Connect with us

News

Dems to Kavanaugh: If we lose, you must recuse … on Mueller

Published

on

Senate Democrats signaled yesterday that Brett Kavanaugh should prepare for the kitchen-sink treatment with a ridiculous demand for a recusal. Earlier, some Democrats had seized on an article written by Kavanaugh arguing that Congress should pass a law to grant limited immunity from prosecutors to sitting presidents, thanks to lessons learned from Kavanaugh’s time on Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation. Now, at least two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee say they will demand that Kavanaugh pledge to recuse himself from all matters connection to Robert Mueller’s investigation:

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday they intend to ask Brett Kavanaugh to step aside from any future cases involving Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Donald Trump if he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court.

The recusal requests stem in large part from a 2009 law review article that Kavanaugh wrote suggesting that Congress take up legislation “exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation.” Given that the Supreme Court ultimately could rule on several high-profile issues related to the special counsel’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia, Democrats will press Kavanaugh to commit to stepping aside.

“I don’t think he should be on the court, and you can be sure that me and my colleagues on the Democratic side are going to be asking if he will recuse himself, should he be confirmed,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), considered a potential Trump challenger in 2020, told reporters.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), another member of the Judiciary panel, agreed that Kavanaugh should recuse himself from any cases “that involve President Trump’s personal financial dealings or the special counsel.”

Chuck Schumer went even further, accusing Kavanaugh of being the candidate Trump though “would best protect him from the Mueller investigation.” There are only two problems with this argument: Kavanaugh didn’t argue that the courts had any role in the question, and there is no conflict of interest.

Let’s start with the law-review article from 2009, written long after the Starr investigation wrapped up and the impeachment of Bill Clinton took place. Kavanaugh noted that the impeachment actually got prompted by a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal investigation, and called into question whether presidents should be subject to the potential for legal harassment. In the absence of statute to the contrary, the courts correctly allowed Paula Jones’ lawsuit to proceed, Kavanaugh argued. But, Kavanaugh continued, that should have prompted Congress to act:

With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones — that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits — may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military. Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.

Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President. In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, ‘no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated — whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.’ The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Democrats want to argue that this indicates that a Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would shut down a special counsel prosecution, but that’s not what Kavanaugh wrote. He instead argued that Congress should provide that immunity, and that absent such action, the courts would have to allow those lawsuits and prosecutions to proceed. It’s a deliberate misreading for which the Washington Post fact-checking team awards two Pinocchios, bordering on three:

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, wrote that Kavanaugh might be saying “the president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t.” (Emphasis ours.)

Feldman wrote that “from a legal and constitutional perspective, Kavanaugh wasn’t saying that the courts should find that the president shouldn’t be investigated or indicted.” “To the contrary,” he wrote. “He was saying that Congress should pass a law ensuring that result, because without it, the president was open to being investigated — and maybe even indicted.” …

Kavanaugh’s articles from 1998 and 2009 are no smoking-gun evidence that he would vote to dismiss an indictment against Trump, should one ever be filed. Although he clearly believes it’s a bad idea to indict a sitting president, Kavanaugh never states his view whether the Constitution allows it. In fact, he says Congress should pass legislation to ensure the president is immune from civil and criminal proceedings while in office. As Feldman writes, Kavanaugh’s 2009 article can be read as a signal that he might uphold a presidential indictment unless Congress changes the law.

We don’t mean to split hairs by analyzing whether Kavanaugh believes something “can’t” or “shouldn’t” happen, but in the legal arena, this distinction matters. Kavanaugh’s stated views on this question don’t go as far as Fallon, Maloney and Ocasio-Cortez claimed. Their tweets merit Two Pinocchios, although we considered giving Three. To say Kavanaugh is Trump’s “get-out-of-jail free card” is an extreme distortion of what he’s written.

 With that in mind, let’s turn to the bad case of Recusal Fever that afflicts Senate Democrats. Judicial recusals are rare, especially at the Supreme Court, and always involve a specific and clear conflict of interest. Elena Kagan had to recuse herself from several cases in her first couple of years because of her work on them as a member of the Obama administration. Cases in which a justice has a financial interest could trigger a recusal. In all cases involving Supreme Court justices, it’s up to the individual justice as to whether a conflict of interest rises to the level of recusal as balanced against the interest of the American public in having all nine justices working on the important issues that reach that court.

None of that applies to Kavanaugh in this instance. He has done no work on the Mueller investigation, nor did he do any work for Donald Trump either before, during, or after the campaign. Democrats are ginning up a connection to Mueller in an attempt to smear Kavanaugh, in part by deliberately distorting Kavanaugh’s advice to Congress on the potential for limited presidential immunity, six years before Trump ever decided to run for office.

The only recusals needed here are those by Booker, Blumenthal, Schumer, and anyone else who peddles this noxious nonsense.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Obama’s Former Director of National Intelligence Says Obama Behind Entire Russia Witch Hunt!

Published

on

By

Guest post by Joe Hoft

President Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, came clean on CNN and stated that former President Obama was behind spying on President Trump!

James Clapper was on CNN yesterday and he stated that Obama was behind spying on President Trump and all the corrupt and criminal actions involving the government, including the Mueller investigation –

According to Obama’s former spy chief, James Clapper, who appeared on CNN to say it was Obama who set the entire Russia witch-hunt into motion by tasking the intelligence community assessment.

Clapper said –

If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.  President Obama is responsible for that.  It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.

The cat is out of the bag.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Sunday morning talking heads

Published

on

By

It’s a special day on the Sunday shows when socialism’s new superstar drops by to show off her intellectual chops.

She’ll be on “Face the Nation” along with her idol, Bernie Sanders, as they campaign together in Kansas for a progressive Democrat running for Mike Pompeo’s old House seat. Why they’re wasting their time there, I have no idea: It’s a R+15 district. Presumably the idea is to draw big crowds so that other socialist candidates across the country can point to it and say, “See? Even in the heartland they want hard-leftism.”

Otherwise it’s likely to be wall-to-wall chatter about Trump and Putin today. Adam Schiff will be the lead guest on “This Week,” where he’ll say Adam-Schiff-type things about collusion and kompromat. The top-billed Republican, meanwhile, is Marco Rubio, who took some heat this week after claiming that he was satisfied with POTUS’s “I said ‘would’ when I meant to say ‘wouldn’t’” walkback of the Putin press conference. He’ll sit down with “Face the Nation” and “State of the Union” for some “Are you serious?” questions and will also likely be pressed on Trump’s commitment to NATO. Rubio’s a hawk of almost McCain-ian proportions, but unlike McCain he has a long career ahead of him potentially and therefore needs to stay on Trump’s good side. He’ll do his best this morning to be diplomatic with his criticism of the president’s NATO skepticism.

If you can stand it, John Kerry will also be on “Face the Nation” to condemn Trump for not showing as much strength towards an enemy as Kerry himself did with, er, Iran. The full line-up is at the AP.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

DEVELOPING: DOJ Releasing Docs Related to FISA Warrants on Carter Page

Published

on

By

On Friday, conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced documents related to the FISA warrants on Trump’s former campaign advisor, Carter Page were released by the FBI — and were on the way to JW headquarters.

Almost one year ago to the day, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ for the following documents:

Copies of all proposed and all final signed FISA applications submitted to the FISC relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election, allegations of collusion between people associated with the Trump campaign and Russia, and any known Trump associates regardless of context;

Copies of all FISC responses to the above-mentioned applications in which the Court notified the FBI or Justice Department that it would not grant the proposed applications or recommended changes. If any such FISC responses were provided orally, rather than in writing, please provide copies of FBI or Justice Department records memorializing or otherwise referencing the relevant FISC responses;

Copies of all FISC orders relating to the above mentioned applications, whether denying the applications and certifications, denying the orders, modifying the orders, granting the orders, or other types of orders.

Obama’s Deep State FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page in October of 2016 and three subsequent renewals in order to spy on Trump’s campaign and transition team.

Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and Sally Yates all signed the FISA applications even though Hillary’s fraudulent Russia dossier was used as a pretext to obtain the warrants.

“Judicial Watch may finally get the infamous spy warrants the Obama administration and Deep State used while conspiring with the Clinton campaign to target then-candidate and now President Trump. It took a year, but the stonewall and cover-up, we hope, begins to end today,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.


Tom Fitton updated and said the docs were Fed Ex’ed.

Fitton appeared on Fox News early Saturday morning to discuss the new development.

Tom Fitton expects the documents to have redactions, however he said on Fox News, “I suspect we’ll get more answers. We won’t get all the answers we want, so the fight will continue.”

VIDEO:

The new FISA warrant documents have not been released at the time of this publication, however; The Gateway Pundit will update as soon as the documents are available.

Update: Tom Fitton says he expects to receive the corrupt FISA docs by Monday.

You can support Judicial Watch by clicking here.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close