Connect with us

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

John Yoo Slammed for Saying Trump Shouldn’t Be Prosecuted but if It Were Anyone Else Who’s Not a President They Should Be

Published

on

The attorney perhaps best known for writing the memos that President George W. Bush used to justify torture by waterboarding enemy suspects after the 9/11 terror attacks, and stating a president could be justified in crushing the testicles of a young boy to obtain information from his parent, is under fire again.

John Yoo, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, served as the deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) during the Bush administration.

On Monday, Yoo declared Donald Trump, because he is an ex-president and a candidate for the office of president, should not be prosecuted for the 37 criminal felonies he will be arraigned on on Tuesday.

Yoo warned that no other former president has ever been prosecuted, while neglecting to mention that no other former president was ever known to commit any federal crimes, certainly not crimes under the Espionage Act, crimes of obstruction, or other egregious attacks on America’s national security.

READ MORE: Fox News Host: ‘Maybe’ if Trump Were Running a Cocaine Ring Out of Mar-a-Lago Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Circle the Wagons’

Fox News host Neil Cavuto told Yoo, “But you did say that there was a dangerous leap here, on the part of the Biden administration, quoting: ‘officials must explain why prosecuting Trump for misuse of classified documents justifies disregarding two centuries of constitutional practice.’ I could go into it but you’re far more eloquent than I.”

“But one of the things you stipulate, Cavuto continued, “is that this type of situation with a former president is an entirely different can of worms. Maybe you can explain that and the leap – justified or not – on the part of this administration, the Justice Department, to pursue this case against Donald Trump.”

“First,” Yoo declared, “I never want to be out of the camp Bill Barr is in.”

“Attorney General Barr is completely right about the facts here. If anyone other than a president were being charged for this kind of conduct, with this indictment, with this evidence, I would be telling the defendant to seek an early and quick plea bargain. I would not want to go to trial with this kind of recorded evidence, video evidence, photographs. It’s pretty damning,” Yoo acknowledged.

“But what should give us all pause, is that we’ve never prosecuted for a federal crime a former president before,” Yoo said.

“We’ve never prosecuted the candidate, the likely candidate for the other major political party, who’s actually leading the incumbent in the polls right now,” Yoo continued, appearing to suggest America is not a nation of laws because the law should be applied differently based on the defendant’s current and prior political achievements and aspirations.

“This is like crossing the Rubicon,” Yoo declares, “and I say, ‘Rubicon’ because remember, Julius Caesar crossed Rubicon and by doing that, broke institutional rules of his day, brought about the fall of the Roman Republic. Similarly here, we’re breaking an institutional norm that has been there since the beginning of our country, which is, ‘leave former presidents alone. Don’t use criminal prosecution in a way that interferes with elections.'”

“Let the people decide in the next 2024 election, whether Donald Trump should hold office – don’t distort it with prosecution and worse than that, make future presidents worry about being prosecuted for their tough decisions, or even worse yet, begin a cycle where presidents start prosecuting their predecessors from the other party.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is the Final Battle’: Trump Tells Followers They ‘Have To’ Protest – Some Promise to Come ‘Well-Armed’

Yoo is suggesting that Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling, if not theft, of hundreds of classified, secret, and top secret documents from a wide range of federal government agencies, documents that pertain to our national defense, the military capabilities of our armed forces and the military capabilities of another nation’s armed forces, and nuclear secrets – in short, some of the most critical classified information this country possesses, was a “tough decision,” perhaps, like, say, deciding if torturing a suspect or their child to possibly obtain information is legal or ethical.

Seth Masket, a professor of political science and the director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, responded to Yoo’s remarks.

“Ford pardoned Nixon precisely because this norm does not exist,” he said, referring to the “norm” of not prosecuting former Presidents.

Historian Kevin M. Kruse adds that Ford “literally says this in the pardon itself!”

Kruse adds: “1. Everyone, including Nixon, thought it was likely that he would be prosecuted 2. The Watergate Special Prosecutor drafted memos on it (see below) 3. Ford’s pardon text *explicitly* notes that Nixon was liable to be prosecuted.”

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes also weighed in, saying, “The torture guy is wrong here just simply as a matter of history. Nixon was almost certainly going to be prosecuted after leaving office and was only saved by Ford’s wholly unprecedented blanket pardon.”

Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin served up a mockery trifecta.

Mocking Trump’s claim he could “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” and not lose supporters, mocking the concept that regardless of what they do no former president should ever be prosecuted, wrote, and mocking Yoo’s apparent support of torture as legal, Bassin wrote, “I mean, if it’s ok for us to torture people, why not make it ok for certain designated persons to shoot people on 5th Avenue without legal consequences.”

Watch Yoo below or at this link.

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.

law

Arkansas Senator Files Bill to Abolish State Library, Give Education Department Control

Published

on

The right-wing war on knowledge continues as an Arkansas state senator filed a bill Thursday to abolish the State Library as well as the library board.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Jonesboro), along with State Rep. Wayne Long (R-Bradford), filed Senate Bill 536 on Thursday. The bill would not just remove all references to the State Library from existing laws, but also put the state’s other libraries under the control of the Arkansas Department of Education.

A previous version of the bill, SB184, would have also shuttered the Arkansas Educational Television Commission, which oversees the state’s PBS stations, according to the Arkansas Advocate.

READ MORE: Clean Up Alabama Wants State to Dump ‘Marxist’ American Library Association

The Arkansas State Library is not just a regular library. In addition to providing information to state agencies and lawmakers, it also distributes funding to the other libraries around the state. Under SB536, the Department of Education would take on all its responsibilities. The State Library is officially a part of the Department of Education already, but it operates as an independent organization.

While the proposal may sound like a shuffling-around of duties, the main thrust of the bill is to allow more direct control over the Arkansas library system by controlling the purse strings. The bill would keep libraries from distributing “age-inappropriate materials” to those under 17 years old and sex education materials from those under 12. Libraries would also have to set up a system where those in the community could request that certain items be banned for minors, according to KARK-TV. Those that don’t meet these restrictions will have state funding pulled.

Earlier legislation filed by Sullivan and passed into law includes Act 242, which ended the requirement for library directors to have a master’s degree in library science, the Advocate reported.  Sullivan, however, was unsuccessful with a proposed amendment to another bill that would strip funding from libraries affiliated with the American Library Association—meaning most, if not all of them. That amendment was rejected this week over concerns the language in it was too broad, according to the Advocate.

The ALA has been a target of right-wing politicians and activists upset with its free speech stance and fights against censorship. Sullivan in particular has objected to a provision in the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights protecting library access for all ages, the Advocate reported. He also called for the state’s chapter of the ALA to be defunded—despite the fact that it receives no state funding.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

BIGOTRY

Texas to Investigate Anonymous Complaint Teachers Used Trans Student’s Pronouns

Published

on

After a Moms for Liberty member claimed that teachers at a Texas high school used a trans student’s new name and proper pronouns, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered an investigation.

On February 13, Denise Bell of the right wing, anti-LGBTQ group Moms for Liberty, addressed the Houston Independent School Board. She read a statement that she said came from the parents of a trans student at Bellaire High School. The parents were upset that teachers used the student’s new name and pronouns, according to Erin in the Morning. The anonymous statement Bell read said that the change happened without parental consent, and “goes against our Christian faith, the advice of [their] therapist and quite frankly common sense.”

Bell then claimed that the school district was “purposely and secretively transitioning minors.”

READ MORE: GOP Candidate Complaining She Wasn’t Allowed to ‘Have Kids Laugh At’ Transgender Students in Viral Video Draws Rebuke

State Representative Steve Toth—who represents a different district than the school is in—informed Abbott of the complaint in a letter on February 26. Two weeks later, Abbott replied to Toth’s letter, revealing he told the Texas Education Agency to investigate the Bellaire High School, accusing the teachers of helping “to ‘socially transition’ a student—violating the express wishes of the child’s mother,” which Abbott called “inappropriate and potentially unlawful.”

Abbott directed the TEA to not just determine whether or not the teachers did indeed use the trans student’s name and pronouns, but also open a full investigation into the school. TEA was told to find out if the school had also violated “policies concerning sexual education curriculum, parental consent for communications with students, mental health services or guidance to students, and parent grievances”; if any school employees had “engaged in misconduct”; and whether any student “has been subjected to abuse or neglect.”

That last one has a footnote on “abuse or neglect,” referring to a statement from President Donald Trump’s March 4 speech in front of a joint session of Congress:

“A few years ago, January Littlejohn and her husband discovered that their daughter’s school had secretly socially transitioned their 13-year-old little girl. Teachers and administrators conspired to deceive January and her husband, while encouraging her daughter to use a new name and pronouns—‘they/them’ pronouns, actually—all without telling January, who is here tonight and is now a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse.”

This is not the first time Abbott and his administration have attacked the state’s trans community. In his “State of the State Address” this year, he said that teachers who discuss gender transition with students should be fired, according to KTRK-TV. Texas has also banned trans students from sports as well as the use of puberty blockers in cases of minors experiencing gender dysphoria, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

AMERICA FIRST?

Tim Walz: ‘Racism’ Motivates MAGA Movement to Pardon Derek Chauvin

Published

on

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz didn’t mince words when asked what the motivation was for the new movement among MAGA Republicans to convince President Donald Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who killed George Floyd in 2020.

“Racism. It’s racist. OK? That’s what I believe,” Walz said in an interview with Semafor published Wednesday.

The calls to pardon Chauvin started with an online petition earlier this month, according to The Independent. The pardon push picked up steam this week when conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire launched a webseries, “The Case of Derek Chauvin.” Shapiro claims the officer was convicted on “extraordinarily scanty evidence,” saying Floyd did not die from having Chauvin’s knee on his neck for over nine minutes, but rather from drugs in Floyd’s system and heart disease.

READ MORE: Derek Chauvin Sentenced to 22-and-a-Half Years for Murder of George Floyd – Less Than Maximum Possible Sentence

Walz, however, disputes this interpretation of events.

“This was a man who murdered George Floyd on TV,” Walz said, adding that a pardon “would undermine the faith in the system.”

The White House, however, has denied that a Chauvin pardon is in Trump’s plans. Earlier this month, Trump said he hadn’t even heard about a push to pardon Floyd’s killer, and on Wednesday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt repeated that a pardon is “not something he’s considering at this time,” according to The Grio.

However, some commentators, like The Hill’s Juan Williams are skeptical, pointing out that Trump has pardoned two police officers convicted of killing a Black man in the first days of his second term.

In 2020, after the killing, Trump condemned Chauvin.

“We all saw what we saw. It’s hard to conceive anything other than what we did see. It should have never happened,” Trump said.

If Trump were to pardon Chauvin, it would be largely moot. Presidents can only pardon those convicted on federal charges. Chauvin was convicted on both federal and Minnesota state charges. In the event Trump cleared the federal charges, the main thing that would happen is that Chauvin would be moved from the federal prison in Big Spring, Texas to a Minnesota state prison.

Minnesota sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years for murder; on the federal level, he was sentenced to 21 years for violating Floyd’s civil rights. Barring a federal pardon, the two sentences are running concurrently, not consecutively.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.