Conservative Blogger
Friday, June 23, 2017
Gregg Jarrett: Will Mueller & Comey use a false case of obstruction to trigger impeachment?
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a
sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
-- DOJ opinion, October 16, 2000
The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).
However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment. After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.
So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.
It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.
Mueller Has Unfettered Discretion
Mueller, as special counsel, has unlimited latitude and unchecked discretion. Because he cannot indict the president, he is unconstrained by the usual burden of proof to which prosecutors must adhere in bringing a case.
The Washington Post reports that Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice during a White House meeting with Comey and in his subsequent termination. If the Post story is true, the president should be concerned that he may not be treated fairly. Why?
Moreover, the act must be, as the high court said, “immoral, depraved or evil.” An expression of compassion is the antithesis of that. Therefore, under no legal interpretation could the president have obstructed justice.
Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the president denies he ever uttered the words ascribed to him. With no known witnesses, no reasonable prosecutor would ever consider bringing such a case based on one person’s word. It is the definition of reasonable doubt.
As for Comey’s firing, it is evidence of nothing. Comey admitted this himself when he wrote, “A president can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all.” He reiterated the point during his Senate testimony.
Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to end an investigation, which Comey also admitted, albeit reluctantly.
Even if Trump canned Comey out of frustration because the Director refused to tell the public that the president was not suspected of Russian collusion, it is still not the corrupt act required for obstruction of justice.
Why, then, would an obstruction investigation be undertaken at all?
Mueller Has Not Recused Himself
The special counsel’s failure to disqualify himself as the law demands invites suspicion that any desire to bring an obstruction case rests not in the law and the facts, but in something else.
As explained before, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to step down if he has a “personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” It then defines personal relationship as a “friendship… normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).
The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. They have long been friends, allies and partners. Their bond is driven by a mentor-protégé relationship which makes the likelihood of favoritism and partiality self-evident.
Yet Mueller shows no sign of disqualifying himself from the case in which his close friend is the pivotal witness. It is an acute conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict merits mandatory recusal.
Perhaps this means that the special counsel is not investigating an obstruction charge against the president, as the Post claims. Maybe the reporting based on anonymous sources is erroneous.
But if there is such a probe, then Americans are entitled to wonder why Mueller has not recused himself.
Is he determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president - knowing full well that Congress might take it up as grounds for impeachment once the accusation is made?
It is also suspicious that the Acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, has not recused himself. As Mueller’s boss, he oversees the investigation. If obstruction is, in fact, being examined, then Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of Comey. It is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without rendering the entire matter a charade.
Trump has referred to Mueller as “conflicted” and has questioned the objectivity of Rosenstein. But the president and his legal team have yet to mount a strong public case that both men should be allowed nowhere near the investigation.
If it becomes clear that obstruction of justice is the subject of the special counsel’s probe, President Trump should not fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Instead, he should demand they resign so that a fair and impartial special counsel can be appointed to preside.
Anything less might permit a false case of obstruction to trigger a debate in Congress over impeachment.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).
However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment. After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.
So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.
It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.
Mueller Has Unfettered Discretion
Mueller, as special counsel, has unlimited latitude and unchecked discretion. Because he cannot indict the president, he is unconstrained by the usual burden of proof to which prosecutors must adhere in bringing a case.
The Washington Post reports that Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice during a White House meeting with Comey and in his subsequent termination. If the Post story is true, the president should be concerned that he may not be treated fairly. Why?
Is Mueller determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president?Because on its face, there is no obstruction of justice. Trump’s alleged statement to Comey bears no resemblance to the requirements of the statute. “Hoping” that “a good guy” will be cleared is not a “corrupt act” as the law defines it and as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it. There must be a lie, threat or bribe. Comey alleges none.
Moreover, the act must be, as the high court said, “immoral, depraved or evil.” An expression of compassion is the antithesis of that. Therefore, under no legal interpretation could the president have obstructed justice.
Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the president denies he ever uttered the words ascribed to him. With no known witnesses, no reasonable prosecutor would ever consider bringing such a case based on one person’s word. It is the definition of reasonable doubt.
As for Comey’s firing, it is evidence of nothing. Comey admitted this himself when he wrote, “A president can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all.” He reiterated the point during his Senate testimony.
Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to end an investigation, which Comey also admitted, albeit reluctantly.
Even if Trump canned Comey out of frustration because the Director refused to tell the public that the president was not suspected of Russian collusion, it is still not the corrupt act required for obstruction of justice.
Why, then, would an obstruction investigation be undertaken at all?
Mueller Has Not Recused Himself
The special counsel’s failure to disqualify himself as the law demands invites suspicion that any desire to bring an obstruction case rests not in the law and the facts, but in something else.
As explained before, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to step down if he has a “personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” It then defines personal relationship as a “friendship… normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).
The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. They have long been friends, allies and partners. Their bond is driven by a mentor-protégé relationship which makes the likelihood of favoritism and partiality self-evident.
Yet Mueller shows no sign of disqualifying himself from the case in which his close friend is the pivotal witness. It is an acute conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict merits mandatory recusal.
Perhaps this means that the special counsel is not investigating an obstruction charge against the president, as the Post claims. Maybe the reporting based on anonymous sources is erroneous.
But if there is such a probe, then Americans are entitled to wonder why Mueller has not recused himself.
Is he determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president - knowing full well that Congress might take it up as grounds for impeachment once the accusation is made?
It is also suspicious that the Acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, has not recused himself. As Mueller’s boss, he oversees the investigation. If obstruction is, in fact, being examined, then Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of Comey. It is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without rendering the entire matter a charade.
Trump has referred to Mueller as “conflicted” and has questioned the objectivity of Rosenstein. But the president and his legal team have yet to mount a strong public case that both men should be allowed nowhere near the investigation.
If it becomes clear that obstruction of justice is the subject of the special counsel’s probe, President Trump should not fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Instead, he should demand they resign so that a fair and impartial special counsel can be appointed to preside.
Anything less might permit a false case of obstruction to trigger a debate in Congress over impeachment.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
California bans state travel to Texas, 3 other states over anti-LGBT laws
California's attorney general blocked state-funded
travel to Texas and three other states on Thursday in response to what
he considers anti-LGBT rights laws enacted this year.
Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra added Texas, Alabama, South Dakota and Kentucky to the list of places where state employee travel is restricted. Lawmakers passed legislation last year banning non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee are already on the list.
California taxpayers' money "will not be used to let people travel to states who chose to discriminate," Becerra said.
It's unclear what practical effect California's travel ban will have. The state law contains exemptions for some trips, such as travel needed to enforce California law and to honor contracts made before 2017. Travel to conferences or out-of-state trainings are examples of trips that could be blocked. Becerra's office couldn't provide information about how often state employees have visited the newly banned states.
Texas was added to the list because of a law that lets child welfare organizations deny services and adoptions to families because of "sincerely held religious beliefs" that Becerra's office says would allow LGBT discrimination. Similar laws were enacted in Alabama and South Dakota. Kentucky's new law could allow LGBT discrimination in schools, according to Becerra's office.
"California may be able to stop their state employees, but they can't stop all the businesses that are fleeing over taxation and regulation and relocating to Texas," said John Wittman, a spokesman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.
Fresno State, a public California university, is scheduled to play football against the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa this fall. A request for a legal opinion on whether public university sports' travel is exempt from the ban has been filed with Becerra's office, but no ruling has been issued.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey's press office did not have an immediate comment.
Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra added Texas, Alabama, South Dakota and Kentucky to the list of places where state employee travel is restricted. Lawmakers passed legislation last year banning non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee are already on the list.
California taxpayers' money "will not be used to let people travel to states who chose to discriminate," Becerra said.
It's unclear what practical effect California's travel ban will have. The state law contains exemptions for some trips, such as travel needed to enforce California law and to honor contracts made before 2017. Travel to conferences or out-of-state trainings are examples of trips that could be blocked. Becerra's office couldn't provide information about how often state employees have visited the newly banned states.
Texas was added to the list because of a law that lets child welfare organizations deny services and adoptions to families because of "sincerely held religious beliefs" that Becerra's office says would allow LGBT discrimination. Similar laws were enacted in Alabama and South Dakota. Kentucky's new law could allow LGBT discrimination in schools, according to Becerra's office.
"California may be able to stop their state employees, but they can't stop all the businesses that are fleeing over taxation and regulation and relocating to Texas," said John Wittman, a spokesman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican.
Fresno State, a public California university, is scheduled to play football against the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa this fall. A request for a legal opinion on whether public university sports' travel is exempt from the ban has been filed with Becerra's office, but no ruling has been issued.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey's press office did not have an immediate comment.
Tom Price: ObamaCare replacement 'has to be done'
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told
Fox News Thursday night that repealing and replacing ObamaCare "has to
be done."
"We’ve got prices going up, we’ve got deductibles going up, premiums going up," said Price, a former Republican congressman. "We’ve got people who have an insurance card but they don’t have any care because they can’t afford the deductible. So, where we are right now is in a terrible place in the individual and small group market. That’s what we’re trying to fix."
Price spoke to Fox News' "Hannity" hours after Senate Republicans released a draft of their bill to undo former President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation.
"We’ll make certain that every single American has the opportunity to purchase the kind of coverage that they want," Price vowed. "The American people are going to be appreciative of the fact that they’re going to be the ones in charge, not Washington D.C."
The Senate bill was criticized by four Republican senators who said they would not vote for it in its current form: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
"Is it everything that everybody wants? Absolutely not," Price said. "But we’ve got 52 senators and we’re working to try to make certain that it is able to pass the Senate and then have the House support it."
"We’ve got prices going up, we’ve got deductibles going up, premiums going up," said Price, a former Republican congressman. "We’ve got people who have an insurance card but they don’t have any care because they can’t afford the deductible. So, where we are right now is in a terrible place in the individual and small group market. That’s what we’re trying to fix."
Price spoke to Fox News' "Hannity" hours after Senate Republicans released a draft of their bill to undo former President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation.
"We’ll make certain that every single American has the opportunity to purchase the kind of coverage that they want," Price vowed. "The American people are going to be appreciative of the fact that they’re going to be the ones in charge, not Washington D.C."
The Senate bill was criticized by four Republican senators who said they would not vote for it in its current form: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
"Is it everything that everybody wants? Absolutely not," Price said. "But we’ve got 52 senators and we’re working to try to make certain that it is able to pass the Senate and then have the House support it."
Poll: Hillary Clinton as Unpopular Today as She Was Last Year
A new Gallup poll reveals former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is still as unpopular now as she was around this same time last year.
For the past 25 years, losing presidential candidates typically see at least a four-percent increase in approval ratings, but that’s not the case for Clinton.
Data from a survey released Wednesday shows the former Secretary of State’s popularity has remained in the low 40’s.
The poll also reveals nearly 60-percent of Americans view her as unfavorable.
Clinton kept a low profile after losing the election, but has recently reemerged.
Pres. Trump Says Border Wall Could Pay for Itself if Solar
President Trump says his border wall will pay for itself if it’s solar powered.
He made this announcement during a campaign-style rally in Iowa on Wednesday.
He also said that if it had solar panels Mexico would get to pay less, however; even with a lower price tag Mexico has long said it will not pay for the wall.
The president floated the idea of covering it with solar panels earlier this month in a meeting with congressional leaders.
Congress has yet to give any money toward the administration’s plans for the U.S.-Mexico border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
