2 - White House News in Chinese (weebly.com)
Just a part of the White House, now.
Justice Department Independence? Not With Trump
The nonpartisan Office of Legal Counsel appears to be working closely with the president’s personal lawyers.
Jan 22 - President Donald Trump’s legal defense is putting a lot of weight on a brand-new memo from the Office of Legal Counsel. In fact, the memo appears to have been written specifically as part of the president’s defense strategy. That’s noteworthy because the OLC is part of the Department of Justice: It’s supposed to be legally independent, not partisan, and certainly not part of the president’s defense team.
The memo’s reasoning borders on egregious. It concocts a technicality to invalidate the subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives during the impeachment inquiry, making it somehow legitimate for Trump to have obstructed Congress — the basis of one of the articles of impeachment the president faces.
And then there’s the timing of the memo. It’s dated January 19, 2020, two days before the impeachment trial was slated to begin, and one day before Trump’s legal team issued its own memo summarizing his defense. Remarkably, the OLC’s memo was made public in the Trump defense team’s own memo, where it appears as Appendix C (page 126 of the memo PDF, if you’re looking for it).
In other words, the OLC memo was presented to the world as part of Trump’s defense team’s filing. That’s stunning for an office of the Department of Justice that once prided itself on exercising independent judgment from the rest of the department and the executive branch. It’s clear that today’s OLC has been recruited wholesale into Trump’s defense. continue to read
Justice Department Independence? Not With Trump
The nonpartisan Office of Legal Counsel appears to be working closely with the president’s personal lawyers.
Jan 22 - President Donald Trump’s legal defense is putting a lot of weight on a brand-new memo from the Office of Legal Counsel. In fact, the memo appears to have been written specifically as part of the president’s defense strategy. That’s noteworthy because the OLC is part of the Department of Justice: It’s supposed to be legally independent, not partisan, and certainly not part of the president’s defense team.
The memo’s reasoning borders on egregious. It concocts a technicality to invalidate the subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives during the impeachment inquiry, making it somehow legitimate for Trump to have obstructed Congress — the basis of one of the articles of impeachment the president faces.
And then there’s the timing of the memo. It’s dated January 19, 2020, two days before the impeachment trial was slated to begin, and one day before Trump’s legal team issued its own memo summarizing his defense. Remarkably, the OLC’s memo was made public in the Trump defense team’s own memo, where it appears as Appendix C (page 126 of the memo PDF, if you’re looking for it).
In other words, the OLC memo was presented to the world as part of Trump’s defense team’s filing. That’s stunning for an office of the Department of Justice that once prided itself on exercising independent judgment from the rest of the department and the executive branch. It’s clear that today’s OLC has been recruited wholesale into Trump’s defense. continue to read
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is an office in the United States Department of Justice that assists the Attorney General's position as legal adviser to the President and all executive branch agencies.
Trump administration[edit]Further information: Legal challenges to the Trump travel banEarly in the Trump administration, OLC approved Executive Order 13769 (referred to as the "travel ban" because it restricted entry from certain foreign countries which had Muslim-majority populations). Days later, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the Order in court.[4] Explaining her decision, Yates stated that OLC's review assessed only whether a "proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted," not outside evidence about the order's purposes or whether the policy of the order is "wise or just."[5] Yates was fired later that day.[4] Her successor as acting attorney general, Dana Boente, referenced OLC's analysis when he reversed her decision.[5] The Executive Order was challenged in court, then superseded by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations.[5]
In a United States Senate hearing, Yates was asked whether she was aware of any past instance of an attorney general rejecting an executive order that had been approved by OLC. Yates testified that she was not aware of that ever happening, but that she was also not aware of a situation in which OLC failed to tell the attorney general about an executive order before it was issued.
Trump administration[edit]Further information: Legal challenges to the Trump travel banEarly in the Trump administration, OLC approved Executive Order 13769 (referred to as the "travel ban" because it restricted entry from certain foreign countries which had Muslim-majority populations). Days later, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the Order in court.[4] Explaining her decision, Yates stated that OLC's review assessed only whether a "proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted," not outside evidence about the order's purposes or whether the policy of the order is "wise or just."[5] Yates was fired later that day.[4] Her successor as acting attorney general, Dana Boente, referenced OLC's analysis when he reversed her decision.[5] The Executive Order was challenged in court, then superseded by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations.[5]
In a United States Senate hearing, Yates was asked whether she was aware of any past instance of an attorney general rejecting an executive order that had been approved by OLC. Yates testified that she was not aware of that ever happening, but that she was also not aware of a situation in which OLC failed to tell the attorney general about an executive order before it was issued.
Why Couldn’t Mueller Indict Trump?
This DOJ Policy Prevented Him
Date Published on May 30, 2019
As he resigned from his post Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller explained that “longstanding” Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime. Therefore, while his office investigated potential offenses committed by President Donald Trump, charging Trump was “not an option we could consider.”
The policy blocking indicting a sitting president dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. In September 1973, just under a year before Nixon resigned, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that a criminal case against the president “would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.” Therefore, impeachment is the only manner by which a sitting president can be penalized for wrongdoing. source
This DOJ Policy Prevented Him
Date Published on May 30, 2019
As he resigned from his post Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller explained that “longstanding” Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime. Therefore, while his office investigated potential offenses committed by President Donald Trump, charging Trump was “not an option we could consider.”
The policy blocking indicting a sitting president dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. In September 1973, just under a year before Nixon resigned, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that a criminal case against the president “would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.” Therefore, impeachment is the only manner by which a sitting president can be penalized for wrongdoing. source
No comments:
Post a Comment