18 Burst results for "Caspar Weinberger"
Is Trump abusing his power over the judiciary?
"This is news in focus where we offer our insights into the stories that matter before we go any further. I want to address today. Sentencing of a man Roger Stone Roger Stone. He's become the sentencing of Roger Stone. A LONGTIME CONFIDANTE DONALD TRUMP for lying to Congress obstruction and witness tampering was mired in controversy. Over how the. Us Justice Department handled the case under public pressure from the president. Mr Stone received a forty month sentence whereas prosecutors had recommended that he serve up to nine years. This followed seven cases of presidential clemency for White Collar criminals whose convictions included extortion fraud and lying to White House officials. Yes we have commuted. The sentence of Rod Blagojevich. He served eight years in jail We have Birdie character we have Mike Milkin. Who's gone around and done an incredible job? Offer is the independence of America's judiciary under threat. Or as Mr Trump simply using the powers a lot to him on the line with me to discuss this is ed loose. Us National Editor and columnist and Cottam Schober US legal and enforcement correspondent. I let's hear a clip from president trump taken. Just a couple of days before stone sentencing. Just so you understand. I chose not to be involved. I'm allowed to be totally involved. I'm actually I guess the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country but I've chosen not to be involved but he is a man of great integrity. But I would be. I could be involved if I wanted to be man of integrity he is referring to is the US Attorney General William Bar but is this credible given the tweets he published before the sentencing of Roger. Stone got tell us first about the case of Roger Stone which you've covered for the F. T. Who was he exactly? What was his crime? And was the sentence particularly lenient for this kind of case. Roger Stone is a flamboyant veteran political operative in the US. His career goes all the way back to working on Richard Nixon's election campaign and he has basically been the person you call as a Republican presidential candidate. When you want to get your hands dirty. He called himself a dirty trickster and he is an expert in this sort of Makir side politics in the two thousand sixteen election. He was a sort of informal adviser to Donald Trump. And one of the things he was trying to do was make contact with wikileaks. When it became known that wikileaks had a trove of hacked emails from the Democrats to use it for political gain. The thing that he was convicted of is in two thousand seventeen when Congress began investigating. What exactly went on to twenty sixteen election? The House Intelligence Committee called on Mr Stone and asked him about some of the comments he had made during the campaign and Mr Stone lied to. Congress about who is intermediary was or who he was referring to when he was talking about having an intermediary allied when. He said that he didn't have any documents or any written materials or any taxed of his conversations with that intermediary. The sentence he eventually received was actually probably pretty in line with what other sort of white collar criminals convicted of lying to. Congress or the government have received the key issue in his case was he had threatened a longtime friend of his who was also another witness. Basically saying don't contradict my story and those thrashed included threatening his dog for example the key issue at stake was whether he was serious about that and whether therefore has sent should be jacked up significantly because he had made violent threats and eventually the judge took the view that although it was serious that he'd made violent threats. The person that he had threatened didn't actually feel like they were going to experience violence. Ed Tell us a bit more about Mr Stone. And the history of his friendship with the President and whether you think Mr Trump's tweets constituted interference in the judicial process. Yeah as I said. He's a flamboyant dirty tricks. Who GOES WAY BACK TO LATE? Six hundred seventy trump maximum in the late seventies. He was introduced to try but he quickly hit it off. They shed philosophy of you know playing to win that no method is invalid. Never apologize never explain. Stone set up with couple of other people are very well known lobby group in Washington. One of his clients was trump who was seeking tax breaks a casino. He was setting up in Atlantic City. And really they've been great friends since then so the ties between trump and stone go along way that very deep and they're often allegedly nefarious in terms of the League outlook from this. I have no doubt that trump will seek to podcastone fast opportunity. Trump's on the Guy Senate acquittal spring cleaning of his administration ruthlessly seeking out anybody who isn't very very loyal so to get rid of weather that Meghan appointees the civil savage. Anybody perceive does slightly disloyal. Not Enough is being pledged. Loyalty is a hugely important hugely. Important thing to trump and stern has shown loyalty he has not. He is not divulged things that have damaged the president. He's showing toughness. He's been very Trumpian in how he's dealt with. Franchi's accused the judge me by of being a biased judge which she's rejected this very trumpian and I have no doubt that it will culminate in at some point. President trump pardoning Roger Stern question about what trump actually did part of the reason. Roger Stone was so controversial. Was that line prosecutors involved in this case we're uncomfortable with what Mr Trump and the justice department we're doing. Can you explain that to viewers and why it was such a problem so there are four prosecutors who secured Mrs Jones conviction trial so the trial team? They filed their sentencing recommendation which was seven to nine years which there's no bones about it. That's a serious sentence for anybody to serve and then that evening all of a sudden early hours of the morning so after midnight trump tweets calling it a miscarriage of justice. He says this is unacceptable and Lo and behold the very next day the DOJ which is the US Department of Justice DOJ officials. Start saying that they agree that the sense would be unwarranted and adair kind of reverse it. The following day afternoon we see all four the prosecutors quit the case including one of them actually quits his job at the DOJ entirely and subsequently a new sentencing recommendation is put forward. Which says we'RE NOT GONNA ask for a particular sentence but it ought to be far less than seven to nine years. The idea that four prosecutors would quit a case. All at once is astonishing and it was a very serious and important moment and DOJ his trip shook the DOJ. It was a very dramatic moment in Washington and the question then was was doj senior leadership. William bar the. Us Attorney General. Was He reacting to an order from trump or was something else going on now the lion that DOJ has stuck to is that there was a miscommunication between the US Attorney's office in Washington DC and between main justice headquarters also in DC? But they're separate offices. Basically Mr. Barr says he was not expecting to see a seventy nine year recommendation. The new prosecutor brought on sat at the sentencing that the prosecutors who filed a recommendation that you good faith and thought that they had been given approval to do so and so Mr Bar said listen. This is not about trump. This is about. I think that that sentence was appropriate and I was not told about what was going on. The important thing here is whether or not Mr trump explicitly ordered the attorney general chains recommendation. It's still gets to this question about how our friends of the president being treated in their cases now it's pretty common across the US for federal prosecutors to request tough even harsh sentences. That's not unknown. You don't often see the attorney general weighing in to ask for lighter sentences and certainly DOJ policy at the moment is to prosecute people to the fullest extent of the law to secure the longer sentences possible so whether or not Mr Trump's tweets were an express order to Mr Bar that he followed a whether he was acting independently. It still gets to this question about if your friend of the president. How are you going to be treated by this? Doj while we're on the subject of Friends of the president. The other thing that happened last week was a series of presidential pardons for White Collar criminals specifically several that have connections to Mr Trump. I talk about Michael Milkin. What did he do and why does it matter that he was pardoned? Michael Milkin is to people on Wall Street a hero. He effectively invented the junk bond or high yield bond market in the eighties and then he was brought low by prosecutors and the SEC and eventually guilty to securities fraud and nine hundred ninety. He served about twenty two months in prison after being initially sentenced to ten years. Ever since then he's been rebuilding his reputation. He's a philanthropist. Now has the Milken Institute and for a long time people on Wall Street rich and powerful people have felt that he was prosecuted unjustly and deserved a pardon. The other person. Mr Trump pardon rod blagojevich is perhaps less of a popular figure in any area. He was the former Democratic governor of Illinois and was prosecuted for trying to extort a children's Hospital for campaign contributions and also trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama when he became president his case involves some quite lurid wiretap quotes. Where he talked about Mr Obama's Tennessee. Being a very valuable thing with various explosives and that he wasn't going to give it away for nothing. The fact that these pardons came just a day or two before Roger. Stone's sentencing is pretty mistake -able signal of Mr Trump's power to grant clemency. Whatever case that he wants so prosecutors can go after his fans and associates. Jerry can commit crimes. Judge can sentence them to however long they want ultimately. Mr Trump has under the constitution the pardon power and that was a pretty stark exercise of that pardon power on the eve of a close friend of his being sentenced. Ed Do you think we're gonNA see more interventions this spy trump perhaps related to the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the election. People like Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Who Manafort I think would definitely be a case for another pop and I would be very surprised if Michael Cohen Without Him. Because Michael Cohen Tablet Trump describes a rat in that inimitable. Kind of multi language that the president sometimes uses Michael. Cohen testified to Congress very damagingly against president. Trump's he's considered to be a tax cut. The thing that links you know all these Haden's whether it's Michael Milkin Rod Blagojevich Obama Carrick. Us police commissioner who was the security guard incidentally for Rudy Giuliani. The thing that links all of them is that they're pretty well connected people who've committed white-collar crimes and who have upbeat through Fox News. In some cases that Bregovic wife spoke on Fox News. He carrots by on Fox News to capture the president's attention and I think the pattern is again very trumpian thing. It's it's about. People who trump identifies with he feels as acute. Did he feels. He's fatty toxic at he. Identifies WITH OTHERS. Who fit that description again though. The role of connections and of mutual friends and a Fox as dishing platform for pardon. These are very common. There's a pattern here. How big a cause of concern is all this. I mean it's trump's use of the pardon power markedly different from other presidents will Clinton famously on his last day in office Rich Hedge Fund billionaire and friend of the Clintons Madonna to the Clintons and that caused a lot of bad blood. Clinton was heavily criticised for intervening on behalf of a friend and it stood out and I guess the reason I mentioned that is it. Was Fatty unusual. It's now completely normal. Trump has happened many many people who under the inventions of us? Pardon history wouldn't ready quantify so I think he has changed quite dramatically and just to add on. There's an interesting historical link year. Another controversial use of the pardon power in the past was George H W Bush who infamously pardoned a whole swath of former officials who are indicted in connection to the Iran Contra Scandal and bill bar the current. Us Attorney General was back then also attorney general and so Mr Bar He had pushed not just for one. Pardon of Caspar Weinberger. Who was the former Secretary of defense? He said listen. If you're gonNA pardon any of these people you have to pardon all of them. I think his quote was in for a penny in for a pound and so you may have the curious historical echo if MR trump loses later this year of his attorney general at the end of his time in office being the same attorney general at the end of George W Bush's time in office advising him on. You know who to pardon before he leaves Hamas all this been received in Washington and then around the US do people care. It's been received as many other actions by president trump being received with a high temperature reaction inside the Washington. Beltway and shrug outside the GNOMES that being trashed here in a row very significant look at the powers of the presidency. The procedures the the president uses before he acts and the conventions so that being shredded caused great angst in Washington. Dc across the political divide and almost badly registered a ripple outside of Washington. The same of course applies to impeachment. It really didn't resonate much isn't resonating match in the Democratic primaries. In places like Iowa New Hampshire and so I think this is far far lower. It may be it should be different than ideal while but it registered FAFA LOA on the vote says right of than than even impeachment.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on AM 970 The Answer
"All right, six forty six. So let me begin by the note with the fact that this prosecution is even taking place now when you're a prosecutor, you have something called prosecutorial discretion. And Muller is using that discretion against a man named Roger stone who is not even accused of Russian collusion. Not accused of providing any documents to WikiLeaks, not accused of hacking into the DNC. He's using that discretion to prosecute Roger for five instances in which he was not truthful before congress. I have to tell you. And this is an instance where Donald Trump's tweet the other day is yesterday is absolutely right. Do you know how many people lied to congress, and you know, how many people are prosecuted for congress for for lying to congress? So Roger Clemens was prosecuted for lying to congress. He was found not guilty. You had. Caspar Weinberger, he was prosecuted for lying to congress. Somebody in the fifties was prosecuted for lying to congress. And maybe one or two others that I can remember. But it is very rare. Every day that congress is in session and hearing witnesses you can make the case that someone lied to congress. Donald trump. CBS reports. That. And this was this was what he tweeted. Hang on. He he's actually been quite of a tweet a tweet storm over the course of the last two days, you might understand. This is what he said if Roger stone was indicted this is yesterday for lying to congress. What about the lying done by Komi Brennan Clapper, Lisa page and lover Baker, and so many others. What about Hillary to FBI and her thirty three thousand deleted emails? What about Lisa Peters deleted tax and wieners laptop much more now? James Clapper did lie to congress James Comey did lie to congress. These are facts backup backed up by evidence. But they're not being prosecuted because a prosecutorial discretion. They're choosing to prosecute Roger stone. But not Jim Brennan. Excuse me, James Clapper, and John Brennan. Okay. Fine. Now,.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on American Scandal
"He's probably best publicly known for pardoning several of the men who were indicted, including national security advisor, bud McFarland and secretary defense. Caspar Weinberger who was pardoned even before he was found guilty as a result of these pardons. The eventual independent counsels file reports on the on the Iran contra affair noted that the criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete pardons have become news today as well. They seem on face to be a an appeal to a the highest judicial authority perhaps. But in a political office like the president's. Are they are they appropriate? Do they interfere with Justice? Will I think you have two different kinds of pardons the pardons that you're talking about that then President Bush granted to really the entire group of Iran contra defendants, both those who had been found guilty after trial those who had entered guilty pleas. I think were wrong. I think they were rightly controversial. But they were in large part a response to what President Bush in his aides considered a worthy and noble careers in government by people who looked at most charitably had done something wrong or regrettable, but that shouldn't affect of their lives going forward, and they had done enough public service in their time to war. Aren't mercy being granted through the pardon power pardons that we are talking about these days are entirely different from that? They are being waved around as possibilities to people who have not performed public service, but who have been chronic in bitch will lawbreakers largely to feather their own financial mess, and that they have been pardons have been bandied about as possible ways to persuade people not to testify against high ranking officials, including the president you can make an argument that using pardons in that fashion itself is a violation of criminal law. It sounds like bribery, but in any event, you can certainly criticize President Bush for the pardons. He read it, but I think when you're talking about what President Trump. Is talking about using pardons for that's an entirely different..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville
"And he pays you a certain rate of interest in for a couple of percent more he'd loan you the money for your house. It was a great system the Republicans in Bush, basically, just they removed all the controls. They basically just raped that whole system of almost put the country into recession and just and and basically they all enrich themselves. There was a really good reporter for the Wall Street Journal of Pete Bruton. I believed wrote a whole book called Bush and Wall Street just detail how Bush and his cronies and families made all this money out of out of basically screwing the middle class. And so, yeah, that's Bush's legacy. And but but to go back to Iran, contra Bush should have been prosecuted for Iran, contra of and. Yeah. Of course, you can't there people who differ. Can you prosecute a sitting president? You can sure prosecutor president when they leave office. So after Bush loses the election to Clinton, but before he leaves office, he pardons six of the most important Iran contra failures, including the guy he was really close to this his secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, and so the, but the Democrats and Weinberger was the one who could have spilled the beans on Bush's xactly exactly a lot of these guys could Weinberger, especially, but the Democrats, you know, incentive holding hearings into those pardons. They they don't and so, you know, and then and then soon they will lose control of congress to to Newt Gingrich and the contract on America. So again, you know, Bush just skates for that. But he he does he does two last things one is in the late nineties. So he's back is as a private citizen x president. Okay. He goes to Saudi Arabia's part of a big business deal, also, including another former CIA director's daughter, and this article was written by a great reporter by the name of the country's top Hoffa expert. Great article in the late nineties so Bush goes over to Saudi Arabia, literally sits lower than the dictator of Saudi Arabia kinda groveling you to speak for this business deal and of that whole trip and attempt to do all this business comes all these special conditions for Saudis, traveling to America where they don't have to do the.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on The Young Turks
"Who would handle that and not the FBI director? So he was out of bounds. And that's why we're firing him. That is that is a technical reason why you could fire him. But no one on the planet actually believes. That's why Trump flared says which we're not having that conversation anymore because the knucklehead on national TV said oh fired him because he was looking into me about the rush investigation so bar with a straight face goes. Yes, I think he was right. The fire Komi that's a dangerous guy. Yeah. Yeah. But we shouldn't be surprised that he's picked a right wing tool to turn general, right? I mean. I'm trying to go through my head. What what a what a cases where that we would prefer. It was surprisingly crafty. But this is in it's a country of three hundred thirty million people. So I say like yo Ted Cruz is slimy guy, and he he's unbelievably unprincipled, and how he takes donor money and pretends to be freedom. I mean, we've got, but you know, what it's a big country. You could find a Ted Cruz. Right. And it turns out you could find the one guy who appears to have establishment credentials enough for Republican senators to confirm him while actually being totally maniacally pro-trump pro pardons and as bad as Jeff Sessions on the actual policy. I mean, this guy is near perfect for Trump and related to that we should mention that with the Iran contra incident, he got involved with the special counsel investigation at that point that was looking into the pardons that were given and he affectively stopped the prosecutor from having any teeth basically to do investigation of those pardons and so. Look, I want to talk about around country just a little bit more. Because I think that's maybe even more important reason that Trump picked him been him sing. Oh, yeah. You should've fired Komi should look into Hillary Clinton cetera. He'll also said that he was right to Sally Yates from the Justice department of just the Barney would lead. So. George W Bush during the Reagan administration had participated in Iran-Contra. Let's keep it real. That's what happened or K. He might have had other good parts to his tenure. But he and that is where they sold weapons to Iran. Okay. To the Ayatollah Khomeini because they wanted to fund right wing paramilitary groups in Latin America, I mean, it was a disaster that negotiating with terrorists selling the weapons that's Reagan Bush, so and then they turn around and said, oh, the Democrats would like to do that. That's a fact okay now and other guy that participate in that. It was critical in it was Reagan's Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, so Bush, H W Bush guessing off, and he's like shoot I pardon the people that were involved with me in the Iran contra affair, and who does it bring in. He brings in William Barr and William Barr says, of course, you should you should not only pardoned Caspar Weinberger, but you should also part in these five other guys. So nobody ever catches any of you. So that's what William Boers famous for. Yeah. And so Donald Trump says should I people you bar's gonna be like? I've got the answer. They answer is always. Yes. No, let's turn to the policy because men this is William bar is in a sense. Exactly. What's wrong with Washington elite? He says for everyone else. Lock them up..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"And their general anti-communist crusade, and you know, by nineteen Ninety-two after Bush loses reelection to Bill Clinton on Christmas Eve of few weeks before he leaves office further than Bush issued a written statement this Christmas Eve pardoning former Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger and five others for their involvement in the Iran contra scandal, I want to express Rosen my deep appreciation for his principal decision granting pardon. Thereby correcting a terrible injustice that was being perpertrated on me. George Bush senior pardons. His Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger who is set to go on trial and Lawrence Walsh was going to call George Bush as a witness in that dry and Walsh was closing in on Bush and was looking criminally prosecuted. There was this whole weapons for hostage deal that was going on in the mid nineteen eighties as well. And some of those proceeds would end up being used to fund the contras that was being coordinated by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North lords Walsh makes clear that it looks like this is a criminal action that violates US government policy, but also the arms control export act. And he said that this went to the very top. He implicates Ronald Reagan by name Bush Schultz, Casey, Weinberger, the national security adviser, basically the whole cabinet, and they should have all been. Peach your conscience clear. Do you mean that the interpretation that has been made of the documents in this trial, I gather when they are not entirely accurate. I'm not discussing anything about my role in this except to say that everything I've said I'll stand behind. Since there's a plus ter- just just told the gentleman that I'm not going to go into that. So please don't ask me to do that which I've just said I'm not gonna do your burning up time to meter is run. You look at how the issue of Trump and potential pardons of people like Paul Manafort or others, and what they're accused of versus all of these people that were pardoned by the man now being hero worshipped by every major democrat Republican at cetera. And there's no mention of the fact that we're talking about people who are engaged in illicit arms smuggling Narco trafficking with supporting deaths quads including desk wads that murder American citizens. You also I think it's a Borton to point this historical fact out during the Iran contra investigations, Dick Cheney was a congressman from Wyoming. And he in fact, was one of the lead authors of the dissenting report on the Iran contra investigation, and in fact in his report said. This was actually a model for how the US should do its foreign policy, not some aberration or scandal. And then you have Cheney going on to be ws vice president, and you then see the same kind of death squad activity that became known in Iraq has the Salvador option and included people like Colonel James steel and other US paramilitary figures that were deeply involved with creating death-squad 's in Central America than doing it again in Iraq under George H W Bush his son's time in office with Dick Cheney who was the main defense point on Iran-Contra for the Bush Reagan White House. It's this whole continuity for from the Phoenix program to Operation Condor to the Central American dirty wars to the death squads in Iraq. And you have all these Bush senior figures are running the war, right? Dick, Cheney's vice president Donald Rumsfeld is secretary of defense James Bay. Acre is the lawyer that comes in to ensure that the supreme court picks the right person in two thousand and George W Bush named president. Right. And you know, one of those votes is Clarence Thomas. Basically this joke of jurist who George Bush pick to replace the giant Thurgood Marshall. So you just have this constant corruption that's going on with the Bush family. And now they've been completely rehabilitated because they're not as crude or cartoonish as Donald Trump. You had this incident that happened on July third nineteen eighty eight when the US shot down and Ronnie a civilian airliner killing two hundred ninety odd passengers among the more than sixty children. We believe that the cruiser US been sands. While actively engaged with threatening Raanan surface units protecting itself from what was concluded to be hostile aircraft showdown and Arrhenius airliner over the straits of her moves. US government deeply regrets the sensitive, George H W Bush said the following in response to that shooting. I'll never apologize for the United States of America ever. I don't care what the facts are. Yeah..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on Talk Radio WPHT 1210
"From from George Stephanopoulos. Go ahead. The Clinton's campaign manager, this is an open phone session. He dialed indirectly number. Go ahead. George president asked us to find out what the smoking gun was what this memo clearly showed this web memo by the secretary of defense. Caspar Weinberger is it on January seventh nineteen Eighty-six. Let me quote from the memo the president decided to go with an Israeli Iranian offer to release our five hostages in return for sale of four thousand toes to Iran by Israel. In other words, that it was clearly an explicit deal of arms for hostages. But on January eighth nineteen eighty eight. You said it was not arms-for-hostages sense that we were sending arms and your fence that we were trying to get the hostages, but it was clearly not arms for hostages. And for the last five years. You have consistently said it was not arms for hostages. And this memo clearly shows it wasn't deed arms-for-hostages five hostages in return for the sale. Of four thousand tow missiles, and that you knew it then according to Mr. Weinberger. Yeah. Let me let me tell you Mr. Stephanopoulos, very able young man. Was the floor director or something for Mr. Gephardt? Who is the majority leader of the Democrats, the Democrats the house of representatives under the Democrats, that's his background. It is the Democrats who have been pushing to the tune of some forty million dollars these hearings. I would simply refer him to this testimony much says what he's just said, however to this very day, President Reagan didn't feel.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"That he quit the NRA not after park land. But in the nineties because even back, then the NRA was becoming too radical for him, but also kudos to Michelle Martin and all things considered yesterday for remembering that amid all the accolades for Bush's, relative moderation. We should remember. He also gave us most conservative supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas for the seat. Previously held by Thurgood Marshall, no less and Bush remained. Extremely proud of that his whole life. According to his close aide seaboard in gray who was the guest on all things considered. So more on all that complexity tomorrow for right now, as we anticipate another eventful week in the Russia investigation will look back for a minute on George H W Bush and Watergate, and George H W Bush and Iran-Contra here's a clip of Bush from when he was CIA director under Richard Nixon in June of nineteen. Seventy-three Watergate at that time is starting to get hot. And remember how close it is in some basic ways to the Russia scandal. It was a break in of Democratic Party headquarters to steal some of their files, but they had to do it physically because there is no hacking yet in those days, and that was followed by obstruction of Justice by the president to cover it up. Eerily parallel at least potentially. So it's June of nineteen Seventy-three more than a year before Nixon resigned and most Republicans are still sticking by Nixon at this time Bush does too in this clip, but he also firmly denounces the idea of stealing Democratic Party files as bad both morally, and politically I had a discussion with the president about it before I took this job. And I told him I was concerned about Watergate and nothing he told me made me feel concerned that he wanted me to go easy on Watergate. He feels the same way. I do. Do about it. I'm sure of it. His public statements have said, so and I believe it, and I'm I'm gonna continue to believe it until somebody gives some evidence that what's wrong with Watergate, Mr Bush. I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's against everything. I believe in in our system is head of his party. It's we Republicans. It's me who got out of private life into public life to serve and to believe in the system, and I don't like to say lead by people breaking the law. I don't like to see it sullied by dirty tricks. And I hurt the worst about it. And so the Republican leaders across this country, and we want to see it cleaned up. It's bad for our system. So George H W Bush there on meet the press in nineteen Seventy-three by August of seventy four when things are really coming to light about Nixon's role in the cover up Bushees, no longer CIA director. He's the chairman of the national Republican party and becomes one of the top Republicans to actually tell Richard Nixon that he should resign. And you know, who wrote about this told the story, George W Bush. That's right. George W Bush Bush forty three from the book he published about his father in twenty fourteen. Here goes, I'm gonna read the final straw came on August fifth nineteen seventy-four this court had ruled that the White House must turn over all the tapes to Leon joie ski the new Watergate special prosecutor and a friend of dad's from Houston. The tapes reveal the Nixon had spoken to one of his aides about awarding the FBI investigation into the Watergate breaking that was proof that he knew about the cover up and that he had lied to the country. The revelation shattered dad's trust in Knicks August fifth nineteen seventy four quote, despite his deep disappointment still reading from the book, my father, refused to condemn Nixon publicly while we might have been. Fitted in the short run dad saw little point in piling on as he put it. He voiced his opinion privately in a letter to the president on August, seventh as far as I know, he's the only party chairman in American history who has ever written such a letter I now and his quote from a quote from George H W Bush is letter to president Nixon on August seven thousand nine hundred seventy four I now firmly feel that resignation is best for this country. Best for the president. He wrote I believe this view is held by most Republican leaders across the country unquote from the letter back to George W Bush's telling writing with his characteristic, sympathy dad continued this letter is made much more difficult because of the gratitude, I will always have for you. If you do leave office history will properly record, your achievements with the lasting respect, unquote. And the next day as George W Bush recalls, president Nixon announced that he would resign. So that from ws book about his father with the head of the Republican party writing to the Republican president urging him to resign and the next day. He did. So that was Watergate in the nineteen seventies in the nineteen eighties. Came president Ronald Reagan's Iran contra scandal, secretly selling weapons to Iran and exchange for US, hostages something. Reagan had said publicly he would never do because it made it look like the US was paying ransom and then using money from the Iran arms sale to fund a controversial pro US rebel group in Nicaragua. The contras who congress had passed a law specifically for Bill forbidding military aid to now. Bush was Reagan's vice president at the time, and then got elected president himself, of course, while a special prosecutor investigation was still going on of Bush and other Reagan appointees one of those appointees. Was Reagan's Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger he was being investigated by special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh. And you know what? Bush did with Weinberger when Bush got into office. He pardoned him. Know that this came up just last Sunday on the show ABC this week when attorney Alan Dershowitz was defending Donald Trump, if Trump pardons Paul Manafort did to casper Weinberger is identical he pardoned on the eve of the trial to avoid criminal investigations, the special prosecutor said that wall said that nobody suggested criminal prosecution the difference. Here would be that he's pardoning to protect himself. So was Bush he pardoned and protect themselves. Great fear. Was that Caspar? Weinberger would point the finger back and believe me on this guy. Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor, the Robert Muller of his day Dershowitz with ABC news legal analyst, Dan Abrahams there, and that brings us to today, and our first guest politicos Kyle Cheney who covers congress usually. But has also reporting a lot right now on the Muller investigation. Carl thanks for coming on welcome to WNYC. Thanks so much Brian. Thanks for having me. Pretty interesting. Take on Bush from Alan Dershowitz, Bush pardoned. Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger because Bush wouldn't be forced to reveal things about himself relating to Iran contra, it's an it's an eerie parallel. Truly is. I think I think the point though, from that clip was that was that there was a policy impetus behind the scandal whereas year, it's all about Trump is the the nature of the scandal of the controversy the nature of what the pardon would be about. And actually Manafort Manafort in particular, his campaign, chairman was convey. On crimes completely prior to any of the campaign scandals in question here. So he'd be partying in for things like money, money laundering, and tax fraud and stuff that is very very personal in nature. That's a very interesting distinction that the Trump investigation is about things Trump did or may have done with respect to the lanes. He was willing to go just to get himself elected in the case of Reagan and Bush and Caspar Weinberger, you're right. No matter how much of the public may have judged them at the time. No matter what the political opposition may have thought the Democrats on a policy level. Even if the stuff was illegal. They were doing what they believed was in the interest of the country trading arms for hostages with Iran. And then funding the contras in Nicaragua, which you know, Democrats hated that idea. And yet Reagan really thought he was doing it in the interest of warding off. Communism and protecting the United States exactly in Bush even made that argument at the time adjusting, look if someone that you get in trouble for this. It's the president. It's the it's the leadership of the administration because we were setting the policy and this is at its heart a policy division. We shouldn't criminalize that. And that's a convenient way to argue something you might be liable yourself, but it is actually sort of intellectually consistent in a sense with what the nature of the crime was or the supposedly crime was and yet they had enough hubris and one could argue little enough respect for democracy, which is one of the things we always say about Trump that they were willing to thwart what the law was no arms for hostages, no paying ransom to Iran. No arms deals with Iran at all after they had taken American hostages and Congress's Bill that was passed not to fund the contras Reagan and Bush and Caspar Weinberger, and the others basically said. Who cares about democracy? We're gonna do we think is right anyway. Well, it's true and actually encounter that in areas in the Trump administration that are independent of sort of the more the Russia related things like the Trump administration's handling of immigration laws in a family separations. It's. I think things like that where there's questions about our are. They being true to the letter of the law didn't even come up in the conversation of Trump's scandals. That's more of just, you know, some of the get some of the policy controversy around the administration, but we separate that from the Russia scandal, which is really all about Trump, and again listeners, we're planning a rounded view of George H W Bush's public life for tomorrow show the day before he is laid to rest, but Kyle Cheney from political maybe one of the most stunning developments from this weekend. That people may have missed is that Vladimir Putin spokesman Dmitry peskov took the extraordinary step of confirming. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, Michael Collins version of events, which were of course, released by Colin and Muller last week about Trump trying to make a Moscow Trump Tower deal with Putin's government, while Trump was running for President Trump has previously lied to the public. We now know claiming he had. Had no business dealings with Russia. At that time. Here's a clip of peskov. This may be a little hard to understand folks. But here it is. And then we'll talk about it..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
"And as a result he could be a critical with. And now, they do seem to have been working hard straight these deals. You mentioned courses as to Coursey and associated Roger stone perhaps could become a witness against Rogers not witness. And he's a guy who is provided. He's a conspiracy theorist is not going to be a witness if they have corroborating evidence to support his account as a defense attorney. I love when they put on like Coursey and Manafort, even when it's corroborated. There's so much better off not putting on these questionable. Witnesses and using their information to make the case with. Cutlass? Let's stipulate those just talk about the information. So we're getting information from Paul Manafort where we're getting information perhaps. From course, we already getting information from gates from Colin from film. That's an awful lot of April tied at the president providing evidence it is. And I think the report is going to be devastating to the president. And I know that the president's teams are already working on a response to the report. And so at some point when the reports made public, and that's a very hard question, considering the new attorney general who has the authority to decide when and under what circumstances to make it public? It will be made public probably with a response alongside the president will say, look, it's political there's their countenance our count. And the American public will have to judge is devastating is really something. Let's talk about why someone like Coursey so important. Some people say, you know, Muller's veering off and all these different areas Coursey goes to the heart of the question. Of who in the Trump campaign knew what? And when about the hacking about the distribution of that information at cetera. So if they make a deal with someone like Coursey that means that they believe he's got information linking it back to someone in the Trump campaign doesn't mean it's Donald Trump himself, but on the most Roger stone, the most likely one there, and that's really important on the critical questions that we've been talking about the critical questions are largely political when I say devastating. I mean, it's going to paint a picture that's going to be politically, very devastating. I still don't think it's going to make a criminal case because collusion is not criminal because spiracy to cooperate with an attempted to for the United States government is no that that's Sumitra of a stretch conspiracy to attempt to obstruct to the United States government thinking need more than that. What I think Muller's going to do if he's smart he's not gonna take the chance on being rebutted? He's gonna just lay at just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts he's gonna. Lay out the facts, leave it to congress to decide whether that rises level of impeachable offense. I still think Trump's greatest vulnerabilities do not lie with Muller they lie in the southern district of New York because Muller's allegations have constitutional defenses. Whereas if there's any shenanigans having to do with business, they don't have konczal position that you that president effectively can obstruct Justice. And if he does what Nixon did destroy evidence tamper with witnesses pay hush money. He can't be convicted of instruction addresses by exercising merely. His constitutional authority to fire but tampering wet tampering with witnesses could be interpreted broadly. Right. And so you would say that if the president tampered witnesses he could be you can't tamper with witnesses by issuing public tweets. Away. Witnesses by silently doing what Nixon did offering them. Hush money. Nobody is sort of what about pardons? What about dang? That's all public. That's all a public and be Williams wearing Sam it has to be private. We don't wear he distinguished doing crimes in public. Number one. We're in the law. What this thing did to casper Weinberger is identical. He pardoned on the eve of the trial to avoid criminal investigations, the special prosecutor said that wall said that nobody suggested criminal prosecution there the difference. Here would be that he's pardoning to protect himself. So was Bush he pardoned and protect themselves. The great fear was that Caspar Weinberger would point the finger back in and believe me on this believe let me let me interrupt with a hypothetical you ramp the castle umbrella bring up a different hypothetical if Robert Muller has determined that president tr..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on Kickass News
"As someone who's defended many of the most high profile criminal cases over the past few decades, would you advise Trump to sit down with Muller and give him an interview or not unless she had no alternative, no prosecutor ever wants to talk to a subject in order to help them. Obviously, the only purpose of coming in sitting down with a prosecutor is to hurt him. If the resident doesn't believe that he oughta call Martha Stewart and ask her why she went to jail. She didn't go to jail for what you did. On the tarmac. She went to jail because of what she said to prosecutors when she sat down and talk to them. So as a lawyer, fifty, three years, I've never had a client sit down and talk to a prosecutor, and I pretty sure I'll go to my grave without breaking that rule, but he may have no alternative because he can be subpoenaed. And then he has to go to court and challenge the subpoena on legal and constitutional grounds. And in the end, probably he'll win some and loose them. But in the end, he probably would have to testify as to some aspects of his. Activities. Now, if he's asked, why did you fire Muller? He doesn't have to answer that question because the constitution protects a president, the Senator congressman judge from having their motives or intentions probed if they engage in constitutionally authorized acts a, yeah, there's been kind of this parlor game of people trying to divine whether Trump had. I forget the term. I think it's a karate motives. Yes, doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you had a crop motive. We know that president, George H W Bush did have a corrupt motive. When he pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other people. The special prosecutor in that case, said specifically that his motive was to end the investigation and his motive was to protect himself. Yet nobody suggested impeachment because his name was Bush and the current president's name is Trump. You can't have one law for one person and another law for another person. Last time I checked, I think there were two articles of impeachment that have already been filed in congress against Trump won. I think calls for Trump to be removed based on his being quoted. Danger to our democracy. I don't think that that meets any particular legal standard, but the other one calls from on obstruction of Justice. Well, that would meet the criteria, but you'd have to have the evidence of it. And in the book I spell out what would happen if he were impeached for obstruction of Justice, which is a crime, but he is defense was that it couldn't be obstruction because he was engaging in a constitutionally authorized act. That would really raise an interesting question. Who decides that the Senate, who decides it? Would it be the chief Justice who's presiding over it? Who decides it? Could it ultimately get to the supreme court? These are all unresolved issues of law that we may never see resolved. And you argue in the book that what people are saying might be obstruction of Justice such as asking Komi to drop the Flynn investigation and eventually firing Comey you say that those all fall within his duties as the executive, right? So they can't be obstruction under those terms. I think that's absolutely right Thomas Jefferson when he was president, ran the trial against. Aaron bar. He ordered his attorney general, ran the prosecution. He brought witnesses in personally, gave them immunity by giving them pardons if they testified against Burr and threatened them with prosecution. If they refused to testify against her, under the theory of unitary executive, the president is the executive. Theoretically, he doesn't even have to appoint attorney general. He could appoint himself attorney general the way. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu appointed himself foreign minister or minister of whatever the executive is. The executive, the attorney general speaks for and acts on behalf of the president, United States, terrible system. If I were writing the constitution, I write at different. I had had an independent office of prosecution outside of the cabinet outside of the control of the president like they do in England, like they do in Israel like they do in other countries. Is that how you would have liked to have seen this investigation handled in some kind of an open public forum, something independent as opposed to the Muller investigation? Yes. And day one. I called for a nine eleven type nonpartisan expert investigation to make sure that Russia never. Again intrudes in our election..
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on KQED Radio
"While in office he committed real obstruction of justice by tampering with witnesses by paying hush money by telling associates to lie to the fbi by destroying evidence but he didn't commit the crime by firing the special prosecutor was a horrible horrible thing to do archie cox was a close friend of mine horrible thing to do it would be horrible if the current president fired muller affi rosenstein but none of that would be a crime a criminal lawyer i've been doing this for fifty three years i don't wanna see obstruction of justice expanded accordion like to fit a predetermined target and i just wanted to make sure we're clear professor dershowitz when you say that that would not be a crime you're talking about it in terms of the executive powers of the president that he has the power to hire and fire people who fall under the executive branch the president has the authority under article two to fire and pardon in my view is a criminal law expert the this race of a crime remember you need both actors rasa criminal act and men's ray a criminal state of mind the act raise for crime can never be a constitutionally authorized act like pardoning president george bush the first pardoned caspar weinberger and five of the people for the purpose the corrupt purpose of making sure they didn't point the finger of accusation at him no one suggested impeachment because people like president bush and yet that was exactly the same as in functionality as what president trump has done so we have to make sure we all pass the shoe on the other foot test or is john roles would say you know the tests that says you make decisions about rights without knowing who you are without knowing what impact is going to have an on whom all i'm calling for is neutral principles of civil liberties equally applicable to all before we get back to professor lichtman and give them a chance to to jump back in i hear you in terms of hillary clinton and particularly the email surrounding her time at the state department having a private server the whole benghazi thing like i get that i wonder though about the acts themselves i mean we did have this comment from triangle man who mentioned russia and who mentioned the emoluments clause right i wonder if you would feel the same way about hillary clinton if she owned a hotel on pennsylvania avenue and bought it from the general services administration or if her son in law had taken a meeting with russians who claim to have damaging information on donald trump i mean is it is it about hillary clinton if hillary clinton had done what donald trump has done and this accused of having done would you feel the same about it i would now i'll tell you why as a.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville
"The incredible criminal pyramid that that richard nixon had that again flared up again in republican politics interesting contra will oliver north in remember the only reason that vice president later president bush bush senior wasn't you know impeached indicted sent to prison whatever with he pardoned his former secretary of defense caspar weinberger right so they had they had gone up the chain of command just as nixon his underlings lot of them had to go to prison he didn't they had gone up the chain of command through people like oliver north and and these lower level officials they got into the secretary of defense caspar weinberger and then you know he was going to be flipped onto vice president now president bush and and pushed pardoned caspar weinberger so we didn't have to testify against bush and and we're talking bush senior here and that then of course that brought us that bush's son is our later president and all those horrible abuses in the wake of nine eleven the second iraq war and all of the the the cia shenanigans that went on and i call them she'd had against they were horrible crimes of all the other tortures of people and the cooking of the books in terms of the intelligence to somehow justify the second iraq war and now we're getting ready to have a cia director have confirmation hearings tomorrow who is in the middle of all of that yeah and speaking of what your i want to get to our callers here but you're here quick thoughts on gina hospital well the problem there is not only was she involved you know whether these torture site she was involved with destroying evidence you know the videotapes and and received no kind of reprimand or anything for that but beyond that think of how many cia files are still secret to this day about watergate involving people like e howard hunt and bernard barker whose associates harry williams you and i interviewed.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
"Relation that trump's longtime loyal counsel michael cohen might turn on trump and cooperate with prosecutors after a dramatic f b i raid on his homes and office this saturday headline in the new york times michael cohen has said he would take a bullet for trump maybe not anymore sparky for rochas response on twitter from the president after attacking the new york times for making up the story the president praised cohen as a fine person who would never flip sorry i don't see michael doing that despite the horrible witch hunt and the dishonest media that is the biggest question now looming over this investigation we'll michael cohen flip wanna dig into it with our panel of legal experts alan dershowitz professional merida's at harvard law school author of trumped up how criminalization of political differences endangers democracy our chief legal analyst dan abrahams and made me rocca former federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york now criminal justice fellow at pace law school welcome to all of you procedures let me begin with you the president clearly educated by all this pressure on michael cohen he also called the raid on cohen and attack on our country after those rates how serious is the threat to cohen and trump oh it's a very serious threat this is an epic battle for the soul and the cooperation of michael cohen and prosecutors have enormous weapons at their disposal they can threaten him essentially with life imprisonment they can threaten his parents they can threaten his spouse they have these enormous abilities to really put pressure and co worse a witness on the other hand the president has unique weapon that no other criminal defendant or suspect ever has he has the pardon power and go back to christmas nineteen ninety two when president bush exercise that pardon power and pardoned caspar weinberger precluding him from pointing the finger at him put a lot on the table right that we'll get interminably i gotta go to you first 'cause they saw you sort of squinting.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on WGIR-AM
"Issued six pardons that effectively shutdown the prosecution of caspar weinberger you might say rush that's very bad there's against the rules that we've already gone way past the rules here folks we're now at survival and if the muller team is going to refer a criminal action to the southern district of new york which is going to then have the fbi raid your personal lawyer's office home hotel room and then you're going to tell the media the reason for this is it's got to be something to really really bad it must be really really serious or they would never granted a search warrant it's got to be paying then shut it down you have to fire anybody this grant everybody pardons now admittedly george h w bush was leaving office when he did it but we're talking about survival we're not talking about coming to a mutual agreement we're not talking about trump's sitting down for an interview with muller in coming to an agreement to end this it's only has one objective get rid of donald trump donald trump's objective therefore has to be to survive this attempt to get rid of him firing muller and rosenstein is exactly what people want him to do making look like he's out of control and make him look what he's hiding something and i think they're trying to get him into doing it again because they don't have anything on trump they may have something happening on trump i don't think right now they have anything that could prosecute trump on impeach different thing that all hinges on the democrats winning the white are winning the house of representatives two thousand eighteen got a quick time out here folks be back in just every corner of this world rush.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"In the criminal justice system but if the president believes that this investigation is trumped up that mr muller's investigation out of control then why wouldn't he offer pardons well he may believe that he may also believe it's out of control because he fears for himself because he's concerned about his own exposure and it's precisely that element of self protectiveness that i think threatens the legality of that offer of the pardons brings that into question go ahead is a real problem with that and that is president bush the first did exactly that he pardoned caspar weinberger and five people on the eve of the trial in order to end the investigation special counsel at that time lawrence welk accused him of doing that and said he had succeeded ending the investigation and yet nobody nobody suggests that obstruction of justice thomas jefferson gave pardons to people in order to help the prosecution of his political enemy aaron burr all throughout history we see presidents offering and granting pardons once you start getting into the area of inquiry enquiring as to what the motive of a pardon was you're really getting it to constitutionally difficult areas of course if the president were to take a bribe and give a pardon the taking of the bribe at self would be the crime the granting of the pardon would not be a crime i do not believe that engaging in a constitutionally authorized act can ever be the basis of a criminal charges let me i want to move the conversation here a little bit and bob let me start with you the fact that flynn decided to cooperate and plead guilty and not accept the dangling of a partner did it with ms or does that tell you something and as paul manafort's decision not to cooperate tell you something with this part is what do you read into it.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on WCHS
"In the criminal justice system but if the president believes that this investigation is trumped up that mr muller's investigation out of control then why wouldn't he offer pardons well he believed that the males so believe it's out of control because he fears for himself because he's concerned about his own exposure and it's precisely that element of self protectiveness that i think threatens the legality of that offer of the pardons go ahead visit a real problem with that and that is president bush the first did exactly that he pardoned caspar weinberger and five people on the eve of the trial in order to end the investigation special counsel at that time lawrence well accused him of doing that and said he had succeeded in ending the investigation and yet nobody nobody suggests that obstruction of justice at that point thomas jefferson gave pardons to people in order to help the prosecution of his political enemy aaron burr all throughout history we see presidents offering and granting pardons once you start getting into the area of inquiry enquiring as to what the motive of pardon was you're really getting it to constitutionally difficult areas of course if the president were to take a bribe and give a pardon the taking the bribe itself would be the crime the granting of the pardon would not be a crime i do not believe that engaging in a constitutionally authorized act can ever be the basis of a criminal chore and bob let me start with you the fact that flynn decided to cooperate and plead guilty and not accept the dangling of a partner did with or does that tell you something and as paul manafort's decision not to cooperate tell you something with this part is what do you read into it.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on KBOI 670AM
"For corrupt purpose than he's exposed to criminal liability for that if his lawyer with his thority on his behalf offered a pardon as a means of tainting or corrupting testimony in a criminal proceeding than i don't see any basis for saying the president does not have to answer for that in the criminal justice system but if the president believes that this investigation is trumped up that mr muller's investigation out of control then why wouldn't he offer pardons well he may believe that the may also believe it's out of control because he fears for himself because he's concerned about his own exposure and it's precisely that element of self protectiveness that i think threatens the legality of that offer of pardons good as go ahead there's a real problem with that and that is president bush the first that exactly that he pardoned caspar weinberger and five people on the eve of the trial in order to end the investigation special counsel at that time lawrence welk accused him of doing that and said he had succeeded in the investigation and yet nobody nobody suggests that obstruction of justice at that point thomas jefferson gave pardons to people in order to help the prosecution of his political enemy aaron burr all throughout history we see presidents offering and granting pardons once you start getting into the area of inquiry enquiring as to what the motive of a pardon was you're really getting it to constitutionally difficult areas of course if the president were to take a bribe and give the taking of the bribe itself would be the crime the granting of the pardon would not be a crime i do not believe that engaging in a constitutionally authorized act can ever be the basis of a criminal chore let me i want to move the conversation here a little bit and bob let me start with you the fact that flynn decided to cooperate and plead guilty and not accept the dangling of a partner did or does that tell you something and as paul manafort's decision not to cooperate tell you something with this part is what what do you read into it.
"caspar weinberger" Discussed on WWL
"Case category including a malaya men's whether there was collusion those are the three categories i do think that anything relating to pardon he would have a strong constitutional defense i think he's most vulnerable when it comes to women if he testifies under oath and gets into a she said he said which puts them in clinton land and the basis on which clinton was impeached mr bauer what are you saying the partnership i don't think there's any question and i have to respectfully disagree with professor dershowitz if the president uses the pardon power for corrupt purpose than he's exposed to criminal liability for that if his lawyer with his authority on his behalf offered a pardon as a means of tainting or corrupting testimony in a criminal proceeding than i don't see any basis for saying the president does not have to answer for that in the criminal justice system but if the president believes that this investigation is trumped up that mr muller's investigation out of control then why wouldn't they offer pardons well he made believe that but you may also believe it's out of control because he fears for himself because he's concerned about his own exposure and it's precisely that element of self protectiveness that i think threatens the legality of that offer of pardons that brings that into question go ahead is a real problem with that and that is president bush the first did exactly that he pardoned caspar weinberger and five people on the eve of the trial in order to end the investigation special counsel at that time laurence welk accused him of doing that and said he had succeeded in ending the investigation and yet nobody nobody suggests that obstruction of justice at that point thomas jefferson gave pardons to people in order to help the prosecution of his political enemy aaron burr all throughout history we see presidents offering and granting pardons once you start getting into the area of inquiry enquiring as to what the motive of a pardon was you're really getting into constitutionally difficult areas of course if the president were to take a bribe and give a pardon the taking of the bryant self would be the crime the granting of the pardon would not be a crime i do not believe that engaging in a constitutionally authorized act can ever be the basis of a criminal chore let me i want to move the conversation here a.