charlie Kushner was prosecuted in 2005 by former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was New Jersey’s Attorney General at the time. Kushner, a top donor to Democrats, pleadguilty to 18 counts of tax evasion, witness tampering, and making illegal campaign donations.

Charlie Kushner served 14 months of a two-year sentence in an Alabama prison before he was released in April 2006. Jared Kushner cites visiting his father in prison as an influence for pursuing the issue of criminal justice reform.

Manafort served two years of his seven and a half years in prison after he was prosecuted for financial crimes from consulting work for pro-Russian Ukrainian leaders before he joined the Trump campaign. Special Counsel Robert Mueller also charged Manafort with two counts of conspiracy.

In a statement, Trump noted there was “blatant prosecutorial overreach” in Manafort’s case.

“Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American history,” a statement from the White House read.

Trump also pardoned political operative Roger Stone, after commuting his prison sentence in July, citing the unfair investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

“Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation,” the statement from the White House read.

Read the full list of other pardons below:

James Kassouf — President Trump granted a full pardon to James Kassouf. This pardon is supported by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Representative David Joyce, Representative Darrell Issa, Pastor Darrell Scott, and many friends in Northeast Ohio. 

Mr. Kassouf pled guilty in 1989 to one count of filing a false tax return. Since his conviction, he has devoted extensive time and resources to supporting causes such as Doctors Without Borders, the Red Cross, and his local church and fire department. Mr. Kassouf’s pastor, who also writes in support of today’s action, highlights Mr. Kassouf’s “vision” to make his community a better place. Mr. Kassouf is dedicated to revitalizing the city of Cleveland and has been intensely involved in the Northeast Ohio community.

Mary McCarty — President Trump granted Mary McCarty a full pardon. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Christopher Ruddy are among those supportive of Ms. McCarty. Ms. McCarty was a longtime public servant in Palm Beach, Florida, serving as one of its County Commissioners. In 2009, she pled guilty to one count of honest services fraud. The Supreme Court has since interpreted that statute more narrowly, meaning that Ms. McCarty’s conduct might not be criminally prosecuted today.

Christopher Wade — President Trump granted a full pardon to Christopher Wade. Wade’s pardon is supported by Isaac Perlmutter, Mark Templeton, and numerous current and former law-enforcement officials. Mr. Wade served two years’ probation after pleading guilty to various cyber-crimes. Since his conviction, he has shown remorse and sought to make his community a safer place.

Christopher II X, formerly Christopher Anthony Bryant — President Trump granted a full pardon to Christopher II X, a prominent community leader. This Federal pardon is supported by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as well as Tori Murden McClure, the President of Spalding University, among others. Mr. II X is a powerful example of the possibility of redemption. For a two-decade period ending in 1998, Mr. II X battled a severe addiction to both cocaine and marijuana. In this period he committed numerous state and federal offenses. 

Since overcoming his drug dependency and following his release from prison for the last time over 20 years ago, Mr. II X has become an acknowledged community leader in his hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. Today, Mr. II X runs a non-profit organization, Game Changers, which is dedicated to guiding youth to productive, meaningful lives. 

He is also widely credited as a trusted voice of reason and peace in Louisville that both sides turn to if tensions arise between the police and local community. 

In recognition of the many contributions to his community, in December 2019 Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky issued Mr. II X a full pardon for each of his State crimes. Today’s Federal pardon achieves the same for Mr. II X’s Federal cocaine offenses.

Cesar Lozada — President Trump granted a full pardon to Cesar Lozada. This act of clemency is supported by U.S. Representative-elect Maria Elvira Salazar and members of Mr. Lozada’s community. Mr. Lozada, an immigrant from Cuba, started a small business cleaning and servicing pools in Miami-Dade County. Since then, his business, now a pool equipment company, has grown and employs dozens of people. Today’s pardon addresses a mistake Mr. Lozada made in 2004 of conspiring to distribute marijuana, for which Mr. Lozada took full responsibility, served his sentence of 14 months in prison and three years supervised release, and paid a $10,000 fine. Mr. Lozada volunteers on weekends at a charity mission and serves food to the poor.

Joseph Martin Stephens — President Trump granted Joseph Martin Stephens a full pardon. Mr. Stephens’ Federal conviction – a guilty plea in 2008 to being a felon in possession of a firearm – is predicated on a State felony conviction from 1991, when he was 19. Although the state offered Mr. Stephens deferred adjudication, he turned it down. When Federal authorities prosecuted him nearly 20 years later for possessing a firearm, he took full responsibility for his conduct and served a sentence of 18 months in prison and three years on supervised release. Clemency for Mr. Stephens is supported by business associates.

Andrew Barron Worden — President Trump granted a full pardon to Andrew Barron Worden, an entrepreneur who has worked extensively in the solar energy field. Mr. Worden has exhibited a decades-long commitment to philanthropy, including founding charitable foundations and teaching and research grant programs. 

Mr. Worden enjoys the support of business associates and his community for this pardon, which pertains to a 1998 conviction for wire fraud. At the time, Mr. Worden had just graduated from college and made mistakes in running an investment firm he founded. However, Mr. Worden voluntarily stopped his wrongful conduct and began to repay his victims before any criminal charges were filed, an action his sentencing judge called “extraordinary.”

Robert Coughlin — President Trump granted a full pardon to Robert Coughlin. This act of clemency has the support of former interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor and Adam Ciongoli, and former counselor to Attorney General Ashcroft. Mr. Coughlin pled guilty to a single count of conflict of interest in performing his duties as a Department of Justice official. He was charged for doing favors on matters before the Department of Justice in exchange for sports and concert tickets. Mr. Coughlin voluntarily surrendered his law license and was sentenced to 30 days in a halfway house and 200 hours of community service. Mr. Coughlin is remorseful and has volunteered in his community through organizations including Meals on Wheels and Toys for Tots. Recently, he was reinstated to the D.C. Bar and wishes to put his mistakes behind him.

John Boultbee and Peter Atkinson — President Trump granted a full pardon to John Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. Mr. Boultbee is the former chief financial officer and Mr. Atkinson is the former vice president of Hollinger International. Both men were convicted as part of an alleged fraud scheme involving Lord Conrad Black, and both served nearly a year in prison for mail fraud. President Trump previously pardoned Lord Black, and for similar reasons and with the support of Lord Black, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Safer, and David Nathanson, he has now granted a full pardon to Messrs. Boultbee and Atkinson.

Joseph Occhipinti — President Trump granted a full pardon to Joseph Occhipinti, a 70-year-old former Supervisory Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This pardon is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Association of Police Organizations, and Representative Christopher Smith. In 1991, Mr. Occhipinti was convicted of conspiracy to violate civil rights under the color of law and making false statements. Mr. Occhipinti had a 22-year highly decorated career in which he earned 76 separate commendations, including three from Attorneys General. Mr. Occhipinti’s 37 month long sentence was commuted by President George H.W. Bush after only seven months’ incarceration.

Rebekah Charleston — President Trump granted a full pardon to Rebekah Charleston. Ms. Charleston’s pardon is supported by her friends, family, and even the Special Agent who arrested her in 2006 for tax evasion.

Ms. Charleston is a victim of sex trafficking who has suffered a litany of abuses and endured a life of forced prostitution. Despite these hardships, Ms. Charleston has become a champion for survivors of all crimes, particularly sex trafficking. She obtained a master’s degree in criminal justice and has worked tirelessly to give a voice to the voiceless victims of sex trafficking. Ms. Charleston volunteers much of her time helping those who are currently or have previously been victims.

Rickey Kanter — President Trump granted a full pardon to Rickey Kanter. Mr. Kanter was the owner and CEO of Dr. Comfort, a company that manufactures special shoes and inserts for diabetics. Although there was no evidence that Dr. Comfort’s customers were ever harmed by the company’s shoe inserts, the company and Mr. Kanter settled claims in civil court regarding shoe inserts that were technically non-compliant with Medicare regulations. 

It was only after this point when the Federal Government filed a criminal action against Mr. Kanter. Mr. Kanter pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and completed his sentence of one year and one day in 2012. Since his period of incarceration, Mr. Kanter has been a model member of his community.

Topeka Sam — President Trump granted a full pardon to Topeka Sam. This pardon is supported by Alice Johnson and David Safavian.

Ms. Sam’s life is a story of redemption. She has become a powerful advocate for criminal justice reform since she completed three years of a 130-month sentence she received in 2012 as a result of pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. Ms. Sam has since dedicated her life to helping other women in need turn from a path of despair towards a path of redemption. Ms. Sam founded Ladies of Hope Ministries, where she helps formerly incarcerated women transition back into society through education, entrepreneurship, spiritual empowerment, and advocacy. Along with others, she championed the historic First Step Act that President Trump signed in to law in 2018.

James Batmasian — President Trump granted a full pardon to James Batmasian. Mr. Batmasian’s pardon is supported by Representative Brian Mast, Alice Johnson, and former Masters Champion Bernhard Langer, among many others from the South Florida community that Mr. Batmasian has done so much to serve through his extensive charitable works.

Mr. Batmasian runs an extensive property management business in South Florida. Over a three-year period from 2001 to 2003, Mr. Batmasian made overtime payments without withholding for income taxes or FICA contributions. While illegal, Mr. Batmasian recorded all of these payments and made no attempt to hide them when confronted by IRS investigators. In 2008, Mr. Batmasian pled guilty to willful failure to collect and remit payroll taxes. Mr. Batmasian accepted full responsibility for his actions, fully repaid the IRS the money he owed, and served his 8-month sentence.

William J. Plemons, Jr. — President Trump granted a full pardon to William J. Plemons, Jr. Business associates attest to his generosity and service to children and the underprivileged. His clemency is also supported by Richard Greene, former State Senator of Georgia.

Mr. Plemons served in the U.S. Air Force and was honorably discharged. He has spent decades supporting the Boy Scouts, the Cure Childhood Cancer Hospital, and other charitable efforts. Although he was convicted of various financial crimes in the late 1990s and early 2000s, he has taken responsibility for his conduct, served a sentence of 27 months in prison, and paid $400,000 in restitution.

Russell Plaisance — President Trump granted a full posthumous pardon to Russell Plaisance. His clemency is supported by numerous local officials, including the Sheriff of the parish. The prosecutor on his case also does not object to a pardon.

In life, Mr. Plaisance built a tug boat business from the ground up that has grown into seven vessels and employment for over 50 individuals. He has also contributed his time and resources to local charitable causes. His Federal case, dating back to 1987, involves a single count of conspiracy to import cocaine stemming from one conversation in which he participated. The sentencing judge called the event “totally inconsistent with [Mr. Plaisance’s] life history and [his] character.” Mr. Plaisance is survived by his wife of 54 years, children, and grandchildren.

Daniela Gozes-Wagner — President Trump commuted the sentence and restitution order imposed upon Ms. Gozes-Wagner. Numerous former law-enforcement officials, including U.S. Attorneys General Michael Mukasey, Ed Meese, Ramsey Clark, and John Ashcroft; Acting Attorneys General Peter Keisler and Matt Whitaker; an FBI Director, two U.S. Solicitors General, and scores of U.S. Attorneys, among others, have supported commutation for Ms. Gosez-Wager, arguing that she received a disproportionate sentence. The Aleph Institute also supports her commutation.

Ms. Wagner is a single mother of two children who has been in federal custody since her 2017 conviction for health care fraud and money laundering. Ms. Gozes-Wagner worked as a mid-level manager for a company that improperly received Medicare and Medicaid funds. Of the individuals in Ms. Gozes-Wagner’s case, Ms. Gozes-Wagner was the only defendant to go to trial. She received a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay $15.2 million in restitution. This sentence was significantly more severe than the sentences imposed on the other defendants, several of whom played a more central role in the fraud. Her sentence was criticized by numerous former high-ranking U.S. officials as disproportionate to her crime.

Mark Siljander — President Trump granted a full pardon to Mark Siljander. His pardon is supported by Former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Alabama Congressman Robert Aderholt, and Pastor Andrew Brunson.

Mr. Siljander served in the U.S. House of Representatives for six years, representing the people of Michigan’s 4th district. During his time in Congress, Mr. Siljander was one of Congress’s most stalwart defenders of pro-life principles and the namesake of the “Siljander Amendment,” which prohibits U.S. funds from being used to lobby for or against abortion.

Mr. Siljander served a year in prison for obstruction of justice and failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Since his incarceration, Mr. Siljander has devoted himself to traveling in the Middle East and Africa to promote peace and mutual understanding.

Stephanie Mohr — President Trump granted a full pardon to Stephanie Mohr. Her clemency is supported by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and the Fraternal Order of Police.

Ms. Mohr was a police officer in Prince George’s County where she achieved the distinction of being the first female canine handler in the Department’s history. She served 10 years in prison for releasing her K-9 partner on a burglary suspect in 1995, resulting in a bite wound requiring ten stitches. Officer Mohr was a highly commended member of the police force prior to her prosecution. Today’s action recognizes that service and the lengthy-term that Ms. Mohr served in prison.

Gary Brugman — President Trump granted a full pardon to Gary Brugman. His clemency is supported by numerous elected officials, including Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, Senators Ted Cruz, and John Cornyn, Representative Louie Gohmert, Representative Ted Poe, Representative Steve King, Representative Paul Gosar, Representative Walter Jones, Representative Brian Babin, and Representative John Culberson. Others who support this pardon include Laura Ingraham, Sara Carter, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Bernie Kerik, and numerous members of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Mr. Brugman served this country for eight years in the Coast Guard and then for four years as a U.S. Border Patrol agent. While protecting our borders at Eagle Pass, Texas, Mr. Brugman intercepted nearly a dozen illegal immigrants, pursued them on foot, and apprehended them. 

Mr. Brugman was accused of knocking one of the illegal immigrants to the ground and was prosecuted on that basis for deprivation of rights. He served 27 months in prison, where other inmates sought to harm him because of his law enforcement background. After being released from prison, Mr. Brugman went on to obtain his Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and Management.

John Tate and Jesse Benton — President Trump granted John Tate and Jesse Benton full pardons. This action is supported by Senator Rand Paul and Lee Goodman, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Both Mr. Tate and Mr. Benton were convicted based on indirect campaign payments to a state Senator. According to Mr. Goodman, the reporting law violated was unclear and not well established at the time. Each individual received 6 months home confinement and 2 years’ probation.

Charles Kushner — President Trump granted a full pardon to Charles Kushner. Former United States Attorney for the District of Utah Brett Tolman and the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp and David Safavian support a pardon of Mr. Kushner. Since completing his sentence in 2006, Mr. Kushner has been devoted to important philanthropic organizations and causes, such as Saint Barnabas Medical Center and United Cerebral Palsy. This record of reform and charity overshadows Mr. Kushner’s conviction and 2 year sentence for preparing false tax returns, witness retaliation, and making false statements to the FEC.

Margaret Hunter— President Trump granted a full pardon to Margaret Hunter. According to former Federal Election Commission Commissioner Bradley Smith, the conduct forming the basis of Ms. Hunter’s 2019 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to misuse campaign funds for personal expenses should have been treated as a civil case by the agency. Mrs. Hunter was sentenced to three years’ probation. President Trump previously issued a full pardon to former Congressman Hunter for the same alleged conduct.

Paul Manafort—Today, President Trump has issued a full and complete pardon to Paul Manafort, stemming from convictions prosecuted in the course of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, which was premised on the Russian collusion hoax. Mr. Manafort has already spent two years in prison, including a stretch of time in solitary confinement – treatment worse than what many of the most violent criminals receive. As a result of blatant prosecutorial overreach, Mr. Manafort has endured years of unfair treatment and is one of the most prominent victims of what has been revealed to be perhaps the greatest witch hunt in American history. As Mr. Manafort’s trial judge observed, prior to the Special Counsel investigation, Mr. Manafort had led an “otherwise blameless life.” Since May, Mr. Manafort has been released to home confinement as a result of COVID-19 concerns.

Roger Stone— Today, President Trump granted a full and unconditional pardon to Roger Stone, Jr. President Trump had previously commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence in July of this year. Mr. Stone is a 68-year-old man with numerous medical conditions. Due to prosecutorial misconduct by Special Counsel Mueller’s team, Mr. Stone was treated very unfairly. He was subjected to a pre-dawn raid of his home, which the media conveniently captured on camera. Mr. Stone also faced potential political bias at his jury trial. Pardoning him will help to right the injustices he faced at the hands of the Mueller investigation.

Mark Shapiro and Irving Stitsky — President Trump granted commutations to Mark Shapiro and Irving Stitsky, for the remainder of both of their sentences. Messrs. Shapiro and Stitsky founded a real estate investment firm, but hid their prior felony convictions and used a straw CEO. Due to the 2008 financial crisis, the business lost millions for its investors.

Prior to trial, prosecutors offered Messrs. Shapiro and Stitsky plea agreements for 5 to 7 years and 7 to 9 years, respectively. Both declined the deal and exercised their Constitutional right to a jury trial. Both men were found guilty and sentenced to 85 years imprisonment. This sentence was over 10 times the plea offer for Mr. Shapiro and almost 10 times the plea offer for Mr. Stitsky. Messrs. Shapiro and Stitsky have already served more time than their plea offers.

Since their incarceration, both men have become model prisoners, earning support and praise from their fellow inmates. Mr. Shapiro has renewed his faith in Judaism and taught fellow inmates the dangers of dishonesty, while Mr. Stitsky has reflected on the victims of his crime and the remorse that he now has.

This clemency is supported by the Aleph Institute, Alice Johnson, several criminal justice advocacy groups, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, former District Judge William Bassler, former United States Attorneys Brett Tolman and James Reynolds, Professors of Law Bennett Gershman and Harold Krent, and several of the victims.

READ MORE STORIES ABOUT:

2020 Election Politics Charlie Kushner Donald Trump Jared Kushner Paul Manafort Robert Mueller Roger Stone

[wilwheaton]

At some point soon, Democratic leaders will have to reckon with the fact that the founders created the impeachment power for precisely this moment. That impeachment is their basic obligation. On a practical level, there’s simply too much time between now and the election for them to avoid the confrontation altogether with stalling tactics. But more importantly if they try to run out the clock, or settle on the claim that impeachment just isn’t worth it, they will do incalculable damage to themselves and the country. This is not principally an argument about what constitutes sound political strategy—about what approach will galvanize whose base more. My biases tell me that impeaching Trump would inspire Democratic voters, and bog Republicans down with endless recitations of their party’s hideous corruption. My biases tells me that running scared from the impeachment question would deflate many Democratic activists, by signaling to them that the party doesn’t really consider Trump’s presidency to be an emergency after all, and will refuse to hold his regime accountable for its crimes even if the next election goes well. But that could be wrong. The real importance of impeachment at this point is to shelter the country from what Trump and his allies will do if Democrats remain aimless. Democrats aren’t really buying time for themselves. They are buying time for Trump to get the GOP back on its horribly dishonest but unified message that he has been exonerated and that the investigation itself was criminal. If Democrats don’t pull the country into a debate about impeachment, we won’t get a draw. We will get a debate about investigating the investigators and jailing Trump’s critics. Cowardice creates a void that Trump will fill with autocratic ambition, and his crooked attorney general will be there to help.

Democrats' Impeachment Panic Is Endangering the Country

Trump is precisely why the founders put impeachment into our constitution. In the 90s, partisan Republicans, for partisan gain, abused the process and were punished by voters for their overreach.

Democrats seem to have learned exactly the wrong lesson from that. They seem to have determined that nobody should ever be subject to an impeachment inquiry unless that person shoots someone on live television, and even then maybe they should just talk about jobs, instead.

Voters in the 90s sent Gingrich and his pals packing because we saw through their lies, and knew exactly what they were doing. At this moment, we have a president who has clearly attempted to obstruct justice on multiple occasions, and that’s just one of the multitude of reasons he should be removed from office. Voters see through Trump (other than the 30-odd percent who make up his base) and see exactly what he’s doing. Voters won’t punish Democrats the way we punished Republicans, because an impeachment inquiry now would be about obstruction and abuse of power, not lying about an affair.

I hope that Democratic leaders and strategists are taking their time, and preparing hearings that will help voters get a clearer look at exactly what Mueller says, which is that it is up to the Congress to decide what the consequence should be for Trump’s documented, illegal, and unconstitutional acts.

Remember that support for impeaching Nixon didn’t become the majority position in the electorate until lots and lots of hearings and hours and hours of testimony had been delivered. 

Democrats can look into holding Trump accountable for his lies and lawbreaking, while also working on their vision for a better America that works for everyone. They’re adults, and they can do more than one thing at a time.

[phroyd]

Senate Republicans are vowing to quickly quash any articles of impeachment that pass the House and warn that Democrats will feel a political backlash if they go forward and impeach President Trump.

Republican senators say there are no grounds to impeach Trump and are daring Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to embark on what they dismiss as a fool’s errand that will turn off swing voters.

“My response to them is go hard or go home,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over impeachment.  “If you want to impeach him, stop talking. Do it. Do it. Go to Amazon, buy a spine and do it. And let’s get after it.”

“I think the public will feel like it’s more harassment,” he predicted.

Republicans say that impeachment will boomerang on Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who have tried to resist pressure from the left to impeach Trump for more than a year.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune(S.D.) warned that Democrats are embarking on a politically perilous journey.

“It’s a risky strategy on their part. I know they’re under a lot of pressure to do it, but if you’re the leadership over there, you got to think long and hard about what the implications are if it looks like you’re overreaching,” he said.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday argued there is no basis for impeachment, especially after Trump pledged to release an unredacted transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “You can’t tell me they’re talking about impeachment when the president is cooperating with them 100 percent to release these things.”

“It’s premature to talk about impeachment,” he said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a staunch Trump ally, signaled the House impeachment push would hit a dead end in the Senate.

“I think the Democrats have made this such a partisan exercise that I think most of the public has discounted the idea of it, because I think most believe that it’s become sort of a political attack on the president and nothing more,” he said.

Paul, however, said it’s hard to predict exactly how events will unfold in the Senate because so little is known about the latest allegations.

Trump has acknowledged that military aid was withheld from Ukraine and that he discussed former Vice President Joe Biden with Zelensky during a discussion on corruption. He has said there was no quid pro quo between the two issues and that there was nothing improper in his communications.

A whistleblower within the administration did file a complaint, and the administration has refused to turn that over to lawmakers. While Trump said he would give Congress the transcript of his call with Zelensky, he did not mention the whistleblower complaint.

Senate experts say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is required to act on House-passed articles of impeachment, which would require 67 votes, or a two-thirds majority, to convict the president.

But McConnell has broad power to set the rules and could ensure the trial on the Senate floor is as brief as possible. He could strictly limit the arguments of House Democratic prosecutors as long as he’s backed up by his fellow GOP senators.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would likely preside over a Senate trial, but he would have to follow the rules and traditions of the Senate, where the majority leader sets the schedule and has the right of first recognition.

Under the Senate manual’s rules for impeachment trials, Roberts would rule on all questions of evidence, but any senator could ask for a formal vote to appeal a decision.

It would take a majority under Senate rules to sustain or overrule a ruling from the chair.

That means Democrats would need to convince at least four Republicans to break with the GOP conference in order to bring in any witnesses or exhibits that McConnell decides to block.

McConnell on Tuesday declined to say what he would do, telling reporters only that it’s up to the Senate Intelligence Committee to review the complaint that an unnamed whistleblower filed with intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

Atkinson and acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire are scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed session on Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said articles of impeachment based on the report by former special counsel Robert Mueller would be disposed of quickly in the Senate, reiterating comments he made in May, a month after the report’s release.

“Yeah, if it’s based on the Mueller inquiry,” Graham said when asked if he still believes the Senate will quickly quash articles of impeachment.

Graham said it’s harder to say how the Senate would handle articles of impeachment based on a whistleblower complaint because little is known about its contents.

“Who knows what’s in it,” he said of the Ukraine-related complaint. “I haven’t heard anything. I’m not going to speculate on stuff like that.”

Polls conducted since the start of 2017, when Trump took office, have shown voters consistently oppose impeachment.

An NBC News–Wall Street Journal poll conducted in July showed that 50 percent of registered voters nationwide oppose the launch of impeachment hearings, while only 21 percent said they supported the start of hearings.

In March, the percentage of voters who opposed impeachment hearings stood at 47 percent, according NBC News–Wall Street Journal polling.

An ABC News–Washington Post poll conducted at the end of June and beginning of July found that 59 percent of adults nationwide opposed the start of impeachment proceedings. That number was up from 54 percent in March.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said there haven’t been any discussions among Senate Republicans about how to handle an impeachment process because GOP lawmakers assumed that Pelosi wouldn’t embark on a path that registers so much disapproval from voters.

“I just can’t imagine a universe in which Democrats are stupid enough to do that,” Cornyn said hours before Pelosi’s press conference. “I can’t imagine a universe in which that would happen because Nancy Pelosi is simply too shrewd to allow things to get out of control.”

Cornyn said there haven’t been any preparations for impeachment.

“You prepare for the probable, not the improbable,” he said.

Some moderate Democrats are also skeptical about moving ahead with such a divisive process.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said articles of impeachment aren’t going anywhere in the Senate and said the smarter strategy is to push Republicans to conduct oversight of the Trump administration, such as by pressing them to ask for the intelligence community inspector general’s report on the whistleblower complaint.

“The last time I checked, this body is controlled by Republicans. I'd rather get government to work functionally and hold people accountable. I'd rather get the Republicans over here to hold Donald Trump accountable on all sorts of stuff, from building a wall to how he treats our allies.”

Phroyd

[bellboy905]

President Trump may have finished second in the popular vote, but he is the legitimate president. In the normal course of events, his mismanagement of the nation’s affairs would be left for the electorate to repudiate... But the course of events is not normal. 

Mr. Trump campaigned as an iconoclast, but it became clear early in his administration that his disruptiveness was aimed less at bringing fresh thinking to bear on stale policymaking than at assaulting the vital institutions of governance themselves. He has attacked the legitimacy of law enforcement, of intelligence agencies, of Congress and of the courts... of anyone he judges to threaten him politically.

For nearly three years, public-spirited people have debated whether each instance of executive overreach... went far enough to require the traumatic recourse of an impeachment inquiry. They have wondered at what point the checks and balances of American governance might have to be restored by means of the most radical check of all. That point has now been reached.

The American people have learned over the past week that Mr. Trump, during a July phone call, pressed the president of Ukraine... to investigate Joe Biden, one of his leading political rivals... What’s more, Mr. Trump offered the assistance of the Justice Department in that investigation. These facts are not in dispute. 

[...]

A president’s use of his power for his own political gain, at the expense of the public interest, is the quintessence of an impeachable offense. It was, in fact, one of the examples the Constitution’s framers deployed to explain what would constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

[...]

There is no known precedent for a president pressuring a foreign nation to tear down a political rival.... Mr. Trump appears to have applied more than just verbal pressure. Just days before the call... Mr. Trump froze nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, aid that Congress had judged to be in America’s national security interest. He released those funds weeks later, and only under intense bipartisan pressure from Congress. Even the president’s reliable ally Mitch McConnell... has said he did not receive an explanation for why Mr. Trump chose to withhold those funds.

The president has insisted that he raised the matter with Mr. Zelensky because Mr. Biden, as vice president, had engaged in criminal conduct. Mr. Biden has denied that, Mr. Trump has provided no evidence, and previous investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing. But consider the hypothetical that Mr. Trump was correct about Mr. Biden. Would that legitimize the president’s behavior? No. If the president had evidence, his White House counsel should have shared it with the Department of Justice and let the FBI do its job, in coordination with Ukrainian counterparts.

[...]

Some of Mr. Trump’s defenders assert that no criminal statute prevents a president from soliciting foreign interference in American elections. But the law is clear that impeachment does not require a crime. In fact, the absence of a criminal statute to restrain this sort of abuse of authority only reinforces the need for Congress to act in accordance with the aims of the framers of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton wrote... impeachment was provided as a response not just to crimes but to acts that were an “abuse or violation of some public trust.” During this administration, Americans have discovered to their sorrow the degree to which past presidents were constrained not by specific laws but only by tradition, character and an understanding of the framers’ intent. Mr. Trump has proved immune to such considerations.

[...]

The president has committed previous offenses that many critics argued justified an impeachment inquiry months if not years ago. During the 2016 campaign, he appears to have violated federal election law by directing his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to pay $280,000 in hush money to two women who say they had sex with Mr. Trump.... In office, he has also repeatedly sought to obstruct federal investigations. And his companies, which he has refused to divest or place in a blind trust, actively solicit business from foreign governments and leaders. Those governments have spent vast sums at Trump properties, enriching the president in possible violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution... But an impeachment inquiry was not necessary to deal previously with those transgressions, because the system was working. The courts were dealing with some charges, and the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, Robert Mueller, with others. 

[...]

This board has made clear its own view of Mr. Trump’s unfitness for his office. We have opposed Mr. Trump not only because of his personal transgressions, divisiveness and dishonesty, but also because of the substance of many of his policies... But provided Mr. Trump was acting within the law, he had the absolute right to pursue his chosen course and be judged upon it by the electorate... in 2020. The disclosures about the president’s pressure on Ukraine have changed that picture. They have revealed Mr. Trump to be working to subvert the 2020 election, undermining the proper electoral check on presidential misbehavior. The Constitution provides only one fail-safe in such a situation, and that’s why the House was right this week to announce a formal impeachment inquiry.

[...]

Americans have seen this playbook before. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump called on Russia to find emails he hoped would embarrass Hillary Clinton. “Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he bellowed... at a campaign news conference... Mr. Mueller subsequently showed that Russian agents tried to hack into Mrs. Clinton’s personal servers that same day. He eventually secured the indictment of 12 Russian agents in a hacking scheme, and more than a dozen more Russians in a disinformation campaign. They were trying to divide Americans and help Mr. Trump win. 

Now, as president, Mr. Trump evidently feels free to demand such interference directly. In fact, Mr. Trump spoke to the Ukrainian president the day after Mr. Mueller had testified to Congress about the magnitude of Russian interference, its continuing menace and Mr. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation. That Mr. Trump was not dissuaded by the response to Mr. Mueller’s findings from seeking political aid from another foreign source suggests he has learned nothing except that he is free to try anything... In July, he said it out loud, telling a group of teenagers and young adults that under Article II of the Constitution, "I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

During an impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee has enhanced power to obtain documents from the executive branch and to compel the testimony of the president’s aides.... That may help Congress overcome Mr. Trump’s past refusals to let it perform its oversight function. “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Mr. Trump said in April.

[...]

Some... are already clamoring for the House to rush to judgment, and perhaps even to narrow its focus to the Ukraine incident. Those would be mistakes. The House now has a duty... to protect the integrity of the next election by using its powers to conduct a methodical and fair investigation of impeachable behavior.... Yet much of Mr. Trump’s behavior should remain outside the scope of the inquiry. The founders intended impeachment as a remedy for... high crimes and misdemeanors. While the exact meaning... ultimately rests on the judgment of the House, lawmakers would be wise to construe it narrowly, as... placing private above public interest.

[...]

It is quite possible... that an impeachment inquiry will produce political benefits for Mr. Trump. He and many of his supporters draw energy and a sense of purpose from conflict. They relish defining themselves in opposition to enemies real and imagined. Further, weary of bickering in Washington and anxious about paying for health care or housing or schooling or wars without end, many Americans may choose to tune out. The imperative of constitutional accountability outweighs such fears. Mr. Trump is testing the norms and limits of the American system of government. He has left Congress no other recourse than considering impeachment to prevent future presidents from emulating and even expanding upon his piratical application of executive power.

[...]

In 1973... this board urged President Nixon to resign rather than submit to the “agony” of an impeachment inquiry that would otherwise be necessary because of “his deliberate violations of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.” And it concluded that if he would not resign, the impeachment process “would validate the Constitution’s procedure for restraining a lawless president” and “leave Mr. Nixon’s partisans satisfied that he had received due process.”

That last objective is... a hard one to achieve, particularly in this era, when political factions feel entitled to their own facts and so many lawmakers confuse party loyalty with patriotism....  The decision to impeach a president is inherently political... in the noble sense... It must be made in the public interest. But it should never be political in the narrow sense of being dictated by the latest poll or the next election. 

This is a moment for political courage. Americans deserve a government devoted to addressing their real problems. But to get that, they need a government balanced as the founders intended, with free and fair elections and a president checked by Congress from the selfish exercise of extraordinary power. 

Mr. Trump has disparaged and degraded the institutions of American governance, and it is now time for them, in historic rebuke, to demonstrate the majesty of representative democracy.

[pumabydesign001]

Judge rejects Mueller's request for delay in Russian troll farm case

Judge rejects Mueller’s request for delay in Russian troll farm case

It seems that the Mueller investigation may find itself setback 2-0.

On Friday, a Federal judge in Virginia lambasted prosecutors in the Paul Manafort case, questioning the basis of the charges and whether the special counsel has “unlimited authority.”

Fail

The next morning, Politico reported that another judge called out Robert Mueller’s investigation in the criminal case involving three…

[classicalliberalleague]

It would be nice if government officials were even functionally literate.

Barr: You can’t have obstruction without a crime just as it says in the Mueller report.

Trump:You can’t have obstruction without a crime just as it says in the Mueller report.

Mueller Report: “the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime” —Volume II,  Executive Summary to Volume II, Overreaching factual issues, paragraph 3, page 7

It helps to actually be literate which our President and Attorney General are clearly not.  

Yes, I did read it all. He’s guilt.  And he belongs in jail.  Right this fucking instant.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Some rank-and-file congressional Democrats favor starting impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Even Democrats who don’t favor impeachment, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have suggested that Trump’s behavior could be impeachment-worthy, pointing to his administration’s refusal to comply with Congress’s requests for documents and testimony from key officials and the Mueller report’s references to potential obstruction of justice by the president. But Pelosi has downplayed the possibility of pursuing impeachment, hinting that such a move would hurt Democrats electorally.

Put simply, the impeachment of Bill Clinton hangs over everything — Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998, and voters rallied to his defense. Pelosi and other senior Democrats probably fear a similar backlash.

But are they right to?

In the short term, yes. Polls show that impeachment proceedings, at least at their start, would probably be opposed by a plurality of the public. The long term is more complicated, however. If House Democrats impeached Trump sometime in 2019 but he remained in office, would the process meaningfully decrease the party’s chances of retaining the House and winning the Senate or presidency in November 2020? That’s not so obvious. (We’re assuming for this article that a House vote to impeach Trump would be followed by an acquittal in the Senate, so the president would not be removed from office.)1

Let’s unpack the electoral politics of impeachment in more detail, with a few precise questions.

Would impeachment hurt congressional Democrats in the near term?

Probably.

Since the release of the (redacted) Mueller report, some news and polling organizations have asked the public questions about impeachment.2 There is a clear pattern in the results:

Republicans overwhelmingly oppose impeachment (91 percent to 5 percent in a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll that asked whether impeachment hearings should be started in response to the Mueller report).

Independents oppose impeachment but by a narrower margin than Republicans do (51-40, according to the Marist poll).

Democrats largely support impeachment (70 percent, in the Marist survey), but there is still a sizable anti-impeachment bloc among Democrats (23 percent opposed).

So at least for now, impeachment doesn’t look like a great idea for Democrats politically — it divides the party, unifies Republicans and pushes independents toward the GOP.

But those who favor impeachment argue that these poll results should not be taken too seriously. “People don’t have preformed opinions about what merits impeachment the way they know their health care sucks or whatever,” wrote Brian Beutler, editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, the company that produces the popular liberal podcast “Pod Save America.” “Support for impeachment has dropped since the Mueller report … because Democratic leaders aggressively crapped all over the idea from the word ‘go.’ Having successfully eroded public support for impeachment, those same leaders can now point to the polling they shaped as a reason not to act.”

Is Beutler right? Maybe. In this era of deep partisan polarization, I would assume that support for impeachment among Democrats would increase if party elites — particularly people who are aligned with the party’s moderate voters like Joe Biden — all started pushing for it. Also, the process itself, which would probably include nationally televised hearings in which Mueller and others described the allegations against Trump in detail, could increase support for impeachment among the public. That’s what happened in the 1970s: Public support for the idea that Richard Nixon should be removed from office surged in 1973 and 1974 as Congress investigated the president and laid out the evidence against him.

But the polarized politics of today work in the other direction, too — it’s difficult to imagine Republican elected officials or GOP voters breaking with Trump as they (eventually) did with Nixon. By 1974, Nixon’s approval rating among Republican voters was in the mid-50s. Trump’s has been mostly in the upper 80s throughout his presidency despite a seemingly endless list of controversies that the media has cast as politically damaging.

In terms of public opinion, probably the best that Democrats can hope for is a 50-50 split on impeachment — basically, Clinton voters in favor and Trump voters opposed. But it’s entirely possible that impeachment remains a net political loser for Democrats.

Which leads us to another argument against impeachment, that Democrats should instead focus on issues where a clear majority of the public is on the party’s side. This is Pelosi’s strategy, pushing more popular proposals like defending the Affordable Care Act provision that bars insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher prices for people with preexisting conditions, and making it easier for Americans to register to vote on Election Day.

So even if impeachment is basically a 50-50 issue and wouldn’t hurt Democrats’ standing all that much, you could argue that it’s a bad political move because Democrats could be focusing on issues where, say, 70 percent of Americans agree with them.

Would impeachment boost Trump’s job approval ratings in the near term?

Probably not.

Pelosi has suggested that Trump’s base would be extra energized by impeachment. I’m skeptical of this claim simply because Republicans are already strongly behind Trump. Trump’s job approval rating among Republicans is at 91 percent, according to Gallup. Could it increase by a couple of percentage points? Sure. But he has only so much upside left.

Could Trump become more popular among independents, who might view impeachment as an overreach by Democrats? Maybe. But I think the much safer prediction is that Trump’s poll numbers wouldn’t change much. Indeed, that’s been the norm during his presidency so far.

“Sentiments towards President Trump seem remarkably stable given the often tumultuous nature of his time in office,” Robert Griffin of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a group of scholars who research the views of American voters, wrote in a recent analysis of the president’s public standing.

Would impeachment hurt Democrats electorally in November 2020?

Maybe in down-ballot races.

Midterms are usually won by the party that doesn’t control the presidency. It’s as close to a universal rule as politics has. But in November 1998, when Clinton was in the White House, Democrats gained a net of five House seats. Exit polls that year found that the public was wary of the GOP push to impeach Clinton, and Democrats at the time believed that anti-impeachment sentiment helped them.

Pelosi was in Congress in 1998, so she may be particularly inclined to see the potential for an impeachment backlash. And Pelosi has reason to be attuned to the potential dangers of pushing for impeachment — she is speaker in part because 31 Democratic candidates in 2018 won districts that Trump won in 2016. For those House members, deciding how to vote on impeachment would be really challenging — reject the president who was supported by most of your constituents or reject your party’s most intense supporters. Democrats running in gubernatorial and Senate races in states where they clearly need Trump voters to win (Montana, for example) might also be leery about supporting impeachment.

That said, we shouldn’t overstate the impeachment backlash from two decades ago. Even though the impeachment effort against Clinton was unpopular, Republicans kept control of the House and won back the presidency in 2000. And even though Clinton’s approval rating remained high, the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2000, Al Gore, distanced himself from Clinton. Gore reportedly felt that the controversy around the president and his impeachment made voters wary of Clinton even if they said they approved of him.

If Trump were impeached, would that hurt the general election prospects of the Democratic candidate, especially if the nominee had supported impeachment? There are swing voters, and they matter. The question is what issues will be motivating them in 2020. Republicans will probably campaign against what they cast as Democratic extremism, both on policy (the Green New Deal and “Medicare for all,” for example) and politics (anti-Trump fervor).

I’m not sure impeachment would change that dynamic too much. Even if Democrats do not try to remove the president, Republicans can easily cast Democrats as extremely anti-Trump, because they are. Impeachment or not, 2020 is likely to be a referendum on Trump’s leadership and whether voters feel Democrats would govern the country better.

Would impeachment help Trump’s reelection prospects?

Maybe, but probably not.

Above, I dismissed the idea that Trump would get a short-term boost from impeachment. But what if he can spend a year saying the Democrats tried to remove him from office? Well, here’s the thing: Impeachment or not, Trump is likely to act as though Democrats tried to get rid of him. He has already cast the Mueller investigation as akin to a “coup.” The idea that Democrats are obsessed with taking Trump down will likely be in the president’s campaign commercials and echoed by Republicans in Congress and on Fox News no matter what Democrats do in the next 17 months.

Americans’ views on Trump’s presidency appear to be fairly set — the safest bet is that impeachment doesn’t change them too much.

To emphasize the obvious: The electoral impact of impeachment is really difficult to predict. It’s not clear that an impeachment push would hurt Democrats electorally (or help them).

So that leaves Democrats with an underlying question: How strongly do they believe in the case for impeaching Trump, electoral considerations aside? As long as Republicans remain behind Trump, impeachment would be a symbolic action to some extent. But it’s still a powerful and important symbolic act.

[insidewarp]

The Mueller report confirms that the Obama administration, without evidence, turned the surveillance powers of the federal government against the presidential campaign of the party out of power. This historic abuse of executive authority was either approved by President Barack Obama or it was not. It’s time for Mr. Obama, who oddly receives few mentions in stories about his government’s spying on associates of the 2016 Trump campaign, to say what he knew and did not know about the targeting of his party’s opponents. . . . It’s time for this lawyer and alleged passionate defender of the Bill of Rights to explain the actions of his overzealous and overreaching executive branch. If he didn’t find out about the wiretapping until after the fact, when exactly did he learn about it and how did he respond? What has always seemed clear is that Mr. Obama never actually believed the now-discredited claim that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to rig the 2016 U.S. elections. . . . If Mr. Obama never bought into the collusion conspiracy theory, then the question is why he endorsed or allowed the use of federal surveillance tools against the party out of power—a direct threat to the democratic process that is at the heart of our country’s greatness. Mr. Obama might have room to deny any knowledge of the details of the surveillance abuses, given the story his FBI director told Congress—if anybody could believe that story. The absolute bare minimum that Mr. Obama owes this country is an explanation of the actions of his government in spying on a presidential campaign. Put him under oath.

James Freeman (WSJ) firewalled

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-and-the-obama-accounting-11553534271?fbclid=IwAR0MvRaDwhZUetmuzHIwuVUhSJAs3wyIxI8Da_zm2Dw_ll7YrXVUmIhHdFI

[opedguy]

Media Closes Ranks Against Trump

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Aug. 12, 2022.--U.S. broadcast and print media railed against former President Donald Trump for the backlash to the Aug. 7 raid on Mar-a-Lago, claiming in a search warrant that he kept classified material in a locked basement.  But whatever the allegations, the press doesn’t like adverse reactions from Trump supporters fed of with the government overreach, seeking a search warrant to procure whatever documents remained from Trump’s presidency.  Talking about the Presidential Records Act, Title 18, Section 2071 of U.S. Code pertaining to record keeping or, even more arcane, the 1917 Espionage Act, all sound official but amount to very little in terms any threat to U.S. national security.  No media outlet, print or broadcast, wants to talk about the long-standing abuse of the National Security apparatus, including the DOJ, FBI, CIA and NSA all used to sabotage Trump’s 2016 campaign and presidency.

No, the media wants to forget about the years of fake reporting on Trump’s ties to the Kremlin, all because they bough, hook, line and sinker, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s paid opposition research AKA the Steele dossier, used by former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan to launch an illegal counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.  Within months of taking office, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey May 9, 2017 for constantly leaking fake Russian stories to the press.  Democrats were so outraged, they pushed Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein to appoint 77-year-old Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, spending 22-mohts and $40 million to find nothing.  But the media wonders why there’s a backlash to the latest DOJ and FBI hoax, accusing Trump of violating the Espionage and Presidential Records Acts.

Democrats and the Press used the latest raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to justify the Jan. 6 House Select Committee findings that Trump orchestrated and planned the Capitol Hill insurrection.  Democrats suffered the indignity of losing the Feb. 13, 2021 Senate impeachment trial, trying to charge Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”  Unable to convict Trump in the Senate, Democrats decided to hold Trump accountable for the Jan. 6 riots, all because a number of rabble-rousers tried to lash out at the U.S. government.  After Monday’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, Democrats and press want to blame Trump for stirring up right wing nut cases to cause more trouble.  “We’re very strong supporters of law enforcement, and it concerns everybody if you see some agents go rogue,” said Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 ranking House Republican, a possible 2024 presidential candidate.

Democrats and the media want to forget about the years of complicity, accusing Trump of conspiring with the Kremlin to win the 2016 presidential election.  Comey acted dumbfounded when former Atty. Gen. Bill Barr accused him April 10, 2019 of spying on Trump and his campaign.  Comey acted clueless thinking that it was OK as FBI Director to do whatever he liked.  Now comes Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland, who, yesterday, admitted he signed off on the Mar-a-Lago search warrant.  What did Garland think would happen taking extreme measures to keep Trump from running in 2024 for president.  Former Hillary campaign attorney Mark Elias said the raid of Mar-a-Lago was the biggest political blockbuster he could remember.  He said Trump’s plans to run for president were compromised with the dark cloud of criminal charges or, at the very least, creating such bad publicity.

What does the press think would happen going after Trump, largely on bogus probable cause?  Comey thought he had legitimate probable cause when he duped FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer to get warrants to wiretap former Trump foreign policy aid Carter Page.  Collyer admitted that Comey cherry-picked the facts, omitting that Page formerly worked for the CIA.  So when so-called magistrate Bruce Reinhart signed off on the search warrant, it meant nothing in terms of real facts or urgent national security issues.  Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland was on the defensive defending the DOJ and FBI.  Did Garland defend Comey’s right to his counterintelligence investigation against Trump and his campaign all based on Hillary fake dossier?  “The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated patriotic public servants every day,” Garland said, forgetting about the abuse of power concerning Trump.

Garland has a lot of explaining to do saying that Trump’s locked basement contained possibly top secret or classified nuclear codes.  Does Garland think the last five years of the Russian hoax never took place?  If the public expresses some outrage over the continued persecution of Trump and his associates, Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray must live with it.  Garland can’t say the FBI under Comey served the public with integrity.  Democrats and media want to make up facts as they go, making up more wild allegations about Trump’s role in hiding classified documents. Whether admitted or not, it’s highly doubtful that Reinhart thought that documents at Mar-a-Lago threatened U.S. national security.  Garland talks about the highest integrity at the DOJ and FBI.  When former lovers, FBI agent Peter Strzok and Atty. Lisa Page pledged their souls to keep Trump from president, what that integrity to Garland?

About the Author    

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[dendroica]

Former New York congressman Michael Grimm is a felon who has admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath. To hear him tell it, that’s a reason Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office. “It’s almost identical to what the president has been going through,” Grimm says of the federal investigation that led to his imprisonment. “It’s not an accident that under the Obama administration, the Justice Department was used politically. And that is all starting to come out.” Grimm has uncovered a new reality in the constantly changing world of Republican politics: Criminal convictions, once seen as career-enders, are no longer disqualifying. In the era of President Trump, even time spent in prison can be turned into a positive talking point, demonstrating a candidate’s battle scars in a broader fight against what he perceives as liberal corruption. In a startling shift from “law-and-order Republicans,” Trump has attacked some branches of law enforcement, especially those pursuing white-collar malfeasance, as his allies and former campaign officials are ensnared in various investigations. Following his lead, Republican Senate candidates with criminal convictions in West Virginia and Arizona have cast themselves as victims of the Obama administration’s legal overreach. Another former Trump adviser who pleaded guilty to a felony has also become an in-demand surrogate, as Republicans jump at the chance to show their opposition to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Crimes are no longer a disqualification for Republican candidates - The Washington Post

[donman2112]

Federal Judge Accuses Robert Mueller of Lying and Targeting President Trump

President Trump was just sent a gift-wrapped explosive in the form of critique towards Special Counsel Robert Mueller from a federal judge who says that Mueller not only lied but is directly targeting President Trump.

The ongoing witch hunt into the Trump Administration seems to know zero boundaries, with Robert Mueller being appointed to investigate alleged “Russian meddling,” and nearly sixteen months into the Trump Presidency having found zero evidence to support that claim.

United States District Judge T.S. Ellis III blasted Robert Mueller on Friday at a Paul Manafort hearing in a federal courtroom, where Judge Ellis said that Mueller's team of Democratic-puppet investigators have lied to the government about the scope of their investigation.

Judge Ellis said that instead of finding evidence of any of the alleged meddling into our elections, that Mueller has abused federal law enforcement agencies into doing his dirty work, and that he's “seeking unfettered power” in their efforts to bring down a sitting President.

Robert Mueller is a criminal, who's trying to take down President Trump to protect the globalists who appointed him as well as himself in the Uranium One scandal, which is the actual “Russian collusion” case that Mueller seems to ignore completely.

Where are any arrests in regards to either “Russian meddling,” or “Russian collusion,” the claims that were made about the 2016 elections when the similarly corrupt Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to the position of Special Counsel?

Instead, we’re seeing the Trump Administration targeted in one of the most biased investigations in American history, stopping at nothing and reaching the depths of despair in trying to frame the 45th President of the United States of America, even raising the offices of his attorney, Michael Cohen.

Disgusting and clear bias has perpetuated from the Mueller probe, and it's as apparent as the scent of rotting fish illuminating from a garbage can. Even a blind man can smell the corruption and the motives driving this assault upon the White House and those close to the President.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” US District Judge T.S. Ellis III said to Mueller’s rag-tag team of puppet investigators. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

It's about time for this to end. Mueller has overreached in his efforts to cover-up crimes committed by his friends in the Democratic Party, and the only real collusion is that which occurred in the last Administration as well as that which is happening now from Robert Mueller in regards to the attempted coup he's been hand-selected to orchestrate.

The Paul Manafort hearing today was an effort for his attorneys to attempt to dismiss the 18-counts against him stemming from alleged criminal activities that the FBI was aware of several years ago long before Donald Trump had ever planned to run for office.

It's in no way related to the Presidency, not are these charges related to what Mueller was appointed to investigate in the first place.

To make matters worse, Manafort was an informant for the Department of Justice who also knew of every activity Manafort was engaged in and saw no need to prosecute at the time.

Yet here we are in 2018, millions of dollars flushed down the toilet at the hands of Robert Mueller, and he's abusing his role as some type of unlimited power grasping super-villain, being able to command the FBI to do as he pleases and use the full spectrum of intelligence and spying tools to enforce his coup attempt.

It's an outright disgrace.

As Rudy Giuliani recently said, it's time to shut it down, and as Representative Louie Gohmert proclaimed, it's time to investigate Robert Mueller for his role in Uranium One.

The charade cannot be allowed to continue. Mueller thinks he's some shadow-Attorney General, having control over the entire Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all of the taxpayer-funded resources at their fingertips.

There's a hearing today involving Manafort before District Judge T.S. Ellis III regarding alleged crimes that date as far back as the year 2005.

Judge Ellis said that the information which is being used against Manafort didn't “arise’ from the Special Counsel probe and that it cannot be used within the scope of the investigation.

This is a significant blow to Robert Mueller. He has nothing left. “We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” Judge Ellis said.

Mueller's team attempted to persuade the Judge, to no avail. Judge Ellis responded using the phrase “C’Mon Man,” in regards to the idiocracy of what the scope of their investigation is, and the government's inability to accurately state what that scope of power granted to Mueller is.

The federal government now has two weeks to hand over documents which support or disavow the amount of power Mueller was granted. Otherwise the case will be thrown out.

"We said this was what the investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying,” Judge Ellis said of Mueller's team, proclaiming that they're manipulating everyone about what their intentions are.

Prosecutors also said that there is crucial information inside the government scope of power given to Mueller, attempting to prevent the handover of the documents.

Again, Judge Ellis wasn't having it. “I'll be the Judge of that,” Ellis said.

Mueller is on a slippery slope now. Several members of Congress have called for the investigation of Robert Mueller's role in Uranium One, and many are suggesting that it's time for his termination.

Bye Mueller. You report to the Deputy Attorney General, and that's how this works. You do not have the power to continue to lie to the federal government in your witch hunt against Trump.

Additional Sources or Relevant Information:

foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/federal-judge-accuses-muellers-team-lying-trying-to-target-trump-cmon-man.amp.html

[phroyd]

WASHINGTON — An independent government agency recommended on Thursday that President Trump fire Kellyanne Conway, his White House counselor, for repeated violations of an ethics law barring partisan politics from the federal workplace.

In a letter accompanying a report to Mr. Trump, the agency called Ms. Conway a “repeat offender” of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaign politics at work, saying that her flagrant defiance of the law justified her dismissal from the White House.

“As a highly visible member of the administration, Ms. Conway’s violations, if left unpunished, send a message to all federal employees that they need not abide by the Hatch Act’s restrictions,” said the letter to the president, signed by Henry J. Kerner, the head of the agency. “Her actions erode the principal foundation of our democratic system — the rule of law.”

The agency, called the Office of Special Counsel, enforces the Hatch Act and is not related to Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Despite its official mission, the office has no power to force Ms. Conway’s dismissal, and the White House quickly made clear that Mr. Trump would not follow its suggestion.

Ms. Conway had no immediate reaction, but she has previously scorned the office as irrelevant. “Blah, blah, blah,” she told a reporter who noted her past Hatch Act violations a couple of weeks ago. “If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work. Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”

The White House on Thursday released an 11-page memo from Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, rejecting the 17-page report by Mr. Kerner, the special counsel, who was appointed in 2017 by Mr. Trump.

“OSC’s draft report is based on multiple fundamental legal and factual errors, makes unfair and unsupported claims against a close adviser to the president, is the product of a blatantly unfair process that ignored statutory notice requirements, and has been influenced by various inappropriate considerations,” Mr. Cipollone wrote.

Among other things, he argued that the special counsel was applying an overreaching interpretation of the law to target the president’s aide, particularly by applying unjustified standards to social media.

“OSC’s overbroad and unsupported interpretation of the Hatch Act risks violating Ms. Conway’s First Amendment rights and chills the free speech of all government employees,” Mr. Cipollone wrote. The call for Ms. Conway’s firing, he added, “is as outrageous as it is unprecedented.”

Outside ethics watchdog groups praised the special counsel’s report and criticized Ms. Conway for disregarding the law. “It’s untenable for a senior counselor to the president to decide that civil law is no longer something she is bound by,” said Liz Hempowicz, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, one of the groups. “No one is above the law.”

The House Oversight and Reform Committee’s Democratic leadership announced that it will hold a hearing on Ms. Conway’s actions on June 26 and invite her to testify. Mr. Trump has sought to block current and former aides from appearing before a variety of House committees on an array of issues, so this could open one more front in that broader fight between executive and legislative branches.

At issue are Ms. Conway’s media appearances attacking Democrats running for their party’s nomination to challenge Mr. Trump next year. The Office of Special Counsel concluded that she “violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions by disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.”

Among other instances, the report highlighted Ms. Conway’s comments on Fox News attacking candidates like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas.

While identified as a White House official and speaking from the White House grounds, she accused Ms. Warren of “lying” about her ethnicity, said Mr. Sanders’s “ideas are terrible for America” and asserted that Mr. Biden had “no vision.” On one show, she said she had “yet to see presidential timber” among the Democrats. “I just see a bunch of presidential wood chips.”

The report is the second time the office has taken Ms. Conway to task, the only time it has ever issued multiple reports to a president on the same individual. In March 2018, the office found two violations of the Hatch Act by Ms. Conway when she argued in favor of Roy S. Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in a special election in Alabama, with the White House as her backdrop.

The White House at the time refused to discipline Ms. Conway as the office recommended and instead defended her at on the grounds that she was representing the president’s policy position.

Other administrations have run afoul of the Hatch Act, but within Mr. Trump’s first year in office more complaints were filed against his team than against top appointees in the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency.

First enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act was meant to keep politics out of the federal workplace while guaranteeing the rights of government workers to exercise their own partisan preferences on their own time. Among other things, it makes it illegal for an official to “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

Phroyd

[patriotsnet]

Who Are Republicans For The Rule Of Law

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-are-republicans-for-the-rule-of-law/

Who Are Republicans For The Rule Of Law

Other Conservatives Are Starting To Make Noise

Republicans for the Rule of Law Ad Featured on Shepard Smith

Republicans for the Rule of Law is not the only group of conservatives mobilizing against the presidents efforts to politicize the DOJ. On Wednesday, the New York Times profiled a new group organized by George Conway husband of White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway called Checks and Balances.

We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights and the necessity of civil discourse, the group said in a statement. We believe these principles apply regardless of the party or persons in power.

The Times reports that the group is meant to encourage debate about some of the Trump administrations policies and actions among legal organizations that usually support him, like the Federalist Society.

Despite his wifes central role in the administration, Conway has emerged as an outspoken critic of Trump especially on Twitter.

This is flabbergasting.

George Conway

Conway has also been critical of Trumps decision to appoint Whitaker. Asked about Conways criticisms during a question-and-answer session with reporters last week, Trump dismissed him as a selfish attention-seeker.

Hes just trying to get publicity for himself, Trump said.

In Relation To Economics

One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of law’s impact on economic development. The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule of law matter to economic development or not?Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework includes government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch, in contrast to corruption by private actors.

The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual budget process, and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may benefit. The availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized appropriations, is a key element for the success of the rule-of-law endeavor.

Studies have shown that weak rule of law discourages investment. Economists have found, for example, that a rise in discretionary regulatory enforcement caused US firms to abandon international investments.

Theyve Been Jabbing At Mike Lee & Praising Maryland Governor Larry Hogan On Social Media

The women of Utah have questions for Senator Lee, including: Do you mean you already fully understood his utter disregard for the rule of law, and just dont care?

Republicans for the Rule of Law

Republicans for the Rule of Law recently reposted a letter to the editor that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune, slamming Utah Senator Mike Lee. The letter, written by the Utah chapter of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, asked Lee why he continues to stand by the president. The letter reads:

When you state that nothing in this report changes your view of this president, do you mean that you already fully understood that President Trump was doing whatever he could to obstruct justice and was saved only because his staff refused to follow his orders? Do you mean that you support the president despite this unethical and self-serving behavior?

Republicans for the Rule of Law has also been showering praise on Maryland governor Larry Hogan. Hogan is the son of the late Maryland representative Lawrence Hogan, who was the only Republican representative to vote for all three articles of impeachment against Nixon. More recently, Larry Hogan made headlines when he called the Mueller Report disturbing and said it didnt exonerate the president.

Also Check: What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

A Loyalist Runs The Justice Department

Trump made no secret that his antipathy to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was rooted in Sessionss decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation a move that ultimately resulted in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Mueller as special counsel.

The ad that Republicans for the Rule of Law ran on Fox & Friends highlights comments Whitaker made during TV appearances before his stratospheric rise to the top of the DOJ, such as the appointment of Bob Mueller I dont think was necessary or appropriate and what I see is a president that is starting to figure out that if I want to I can terminate you legally there is certainly a way for that to happen.

Perhaps the most prominent member of the group, Bill Kristol, shared video of the ad on Twitter.

Republicans for the Rule of Law is running this ad on Fox and Friends this morning.

Bill Kristol

Whitaker thus far has given no indications that he plans to recuse himself from overseeing Muellers investigation. Trump reportedly became a fan of his thanks to TV appearances where Whitaker suggested Muellers work could be brought to an end by slashing his budget, and characterized his appointment as ridiculous and a little fishy.

Related

The many scandals of Trumps new acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, explained

Status In Various Jurisdictions

2005 map of Worldwide Governance Indicators, which attempts to measure the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. Â;Â;90â100th percentile* Â;Â;0â10th percentile *Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country.

The rule of law has been considered one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: “the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence.” Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map at right.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Republicans For The Rule Of Law Ad Targets Johnson Over Covid

Republicans for the Rule of Law have announced an ad campaign targeting GOP U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson for pushing ahead with efforts to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court while opposing a new COVID-19 relief bill.

A group spokeswoman said it is spending more than $250,000 on TV in the Madison and Milwaukee markets on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. The buy runs today through Sunday with a digital component as well.

The group describes itself as life-long Republicans dedicated to defending the institutions of our republic and upholding the rule of law. Its also targeting: U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Bob Portman, R-Ohio; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; as part of an overall $1 million ad campaign.

Johnson hasnt said if he plans to run for re-election in 2022 or if he will stick to his pledge to serve two terms in the Senate.

The narrator in the ad says Johnson blocked a confirmation vote in 2016 before playing a clip of him saying, Eight months before the election, why not let the American people decide the direction of the Supreme Court?

Now, the narrator adds, Johnson supports rushing through a new judge, but refuses to pass COVID relief.

Call Ron Johnson and tell him to pass COVID relief now and let the peoples voice be heard on the Supreme Court, the narrator says to close the ad. Sen. Ron Johnson is letting Wisconsin down.

The Rule Of Law In The United States

The Constitution serves as the foundation for the rule of law in American justice. It establishes a system of rights, freedoms, and checks and balances that ensure a fair and just society for all without government overreach and tyranny. This includes separation of power between three distinct branches of government .

Ultimately, no person, whether individual or policymaker, has the right to subvert the rule of law. Amendments are possible if and when societal shifts make them necessary, but the process is challenging for a reason. Not only does it prevent rulers from changing the law to suit their needs, but it also helps to maintain a more stable government and freedom for all Americans.

Also Check: Which Region In General Supported The Democratic Republicans

About Republicans For Voting Rights

Republicans for Voting Rights is an initiative of the Republican Accountability Project with the purpose of defending the accessibility, integrity, and competitiveness of American elections.

Voting is a sacred American right. But after the 2020 election, some Republicans began pushing for more restrictive voting laws designed to support unfounded accusations that the election was stolen and the results were illegitimate. Some even believe that voting is harmful to their electoral prospects. More still believe our electoral system is rife with fraud and security failures.

Republicans for Voting Rights rejects the false choice between voting access and election integrity. We believe that Republicans in federal, state, and local government should protect the right to vote, protect our election systems from partisan or foreign interference, and help build trust in our democracy.

What Happened To Bill Kristol And Republicans For The Rule Of Law

Did you ever imagine the President could act like this?

In 2013, American Conservative Union head David Keene took a direct shot at then Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, while;addressing;a crowd at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Some political operatives think we lost because of our ideas and valuesand what we really ought to do is change them, said Keene, attacking Republican strategists concerned over electoral defeat, including Kristol.

A lot has changed in seven yearsin terms of political players and issuesbut Keenes warning still holds true.

In an act of appeasement toward the political left, many self-professed limited government conservativesonce heralded as firebrands by their supportershave abandoned the conservative tradition.

Theres no doubt that the recent death of George Floyd raises questions about the state of the current justice system. Any conservative or libertarian-minded individual truly concerned about big government should fight to hold everyone accountable to the law.

But establishment GOP leaders and consultants have shifted their reform efforts. Instead of standing up for traditional conservative valuesgovernment accountability, the rule of lawtheyve pinned the blame on those stubborn conservatives.

Take for example, Max Boot, one of President Donald Trumps strongest critics.;According to;Boot, The president is pouring gasoline on the flames of racial division, and the Republican Party is holding the jerrycan for him.

Also Check: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans In The Us

About The Rule Of Law

Rule of law is an ancient philosophy first outlined by Aristotle in ancient Rome. It purports that all people and entities, including the government, must be bound to the same system of laws and regulations. This prevents rulers from abusing their powers or engaging in tyranny while also setting guidelines under which all people pursue happiness without harming others.

This does not necessarily mean that all governments who adopt the rule of law are forced to follow the same exact system. For example, both Canada and the US believe in the rule of law, but the justice system adopted by each contains very different laws. The term rule of law is more about the government and the people agreeing to the same system as a whole.

Republicans For The Rule Of Law Is Financed By A Democrat

Just hours after Jeff Sessions resigned as attorney general last Wednesday at the presidents behest, #TheResistance found its newest target for destruction: Sessions interim replacement, Matthew Whitaker….NeverTrump conservatives are aiding Schiff and the media in their campaign to paralyze if not remove Whitaker. Commercials attacking the acting attorney general were aired on several Sunday morning political shows. The ads were sponsored by Republicans for the Rule of Law, a group founded earlier this year by Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard. The groups primary role so far appears to be pimping for the Mueller probe, a political witch-hunt that Kristol and his fellow NeverTrumpers pray will lead to the impeachment and removal of the president. The Left and their NeverTrump footsoldiers fear Whitaker will thwart the special counsels investigation instead of rubber stamping Muellers ever-expanding investigation as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has done over the past 18 months.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Hate Ted Cruz

The Council Of Europe

The Statute of the Council of Europe characterizes the rule of law as one of the core principles which the establishment of the organization based on. The paragraph 3 of the preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe states: “Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.” The Statute lays the compliance with the rule of law principles as a condition for the European states to be a full member of the organization.

In Relation To Culture

The Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments or Roerich Pact is an inter-American treaty. The most important idea of the Roerich Pact is the legal recognition that the defense of cultural objects is more important than the use or destruction of that culture for military purposes, and the protection of culture always has precedence over any military necessity.The Roerich Pact signed on April 15, 1935, by the representatives of 21 American states in the Oval Office of the White House . It was the first international treaty signed in the Oval Office.The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is the first international treaty that focuses on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. It was signed at The Hague, Netherlands on 14 May 1954 and entered into force on 7 August 1956. As of June 2017, it has been ratified by 128 states.

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans Voted For Daca

A Viral Ad Released By The Group Says Republican Silence On The Mueller Report Is Deafening

Republicans, your silence is deafening. Stand up for the rule of law.

Republicans for the Rule of Law

A new ad from the Republicans for the Rule of Law has been going viral on social media; you can see it above. Many people are retweeting it and adding instructions to listen with your sound turned all the way up, because this video is supposed to be all about silence. The spot, shot in black and white, features close-ups of Republican Ben senators Sasse, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, Tim Scott. Theyre all looking straight ahead and saying nothing. You can hear a bit of static and the faint sound of a ticking clock.

A caption at the end reads, Republicans: Your silence is deafening. Our president attempted to obstruct justice. Stand up for the rule of law.

Some Trumpists Turn Against Cheneys Successor

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who entered the House as a centrist in 2014 but has recast her as a Trumpist with support of Trumps disinformation, has been endorsed by House GOP leader McCarthy as Cheneys successor.

But some Trumpists are already jabbing at Stefanik as a moderate in disguise. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas sent a memo to every Republican representative that Stefanik had cast a series of votes opposed to Trumpism.

We must avoid putting in charge Republicans who campaign as Republicans but then vote for and advance the Democrats agenda once sworn in that is, that we do not make the same mistakes that we did in 2017.

With all due respect to my friend, Elise Stefanik, let us contemplate the message Republican leadership is about to send by rushing to coronate a spokesperson whose voting record embodies much of what led to the 2018 ass-kicking we received by Democrats.

Members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus have privately expressed reluctance, if not opposition, about Stefaniks ascendancy.

The New York representative has sought to appease critics by promising that she would resign as Conference chair before casting a vote that differs from the majority of House Republicans. She told reporters on Tuesday, We have a great deal of support from the Freedom Caucus and others.

Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Trump have backed Stefanik.

Read Also: Why Do Democrats And Republicans Disagree

International Commission Of Jurists

In 1959, an event took place in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The event consisted of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries. This later became known as the . During the declaration they declared what the rule of law implied. They included certain rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary and social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The one aspect not included in The Declaration of Delhi, was for rule of law requiring legislative power to be subject to judicial review.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:

a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

[statetalks]

Who Are Republicans For The Rule Of Law

Other Conservatives Are Starting To Make Noise

Republicans for the Rule of Law Ad Featured on Shepard Smith

Republicans for the Rule of Law is not the only group of conservatives mobilizing against the presidents efforts to politicize the DOJ. On Wednesday, the New York Times profiled a new group organized by George Conway husband of White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway called Checks and Balances.

We believe in the rule of law, the power of truth, the independence of the criminal justice system, the imperative of individual rights and the necessity of civil discourse, the group said in a statement. We believe these principles apply regardless of the party or persons in power.

The Times reports that the group is meant to encourage debate about some of the Trump administrations policies and actions among legal organizations that usually support him, like the Federalist Society.

Despite his wifes central role in the administration, Conway has emerged as an outspoken critic of Trump especially on Twitter.

This is flabbergasting.

George Conway

Conway has also been critical of Trumps decision to appoint Whitaker. Asked about Conways criticisms during a question-and-answer session with reporters last week, Trump dismissed him as a selfish attention-seeker.

Hes just trying to get publicity for himself, Trump said.

In Relation To Economics

One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of law’s impact on economic development. The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule of law matter to economic development or not?Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework includes government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch, in contrast to corruption by private actors.

The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual budget process, and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may benefit. The availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized appropriations, is a key element for the success of the rule-of-law endeavor.

Studies have shown that weak rule of law discourages investment. Economists have found, for example, that a rise in discretionary regulatory enforcement caused US firms to abandon international investments.

Theyve Been Jabbing At Mike Lee & Praising Maryland Governor Larry Hogan On Social Media

The women of Utah have questions for Senator Lee, including: Do you mean you already fully understood his utter disregard for the rule of law, and just dont care?

Republicans for the Rule of Law

Republicans for the Rule of Law recently reposted a letter to the editor that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune, slamming Utah Senator Mike Lee. The letter, written by the Utah chapter of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, asked Lee why he continues to stand by the president. The letter reads:

When you state that nothing in this report changes your view of this president, do you mean that you already fully understood that President Trump was doing whatever he could to obstruct justice and was saved only because his staff refused to follow his orders? Do you mean that you support the president despite this unethical and self-serving behavior?

Republicans for the Rule of Law has also been showering praise on Maryland governor Larry Hogan. Hogan is the son of the late Maryland representative Lawrence Hogan, who was the only Republican representative to vote for all three articles of impeachment against Nixon. More recently, Larry Hogan made headlines when he called the Mueller Report disturbing and said it didnt exonerate the president.

Also Check: What Is Republicanism And What Does It Value

A Loyalist Runs The Justice Department

Trump made no secret that his antipathy to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was rooted in Sessionss decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation a move that ultimately resulted in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing Mueller as special counsel.

The ad that Republicans for the Rule of Law ran on Fox & Friends highlights comments Whitaker made during TV appearances before his stratospheric rise to the top of the DOJ, such as the appointment of Bob Mueller I dont think was necessary or appropriate and what I see is a president that is starting to figure out that if I want to I can terminate you legally there is certainly a way for that to happen.

Perhaps the most prominent member of the group, Bill Kristol, shared video of the ad on Twitter.

Republicans for the Rule of Law is running this ad on Fox and Friends this morning.

Bill Kristol

Whitaker thus far has given no indications that he plans to recuse himself from overseeing Muellers investigation. Trump reportedly became a fan of his thanks to TV appearances where Whitaker suggested Muellers work could be brought to an end by slashing his budget, and characterized his appointment as ridiculous and a little fishy.

Related

The many scandals of Trumps new acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, explained

Status In Various Jurisdictions

2005 map of Worldwide Governance Indicators, which attempts to measure the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. Â;Â;90â100th percentile* Â;Â;0â10th percentile *Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country.

The rule of law has been considered one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: “the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence.” Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map at right.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Republicans For The Rule Of Law Ad Targets Johnson Over Covid

Republicans for the Rule of Law have announced an ad campaign targeting GOP U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson for pushing ahead with efforts to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court while opposing a new COVID-19 relief bill.

A group spokeswoman said it is spending more than $250,000 on TV in the Madison and Milwaukee markets on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. The buy runs today through Sunday with a digital component as well.

The group describes itself as life-long Republicans dedicated to defending the institutions of our republic and upholding the rule of law. Its also targeting: U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Bob Portman, R-Ohio; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; as part of an overall $1 million ad campaign.

Johnson hasnt said if he plans to run for re-election in 2022 or if he will stick to his pledge to serve two terms in the Senate.

The narrator in the ad says Johnson blocked a confirmation vote in 2016 before playing a clip of him saying, Eight months before the election, why not let the American people decide the direction of the Supreme Court?

Now, the narrator adds, Johnson supports rushing through a new judge, but refuses to pass COVID relief.

Call Ron Johnson and tell him to pass COVID relief now and let the peoples voice be heard on the Supreme Court, the narrator says to close the ad. Sen. Ron Johnson is letting Wisconsin down.

The Rule Of Law In The United States

The Constitution serves as the foundation for the rule of law in American justice. It establishes a system of rights, freedoms, and checks and balances that ensure a fair and just society for all without government overreach and tyranny. This includes separation of power between three distinct branches of government .

Ultimately, no person, whether individual or policymaker, has the right to subvert the rule of law. Amendments are possible if and when societal shifts make them necessary, but the process is challenging for a reason. Not only does it prevent rulers from changing the law to suit their needs, but it also helps to maintain a more stable government and freedom for all Americans.

Also Check: Which Region In General Supported The Democratic Republicans

About Republicans For Voting Rights

Republicans for Voting Rights is an initiative of the Republican Accountability Project with the purpose of defending the accessibility, integrity, and competitiveness of American elections.

Voting is a sacred American right. But after the 2020 election, some Republicans began pushing for more restrictive voting laws designed to support unfounded accusations that the election was stolen and the results were illegitimate. Some even believe that voting is harmful to their electoral prospects. More still believe our electoral system is rife with fraud and security failures.

Republicans for Voting Rights rejects the false choice between voting access and election integrity. We believe that Republicans in federal, state, and local government should protect the right to vote, protect our election systems from partisan or foreign interference, and help build trust in our democracy.

What Happened To Bill Kristol And Republicans For The Rule Of Law

Did you ever imagine the President could act like this?

In 2013, American Conservative Union head David Keene took a direct shot at then Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, while;addressing;a crowd at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Some political operatives think we lost because of our ideas and valuesand what we really ought to do is change them, said Keene, attacking Republican strategists concerned over electoral defeat, including Kristol.

A lot has changed in seven yearsin terms of political players and issuesbut Keenes warning still holds true.

In an act of appeasement toward the political left, many self-professed limited government conservativesonce heralded as firebrands by their supportershave abandoned the conservative tradition.

Theres no doubt that the recent death of George Floyd raises questions about the state of the current justice system. Any conservative or libertarian-minded individual truly concerned about big government should fight to hold everyone accountable to the law.

But establishment GOP leaders and consultants have shifted their reform efforts. Instead of standing up for traditional conservative valuesgovernment accountability, the rule of lawtheyve pinned the blame on those stubborn conservatives.

Take for example, Max Boot, one of President Donald Trumps strongest critics.;According to;Boot, The president is pouring gasoline on the flames of racial division, and the Republican Party is holding the jerrycan for him.

Also Check: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans In The Us

About The Rule Of Law

Rule of law is an ancient philosophy first outlined by Aristotle in ancient Rome. It purports that all people and entities, including the government, must be bound to the same system of laws and regulations. This prevents rulers from abusing their powers or engaging in tyranny while also setting guidelines under which all people pursue happiness without harming others.

This does not necessarily mean that all governments who adopt the rule of law are forced to follow the same exact system. For example, both Canada and the US believe in the rule of law, but the justice system adopted by each contains very different laws. The term rule of law is more about the government and the people agreeing to the same system as a whole.

Republicans For The Rule Of Law Is Financed By A Democrat

Just hours after Jeff Sessions resigned as attorney general last Wednesday at the presidents behest, #TheResistance found its newest target for destruction: Sessions interim replacement, Matthew Whitaker….NeverTrump conservatives are aiding Schiff and the media in their campaign to paralyze if not remove Whitaker. Commercials attacking the acting attorney general were aired on several Sunday morning political shows. The ads were sponsored by Republicans for the Rule of Law, a group founded earlier this year by Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard. The groups primary role so far appears to be pimping for the Mueller probe, a political witch-hunt that Kristol and his fellow NeverTrumpers pray will lead to the impeachment and removal of the president. The Left and their NeverTrump footsoldiers fear Whitaker will thwart the special counsels investigation instead of rubber stamping Muellers ever-expanding investigation as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has done over the past 18 months.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Hate Ted Cruz

The Council Of Europe

The Statute of the Council of Europe characterizes the rule of law as one of the core principles which the establishment of the organization based on. The paragraph 3 of the preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe states: “Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.” The Statute lays the compliance with the rule of law principles as a condition for the European states to be a full member of the organization.

In Relation To Culture

The Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments or Roerich Pact is an inter-American treaty. The most important idea of the Roerich Pact is the legal recognition that the defense of cultural objects is more important than the use or destruction of that culture for military purposes, and the protection of culture always has precedence over any military necessity.The Roerich Pact signed on April 15, 1935, by the representatives of 21 American states in the Oval Office of the White House . It was the first international treaty signed in the Oval Office.The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict is the first international treaty that focuses on the protection of cultural property in armed conflict. It was signed at The Hague, Netherlands on 14 May 1954 and entered into force on 7 August 1956. As of June 2017, it has been ratified by 128 states.

Don’t Miss: How Many Republicans Voted For Daca

A Viral Ad Released By The Group Says Republican Silence On The Mueller Report Is Deafening

Republicans, your silence is deafening. Stand up for the rule of law.

Republicans for the Rule of Law

A new ad from the Republicans for the Rule of Law has been going viral on social media; you can see it above. Many people are retweeting it and adding instructions to listen with your sound turned all the way up, because this video is supposed to be all about silence. The spot, shot in black and white, features close-ups of Republican Ben senators Sasse, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, John Kennedy, Tim Scott. Theyre all looking straight ahead and saying nothing. You can hear a bit of static and the faint sound of a ticking clock.

A caption at the end reads, Republicans: Your silence is deafening. Our president attempted to obstruct justice. Stand up for the rule of law.

Some Trumpists Turn Against Cheneys Successor

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who entered the House as a centrist in 2014 but has recast her as a Trumpist with support of Trumps disinformation, has been endorsed by House GOP leader McCarthy as Cheneys successor.

But some Trumpists are already jabbing at Stefanik as a moderate in disguise. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas sent a memo to every Republican representative that Stefanik had cast a series of votes opposed to Trumpism.

We must avoid putting in charge Republicans who campaign as Republicans but then vote for and advance the Democrats agenda once sworn in that is, that we do not make the same mistakes that we did in 2017.

With all due respect to my friend, Elise Stefanik, let us contemplate the message Republican leadership is about to send by rushing to coronate a spokesperson whose voting record embodies much of what led to the 2018 ass-kicking we received by Democrats.

Members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus have privately expressed reluctance, if not opposition, about Stefaniks ascendancy.

The New York representative has sought to appease critics by promising that she would resign as Conference chair before casting a vote that differs from the majority of House Republicans. She told reporters on Tuesday, We have a great deal of support from the Freedom Caucus and others.

Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Trump have backed Stefanik.

Read Also: Why Do Democrats And Republicans Disagree

International Commission Of Jurists

In 1959, an event took place in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The event consisted of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries. This later became known as the . During the declaration they declared what the rule of law implied. They included certain rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary and social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The one aspect not included in The Declaration of Delhi, was for rule of law requiring legislative power to be subject to judicial review.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:

a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-are-republicans-for-the-rule-of-law/