Trump Is Surrounded by Criminals
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-fall-of-donald-trump-final-days.html
“The legal ring surrounding him is collectively producing a historic indictment of his endemic corruption and criminality.” JONATHAN CHAIT
Trump leaves office facing mounting debt, devalued assets and scarcity of willing lenders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTNQUOOznG
Noam Chomsky: Where the Left Goes After Trump (2021 Interview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huy82PVaCzs
Supreme Court Puts An End To Corruption Cases Against Trump
The Supreme Court on Monday effectively ended several lawsuits alleging that former President Donald Trump violated anti-corruption provisions in the Constitution.
The cases, from New York City and Washington, D.C., argued Trump was violating the Constitution's emoluments clause by taking money from foreign and domestic political entities at his restaurants and hotels while in office. The justices said Monday that the disputes are now moot, and they instructed two lower courts to erase earlier decisions that went against the former president.
The emoluments cases were the opening salvo of four years of hard-fought lawfare with the Trump family. The suits attracted support from Democrats in Congress, blue state attorneys general, progressive lawyers, and famous legal scholars. In the end, after years of litigating, the courts never definitively answered whether Trump's singular arrangement was unlawful, and Monday's order wiped away the few precedents developed for a little-known provision of the Constitution.
The lawsuits were bedeviled with difficult questions from the start. One was foundational: Federal courts had never actually defined what an emolument is, so it was unclear whether the emoluments clause covered Trump's business transactions. Even if it did, there were other hard questions, like what judges could do to stop it, or who could challenge Trump in court. Much of the legal battle focused on the latter question.
In the New York case, a group of hoteliers and restaurant owners claimed Trump encouraged foreign powers and government officials to patronize his businesses. That undercut their ability to compete with Trump properties, they said, and hurt their bottom line.
A federal judge said the connection between Trump and the alleged lost business was "too tenuous" in 2017 and dismissed the case for lack of standing. A federal appeals court revived the suit a year later, but the case ultimately floundered with Monday's order.
The oversight group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) was also involved in the New York and D.C. cases. CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said the real victory is the awareness CREW raised along the way.
"This important litigation made the American people aware for four years of the pervasive corruption that came from a president maintaining a global business and taking benefits and payments from foreign and domestic governments," Bookbinder said. "Only Trump losing the presidency and leaving office ended these corrupt constitutional violations and stopped these groundbreaking lawsuits."
The disputes inspired deep disagreements and sharp exchanges among judges. In May 2020, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote a no-holds-barred dissent after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the D.C. emoluments lawsuit, saying the case was a means of harassment that had no business in federal court.
"We are reaching the point of solving political differences increasingly through litigation rather than through legislation and elections," Wilkinson wrote. "This is a profoundly anti-democratic development pressed in a suit whose wrongfulness and transparently political character will diminish the respect to which courts are entitled."
The justices also declined to hear an emoluments lawsuit from Democratic members of Congress in October. Monday's cases are No. 20-330 Trump v. CREW and No. 20-331 Trump v. District of Columbia.
Trump Makes History Again With Second Impeachment
By David Morgan and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to make Donald Trump the first U.S. president ever to be impeached twice, formally charging him in his waning days in power with inciting an insurrection just a week after a violent mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol.
The vote in the Democratic-controlled House was 232-197 following a deadly assault on American democracy, with 10 Republicans joining the Democrats in backing impeachment.
But it appeared unlikely that the extraordinarily swift impeachment would lead to Trump's ouster before the Republican president's four-year term ends and Democratic President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20. The Senate's Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, rejected Democratic calls to convene the Senate in emergency session to begin an immediate impeachment trial, according to a spokesman.
The House passed a single article of impeachment – a formal charge – accusing Trump of "incitement of insurrection," focused upon an incendiary speech he delivered to thousands of supporters shortly before the pro-Trump mob rampaged through the Capitol. The mob disrupted the formal certification of Biden's victory over Trump in the Nov. 3 election, sent lawmakers into hiding and left five people dead, including a police officer.
During his speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol.
With a large presence of rifle-carrying National Guard troops inside and outside the Capitol, an emotional debate unfolded in the same House chamber where lawmakers had crouched under chairs and donned gas masks on Jan. 6 as rioters clashed with police officers outside the doors.
"The president of the United States incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion against our common country," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said on the House floor before the vote. "He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love."
No U.S. president ever has been removed from office through impeachment. Three – Trump in 2019, Bill Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 – previously were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate.
The impeachment comes at a time of gaping political divisions in a pandemic-weary United States near the end of a tumultuous presidency in which Trump governed with a right-wing populist message preaching "America First."
Democratic congressman Julian Castro, a former presidential candidate, called Trump "the most dangerous man to ever occupy the Oval Office." Congresswoman Maxine Waters accused Trump of wanting civil war and fellow Democrat Jim McGovern said the president "instigated an attempted coup."
Some Republicans argued that the impeachment drive was a rush to judgment that bypassed the customary deliberative process such as hearings and called on Democrats to abandon the effort for the sake of national unity and healing.
"Impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake," said Kevin McCarthy, the House's top Republican. "That doesn't mean the president is free from fault. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters."
Trump's closest allies, such as Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, went further, accusing Democrats of recklessly acting out of pure political interest.
"This is about getting the president of the United States," said Jordan, who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump in a private White House ceremony this week. "It's always been about getting the president, no matter what. It's an obsession."
‘I'M CHOOSING TRUTH'
A handful of Republicans backed impeachment, including Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican.
"I am not choosing a side, I'm choosing truth," Republican Jamie Herrera Beutler said in announcing her support for impeachment, drawing applause from Democrats. "It's the only way to defeat fear."
In a break from standard procedure, Republican House leaders refrained from urging their members to vote against impeachment, calling the vote a matter of individual conscience.
Under the U.S. Constitution, impeachment in the House triggers a trial in the Senate. A two-thirds majority would be needed to convict and remove Trump, meaning at least 17 Republicans in the 100-member chamber would have to join the Democrats.
McConnell has said no trial could begin until the Senate was scheduled to be back in regular session on Jan. 19, one day before Biden's inauguration. The trial would proceed in the Senate even after Trump leaves office. McConnell said in a memo to his fellow Republicans he has not made a final decision on how he will vote on impeachment in the Senate.
The Capitol siege raised concerns about political violence in the United States once considered all but unthinkable. The FBI has warned of armed protests planned for Washington and all 50 U.S. state capitals ahead of Biden's inauguration.
Trump on Wednesday urged his followers to remain peaceful, saying in a statement, "I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for."
‘HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS'
Impeachment is a remedy devised by America's 18th century founders to enable Congress to remove a president who has, according to the Constitution, committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president and serve out his term.
The House impeached Trump after he ignored calls for his resignation and Pence rebuffed Democratic demands to invoke a constitutional provision to remove the president.
The House previously voted to impeach Trump in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter ahead of the election, as Democrats accused him of soliciting foreign interference to smear a domestic political rival. The Senate in February 2020 voted to keep Trump in office.
Wednesday's article of impeachment accused Trump of "incitement of insurrection," saying he provoked violence against the U.S. government in his speech to supporters. The article also cited Trump's Jan. 2 phone call asking a Georgia official to "find" votes to overturn Biden's victory in the state.
During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump falsely claimed he had defeated Biden, repeated unfounded allegations of widespread fraud and irregularities in a "rigged" election, told his supporters to "stop the steal," "show strength," "fight much harder" and use "very different rules" and promised to go with them to the Capitol, though he did not.
"If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Trump told his supporters.
Democrats could also use a Senate impeachment trial to try to push through a vote blocking Trump from running for office again.
Lawmakers delivered speech after speech, wearing masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
"This is a moment of truth, my friends," Democratic congressman Gerry Connolly told his colleagues ahead of the vote. "Are you on the side of chaos and the mob or are on the side of constitutional democracy and our freedom?"
(Reporting by David Morgan and Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Doina Chiacu, Susan Heavey and James Oliphant; Writing by Joseph Ax; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)
Michael Cohen suggests Trump may have already secretly pardoned himself and his children
Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen said that the ex-president might have issued secret pardons to himself and his children during his tenure, which he will reveal if he is indicted.
Talking to MSNBC, Mr Cohen said he believes Mr Trump has already pardoned himself, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and his children in what he termed as “pocket pardons” to save themselves from criminal conviction if needed.
The former president had issued a slew of pardons in his final days of office. He granted clemency to 70 people and commuted the sentences of a further 73 people, excluding himself and his family by using his presidential powers.
Mr Cohen wondered why the former president did not pardon himself, saying that the one thing Mr Trump fears the most is serving a jail term.
"I kind of think I figured it out," he said to MSNBC host Alex Witt. "I think Donald Trump actually has given himself the pardon. I think he also has pocket pardons for his children and for Rudy and it's already stashed somewhere that, if and when they do get indicted and that there's a criminal conviction, federal criminal conviction brought against him, that he already has the pardons in hand."
He said he reached the conclusion after some research over the legality of pardons being disclosed to the people and press.
The estranged former lawyer of Mr Trump said he could not find anything in the Constitution that said he has to make the pardons public and it is more in line to what anti-Trump attorney George Conway said.
Mr Conway had written in The Washington Post that the former president could break a “number of laws” in fear of criminal indictment and should be tried for his crimes.
Mr Trump not issuing pardons for himself and his family came as a surprise to many experts and politicians, given that the Trump family faces legal troubles more than any other presidential family in American history.
According to reports by Reuters and The New York Times, Mr Trump had said to his aides that he wanted “preemptive” pardons that are issued before any charges are filed.
The report said, citing sources, Mr Trump’s “level of interest in pardoning himself goes beyond idle musings.”
However, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether a president can pardon himself, as the Constitution does not mention this possibility and none of the former presidents have used this power for themselves in the past.
However, scholars have said it would be unconstitutional, as it is against the basic principle that no one could be the judge of their own wrongdoings.
Read More
Dershowitz: Calls to Disbar Giuliani ‘McCarthyism’ — ‘I Would Defend Him to the Depths of My Being’
During a Sunday appearance on New York WABC 770 AM radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz weighed in on the push to disbar former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. The calls to investigate and disbar the former New York City mayor are in response to Giuliani’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and remarks he made at a rally shortly before a group of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol.
Dershowitz likened the calls to disbar Giuliani to “McCarthyism.” He told host John Catsimatidis that he would “defend” Giuliani to the depths of his being to have the right to represent his client’s wishes to challenge the election.
“It’s McCarthyism. I grew up during McCarthyism when the lawyers were being disbarred for representing clients that people didn’t like,” Dershowitz advised. “Rudy is a lawyer. And that’s what he is supposed to do. And if his client says, ‘Challenge the election,’ he challenges the election. If you don’t agree with his analysis, answer it in the court of public opinion. But don’t disbar him. Are we going to disbar Adam Schiff? Adam Schiff got on the floor of the Senate and the House and lied through his teeth about a range of things, including Russian collusion, and including me.”
He continued, “[W]hen we start going after lawyers who are representing clients, we’re really undercutting the Constitution. And so I hope the bar association thinks differently about it. If it doesn’t, I will help Rudy. I will help defend him. I will be a witness for him. I’ve known Rudy for, what, 45 years. We disagree about almost everything. And yet, I would defend him to the depths of my being for being a lawyer.”
Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent
No comments:
Post a Comment