The Republican-controlled committee issued subpoenas for depositions with former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and eight former top law enforcement officials.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://apnews.com/article/epstein-trump-congress-subpoena-clintons-a02749e1fe6f0de0c385c7fac186d3ba

The post House committee issues subpoenas for Epstein files and depositions with the Clintons first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Attorney General Bill Barr clashed with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday over accusations that he is carrying out President Trump‘s political wishes, as he appeared for a long-awaited hearing where tensions also flared over protests and riots following George Floyd’s death in police custody.

The hearing, originally scheduled for 10 a.m. local time, was delayed after committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was in a car accident. Nadler did not suffer any injuries.

Once the hearing began, which lasted until mid-afternoon, Nadler did not hesitate to express his scorn for Barr and his Justice Department.

NADLER INVOLVED IN CAR ACCIDENT BUT UNHURT; BARR HEARING DELAYED

“Thank you for being here, Mr. Barr,” Nadler said with a note of sarcasm, pointing out that this was the attorney general’s first time appearing before the committee.

The chairman went on to claim that Barr and his department have “downplayed the effects of systemic racism” in the wake of Floyd’s death and ongoing protests.

Addressing the department’s approach to cases related to the Russia probe, Nadler summed up the DOJ’s attitude by claiming that “the president’s enemies will be punished, his friends will be protected,” no matter the cost, and saying that the DOJ’s actions have caused “real damage to our democratic norms.”

“In your time at the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president,” Nadler said.

Ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, fired back in his opening that Democrats’ hostility toward Barr is based on one thing: “Spying.”

Jordan said that Democrats took exception to Barr accusing the Obama administration of spying on the Trump campaign, despite evidence that has come out revealing flaws in the FBI’s process in acquiring a warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Jordan also pointed to evidence that the FBI engaged in questionable tactics in investigating Michael Flynn, whose criminal case the DOJ requested be dismissed. At another point in the hearing, Barr affirmed earlier reporting that he has appointed U.S. Attorney John Bash of the Western District of Texas to investigate the practice of “unmasking” Americans who have had conversations with foreign officials.

Jordan then addressed the ongoing unrest in the U.S., showing a lengthy montage of media clips that began with reporters calling the incidents “peaceful protests” and then going into a string of clips of violence and fires in various parts of the country.

Barr, speaking next with his opening remarks, did not shy away from Democrats’ accusations against him. He insisted that he acts independently of the president and that his goal is to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law.

He emphatically stated that Trump “has not attempted to interfere” in decisions regarding the handling of criminal matters.

DEM IMPEACHMENT LAWYER DINGS NADLER’S ‘INEFFECTIVE’ QUESTIONING OF BARR

“On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right,” he continued. “That is precisely what I have done.”

Barr also addressed the racial tension following Floyd’s death. While acknowledging the tragedy, he defended the criminal justice system by arguing that in the past 50 years progress has been made and that any racism on the part of individual officers is not due to “some deep-seated racism generally infecting our police departments.” He noted that “[p]olice forces today are far more diverse than ever before.”

BARR SAYS LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR YOUNG BLACK MALES IS HOMICIDE: ‘THOSE LIVES MATTER’

The attorney general responded by recent calls to defund police as “grossly irresponsible.”

Barr also spoke out against “violent rioters and anarchists” that he said have “hijacked legitimate protests,” specifically mentioning the ongoing unrest in Portland as an example.

The Trump administration has been blasted in the media for sending federal officers in to quell the unrest, but Barr defended the effort, arguing that these are not peaceful protests, but “an assault on the Government of the United States.” He described the weapons that some demonstrators have used and noted that a federal courthouse has been under siege.

The tension only escalated once the questioning began, with Nadler implying that Barr was using federal forces responding to unrest to provide material to aid Trump’s campaign.

When asked if he has discussed the campaign with Trump, Barr answered sharply, stating, “I’m a member of the Cabinet and there’s an election going on, obviously the topic comes up,” adding that “it shouldn’t be a surprise.”

Nadler later accused Barr of using federal forces to provide Trump with footage for campaign ads. When Barr tried to respond and say that he was not using federal law enforcement to help Trump’s campaign, Nadler spoke over him.

Later in the hearing, Barr got an opportunity to explain federal activities in Portland.

PROTESTS FLARE UP IN TEMPE, ARIZ. AND AUSTIN, TEXAS – AS PORTLAND SEES 61ST CONSECUTIVE NIGHT OF UNREST

“Federal courts are under attack. Since when is it OK to burn down a federal court?” Barr said.

He said: “If someone went down the street to the Prettyman Court here, that beautiful courthouse we have right at the bottom of the hill and started breaking windows and firing industrial-grade fireworks in to start a fire, throw kerosene balloons in and start fires in the court, is that OK? Is that OK now? No, the U.S. Marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse, and that’s what we are doing in Portland. We are at the courthouse, defending the courthouse.”

“We are not out looking for trouble.”

At another point in the hearing, Barr lamented that only one political party seemed to be sticking up for federal property and condemning mobs.

“What makes me concerned for the country is this is the first time in my memory that the leaders of one of our two great political parties, the democratic party are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attack on federal courts,” Barr said. “Why can’t we just say, you know, violence against federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that?”

Barr also had an opportunity to explain his positions in the Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases, and launched an impassioned defense against the accusations that he has treated the president’s friends with particular and improper favor and gone after his enemies.

“What enemies have I indicted?” Barr asked.

He then turned to the cases involving Trump’s associates.

“The cases that are cited, the Stone case and the Flynn case, are both cases where I determined that some intervention was necessary to rectify the rule of law, to make sure people are treated the same,” Barr said.

“Stone was prosecuted under me. And I said all along I thought that was a righteous prosecution, I thought he should go to jail, and I thought the judge’s sentence was correct,” he continued. “But the line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone in a similar position had ever served, and this was a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence. And they were trying to put him in jail for seven to nine years. And I wasn’t going to advocate that, because that is not the rule of law.”

Barr said: “I agree the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks but they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people and sometimes that’s a difficult decision to make, especially when you know you’re going to be castigated for it.”

AG BARR DECRIES ‘LAWLESS, EVIL ACTION’ AFTER SHOOTING ATTACK OF FEDERAL JUDGE’S SON, HUSBAND

Later in the hearing, Barr touched on the Flynn case, noting that the case against him warranted dismissal in light of exculpatory evidence surrounding his initial FBI interview, which had recently become public. This included notes that indicated that federal agents may have been trying to get Flynn to lie so that he could be prosecuted.

“The interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation,” Barr said.

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., called into question Barr’s claim that there is no inherent racism in the American justice system, pointing to Barr’s own department as evidence to support his claim.

“The one thing that you have in common with your two predecessors, both Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions and [acting] Attorney General [Matt] Whitaker, is that when you all came here and brought your top staff, you brought no black people,” Richmond said. “That, sir, is systematic racism. That is exactly what John Lewis spent his life-fighting.”

Early in his opening statement, Barr paid his respects to Lewis, who was a champion of civil rights. Richmond did not appreciate the kind words.

“You really should keep the name of the Honorable John Lewis out of the Department of Justice’s mouth,” Richmond said.

Richmond also brought up an issue that Democrats have raised, regarding whether or not the president would leave office if he loses November’s election. Trump himself has refused to state whether he would accept the election results, claiming that the election would be rigged by a Democratic push for mail-in voting.

When asked if an election result could be contested, Barr pointed to 2000’s Gore v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene before an outcome was finalized. When asked if the president could contest the election if the result is not close, Barr said, “Not that I’m aware of.”

Barr said that he has no reason to believe that the election will be rigged, although he did state that mail-in voting exposes the system to a high risk of fraud.

The hearing was also full of tension between Barr and Democratic lawmakers as they fought to speak over one another. The questioning from Reps. Lou Correa, D-Calif., and Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., became particularly heated as kept trying to respond to their comments.

“This is a hearing,” Barr said. “I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard?”

Jordan came to Barr’s defense when he questioned Nadler on why he was permitting Democratic lawmakers to interrupt the attorney general and not let him respond to questions.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“For months you’ve tried to get the attorney to come,” Jordan told Nadler. “He’s here. Why don’t you let him speak? Why don’t you let him answer the questions?”

Jordan continued: “If you want the attorney general to come at least let him answer the accusations made against him…Time after time you refuse to let the attorney general answer the questions posed to him.”

Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-testifies-before-house-judiciary-committee-maintains-independence-from-trump

The post Barr spars with Dems on Trump ties, riots at fiery House hearing first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could pave the way to the Justice Department carrying out the first execution of federal death row inmates since 2003, although other issues remain to be litigated.

The two judges in the majority, Greg Katsas, and Neomi Rao were both appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump. The dissenting judge, David Tatel, was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The post U.S. appeals court hands win to Trump plan to resume federal executions first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump, now sounding a cautionary note about “civil war,” is obviously at the white-hot center of the impeachment drama, just as he’s been at the center of American political and cultural warfare for four years.

But others in his inner circle are now being pulled, almost by magnetic force, onto the battlefield.

Mike Pompeo is the latest the find himself in the line of fire, in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story and other revelations.

The secretary of state hit back hard yesterday, tweeting that House Democrats are trying to “bully” and “intimidate” the State Department with deposition demands and he “will not tolerate such tactics.”

IS IMPEACHMENT AN ELITIST MOVE THAT SHIFTS POWER FROM THE VOTERS?

The Journal’s lead story said Pompeo was among the officials who listened in on Trump’s now-famous July 25 call with Ukraine’s leader, in which the president asked for help in investigating Joe Biden and his son.

Television has had a field day replaying a Pompeo interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who asked him point-blank, “What do you know about these conversations?”

Pompeo haltingly evaded the question: “So, you just gave me a report about an IC whistle-blower complaint, none of which I’ve seen.” When she followed up with “you say you know nothing about this,” Pompeo said he thought he saw a statement from the Ukrainian foreign minister that there was no pressure from Trump on the call.

So the secretary obviously knew all about the call and studiously tried to avoid saying so on “This Week.”

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF OF THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

William Barr has also been pulled deeper into the drama. The attorney general was already been reported to have been surprised and angry that the president told Volodymyr Zelensky on the call to work with him on further investigation.

Now there’s a new country involved: The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump “pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call.” (An Australian diplomat had discussed Russia and Hillary with since-convicted Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos.) The AG also met with Italian officials last week.

Barr is, therefore, a crucial partner as Trump uses “federal law enforcement powers to aid his political prospects, settle scores with his perceived ‘deep state’ enemies and show that the Mueller investigation had corrupt, partisan origins,” says the Times.

Still, there’s video of Trump saying he wanted Barr to aid in the probe of the origins of the Russia investigation, so this was not a state secret.

The third major player now is Rudy Giuliani, who is taking issue with House subpoenas “signed only by Democrat Chairs.” (That is routine, as it was when Republican House chairmen signed subpoenas during the Benghazi probe.)

Giuliani, of course, has been a near-daily presence on television, defending his role in privately meeting with Ukrainian officials and doggedly trying to shift the spotlight to allegations of wrongdoing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ALL-NEW FOXBUSINESS.COM

Giuliani’s combative interviews prompted the Biden campaign to ask the networks to stop putting him on and allowing him to spew lies. This was a Hail Mary pass that would obviously be swatted down, and an effort to generate some anti-Rudy headlines.

Not only would no network let a campaign dictate its bookings, but numerous anchors have aggressively challenged Giuliani on the air. In fact, some Democrats like Rudy on television because they think his sometimes heated style hurts Trump.

In a separate story, the Journal reports that Barr at times has been critical of Giuliani’s efforts, and that Trump, while appreciating his TV combat role, has occasionally mocked his personal lawyer.

Of course, there are also Democrats who have been given starring roles in the impeachment drama. One is Nancy Pelosi, who was just on “60 Minutes,” and has been saying she’s “sad” and “heartbroken” over impeachment in an attempt to tone down the rhetoric.

Another is Adam Schiff, the House Intel chairman, who made the mistake of exaggerating Trump’s Ukraine call in a hearing during what he now calls mockery. Trump has repeatedly questioned on Twitter why Schiff hasn’t been questioned for fraud and treason. (Treason?)

And, of course, the Bidens. Tucker Carlson’s show obtained a 2014 photo of the then-vice president and his son playing golf in the Hamptons with a board member of the Ukrainian gas giant that employed Hunter Biden. This obviously raises questions about Joe Biden’s contention that he did nothing to help his son in Ukraine and that they never discussed the matter.

Finally, there’s the unknown whistle-blower, who Trump has accused of sparking a “Democratic hoax” and whose lawyer says his life may be in jeopardy.

By setting their sights on two Trump Cabinet members and his lawyer, House Democrats have given themselves more targets. But they also risk muddying the narrative and allowing these Trump confidants to delay the investigation into next year’s campaign.

The post All the president’s men now being dragged into the impeachment drama first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

FILE – In this April 18, 2019, file photo, Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington. Barr is taking aim judges who issue rulings blocking nationwide policies. Barr is speaking May 21 to the American Law Institute. He says judges who issue these so-called nationwide injunctions are hampering President Donald Trump’s agenda. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The post AG Barr Says Nationwide Rulings Are Hampering Trump’s Agenda first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Ronna McDaniel: Democrats owe President Trump an apology first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The post Mueller found no collusion between Trump and Russia: AG Barr first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WASHINGTON — For President Trump, it may have been the best day of his tenure so far. The darkest, most ominous cloud hanging over his presidency was all but lifted on Sunday with the release of the special counsel’s conclusions, which undercut the threat of impeachment and provided him with a powerful boost for the final 22 months of his term.

There are still other clouds overhead and no one outside the Justice Department has actually read the report by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, which may yet disclose damning information if made public. But the end of the investigation without findings of collusion with Russia fortified the president for the battles to come, including his campaign for re-election.

While critics will still argue about whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice, the president quickly claimed vindication and Republican allies pounced on their Democratic colleagues for what they called an unrelenting partisan campaign against him. Even as his own party’s congressional leaders called on the country to move on, however, the president indicated that he may not be ready to, denouncing the very existence of Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “an illegal take down that failed” and calling for a counter investigation into how it got started.

Emboldened and angry, the president can now proceed with his administration without the distraction of new search warrants and indictments by Mr. Mueller’s team or the worry that the special counsel might charge Mr. Trump’s family members or even uncover a smoking gun that would prove that his campaign collaborated with the Russian government to elect him in 2016. The questions about the Kremlin’s election interference that dogged the president almost everywhere he went may soon fade, even as other investigators continue to look into other allegations.

Mr. Mueller’s team confirmed that Russia did try to tilt the election to Mr. Trump, but its conclusion that he did not conspire with the effort may ease the way for Mr. Trump to reorient American foreign policy toward Moscow and its strongman president, Vladimir V. Putin, without as much concern about domestic consequences. And it may give renewed confidence to Mr. Trump, who has complained that his dealings with world leaders have been hobbled by their uncertainty about whether he would survive the investigation.

The end of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry also left Democrats on the defensive and will force them to decide how vigorously to continue pursuing allegations of misconduct by the president and his allies, including many that were unexamined by the special counsel, whose mandate was limited to Russia’s interference in the election and any possible obstruction of justice resulting from it.

While Mr. Trump claimed that Mr. Mueller’s findings were “a complete and total exoneration,” Mr. Mueller explicitly said they were not. Although he did not establish a conspiracy with Russia, Mr. Mueller made no determination when it came to obstruction of justice. “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” he wrote, according to the Justice Department summary sent to Congress.

Instead, according to the summary, Mr. Mueller laid out various actions by Mr. Trump that could be seen as obstruction, letting others decide whether they added up to that. William P. Barr, the attorney general recently appointed by Mr. Trump after drafting a private memo expressing doubt that the president could be accused of obstructing justice for exercising his constitutional power, concluded on Sunday that they did not.

But the House, controlled by Democrats, has the power under the Constitution to decide for itself whether the president’s actions constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors” that justify impeachment, and it could interpret Mr. Mueller’s evidence the other way once it sees it.

The next phase of the story, then, will be the fight by House Democrats to force Mr. Barr to turn over Mr. Mueller’s full report and accompanying evidence, a constitutional battle that could ultimately be resolved in the courts.

Until they read the report for themselves, Democrats are hardly going to agree that the president has been cleared. And they will most likely summon Mr. Mueller to testify, which could provide a public airing of Mr. Trump’s actions that, even if not rising to a crime, may not reflect well on the president.

Still, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said that she did not favor impeachment unless the evidence was “so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan,” a standard that seems even less likely to be met now.

Either way, Mr. Mueller’s investigation has taken its toll on this presidency, leading to indictments, convictions or guilty pleas for a half-dozen of Mr. Trump’s associates, including his campaign chairman and national security adviser, and spawning offshoot investigations. In any other administration, that record alone would be enough to seriously damage a president.

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. Mr. Trump has denounced Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “an illegal take down that failed.”Credit Tasos Katopodis – Getty Images

Moreover, as Mr. Mueller closes up shop, federal, state and congressional investigators are still examining Mr. Trump’s business, his finances, his inaugural committee and his associates.

The post A Cloud Over Trump’s Presidency Is Lifted first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

On Thursday, after months of foot-dragging and threats of subpoena and impeachment, the Justice Department finally handed over to Congress memos written by former FBI Director James Comey. They contain no bombshell revelations; rather they provide greater details of Comey’s meetings and conversations with President Donald Trump. And as Trump expressed via his favorite social media site, “James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?”

So what do we learn from the Comey memos? First, Trump is correct that there is nothing in them that supports any suspicion of Russian collusion. In fact, what may be most revealing about the memos is just how little support Comey was willing to offer Trump. For example, Comey brought to Trump’s attention the dubious and salacious dossier, ostensibly in order to warn the president about its existence, not because Comey was saying it was true. However, Comey failed — over multiple meetings — to inform Trump that the dossier had been paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Clearly, from the very beginning Comey chose to view Trump as a potential criminal suspect rather than president-elect, even though he had no solid evidence supporting this suspicion.

Second, it’s clear from the earliest meeting that Trump desired to work with and trust Comey. Trump expressed sympathy for the “impossible positions” Comey was in during the campaign, obviously alluding to the Clinton email investigation. It’s not until later meetings that Trump brought up “loyalty,” which Comey found so off-putting, even though we now learn that he essentially agreed to “honest loyalty.” Why would Trump have felt the need to question Comey on his loyalty? The answer seems obvious — Trump sensed (correctly, as it turns out) that Comey was not on board with his presidency and was seeking to determine if he could trust his subordinate.

Finally, as has been the case before, these memos reveal more about Comey’s character than they do Trump’s. Specifically, in the second meeting Comey had with Trump on Jan. 28, 2017, the president expressed concerns about stopping leaks and appeared to press Comey on his reliability. Comey wrote, “I explained that he could count on me to always tell him the truth. I said I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves. But I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in that traditional political sense.” No leaks? No weasel moves? One wonders if Comey was lying at the time or changed his mind later.

The memos add more weight to the conclusion that the former FBI director was a political hack. Comey chose to follow his personal high-minded “values” rather than the Rule of Law, and in so doing he justified decisions aimed at undercutting support for the president. Comey admitted as much in his Senate hearing after having been fired. Comey confessed to leaking to the press, stating, “I woke up in the middle of the night Monday [thinking] that there might be corroboration for our conversation. And my judgement was that I needed to get that out in the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of [my memos] with a reporter.” Trump was the only president for whom he felt he needed to keep his own memos. Why? Comey was clearly opposed to Trump and thought it might come in handy one day to have a record of his side of the story to use against the president.

On a final note, Comey’s oft-repeated refrain that he wanted to guard the integrity of and public trust in the FBI rings hollow. His decisions and actions indicate a man more focused on promoting his own partisan desires than objectively enforcing the Rule of Law no matter who was in office.

Source: https://patriotpost.us/articles/55489-comeys-memos-prove-to-exonerate-trump

The post Comey’s Memos Prove to Exonerate Trump first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn and President Donald Trump are pictured during the presidential campaign in New Hampshire in September 2016. At least two Republican senators have urged Trump not to pardon him. | AP Photo

After months of criticizing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, President Donald Trump’s supporters are issuing increasingly bold calls for presidential pardons to limit the investigation’s impact.

“I think he should be pardoning anybody who’s been indicted and make it clear that anybody else who gets indicted would be pardoned immediately,” said Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and senior vice president at the conservative Center for Security Policy.

“It’s kind of cruel what’s going on right now and the president should put these defendants out of their misery,” said Larry Klayman, a conservative legal activist. “I think he should pardon everybody — and pardon himself.”

Klayman and Fleitz spoke before Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals on Friday for staging an elaborate 2016 election interference operation in the United States. Democratic leaders said the hard evidence of Russian meddling underscores the importance of letting Mueller’s investigation run its course.

But many conservatives note that the new indictment shows no evidence of collusion between Trump associates and the Kremlin. That reinforces their view that Mueller’s real target, if any, should be Russian President Vladimir Putin — not Trump’s circle. “[H]ow long will the leftist witch hunt against @RealDonaldTrump continue,” the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., tweeted hours after the indictment’s release.

And while the latest indictment could make it harder than ever for Trump to fire Mueller, as he has sought to before, mass pardons would be another means of defying the special counsel.

A president has the Constitutional power to pardon any citizen convicted of a federal crime, ending any prison sentence and clearing his or her record with the stroke of a pen. Pardons face no judicial or Congressional review, and the president is not obliged to explain his decision. The act of a president pardoning himself, however, has never been tested.

Some Democrats are taking all the possibilities seriously.

“Doling out presidential pardons to try to cover up any collusion or obstruction of justice is unacceptable and will be met with furious resistance across the country,” Patty Murray, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said during a floor speech earlier this month.

Last fall, several dozen House Democrats co-sponsored a largely symbolic resolution expressing disapproval for the prospect of Trump pardoning himself or any of his family members. They’ve also been asking without success for Judiciary Committee oversight hearings on the issue.

So far, the talk of pardons has mostly centered around Flynn, whose clemency Trump did not rule out in a brief mid-December exchange with reporters. “I don’t want to talk about pardons with Michael Flynn yet. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said.

That “yet” was music to the ears of Flynn’s supporters and family members, many of whom have taken to social media to build support for pardoning the retired Army lieutenant general who pleaded guilty in December to Mueller’s team for lying to the FBI.

“About time you pardoned General Flynn who has taken the biggest fall for all of you given the illegitimacy of this confessed crime in the wake of all this corruption,” Flynn’s brother, Joseph Flynn, wrote in a mid-December tweet. “Pardon Flynn NOW!” he added in a later message.

During a video interview with the prominent alt-right activist Jack Posobiec at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C., last week, Flynn’s outspoken adult son, Michael Flynn Jr., encouraged viewers to promote online messages calling for his father’s exoneration and pardon.

“Just keep pushing out those hashtags, the ‘#ClearFlynnNow’ and the ‘#PardonFlynnNow,” Flynn Jr., said.

Tom Fitton, president of the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, said that allegations of anti-Trump bias among Justice Department and FBI officials circulated by conservatives would justify granting clemency to Trump associates like Flynn.

“The whole super structure of the Russia investigation is compromised,” Fitton said. “Those caught up in it deserve some protection. Rather than just let the virus run its course, it’d be appropriate for the president to consider pardons for people who are caught up in the prosecution.”

Trump’s lawyers and aides insist it’s premature to discuss even the possibility of pardons. “There have been no pardon discussions at the White House,” Ty Cobb, the White House attorney who leads the president’s official response to the Russia investigation, told POLITICO on Friday just hours before Mueller’s latest indictment was released.

After the Washington Post reported in July that Trump had tasked his aides with researching his pardon powers, Trump dismissed the story — while also making clear his view of the law.

“While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS,” Trump tweeted.

Attorneys for Flynn, Flynn Jr. and Gates declined comment. Lawyers for Manafort and Papadopoulos did not respond to requests for comment.

Presidential pardons or other acts of mercy can be highly controversial — and typically occur at the end of a president’s term.

President Barack Obama was criticized for commuting the 35-year prison sentence of Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables and military reports to WikiLeaks.

Siding against his own vice president, President George W. Bush denied a pardon for former White House staffer I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted for obstructing a federal investigation into the leaked identity of a CIA operative, though Bush did commute Libby’s prison sentence.

Perhaps most famously, in September 1974, President Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned the man he replaced in the Oval Office, Richard Nixon, who resigned rather than face impeachment over the Watergate scandal. Nixon had also stepped down just days after an opinion from his acting attorney general, Mary C. Lawton, found that “under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”

Explaining the Nixon pardon, Ford cited a need for the country to avoid “prolonged and divisive debate” that would accompany the criminal trial of the former Republican president that many expected. He also decreed that his pardon would cover all federal crimes that Nixon “committed or may have committed or taken part in” as president.

Critics were furious at the move, which a New York Times editorial declared a “profoundly unwise, divisive, and unjust act.”

A federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to Ford’s pardon the next year, citing an 1867 Supreme Court decision during the Andrew Johnson administration which held that presidents have “unlimited” pardoning power. “It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment,” the justice writing for the 5-4 majority wrote.

Some conservatives want Trump to heed those words. In an Oct. 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed column — published on the eve of Mueller’s first indictments against Manafort and Gates and the release of the Papadopoulos guilty plea — two conservative lawyers called on Trump to “end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion with Russia or Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign… and to anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office.”

“The president himself would be covered by the blanket pardon we recommend,” wrote the lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, veterans of the White House counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. They argued that Russian election interference is a matter for a Congressional investigation, not a criminal one.

At a mid-November hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) grilled Attorney General Jeff Sessions on whether he thinks Trump can pardon former aides and family members even before they might be convicted of — or even charged with — crimes. Sessions declined to answer beyond saying that “the president has the power to pardon, no doubt about that.”

“We should be worried if you are telling us the president should be able to pardon in advance all of those being investigated,” Deutch replied.

Trump has issued one pardon since taking office, to the controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was facing criminal contempt of court charges for defying a court order to stop profiling Latinos.

That August action, in the face of strong political opposition, makes some conservatives think that Trump would be willing to defy his critics again. “He did it for Sheriff Joe, so I’m thinking he would do it for other circumstances as well,” Fitton said.

There has been little sign of Congressional Republican support for the idea of pardons. In the days after Flynn pleaded guilty, South Carolina Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott both urged Trump not to pardon Flynn. Scott said it is important to have accountability and “a process that is clear and transparent.”

Pardons would also come at a high political cost, former George W. Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. “It’d just raise even more questions about Donald Trump if he pardons those closest to him because people will think he’s trying to protect himself.”

“You should let justice run its course,” he added.

Even some conservatives who support pardons in principle are wary of the severe political backlash they are certain to trigger. Mike Cernovich, a conservative activist who has been affiliated with the alt-right but rejects that label, said he believes the moment for pardons has passed and that Trump needs to wait until after the November mid-term elections.

“If the Democrats take over, pardon everyone,” Cernovich said. “They’re coming for you anyway. They have their nuke with impeachment. You have your nuke with pardons. And then settle in for an interesting two years.”

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-russia-pardons-mueller-flynn-417094

The post Conservatives urge Trump to grant pardons in Russia probe first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.