Judge Walton's opinion pulls no punches. He finds that "the Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report." (Judge Walton is hardly alone in this assessment; Mueller himself castigated Barr for "not fully captur[ing] the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.") The judge notes Barr's "lack of candor" which "call[s] into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and in turn, the Department's representation" that it had properly redacted the Mueller report in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before the Court.
The Justice Department released a statement taking issue with the judge's ruling, noting that its attorneys worked with Mueller's team to redact the report. But it completely misses the point. Judge Walton criticizes Barr not for the redactions made to the Mueller report, but rather for Barr's misleading public comments about it. The Justice Department is silent on this issue.
Having already trashed Barr's credibility, Judge Walton then turned his fire on Barr's lack of political independence, noting that Barr's public "inconsistencies" with the Mueller report -- at a time when the public did not have access to the report itself -- "cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump..."
For a former Justice Department prosecutor like myself, this is a jaw-dropper. Not only does a Republican-nominated federal judge call out Barr for fudging the truth, but he further questions whether Barr did it to protect the President -- precisely the opposite of what the Justice Department is, and should be, about.
Judge Walton's scathing decision has led to a humiliating result not just for Barr but for the entire Justice Department. In a FOIA lawsuit, a judge typically defers heavily to the Department to make necessary and appropriate redactions to any materials before they are released to the public. Here, however, Judge Walton has essentially said: I don't trust you to do this honestly, so I'll have to babysit you and review your work first. (Fool me once...)
A ruling like Judge Walton's would derail the career of any line-level prosecutor. In my 14 years as a federal and state prosecutor, neither I nor any of my hundreds of colleagues were ever called out anywhere near so bluntly and forcefully by a judge. Judge Walton's powerful words confirm what thousands of former Justice Department prosecutors and officials (including me) already firmly believe: Barr is unfit to serve as Attorney General.
Now, your questions:
Shannon (Oregon): The Supreme Court is considering a Louisiana state law that greatly restricts access to abortion. How do you see the Court ruling, and what does this case mean for the future of abortion rights in the United States?
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week on a Louisiana law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Proponents of the Louisiana law argue that it promotes legitimate health and safety concerns because an abortion patient might experience complications and need to be admitted quickly to a nearby hospital. Opponents respond that the law unduly restricts access to abortion, noting that it would leave only one doctor in the entire state licensed to provide abortions.
The Louisiana law is virtually identical to a Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 by a five-to-three vote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stepehen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan and Anthony Kennedy voted to strike down the Texas law, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voted to uphold it (Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, had not yet been replaced on the Court).
But since then, the composition of the Court has changed. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a staunch conservative, has filled Scalia's vacancy. And Kennedy -- who voted to strike down the Texas law -- has retired and been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also a conservative who, as a court of appeals judge, wrote a dissent in a case that granted broader access to abortions.
If the court's voting alignment remains the same as in the Texas case, but Gorsuch and Kavanaugh join with Roberts, Alito and Thomas, then the Court will uphold the Louisiana law. This ruling in itself would not overturn Roe v. Wade and would not spell the end of abortion in the United States, but it would set a precedent allowing individual states to pass new laws that severely restrict access for women seeking abortions.
Richard (New Jersey): As candidates for president drop out of the race, what can they do with any remaining donor money contributed to their campaign?
In just the past 10 days, Democratic presidential candidates Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren have bowed out of the race.
The first and most essential rule: no personal use of campaign funds. Candidates cannot drop out of the race and use their leftover war chest to buy yachts or jewelry or anything else for their personal use. Incredibly -- or perhaps not given the nature of politics -- this prohibition did not become law until the late 1980s; before then, politicians could take their remaining money and do whatever they wanted with it.
Once a candidate drops out of the presidential race, he or she can refund donations to individual donors. Or the former candidate can donate remaining funds to a charity or a political party committee, without limits. The former candidate also can donate to other candidates, up to a $2,000 limit. Or the candidate can donate to his or her own future campaign. So, if a presidential candidate drops out of the race and runs for Congress or governor instead, he or she can use any remaining presidential campaign money to help fund the new campaign instead.
The wealthy, self-financed candidates like Steyer and Bloomberg are subject to the same contribution limits as any private person. For example, they can donate up to $2,800 to each candidate's campaign. But private citizens, including billionaires, can donate unlimited amounts to Super PACS (Political Action Committees), so long as the Super PAC does not coordinate with the candidate's own campaign committee.
Barry (Missouri): Can a president pardon a person before that person has been charged with a crime or convicted?
A president cannot pardon a person for some unknown, future conduct -- in other words, a president cannot issue a pardon today saying, "I pardon this person for something he might do in the future." But a president can issue a pardon for a person's past conduct even before that person has been formally charged or convicted of a crime.
Most famously, for example, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, President Richard Nixon, in 1974, shortly after Nixon's resignation but before Nixon was ever charged with any crime relating to Watergate (or anything else). In 1977, President Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers as a group, many of whom had never been charged with crimes. And in 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned former Confederate soldiers, most of whom had not been criminally charged.
Three questions to watch:
1. Will the Supreme Court take the case relating to the administration's "Wait in Mexico" asylum policy?
2. Will the DC Court of Appeals decide to re-hear the Don McGahn decision "en banc" (a decision made by all the judges of the court)?
3. What information did the Justice Department redact from the Mueller report?
"Opinion" - Google News
March 09, 2020 at 07:56PM
https://ift.tt/2vQAXcI
Judge's blistering opinion reveals William Barr's unfitness - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment