Lindsey Graham to probe Russia investigation; won’t call Barack Obama
The Judiciary Committee will first delve into the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss its prosecution of Flynn.
Ex-FBI official: ‘Crime may have been committed’ by Donald Trump
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview that aired Sunday that a “crime may have been committed” when President Donald Trump fired the head of the FBI and tried to publicly undermine an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. McCabe also said in the interview with “60 Minutes” that the FBI had good reason to open a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was in league with Russia, and therefore a possible national security threat, following the May 2017 firing of then-FBI Director James Comey. “And the idea is, if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence investigator you have to ask yourself, “Why would a president of the United States do that?” McCabe said. He added: “So all those same sorts of facts cause us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?” Asked whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was onboard with the obstruction and counterintelligence investigations, McCabe replied, “Absolutely.” A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday night. McCabe also revealed that when Trump told Rosenstein to put in writing his concerns with Comey — a document the White House initially held up as justification for his firing — the president explicitly asked the Justice Department official to reference Russia in the memo. Rosenstein did not want to, McCabe said, and the memo that was made public upon Comey’s dismissal did not mention Russia and focused instead on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation. “He explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo,” McCabe said. “And the president responded, “I understand that, I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.” Trump said in a TV interview days after Comey’s firing that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he fired Comey. Those actions, including a separate request by Trump that the FBI end an investigation into his first national adviser, Michael Flynn, made the FBI concerned that the president was illegally trying to obstruct the Russia probe. “Put together, these circumstances were articulable facts that indicated that a crime may have been committed,” McCabe said. “The president may have been engaged in obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey.” McCabe was fired from the Justice Department last year after being accused of misleading investigators during an internal probe into a news media disclosure. The allegation was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington for possible prosecution, but no charges have been brought. McCabe has denied having intentionally lied and said Sunday that he believes his firing was politically motivated. “I believe I was fired because I opened a case against the president of the United States,” he said. In the interview Sunday, McCabe also said Rosenstein in the days after Comey’s firing had proposed wearing a wire to secretly record the president. McCabe said he took the remark seriously, though the Justice Department last September — responding last September to a New York Times report that first revealed the conversation — issued a statement from an unnamed official who was in the room and interpreted the remark as sarcastic. McCabe said the remark was made during a conversation about why Trump had fired Comey. “And in the context of that conversation, the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House. He said, “‘I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there,’” McCabe said. In excerpts released last week by CBS News, McCabe also described a conversation in which Rosenstein had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. The Justice Department said in a statement that Rosenstein, based on his dealings with Trump, does not see cause to seek the removal of the president. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is seeking her party’s nomination for president, told reporters after a campaign event Sunday in Las Vegas that if the people around Trump believe he cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a duty to invoke the 25th Amendment. A favorite target of Trump’s ire, Warren said she has no special knowledge on whether there are grounds to remove Trump from office but said that “there are a whole lot of people who do see him every day who evidently were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Some Jeff Sessions allies hope White House allows graceful exit
Sensing that Jeff Sessions’ days at the Justice Department may be numbered, some of his supporters want the White House to allow for a graceful exit for an attorney general they believe has dutifully carried out the administration’s agenda even while enduring the president’s fury. It seems unlikely that efforts to soften a possible dismissal after the Nov. 6 midterm election would find sympathy in the White House, where President Donald Trump’s rage remains unabated over the attorney general’s recusal from the Russia investigation. A hand-picked successor could theoretically oversee the rest of the probe in place of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But some supporters say they hope that if and when Sessions is replaced, his record as senator and attorney general will be recognized and not overwhelmed by Trump’s attacks, or that the administration will at least respect the Justice Department by guaranteeing a smooth transition. A scenario advocated by at least one Sessions ally, former Cincinnati Mayor Ken Blackwell, would allow him to remain on the job until January and be permitted to resign on his own then rather than be fired immediately after the midterms. Blackwell said allies have made their case to administration officials that Sessions has successfully pushed the president’s core priorities, including on illegal immigration, and deserves some sort of recognition from the White House that “he has more than a passing grade.” “It is not unknown, from anyone from John Kelly to Jared Kushner, that there is a base of support,” said Blackwell, referring to Trump’s chief of staff and son-in-law. “A portion of that base is ready to continue advocacy for his service.” Newt Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker who is close to the White House and calls himself a longtime “admirer” of Sessions, said he would be open to serving as an intermediary if asked between the White House and Sessions supporters. “He deserves a graceful exit. His career deserves a strong conclusion,” said Gingrich, who called Sessions “a strong conservative who has done strong work at the Department of Justice.” Sessions, who has publicly acknowledged the president’s displeasure, has plowed forward with the conventional duties of the job, including a regular calendar of events and announcements. On Friday, he spoke first at the Justice Department news conference announcing the arrest of a mail-bomb suspect in Florida. The president, though mindful that Sessions remains popular among much of his base, would seem unlikely to sign off on a plan to extend Sessions’ time in office, according to a White House official and an outside adviser familiar with Trump’s thinking but not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. Trump has repeatedly had to be talked out of firing Sessions before November and has signaled to allies that he wants to make sweeping changes at the Justice Department once the midterms have concluded. He told The Associated Press this month that he was “not thrilled” with Sessions but made no commitment to dismiss him. If Trump were to wait, it would not be out of deference to Sessions, but rather because the White House would be managing the fallout from the midterms and preparing for a pair of presidential overseas trips in November, according to the official. Sessions’ decision to recuse remains his original sin in Trump’s eyes. Trump has fumed that Sessions has not done more to protect his personal interests and has vented about what he sees as Sessions’ failure to get a handle on immigration and his lack of emphasis on combating transnational criminal organizations. Cameron Smith, a former Sessions Senate aide, said, “The idea that this gets better — they stand next to each other and sing common praises — I just don’t see anybody looking at that seriously.” After being berated by Trump over the recusal decision last year, Sessions offered his resignation, but it was rejected. He has been widely viewed as determined to stay in the job because he believes in Trump’s agenda, which largely mirrors his own interests, and reluctant to leave a job for which he gave up a Senate seat. For more than a year, Trump has repeatedly polled advisers as to whether he should fire Sessions. Some of his closest aides, including attorney Rudy Giuliani, have counseled him not to do so, at least not yet. The case that Sessions’ protectors outlined to Trump largely consists of three components: Firing Sessions, a witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of obstruction of justice, would add legal peril to his standing in the Russia probe. Doing so would anger the president’s political base, which Trump cares deeply about, especially before the midterms. A number of Republican senators would rebel against the treatment of a longtime colleague and potentially not hold confirmation hearings for a replacement if the GOP holds onto the Senate. Blackwell, the Sessions friend, said conservatives are divided between those who support firing him immediately and those who regard him as loyal to their cause, protective of their ideals and propelling Trump’s agenda. Gingrich, for instance, calls the recusal “inexcusable” even as he professes admiration for Sessions. The ground appears to have softened recently after some influential Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, suggested Trump would have the right, after the elections, to select a replacement he trusted. Smith said one way Trump could enable a respectful exit would be for the White House to craft a smooth succession plan and allow Sessions to be part of the process. Ed Meese, a Reagan administration attorney general and Sessions friend, said he wasn’t thinking about Sessions’ departure because “I don’t want to see him fired at all.” “I think he’s taken it with grace,” Meese said of Sessions’ response to Trump’s anger. “What he is recused from is less than 1 percent of the department and he has done an outstanding job in everything he’s done in the department.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Gary Palmer caught in Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump crossfire
Alabama 7th District U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer has been caught in the crossfire between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Last week, Trump fired several barbs at Sessions, telling Fox news channel’s “Fox & Friends” that Sessions “took the job and then he said, ‘I’m going to recuse myself.” “[He] never took control of the Justice Department and it’s a sort of an incredible thing,” Trump continued. Sessions then fired back at the president, saying that the Justice department would not be “improperly influenced by political considerations.” Rachael Bade, a Politico reporter and CNN political analyst, appeared on CNN Friday, saying she contacted Palmer to speak with him on the subject. “I called Gary Palmer, who is a Republican from Alabama, close with Sessions, yesterday to get his take on this sort of back and forth,” Bade said according to CNN Transcripts. “At one point Gary Palmer was very adamantly defending and blasting his colleagues who were in any way criticizing Sessions. But Gary Palmer told me he has his own problems with Sessions. And he specifically listed some of those things that the president was tweeting about this morning regarding document production to Congress, Rod Rosenstein perhaps not being the best person to be working in the Justice Department, according to him.” “And he was unhappy with certain things that Sessions was doing,” Bade continued. “So I just — I think it’s really interesting, the conversation is changing. And I don’t think that’s a good sign for Sessions. It’s a matter of time, I think, before he goes.” Palmer responded on Twitter by calling out CNN, and denying that the story was true. “A recent CNN news story mischaracterized my trust in Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He has my full trust and I think he’s done an excellent job in de-politicizing the DOJ. The DOJ has many ongoing investigations and Jeff Sessions will ultimately be judged by their outcomes,” Palmer tweeted. “As it stands, Jeff Sessions is doing his job when the only leaks are coming from those being investigated. While I share the President’s concerns about the Russia investigation and believe it should end, Jeff Sessions is recused from that,” he continued. “On the other hand, I think Rod Rosenstein has not represented the DOJ well, especially regarding Congressional oversight and document production. This is what I told the CNN reporter; CNN reinterpreting my comments for the sake of headlines is the very definition of fake news.” A recent CNN news story mischaracterized my trust in Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He has my full trust and I think he’s done an excellent job in de-politicizing the DOJ. The DOJ has many ongoing investigations and Jeff Sessions will ultimately be judged by their outcomes. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018 As it stands, Jeff Sessions is doing his job when the only leaks are coming from those being investigated. While I share the President’s concerns about the Russia investigation and believe it should end, Jeff Sessions is recused from that. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018 On the other hand, I think Rod Rosenstein has not represented the DOJ well, especially regarding Congressional oversight and document production. This is what I told the CNN reporter; CNN reinterpreting my comments for the sake of headlines is the very definition of fake news. — Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) August 24, 2018
Jeff Sessions defends deputy after impeachment move
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is defending his top deputy after a handful of Congressional Republicans moved to impeach him. Sessions said Thursday he has the “highest confidence” in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and described him as “highly capable.” A group of 11 House conservatives on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation because Sessions has recused himself. Sessions suggested lawmakers should instead focus on reforming the nation’s immigration system. He also expressed regret for having laughed at a “Lock Her Up” chant and repeated the words during a speech Tuesday at a high school leadership summit. Sessions was in Boston Thursday to announce more than 20 arrests in a federal operation meant to crack down on identity theft and federal benefits fraud. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
House Republicans move to impeach deputy attorney general
A group of 11 House Republicans has introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. The Republicans who introduced the resolution have criticized Rosenstein for not being responsive enough as they have requested documents related to the Russia investigation and a closed investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton‘s emails. It is unclear whether there will be enough support in the party to pass it, as Republican leaders have not signed on to the effort. The articles were introduced by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, frequent critics of the Justice Department. The introduction does not trigger an immediate vote, but Meadows and Jordan could make procedural moves on the House floor that could force a vote late this week or when the House returns from its upcoming five-week recess in September. The House is scheduled to leave for that recess Thursday. The move came about two hours after GOP lawmakers met with Justice Department officials who have been working to provide documents to several congressional committees about decisions made during the 2016 presidential campaign. The department has provided lawmakers with more than 800,000 documents, but Meadows said after the meeting that there was still “frustration” with how Justice has handled the oversight requests. Republican leaders, however, have said in recent weeks that they are satisfied with the Justice Department’s progress. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy said after the meeting that he was pleased with the department’s efforts and wouldn’t support Rosenstein’s impeachment. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also said he is satisfied with progress on the document production. Democrats have criticized Republican efforts to pressure the Justice Department in recent months, saying they are attempts to undermine Mueller’s investigation. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
12 Russians accused of hacking Democrats in 2016 U.S. election
Twelve Russian intelligence officers were indicted on charges they hacked into Democratic email accounts during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and released stolen information in the months before Americans headed to the polls, the Justice Department said Friday. The indictment — which comes days before President Donald Trump holds a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin — was the clearest allegation yet of Russian efforts to meddle in American politics. U.S. intelligence agencies have said the interference was aimed at helping the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump and harming the election bid of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictment lays out a sweeping and coordinated effort to break into key Democratic email accounts, including those belonging to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The charges come as special counsel Robert Mueller investigates potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign to influence the presidential election. The indictment does not allege that Trump campaign associates were involved in the hacking efforts or that any American was knowingly in contact with Russian intelligence officers. The indictment also does not allege that any vote tallies were altered by hacking. Still, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the internet “allows foreign adversaries to attack Americans in new and unexpected ways. Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide and conquer us.” Before Friday, 20 people and three companies had been charged in the Mueller investigation. That includes four former Trump campaign and White House aides, three of whom have pleaded guilty to different crimes and agreed to cooperate, as well as 13 Russians accused of participating in a hidden but powerful social media campaign to sway American public opinion in the 2016 election. Hours before the Justice Department announcement, Trump complained anew that the special counsel’s investigation is complicating his efforts to forge a better working relationship with Russia. Trump and Putin are to hold talks Monday in Finland, a meeting largely sought by Trump. Trump said at a news conference Friday near London with British Prime Minister Theresa May that he wasn’t going into the meeting with Putin with “high expectations.” “We do have a — a political problem where — you know in the United States we have this stupidity going on. Pure stupidity,” he said, referring to Mueller’s probe. “But it makes it very hard to do something with Russia. Anything you do, it’s always going to be, ‘Oh, Russia, he loves Russia.’” “I love the United States,” Trump continued. “But I love getting along with Russia and China and other countries.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Trump lawyers call James Comey ‘Machiavellian’ in note to Robert Mueller
Lawyers for President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering attack on former FBI Director James Comey in a confidential memo last year to the special counsel, casting him as “Machiavellian,” dishonest and “unbounded by law and regulation” as they sought to undermine the credibility of a law enforcement leader they see as a critical witness against the president. The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, provides a window into the formation of a legal strategy currently used by Trump’s lawyers as they seek to pit the president’s word against that of the former FBI director. Comey’s firing in May 2017 helped set in motion the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, and one-on-one conversations with Trump that Comey documented in a series of memos helped form the basis of Mueller’s inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice. Mueller is looking broadly into Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and its contacts with people in Trump’s campaign. The June 27, 2017, letter was written by Marc Kasowitz, then the president’s lead lawyer, as Mueller and his team were in the early stages of their investigation into Trump associates and as they had begun examining whether the president, by firing Comey, had sought to stymie an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The White House initially pointed as justification for the firing to a Justice Department memo that faulted Comey for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, though Trump later said that “this Russia thing” was on his mind when he made the move. The document also could have new relevance in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general report that criticized Comey for departing from established protocol in the Clinton investigation. It’s not clear to what extent, if any, the attacks on Comey have resonated with Mueller’s team, which continues to seek an interview with the president on whether he had a corrupt intent when he fired the FBI director. And even in the face of withering criticism, Comey has been largely consistent in his telling of his interactions with Trump in his memos, his book and numerous press interviews he’s given in recent months. The 13-page document aims to identify for Mueller what the lawyers believe are grievous errors both in how Comey handled the Clinton investigation and in his early, and limited, encounters with the president. In it, Kasowitz argues that Comey cannot be trusted as a witness because he repeatedly embellished his testimony before Congress, put his “own personal interests and emotions” above FBI protocol and left a cloud of undue suspicion above the president’s head. “Over the last year, Mr. Comey has engaged in a pattern of calculated unilateral action unbounded by governing law, regulation and practice, and plainly motivated by personal and political self-interest,” wrote Kasowitz, who has since stepped aside as lead lawyer. Lawyers for Comey declined to comment Saturday. Kasowitz and Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow did not immediately return messages, and former Trump attorney John Dowd declined to comment. The document does not focus on questions of Trump’s guilt or innocence. Instead, it casts in a negative light actions that Comey has said he carefully reasoned and that he has vigorously defended in his book and interviews. Those include the decision to announce on his own without Justice Department consultation the conclusion of the Clinton investigation, and the decision months later to brief Trump — then the president-elect — on allegations about him in a salacious dossier. “Mr. Comey continued his Machiavellian behavior after President Trump was elected,” Kasowitz wrote. Among the principal lines of attack are Comey’s acknowledgment that he provided his lawyers with contemporaneous memos about his interactions with Trump and authorized one of them to share details with the news media. In one such encounter, Comey said the president asked him at a private dinner for his loyalty and that Comey offered him “honest loyalty” instead. “There is no ‘honest loyalty’ in an FBI Director surreptitiously leaking to civilians his privileged and confidential conversations with the president, or misappropriating and disseminating his confidential FBI memos or their contents about those meetings,” Kasowitz wrote. “There is no ‘honest loyalty’ in using those civilians as surrogates to feed stolen information and memos to the press to achieve a personal, political, and retributive objective of harming a sitting president.” Like Trump, the lawyer also complains about Comey’s refusal to state publicly to Congress that the president was not under investigation even though he said so privately. “Despite his repeated assurances to the President over the prior three months that he was not under investigation, the President’s repeated pleas to make that fact public, and Mr. Comey’s testimony that he had DOJ (Department of Justice) approval to make this ‘extraordinary’ announcement, Mr. Comey not only declined to clarify that there was no investigation of the President, but he used broad language that only reinforced the inaccurate perception that the President was under investigation,” Kasowitz wrote. The New York Times earlier reported that Kasowitz had written two letters to Mueller in June 2017 and published one in which he categorically rejected the idea that Comey’s firing could constitute obstruction of justice. The AP obtained a copy of the other document, in addition to a two-page memo from September in which Trump lawyers lament to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Mueller was “inexplicably” not investigating Comey’s “misconduct” they had earlier raised. Kasowitz says Comey stonewalled the president’s request to clear his name in order to “sustain an investigative cloud” over his head that would make it hard for Trump to fire him. Comey, for his part, has said he had already told congressional leaders who was and was not under investigation, and that he was reluctant to make public statements in case something changed and he needed to correct the record. The letter castigates Comey for usurping the authority of his Justice Department bosses by announcing the conclusion of the Clinton investigation without seeking their approval, a criticism echoed by
House Republicans turn up the heat in standoff with DOJ
House Republicans escalated their monthslong standoff with the Justice Department, saying the FBI hasn’t adequately addressed bias within the agency and threatening to hold top department officials in contempt — or even impeach them. The stepped-up criticism followed the department’s internal watchdog report, released last week, criticizing the FBI’s handling of the 2016 probe into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s emails. It said political bias didn’t affect the outcome of the investigation that eventually cleared her. Bolstered by President Donald Trump, some Republicans say there’s no way that bias against then-candidate Trump found among some employees didn’t taint the Clinton probe — and, by extension, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s Republican campaign and Russia. At a House hearing Tuesday, Republicans angrily asked Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz how anti-Trump texts found between some employees who worked on the Clinton probe didn’t influence the outcome. They also complained that they have not yet received some of the documents they have demanded from the department. “We can’t survive with a justice system we don’t trust,” said Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Horowitz said in the report and repeated at the hearing that he had concluded the outcome of the investigation was determined by prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, not by bias. Democrats accused the Republicans of trying to distract from or undermine the Mueller investigation by focusing on a few employees who were biased. Several Democrats talked about children separated from their parents at the border, asking why the committee’s focus was still on the candidate who lost the presidency in 2016 instead of on current crises. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said Republicans were stuck in a “time warp.” Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California noted that the Judiciary Committee oversees immigration issues and should be focused on that. Trump, who falsely claimed last week that the report exonerated him in the Russia probe, took the opposite view. In a speech to the National Federation of Independent Business on Tuesday, Trump said Democrats “want to focus on immigration because they want to keep the cameras away from the hearings.” The inspector general report did not touch on the Russia investigation. The outrage in the wake of the inspector general’s report is the latest in a series of complaints from Republicans about the FBI. Multiple committees are investigating the agency’s actions in 2016 related to the Clinton email probe and the beginning of the investigation into Russian election meddling and whether Trump’s campaign was involved. Mueller took over the Russia investigation last year and is also investigating whether Trump obstructed justice. As part of their investigations, Republicans have requested more than a million documents. The Justice Department has provided some of them, but GOP lawmakers say they haven’t provided enough — leading to the threats of contempt or impeachment. House Speaker Paul Ryan has backed the document requests, and he led a meeting last week with three committee chairmen and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to try to resolve the issue. A person familiar with the speaker’s meeting said Ryan and the other Republicans made clear to the Justice Department that they need to comply with the requests or “face consequences from the whole House.” The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was not public. Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview Sunday with Maria Bartiromo of the Fox Business Network that the deadline is “this week” and that if they don’t get the documents in time, “there’s going to be hell to pay.” The relationship between the Justice Department and Nunes has been particularly tense. Nunes has demanded multiple sensitive documents as he has investigated, among other things, whether the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when prosecutors and agents in 2016 applied for and received a secret warrant to monitor the communications of a Trump campaign associate. Recently Nunes requested documents related to an informant who spoke to members of the Trump campaign during the election as the FBI’s Russia investigation began. Rosenstein has now held three classified briefings with congressional leaders on that topic, and the department says it has provided those members with documents during those briefings. But Nunes is still unsatisfied, telling The Associated Press after the third briefing last week that he wants the entire intelligence committee to see the documents and “my patience is out.” The documents he is requesting are classified, so Nunes has not described them publicly. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
David Abroms: We are a nation of laws, if you’re innocent act like it
We are a nation of laws. And those laws are protected and enforced by institutions. We are blessed to live in a country where no man is above the law, which is the basis for our precious American experiment. There has been a lot of talk about the President firing people at the Justice Department, whether it is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. These individuals are all responsible for upholding those laws; firing any of them would be a terrible mistake. According to recent Quinnipiac polling, just 22 percent of Republicans support President Trump removing Mueller, to say nothing of Sessions or Rosenstein — and there are a bevy of good reasons why. One is of course that Americans do believe we are, and should be, a nation of laws. And Republicans certainly tend to believe in the notion of law and order. But quite apart from that, let’s jump back to 2016, and remember why Trump won — not just the general election, but also the nomination, and Alabama’s primary in which he won by more than 20 points. Simply put, after eight years of the Obama administration, Alabamans were tired of weakness. They saw it in our foreign policy. They saw it in social policy, where they perceived an undermining of the core American value of working hard to get ahead. They saw it in selling out to foreign adversaries and nefarious corporate interests, because taking them on was simply too difficult, or unpleasant. They saw an America in decline that needed a tough guy, who could and would take all comers rather than have his staff and political appointees run interference to protect him from any criticism or scrutiny, in the White House. They voted for Trump not just because he wasn’t Hillary, but because he wasn’t a weakling. Herein lies the big problem, should Trump fire Mueller or Rosenstein or Sessions, and the reason why he probably will not: Trump knows that if he did, he would look incredibly weak and would put his presidency in jeopardy by attacking the very foundation of our republic: The rule of law. It is the rule of law and the independence of the Justice Department, in part, that has made America an exceptional country. It’s what separates us from banana republics, no matter the occupant of the Oval Office. Also, it would be politically foolish. Trump would also be giving liberals a big, fat, early 2020 Christmas gift, with a bow on top — and he knows it. Let’s not forget who really wants Trump to fire Mueller and Rosenstein and Sessions: Liberal Democrats, who would use it to fire up their base in November, retake the House and the Senate, immediately start impeachment proceedings, and probably propel a leftist firebrand like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to the Democratic nomination and possibly the presidency. Firing any of these officials would amount to Trump inviting a true Socialist with a good shot at the White House to undertake a relatively easy presidential run. It is clear that any move to remove Sessions, Rosenstein or Mueller would lead to a constitutional crisis which would badly cripple the Trump presidency. It is crucial to remember that the Mueller investigation has already brought results. Twelve Russians were indicted for trying to influence our elections and at least four Americans have either been indicted or plead guilty to charges stemming from the investigation. Rep. Trey Gowdy provided some solid advice to the president, “If you are innocent, act like it.” Mueller and Rosenstein both have tremendous respect across the political spectrum and with Mueller continuing his investigation, the full scope of Russia’s interference with the election will be open for all of us to see which is important to our democratic process. It makes no sense politically, legally or morally for the President to interfere with this investigation. With a renewed relationship with our European allies and a potential for a breakthrough on the Korean Peninsula, the President has other monumental tasks ahead of him that are going to require his full attention for the betterment of the American people. I am grateful we live in a nation of laws. I am grateful that Attorney General Sessions knows that this is a country of laws, not men. The Mueller investigation must continue and I have every confidence that it will. President Trump said in a press conference recently that people have been saying for months he was going to fire the special counsel and yet he is still there. I believe that Trump knows that taking such dramatic action would, to quote Lindsey Graham, “be the beginning of the end of his Presidency.” I wholeheartedly agree but more than that I think it would make him look scared, weak and guilty. Let the investigation play out. Have faith in our wonderful constitutional republic and the institutions that keep it strong. Be proud to wear that American flag lapel pin and what it stands for. The truth will see the light of day. And as Rep. Gowdy said, if you are innocent, act like it. ••• David Abroms is a CPA, Businessman, founder of The American Remnant and an Alabama native.
After close vote, panel sends Mike Pompeo nomination to Senate
Mike Pompeo, President Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of state, avoided a rare rebuke Monday as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly recommended him, but the vote served as a warning shot to the White House as nominees to lead the CIA and Veterans Affairs are hitting stiff resistance. Pompeo, who’s now CIA director, received the panel’s approval only after Trump’s last-minute overtures to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Pompeo’s nomination now goes to the full Senate, where votes are tallying in his favor and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he looks forward to voting to confirm him later this week. Trump has been quick to fire his top cabinet secretaries, but Senate Democrats are not so fast to confirm replacements. A grilling is expected Wednesday of Ronny Jackson, the White House physician nominated to head the VA, and Pompeo’s potential replacement at the CIA, Gina Haspel, is also facing scrutiny. It’s also a reminder of how tough it could be to replace Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump has publicly mused about firing Rosenstein, who is overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. “Hard to believe,” Trump tweeted Monday about what he called “obstruction.” ″The Dems will not approve hundreds of good people… They are maxing out the time on approval process for all, never happened before. Need more Republicans!” Republicans hold just a slim Senate majority, 50-49, with the prolonged absence of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Pompeo’s bid to become the nation’s top diplomat was in the hands of a few senators, but received a boost Monday when two Democrats, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Joe of Indiana, announced their support. Pressure is mounting on senators from all sides. White House allies are unloading ad campaigns against Democrats from Trump-won states, but progressive groups are pounding senators’ offices in opposition. As soon as Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., announced her support for Pompeo, one group called on her to switch. Ahead of the Foreign Relations Committee’s vote, chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said of the full Senate, “It does appear Mike Pompeo has the votes to be secretary of state.” Supporters point to Pompeo’s resume as a West Point and Harvard Law School graduate who has the president’s confidence, particularly on North Korea. Opponents are focusing on his hawkish foreign policy views and negative comments about gay marriage and Muslims. Paul’s earlier objections to Pompeo, along with overwhelming opposition from Democrats, had set the secretary of state nominee on track to be the first since 1925, when the committee started keeping records, not to receive a favorable recommendation. But Trump and Paul talked repeatedly, including a chat just moments before the vote. “I have changed my mind,” Paul said, explaining he received reassurances that Pompeo agrees with the president that the Iraq war was a “mistake” and that it is time for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan. Paul’s office said he “got a win” — the promise that Pompeo sides with Trump on those issues — out of the situation, but declined to provide details. “I want Trump to be Trump,” Paul said. Asked about Paul’s change of heart, Trump said, “He’s a good man.” Senators are anxious to have Pompeo in place before international meetings scheduled for later this week and ahead of North Korea talks. Republicans blamed partisan politics for opposition, saying Pompeo is just as qualified as past secretaries of state nominees Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, both of whom received overwhelming support. “A majority of Democrats continue their pointless obstruction to score cheap political points with their base as a willful attempt to undermine American diplomacy,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders. But Democrats resisted easy confirmation of the nation’s top diplomat, and support peeled. Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., who had been among more than a dozen Democrats who supported Pompeo for CIA director, announced her no vote Monday. “I am concerned that Mr. Pompeo has not demonstrated an understanding that the Secretary of State has an obligation to the American people to stand up for our core values,” she said. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who was among the last Democrats on the foreign relations panel to announce his no vote, said he is concerned that Pompeo “will embolden, rather than moderate or restrain” Trump’s “most belligerent and dangerous instincts.” In a late setback Monday, the panel was short one Republican vote needed for a favorable recommendation because Sen. Johnny Isakson was delivering a eulogy in his home state of Georgia. Rather than postpone voting until his return very late Monday, Coons agreed to allowed his vote to be recorded as “present” so the committee could finish its work. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Bipartisan Senate bill aims to protect special counsel’s job
Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s job, putting forth new legislation that aims to ensure the integrity of current and future independent investigations. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware plan to introduce the legislation Thursday. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge. The bill would be retroactive to May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to Donald Trump‘s campaign. “It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said in a statement. “A back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation’s system of check and balances.” Mueller was appointed as special counsel in May following Trump’s abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey. Mueller, who was Comey’s predecessor as FBI director, has assembled a team of prosecutors and lawyers with experience in financial fraud, national security and organized crimes to investigate contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Trump has been critical of Mueller since his appointment, and his legal team is looking into potential conflicts surrounding the team Mueller has hired, including the backgrounds of members and political contributions by some members to Hillary Clinton. He has also publicly warned Mueller that he would be out of bounds if he dug into the Trump family’s finances. Mueller has strong support on Capitol Hill. Senators in both parties have expressed concerns that Trump may try to fire Mueller and have warned him not to do so. “Ensuring that the special counsel cannot be removed improperly is critical to the integrity of his investigation,” Coons said. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the Judiciary panel, said last week that he was working on a similar bill that would prevent the firing of a special counsel without judicial review. Graham said then that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.” The Tillis and Coons bill would allow review after the special counsel had been dismissed. If the panel found there was no good cause for the counsel’s removal, the person would be immediately reinstated. The legislation would also codify existing Justice Department regulations that a special counsel can only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause, such as a violation of departmental policies. In addition, only the attorney general or the most senior Justice Department official in charge of the matter could fire the special counsel. In the case of the current investigation, Rosenstein is charged with Mueller’s fate because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from all matters having to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
