Connect with us

TRUMP ON TRIAL

George Conway and Neal Katyal Lay Down the Law to Mitch McConnell — and Show Why John Bolton Must Testify

Published

on

Attorneys George Conway and Neal Katyal have written an editorial for the New York Times in which they call on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to stop trying to protect President Donald Trump and hold a real impeachment trial in the Senate.

In particular, the editorial hammers McConnell for declaring that there’s no chance Trump will be removed from office before hearing former national security adviser John Bolton’s testimony.

“Remember that the diplomat Fiona Hill testified at the House impeachment hearings that Mr. Bolton called the pressuring of Ukraine by the administration a ‘drug deal’ and said he wanted no part of it,” they write. “Mr. Bolton himself has said that he possesses new information that has not been revealed. He even gave a speech saying that some of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy decisions were made in his self-interest, not in the interest of the American people.”

And they don’t think the Senate should stop at hearing from Bolton either, as they believe Trump himself should be compelled to testify before the Senate.

“The president has been too scared to testify, and too scared to let anyone else in his administration testify,” they argue. “There is only one possible explanation for this behavior: He is afraid of the truth. Otherwise, what argument can there be for refusing to hear from a central witness like Mr. Bolton, who other witnesses have indicated was exceptionally concerned about the suspension of military aid to Ukraine?”

Read the whole editorial here.

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.

BAD PRESIDENT

Ex-GOP Head Says Judge in Trump Documents Case ‘Wasted Countless Months on Frivolous Motions’

Published

on

Former head of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele accused the judge of dragging her feet in former President Donald Trump’s case about improper handling of classified documents.

On Friday, Trump’s defense lawyers put forth a motion to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith under allegations that he was illegally appointed, according to the Associated Press. Despite admitting that Smith’s appointment appears to be supported by precedent, Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to a three-day hearing to determine the challenge’s validity, according to The Washington Post. While defense attorneys will often challenge the standing of the prosecution, not every challenge necessarily warrants a full hearing.

Steele called out Cannon on Sunday’s edition of Inside with Jen Psaki on MSNBC. He called the particular challenge against Smith a “long shot,” according to The Hill, and said most judges would dismiss it out of hand.

READ MORE: Judge Cannon’s ‘Mind Boggling’ Move Could Put Witnesses at Risk, Experts Warn

“But apparently, Judge Cannon just had to have a hearing about it. It’s the last delay tactic from a judge who’s wasted countless months on frivolous motions. She has all but refused to allow Trump’s case to go to trial and still, still hasn’t even set a date for the trial to begin,” Steele said. He also accused Cannon of “effectively putting the prosecution on trial.”

Cannon has faced much criticism over her handling of the Trump documents case. In May, she postponed the trial indefinitely, putting the kibosh on hopes that the case would be heard before the November election. Her reasoning was that it would be “imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court,” referring to motions like the one to dismiss Smith.

Rulings like this have led legal experts to trash Cannon. Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called Cannon “incompetently bad.” George Conway, a lawyer and founder of the conservative anti-Trump The Lincoln Project, said Cannon “doesn’t know the most basic rule governing criminal conspiracies.” Conway’s comment was in response to Cannon appearing unfamiliar with the Pinkerton rule, which holds that everyone involved in a conspiracy can be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators. This appears to back up NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance’s statement that Smith has to “spoon feed… the law” to Judge Cannon.

One month ago, Laurence Tribe, a top constitutional scholar and University Professor Emeritus at Harvard, said that Cannon would likely be removed from the Trump documents case.

“Cannon’s wildly lawless rejection of Special Counsel Smith’s clearly correct request for a gag order against fake and dangerous claims that the FBI was ordered to assassinate him is good news,” Tribe wrote on X. “It’s the smoking gun that will finally lead to her removal from the stolen secrets case.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

CRIME

Two-Thirds of Americans Want Trump’s Documents Trial Televised

Published

on

As a date has been set for the trial of former President Donald Trump over the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, a new poll shows that most Americans want to watch the trial on their TVs.

A new Quinnipiac University poll asked a number of questions about the upcoming trial, which is set for August 14, including whether or not they thought cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. Overall, 64%, nearly two-thirds, say cameras should be there, while 29% say they shouldn’t. An additional 7% said they had no opinion or didn’t know.

While more Democrats—71%—than Republicans—57%—wanted cameras, there was no demographic where a majority didn’t want them. Black people were the highest demographic who wanted the Trump documents trial televised at 77%, followed by people between the ages of 18-34 at 71%, tied with Democrats, and Hispanic people at a rate of 70%. The poll also showed that only 32% of Americans have read the indictment.

READ MORE: Bill Barr Calls Trump Documents Case ‘Brazen Criminal Conduct’

Though 60% of Americans think Trump acted inappropriately in handling the classified documents, and 65% call the charges either “very serious” (at 45%) or “somewhat serious” (at 20%), 62% call the Department of Justice “politically motivated” in pursuing the case.

The poll had a sample size of 1,776 American adults with a margin of error of 2.3%.

Federal trials, like the Trump documents trial, are not televised. At the state level, many states allow cameras in courtrooms, but it’s on a state-by-state basis. And, of course, Trump’s impeachment trials were televised, as is nearly all House and Senate business.

There have been calls from the right and the left to televise the trial. Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz wrote an op-ed for The Hill in favor of cameras in Trump’s courtroom. Dershowitz says that this is partly due to his belief that “all trials, except perhaps those involving minors and other select exceptions, should be televised.” He warns that if the trial isn’t televised, questions of bias will come into play.

“It will be as if there were two trials: one observed by reporters for MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times and other liberal media, the other through the prism of reporters for Fox, Newsmax and other conservative outlets. There will be nowhere to go to learn the objective reality of what occurred at trial,” Dershowitz writes.

MSNBC anchor and commentator Ayman Mohyeldin made a similar case on his weekend show Ayman.

“If Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee set to oversee the rest of trial, continues to follow standard procedure, the only accounts the public will hear, see and read will be secondhand accounts from reporters, witnesses and participants. That includes a defendant who has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to tell the truth,” Mohyeldin said. “Now, as a member of the news media myself, I have confidence that those allowed inside the courtroom will try their very best to accurately document the proceedings. But the truth is simple:  That is not enough, given the severity and gravity of this moment.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

BAD PRESIDENT

Bill Barr Calls Trump Documents Case ‘Brazen Criminal Conduct’

Published

on

Former Attorney General Bill Barr is going hard against his former boss in a new op-ed published Monday, calling former President Donald Trump’s alleged actions in the documents case “brazen criminal conduct.”

Writing for The Free Press, Barr starts out sympathetic, agreeing with the former president that “Trump has been the victim of witch hunts by obsessive enemies willing to do anything to bring him down,” but then admits “The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago document affair is cynical political propaganda.”

Barr lays out the case against the former president. He says the National Archives and Department of Justice tried to let Trump quietly return the documents—similar to what happened when former Vice President Mike Pence and President Joe Biden were discovered to have classified documents at home—but he refused.

READ MORE: Donald Trump Popular Among House Republicans As Other GOP Members Turn On Him

“Why would Trump risk the safety of the American people by hanging on to these documents in the face of the government’s lawful demands for their return? As trophies? Because he thought it was a fun party trick?” Barr wrote. “Or simply because he thought he could get away with it? Knowing him, it was an act of self-assertion merely to gratify his ego.”

Barr’s piece debunks arguments from apologists before coming to the conclusion that it appears as though Trump indeed committed obstruction of justice.

“If true—and many key facts come from Trump’s own lawyer—this was brazen criminal conduct that cannot be justified in any way,” he wrote.

However, Barr again stops short of recommending prison time. On Sunday, Barr appeared on Face the Nation, saying if Trump is convicted, “I don’t like the idea of a former president serving time in prison.”

In the op-ed, Barr declines to state what an appropriate punishment should be. Initially, he says that “sensible Republicans” don’t defend Trump, but point to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facing no charges over her email scandal in 2016. But Barr debunks this argument as well.

“But if Trump engaged in the kind of brazen criminal conduct alleged, then applying the law in his case is not unfair to him. The injustice lies in not having applied it seven years ago to Hillary,” he wrote. “Even if you buy the double standard argument, at most it justifies not holding Trump accountable criminally.”

“It is one thing to argue that Trump should not face criminal liability. Fine. But the next obvious question is whether, given his conduct, the GOP should continue to promote him for the highest office in the land,” Barr wrote.

Though Barr neglects to say what he thinks an appropriate punishment for Trump would be should he be found guilty, based on the maximum sentences attached to the statutes he allegedly violated, Trump could get 20 years for conspiracy to obstruct justice, and 10 years for violating the Espionage Act, according to Al Jazeera. That said, it is unlikely for Trump to get the maximum sentence as, in addition to being the former president, he’s also a first-time federal offender, as the outlet points out.

Elie Honig, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, told CNN that if Trump is convicted, that while it’s likely he would get some prison time, a sentence of eight to 12 years would be more likely—and even then, it may not be that much.

“Even if the judge goes below that eight to 12 year range, it’s hard for me to see a judge going down to probation, to no sentence,” Honig said.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.