Connect with us

CORRUPTION

Trump Promised Pardon to Head of Customs and Border Protection if He Broke the Law by Blocking Asylum Seekers

Published

on

One week ago President Donald Trump made a rare trip to California, to dedicate a plaque that falsely marks the start of construction of his border wall. During that trip the president toured an area near the Southern border, held a roundtable with some with Customs and Border patrol agents, and told the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to block asylum-seeking migrants from entering the United States.

Trump, now infamously, and on-camera, told CBP agents to tell migrants – including asylum seekers fleeing violence, rape, drugs, and gangs – “illegal migration, we can’t take you anymore. Our country is full. The sector is full. We can’t take you anymore. Turn around, that’s the way it is.”

That is illegal.

But as CNN is reporting, “the President also told the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, that if he were sent to jail as a result of blocking those migrants from entering the US, the President would grant him a pardon, senior administration officials tell CNN.”

That may be illegal, especially as The New York Times just published a similar report, but describes the conversation as the President ordering McAleenan to close the border to immigrants.

“President Trump last week urged Kevin McAleenan, whom he was about to name as acting secretary of homeland security, to close the southwestern border despite having just said that he was delaying a decision on the step for a year, according to three people briefed about the conversation,” The Times notes.

The President does not have the authority to indiscriminately and secretly close the border.

And indeed, just two days later Trump fired the Secretary of Homeland Security, caused at least two other DHS officials to resign, so he could name McAleenan Acting Head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, which he did.

Attorney and former FBI Special Agent Asha Rangappa weighs in:

So does MSNBC’s Joyce Vance and CNN’s Jake Tapper:

U.S. Congressman Ted Lieu:

Law Professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer:

Former Senior Advisor to President Obama and current CNN contributor:

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CORRUPTION

Sen. Hawley Claims ‘Election Integrity’ Issues: ‘I Cannot Vote to Certify’ Electoral College Results

Published

on

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) announced Wednesday that he would object next week when Congress convenes to certify the electoral college vote in opposition to President Donald J. Trump and in favor of his replacement – President-elect Joe Biden.

It is an action that could spark a contentious floor debate while delaying the inevitable.

“At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act,” Hawley said in a statement Wednesday.

Hawley said he was concerned that some states “failed to follow their own election laws” and that “I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden.”

Pro-Trump Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) welcomed Hawley and then tweeted, “I’m not going back to yesterday’s Republican Party. THIS IS DONALD TRUMP’S PARTY.”

Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to Hawley’s claims saying, “the American people spoke resoundingly in this election” and that the role of Congress is “merely a formality. It certainly should be treated as such.”

Psaki added, “Regardless of whatever antics anyone is up to on January 6, President-elect Biden will be sworn in on the 20th.”

Trump and his loyalists have so far not agreed on the presidential election results that proclaimed President-elect Joe Biden the 2020 contest winner.

On Sunday, the 74-year-old president tweeted, “See you in Washington, DC, on January 6th. Don’t miss it.”

He repeated the same sentiment days later on Dec. 30.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), though, has broken rank with the current administration on acknowledging Biden’s presidential victory.

“Any member of the House, joined by a member of the Senate, can contest the electoral votes on Jan. 6. The challenge prompts a floor debate followed by a vote in each chamber,” The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. “Trump will inevitably lose that vote, given that Democrats control the House and a number of Senate Republicans have publicly recognized Biden’s victory, including Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has called Trump’s refusal to accept the election dangerous.”

If Trump’s temper tantrum ultimately prevailed in the Senate where Vice President Pence would be in position to cast a tie-breaking vote, the Democratic-controlled House would halt any further action benefiting the current administration and thus hand another victory to Biden.

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Trump Signals for Pence to Hand Him the Presidency and Overrule Electoral College

Published

on

Mike Pence at CPAC 2018

President Donald Trump has sent strong signals that he expects Vice President Mike Pence to hand him re-election when Congress meets Jan. 6 to count Electoral College votes.

The vice president will preside over that joint session, and Trump and some of his Republican congressional allies are leaning heavily on Pence to change the outcome of the Nov. 3 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, but legal experts Neal Katyal and John Monsky wrote a New York Times column explaining that his authority in that process is fairly limited.

“Nothing in either the text of the Constitution or the Electoral Count Act gives the vice president any substantive powers,” the pair wrote. “His powers are ministerial, and that circumscribed role makes general sense: The whole point of an election is to let the people decide who will rule them. If an incumbent could simply maneuver to keep himself in office — after all, a maneuver to protect Mr. Trump also protects Mr. Pence — the most foundational precept of our government would be gravely undermined. In America, ‘we the people,’ not ‘we, the vice president,’ control our destiny.”

Both Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment say that the votes of the Electoral College are to be opened by the “president of the Senate,” meaning the vice president. The Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887 to avoid chaotic counts like the one that followed the 1876 election, adds important details. It provides a detailed timeline to tabulate electoral votes, culminating with the final count to take place on Jan. 6, and it delineates the powers of the vice president.

“They guarded against any pretense he might have to throw out a particular state’s votes, saying that the vice president must open ‘all certificates and papers purporting to be‘ electoral votes,” Katyal and Monsky wrote. “They further said, in the event of a dispute, both chambers of Congress would have to disagree with a particular state’s slate of electoral votes to reject them. And they made it difficult for Congress to disagree, adding measures such as a ‘safe harbor’ provision and deference to certification by state officials.”

All of the president’s legal challenges have lost, and the results have been certified by the states and electors have duly cast their ballots, so there’s nothing Trump or Pence can do to stop their re-election loss under the rules spelled out in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.

“[Pence] now stands on the edge of history as he begins his most consequential act of leadership,” Katyal and Monsky wrote. “The question for Vice President Pence, as well as other members of Congress, is which side of history he wants to come down on. Can he show the integrity demonstrated by every previous presidential administration? The American people accept a graceful loser, but a sore loser never goes down well in the history books.”

“Like all those that have come before him, [Pence] should count the votes as they have been certified and do everything he can to oppose those who would do otherwise,” they added. “This is no time for anyone to be a bystander — our Republic is on the line.”

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Stone and Manafort Pardons: Trump ‘Could Be Prosecuted for Bribery’

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s pardons of cronies Roger Stone and Paul Manafort could cost him much more than just bad publicity.

Appearing on CNN Thursday, New York University School of Law professor Ryan Goodman outlined how Trump’s pardons could open him up to criminal prosecution for his obstruction of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election.

In particular, Goodman outlined how Mueller’s final report outlined an obstruction case based around communications between the president’s lawyers and Manafort indicating that the president would pardon his former campaign chairman if he refused to cooperate with the special counsel’s probe.

“The Mueller report specifically says that Manafort told his deputy, Rick Gates, that Manafort had spoken with Trump’s personal attorney, and it would be stupid to plea and they should sit tight, because, quote, ‘We’ll be taken care of,'” Goodman explained. “The Mueller team concludes that this met all of the elements and did succeed in Manafort failing to cooperate and maintaining his silence.”

Goodman also explained that while the Constitution gives the president broad powers to pardon people, he could still be prosecuted for it if that pardon was used as a reward for obstructing justice.

“If a pardon is part of a crime, then most experts would agree that, in fact, the president could be criminally prosecuted for it,” he said. “Just imagine a president exchanged a pardon for a bribe. Well, most experts agree that the president could then be prosecuted for bribery.”

Watch the video below.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.