Day: June 4, 2018

The Constitution Just Spoiled Mueller’s Deep State Plot Once and For All

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
Source: https://goo.gl/WJopLL
Apparently, liberals do not read the Constitution.

Because if they did, they’d know that our Constitution makes sure that ALL sitting U.S. presidents are immune from prosecution.
For any crime.

Yes, that even includes Mueller’s fictitious “obstruction of justice.”

So, once again, Mueller’s Deep State “witch-hunt” hits a brick wall.
The Constitution makes all U.S. presidents immune from prosecution for any crime — including obstruction of justice — until after they leave office and are permanently immune from being prosecuted for using constitutional powers to take official acts. And a president’s conversations with senior aides about these matters are covered by executive privilege. Presidents are accountable for all such things, but to Congress and the voters, not the courts.

Reports surfaced that Special Counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask President Donald Trump about conversations the president had with Attorney General Jeff Sessions about un-recusing from the Russia investigation. Mueller’s challenge is that the Constitution does not permit him to make the president answer.

First, conversations between the president and his immediate staff — whether senior White House staff or senior agency officials like Cabinet secretaries — are covered by the presidential communications privilege, which is the strongest form of executive privilege. The Constitution ensures that every president can get candid advice from his top lieutenants by exempting their disclosure to Congress or the courts, knowing that senior leaders my self-censor on controversial issues if they knew the advice might one day become public.

No president can be compelled to testify before a grand jury or in open court. Presidents have volunteered to do so, and the Supreme Court has allowed court orders to produce documents or recordings. But no president can be forced to testify, especially in a criminal proceeding.

Second, OLC opinions from administrations of both parties have said for decades that no sitting president can be criminally prosecuted. OLC is the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite legal analysis team for the attorney general and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and through the attorney general, to the president and every department of the U.S. government. From Republicans like Richard Nixon to Democrats like Bill Clinton, OLC has issued and reaffirmed that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime or indicted by a grand jury while he is still in office.

OLC explains that there are several reasons for this. One is that the president is the top law enforcement officer in the nation; the attorney general, every federal prosecutor, and every federal agent is the president’s subordinate, asserting executive power in his name. The president cannot prosecute himself, but that exactly what would happen if Mueller — who is still part of DOJ — were to use President Trump’s law enforcement power to indict President Trump as a defendant.
Another reason is that the U.S. president holds a unique position in the American form of government. Every single day, the president must consider the most pressing issues facing the nation, making historic decisions. OLC concluded that while he holds office, the president cannot be compelled to face the all-consuming distraction of criminal prosecution, where a president spends his days concerned about defending himself instead of working for the American people. The needs of the nation for a completely focused commander in chief outweighs the importance of any one criminal prosecution.

When the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution allows or requires certain types of involvement in legal proceedings by presidents, the justices are always careful to explain how those involvements are different from a criminal investigation. The media has abysmally misreported that the Supreme Court has allowed private civil suits against a president for personal conduct before he was president, and also to produce tape recordings, but never to answer questions under oath against his will.

Not only that, but there is no allegation of any crime here. There is no evidence of collusion with Russian, but even if there were, collusion is not a crime. What, then? Probing conversations like that between the president and Sessions at Mar-a-Lago sounds like trying to make a case for obstruction of justice, but it is not. Article II of the Constitution vests all executive authority in the president alone. As chief executive, he has every right and prerogative to instruct every subordinate who serves at his pleasure — like the attorney general — how the president as chief executive would like those subordinates to lawfully exercise the power that they derive from the president and use on his behalf.

JUST IN: Supreme Court Hands the Left HUGE LOSS on Both Immigration and Abortion

Source: https://goo.gl/kyrv94
Liberals are really getting a rough start to the week with now two devastating loses from the Supreme Court.

Not only did they rule in favor of the Christian baker in the same-sex wedding cake hearing, but they’ve also lifted requirements for the Trump administration to provide abortions for illegal minors in federal custody.
In a partial victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling requiring the government to facilitate an abortion for an undocumented minor in federal custody.

The unsigned five-page opinion did not issue a judgement as to the merits of the dispute but approved the administration’s request to vacate the ruling under a legal rule called Munsingwear vacatur. There was no noted dissent.

Munsingwear provides that a case which is mooted pending Supreme Court review should be expunged. Because the undocumented minor at issue procured an abortion before the justices could review the matter — thereby ending the dispute — the government argued Munsingwear should apply.

The case, Azar v. Garza, was occasioned in October 2017, when an undocumented teen in federal custody, known in court papers only as Jane Doe, learned she was pregnant and asked authorities to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services refused, claiming it had no obligation to facilitate abortions for minors in their care.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded the government’s actions imposed an undue burden on abortion access, in violation to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The migrant terminated her pregnancy on Oct. 25, before the Department of Justice could appeal to the justices.

The administration also asked the high court to sanction the ACLU’s lawyers, arguing they made false representations as to the schedule of the migrant’s medical consultations in order to procure her abortion. The justice’s declined to act on the request.

“The Court need not delve into the factual disputes raised by the parties in order to answer the Munsingwear question here,” the decision reads.

Melania’s Close Friends Are Worried For Her After What They’ve Just Found Out

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
Source: https://goo.gl/Qx1gue
48-year-old Melania Trump’s dearest friends might be worried after what they’re finding out about her. Melania had surgery on her kidney, stayed in the hospital for a while, and then returned home. However, that was the last time anyone outside of the White House has seen her. Some of her friends outside of the White House may be wondering why she hasn’t been seen for at least three weeks. It’s like she’s a ghost and no one knows what she’s up to.

Some people are worried about her, but she’s probably just recovering and working on projects that the First Lady is responsible for. She doesn’t owe the public anything, nor does she have to visit with the mainstream media or paparazzi. She is allowed to avoid them if she wishes. Her friends might be worrying because it’s not something they’re used to.

Hollywood Reporter shared this:
“Melania Trump, 48, has caused a lot of speculation after suddenly having kidney surgery and not being seen since and even her friends are starting to worry. Although the First Lady seemingly took to Twitter to reveal that she was resting at the White House, many people are concerned that there’s more to the story than is being told. “Melania’s friends outside of the White house are genuinely starting to worry about her,” a source close to Melania EXCLUSIVELY told HollywoodLife. “Nobody has heard from Melania over these past few weeks, and her cell phone has been switched off. Whenever any friends enquire as to where she is, or how she is, we’re just told that she’s ‘fine’ and that she’s ‘recovering’ but that really doesn’t make any sense. Nobody believes that Melania wrote that last tweet, everybody thinks that was written by Donald [Trump], because it didn’t read in the way that Melania writes.To have radio silence for this long is just strange, something is going on, but nobody knows what, it’s definitely concerning.”

Melania’s friend’s sentiments are similar to that of her followers. Without warning, it was announced that she was undergoing kidney surgery on May 14 and since even before the surgery (May 10), she hasn’t made any appearances either alone or with the Donald. Although she could very well be recovering from the surgery, many find it odd that there’s no indication from anyone that she’s at the White House like the tweet claimed and of course, there’s been a ton of theories to go along with the situation, including one that claims she may have moved out of Washington D.C.”
Meanwhile, Mirror wrote this:
“It has now been 23 days since Melania Trump has been seen in public and people are getting concerned. The White House announced last night that the First Lady would not be joining the President at his Camp David retreat this weekend. On May 14th Mrs Trump had surgery for a “benign kidney condition” and hasn’t been seen in the three weeks since. While the White House announced the operation was successful, and there were no complications, the procedure typically requires only a single night’s recovery in hospital.

And it gets weirder. The Friday after that, Donald Trump was asked about Melania’s wellbeing as he prepared to board Marine One on the White House lawn.

The President pointed to a window in the White House residence, saying: “She’s doing great. She’s looking at us right there.”

But when reporters turned to look, she was not there. There was no sign of her.

And then there’s THAT tweet. The First Lady – or at least someone with access to her Twitter account – posted a message on Friday.

It read: “I see the media is working overtime speculating where I am & what I’m doing. Rest assured, I’m here at the @WhiteHouse w my family, feeling great, & working hard on behalf of children & the American People.”

While it’s entirely possible that the message is genuine and she’s really just working too hard to appear in public, there’s one thing that sticks out as being really unusual.

The phrase “working overtime.”

It’s the first time the First Lady has ever used that phrase, in her tweets at least.”

I suppose that’s our answer. Melania is recovering and working.

If Donald Trump says Melania is fine, then she’s probably fine. Trump loves the press and free media coverage, so if there was something going on with Melania, then he’d probably say it and watch the public turn it into something controversial.

How do you feel about Melania? Have you ever had a surgical procedure and didn’t want to be bothered while you were recovering?

Could it be that Melania simply doesn’t care to place herself in the spotlight for no reason?Write your answer below and share this story with a friend who loves Melania!

Giuliani Makes Shock Statement That Has Comey Shaking

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
Source: https://goo.gl/uWhwK8
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made a shocking statement on Sunday that should have former FBI Director James Comey shaking in his boots. Giuliani said that President Donald Trump could have taken extreme action to end the investigation into Russian collusion with his campaign during the 2016 presidential election and there is not a thing that could have been done about it.

“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” the former mayor told The Huffington Post, indicating that the president’s attorneys believe his powers are that broad. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

He said that regardless of the crime, the remedy for a president who committed a criminal action would be impeachment. After the impeachment, the law could then decide what to do.
“If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day,” he said. “Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”

Giuliani’s sentiment echoes what one of the president’s other attorneys, Jay Sekulow, and one of his former attorneys, John Dowd, wrote in a letter sent to special counsel Robert Mueller in January that was obtained by The New York Times. The men argued that it is impossible for the president to have obstructed justice as the Constitution gives him the power to end the investigation.
“It remains our position that the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.1Nevertheless, the President’s strong desire for transparency indicated the need to obtain an honest and complete factual report from the Special Counsel, which would sustain and even benefit the Office of the President and the national interest throughout his time in office. Thus, full cooperation was in order, and was in fact provided by all relevant parties,” the attorneys wrote.

The attorneys said that the president could have exercised executive privilege to stonewall the investigation as well. But, they said, in the interest of healing the nation by allowing the investigation to proceed, the president has not done that.

“We cannot emphasize enough that regardless of the fact that the executive privilege clearly applies to his senior staff, in the interest of complete transparency, the President has allowed — in fact, has directed — the voluntary production of clearly protected documents. This is because the President’s desire for transparency exceeded the policy purposes for the privilege under the circumstances. Without question, the privilege “attaches not only to direct communications with the President, but also to discussions between his senior advisors, who must be able to hold confidential meetings to discuss advice they secretly will render to the President.”7 The privilege applies and is available for the President to claim here because “restricting the presidential communications privilege to communications that directly involve the President will impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty,” they wrote.
Not everyone agrees with Giuliani, Sekulow, and Dowd’s assessment of the president’s powers. Former President Barack Obama’s ethics czar Norm Eisen said that they are incorrect and that the president could be indicted.

“A president could not be prosecuted for murder? Really?” Eisen said. “It is one of many absurd positions that follow from their argument. It is self-evidently wrong.”

“The foundation of America is that no person is above the law,” he said. “A president can under extreme circumstances be indicted, but we’re facing extreme circumstances.”
The fact is that no one really knows how broad the president’s powers are in this regard as it has never been tested. But it might be wise for James Comey to sleep with one eye open for the time being.