Trump versus judges, courts and attorneys

If it hadn’t been clear in the past it is becoming more obvious now – Donald Trump thinks that judges and courts should be acting in his interests regardless of the laws. And it seems that his Attorney General William Barr is on trump’s side rather than the side of the law.

Two Supreme Court jugdments have gone against Trump in the last week, and his reaction is to criticise the judges and promote new ‘conservative’ judges – he really means judges who will ignore the law and do what he wants.

And Barr is also stepping in, trying to dump a New York US Attorney who has investigated associates of Trump.

Politico:  After week of Supreme Court defeats, Trump says he’ll release new shortlist of potential justices

President Donald Trump on Thursday pledged to unveil a new list of potential Supreme Court nominees ahead of November’s general election, reprising a campaign tactic that helped him shore up conservative support during his 2016 White House run.

The announcement came hours after the high court dealt the president his second major defeat this week, rejecting his administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program’s protections for roughly 650,000 immigrants — most of whom entered the U.S. illegally as children more than a decade ago.

Since assuming office, Trump has routinely touted his presidency’s rapid rate of judicial confirmations — including the hard-won installations of Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the high court — to energize his base in public remarks and at political rallies.

But the fruits of those efforts to remake the federal judiciary were not evident earlier this week, after Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts sided Monday with the Supreme Court’s Democratic appointees in a landmark anti-discrimination case.

What he means is vote for him to get judges who will favour Trump over the laws of the US.

Do you get the impression that Trump doesn’t like it when the Supreme Court doesn’t do whatever he wants?

Yeah, right. Trump has always acted in what he thinks are his own best interests.

And he seems to have an ally in Attorney General Barr. Fox News: Trump nominates SEC Chairman Jay Clayton to replace Geoffrey Berman as US attorney in New York

President Trump nominated the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, to replace Geoffrey Berman as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, late Friday night in what appears to be political shakeup.

It is sometimes hard to separate politics and justice in the US, especially with Trump in charge.

“For the past three years, Jay has been an extraordinarily successful SEC Chairman, overseeing efforts to modernize regulation of the capital markets, protect Main Street investors, enhance American competitiveness, and address challenges ranging from cybersecurity issues to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement.

Shortly after the announcement by the Department of Justice, ABC News reported via Twitter that Berman was fired after declining other positions within the department.

Berman responded:

He has no choice but to ‘step down’ if dumped. But this could be a contentious dumping.

Jerry Nadler heads the House Judiciary Committtee.

Lindsey Graham, Republican Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, is also not jumping in on trump’s behalf.

Fox News: Graham says he won’t advance Trump nominee for SDNY prosecutor without Schumer, Gillibrand consent

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Saturday he will not take up President Trump’s nomination for a new U.S. attorney for Manhattan unless New York’s Democratic senators sign off.

Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he will honor the “blue slip” tradition and require the consent of home state senators to proceed — in this case, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Graham’s statement signals an uphill climb for Trump to get a new Senate-confirmed federal prosecutor in one of the nation’s most high-profile districts.

Graham’s committee is the first stop for Senate confirmation of the nominee.

Graham said in a statement:

“According to Attorney General Barr, the Trump Administration intends to nominate Mr. Jay Clayton to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, I have not been contacted by the Administration in this regard. However, I know Mr. Clayton and believe him to be a fine man and accomplished lawyer.”

“As to processing U.S. Attorney nominations, it has always been the policy of the Judiciary Committee to receive blue slips from the home state senators before proceeding to the nomination. As chairman, I have honored that policy and will continue to do so.”

A statement from Gillibrand:

“I will not be complicit in helping President Trump and Attorney General Barr fire a U.S. attorney who is reportedly investigating corruption in this administration. Jay Clayton should withdraw his name from consideration immediately and remove himself from this sham. President Trump cannot be allowed to desecrate our nominations process further.”

Maybe the political and judicial systems are a bit stronger at standing up to Trump than he would like.


Meanwhile conflicting claims about the Bolton book.

Trump claims that Bolton’s book is fake and lies, but that he is publishing classified information.  But:

More from Fox News:  Judge allows Bolton book to be released, but says he ‘gambled’ with national security

A federal judge on Saturday allowed the forthcoming publication of John Bolton’s memoir to go ahead next week despite concerns it contains classified information – but tore into the former national security adviser for having “gambled” with national security.

“Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States. He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability,” Judge Royce Lamberth said in a ruling.  “But these facts do not control the motion before the Court. The government has failed to establish that an injunction will prevent irreparable harm.”

Another failed court action.

But Bolton’s team has claimed that the administration is just trying to suppress embarrassing information about President Trump’s conduct.

“We are grateful that the Court  has vindicated the strong First Amendment protections against censorship and prior restraint of publication,” Adam Rothberg, Simon & Schuster’s senior vice president of corporate communications, said in a statement. “We are very pleased that the public will now have the opportunity to read Ambassador Bolton’s account of his time as National Security Advisor.”

It’s hard to see anything exposing the US to harm more than Trump.

But Trump sees this failure as a win.

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

70 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  21st June 2020

    Justice is political.

    Reply
    • To an extent, and especially in the US. But Trump is trying to take it to a new level, from interference to open abuse.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st June 2020

        No, it’s just more explicit and open in the US. The police are the most powerful political activists in this country with the courts runners up but most of it goes on behind closed doors.

        Reply
    • Duker

       /  21st June 2020

      For the DACA case , it was just a simple failure to have ‘real’ legal reasons for stopping the Obama program. Incompetence.
      It seems that Trump seems to think he take any executive action he likes but the same doesnt apply to his predecessor.

      Reply
  2. artcroft

     /  21st June 2020

    Trump fails again.

    Reply
  3. Reply
    • Trump’s claim is at odds with a letter from the Attorney General.

      To the extent that your statement reflects a misunderstanding concerning how you may be displaced, it is well-established that a court-appointed U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President.

      See United States v. Solomon, 216 F. Supp. 835, 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) (recognizing that the “President may, at any time, remove the judicially appointed United States Attorney”); see also United States v. Hilario, 218 F.3d 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2000) (same).

      Indeed, the court’s appointment power has been upheld only because the Executive retains the authority to supervise and remove the officer.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/20/politics/william-barr-geoffrey-berman-letter-fired-trump/index.html

      Reply
  4. Reply
    • Reply
      • Pink David

         /  21st June 2020

        Being a journalist with MSNBC he must have followed up his story and found out why she was ‘taken away’. That would be what any journalist would do. Or is this ‘peaceful protest’ like we have seen in the last couple of weeks that involves arson, robbery, and assault? Perhaps he meant to say ‘mostly peaceful’?

        He would not just tweet one part of the story that suits a single viewpoint would he?

        Reply
      • Pink David

         /  21st June 2020

        What do you know, 20 seconds later, you get more context.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  21st June 2020

          The cops are telling her she’s being arrested for wearing an I can’t breathe t-shirt.
          Love to see the statute that makes that illegal.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  21st June 2020

          Preemptive policing. She obvious wasn’t a Trump supporter. Much easier to deal with her outside than in. It will make an interesting court case. She will be able to sue for millions. Then she won’t give a shite about blacks because the settlement will allow her to live the high life and better fill her time in with activities rich people do, like skiing in Colorado Such is the power of money.

          There’s another great video clip in that above link that shows a feral getting whacked. No doubt Kitty will have an excuse for that as well.

          Reply
  5. David

     /  21st June 2020

    The DACA was just another failure from Jeff Sessions, interesting ruling though given Obama said his EO was technically illegal and he knew it and wanted Congress to do its job so the court has basically said Obamas EO is ok but Sessions trying to end it is not.
    Forgotten in all of this is Trump offered a solution to the Dreamers allowing them a path to citizenship but Pelosi wouldnt give him the win, they make too much fundraising money off it. Pelosi was slammed by the Dreamers at the time for her actions, pretty much everyone wants this solved and are on the same page of how to do it but the sticking point is the Dems wouldnt allow it to be a one off solution to this particular group but to make it for all children in the future brought to the US which is bloody stupid and has contributed to the overun of facilities for unaccompanied minors at the border.
    Pox on all their houses for the human misery caused.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  21st June 2020

      As I said, justice is political.

      Reply
    • artcroft

       /  21st June 2020

      But Trump is such a great deal maker. Really surprised he couldn’t get it across the line. He’s also stable genius, so it’s just strange he gets nothing done. And of course he only hires the best people, so again amazing that nothing is achieved. It’s almost like a pattern. Trump talks big and produces nothing.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st June 2020

        Half the population is hell bent on stopping him from doing anything and using the courts to delay and frustrate everything. Hence the focus on political appointments to them.

        Reply
        • artcroft

           /  21st June 2020

          OMG a politician encountering opposition from the opposition. When did this start happening? Was it when Mitch McConnell promised to make Obama a one term president?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  21st June 2020

            I wouldn’t know. Why is it relevant? The current facts and situation are obvious and as I stated.

            Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  21st June 2020

    As for Bolton, I’m surprised shipping advance copies to NYT and WaPo didn’t expose him to contempt of court as it obviously preempted the injunction. Did he just get the timing right?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st June 2020

      He obviously got the right lawyer.

      Reply
    • The judge didn’t suggest contempt of court, he just warned Bolton that it was a legal risk

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st June 2020

        Was that in relation to publication in general or preempting the court?

        Reply
        • The judge said that Trump was too slow and didn’t make a decent argument. And that Bolton left himself open to civil action later.

          “Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States. He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability,” Lamberth concluded. “But these facts do not control the motion before the Court. The government has failed to establish that an injunction will prevent irreparable harm.”

          “Unilateral fast-tracking carried the benefit of publicity and sales, and the cost of substantial risk exposure”.

          “This was Bolton’s bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security”.

          https://www.npr.org/2020/06/20/881219836/judge-allows-bolton-memoir-to-proceed-despite-trump-administration-objection

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  21st June 2020

            So legally would you be in contempt of court to release copies of your book after an injunction to stop publication is filed but before the hearing?

            Reply
            • As I understand it Trump was too late applying for an injunction as well as not making a case for it. So no contempt of court, just at risk of future civil action against him.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  21st June 2020

              Except it seemed to me that the injunction was filed before the copies went to the MSM?

            • Time of filing doesn’t matter. It depends on when a court rules in favour of the injunction.

              Otherwise people would file to stop something regardless of the merits of their case.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  21st June 2020

              I don’t see why that is a valid reason. The hearing will rule on the merits of the case. If the injunction can be thwarted by immediate release then that is an evasion of the law and of justice if the court otherwise would have issued the injunction.

            • If a book release can be thwarted by the mere filing of a hopeless case that would be an abuse of the law.

              I’ve known about the book for weeks if not months. Trump will have known about it, he was given an advance copy. He has had plenty of time to injunct, it’s his problem if he left it too late.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  21st June 2020

              The book release can’t be thwarted by a hopeless case, merely delayed slightly until the case is heard and dismissed. But a valid case could be thwarted by a release prior to the hearing.

              The WaPo article says a civil case was filed before the urgent injunction but won’t be heard for months. The judge seems to have been telling Bolton he’ll now have to bear the consequences outlined in the WaPo article for flouting the security vetting process.

  7. Brian Johnston

     /  21st June 2020

    President Donald Trump is doing his very best and doing it well. One has to respect the man.
    Trump is up against very powerful and dark forces.
    He is rebuilding the US economy.
    Trump is opposed to the AGW lie and wind turbines. He is the man.
    New Zealand needs a Donald Trump.
    NZ needs to reinvent its Patriotism and Nationalism.
    We need to rebuild our economy. Rebuild the factories.
    We need more self sufficiency. A long way to go.
    Bolton is an idiot. A war mongering fool. The moustache said it all.
    Graham another idiot and surely a Democrat. Boot him out. The look says it all.

    Reply
    • “He is rebuilding the US economy.”

      As of May 1, 2020 federal debt held by the public was $19.05 trillion and intragovernmental holdings were $5.9 trillion, for a total national debt of $24.95 trillion
      At the end of 2019, debt held by the public was approximately 79.2% of GDP

      The Congressional Budget Office forecast in April 2018 that debt held by the public will rise to nearly 100% of GDP by 2028, perhaps higher if current policies are extended beyond their scheduled expiration date.

      Due to the coronavirus pandemic, Congress and President Trump enacted the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) on March 18, 2020. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the budget deficit for fiscal year 2020 would increase to a record $3.8 trillion, or 18.7% GDP.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

      Reply
    • “NZ needs to reinvent its Patriotism and Nationalism.”

      Aotearoa has never had Patriotism and Nationalism anything like in the USA

      “We need to rebuild our economy. Rebuild the factories.”

      Most factories have moved overseas. I worked in one in the 1980s that shut down due to manufacturing moving offshore. Rebuilding them here seems to be financially not viable.

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  21st June 2020

        “Aotearoa has never had Patriotism and Nationalism anything like in the USA”

        Indeed. The passionless people.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  21st June 2020

          Certainly Americans are very passionate patriots. Some of it is built on the scores of years of kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and being brainwashed by it. While the aspirations in it are noble, in reality it’s bullshit.

          “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

          I accept it says justice for all and doesn’t stipulate that it’s just that there will be more or different justice for some compared to others.

          “Rather than solely reflecting imagined American values, Bellamy’s Pledge of Allegiance was, at its core, designed as an instrument of white nationalism deployed to combat the dangerous outsiders of his day. The roots of the pledge shed light on the continued necessity of protests today that powerfully link the history of race and violence with nonnegotiable citizenship and full belonging.”

          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/pledge-allegiance-pr-gimmick-patriotic-vow-180956332/

          Are we a passionless people? If so, why? In recent weeks a number of people took to the streets to protest. Obviously they were passionate about something and took action. They were attacked for doing it. It seems some don’t like people New Zealanders to be passionate.

          Were you in the camp that attacked them? Were you in the camp that didn’t like what they were doing and suggested or demanded that they should be protesting about something else as well?

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  21st June 2020

            ” In recent weeks a number of people took to the streets to protest. ”

            A number of people? It was not a large number. A few thousand in a country of 5 million.

            “Obviously they were passionate about something and took action.”

            Action? They stood on a street and demanded action from others.

            “It seems some don’t like people New Zealanders to be passionate.’

            Were they attacked for their passion, or where they ‘attacked’, for demanding very stupid policies that will create a lot of harm and not do anything to solve any problem at all? By attacked, I assume you mean disagreed with. I don’t believe anyone actually attacked them, although that would be passionate.

            Reply
    • artcroft

       /  21st June 2020

      You have a fabulous sense of humour. keep it up.

      Reply
  8. Trump repeating this nonsense:

    Maybe if they had no testing in the US they would have no more cases.

    Trump cancels overflow crowd address due to low turnout

    Trump addresses campaign rally at half-empty Tulsa arena

    Gathering a smaller-than-expected crowd, President Donald Trump sought to reinvigorate his re-election campaign with a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, amid anti-racism protests in cities across the country and a still-strong coronavirus pandemic.

    Trump also tried to explain away the crowd size, blaming it on the media for declaring “don’t go, don’t come, don’t do anything” while insisting there were protesters outside “doing bad things,” though the small crowds of prerally demonstrators were largely peaceful.

    The blame it on the media trick is getting lamer.

    This probably didn’t help: Six campaign staffers working on Trump’s Tulsa rally test positive for coronavirus

    Reply
    • “So I said to my people slow the testing down”

      If this is true then Americans are dying

      Reply
    • David

       /  21st June 2020

      I watched the rally, he was joking around about the testing in fact he joked around through the whole rally. If nothing else he puts on a great show.
      He talked about the slippery ramp and his leather soled shoes which was very funny, he was worried about the image of it after the endless clips of Bush and the slo mo reel of him vomiting on the Japanese guy. He was quite funny he said after the ramp and using two hands to drink his water the media had diagnosed him with two illnesses.

      Reply
  9. “When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find people, you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘slow the testing down.’”

    If this is true then Americans are dying because of it.

    Reply
  10. Don’t bother paying good money for Bolton’s book. It’s freely available on line.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvO7vDn-whr4Os7KZAOxiW4GW1gckjUb/view

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  21st June 2020

      “freely”

      Interesting choice of word.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  21st June 2020

      That’s a great resource actually. There is a great passage where Bolton has a huge moan about how Trump refused to kill Iranians. Page 364 if you want to read it.

      According to Bolton, this single decision (to not kill Iranians), was ‘the most irrational thing he had ever seen any President do”.

      Reply
  11. Trump supporters have much to celebrate.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  21st June 2020

      If that doesn’t deserve a Noble Prize I don’t know what does. 👍

      Reply
      • Lol, this is an actual Trump supporter too, not a spoof account. She primaried against Pelosi for California’s 12th Congressional District earlier this year.

        Not the silliest of Trump Supporters tho’. Here’s another gem:
        A maskless Trump rallygoer: “We had a friend who died from Covid, and his son was on a ventilator, he almost died. So we know it’s real, but then at the same time you don’t know what the facts are, you feel like maybe one side plays it one way and the other side plays it another.”

        Reply
  12. Legal action against Trump by the family of Tom Petty for unauthorised use of a song.

    Reply
  13. Brian Johnston

     /  21st June 2020

    Pete George calls New Zealand, Aotearoa. It does not get any more left wing than that.
    Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and went down the gurgler.
    South Africa finished
    New Zealand next.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  21st June 2020

      I can see that calling a place a different name would mean things go to crap. When we got married one of us changed our surname. Is there a set time for the gurgler to appear?

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st June 2020

      I don’t like either New Zealand or Aotearoa. I sure don’t like combining them.

      Wherever we go overseas, whether we’re Maori or Pakeha, we get called Kiwis.

      Kiwiland would be best.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  22nd June 2020

      But but ..are you saying it should be renamed “Your Aotearoa”?

      Reply
      • Brian Johnston

         /  22nd June 2020

        NZ should not be called Aotearoa. I do not buy into Maori sovereignty, it is communist backed. When the Polynesian arrived in NZ there were people already living here (NZ may have been settled as early as 5000BC) the Maori themselves talk about these people. I guess the Maori today have a mixture of bloodlines, Polynesian and the people who were here when they arrived.
        I would like the true history of NZ researched. Aotearoa is not the original name for NZ, it is a name dreamt up by White historians.
        We need the truth and we need one nation. We need a fair and just society.
        Who were here? Waitaha, Turehu, Patupaiarehe, Moriori, Maruiwi, The Giants, The Redheads. The Giants may have been the Maruiwi. There may be cross over with these names.
        We are off subject – not my fault.

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  22nd June 2020

        Aww. Gawd. Suggest you just let this one go, Duker.
        So fringe he’s off the edge.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s