web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > News Corporation (Page 362)

Rep. Collins slams announcement of formal impeachment inquiry against Trump

Westlake Legal Group Doug-Collins Rep. Collins slams announcement of formal impeachment inquiry against Trump Talia Kaplan fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/donald-trump fox news fnc/politics fnc article 79de7513-f59d-5709-9ea2-75759103d96a

Ranking House Judiciary Committee member Doug Collins, R-Ga., slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement endorsing a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, calling it a “false and feeble decree.”

“Today isn’t what impeachment looks like, and this afternoon’s press conference changes nothing legally,” Collins said in a statement following the speaker’s announcement on Tuesday. “There has been no House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry.”

He added “If Democrats believed the facts were in their favor, they would provide the due process that the House provided under the Clinton and Nixon impeachments.”

PELOSI ANNOUNCES FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGAINST TRUMP

On Tuesday Pelosi, D-Calif., said: “The president must be held accountable” for his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and the betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

She effectively endorsed the process, which to some degree has already been underway, after facing fresh pressure from inside the Democratic caucus to act. The move could support Democrats’ disputed argument in court that impeachment proceedings were in fact in progress, which could entitle Congress to obtain additional documents.

Pelosi specifically charged that the administration had violated the law by not turning over a whistleblower complaint concerning Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Citing testimony that the director of national intelligence was blocking the release of that complaint, she said: “This is a violation of law. The law is unequivocal.”

Trump allegedly pushed Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Joe Biden has acknowledged on camera that, when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, while Shokin was investigating the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings — where Hunter Biden was on the board. Shokin himself had separately been accused of corruption.

But there were several indicators throughout the day that Pelosi’s gambit could backfire, as Republicans predicted over the weekend.

“No matter how many Democrats subscribe to the fantasy that the House began an impeachment inquiry—whether in March, July, August or September—neither Chairman [Jerrold] Nadler nor Speaker Pelosi have unilateral authority to launch one,” Collins said on Tuesday night.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and fellow Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have been investigating Trump as part of what they’ve called impeachment proceedings. Notably, Nadler hauled Trump’s former 2016 campaign manager, Cory Lewandowski, in front of his committee last week for a combative five hours of testimony related to possible impeachable conduct by the president.

AOC ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: ‘WHAT HE HAS ADMITTED TO IS ALREADY IMPEACHABLE, REGARDLESS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS’

On Tuesday evening, Pelosi announced that multiple House committees are now moving forward with an impeachment inquiry.

“This is the first partisan ‘impeachment’ in the history of the republic, and the real victims are the American people,” Collins said. “They elected Donald Trump to be our president and their representatives to solve the border crisis and support a growing economy. Instead of accepting those facts, Democrats are sowing chaos, not producing legislative solutions.”

He went on to say, “The chaos began in the Judiciary Committee, and now it’s seeping into the rest of the House.”

Trump vowed earlier Tuesday to release a “complete” transcript of his call with Zelensky by Wednesday.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Additionally, a senior administration official told Fox News late Tuesday that the White House is working as quickly as it can to release to Congress the whistleblower complaint, as long as it’s legally possible. The official told Fox News the White House had nothing to hide, that there has been no wrongdoing.

Fox News’ Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group Doug-Collins Rep. Collins slams announcement of formal impeachment inquiry against Trump Talia Kaplan fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/donald-trump fox news fnc/politics fnc article 79de7513-f59d-5709-9ea2-75759103d96a   Westlake Legal Group Doug-Collins Rep. Collins slams announcement of formal impeachment inquiry against Trump Talia Kaplan fox-news/politics fox-news/person/nancy-pelosi fox-news/person/donald-trump fox news fnc/politics fnc article 79de7513-f59d-5709-9ea2-75759103d96a

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Colbert Audience Goes Wild: Trump Impeachment Inquiry Gets 40-Second Ovation

Westlake Legal Group 5d8ac59c1e0000580070c2a9 Colbert Audience Goes Wild: Trump Impeachment Inquiry Gets 40-Second Ovation

And the crowd went wild. 

Audience members broke out into an extended ovation, then rose to their feet, cheering for 40 seconds:  

Pelosi had resisted growing calls from within her caucus to move toward impeaching the president. 

However, the latest news appears to have turned the tide. 

Trump has decried the investigation as a “witch hunt.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Registered sex offender guilty of 1988 Texas attack, death of doctor three decades later

A Texas man has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of capital murder of a doctor who died last year, 30 years after a sexually motivated attack that left her incapacitated.

George Guo, 58, was convicted of attacking, raping and strangling Dr. Katherine Bascone in her home in the wealthy Dallas enclave of Highland Park. The attack left Bascone with a brain injury that resulted in blindness and paralyzing injuries that required lifetime care. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty for Guo,

POLICE ADVOCATES TO POLITICIANS: STOP ‘DEMAGOGUERY’ AND START BACKING MEN AND WOMEN IN BLUE

Authorities were unable to identify a suspect at the time but after Bascone died in February 2018 and a medical examiner ruled her death a homicide, they reopened the case and resubmitted DNA samples collected from Bascone’s home.

Westlake Legal Group George-Guo- Registered sex offender guilty of 1988 Texas attack, death of doctor three decades later Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/texas fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest fox-news/us/crime/sex-crimes fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox news fnc/us fnc article 2c3c60a6-8386-525e-adcb-3b8fdbe2f609

George Guo, 58, was convicted Monday following a jury trial. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty and Guo was immediately sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (Dallas County Jail via AP, File)

The testing led investigators in June 2018 to Guo, who was living in Houston and was a registered sex offender.

Guo was convicted in 1991 for burglary of a habitation after breaking into the apartment of a Southern Methodist University student in the Dallas area. Authorities broke down the apartment door and caught Guo with condoms, a ski mask, military tear gas and syringes filled with sedatives, prosecutors previously said.

Guo is a graduate of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, prosecutors said, and was a licensed physician at the time of the break-in.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He also was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault in a 1999 incident in which he was caught breaking into a young woman’s residence, authorities said.

He was sentenced to 14 years in prison in that case and was released in 2013.

CLICK for more from FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth.

Westlake Legal Group George-Guo- Registered sex offender guilty of 1988 Texas attack, death of doctor three decades later Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/texas fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest fox-news/us/crime/sex-crimes fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox news fnc/us fnc article 2c3c60a6-8386-525e-adcb-3b8fdbe2f609   Westlake Legal Group George-Guo- Registered sex offender guilty of 1988 Texas attack, death of doctor three decades later Frank Miles fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/texas fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest fox-news/us/crime/sex-crimes fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox news fnc/us fnc article 2c3c60a6-8386-525e-adcb-3b8fdbe2f609

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated

Westlake Legal Group 24dc-prexy-sub-facebookJumbo Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment General Assembly (UN)

He knew it was coming. It almost felt inevitable. No other president in American history has been seriously threatened with impeachment since before his inauguration. So when the announcement came on Tuesday that the House would consider charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors, President Trump made clear he was ready for a fight.

He lashed out at the opposition Democrats, denouncing them for “crazy” partisanship. He denounced the allegations against him as “more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage.” And he proclaimed that even if the impeachment battle to come will be bad for the country, it will be “a positive for me” by bolstering his chances to win a second term in next year’s election.

The beginning of the long-anticipated showdown arrived when Mr. Trump was in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, creating a surreal split-screen spectacle as the president sought to play global statesman while fending off his enemies back in Washington. One moment, he talked of war and peace and trade with premiers and potentates. The next, he engaged in a rear-guard struggle to save his presidency.

Mr. Trump gave a desultory speech and shuffled between meetings with leaders from Britain, India and Iraq while privately consulting with aides about his next move against the House. Shortly before heading into a lunch with the United Nations secretary general, he decided to release a transcript of his July telephone call with the president of Ukraine that is central to the allegations against him. In effect, he was pushing his chips into the middle of the table, gambling that the document would prove ambiguous enough to undercut the Democratic case against him.

By afternoon, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to announce the impeachment inquiry, the president retreated to Trump Tower, his longtime home and base of operations, to contemplate his path forward. A telephone call between the president and speaker failed to head off the clash, and now the two are poised for an epic struggle that will test the limits of the Constitution and the balance of power in the American system.

“We have been headed here inexorably,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, an impeachment scholar at the University of North Carolina. “The president has pushed and pushed his powers up to and beyond the normal boundaries. He’s been going too far for some time, but even for him this most recent misconduct is beyond what most of us, or most scholars, thought was possible for a president to do.”

Long reluctant, Ms. Pelosi finally moved after reports that Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine’s president to investigate unsubstantiated corruption allegations against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading Democratic candidate for president, while holding up $391 million in American aid to Ukraine. Democrats said leaning on a foreign power for dirt on an opponent crossed the line. Mr. Trump said he was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

Mr. Trump now joins only Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton in facing a serious threat of impeachment, the constitutional equivalent of an indictment.

Mr. Nixon resigned when fellow Republicans abandoned him over Watergate, but Mr. Johnson and Mr. Clinton were each acquitted in a Senate trial, the result that seems most likely at the moment given that conviction requires a two-thirds vote, meaning at least 20 Republican senators would have to break with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton both were privately distraught over facing impeachment even as they waged vigorous public battles to defend themselves. Undaunted, Mr. Trump appeared energized by the confrontation, eager for battle. Confident of his position in the Republican-controlled Senate, he seemed almost to assume that the Democrat-controlled House would probably vote to impeach and that he would take his case to the public in next year’s election.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president’s, said Mr. Trump could afford to feel secure. He predicted the same thing would happen to Ms. Pelosi that happened to him in 1998, when he led a party-line impeachment inquiry of Mr. Clinton and paid the price in midterm elections, costing him the speakership.

Just as the public recoiled at the Republican impeachment then, Mr. Gingrich said, it will reject a Democratic impeachment now. Instead, he said, it will give Mr. Trump and the Republicans a chance to focus attention on Mr. Biden.

“This is the fight that traps the Democrats into an increasingly unpopular position — I lived through this in 1998 — while elevating the Biden case, which involves big money,” Mr. Gingrich said. “It is a win-win for Trump.”

His point on the popularity of impeachment was a critical one. Until now, at least, polls have shown that most Americans do not support impeaching Mr. Trump, just as they never embraced impeaching Mr. Clinton. And although how the latest allegations might ultimately change public opinion remained unclear, a new survey by Reuters and Ipsos released on Tuesday night suggested that support for impeachment had actually fallen since the Ukraine revelations, with just 37 percent in favor, down from 41 percent earlier this month.

Mr. Trump, though, has never been as popular as Mr. Clinton. During the 13-month battle that stretched from 1998 into 1999 over whether Mr. Clinton committed high crimes by lying under oath about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, Mr. Clinton’s approval rating was generally in the mid-60s and even surged to 73 percent in the days after he was impeached.

Mr. Trump does not have the same reservoir of good will, never having had the support of a majority of Americans in Gallup polling for even a single day of his presidency. His approval rating currently stands at 43 percent. But he has the support of 91 percent of Republicans, giving him reason to assume the party’s senators will stick with him.

Brenda Wineapple, author of “The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation,” said there were times when a stand on principle was worth it even with a short-term cost. “Some defeats can ultimately be victories — but often only in the long or historical view,” she said. “The Johnson impeachment ultimately failed,” she said, but in the end, she added, the system worked.

At this turning point in his presidency, Mr. Trump began the day in New York toggling between world affairs and political survival. Even before he took the rostrum at the United Nations to deliver a subdued, boilerplate speech, he sought out reporters to push back on the suggestion that he used American aid to leverage Ukrainian cooperation with his investigation demand.

Mr. Trump asserted that he blocked the aid to Ukraine because European countries have not paid their fair share. He pointed to the fact that the money was eventually released as evidence that he did nothing wrong. What he did not mention was that European countries have chipped in $15 billion for Ukraine in the last few years and that he released the American aid only after senators from both parties threatened punitive legislation if he did not.

What he also did not say was that he had changed his explanation for withholding the money from just a day before. On Monday, he linked his decision to block the aid to his concerns about corruption in Ukraine, citing Mr. Biden as an example. By emphasizing instead his overall concern about foreign aid, he was advancing a rationale less tied to his demand for an investigation.

“I’m leading in the polls and they have no idea how to stop me,” Mr. Trump said. “The only way they can try is through impeachment.”

In fact, Mr. Trump is trailing Mr. Biden and other Democrats seeking their party’s nomination in most polls, which is why Democrats assert he was so intent on obtaining dirt from Ukraine on the former vice president.

Either way, as stunning as the day’s developments were, the only real surprise was how long it took to get here. Mr. Trump’s critics began discussing impeachment within days of his election because of various ethical issues and Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. By last year’s midterm election, Mr. Trump repeatedly raised impeachment on the campaign trail, warning that Democrats would come after him if they won the House.

They did win, but the drive to impeachment stalled when the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, produced a report that established no criminal conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia while refusing to take a position on whether the president obstructed justice during the investigation.

As it turned out, Ukraine, not Russia, proved to be rocket fuel for the semi-dormant effort. Now, more than two and a half years later, the battle is on.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated

Westlake Legal Group 24dc-prexy-sub-facebookJumbo Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 impeachment General Assembly (UN)

He knew it was coming. It almost felt inevitable. No other president in American history has been seriously threatened with impeachment since before his inauguration. So when the announcement came on Tuesday that the House would consider charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors, President Trump made clear he was ready for a fight.

He lashed out at the opposition Democrats, denouncing them for “crazy” partisanship. He denounced the allegations against him as “more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage.” And he proclaimed that even if the impeachment battle to come will be bad for the country, it will be “a positive for me” by bolstering his chances to win a second term in next year’s election.

The beginning of the long-anticipated showdown arrived when Mr. Trump was in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, creating a surreal split-screen spectacle as the president sought to play global statesman while fending off his enemies back in Washington. One moment, he talked of war and peace and trade with premiers and potentates. The next, he engaged in a rear-guard struggle to save his presidency.

Mr. Trump gave a desultory speech and shuffled between meetings with leaders from Britain, India and Iraq while privately consulting with aides about his next move against the House. Shortly before heading into a lunch with the United Nations secretary general, he decided to release a transcript of his July telephone call with the president of Ukraine that is central to the allegations against him. In effect, he was pushing his chips into the middle of the table, gambling that the document would prove ambiguous enough to undercut the Democratic case against him.

By afternoon, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepared to announce the impeachment inquiry, the president retreated to Trump Tower, his longtime home and base of operations, to contemplate his path forward. A telephone call between the president and speaker failed to head off the clash, and now the two are poised for an epic struggle that will test the limits of the Constitution and the balance of power in the American system.

“We have been headed here inexorably,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, an impeachment scholar at the University of North Carolina. “The president has pushed and pushed his powers up to and beyond the normal boundaries. He’s been going too far for some time, but even for him this most recent misconduct is beyond what most of us, or most scholars, thought was possible for a president to do.”

Long reluctant, Ms. Pelosi finally moved after reports that Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine’s president to investigate unsubstantiated corruption allegations against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading Democratic candidate for president, while holding up $391 million in American aid to Ukraine. Democrats said leaning on a foreign power for dirt on an opponent crossed the line. Mr. Trump said he was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

Mr. Nixon resigned when fellow Republicans abandoned him over Watergate, but Mr. Johnson and Mr. Clinton were each acquitted in a Senate trial, the result that seems most likely at the moment given that conviction requires a two-thirds vote, meaning at least 20 Republican senators would have to break with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton both were privately distraught over facing impeachment even as they waged vigorous public battles to defend themselves. Undaunted, Mr. Trump appeared energized by the confrontation, eager for battle. Confident of his position in the Republican-controlled Senate, he seemed almost to assume that the Democrat-controlled House would probably vote to impeach and that he would take his case to the public in next year’s election.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president’s, said Mr. Trump could afford to feel secure. He predicted the same thing would happen to Ms. Pelosi that happened to him in 1998, when he led a party-line impeachment inquiry of Mr. Clinton and paid the price in midterm elections, costing him the speakership.

Just as the public recoiled at the Republican impeachment then, Mr. Gingrich said, it will reject a Democratic impeachment now. Instead, he said, it will give Mr. Trump and the Republicans a chance to focus attention on Mr. Biden.

“This is the fight that traps the Democrats into an increasingly unpopular position — I lived through this in 1998 — while elevating the Biden case, which involves big money,” Mr. Gingrich said. “It is a win-win for Trump.”

Mr. Trump, though, has never been as popular as Mr. Clinton. During the 13-month battle that stretched from 1998 into 1999 over whether Mr. Clinton committed high crimes by lying under oath about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, Mr. Clinton’s approval rating was generally in the mid-60s and even surged to 73 percent in the days after he was impeached.

Mr. Trump does not have the same reservoir of good will, never having had the support of a majority of Americans in Gallup polling for even a single day of his presidency. His approval rating currently stands at 43 percent. But he has the support of 91 percent of Republicans, giving him reason to assume the party’s senators will stick with him.

Brenda Wineapple, author of “The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation,” said there were times when a stand on principle was worth it even with a short-term cost. “Some defeats can ultimately be victories — but often only in the long or historical view,” she said. “The Johnson impeachment ultimately failed,” she said, but in the end, she added, the system worked.

At this turning point in his presidency, Mr. Trump began the day in New York toggling between world affairs and political survival. Even before he took the rostrum at the United Nations to deliver a subdued, boilerplate speech, he sought out reporters to push back on the suggestion that he used American aid to leverage Ukrainian cooperation with his investigation demand.

Mr. Trump asserted that he blocked the aid to Ukraine because European countries have not paid their fair share. He pointed to the fact that the money was eventually released as evidence that he did nothing wrong. What he did not mention was that European countries have chipped in $15 billion for Ukraine in the last few years and that he released the American aid only after senators from both parties threatened punitive legislation if he did not.

What he also did not say was that he had changed his explanation for withholding the money from just a day before. On Monday, he linked his decision to block the aid to his concerns about corruption in Ukraine, citing Mr. Biden as an example. By emphasizing instead his overall concern about foreign aid, he was advancing a rationale less tied to his demand for an investigation.

“I’m leading in the polls and they have no idea how to stop me,” Mr. Trump said. “The only way they can try is through impeachment.”

In fact, Mr. Trump is trailing Mr. Biden and other Democrats seeking their party’s nomination in most polls, which is why Democrats assert he was so intent on obtaining dirt from Ukraine on the former vice president.

Either way, as stunning as the day’s developments were, the only real surprise was how long it took to get here. Mr. Trump’s critics began discussing impeachment within days of his election because of various ethical issues and Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. By last year’s midterm election, Mr. Trump repeatedly raised impeachment on the campaign trail, warning that Democrats would come after him if they won the House.

They did win, but the drive to impeachment stalled when the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, produced a report that established no criminal conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia while refusing to take a position on whether the president obstructed justice during the investigation.

As it turned out, Ukraine, not Russia, proved to be rocket fuel for the semi-dormant effort. Now, more than two and a half years later, the battle is on.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Documentary director says he’s turned over alleged confession in ‘Making a Murderer’ case

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09

A Wisconsin inmate allegedly confessed to the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach, which has been the center of the Netflix series “Making a Murderer,” despite two men serving over a decade in prison for the crime.

Shawn Rech, the director of another documentary, “Convicting a Murderer,” told Fox News’ Dana Perino on “The Daily Briefing” Tuesday that the bombshell confession was captured on tape and has been turned over to investigators who “need to dig in.”

Steven Avery, 57, and his nephew, Brenden Dassey, 29, were both convicted of Halbach’s murder and sentenced to life in prison. They both maintained their innocence on “Making a Murderer,” which examined the conspiracy theories surrounding their convictions and explored whether law enforcement framed the two.

Rech, who has not released the inmate’s name, called the new confession “very strange,” and explained how it fell into his production team’s lap.

WISCONSIN INMATE CONFESSES TO ‘MAKING A MURDERER’ KILLING: REPORT

“We’d been dealing with this inmate for about 18 months,” Rech said.

“He’s a convicted murderer in the state of Wisconsin and he wrote us a letter trying to further implicate Steven Avery some time ago. So, we’re now wrapping up our 10-part series, which is an independent series of ‘Making A Murderer,’ and we’re fact-checking and trying to debunk certain information, and we set up a jail call to challenge him on some of the things he wrote in this nine-page letter, and rather than sticking to this letter, he immediately said the letter was false and took the blame for killing Teresa Halbach. He characterized it as a tragic accident.”

Still, Rech said he was apprehensive about the truthfulness of the confession.

“He already admitted to lying, he’s a convicted felon, so that tells you, maybe he’s not the most believable guy in the world,” Rech said. “But, at the same time, he killed someone in the state of Wisconsin and he was walking around free when all this happened, and maybe this was the reason he was trying to point the finger at Steven Avery in the first place. So, it’s kind of a balancing act you kind of have to do.”

Rech said he turned over the audio recording, which was almost 10 minutes in length, to the Wisconsin Department of Justice, to Kathleen Zellner — who represents Avery — and to Laura Nirider — who represents Dassey — but he has not heard from either of the accused.

“They’re not involved in our project,” Rech said of Avery and Dassey. “They see it as an adversarial project because we are including the law enforcement point of view, which was not included in the original two seasons. They see us as kind of an adversarial series or they think that we’re an informercial for the police, which is very, very far from the truth.”

Rech said that this new information did not change the angle of his documentary, but “obviously debunks the letter he wrote against Steven Avery because he abandoned it himself.”

The Wisconsin Department of Justice told Fox News it takes all reports seriously but the new confession “directly contradicts information previously provided by the same individual.”

The Calumet County sheriff told Fox News he was not aware of any “new credible information.”

“We were skeptical anyway, and we’ll see what happens,” Rech said. “We have to include this development in our project, but there’s an awful lot to what we’ve done in the past 20 months, and there are 10 episodes just packed with information. This will be one small piece of that.”

Zellner also expressed skepticism at the confession, saying that her firm also received a handwritten confession from an unnamed inmate who admitted to killing Halbach. Zellner said her firm announced earlier this month that a citizen was offering $100,000 for information related to Halbach’s “real killer.”

She explained that when the firm failed to respond to the inmate about the monetary reward, he approached the production company with his story. Zellner tweeted that the handwritten note was “worthless unless it is corroborated.”

Nirider also acknowledged on Twitter Monday that she was “aware of the alleged confession given by an inmate in Brendan’s case,” but did not elaborate

Former District Attorney Ken Kratz, who handled the Halbach case, tweeted Monday: “To be clear, like everyone else, this is news to me. I have NO COMMENT until I see the details.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ Matt Finn and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report. 

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Impeaching A U.S. President: How The Process Works

Westlake Legal Group 5d8aba7521000034005bf384 Impeaching A U.S. President: How The Process Works

Sept 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday launched an official impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump after he encouraged a foreign leader to conduct a probe that could damage a political rival.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, announced the investigation at a news conference, declaring “no one is above the law.”

There has been a groundswell of support among Democratic Party lawmakers for the move following Trump’s public admission that he asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate the son of presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday that the July 25 phone call was “very friendly and totally appropriate” and that he put”no pressure” on Zelenskiy. He later called the House probe”Witch Hunt Garbage” in a tweet.

The following explains how the impeachment process works.

WHY IMPEACHMENT?

The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared its powers could be abused. So they included in the U.S. Constitution a procedure for removing a sitting president from office.

Under the Constitution, the president can be removed from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses of the public’s trust.

A president does not need to have violated a specific criminal law to have committed an impeachable offense.

Many legal commentators have said that pressuring a foreign leader to interfere in a U.S. election is the sort of conduct the nation’s founders would have considered an impeachable offense.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

A misconception about “impeachment” is that it refers to the removal of a president from office. In fact, impeachment refers only to the House, the lower chamber of Congress, bringing charges – similar to an indictment in a criminal case.

There is ongoing debate over how an impeachment investigation should begin. Doug Collins, the leading Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has argued that a formal impeachment investigation does not begin until the full House has voted to authorize it. But Democratic lawmakers have argued that such a vote is not necessary.

The House Judiciary Committee has historically led impeachment investigations, but Democratic Party leaders can also opt to put a select, handpicked committee in charge.

If a simple majority of the House’s 435 members approves bringing charges, known as “articles of impeachment,” the process moves to the Senate, the upper chamber, which holds atrial to determine the president’s guilt.

In such a trial, House members act as the prosecutors, the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the100-member Senate to convict and remove a president.

Lawmakers are not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt — the evidentiary standard in a criminal case.

PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?

The House has 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, and one independent. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach President BillClinton, a Democrat. Two and a half months passed between theHouse voting to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Clinton and his impeachment.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

The Republican majority in the Senate could vote to immediately dismiss the charges against Trump without considering evidence.

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned in 1974before he could be impeached. Two, Presidents Andrew Johnson in1868 and Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.

WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?

In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, VicePresident Mike Pence would become president for the remainder ofTrump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT?

Under the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, a president can be replaced by their vice president if the chief executive becomes unable to do the job, such as due to a disabling medical or mental condition. That process begins with the vice president and a majority of the members of the Cabinet notifying Congress that the president is not capable of performing the job.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Impeaching A U.S. President: How The Process Works

Westlake Legal Group 5d8aba7521000034005bf384 Impeaching A U.S. President: How The Process Works

Sept 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday launched an official impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump after he encouraged a foreign leader to conduct a probe that could damage a political rival.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, announced the investigation at a news conference, declaring “no one is above the law.”

There has been a groundswell of support among Democratic Party lawmakers for the move following Trump’s public admission that he asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate the son of presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday that the July 25 phone call was “very friendly and totally appropriate” and that he put”no pressure” on Zelenskiy. He later called the House probe”Witch Hunt Garbage” in a tweet.

The following explains how the impeachment process works.

WHY IMPEACHMENT?

The founders of the United States created the office of the presidency and feared its powers could be abused. So they included in the U.S. Constitution a procedure for removing a sitting president from office.

Under the Constitution, the president can be removed from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What exactly that means is unclear. Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses of the public’s trust.

A president does not need to have violated a specific criminal law to have committed an impeachable offense.

Many legal commentators have said that pressuring a foreign leader to interfere in a U.S. election is the sort of conduct the nation’s founders would have considered an impeachable offense.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

A misconception about “impeachment” is that it refers to the removal of a president from office. In fact, impeachment refers only to the House, the lower chamber of Congress, bringing charges – similar to an indictment in a criminal case.

There is ongoing debate over how an impeachment investigation should begin. Doug Collins, the leading Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has argued that a formal impeachment investigation does not begin until the full House has voted to authorize it. But Democratic lawmakers have argued that such a vote is not necessary.

The House Judiciary Committee has historically led impeachment investigations, but Democratic Party leaders can also opt to put a select, handpicked committee in charge.

If a simple majority of the House’s 435 members approves bringing charges, known as “articles of impeachment,” the process moves to the Senate, the upper chamber, which holds atrial to determine the president’s guilt.

In such a trial, House members act as the prosecutors, the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the100-member Senate to convict and remove a president.

Lawmakers are not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt — the evidentiary standard in a criminal case.

PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?

The House has 235 Democrats, 199 Republicans, and one independent. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach President BillClinton, a Democrat. Two and a half months passed between theHouse voting to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Clinton and his impeachment.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require 67 votes. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

The Republican majority in the Senate could vote to immediately dismiss the charges against Trump without considering evidence.

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, President Richard Nixon, resigned in 1974before he could be impeached. Two, Presidents Andrew Johnson in1868 and Clinton, were impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.

WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?

In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, VicePresident Mike Pence would become president for the remainder ofTrump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT?

Under the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, a president can be replaced by their vice president if the chief executive becomes unable to do the job, such as due to a disabling medical or mental condition. That process begins with the vice president and a majority of the members of the Cabinet notifying Congress that the president is not capable of performing the job.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Documentary director says he’s turned over alleged confession in ‘Making a Murderer’ case

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09

A Wisconsin inmate allegedly confessed to the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach, which has been the center of the Netflix series “Making a Murderer,” despite two men serving over a decade in prison for the crime.

Shawn Rech, the director of another documentary, “Convicting a Murderer,” told Fox News’ Dana Perino on “The Daily Briefing” Tuesday that the bombshell confession was captured on tape and has been turned over to investigators who “need to dig in.”

Steven Avery, 57, and his nephew, Brenden Dassey, 29, were both convicted of Halbach’s murder and sentenced to life in prison. They both maintained their innocence on “Making a Murderer,” which examined the conspiracy theories surrounding their convictions and explored whether law enforcement framed the two.

Rech, who has not released the inmate’s name, called the new confession “very strange,” and explained how it fell into his production team’s lap.

WISCONSIN INMATE CONFESSES TO ‘MAKING A MURDERER’ KILLING: REPORT

“We’d been dealing with this inmate for about 18 months,” Rech said.

“He’s a convicted murderer in the state of Wisconsin and he wrote us a letter trying to further implicate Steven Avery some time ago. So, we’re now wrapping up our 10-part series, which is an independent series of ‘Making A Murderer,’ and we’re fact-checking and trying to debunk certain information, and we set up a jail call to challenge him on some of the things he wrote in this nine-page letter, and rather than sticking to this letter, he immediately said the letter was false and took the blame for killing Teresa Halbach. He characterized it as a tragic accident.”

Still, Rech said he was apprehensive about the truthfulness of the confession.

“He already admitted to lying, he’s a convicted felon, so that tells you, maybe he’s not the most believable guy in the world,” Rech said. “But, at the same time, he killed someone in the state of Wisconsin and he was walking around free when all this happened, and maybe this was the reason he was trying to point the finger at Steven Avery in the first place. So, it’s kind of a balancing act you kind of have to do.”

Rech said he turned over the audio recording, which was almost 10 minutes in length, to the Wisconsin Department of Justice, to Kathleen Zellner — who represents Avery — and to Laura Nirider — who represents Dassey — but he has not heard from either of the accused.

“They’re not involved in our project,” Rech said of Avery and Dassey. “They see it as an adversarial project because we are including the law enforcement point of view, which was not included in the original two seasons. They see us as kind of an adversarial series or they think that we’re an informercial for the police, which is very, very far from the truth.”

Rech said that this new information did not change the angle of his documentary, but “obviously debunks the letter he wrote against Steven Avery because he abandoned it himself.”

The Wisconsin Department of Justice told Fox News it takes all reports seriously but the new confession “directly contradicts information previously provided by the same individual.”

The Calumet County sheriff told Fox News he was not aware of any “new credible information.”

“We were skeptical anyway, and we’ll see what happens,” Rech said. “We have to include this development in our project, but there’s an awful lot to what we’ve done in the past 20 months, and there are 10 episodes just packed with information. This will be one small piece of that.”

Zellner also expressed skepticism at the confession, saying that her firm also received a handwritten confession from an unnamed inmate who admitted to killing Halbach. Zellner said her firm announced earlier this month that a citizen was offering $100,000 for information related to Halbach’s “real killer.”

She explained that when the firm failed to respond to the inmate about the monetary reward, he approached the production company with his story. Zellner tweeted that the handwritten note was “worthless unless it is corroborated.”

Nirider also acknowledged on Twitter Monday that she was “aware of the alleged confession given by an inmate in Brendan’s case,” but did not elaborate

Former District Attorney Ken Kratz, who handled the Halbach case, tweeted Monday: “To be clear, like everyone else, this is news to me. I have NO COMMENT until I see the details.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ Matt Finn and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report. 

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6089168980001_6089167643001-vs Documentary director says he's turned over alleged confession in 'Making a Murderer' case Vandana Rambaran fox-news/us/us-regions/midwest/wisconsin fox-news/us/crime/homicide fox-news/topic/fox-news-flash fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 9f265341-4bdd-53a2-84ec-f44860cf4a09

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

EPA threatens to withhold funds from California over air quality

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday threatened to withhold billions from California’s highway funds over the state’s purported failure to tackle air pollution.

The warning is the latest skirmish in an ongoing feud between California and the Trump administration. Last week, the EPA moved to roll back aspects of the Clean Air Act, which California has for years used to set its own emissions standards.

The federal government mandates how much pollution can be in the air. Lots of places in the country don’t meet those standards. But no state has more problems than California, where 85 percent of the population — 34 million people — is breathing dirty air.

Federal law requires states with dirty air to come up with a plan on how to reduce pollution. Those plans must be approved by the EPA. The agency has a backlog of these plans awaiting approval, and California accounts for more than 130 of them, or about one-third of the total.

Westlake Legal Group AP19267697176346-1 EPA threatens to withhold funds from California over air quality fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/science/planet-earth/pollution fox news fnc/us fnc Bradford Betz article 293d0418-bc9d-5768-85b2-533c38c458c1

FILE: Drivers enter Sacramento on Highway 50 to come to a near stand still as traffic backs up in West Sacramento, Calif.  (AP)

In a Tuesday letter sent to the California Air Resources Board, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler chastised California for its backlog of pending rules and regulations to reduce pollution in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards.

Wheeler blamed California for the backlog on Tuesday, saying most of the plans are “inactive” and have “fundamental issues related to approvability.”

“California has failed to carry out its most basic responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, and as a result, millions of Californians live in areas that do not meet our nation’s air quality standards,” Wheeler said in a news release. “EPA stands ready to work with California to meet the Trump Administration’s goal of clean, healthy air for all Americans, and we hope the state will work with us in good faith.”

He asked the state to withdraw the plans and come up with new ones. If they don’t, the government would punish the state by withholding federal road dollars – a process that could take up to 18 months.

Wheeler’s letter lists six California plans that are not in compliance. The letter also chastises Southern California’s Coachella Valley for an inadequate plan addressing the 2008 ozone standard.

Much of California’s smog problem comes from its 35 million registered cars and trucks, the most of any state. But the problem is also compounded in Southern California, home to two of the world’s largest ports where much of the country’s freight passes through and is carried away on diesel trucks and trains.

Only the federal government can regulate emissions from trains, planes, ships and heavy-duty trucks, according to Richard Corey, the executive officer of the California Air Resources Board.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MOVES TOWARD NATIONAL FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD, PREPARES FOR LEGAL BATTLE WITH CALIFORNIA

“California and other states had to go to court, repeatedly, to get the EPA to implement the strict smog standards it claims to be worried about,” he said.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The EPA says it plans to issue $40 million in grants to help areas around the country meet federal air quality standards, including several communities in California.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group AP19267697176346-1 EPA threatens to withhold funds from California over air quality fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/science/planet-earth/pollution fox news fnc/us fnc Bradford Betz article 293d0418-bc9d-5768-85b2-533c38c458c1   Westlake Legal Group AP19267697176346-1 EPA threatens to withhold funds from California over air quality fox-news/us/us-regions/west/california fox-news/science/planet-earth/pollution fox news fnc/us fnc Bradford Betz article 293d0418-bc9d-5768-85b2-533c38c458c1

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com