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 47)

Trump Team Launches Defense: Dems Are Trying To Interfere In Election

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s defense team launched its arguments in the Senate on Saturday by repeatedly saying “the president did absolutely nothing wrong” — but Democrats did.

Trump is currently on trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House for pressuring the Ukrainian government to open an investigation that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid until it did so, and then obstructing Congress’s efforts to look into the matter. Trump himself has said he wanted Ukraine to launch an investigation into the son of potential 2020 opponent and former Vice President Joe Biden.

But Trump’s defense argued that Trump wasn’t the one interfering with the election ― in fact, they said, now Democrats are, through a process that has involved selective leaks, closed door meetings and incomplete presentation of facts. 

“They’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history, and we can’t allow that to happen,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone. 

He said earlier that Democrats were asking the Senate to overturn the 2016 election and interfere in the next one ― something that could be argued for any removal from office in an election year. 

“They’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months,” Cipollone said. “They’re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country … take that decision away from the American people.” 

Trump’s attorneys suggested at the beginning of the day that they plan to spend far less time defending the president than House Democratic impeachment managers spent arguing for the prosecution. While Democrats spent all of the 24 hours allotted by the rules, Trump’s team plans to spend less than three hours on Saturday and far less than the 24 total. They argued that they don’t need the time, again referring to the election.

“We will finish efficiently and quickly so we can all go have an election,” Cipollone said.

The fact that Democrats took up all of their allotted 24 hours to argue their case came up repeatedly. Trump’s attorneys argued that, in all of that time, the House managers had failed to include certain details. Mike Purpura, deputy counsel to the president, noted that Ukrainian leaders have said they did not feel pressured, that some top officials in the U.S. and Ukraine have said they didn’t know the assistance was paused, that aid was eventually approved and that Trump’s support for the nation was stronger than his predecessor’s.

Purpura said that by suggesting Trump did pressure Ukraine, Democrats were effectively accusing Ukrainian leaders of lying.

“There can’t be a quid pro quo without the quo,” Purpura said, arguing Ukrainian officials couldn’t have been pressured by the Trump administration if they were unaware of the hold on the aid.

But Olena Zerkal, a former deputy minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, said Ukrainian diplomats in Washington knew there was a problem with the aid as early as July 25, the day of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted the impeachment inquiry. Her account was backed up by congressional testimony from Laura Cooper, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

Westlake Legal Group 5e2c731f220000d0053eba67 Trump Team Launches Defense: Dems Are Trying To Interfere In Election

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in November, as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Trump’s lawyers also sought to aggressively undermine the House managers’ arguments by suggesting the Democrats’ witnesses only “presumed” Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid was linked to investigations, calling it a “fatal” blow to their case. They showed video footage of testimony from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who told House impeachment investigators last year it was his understanding that Trump sought to extort Ukraine’s government for personal political gain. Sondland later amended his testimony, saying he told a top Zelensky aide on September 1 that the aid was linked to opening investigations into Biden.

Trump’s defense implied that Democrats were overstepping simply because they didn’t agree with the president’s decisions.

“Disagreeing with the president’s foreign policy is not an impeachable offense,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said.

Trump’s team accused Democrats of acting nefariously behind the scenes ― Republicans have claimed that interviewing witnesses in a secure room (that was accessible by many GOP lawmakers) was part of a cover-up ― and holding only staged public hearings. The first clip Trump’s defense played was a favorite among Republicans: video of House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (R-Calif.) doing an exaggerated paraphrase of Trump’s call with Ukraine. 

They said repeatedly that the House Democrats had held something back. 

“The House managers didn’t tell you ― why not?” Purpura said at one point.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to continue their opening arguments next week after the Senate recesses on Saturday afternoon. Following the conclusion of their arguments, and a period of questioning by senators from both sides, the senators will vote on whether to consider witnesses and other evidence.

Democrats want to hear from witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and several of his top deputies, who could answer questions about Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid. The White House blocked Mulvaney and the others from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry, and most Republicans are opposed to calling them in the Senate trial for fear of lengthening the proceedings.

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

Trump Team Launches Defense: Dems Are Trying To Interfere In Election

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s defense team launched its arguments in the Senate on Saturday by repeatedly saying “the president did absolutely nothing wrong” — but Democrats did.

Trump is currently on trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House for pressuring the Ukrainian government to open an investigation that could benefit him in the 2020 presidential election and withholding military aid until it did so, and then obstructing Congress’s efforts to look into the matter. Trump himself has said he wanted Ukraine to launch an investigation into the son of potential 2020 opponent and former Vice President Joe Biden.

But Trump’s defense argued that Trump wasn’t the one interfering with the election ― in fact, they said, now Democrats are, through a process that has involved selective leaks, closed door meetings and incomplete presentation of facts. 

“They’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history, and we can’t allow that to happen,” said White House counsel Pat Cipollone. 

He said earlier that Democrats were asking the Senate to overturn the 2016 election and interfere in the next one ― something that could be argued for any removal from office in an election year. 

“They’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months,” Cipollone said. “They’re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country … take that decision away from the American people.” 

Trump’s attorneys suggested at the beginning of the day that they plan to spend far less time defending the president than House Democratic impeachment managers spent arguing for the prosecution. While Democrats spent all of the 24 hours allotted by the rules, Trump’s team plans to spend less than three hours on Saturday and far less than the 24 total. They argued that they don’t need the time, again referring to the election.

“We will finish efficiently and quickly so we can all go have an election,” Cipollone said.

The fact that Democrats took up all of their allotted 24 hours to argue their case came up repeatedly. Trump’s attorneys argued that, in all of that time, the House managers had failed to include certain details. Mike Purpura, deputy counsel to the president, noted that Ukrainian leaders have said they did not feel pressured, that some top officials in the U.S. and Ukraine have said they didn’t know the assistance was paused, that aid was eventually approved and that Trump’s support for the nation was stronger than his predecessor’s.

Purpura said that by suggesting Trump did pressure Ukraine, Democrats were effectively accusing Ukrainian leaders of lying.

“There can’t be a quid pro quo without the quo,” Purpura said, arguing Ukrainian officials couldn’t have been pressured by the Trump administration if they were unaware of the hold on the aid.

But Olena Zerkal, a former deputy minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, said Ukrainian diplomats in Washington knew there was a problem with the aid as early as July 25, the day of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted the impeachment inquiry. Her account was backed up by congressional testimony from Laura Cooper, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

Westlake Legal Group 5e2c731f220000d0053eba67 Trump Team Launches Defense: Dems Are Trying To Interfere In Election

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in November, as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Trump’s lawyers also sought to aggressively undermine the House managers’ arguments by suggesting the Democrats’ witnesses only “presumed” Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid was linked to investigations, calling it a “fatal” blow to their case. They showed video footage of testimony from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who told House impeachment investigators last year it was his understanding that Trump sought to extort Ukraine’s government for personal political gain. Sondland later amended his testimony, saying he told a top Zelensky aide on September 1 that the aid was linked to opening investigations into Biden.

Trump’s defense implied that Democrats were overstepping simply because they didn’t agree with the president’s decisions.

“Disagreeing with the president’s foreign policy is not an impeachable offense,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said.

Trump’s team accused Democrats of acting nefariously behind the scenes ― Republicans have claimed that interviewing witnesses in a secure room (that was accessible by many GOP lawmakers) was part of a cover-up ― and holding only staged public hearings. The first clip Trump’s defense played was a favorite among Republicans: video of House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (R-Calif.) doing an exaggerated paraphrase of Trump’s call with Ukraine. 

They said repeatedly that the House Democrats had held something back. 

“The House managers didn’t tell you ― why not?” Purpura said at one point.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to continue their opening arguments next week after the Senate recesses on Saturday afternoon. Following the conclusion of their arguments, and a period of questioning by senators from both sides, the senators will vote on whether to consider witnesses and other evidence.

Democrats want to hear from witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and several of his top deputies, who could answer questions about Trump’s hold on Ukraine aid. The White House blocked Mulvaney and the others from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry, and most Republicans are opposed to calling them in the Senate trial for fear of lengthening the proceedings.

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

Tom Steyer Spends Millions in South Carolina. Black Voters Reap the Benefit.

Westlake Legal Group merlin_167383110_4ac2d06d-4823-42b0-9537-20d705690946-facebookJumbo Tom Steyer Spends Millions in South Carolina. Black Voters Reap the Benefit. Steyer, Thomas F south carolina Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Political Advertising Online Advertising Democratic Party Black People

HARTSVILLE, S.C. — While leading Democratic presidential candidates make a last-minute push in Iowa and Michael R. Bloomberg looks ahead to Super Tuesday, Tom Steyer has his eye on a different prize: South Carolina. And he’s spending millions of dollars to court the black voters who are crucial to success in the state.

Mr. Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire from California, is tapping into his vast wealth to lavish money on black businesses, hire dozens of African-American staff members and spend generously with black-owned news organizations.

It’s part of a campaign buying blitz that has put South Carolina awash in Steyer money as he also blankets the state with millions in advertisements and mailings, making him nearly omnipresent in the state while other campaigns have barely begun to invest financially.

For some of the Democratic electorate, and certainly his rivals, Mr. Steyer’s ability to use his fortune to drive his campaign and carpet-bomb a region with ads is a distortion of the political system. But in South Carolina, at least, the strategy has seemingly paid off as he attempts to chisel into support for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is the clear front-runner in polls here.

A Fox News survey this month showed Mr. Steyer in a surprisingly strong position in South Carolina — in second place with 15 percent of the vote. Earlier polls by YouGov and the University of North Florida had hinted at Mr. Steyer’s growing strength.

“He’s inundated the airwaves,” said Gibbs Knotts, a professor at the College of Charleston and co-author of a book, “First in the South,” on the history and importance of South Carolina’s early primary, which falls this year on Feb. 29. “You almost can’t turn on a television show or be on the internet and not see his commercials.”

Since he announced his bid in July, Mr. Steyer has spent roughly $14 million on local broadcast ads in the state; that’s about 70 percent of the total spent on political ads in South Carolina by all candidates, Democratic and Republican, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad tracking firm.

On Facebook, Mr. Steyer has been aggressively ramping up his advertising over the past month. He began December spending less than $40,000 per week on the site. By mid-January, he was spending close to $200,000 per week, earning him a market dominance similar to the one he has on TV. He has close to 80 percent of the Facebook political ads reaching voters in South Carolina.

Mr. Steyer’s dominance extends to an old-fashioned messaging system as well: the postal system. Residents in South Carolina have reported receiving mailers from Mr. Steyer multiple times in a single week. Though his fourth-quarter campaign finance report will not be released for a few weeks, Mr. Steyers led the field in investing in direct-mail operations nationally in the third quarter, spending $3.7 million through the end of September, according to federal campaign finance records.

The sudden rise in polls has given Mr. Steyer confidence in his campaign’s path, and he has began wooing party leaders in private, making the case that he could emerge as a consensus leader if there is a split decision in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada results.

But some experts question the wisdom of Mr. Steyer’s spending here. “If I’m running that campaign, I’m thinking it’s great that after all these tens of millions of dollars we’re finally starting to show some movement,” said Lachlan McIntosh, a Charleston-based Democratic consultant. “But my goodness, it is worth it?”

Others wonder whether the money could be put to better use. “Tom has been out there for a while beating his drum,” said Jerald Sanders, the mayor of Swansea, S.C., a small town near the state’s capital, Columbia. “But most of these folk think the money he is using could go to setting up some organizations and nonprofits.”

In campaign appearances, Mr. Steyer points to the commitment he and his wife, Kat Taylor, made 10 years ago, to give away at least half of their money to philanthropic causes. Ms. Taylor is the chief executive and founder of a community bank in Oakland, Calif., that provides credit to low-income communities and nonprofit organizations.

The advertising is the most important element of Mr. Steyer’s four-pronged approach for building support here, one that was prescribed by several black leaders in the state who met with him last year, according to Johnnie Cordero, the chairman of the state’s Democratic black caucus.

But the Steyer campaign is going beyond messaging. With black voters comprising about 60 percent of the Democratic electorate, the group advised Mr. Steyer to hire local African-American staff members and to use black businesses.

Mr. Steyer’s South Carolina campaign employs 93 people — more than any other candidate — with many of the workers drawn from local communities. And according to a candidate tracker, Mr. Steyer has appeared at 35 events in the state, 12 more than Mr. Biden. (Mr. Steyer’s campaign counts 48 events by its candidate.)

“You have to put your money where your mouth is,” Mr. Cordero said, complaining that other candidates have come into the state to kiss babies, shake hands and spend millions of dollars, but then ask black people to volunteer. “He supports black businesses. He’s holding his events at black venues wherever possible.”

Mr. Cordero, who has endorsed Mr. Steyer and was seated with him during a Martin Luther King Day breakfast, said he gave other candidates the same advice. “We talked to other candidates and told them the formula,” he said. “Tom Steyer is the one who did it.”

In a statement Thursday, Mr. Steyer’s campaign said it was “proud to support local and minority owned businesses when we campaign throughout South Carolina and the other primary states. A critical part of running a grass-roots campaign is engaging local communities and small businesses.”

Mr. Steyer’s campaign event last Saturday in Hartsville, a northeastern South Carolina town of 7,500, did just that. He hired the minority-owned Bailey’s Catering to provide food for about 100 people.

The company’s owner, Annie Bailey, is well known locally because she cooked for Stedman Graham, Oprah Winfrey’s longtime partner, when he appeared here.

“They were very specific that they wanted sweet tea, lemonade and water,” Ms. Bailey said as her crew cleaned up after Mr. Steyer’s appearance at the Jerusalem Baptist Church.

Ms. Bailey said she catered the event for $1,250, a discounted rate, because she regarded the campaign as a “good cause.” And she has become a supporter of Mr. Steyer and is spreading the word to her friends, she said.

“I think he has great ideas,” Ms. Bailey said.

The Steyer campaign has also committed to spending about $150,000 on advertising in the black-owned media.

The ad buy seems to have earned Mr. Steyer some good will, or at least positive media attention. One of the top items last week in The Minority Eye, a black-owned news site in Columbia, trumpeted Mr. Steyer’s ad spending with a headline, “Steyer’s investment in black-owned media shows a sincere commitment to black voters.”

The Steyer campaign then turned the Minority Eye story into a Facebook ad, putting roughly $2,000 behind the ad and targeting it almost exclusively to thousands in South Carolina. (The publisher of The Minority Eye, Michael Bailey, is also the official spokesman for Mr. Cordero’s group, the Democratic black caucus. Mr. Bailey is not related to Annie Bailey.)

Though Mr. Steyer’s ads predominantly address issues core to his campaign, like climate change and instituting term limits that would prevent members of Congress from serving more than 12 years, some of the ones in South Carolina specifically feature topics of concern to black voters. One television ad features Harold Mitchell, a former state representative and leader in the black community, who boasted of Mr. Steyer’s stated commitment to cleaning up pollution in black neighborhoods affected by environmental hazards.

Mr. Steyer’s formula is working on David Howell, father of Rolando Howell, a standout former basketball player for the University of South Carolina Gamecocks who died at age 34 in 2016 after being rushed to the hospital with complications of a spinal cord injury.

Mr. Howell, who lives just south of Columbia, believes his son might still be alive if there were a hospital on his side of the city. He told Mr. Steyer of his concerns during a campaign event in December at Zion Mill Creek Baptist Church.

Mr. Steyer’s campaign responded by producing a digital ad featuring Mr. Howell and his son’s story. “Nobody else came and he made me feel good that he’s listening to us,” said Mr. Howell, who said he was switching his vote to Mr. Steyer from Mr. Biden.

Mr. Steyer’s appearance at Allen University, a historically black school in Columbia, inspired yet another digital ad, a gauzy and upbeat production aimed at black women.

The event, titled “Ladies First,” featured the Grammy-winning hip-hop artist MC Lyte, one of the high-profile black women participating in a panel discussion with Mr. Steyer, which filled the university’s Chappelle Auditorium in December.

Ms. Lyte could not be reached for comment. The panel’s moderator, Feminista Jones, a Philadelphia-based author and activist, said she had not endorsed a candidate but participated in the event because it was a way of bringing black women together to hear their points of view.

Ms. Jones said she was paid for her appearance, which was booked through a speakers bureau.

Mr. Steyer also used Allen University as a place to announce his plan for historically black colleges and universities, which involves a $125 billion investment over 10 years, and began running Facebook ads only in South Carolina about that plan.

It is more money than any other candidate has proposed.

Jonathan Martin contributed reporting from Columbia, S.C.

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

Arizona driver caught in HOV lane with skeleton riding shotgun

Arizona state troopers patrolling a highway HOV lane weren’t fooled when they came across a vehicle occupied by a driver and a partially-clothed skeleton.

The 62-year-old driver was pulled over Thursday on State Route 101 in Phoenix and issued a $400 ticket for illegal use of an HOV lane to bypass traffic.

“The motor unit that pulled up next to the vehicle looked inside the vehicle and at that point pretty much realized that the passenger in the front row was actually a skeleton,” Trooper Martin Sotelo told Fox 10 Phoenix.

Westlake Legal Group Skeleton-Arizona-DPS Arizona driver caught in HOV lane with skeleton riding shotgun Robert Gearty fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/arizona fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 5864c582-e6a3-5749-9b82-7c8c1099b68b

Arizona troopers ticketed a man in the HOV lane with a skeleton as his passenger. (Arizona Department of Public Safety)

NEVADA TROOPER PULLS OVER HEARSE CARRYING CORPSE IN CARPOOL LANE: POLICE

The fake skeleton had on a camo hat and was sitting upright in the passenger seat, held in place by rope.

Troopers snapped a photo of “Skeletor” and posted it on Twitter.

COP CATCHES DRIVER USING HOV LANE WITH DUMMY IN THE FRONT SEAT

“Think you can use the HOV lane with Skeletor riding shotgun? You’re dead wrong!” the tongue-in-cheek tweet read.

“Just know that if you’re caught, you will be cited,” Sotelo said. “Points are going to be added to your license. It’s just not worth it.”

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Arizona troopers cite about 7,000 HOV lane violators every year. Last April, a man was pulled over after driving in the HOV lane with a mannequin wearing a sweatshirt, baseball cap and sunglasses.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group Skeleton-Arizona-DPS Arizona driver caught in HOV lane with skeleton riding shotgun Robert Gearty fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/arizona fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 5864c582-e6a3-5749-9b82-7c8c1099b68b   Westlake Legal Group Skeleton-Arizona-DPS Arizona driver caught in HOV lane with skeleton riding shotgun Robert Gearty fox-news/us/us-regions/southwest/arizona fox-news/us/crime/police-and-law-enforcement fox news fnc/us fnc article 5864c582-e6a3-5749-9b82-7c8c1099b68b

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

Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained

Westlake Legal Group merlin_136614993_a42ae662-fc3d-47b8-bf4a-e37252b17dc7-facebookJumbo Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Suits and Litigation (Civil) subpoenas Senate Mulvaney, Mick Law and Legislation Justice Department House of Representatives Freedom of Speech and Expression Executive Privilege, Doctrine of Constitution (US) Bolton, John R

WASHINGTON — Republican senators allied with President Trump are increasingly arguing that the Senate should not call witnesses or subpoena documents for his impeachment trial because Mr. Trump has threatened to invoke executive privilege, and a legal fight would take too long to resolve.

But it is far from clear that Mr. Trump has the power to gag or delay a witness who is willing to comply with a subpoena and tell the Senate what he knows about the president’s interactions with Ukraine anyway — as Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser John R. Bolton has said he would do.

Here is an explanation of executive privilege legal issues.

It is a power that presidents can sometimes use to keep information secret.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution implicitly gives presidents the authority to keep internal communications, especially those involving their close White House aides, secret under certain circumstances. The idea is that if officials fear that Congress might someday gain access to their private communications, it would chill the candor of the advice presidents receive and inhibit their ability to carry out their constitutionally assigned duties.

Not by itself.

The privilege has traditionally been wielded as a shield, not a sword. It has no built-in enforcement mechanism to prevent a former official from complying with a subpoena in defiance of a president’s orders, or to punish one afterward for having done so.

Mr. Bolton, one of the four current and former officials whom Democrats want to call as a witness, has said that he will show up to testify if the Senate subpoenas him for the impeachment trial, even though the White House has told him not to disclose what he knows about Mr. Trump’s private statements and actions toward Ukraine.

A valid assertion of the privilege would protect a current or former official who chooses not to comply with a subpoena.

Three other officials Democrats want to call as witnesses — Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney; a top national-security aide to Mr. Mulvaney, Robert Blair; and Michael Duffey, an official in the White House budget office who handled the military aid to Ukraine — are expected to resist appearing if subpoenaed.

Normally it is a crime to defy a subpoena, but the Justice Department will decline to prosecute a recalcitrant official if the president invokes the privilege. Congress can also sue that official seeking a court order, but the department, defending that official, will cite the privilege to argue that case should be dismissed — and as grounds to appeal any ruling that the subpoena is nevertheless valid, keeping the case going.

The Trump administration has broadly pursued a strategy of fighting House oversight and impeachment subpoenas, resulting in a string of lower-court losses that have nevertheless succeeded in running down the clock. Senate Republicans have argued that any effort to enforce impeachment subpoenas could result in a long and drawn-out judicial battle as a reason for the moderate members of their caucus not to break ranks and join Democrats in voting to subpoena witnesses and documents.

Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is leading the House impeachment managers, has proposed that the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial, could swiftly rule on the validity of any executive privilege claim. The trial has “a perfectly good judge sitting behind me,” Mr. Schiff said.

But Chief Justice Roberts does not embody and is not functioning as the Supreme Court. Several legal experts said that even if he were to rule that any invocation of the privilege is not valid, a subpoena recipient could ignore him and continue to defer to the president.

Then the Senate would likely still have to go through the normal court process to seek a judicial order to hear from the witness.

The administration could try, but it would face serious hurdles.

In theory, the Justice Department could file a lawsuit and ask a judge to issue a restraining order barring Mr. Bolton from testifying on the grounds that he might divulge information that is subject to executive privilege. But the government has never tried to do that.

Even if a judge agreed that the information the Senate would be seeking is covered by a valid claim of executive privilege, it is not clear that any judge or higher court would issue a restraining order. Under a constitutional doctrine called prior restraint, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to gag speech before its expression.

“A restraining order is unlikely because it would be unprecedented, a threat to First Amendment values, and — in this context — a threat to fundamental checks and balances,” said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University professor and the co-author of a casebook on separation-of-powers law.

It’s fuzzy. The scope and limits of the president’s power to keep internal executive branch information secret are ill-defined because in practice, administration officials and lawmakers have typically resolved executive privilege disputes through deals to accommodate investigators’ needs to avoid definitive judicial rulings.

In a 1974 Supreme Court case about whether President Richard M. Nixon had to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations to the Watergate prosecutor, the court ruled that executive privilege can be overcome if the information is needed for a criminal case. Nixon resigned 16 days later.

The Supreme Court in the Nixon case noted several times that the information sought did not involve presidential discussions about diplomatic or military matters, so the Justice Department might argue that the Watergate precedent does not cover Mr. Trump’s internal communications about military aid to Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the courts would most likely use a balancing test, weighing the presidency’s need for private internal deliberations against Congress’s need for the specific information to investigate possible high-level wrongdoing, said Mark J. Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written books about executive privilege.

Noting the Nixon-era precedent, he said he doubted that a claim of executive privilege would be upheld in the context of impeachment because “the courts don’t give all that much deference to claims of presidential secrecy in cases of alleged wrongdoing.”

No.

In a related legal dispute, the Trump administration has argued that White House officials are “absolutely immune” from being compelled to respond to a subpoena when Congress is seeking information about their official duties.

If that were true, it would mean they did not even have to show up, separate and apart from whether they can lawfully decline to answer a particular question in deference to a president’s claim that the answer is covered by executive privilege.

Late last year, a Federal District Court judge rejected that theory in a case involving a congressional subpoena to Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II. But Mr. McGahn does not want to cooperate and has permitted the Justice Department to file an appeal on his behalf, and the litigation is continuing.

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

This is the success story Dana Perino just had to tell

Westlake Legal Group EOu69H6WAAAIiWL This is the success story Dana Perino just had to tell Julia Musto fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/economy/jobs fox-news/us/crime/drugs fox-news/us/crime fox-news/topic/fox-news-radio fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/newsedge/business fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/food-drink/food fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/media fnc article 98c6a2f3-0021-5148-9c15-7770b19eefa2

Entering the workforce as a teenager, Roy Castro was never taught how to tie his tie. After a troubling past on the streets of New York and over ten years of his life spent in federal prison, Castro now runs an ice cream company worth millions of dollars. He credits his success to the STRIVE program.

Appearing on “The Fox News Rundown” podcast Saturday with “The Daily Briefing” host Dana Perino, Castro said the leadership of STRIVE, including President and CEO Philip Weinberg and his mentor Goldman Sachs partner Dina Powell McCormick, changed his life.

Founded in 1984, STRIVE’s mission is to help people in low-income communities learn the skills necessary for good careers. The program has served 75,000 people over the last 35 years and it operates in 12 cities nationwide.

Castro’s mother was a single parent and a drug addict. At age 13, Castro started selling crack cocaine. At age 16, he found himself incarcerated at Rikers Island Prison.

After serving multiple stints, Castro had an extremely hard time getting a job; he was rejected 50 times.

“I was at my wit’s end,” he told Perino.

Before almost deciding to return to his former life, a mother of a friend pointed him in the direction of a STRIVE orientation class where he heard co-founder Rob Carmona speak.

“You know, it was like he was preaching the Gospel to me, man. Like, he was talking my language. He was rough and he was saying it. But, it was what I needed to hear,” Castro remembered.

“And I realized, you know what? Before coming out of jail my whole…my whole wish, my whole vision, is to come home and do the right thing. You don’t come home saying I want to go back, right? You want to come home…you’re inspired to do the right thing,” he said. “And, it fulfilled and gave me that passion back that I had lost while I was being denied…from employment.”

It was there that McCormick heard Castro speak for the first time and was “so inspired” by his story. She gave him her card.

He eventually got a job cleaning up the back of ice cream trucks and ice cream freezers – and he worked his way up.

“I had a vision,” he said, noting that his talents started being recognized through higher management and his eagerness to work his way up the chain of command.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Once Castro finally owned his own small business, he was scared to lose what he had built.

That’s when his wife remembered McCormick’s card. After six years, he emailed her and she responded immediately.

“Once I was there…[STRIVE] taught me how to keep a job,” he said. “Today, I am an excellent tie tier.”

In November, Castro was honored at STRIVE’s 35th-anniversary gala where Perino first heard his story – and it was one she need to share.

Westlake Legal Group EOu69H6WAAAIiWL This is the success story Dana Perino just had to tell Julia Musto fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/economy/jobs fox-news/us/crime/drugs fox-news/us/crime fox-news/topic/fox-news-radio fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/newsedge/business fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/food-drink/food fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/media fnc article 98c6a2f3-0021-5148-9c15-7770b19eefa2   Westlake Legal Group EOu69H6WAAAIiWL This is the success story Dana Perino just had to tell Julia Musto fox-news/us/us-regions/northeast/new-york fox-news/us/economy/jobs fox-news/us/crime/drugs fox-news/us/crime fox-news/topic/fox-news-radio fox-news/shows/the-daily-briefing-dana-perino fox-news/newsedge/business fox-news/media/fox-news-flash fox-news/food-drink/food fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/media fnc article 98c6a2f3-0021-5148-9c15-7770b19eefa2

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

Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained

Westlake Legal Group merlin_136614993_a42ae662-fc3d-47b8-bf4a-e37252b17dc7-facebookJumbo Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Suits and Litigation (Civil) subpoenas Senate Mulvaney, Mick Law and Legislation Justice Department House of Representatives Freedom of Speech and Expression Executive Privilege, Doctrine of Constitution (US) Bolton, John R

WASHINGTON — Republican senators allied with President Trump are increasingly arguing that the Senate should not call witnesses or subpoena documents for his impeachment trial because Mr. Trump has threatened to invoke executive privilege, and a legal fight would take too long to resolve.

But it is far from clear that Mr. Trump has the power to gag or delay a witness who is willing to comply with a subpoena and tell the Senate what he knows about the president’s interactions with Ukraine anyway — as Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser John R. Bolton has said he would do.

Here is an explanation of executive privilege legal issues.

It is a power that presidents can sometimes use to keep information secret.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution implicitly gives presidents the authority to keep internal communications, especially those involving their close White House aides, secret under certain circumstances. The idea is that if officials fear that Congress might someday gain access to their private communications, it would chill the candor of the advice presidents receive and inhibit their ability to carry out their constitutionally assigned duties.

Not by itself.

The privilege has traditionally been wielded as a shield, not a sword. It has no built-in enforcement mechanism to prevent a former official from complying with a subpoena in defiance of a president’s orders, or to punish one afterward for having done so.

Mr. Bolton, one of the four current and former officials whom Democrats want to call as a witness, has said that he will show up to testify if the Senate subpoenas him for the impeachment trial, even though the White House has told him not to disclose what he knows about Mr. Trump’s private statements and actions toward Ukraine.

A valid assertion of the privilege would protect a current or former official who chooses not to comply with a subpoena.

Three other officials Democrats want to call as witnesses — Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney; a top national-security aide to Mr. Mulvaney, Robert Blair; and Michael Duffey, an official in the White House budget office who handled the military aid to Ukraine — are expected to resist appearing if subpoenaed.

Normally it is a crime to defy a subpoena, but the Justice Department will decline to prosecute a recalcitrant official if the president invokes the privilege. Congress can also sue that official seeking a court order, but the department, defending that official, will cite the privilege to argue that case should be dismissed — and as grounds to appeal any ruling that the subpoena is nevertheless valid, keeping the case going.

The Trump administration has broadly pursued a strategy of fighting House oversight and impeachment subpoenas, resulting in a string of lower-court losses that have nevertheless succeeded in running down the clock. Senate Republicans have argued that any effort to enforce impeachment subpoenas could result in a long and drawn-out judicial battle as a reason for the moderate members of their caucus not to break ranks and join Democrats in voting to subpoena witnesses and documents.

Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is leading the House impeachment managers, has proposed that the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial, could swiftly rule on the validity of any executive privilege claim. The trial has “a perfectly good judge sitting behind me,” Mr. Schiff said.

But Chief Justice Roberts does not embody and is not functioning as the Supreme Court. Several legal experts said that even if he were to rule that any invocation of the privilege is not valid, a subpoena recipient could ignore him and continue to defer to the president.

Then the Senate would likely still have to go through the normal court process to seek a judicial order to hear from the witness.

The administration could try, but it would face serious hurdles.

In theory, the Justice Department could file a lawsuit and ask a judge to issue a restraining order barring Mr. Bolton from testifying on the grounds that he might divulge information that is subject to executive privilege. But the government has never tried to do that.

Even if a judge agreed that the information the Senate would be seeking is covered by a valid claim of executive privilege, it is not clear that any judge or higher court would issue a restraining order. Under a constitutional doctrine called prior restraint, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to gag speech before its expression.

“A restraining order is unlikely because it would be unprecedented, a threat to First Amendment values, and — in this context — a threat to fundamental checks and balances,” said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University professor and the co-author of a casebook on separation-of-powers law.

It’s fuzzy. The scope and limits of the president’s power to keep internal executive branch information secret are ill-defined because in practice, administration officials and lawmakers have typically resolved executive privilege disputes through deals to accommodate investigators’ needs to avoid definitive judicial rulings.

In a 1974 Supreme Court case about whether President Richard M. Nixon had to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations to the Watergate prosecutor, the court ruled that executive privilege can be overcome if the information is needed for a criminal case. Nixon resigned 16 days later.

The Supreme Court in the Nixon case noted several times that the information sought did not involve presidential discussions about diplomatic or military matters, so the Justice Department might argue that the Watergate precedent does not cover Mr. Trump’s internal communications about military aid to Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the courts would most likely use a balancing test, weighing the presidency’s need for private internal deliberations against Congress’s need for the specific information to investigate possible high-level wrongdoing, said Mark J. Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written books about executive privilege.

Noting the Nixon-era precedent, he said he doubted that a claim of executive privilege would be upheld in the context of impeachment because “the courts don’t give all that much deference to claims of presidential secrecy in cases of alleged wrongdoing.”

No.

In a related legal dispute, the Trump administration has argued that White House officials are “absolutely immune” from being compelled to respond to a subpoena when Congress is seeking information about their official duties.

If that were true, it would mean they did not even have to show up, separate and apart from whether they can lawfully decline to answer a particular question in deference to a president’s claim that the answer is covered by executive privilege.

Late last year, a Federal District Court judge rejected that theory in a case involving a congressional subpoena to Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II. But Mr. McGahn does not want to cooperate and has permitted the Justice Department to file an appeal on his behalf, and the litigation is continuing.

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

Tucker Carlson: Goldman Sachs specializes in hypocrisy

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6126394362001_6126396999001-vs Tucker Carlson: Goldman Sachs specializes in hypocrisy Tucker Carlson fox-news/us/economy fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight/transcript/tuckers-monologue fox-news/politics/finance/banking fox-news/politics/finance fox-news/opinion fox-news/newsedge/business fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 6c81fca1-f680-5a1d-8f90-74315c3127c1

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest investment banks in the world. It’s also America’s largest underwriter of initial public offerings, the often lucrative moment when a private company goes public

Goldman Sachs has always chosen its IPOs based on financial criteria and what was the best possible business decision. But not anymore. Goldman has decided to join the revolution. The company has announced it will no longer underwrite IPOs for companies whose boards contain too many white men, because white men are bad.

Except, apparently, for the white men who run Goldman Sachs. They’re the exception. They’re great.

CAROL ROTH: GOLDMAN SACHS WANTS A BOARD DIVERSITY QUOTA — HERE’S WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA WITH A BAD TACTIC

Confused? Well, it gets even more muddled. Goldman Sachs has also announced that its new diversity policy will not apply to Asia. The leadership of Chinese companies tends to be utterly and completely homogenous. Diversity is definitely not their strength. And that’s fine with Goldman Sachs. In other words, homogenous boards are a sin when they happen here in America, but in China, they’re totally fine, not to mention highly lucrative.

Well, if all of this seems inconsistent, even hypocritical, don’t be surprised. Goldman specializes in that. The company’s website, for example, contains this preachy little sermon on gender diversity: “Goldman Sachs believes that when women lead, everything changes. In today’s world, gender equality is an economic imperative and supporting women’s economic empowerment and leadership opportunities will drive growth for our clients, our communities, our people and our shareholders.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Great, but they don’t mean it. How do we know? Well, Goldman’s Board doesn’t have parity between men and women. When the company’s previous CEO, Lloyd Blankfein stepped down in 2018, they didn’t pick a woman to replace him. No, they picked David Solomon, who looks very much like Lloyd Blankfein.

Solomon didn’t have to take the job. He could have stood aside and let a woman run Goldman Sachs for the first time in 150 years. Or even better, he could have stepped down from his job. He could do it tonight, and then he should demand that a non-binary person replace him immediately and donate his severance to Black Lives Matter.

Needless to say, he won’t do that. Diversity for thee, but not for me. That’s the real motto at Goldman Sachs.

The irony is that Goldman Sachs was founded by a man named Marcus Goldman, who fled precisely this type of dehumanizing dystopian politics, the kind that obsesses over which people or which race or gender or ethnicity are doing too well and need to be pulled down by force.

America, unfortunately, has not been immune to that kind of hatred. But for most of our history, we’ve avoided its worst excesses. Now Goldman Sachs seems determined to stoke the hate, and the goal is pretty obvious. Outsourcing and financialization have made most Americans far worse off over the last 30 years, while at the same time, Goldman Sachs and its employees have grown spectacularly rich.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

So far, they’ve bought off Washington’s lawmakers and its think tanks to ensure that status quo doesn’t change. Now, they’re peddling race hatred to make sure that when, for example, Bernie Sanders tells them to pay more in taxes, they can plead “wokeness” and ask for a pass.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Goldman Sachs is feeding the mob in hopes it will eat them last. It won’t work. It never does. But in the meantime, it will hurt America and it will help China, just like so many things Goldman Sachs has done over the past 30 years.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue from “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Jan. 24, 2020.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6126394362001_6126396999001-vs Tucker Carlson: Goldman Sachs specializes in hypocrisy Tucker Carlson fox-news/us/economy fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight/transcript/tuckers-monologue fox-news/politics/finance/banking fox-news/politics/finance fox-news/opinion fox-news/newsedge/business fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 6c81fca1-f680-5a1d-8f90-74315c3127c1   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6126394362001_6126396999001-vs Tucker Carlson: Goldman Sachs specializes in hypocrisy Tucker Carlson fox-news/us/economy fox-news/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight/transcript/tuckers-monologue fox-news/politics/finance/banking fox-news/politics/finance fox-news/opinion fox-news/newsedge/business fox news fnc/opinion fnc article 6c81fca1-f680-5a1d-8f90-74315c3127c1

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

Largest Veterans organization demands apology after Trump said traumatic brain injuries from Iranian attack are ‘not very serious’

Westlake Legal Group vy4S12-DuQxuyYpcpi2h4Nu19-MctNRR2UAl9YSrz10 Largest Veterans organization demands apology after Trump said traumatic brain injuries from Iranian attack are 'not very serious' r/politics

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don’t attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

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

MSNBC’s Ari Melber says Dems didn’t ‘provide enough evidence’ to prove Trump obstructed Congress

Westlake Legal Group Ari-Melber-Getty MSNBC's Ari Melber says Dems didn't 'provide enough evidence' to prove Trump obstructed Congress Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/us/congress fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 20b1f0ea-5a86-57d5-a08e-585e9234005e

Very little criticism has been heard on MSNBC of the Democratic House managers during their opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, but anchor Ari Melber argued Friday that the managers didn’t make the case for one of the two articles of impeachment.

Much of the focus on the third day of opening arguments from the House managers was on the article accusing Trump of obstructing Congress.

During a panel discussion, Melber, an attorney, said Democrats made a strong argument for Trump’s abuse of power, but a weak one on obstruction.

CNN’S JEFFREY TOOBIN FAWNS OVER SCHIFF’S ‘DAZZLING’ PERFORMANCE DURING SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

“I saw overwhelming, factual evidence and first-person accounts to support constitutional abuse of power by the president to potentially cheat in the election, undermining democracy itself — very strong,” Melber said. “As we are now here… I do not see an overwhelming case and overwhelming evidence by these Democrats to support convicting on obstructing Congress.”

Melber said that “in every other case, including (President Richard) Nixon, we know the rule has been the president is allowed to fight within the law, is allowed to deny, and, yes, ‘defy,’ all the way up until the Supreme Court, which takes often more than a year.

“So is there enough evidence to support the immediate removal of a president — three months and you’re gone as a precedent ? I haven’t seen them land that,” the host of “The Beat” said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

After getting pushback by a panelist, Melber doubled down, saying that while it is “bad for democracy” for Trump to defy Congress, it’s “not a removable high crime” based on what Democrats presented at the Senate trial.

Westlake Legal Group Ari-Melber-Getty MSNBC's Ari Melber says Dems didn't 'provide enough evidence' to prove Trump obstructed Congress Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/us/congress fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 20b1f0ea-5a86-57d5-a08e-585e9234005e   Westlake Legal Group Ari-Melber-Getty MSNBC's Ari Melber says Dems didn't 'provide enough evidence' to prove Trump obstructed Congress Joseph Wulfsohn fox-news/us/congress fox-news/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry fox-news/person/donald-trump fox-news/person/adam-schiff fox-news/media fox news fnc/media fnc article 20b1f0ea-5a86-57d5-a08e-585e9234005e

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