Ben Rhodes, then-President Barack Obama’s deputy of national security, said at the time that “We believe that there is no reason for the G7 countries to engage with Russia going forward based on its behavior.” That was in 2014. Since that time, Russia’s behavior hasn’t exactly improved.
Gordon Sondland implicated Trump and other top administration officials refusing to testify in the plot to bribe Ukraine as Democrats weigh the next steps in the impeachment inquiry. Laurence Tribe tells Lawrence O’Donnell that Democrats should not delay the inquiry while they fight witness subpoenas because Trump's stonewalling can be used as obstruction: "The evidence is all there and there's nothing left to do but collate it into articles of impeachment." Aired on 11/21/19.
Donald Trump famously asked his former Attorney General Jeff Sessions “Where is my Roy Cohn?” The man POTUS reference was one of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s top attorneys during his hunt for Communists and later worked for Trump. Then, he was disbarred, but it appears the president has found his...
Donald Trump famously asked his former Attorney General Jeff Sessions “Where is my Roy Cohn?” The man POTUS reference was one of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s top attorneys during his hunt for Communists and later worked for Trump. Then, he was disbarred, but it appears the president has found his Roy Cohn again.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has always been defined by the Constitution. The New York City (NYC) Bar Association just called for Attorney General (AG) William Barr to recuse himself in the Ukraine investigation.
In its statement, the bar indicated that the AG was “allegedly involved.” Should that not appeal to Barr, the statement suggested he resign. If the AG did not want to resign, the NYC bar said he should be sanctioned “including possible removal by Congress.”
‘SINCE OUR DEMOCRACY’S INCEPTION IN 1789, ITS FOUNDATION HAS BEEN THE RULE OF LAW. OUR LEADERS ARE SELECTED AND EXERCISE THEIR POWERS UNDER LAW, BEGINNING WITH OUR CONSTITUTION. ALTHOUGH OUR COURTS HAVE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERPRETING AND APPLYING OUR LAWS, BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE – INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT – ARE SUBJECT TO, AND ACCOUNTABLE UNDER, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS ENACTED THEREUNDER.’
The associated said the attorney general’s responsibility was to “see that our laws are justly administered for the benefit of the American people.” Therefore, the AG has to be a role model for advising the president. In addition, he must:
‘[D]DEMONSTRATE AN UNQUESTIONED COMMITMENT TO COMPLIANCE WITH LAW BY ALL WHO EXERCISE THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT…[T]HE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT OWED SOLELY TO “THE GOVERNMENT AS HIS CLIENT,” THEY ARE NOT OWED TO THE PRESIDENT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.’
The statement said that the AG:
‘M]UST ENSURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IS ABOVE AND AWAY FROM POLITICS. NOTHING COULD BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, OF THE RULE OF LAW OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS AN INSTITUTION THAN ANY TOLERATION OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.”’
The Bar Association reminded Barr that he took an oath as Attorney General:
‘”[THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLACES IN THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THE RULE OF LAW, NOT POLITICS, HOLDS SWAY AND WHERE THEY WILL BE TREATED FAIRLY BASED SOLELY ON THE FACTS AND THE EVENHANDED APPLICATION OF THE LAW. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MUST BE THAT PLACE.”‘
Then, the statement went into Barr’s performance. The organization did not give him a passing grade:
‘MR. BARR’S ACTIONS IN OFFICE HAVE FAILED IN PRECISELY THE ROLE THAT HE DESCRIBED WITH ELOQUENCE WHEN NOMINATED. THAT FAILURE HAS JEOPARDIZED THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN REASONABLY HAVE IN THE DOJ AS THE PLACE “WHERE THE RULE OF LAW, NOT POLITICS, HOLDS SWAY.” ‘
The statement continued, noting that he has expressed “loyalty to the president:”
‘HIS ACTIONS DURING HIS BRIEF TENURE IN OFFICE HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO US THAT, CONTRARY TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIS OFFICE, HE APPEARS TO VIEW HIS PRIMARY OBLIGATION AS LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT INDIVIDUALLY RATHER THAN TO THE NATION. IN SERVING THE PRESIDENT, HE HAS BEEN WILLING TO TAKE OR COUNTENANCE ACTIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE DOJ, HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS AS AN ATTORNEY.’
However, what sealed the deal for the organization was:
‘MR. BARR’S FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE DOJ’S REVIEW—ITSELF OF UNCERTAIN PROPRIETY—OF THE ONGOING “WHISTLEBLOWER” COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS DURING HIS JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALL TO REQUEST THE REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE MR. TRUMP’S ALLEGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTIONS AND FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON (THE “UKRAINE MATTER”).’
Then, the NYC Bar gave its evidence:
‘AS WHITE HOUSE RECORDS MADE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, THAT MR. BARR “WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM” TO FOLLOW UP ON THE PRESIDENT’S REQUESTS. THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOUND THIS TELEPHONE CALL TO BE OF “URGENT CONCERN” BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S APPARENT INTERMINGLING OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS WITH HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF U.S. LAW.’
Following that, the statement read that Barr should have “recused himself from any participation, direct or indirect.” It encouraged:
‘ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ANY PARTICIPATION, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN DOJ’S REVIEW OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER MR. BARR WAS IN FACT AWARE OF OR PART OF THE PRESIDENT’S PLANS, EITHER BEFORE, AT THE TIME OF, OR AFTER THE JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALL, IT IS CLEAR THAT MR. BARR WAS OBLIGATED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ANY INVOLVEMENT IN DOJ’S REVIEW OF EITHER THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT OR THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS ONCE THE PRESIDENT OFFERED MR. BARR’S SERVICES TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. ‘
The statement continued, going in to further evidence detail for its case:
‘FEDERAL REGULATIONS (28 CFR 45.2) FOR DOJ PROSECUTORS REQUIRE RECUSAL WHENEVER A LAWYER “HAS A PERSONAL OR POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY PERSON . . . SUBSTANTIALLY INCLUDED IN THE CONDUCT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION.” THE DOJ MANUAL FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS REQUIRES (SECTION 3-2.170, 2.220) RECUSAL OF U.S. ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS WHERE “A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS OR THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR LOSS OF IMPARTIALITY.” EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS RULES ALSO PROVIDE (5 C.F.R. 2635.502) THAT RECUSAL IS APPROPRIATE IF “A REASONABLE PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS WOULD BE LIKELY TO QUESTION THE EMPLOYEE’S IMPARTIALITY IN THE MATTER.”’
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.
Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe calls Trump's contempt of Congress an "astonishing exercise in arrogant obstruction of justice" and an impeachable offense. Tribe explains to Lawrence why Trump cannot fight impeachment in the Supreme Court as he claimed.
FOCUS: Marc Ash | After Newtown, Laurence Tribe Addressed the Supreme Court's View of the Second Amendment Marc Ash, Reader Supported News Ash writes: "Tribe, well known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as 'wholly irrelevant.' Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that 'the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.'" READ MORE
In the wake of the breathtaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, with a dialog in earnest on gun control and the second amendment taking shape, I reached out to Harvard's preeminent constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe. What follows is my inquiry, and Professor Tribe's response in its entirety.
It's important to bear in mind what Tribe said then. We're here again. - Marc Ash/RSN
rofessor Tribe,
With a newly energized debate about the second amendment unfolding I wonder if you would add anything to the following:
Tribe, well known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."
Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."
None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough to anger gun control advocates.
Assuming that you are quoted fairly above, the individual right would seem to be at odds with gun-control measures that are "plainly constitutional".
I think it's a fairly safe bet that the second amendment will be central to the coming dialog.
December 17, 2012 9:44:49 AM EST
"Marc,
My conclusions about the scope of the Second Amendment, as expressed on pgs.894-903 of the 3d edition of my constitutional law treatise (2000), were explained at very considerable length in that book, were couched in a deliberately tentative form, have been refined over the past decade, and can't be quickly summarized, although I certainly believe that restricting the kinds of high-powered weapons and ammunition that made possible the horrific slaughters of innocent children and others in recent days and months is well within the power of government even as the Supreme Court has misguidedly interpreted the Second Amendment in Heller and McDonald, purporting to be guided by the original meaning of the text but in fact being driven by an incoherent mishmash of non-originalist considerations.
In my treatise, I expressed the view that constitutional interpreters who are uncomfortable with what I called "constitutional time travel," in which Reconstruction Era developments could retroactively change the meaning of Founding Era constitutional provisions - and that would certainly include the most "conservative" members of the current Court - ought to conclude that the only "individualistic right to keep and bear arms" (that is, the only right to keep and bear arms independent of the organized militia) is a limited right of self-defense that people may exercise vis-Ã -vis state and local "efforts at disarming people," a right derived from the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Second, but that "federal gun control legislation [is] essentially invulnerable under the Second Amendment provided the state militia [is] not undermined." P.902 n.221 (italics in original).
It badly distorts the meaning of everything I have written on the subject to treat me as remotely hostile to the comprehensive national regulation of firearms and ammunition possession, transfer, and use; and it even distorts my meaning to regard my views as similar to those that the Roberts Court has expressed on the subject, although I hasten to add that even this Court's unfortunate views leave very substantial room for close regulation and even prohibition of entire categories of dangerous firearms and the ammunition that makes them lethal. The fact that many of my fellow gun control proponents were disappointed by the nuanced character of what I wrote in 2000 shouldn't be allowed to distract from my continuing conclusion that the Constitution permits, and that sane public policy demands, vastly stricter firearms regulation than exists in the United States today."
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Trump Revealed Highly Classified Information to Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador Greg Miller and Greg Jaffe, The Washington Post Excerpt: "President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump's disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State." READ MORE
Dahlia Lithwick | Laurence Tribe: How the President Obstructed Justice Dahlia Lithwick, Slate Lithwick writes: "Since the news broke on Tuesday that Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, Harvard Law School's Laurence Tribe has been arguing that the president's conduct, in and of itself, is illegal and amounts to impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors." READ MORE
Immigrant Nurses Demand Equal Pay - and Win Samantha Winslow, Labor Notes Winslow writes: "It started when a few nurses at Temple University Hospital told stewards that they weren't being paid for their experience. One of the first to speak up was Jessy Palathinkal, who had become a nurse in India in 1990." READ MORE
Famous Rare White Wolf Killed in Yellowstone, $15,000 and Growing Reward Offered Center for Biological Diversity Excerpt: "The Center for Biological Diversity is contributing $5,000 toward a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for illegally shooting and killing a famous wolf in Yellowstone National Park. The 12-year-old wolf - one of only three known white wolves in Yellowstone - was the alpha female of the canyon pack." READ MORE
William Boardman | Trump Inaugural: "This American Carnage" Annotated William Boardman, Reader Supported News Boardman writes: "As advertised, Trump's inaugural featured a strong promise to put America first, without really articulating just what that means. The original America First movement in the late 1930s was dedicated to staying out of war with Nazi Germany." READ MORE
Laurence Tribe, Prominent Legal Experts Sue Trump Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post Rubin writes: "The New York Times reported Sunday evening on the first of likely many lawsuits, to be filed Monday morning, attacking President Trump's apparent violation of the emoluments clause." READ MORE
14 Senate Democrats Fall in Line Behind Trump CIA Pick Who Left Door Open to Torture Zaid Jilani and Alex Emmons, The Intercept Excerpt: "Fourteen Senate Democrats joined all but one Senate Republican in confirming Rep. Mike Pompeo as the new CIA director on Monday evening, failing a crucial first test of whether Democrats would present a united front to defend human rights and civil liberties in the Trump era." READ MORE
Angus King, the independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, also voted in favor of Pompeo’s confirmation.
Connecticut Democrats Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy did not vote.
Police Appear to Be Searching Through Inauguration Protesters' Emails George Joseph, CityLab Excerpt: "On Friday, January 20, thousands of protesters took to the streets of D.C. to disrupt Donald Trump's inauguration festivities. A small fraction of them damaged property and threw projectiles at police in riot gear, who deployed flash-bang grenades, tear gas, and pepper spray on large crowds throughout the day." READ MORE
Trump Plans to Keep Comey as FBI Director Julia Edwards Ainsley and Doina Chiacu, Reuters Excerpt: "President Donald Trump intends to keep FBI Director James Comey in his post, a person familiar with the decision said on Tuesday, amid reports that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies are scrutinizing Trump associates over their ties to Russia." READ MORE
"Women Will Die Because of This": Planned Parenthood on Trump Signing Anti-Abortion Global Gag Rule Dawn Laguens and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Excerpt: "Just two days after millions of people poured into the streets of Washington, D.C., and cities around the world for the historic Women's March on Washington, President Trump has reinstated the controversial 'global gag rule,' which women's rights advocates fear will increase unsafe abortions around the world." READ MORE
Trump Signs Executive Actions to Advance Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines Andrew Restuccia and Josh Dawsey, Politico Excerpt: "President Donald Trump signed executive actions on Tuesday to advance the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, reversing decisions made by the Obama administration and setting off a clash with Democrats and environmental activists who vehemently oppose the projects." READ MORE
rofessor Tribe,
