Tag: what is Trump hiding?

Court appears reluctant to order judge to immediately drop criminal case against Michael Flynn

Washington Post logoA federal appeals court in Washington expressed reluctance Friday to order a judge to immediately dismiss the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, suggesting it will allow the judge to question whether the Justice Department’s decision to drop the prosecution is “in the public interest.”

Flynn, joined by the Justice Department, wants the appeals court to force U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to quickly close the matter and put a stop to the judge’s examination of the retired three-star general’s politically charged case.

But Judges Karen Henderson and Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seemed skeptical of Flynn’s argument that Sullivan cannot review the Justice Department’s abandonment last month of the long-running prosecution. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador. Continue reading.

Trump Greenlights Sanctions Against International Criminal Court Investigators

Two months after the International Criminal Court greenlighted an investigation into potential war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Trump administration is pushing back.

President Trump has imposed economic sanctions against court officials “directly engaged with any effort to investigate or prosecute United States personnel without the consent of the United States.”

The executive order released Thursday also expands visa restrictions against court officials and their families. Continue reading.

A federal judge who accused Barr of ‘distorting’ the Mueller report has read an unredacted version — and now he’s demanding some answers

AlterNet logoThe Mueller report hasn’t been in the headlines much in 2020, a year that has found reporters heavily focused on the Ukraine scandal, President Donald Trump’s acquittal on two articles of impeachment, the coronavirus pandemic, former Vice President Joe Biden’s surge in the Democratic presidential primary and — most recently — the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25. But the Mueller report is still a compelling read, and a federal judge is demanding some answers after confirming, on June 8, that he has read an unredacted versionof the lengthy document.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, according to Law & Crime’s Matt Naham, has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to answer questions “regarding certain redactions of the Mueller Report” at a hearing now set for July 20. In the past, Walton has been critical of Attorney General William Barr’s response to the Mueller Report, asserting that Barr, in 2019, “distorted” the findings of former special counsel Robert Mueller. And now that Walton has read the Mueller Report in unredacted form, he is more concerned than ever about Barr’s response to it.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Walton — like so many other Americans — has been working remotely. But the judge, Naham notes, has “made clear that he has some questions that the DOJ cannot answer remotely.” Continue reading.

Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Trump Administration Targets Government Watchdogs

Center for American Progress logoThe Trump administration has undermined government oversight bodies since the president’s first days in office, flouting established norms and practices and blatantly violating ethics laws. Now, even in the middle of fighting the “invisible enemy” that is the COVID-19 pandemic1, the Trump administration has launched an unprecedented attack against inspectors general (IGs)—the individuals and institutions designed to hold the executive branch accountable.

Despite being the first president in history to have a bipartisan vote for his removal from office, President Donald Trump celebrated his acquittal following the impeachment trial in February by delivering a bellicose victory speech2 in the East Room of the White House. In his hourslong remarks, he attacked both congressional Democrats who brought against him articles of impeachment based on the overwhelming evidence corroborating a whistleblower complaint in the Ukraine scandal as well as the oversight process and infrastructure that allowed the whistleblower complaint to be raised in the first place.

Since his acquittal, the president has engaged in what many ethics experts3 and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle see as retribution4 against the persons and institutions that he blames for making him only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. President Trump’s recent decision to fire Michael Atkinson, the IG for the U.S. Intelligence Community, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic only validates the concern that Trump and his administration have now trained their sights on the government’s independent watchdogs. Continue reading.

Pompeo’s moves against inspector general leave a trail of questions and a department divided

Washington Post logoSecretary of State Mike Pompeo and his top aides blasted the State Department’s ousted internal watchdog on Monday, accusing him of mishandling leaks to the media and failing to promote Pompeo’s mission statement to employees.

The remarks attempted to fill in the gaps in the mysterious firing of Steve Linick by President Trump late Friday night, but they also raised new questions about the dismissal and exposed a sharp divide among State Department employees.

Many career officials viewed Linick as a dogged investigator of malfeasance who cultivated a reputation for diligence and relentlessness. But for the secretary’s handpicked advisers who found themselves on the wrong end of his investigations, the former prosecutor could be a source of frustration and embarrassment, said four U.S. officials familiar with the matter. Continue reading.

Trump ramps up retaliatory purge with firing of State Department inspector general

Washington Post logoPresident Trump accelerated his retaliatory purge of public servants by firing the State Department’s inspector general, who had played a minor role in the president’s impeachment proceedings and was said to have begun investigating alleged misconduct by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Acting on Pompeo’s recommendation, Trump abruptly terminated Steve A. Linick late Friday night, again challenging established norms of American governance in his push to rid the federal bureaucracy of officials he considers insufficiently loyal to or protective of him and his administration. Trump replaced Linick with Stephen J. Akard, a trusted ally of Vice President Pence and the diplomat who directs the Office of Foreign Missions. He also replaced the acting inspector general at the Department of Transportation on Friday night.

Inspectors general serve as internal government watchdogs conducting oversight of federal agencies — and although they technically are political appointees, their independence has long been protected. Trump’s move — his fourth such firing during the coronavirus pandemic — drew swift condemnations from Democrats and at least one Republican on Capitol Hill. Continue reading.

Trump’s slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general

Washington Post logoThe Friday news dump — also known as the Friday night news dump — is a political trick with plenty of precedent. Wait till the vast majority of the news business clocks out for on the week, and announce something you’d rather they not cover as much. People won’t be reading as much news at that point anyway, and perhaps it’ll be dismissed as old news by Monday morning.

Few are as blatant about using this tactic, though, as the Trump White House.

News broke late Friday night that Trump had removed the inspector general for the State Department, Steve Linick. It’s the third time in six weeks that such a move has been announced on a Friday night, with each inspector general having done something to pretty obviously alienate Trump. The unprecedented spate of removals has reinforced how Trump is rather obviously seeking to undermine independent oversight of his administration — and the timing of each of them only reinforces that. Continue reading.

Appeals court rejects Trump effort to throw out emoluments case

The Hill logoA federal appeals court on Thursday ruled against President Trump, refusing to throw out a lawsuit alleging that he’s violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses.

The decision from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals keeps the case alive, rejecting the president’s efforts to preserve immunity from the suit, which was filed by the attorneys general from Washington, D.C., and Maryland.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case against Trump.

The majority in the 9-6 decision dismissed his lawyers’ argument that violations of the constitutional provisions are not grounds for a lawsuit. Continue reading.

Supreme Court divided over fight for Trump’s financial records

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared divided over President Trump’s assertion that the broad powers he enjoys as the nation’s chief executive override subpoenas for his financial records and tax returns.

Trump’s standoff with a trio of Democratic-led House committees and Manhattan prosecutors over his financial paper trail saw the justices raise divergent concerns about presidential immunity, congressional oversight and the power of prosecutors to gather evidence linked to a sitting president.

The first argument in Tuesday’s pair of overlapping cases concerned a slate of congressional subpoenas issued to Trump’s accountants and banks. Continue reading.

Supreme Court could reshape congressional subpoena power in Trump case

The case is a microcosm of the rancorous partisan divide in Washington

President Donald Trump and House Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but both sides will tell the Supreme Court during oral arguments Tuesday that the fate of four committee subpoenas could redraw the limits of congressional investigative power.

Trump’s personal lawyers and the Justice Department have warned the justices that Congress needs to be stopped. They say lower court rulings that allow the House to demand Trump’s personal and business financial information from an auditing firm and two banks will open up a new political weapon for Congress to harass a president and keep him from doing his job.

“This would grant Congress easy access to, among other things, the President’s financial, legal, medical, and educational records,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Given the temptation to investigate the personal lives of political rivals, legislative subpoenas targeting the private affairs of presidents will become routine in times of divided government.” Continue reading.