22 Burst results for "Garland Justice Department"
Northwest Newsradio
"garland justice department" Discussed on Northwest Newsradio
"Classified national defense information just because classified information may be posted online or elsewhere does not mean it has been declassified by a classification authority. And those of you who have been covering The Pentagon for a long time know that we're just not going to discuss or confirm classified information due to the potential impact on national security as well as the safety and security of our personnel and those of our allies and our partners. Investigators believe to share a lead an online chat group where the documents about the Ukraine war were posted. This was a deliberate criminal act of violation of those guidelines, and so again, I think that's important to understand. Now, we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that people who have a need to know when it comes to this kind of information have access to that Pentagon spokesman pat rider referred all questions to Garland's Justice Department about the highest profile intelligence leak in years are expected to abide by those rules regulations and responsibility. It's called military discipline. And in certain cases, especially when it comes to sensitive information, it also is about the law. The Biden administration has been scrambling to contain the fallout Sagar Meghani, Washington. It's 9 after. Historic floods submerged parts of South Florida after torrential rain fell in a 24 hour span. Correspondent Clayton Neville has this follow-up. Down force in Fort Lauderdale led to flooded streets to some residents seen swimming in the roads. Wednesday marked the rainiest day in the city's history. It's
AP News Radio
AG: Guardsman to be charged with removing classified info
"A Massachusetts Air National Guard member has been arrested in the case of highly classified military documents leaked online. Heavily armed federal agents took 21 year old Jack to shera into custody outside his home. To share is an employee of the United States Air Force National Guard. An intelligent specialist whom attorney general Merrick Garland says will be charged with unauthorized removal of classified national defense information. Investigators believe to share a lead an online chat group where the documents about the Ukraine war were posted. This was a deliberate criminal act. Pentagon spokesman pat rider referred all questions to Garland's Justice Department about the highest profile intelligence leak in years. The Biden administration has been scrambling to contain the fallout, Sagar Meghani, Washington.
The Charlie Kirk Show
Senator Josh Hawley on His Latest Standoff With Merrick Garland
"Many different stories to cover senator. Welcome back to the program and thank you again for taking the time. I'm going to play cut one 17 and then I'll let you riff so the audience can see you in action. Let's play cut one 17 please. So give me an answer. The FBI does not agree with your discipline. I'm not asking about the FBI. You are the attorney general. Give me your answer. Do you think that it was objectively reasonable and they followed your guidelines? In sending 20 to 30 armed agents to terrorize these people. Yes or no. The facts I have, which are those presented by the FBI are not consistent with your description. We're supposed to hate long guns and assault style weapons. You're happy to deploy them against Catholics and innocent children. Happy to. And then you haul them into court in a jury acquits him in one hour. I just suggest to you that that is a disgraceful performance by your Justice Department and a disgraceful use of resources. Amen, senator hawley, expand on that. Well, listen, Charlie, I mean, here's the thing. In Merrick Garland's Justice Department and then Joe Biden's America. If you want to execute somebody in the streets of this country gang style, they don't do anything. If you want to smuggle fentanyl across the border and engage in human trafficking, they turn a blind eye. But if you go to church, or if you consider yourself a traditional Christian or traditional Catholic or what have you, then they think that you're a terrorist and they treat you like one. This Justice Department sent 30 S.W.A.T. agents FBI agents to the home of this pro life demonstrator, a law abiding citizen in the early morning hours to do what to terrorize him. He was acquitted later by a jury of his peers in less than an hour. That shows you the priorities of this Justice Department. It's wrong and it needs to be exposed. Yeah,
Opening Arguments
"garland justice department" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"So procedurally you had just teed this up. I think there's a really good point that the Lisa page and Pete struck lawsuits are two separate tracks. They have not yet been consolidated together. But they have some rather significant factual overlap. And so judge Amy Berman Jackson issued this order last August that affects both cases. So that says it relevant part. For the reasons, stated during today's proceeding, defendant's motions to quash the deposition of FBI director Christopher wray is granted insofar as it asks for the depositions to be sequenced. But otherwise, it remains held in abeyance. That means she's going to hold off on ruling for now, and she said the same thing about Donald Trump, right? So no, you don't get to depose the immediately, but cut back, right? Her order continues. The deposition of the former FBI deputy director David bowdich must be completed before the challenge to depositions, along with the deposition of former Deputy Attorney General rod Rosenstein, both parties must file supplemental platings no longer than four pages love that. Addressing whether and how any information gathered in those depositions bears upon the resolution of the apex doctrine issue raised in the motions to quash. Okay, so what she's saying here is, did you get all of the information that you assert you need from Trump and ray after you've deposed Rosenstein about it? And, you know, spoiler alert, this is one of the many ways in which the government is going to continue to resist an order deposing Chris wray. Anyway, she continues. Furthermore, in order to address the questions of executive privilege that bear upon the resolution of these motions, plaintiffs must file a notice, transmitting a transcript of the Rosenstein deposition and listing with as much particularity as possible the subject matter areas and substance of the questions he would propose to ask at any deposition of the former president and the FBI director. The defendants must respond to that notice, identifying all questions to which they intend to assert executive privilege, specifying as to each whether they asserting the presidential communications or deliberative process prong of the privilege or both, put up in that we will get to it. Finally, the parties must submit simultaneous briefs setting forth their legal arguments as to the applicability of executive privilege. So that's the end of the order, going to talk more about it. If you're thinking, is any of this the kind of conduct that courts impose on regular deficit? No. It regular litigation practice. You just notice up a deposition. The parties agree when and where they're going to be deposed. You have a conference room somewhere. You have a court reporter. The party sit in there with just their lawyers, no judge, the court reporter, and you fight about this afterwards. So this is imposing a very, very heavy procedural set of constraints on those future depositions. And there is still more here. So judge Jackson also ordered the government to cough up Sarah is found logs, but you can see 6 months ago that the parameters of this argument really taking shape. And it is the exact same arguments we have gotten familiar with over the past 6 years where Trump has just completely distorted executive privilege. You know, which was always a limited judicially created doctrine into this his view of the sort of broad blanket of immunity that, you know, covers a former president after he's left office that is just, you know, I don't know, heckling people from his golf cart. Exactly. And we should point out that the Biden administration and the Garland Justice Department have been only marginally less aggressive about this privilege. They're not changing their position very much, even though, yes, DoJ going to DoJ. So, okay, for instance, instructs response to this minute order, he noted that the government quote invoked the presidential communications privilege and or the deliberative process privilege to preclude testimony about any other discussions ray had with president Trump even as to general topics. Yeah, okay, so time to pull that pin. Let's unpack that a little bit. So both the presidential communications privilege. And the deliberative process privilege are subsets of this vague category called executive privilege. And, you know, as you just hinted at, this fun item number, I don't know, a billion in the government doesn't work the way original is pretend it does file, but look, executive privilege is not mentioned in the constitution, so you better use that portion of the constitutional claim. It doesn't say executive privilege doesn't hit at it, right? There's nothing even close anywhere in the text. It was not a phrase in common use in law stuff until after World War II, right? One source that I read said that it was not first invoked by name until the Eisenhower administration, right? And on top of all of that, it's not a law passed by Congress. And I found this out. Even though it would be self serving, executive privilege is even comprehensively set out in an executive order, right? Like written by the president himself. So despite all that, Republican presidents in particular seemed pretty sure that executive privilege not only exists, right? And they rely on it, but is, quote, constitutionally based, that's from multiple Trump pleadings. Despite the fact that, you know, it contradicts their whole big belief system of jurisprudence. Anyway, what is executive privilege? Yeah, the place that modern courts typically look to for guidance is a 2001 George W. Bush executive order. Number one three two three three. And that order, if you're a number lover, I don't know, you might remember, we've mentioned this before. It is actual, yeah. I don't know. But that executive order one three two three three is actually one about the presidential records act, so that's why we've talked about it. In discussing how the act is to be implemented because various narrow officials will now get documents that could be privileged. That executive order lays out four pretty broad categories of executive privilege and courts kind of use this as the rubric as they're analyzing privileged claims. So the first is military diplomatic or national security secrets. So that's typically referred to by courts as the state secrets privilege. The second are communications with the president or his advisers.
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Joe DiGenova on the Possible Ramifications of New J6 Footage
"It is a day that will live in infamy, but for all the wrong reasons, especially the cover ups of what occurred on January 6th. We have a very special in studio guests, Victoria tonsing and Joe di genova. Who are actually in studio that day here on America first. So before we move on to the what has happened since January the second, especially to the defendants, what's happened to you two in the last few years. Let's talk about what could be because you've been prosecuted. You've been U.S. attorneys. What are the possible ramifications? If things come out in this footage that are clearly wrong, have been covered up, our criminal acts, what could the possible civil or criminal consequences be? Well, I think given the Garland Justice Department and the ray FBI. Very little will happen from the federal government's perspective. I think they are going to ignore everything. Do everything they can to make believe that nothing ill occurred. From a civil standpoint, it's very difficult to tell until we see the footage and see what happened. But people theoretically will have causes of action for assault and various other things. Obviously loss of life, unlawful, killing, and things like that. We have to find out what evidence of police brutality. Yeah, all sorts of things like that. And so, and it may actually get some capital police officers to come forward and be whistleblowers who have kept silent because of the small nature of the force, it's a very insular organization, generally historically been very poorly led and poorly trained, and nothing demonstrated that more than January 6th.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"garland justice department" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"About to become open in California. The independent council investigating former president Trump decides to bring the former vice president into the mix, and what the Israeli judicial crisis could mean for the startup nation. From the Bloomberg interactive broker studio in New York, welcome to the second hour of balance of power. I'm David Weston. About three months ago now, a special counsel was appointed to investigate former president Trump, both with respect to his efforts to hold on to power as well as his handling of classified documents. His name is Jack Smith, and he seems to be picking up the cadence of his investigation, including, for example, going for a subpoena for the former vice president of the United States, Mike Pence, which apparently mister Pence is resisting. Take us through where we are in this special counsel and investigation, we welcome now, Ryan Goodman. He's Professor of law at New York University. So professor, thank you so much for being with us. We're told that mister Pence is going to resist the subpoena. Do we know on what grounds? So reportedly he's going to resist the subpoena on the surprise grounds, not that he is invoking executive privilege as an officer of the executive branch and in his communications with the president of the United States, but rather as the president of the Senate operating as part of the legislative branch and there's a part of the constitution that suggests that senators and members of the House can be protected from subpoenas even in criminal cases. Explain perhaps the Professor of the significance of that because there was an issue with executive privilege I remember there was raised earlier with respect to former president who were President Biden said, no, I'm not asserting executive privilege. And if the current executive waves it, then the former executive can't putting aside with us right or not, I suppose that it's clear that President Biden can not waive the speech and debate clause privilege. If there is one. That's exactly right. So it's no longer within that ballpark of President Biden doesn't even get to play in a sense. So it's a totally exclusively the idea that the vice president is this weird creature that at times is part of the executive branch at other times as part of the legislative branch. And this would put him way outside of the control of the president of the United States in terms of any idea of whether or not the president wants to invoke executive privilege would be irrelevant. So I in general sort of kind of remember the speech and debate clause, but I'd never thought about it applying to the vice president because I always in my mind it sort of put him in the executive branch as this question been addressed before about whether for this purpose, the vice president of the United States is in the executive branch or actually part of the Congress? So there's something that's quite remarkable is that the current Justice Department, the attorney general Garland Justice Department has taken a position in court saying that the vice president on January 6th was operating in his capacity under article one of as a member of the Senate. So they have actually said that the advice that the speech and debate laws excuse me does apply to vice president Pence on January 6th. Even though scholars might debate that. So there's going to be a lot of legal experts are going to say that's actually wrong, but that's the Justice Department and that basically binds special counsel Smith as well. So I think that the real place for the debate will be in the litigation over how far does that extend. Yes, that maybe does apply to him counting the ballots in the halls of Congress on January 6th, but does it really apply to his conversations with president Trump preceding January 6th in which Trump is trying to pressure him? To do other things. And that's, I think, where there might be a big difference of opinion. So that's fascinating. So if effectively, the special counsel because of his relation to the Justice Department is, I'll use the term stopped from really bringing the claim that it's not inside the speech related cause. Then we're down to the question of the scope of that clause. And that question has been litigated to some extent, has it not with respect to Lindsey Graham in a similar investigation involving fake electors. Exactly. And that the 11th circuit in the Lindsey Graham case, for example, says, not everything is your legislative authority as a senator. So one example that they even give is if Lindsey Graham had made public speeches outside of Congress that it wouldn't have been counted. So that raises the question, well, what about a private communication outside of Congress? They also in the 11th circuit said Lindsey Graham cajoling executive officials in Georgia to do things with their ballot counting didn't count that was not him operating within his legislative authority. So similarly, that's the big question. So in the reverse, as an executive official, cajoling, the vice president, within the speech and debate clause, maybe not. But that's the big problem here. We do not have a settled Supreme Court case that can just give us the answer to that question. If we were talking about executive privilege, we have a settled unanimous Supreme Court case United States V Nixon that would definitively answer the question. So this means drawn out litigation potentially for some of the questions that Jack Smith would like to get the answer to. But that raises at least in my mind the question whether mister Pence and we don't know what he's really a strategy has maybe as much to narrow the scope of the subpoena as it is to actually really quash it all together. That is to say, okay, I'll answer questions that do not have to deal with my legislative sort of function as vice president, president of the Senate. Completely agree with you. This does not block him from showing up. Number one, so it couldn't be like I have an absolute immunity or something like that in which I do not need to appear before the grand jury. He has to appear and then it's going to be a question by question basis in which some questions are just going to be completely outside of this speech and debate clause boundary. So for example, did you mister vice president think that you lost the election? Did president Trump ever confide in you that he thought he lost the election? That's got nothing to do with what he was doing on January 6th. So there's a whole line of questions that could be asked. And for all we know, you know, vice president Pence will have a kind of narrow conception of the things that he can't answer. You know, one big question for me is, will he answer questions about the false slate of electors scheme and his awareness of what was going on because he could say, well, that was targeting me as the counter of the ballast on January 6th. So it's within my article one legislative powers or maybe you would say no, of course not. I'm willing to answer that, and we won't know the answer to that except for maybe reporting that will come out. It's a fascinating a lot of grist for your mill teaching a lot NYU, I must say, thank you so much for being with us. That was fascinating. He's Ryan Goodman, Professor of law at New York University. And now we turn from the law to politics, and particularly the politics in California, and those involving the Senate of the United States as we had dianne Feinstein about this time yesterday announced that she would not be running for reelection. To take us through what he understands about the politics of this election that's coming up in 2024, we turn to Thad cowser. He is Professor of political science at University of California, San Diego, so professor, thanks so much for being with us. Give us your initial take on what this race is likely to look like. Well, in this increasingly blue state of California, what we're most likely
Mike Gallagher Podcast
"garland justice department" Discussed on Mike Gallagher Podcast
"If I hadn't been watching Tucker Carlson Friday night, I would have never heard about this case of a guy who's being prosecuted for a tweet. And the feds are going after him. They want him to spend a decade of his life in prison. This story is so un believable. Andy McCarthy wrote about this case a while ago, have you heard about Douglas Mackey? If I told you that Merrick Garland's Justice Department wants to incarcerate a guy from Florida and put him in jail for up to ten years for the crime of something he posted in a meme on Twitter. Would that shock you? In fact, go ahead and Google his name. Good luck finding much about Douglas Mackey. This is an incredible story. And when I see our own country acting this way, it is beyond beyond frightening. You know it's one thing to be alarmed about what China is doing to us? How about what we're doing to ourselves?
Mike Gallagher Podcast
DOJ Pursues 10-Year Incarceration of Douglass Mackey for a Tweet
"If I hadn't been watching Tucker Carlson Friday night, I would have never heard about this case of a guy who's being prosecuted for a tweet. And the feds are going after him. They want him to spend a decade of his life in prison. This story is so un believable. Andy McCarthy wrote about this case a while ago, have you heard about Douglas Mackey? If I told you that Merrick Garland's Justice Department wants to incarcerate a guy from Florida and put him in jail for up to ten years for the crime of something he posted in a meme on Twitter. Would that shock you? In fact, go ahead and Google his name. Good luck finding much about Douglas Mackey. This is an incredible story. And when I see our own country acting this way, it is beyond beyond frightening. You know it's one thing to be alarmed about what China is doing to us? How about what we're doing to ourselves?
77WABC Radio
"garland justice department" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"It's Biden excoriates millions of Americans as maggot Republicans extremists semi fascists and threatened a democracy. Something he's likely to do again tonight. And these so called solo the nation speak. For my House speaker Newt Gingrich says Biden's sneering insult stem from terror. Speaking to Fox News, Congress noted that more than 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in the last election. To have a president of the United States characterized half his country. The way that Joe Biden does is the greatest act of aggression by an American president against his own people that we've ever seen. It's truly an astonishing moment. It doesn't fit any of our prior history. And I keep telling my Friends, do not assume anything based on past president because you're now dealing with people who are terrified. I mean, if you're the senior FBI, you're The White House, and you're looking at the potential of a Republican controlled House and Senate. And you realize all of your emails, all of your meetings, everything that you've been doing. Could suddenly become public. And your entire career could be destroyed, and you might end up in jail. I mean, you're going to do everything you can to try to guarantee. That the Republicans can't win this fall because you're terrified of what a Republican Congress would be like. Republican congressional leaders, including House minority leader Kevin McCarthy. I promised to hold hearings. I don't know how the Biden Joe Biden influence peddling allegations, among other investigations. McCarthy has told attorney general Merrick Garland to preserve your documents and clear your calendar in preparation for an anticipated Republican probe. What McCarthy called the politically weaponized Justice Department and FBI. And gingrich said the Biden Garland Justice Department is the most corrupt in all of American history and he's right. He said you have corruption from the attorney general to the head of the FBI to senior elements of the FBI. You have collusion from a wide range of Indian intelligence committee. You had, I think it was 50 some Intel senior officials who signed a letter last year that we now know was a total lie. None of them have recanted. And I fully expect the Department of Justice to indict Donald Trump in a D.C. court. A district or 5.6% of the vote. So by 19 to one, the jury is likely to be against him. I think it's an all out effort. And I just heard Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook say the FBI is to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. For the three or four weeks before the election at 2020. At a time, by the way, when some 80% of Americans say if they had known how corrupt Biden was and threw him his father, they probably would have voted against Joe Biden, so I have no idea what's going to happen next. I may historian by training and I tell everybody, you have to assume that nothing you know. Nothing you know tells you anything about how corrupt and how sick this is going to get. Because you have fanatics who represent a secular religion or determined to destroy not just Trump, but Trump's followers. And they could do most anything. We have no way of knowing what the next 6 months or two years are going to carry. And in his August 26th speech in Rockville, Maryland, Biden closed with this attack. What a serious moment in our nation's history. The maga Republicans don't just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They're a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people they embrace political violence. They don't believe in democracy. This is why in this moment, those of you who love the country, Democrats independence
AP News
"garland justice department" Discussed on AP News
"Challenger emerged as the principal challenger. And that is attorney Harriet hagerman. Virginia Torres, for one, is voting for hagerman. She isn't one that is taking things personally in less mature way. There is growing belief by Cheney's team she may be in a stronger position for the 2024 race for president. I'm Ed Donahue. Truck drivers and Britain's heading off on holiday by ferry faced long waits at the port of Dover, with authorities blaming French officials for the chaos. Though the staff say a lack of French border officials is leading to weights of up to 6 hours for border checks at the English Channel port, with cues of tourists and freight traffic, snarling roads for miles around millions of people in Britain are trying to get vacations this weekend, the start of the summer holidays for most schools, and face the threat of disruption by road sea rail and air, since Britain left the EU in 2020, travelers faced strict border checks when traveling to the continent on the English side of the channel, their performed by French staff, Charles De Ledesma, London. The house of January 6 panel has ended its summer hearing series and is promising more to come. The dam has begun to break. Vice chair Liz Cheney says more doors have opened, more subpoenas issued. And as the panels were continues, every American has to consider this. Can a president who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of January 6th, ever be trusted with any position of authority while chairman Benny Thompson notes the panel can not make criminal charges. There needs to be accountability. Merrick Garland's Justice Department is watching. We have to get this right. The attorney general calls it his department's most wide ranging and most important investigation ever. Cheney says the committee will keep pushing on its own. And we will see you all in September. Sagar Meghani, Washington. AP news for Friday, July 22nd, I'm Tim McGuire. President Biden's COVID symptoms improve. I'm feeling much better than I sound. President Joe Biden and The White House painted
WCPT 820
"garland justice department" Discussed on WCPT 820
"Own WikiLeaks partnered with The New York Times with dersh Spiegel with The Guardian and those newspapers published award winning journalism covering war crimes that the U.S. and UK military had committed And Iraq and Afghanistan diplomatic cables that shed light on our support for oppressive regimes and torture and contributed to the Arab Spring This was really vital information that the public around the world had a right and a need to know And here's our concern At the U.S. level this indictment criminalizes investigative journalism Now the Justice Department wants to say this isn't journalism This is a criminal conspiracy He conspired with Chelsea Manning trying to urge her cajole her held her to turn over U.S. government secrets But that precisely describes what our best investigative journalists do You could describe everything they do as a criminal conspiracy because they're trying to persuade people with access to privilege and important information to violate the law and turn it over to journalists in the public interest So this precedent if there is a conviction here will chill journalists It doesn't mean that The New York Times will be prosecuted the next day but it means their lawyers will tell their journalists that they can't publish important things because of that threat of prosecution But there's another element here that I think ties more to the global press freedom issue And it is ironic that it's happening on the same day that these Nobel Prizes are being awarded And that is that the U.S. is taking the position that our secrecy laws apply criminally to foreign publishers That someone who has no ties to the United States who is publishing overseas making his own determinations of public interest considerations can be hauled into extradited and hauled into a U.S. court and prosecuted And think about what that president will mean around the world If every regime now can point to us and say we want to extradite these journalists Viktor Orban wants to x-ray guardian journalists to Hungary because they published Hungarian secrets The Chinese want to extradite New York Times journalists because they published Chinese secrets which our times does routinely And again the threat is not that the U.S. will have to send a list of China It will never do that But that we are now embracing and blessing and setting this precedent that is going to empower the worst authority in carrying forces around the world So look I take what Gabriel says I think we are still hoping that the UK courts will find a way to resolve this case without setting the precedent that a foreign publisher can be extradited to the United States If that doesn't happen it will be all hands on deck in the U.S. Of course we'll be appealing again to the Merrick Garland Justice Department to find some kind of face saving resolution here that doesn't involve setting this kind of precedent that will smear their own reputations And if that doesn't happen all of these groups will be in court as Friends of the court arguing strenuously that this is an intolerable prosecution under the First Amendment Ben wisner we want to thank you for being with us director of the ACLU's speech privacy and technology project We also want to thank Gabriel shift in Julian Assange's brother and filmmaker To see all our interviews with Julian Assange including the ones where we went inside the Ecuador and embassy in London where he was in political exile before being sent to the belmarsh maximum security prison go to democracy now dot org next up to journalists have just received.
The Charlie Kirk Show
"garland justice department" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"You know, we're Newt Gingrich on the program. Newt said that if we take back the house, we can't go back to business as usual. We're going to have to kind of make Pelosi feel some of the pain she inflicted on Republicans, meaning that, you know what? You might not get committee assignments. You know what? That we're going to have our own special commissions. You have the January 6th commission. We might have a Fauci virus commission and all this. You know, if you're chairman of the judiciary committee, is there going to be, I know it's an F and F and F and I understand all that. But just a lot of voters they kind of want to hear like, hey, is it going to be equal time for Nadler and you? I mean, or is it going to be like, hey, we're in charge now. We're going to go find out what's actually happened. So today, committee, offered a resolution to subpoena documents from the attorney general, the FBI director, the secretary of education and the president of the school boards association who sent the initial letter on September 29th that began this whole episode of target parents putting a threat tag on mom's a dad. So the chairman said, nope, we're not going to take up the resolution to subpoena those documents. So if we're in charge, we will subpoena those documents exactly right. We will get the information because Charlie, here's what I think happened in that specific case. I don't actually think the letter was what prompted the Biden White House in the Garland Justice Department to target parents. I think it went the other direction. I think they just wanted the letter as an excuse as a pretext exactly. To do what they wanted to do, which was target parents and chill the speech of moms and dads because they didn't like that political growth they were seeing out there. They wanted to stop that. So it was much like the letter was exactly like the dossier in the Trump Russia investigation, where Jim Comey wanted to go after president Trump. Wanted to spon his campaign. He just needed a reason, so all Shazam here comes this dossier that they knew was garbage, but they used it as the pretext to do what they wanted to do. I think the same thing happened here. And God bless this whistleblower who came forward with his email that shows that that Tim langon head of the counter terrorism division at the FBI sent out his email putting this same to FBI agents around the country, put this threat tag on parents is designation used counter terrorism measures to go after mom's death. It is so wrong. So that's the kind of stuff we're going to have
The Charlie Kirk Show
What Congressman Jim Jordan Would Do if the GOP Takes Back the House
"You know, we're Newt Gingrich on the program. Newt said that if we take back the house, we can't go back to business as usual. We're going to have to kind of make Pelosi feel some of the pain she inflicted on Republicans, meaning that, you know what? You might not get committee assignments. You know what? That we're going to have our own special commissions. You have the January 6th commission. We might have a Fauci virus commission and all this. You know, if you're chairman of the judiciary committee, is there going to be, I know it's an F and F and F and I understand all that. But just a lot of voters they kind of want to hear like, hey, is it going to be equal time for Nadler and you? I mean, or is it going to be like, hey, we're in charge now. We're going to go find out what's actually happened. So today, committee, offered a resolution to subpoena documents from the attorney general, the FBI director, the secretary of education and the president of the school boards association who sent the initial letter on September 29th that began this whole episode of target parents putting a threat tag on mom's a dad. So the chairman said, nope, we're not going to take up the resolution to subpoena those documents. So if we're in charge, we will subpoena those documents exactly right. We will get the information because Charlie, here's what I think happened in that specific case. I don't actually think the letter was what prompted the Biden White House in the Garland Justice Department to target parents. I think it went the other direction. I think they just wanted the letter as an excuse as a pretext exactly. To do what they wanted to do, which was target parents and chill the speech of moms and dads because they didn't like that political growth they were seeing out there. They wanted to stop that. So it was much like the letter was exactly like the dossier in the Trump Russia investigation, where Jim Comey wanted to go after president Trump. Wanted to spon his campaign. He just needed a reason, so all Shazam here comes this dossier that they knew was garbage, but they used it as the pretext to do what they wanted to do. I think the same thing happened here. And God bless this whistleblower who came forward with his email that shows that that Tim langon head of the counter terrorism division at the FBI sent out his email putting this same to FBI agents around the country, put this threat tag on parents is designation used counter terrorism measures to go after mom's death. It is so wrong. So that's the kind of stuff we're going to have
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"garland justice department" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"It's time for the last word where jonathan take part is in for lawrence's a much more familiar world for me where i end my show and give it to you because that's we did mornings on sunday mornings. I guess we're going to be doing is warning. Yes right well. Thanks very much alley. Have a good evening it. thanks a lot al. it's about damn time. That's how congressman. Bill pascrell a member of the house ways and means committee described justice department's announcement that the treasury department must turn over six years of donald trump's tax returns to house investigators on the committee the committee. I made the request eight hundred forty nine days ago. The bill bar justice department which basically operated as the donald trump justice department blocked trump's returns from being released despite the fact that the law is absolutely clear that the treasury department xiao turn over any tax document requested by a tax writing committee in the congress. Today merrick garland justice department. Says that the committee's request to see the records is lawful valid and should be fulfilled quote applying the proper degree of deference. Do the committee. We believe that there is ample basis to conclude that it's june twenty twenty one requests for former president trump's tax information would further the committee's principle stated objective of assessing the irs presidential audit program a cleanly legitimate area for congressional inquiry and possible legislation ways and means chairman. Richard neal said this about the decision. As i have maintained for years. The committee's case is very strong in the law is on our side. I am glad the department of justice agrees and that we can move forward and then there's this from house speaker. Nancy pelosi who called the decision. A victory for congressional oversight powers quote access to former president. Trump's tax return is a matter of national security. The american people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest an undermining of our security and democracy as president leading off our discussion. Tonight is congressman. Lloyd doggett of texas. He has the second highest ranking democrat on the house ways and means committee. Doug thank you very much for being here. The immediate question for you is this. When do you get donald. Trump's tax returns not yet but this was an important step in getting Jonathan and it is important to remember how we got to this point today. Donald trump the lied about the his willingness to disclose his tax returns. As the public outcry over that began to intensify. He presented us in the committee a letter a letter from his law firm that there was nothing to look at not noting that that same law firm was named the russia author of the year for years for months at least a the house. Republicans on our committee covered up for him. I made six motions other colleagues made motions. They refused to use a law that grew out of another republican scandal. Almost one hundred years ago. The same law that figured in richard nixon saying i'm not Over his tax deductions and the the law is clear. It requires that the treasury secretary or the irs commissioner of who's been delegated that responsibility shall deliver returns when their request. And what we've had now for much than years is an unwillingness to comply with that very clear law on now that we have this decision It's really question of just. What mr trump's next tactic is to try to hide the evidence that i think will show his tax evasion up congressman target on this this question of the handing over the returns when they are requested. Here's something from the doj decision where it says. The june twenty twenty one request seeks the same categories of information as the april twenty nineteen requests. But it covers each of the tax years twenty fifteen to twenty twenty whereas the april twenty nine thousand nine requests asked for tax information for tax years two thousand thirteen through twenty eighteen. My question to you is why the change in years requested. Why is that significant. Well i think it was just an updating of the prior request to bring it up to date actually thinks the request and we provided for this in the for the people act should cover ten years But the main point is that the committee has crafted a narrow legislative request and not as to be able to ensure that the audit that president trump kept using excuse is being conducted properly and not the result of his manipulation or intimidation of the internal revenue service. So chairman neil has used that as the reason for getting these returns he also in this updated request he filed in june mentions the very real possibility of foreign entanglements. We know the saudi money. The russian money that appeared to pour into some of mr trump's sub accounts and effect on legislation in congress that relates to taxes. So we have a good basis for getting it. It just a question now. With a court case pending of whether trump comes up with yet more excuses perhaps files on the junction. Try to block. What will eventually nap when this clearer. Law is implemented but which he is determined to delay as long as possible. I don't believe any president has ever tried so hard to hide so much. There is much as stake here. It's really important that we get to separation once we have it. That's not a guarantee that remains public in fact it would be a criminal offense if i were to disclose that information prematurely. It will be a matter of our committee looking at the documents in private. I'm sure they'll be a substantial amount of him and determining in a report whether any of this should be made public after we see what's there and how soon would that be well. It.
All In with Chris Hayes
"garland justice department" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"And i just got to say talk about like world. Historical cowardice from william bar. William more knows what the guys up to william bar could have gone public but he leaves rights and utterly like preposterous encomium to the greatness of donald trump knowing full well the man is attempting a coup essentially in the moment and then just hands over the job of protecting american democracies from said khuda. Jeffrey rosen and pieces out work buddy. Yeah and it's it. You know up until the sycophantic resignation letter and and him leaving you know he did actually stand up to trump on this one issue. He was his lackey accomplice for two years. But on this issue he said there was no evidence of election fraud and that did set the stage. I think for. Jeffrey rosen to be able to push back a little bit so i. I am no fan of bill bar but i actually think on this topic. Other than advocating the throne. Yes speak he did resist. That's true and maybe it's because i'm a journalist and because i have a television show that this occurs to me and it doesn't occur to functionaries department says but like no one goes public. Everyone just plays a good soldier and doesn't say anything the guys rattling the cage trying to overturn election for the love of god say something publicly that just me daniel goldman thank you very much appreciate it. Donald trump to campaigns earned tire presidency keeping his tax returns hidden. Today we found out the game of keep away may finally be over decision to withhold. Donald trump's tax returns from house. Democrats has been reversed by the garland justice department and so the man's taxes must be released congress. What happens when they get them. Does this mean the public will get to see them. And why is this happening now. Don't go anywhere that's coming up next. Can you give us any insight into what the real reason is that. The president has refused to release his tax returns statements that he had said to me that what he didn't want to have an entire group of think tanks that our tax experts run through his tax return and start ripping it to pieces and then he'll end up in an audit and until ultimately have tax deductible consequences penalties and so on now. Wrong not wrong. Donald trump managed to keep his tax returns secret his entire time in office which was no small feat. Democrats have been trying to access them for years. Twenty seventeen congressman bill pascrell of new jersey. Ask the chairman of the tax writing house ways and means committee to formally request ten years of trump's tax returns. The chairman was republican. You shut down the upper where republicans lost control the house for your later. Congressman richard neal. A democrat from massachusetts became chair of that committee giving him legal authority under statute to formally request trump's tax returns and a few months after being sworn in. He knows he would be doing just that. The irs miss the deadline to hand them over. Neil issued subpoenas to both the treasury department in the irs. When that didn't work he sued then in september. Two thousand nine hundred and haton district attorney sivan's got into the act subpoenaing. Trump's accounting firm for eight years of attackers trump took that matter always supreme court while continuing to challenge the oversight powers the house ways and means committee and he lost the election shortly after he lost a supreme court case in february. This year. The supreme court allowed manhattan prosecutors to obtain trump's taxes. They haven't early this month. Trump's company and its top money man were charged of course with tax fraud in manhattan court today however the ways and means committee finally got some movement on their years. Long quest the justice department on america arlen said that trump's tax returns must be released to congress which means soon they could potentially even be made public betcha. Woodrow's swan national political reporter for politico has been tracking these developments and she joins me now so betsy minor standing there was a an opinion from the kind of it's kind of like the supreme court inside the justice the office legal counsel c which gives a legal direction that basically that office overturned previous set guidance that was offered during the trump administration is that right. That's right when trump's lawyers were in charge of the office of legal counsel bay said that members of congress were acting in bad faith even though congress claims to have a legitimate legislative purpose they actually just one of the tax returns to embarrass trump. Therefore treasury didn't have to give them to congress that was the trump. Doj's argument now that it's biden's lawyers who are running doj including this office of legal counsel. What they've said is look even if some members of congress are hoping that the president will be embarrassed by the contents of his tax returns. Hard to imagine why he would be. Maybe some of them are hoping that what what doj says even if they are hoping that it's not germane to the question of whether or not congress actually has a legitimate legislative reason to reach for these tax returns and doj the llc within the justice department confirmed that yes they do have a legitimate legislative reason. One really fun piece of history with all the good. That's cited in the doj opinion. Is that the reason. Congress got the power to pick individual people's tax returns. The reasons specifically this committee did is because of bribery corruption scandal. The law was changed in nineteen twenty four because congressional investigators during the teapot dome scandal. Which involved bribery belt that they were getting stiff armed by the irs. They carry that investigation out. They changed the law and the first time. A member of president's cabinet went to prison was the result of that scandal. So there's a pretty direct through line from the reason. Congress has this power to what they're trying to do with the power today. Yeah the i always found the justifications on the other side fairly tortured that they had to do with that congress's acting in bad faith. There had to be this legislative intent. It always seemed obvious to me..
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams
"garland justice department" Discussed on The 11th Hour with Brian Williams
"So i think we may may have a delay. There is some hope to get this done the next week or two. But if but there may be may take longer frankly for the particulars to come in. I do think there is a chance you might seem republicans. Start to walk away from it. Say look hey. Why are we spending all this money on this. Bipartisan bill when the democrats are spending all that much more money on their own bill. So i think this is much as the white house feels good about where they are. They know this is not a sure thing that and we also heard from the press secretary sake today saying that will be president biden perhaps acting as closure and willing to negotiate willing to give up some stuff in order to get these things both and while we wait. Bridges continue to crumble before we go. I want to ask you quickly a different subject but something that caught our eye today. We noticed this tweet from political reporter. Josh gerstein where he wrote new york times files of foia suit for copy of material. Lawler deputy andrew weissmann maintained sometimes referred to as an alternative lulla report andrew weissmann contributor here at msnbc. What could the new york times be looking for alternative lulla report. So what was says in. His book is that they prepare a separate report with some key. Facts that mother was now willing to reveal to the public's result of his investigations that no charges would be brought against trump. So we have no idea. What's end this alternative report. It's hugely significant for two reasons. The first is there could be real evidence evolving ogle -bility with regard to lucien and obstruction. Which of course among the report found significant evidence of the other concerns though stephanie. Is that the justice department has been defended by the garland justice department. Brolin is institutional is ideas. He's defending the argument. Not bar or sessions of the fact is that because of our because of garland institutional lysm east shielding people from accountability. So ugly gonna fight releasing this alternative report. I hope to be your times wins. It's foia requests because history deserves answers. I do too. I wanna know what's in there gentlemen. Thank you for leading off tonight. Clint watts paul. Butler and johnson layer. Who you know. I felt bad for myself. I started work at seven. Am today jonathan's been on tv. Since six and a quick note. Monday night i alone can fix it. Authors phil rucker and carolina will join brian with even more details from their new book. But coming up next more.
Skullduggery
"garland justice department" Discussed on Skullduggery
"I got his phone number. I texted him. i called him. He picked up and then hung up and then he called me back. And you know. I thought okay here. We go What what are you gonna tell me. Mark and there was silence on the other end. So i don't know if it was a missile or trying to see who i was But then we got word from his lawyer. After i had reached out a number of times that he would not honor a subpoena. He would fight us in the courts and it just felt like that was going to define any witness. Oh no reason to expect. He's going to do anything differ committee comes from. But let me ask you something else as you know. The merrick garland justice department. Recently filed in court saying it was going to represent donald trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by jean carole a woman who says donald trump raped her many years ago and then defamed her when she went public with that. There's been a lot of speculation that the same logic will hold to your lawsuit that the garland justice department will basically intervene to block your lawsuit against the former president saying he was acting as a chief executive of the united states and is therefore immune from civil suit. How concerned are you that the garland justice department is going to be your nemesis in this lawsuit. And what do you make of them representing trump in the defamation case brought by jean cow. I think it's wrong. In the carroll case and if they were to represent donald trump or mo brooks or anyone else in my case i think they might as well just say that we would represent any president in any case that they're soon whether it's a homicide case or whether it's the argument would be that. The president was acting as part of his official duties as pressure. And the i understand the argument. Michael guy i submit that when you hold a rally or your presidential campaign and you say you have to fight like hell and you don't have a country anymore and you tell the mob that you're going to go with them. The bob goes. You are so far outside the boundaries of your official duties. As i said this was done completely on the campaign. He was sending. You know the emails that invited the mob on the campaign side. So i think this is well outside the bounds of being president in eugene carroll case again just because he was at an official press conference he was being asked about his personal private pre-presidential presidential conduct. He can just decline to answer the question. And say i'll talk to you about that. It's not appropriate here but instead he smeared a sexual assault victim. I think once he does that you know key. His personal private conduct of predominates any privileges that he should have as president so i. I hope the department doesn't do that. There has to be boundaries. For what's an official and what's not protected. Type ask you something else. About the justice department you were as amply reported Recently informed that the justice department under bill barr had gotten your phone phone records and e mail records as part of a leak investigation. You're quite outraged about that. But there's very little we know at this point about what was going on inside the justice department. What these leak investigations were who approve them. Where they targeting you or were they targeting others and then you're communications got swept up in the targeting of others. I know you've asked for information from the garland justice department about this. What do you now understand the answers to those questions. What were the leak investigations. Who approve them. And who was being targeted michael. You remember this era because you were a dog reporter trying to get to the bottom of what was going on with russia. I wanted affirmatively. Say i did not have not incense will not leak classified information as so. I never did that. i understand. It's reporter's job to get to the bottom of the. But i did not do that In what concerns me. Is that the two people whose communications were sought and received or myself. And mr schiff. I think were the most vocal critics of the president at the time. Which is why it's important. That attorney general garland has an inspector general investigation and that the judiciary committee also conduct no supplemental investigation. The attorney general assured me. He called me a told me it was the first i had heard of it in the he was going to get to the bottom of it himself so i don't have many answers right now but it's hard for me to accept any other reporting that i've seen out there that we would just collaterally a part of a leak investigation. That involved a staffer win again. The two people whose records were obtained as far as we know where the most vocal critics that just to me. But you don't know what they were invest. No i don't write you called on just one question in this after this came out. You said anybody involved in this at the justice department should be fired now. You know how these things work there were career prosecutors who filed these subpoenas went into court to defend them argued that they should be kept under a gag order. They may have been operating under strict instructions from bill bar and do really want to do it but they were forced to do it or they may have thought they were legitimately doing an investigation under justice department guidelines to pursue a leak. Was it really appropriate to say absent. You having answers to any of these questions. That career people civil servants at the justice department should be fired. When you don't even really know who is involved in. What exactly they.
990 The Answer
"garland justice department" Discussed on 990 The Answer
"What about this and constant administration push Emerald Emerald Robinson with us from Newsmax. She covers the White House for Newsmax in this this constant steady flow from Merrick Garland, DOJ Homeland security that white people and white Republican legislatures are out there to disenfranchise black voters, and you've got to be very afraid of these white violent extremist groups. This this fiction that they keep this steady drumbeat of of black and brown people in this country are being oppressed and disenfranchised and screwed, and it's danger lurking around every corner. Whether it's cops or Republican trump voters. It's everywhere and it's getting worse. I mean, it's so clear what they're doing, and I can only read it political play for a black vote that is completely abandoned them. I'm not saying they've come to Republicans, but they're not interested in what Grandpa is selling. So I think they need that support back in my view, you I think they yes, partly bad, but they also need to be able to Look, they're trying to take away more and more freedom blanket freedom for the American people across the board. And the conservatives who are Let's don't want to give up their freedom, their personal liberties that are outlined in the Constitution. You have to find some other way right to justify. Taking away freedoms, and that's what we're seeing with this January. 6th commission trying to paint Republicans as uh, as a direction is that as as a threat to society, we see this with what they're going to do with the domestic terrorism. Bush, You know, I don't know if you've ever had Julie Kellyanne from Americans. Greatness. He writes for Epoch a lot great friend of our show. Yes. Yeah, I mean well, So you talked to her about it and how they're the kind of Just Crazy violation to the rural law and due process that it's happening with these January six defendants and I thought she had a great piece yesterday, talking about how they they arrested one man in front of a four year old and kind of questions that he asked, is why there Do you vote for? Uh, You know what television What networks? News channels. See what's what's news programs. Do you watch so clearly that the Torah political targeting And they that's more. What visit is about that we're seeing from the Garland Justice Department and the told push should get quote unquote domestic terrorism and let me tell you it's not getting a lot of coverage. This administration is pushing that heavily behind the scenes in every agency that deals with national security. They're focused on this domestic terrorist them identifying domestic terrorist a terrorist in advance. I'll tell you their definition. The new definition looks a lot like a trump supporter. Yeah, I'm kind of wondering when they're going to come knocking on the door. Stately stick all manner a manner emerald, you know. Hey, Hey, you talk show host in there. Come on out. Um, it just, you know, just just for expressing the point of view, very concerned. I know. Um, Emerald. I have to ask you about your trip to the border. Have you been? I've never been, and I wonder what you've learned and what you're seeing, And that's the irony, of course. As we talk about this fictitious threat that faces the country, the real threat and in the middle of a pandemic. By the way, I mean everything about what's happening at the border is a threat from a health threat to to a literal threat in guns and drugs and violence. And human trafficking. All these fictions that the Biden Harris administration pedals is actually happening at the border. True. That's true. Yeah, This is my first church of the border. It's very interesting. Yeah, we talk about it all the time. But it definitely different perspective. When you come here and see it. I've talked to a lot of border patrol, a lot of, um sheriffs and local law enforcement. And into people and you know the restaurant should go into and how they feel about it, and Everyone is concerned down here about it. Clearly there the front line, uh of the border crisis, what it means that it's now filtering far north entire different communities. And, uh, one of the biggest concerns of one of the sheriff talked about. I thought this is very interesting and we you know there's not a lot of reporting on it. There's found but not a lot is how he's NGOs are being used. To bring these people in and into transport them around the country, and there's no transparency there. That being state local officials don't know when they're bringing them into their cut into their into their localities. They're saying they don't have to notify them. Yeah, that's Can you talk a little more about that? You said you call that an NGO is that acronym India's non government organizations, You know, like Uh, like even some of these Catholic charities, right? What does the Catholic charities they get a lot of money. From the government and grant to help with the migrant crisis. Well, they they transport them. They pay for plane tickets and buses. And and then they supposedly shelters them help them get sponsored. But there's notes. Like I said, no transparency there. They're not have the report to anybody. Really. They give there might be a little bit of checks from From the government, but not to the degree that should be and now because they're trying to push these Children out of these, uh, HHS, mostly the DHS receiving people facilities into HHS and then trying to get them out of HHS so that the media Don't talk about the kids being held in cages. They're lowering the vetting standards. Or who can become a guardian of sponsor for these Children? Which is extremely tense, starting because of the traffic English. You and I talked to one sheriff about that, and he he just said it's such a bigger problem than people. Even know so that's the Children aspect, and then there's also criminals. That are more more able to come in under the loosening that the Biden administration has done on border policies, and Governor Greg Abbott highlighted. You know some that some criminals that Were recently arrested. You can also get transnational terrorists coming in. It's just It's a situation that is Allows You just don't know who is coming in. Yes, for one part of it. And then for the people here, you know, on the front lines and working in restaurants and stuff. They they they are concerned about the health crisis aspect of it. Clearly, they're working and served with a lot of them to get to work for a long time because of the cover crisis that they were economically impacted. Then you let all these people come in without you know, And you say that it's so important to to try to prevent the spread. But then you're just letting the people out massive. So if there's just so much to the border crisis, and I did ask President Trump, he says, you know, they ended this because I get and I asked him yesterday you simply big vessel were even or You know, is there more motivation behind it? And then he told me that while I think it's gross incompetence Was, you know, he didn't say that. This is appointed effort from Democrats to Flood the country with with migrants, but You know, there's just no way. This is a even growth and competence because eventually you wake up and you learn, I think Yeah, It's interesting that Trump does not it for his bad a guy as he is painted. I don't think his natural instinct is to assign. Even the left, and Democrats do dubious motives the way many of us feel that they're inclined to do things on purpose..
On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"garland justice department" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Garland comes to the attorney. General's office with a wealth of experience. He served as a senior justice. Department official during the clinton administration led the government's investigation of the oklahoma city bombing temperamentally. He is an 'institutionalised and was a highly respected chief. Judge of the us circuit court of appeals in washington. Dc considered the most important appeals court in the nation. And of course merrick garland also endured more than two hundred ninety days as a languishing supreme court nominee blocked by the very republicans who lauded his work on the federal bench and yet in his february twenty. Twenty one confirmation hearing garland swore to push partisanship out of the department of justice. I'm not the president's lawyer I am on the united states lawyer. And i will do everything in my power Which i believe is considerable To fend off any effort by anyone To make prosecutions or investigations partisan or political. In any way my job is to protect the department of justice. Protect the doj. Well three months into his tenure. It's time to scrutinize if is achieving. That goal especially in a department described by some legal analysts as strewn with political. Ticking time bombs everywhere. Well joining me to help with this analysis. Is paula reid. She's senior legal. Affairs correspondent for cnn and she joins us from washington. Polit great to have you back on the show. I am so thrilled to be back with you today. So first of all protecting the department of justice. How monumental of task is that. Broadly speaking in two thousand and twenty one. Gosh it's hard to think of a bigger task right now. He's entering the halls of the justice department. At a time of great division morale is very low and while for the most part Paseo seven to ten years of carbon. The justice department walks people really wasn't on their radar but over the past five years Mostly during the trump administration the justice department the fbi. It's really come into a lot of people's consciousness and they are paying more attention to it They have questions about whether they can trust it. Whether it has been politicized. And whether merrick garland can actually roll back some of the concerns of the politicisation that we saw under the trump administration so the in fact i see to co centric circles of a lack of trust right. There's the the trust that might have broken down within the department itself. There's the trust across washington and various branches institutions in washington. And then of course the trusted the american people in the doj so monumental is a good way to put it. We played those clips a little earlier. Just a second ago to just remind folks. How merrick garland attorney. General garland talks about his view. Of what justice is in america Following that that languishing supreme court nomination. He went back to the circuit and was assiduously a political right. And you heard that again in his confirmation process has he met with two questions first of all has he managed to maintain that apolitical stance in the first three months of his time as attorney general. It appears so i mean. He's definitely pursuing a strong robust civil rights agenda. But if you look at what's happening in the country right now. These attacks on voting rights. He really doesn't have much of a choice but to speak up on that also questions of police reform. He has certainly laid out. Some priorities will civil rights and domestic terrorism but again domestic terrorism like civil rights. He doesn't have much of a choice if you look at. What's going on in the country. January six you see charleston charlottesville. It's been building for years. He has to as the nation's top law enforcement official really take a stance there but by and large if you look overall at the past several months. It appears that he has been pretty impartial. That's what president biden wanted but that's not what progressive democrats wanted and there have been some criticisms of him for being so impartial and for not being more aggressive particularly with how he's handled some of these holdover issues from the previous administrations. We'll talk about those issues in a second and a little later in the show we'll go. We'll dive deeper into garlands plans for the doj's Expansion of Anti domestic terrorism efforts. And what he said about voting in this country but one more thing about his background. Paul if we may. I mean what do you think. We need to understand about who. He is his previous work. His time on the dc circuit To really understand what he brings to the attorney general's office his resume is perfect is central casting for supreme court justice. Because there's a big difference. Right he was a federal judge for over twenty years. When you're judge or you're sort of is located during your chambers you're not really sort of In the fray every day even though you're designing big cases i'm but when you're attorney general of the united states you were constantly waiting into the guest controversies. I remember reading a profile. Eric holder at the time and they just said look this job as a magnet. If there is a problem it's going to stick to you eventually. And that's a big change for him. And i think what we've seen particularly over the past week or so with the subpoena story coming out which we'll talk about. I'm sure i really think we've seen him. Maybe starting to adjust to the realities that he is no longer a judge. So that's the biggest challenge. I see in terms of his resume he would have been ideal for supreme court justices writing opinions. But when you're attorney general you're going before congress. Dealing with the biggest controversies. You're having to answer questions or bisky reporters all the time. It's a big change and there's an outstanding question about whether he is the right man for this job at this moment. Well in fact as you said a second ago. This is one of the areas of criticism from a president biden's left from the left wing of the democratic party. For example we spoke with jeff houser whose founding of the revolving door project which scrutinises executive branch appointees and. He said he believes mary. Carlin despite that picture perfect cv. You talked about paula. He says garland is unprepared to lead. The doj merrick. Garland spent a generation cloistered within the judiciary developing Myopic view of the world. That did not take into account political reality. I don't think merrick garland followed the ins and outs of trump's america. I don't think he knows. Just how bad it got. And hauser also says in. His view garland is simply continuing the positions of his predecessor. Former attorney general bar. He believes that this continuity in the department of justice is a sign of independence assign that regardless of elections. The department of justice remains committed to the rule of law and just not change a haphazardly or excessively just because of an election. Which would be a reasonable thing to do if you were taking over for gerald ford paula. Reid would respond to that. What do you think. I disagree with that analysis. I think that's really cherry. Picking what has happened over the past several months. It's more complex than that. Yes the garland. Justice department has continued to defend the trump administration stance in some cases related to the president. Which we'll talk about..
KLIF 570 AM
"garland justice department" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM
"They have chosen at the Merrick Garland Justice Department to investigate and they've increased because they've increased those investigators. They they haven't done. The whole black lives matter. Antifa investigation had, and under this administration, they never will. All right. Let me go Talk about threats, Islamic terrorism. I don't know. Maybe they'll have a base of operation on training camp again in Afghanistan because that Western backed us backed government. You know, it's gonna crumble like a house of cards had a conversation about This issue that is absent in NATO talks. US talks with the allies. They haven't brought this issue up and we're less than 90 days away from full extraction for leaving Afghanistan to crumble and fall and have the Taliban takeover. My conversation with Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Addicott go out, Steven. So the Pentagon is they're still debating what to do. As far as airstrikes in Afghanistan. Once U. S troops pull out there was an initial reports, saying they'll use airstrikes to support the government. And the most recent report yesterday, is that no, they won't unless they're taking out known terrorists. Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Attica at Saint Mary's University is an expert when it comes to empty terrorism efforts in our country. I want to get your quick opinion on the back and forth right now at the Pentagon, whether they should or should not do airstrikes after everybody from the U. S has gone. Yeah. You know, First of all, the Pentagon has Contingency plans for all sorts of things. So this is not unusual that they'd be contemplating. You know what will happen if you know a terror cell pops back up when we leave or the Taliban. Comes back into power. So in my personal opinion, of course, the the the Red line that we should look at is not whether you have some terrorist here or there, or the Taliban takes over. The country which they will. It's whether or not the Taliban government is going to allow these training camps to be re established on their territory, as we saw before 9 11 when they allowed Al Qaeda To trade over 60,000 people in these terror camps. That's really the red line. If they do enough that we need to take decisive military action, not just some drone strikes. Do you know what data is going to do after the U. S leads and we're packing up and leaving on a daily basis from Afghanistan? Are they gonna stick around? No, no, they're heading out the door. In fact, most have already gone as soon as the Biden administration signal that they're going to leave without any conditions, and this is part of the problem. Is, you know, the Trump Administration, of course, had a peace plan that they put into effect, But it was condition based. In other words, the Taliban had to negotiate with the the government that exists now in the capital city that stopped as soon as Biden came in office. Those talks Abruptly ended. Uh, the Trump Administration also made it very clear that we would respond with overwhelming military force if the Taliban started to house or to sponsor Terrorist activities. The administration basically said we're leaving. We don't care what the conditions are. September the 11th, which is a strange day to pick, uh, we're out and again, whether you're liberal or conservative. And I'm a conservative. By the way, we all know what's going to happen when we leave Afghanistan. Whether it's this year or 100 years from now the Taliban will take over that country again, and I think the issue is not that we're going to have to stay there to make sure the Taliban doesn't return to power. It's we want to make sure that the Taliban is not a safe haven for Al Qaeda type groups that want to attack us. That's unacceptable. Uh, the fact that the country is going to go back into Sharia law and extreme version where Everything we hold dear in this country, our bill of rights or are disregarded in that country. You know, I feel for those people, but it's not our job to stay there in garrison that country indefinitely. Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Anika. And I guess you know what I find surprising, Colonel, is that these NATO meetings taking place. I haven't heard a single people any commentary from any of these nations. Not even Joe Biden on what happens to the interpreters to the Kabul government employees, those who are teaching little girls how to read and write. You know, the Taliban's gunning for them As soon as they get into Kabul and start tearing everything up, they're gonna start killing all these people. I haven't heard NATO say anything about extracting protecting any of these people as they leave your right And there's a couple of congressmen that have introduced bills to try to get these individuals visas to lawfully come into our country. How about that? And you know those are the people we should take care of and go to the front of the lawful line, and they don't all need to come to the U. S. And that's the reason I mentioned NATO's good. You think you have a dry man, somebody would step up and take some of these folks in right? Yeah, I agree. I mean, we should take our share. But other countries should do so as well. Because these people if the Taliban comes back into power, they will be executed. There's no question about it. There are rumors. Uh, you know, sort of individuals that they will execute them. It's kind of like what we're going to see, in my opinion is you know what happened in 19 seventies when North Vietnam came in, You know, there's a Massive killing is going to take place and the copyist took over the country, even though they before they wouldn't. But the difference is, of course, North Korea is not trying to excuse me. North Vietnam is not trying to attack the United States. That's the key function will the Taliban, you know, understand that there's a price to be paid. And that price, of course, would be. We would re enter with overwhelming force. Not do drone strikes here and there. Like President Trump did with Isis. That's how you deal with them, and that's just the nature of the world. I mean, war will never end and we just need to make it clear to our adversaries that there's a cost to be paid..
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"garland justice department" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"This is one of these stories that on the one hand. It's a little bit like the boiling frog. Like we had learned about the justice department having intervened at the president's insistence to help his friends And to try to investigate his enemies we hit. Learned about the The way they were going after reporters sources ways that appear to directly violate justice department policy that some of those revelations quite recent And now revelations that they were going after sitting members of congress including those who are investigating him and using a gag order to keep it secret from congress as a whole and from those members it is unprecedented and the branches of government aren't supposed to be able to do this to each other and i don't know what the consequences are here but the merrick garland justice department has a huge mess on. Its hands that it needs to and it needs to handle in a way that restores public. Trust that agency. We're gonna be joined by two members of the house intelligence committee in this hour carson krishnamoorthi and harsh when val demings who is now an announced candidate for senate in florida. They both long a lot to say about this and rachel. Here's how we know. Here's how we know how bad this is. Richard nixon didn't do it. Richard nixon wouldn't dare do this and richard. Nixon was trying to go after leaks to the press just like donald trump was and the way he did it was he wiretapped reporters he richard nixon wiretapped reporters. Richard nixon committed crimes. Richard nixon was forced to leave office. But this was ally richard. Nixon would not cross and now that we know it's been crossed. The question for us is what do we do about it. What are the consequences of it. How do we ensure it doesn't happen again because if it goes on if it happened it's revealed and it goes unpunished. It becomes defacto president for not only if donald trump gets back into the presidency for him to do it again but for somebody worse than him to do this. Because of the de facto precedent. That it's okay to do because once it was exposed. There were no consequences. If this stuff isn't rooted out exposed and punished. It will happen again. It will become the new normal and this justice department. Become something that we have never ever had in this country before even under somebody as bad an actor as as richardson's And and your focus on. What does merrick garland do. Next is so important that he has Obligations that no attorney general before him has had its the worst job in government right now. I mean there's no job. I would like to have myself in the in the biden administration right now. I mean being attorney. General is hard in the best of times but to have to be attorney general and also to have to turn the justice department around to pick it up. It's ankles and shake it to see what falls out and in some cases they're going to have to undo actions taken by justice department personnel. Who were there during the trump administration and went along with some of the stuff. But they're also going to have to meet out some consequences and it's it's inescapable and it is big responsibility as anything else. They've got going on in government right now. Of course traditionally the attorney general of the new administration. Even from a different party doesn't ever really find fault with what's happened. You know procedurally from the attorney general of the other part of the precedes him and so they have no real muscles. They have no muscle memory. About how you deal with something like this and so. This is the time when you need. You need an attorney general. Who knows how to see things in a way that no previous attorney general has had to. Yeah yes exactly. There's not an option to ignore it in this case if you do if you if you are coming. In after an attorney general who used the justice department at the president's insistence to reward his friends to punish enemies to spy spine his political opponents his political opponents but to use the threat of to use all the powers of the justice department to survey all sitting members of congress including those on the intelligence community at the president's insistence. I mean this is. You can't just be like oh. We have policy differences not policy. This is a department that broke that we can't afford to let remain broken yet. And with government officials like this president and attorney general. The line is not crimes. The line is not william bar. Commit a crime to jeff sessions. Commit a crime to the president commit a crime. The line is should this have been done was wrong was wrong for them to do And i don't see how the orange the girl and can sit atop that bureaucracy without comment on what you did right and justice department policy is there for a reason right. I mean the justice department policy about for example. What you do with reporters is black letter policy. And you can read the memos on that from the from from the previous era of the justice department and those policies aren't rescinded if senior members of the justice department and perhaps even career attorneys are line. Prosecutors violate those policies and there is no consequence of it then that policy no longer exists in real life because there's no consequences for breaking it. You just can't do that. I mean the justice department has office of legal counsel memos that they treat as binding precedent. They have black letter policy that they treat as the rules and when those things are broken. You can't just say we're not going to do it that way anymore. We're going to go back to following the rules. it's not it's not a self repairing machine. I just i started off a couple of weeks ago. Feeling very urgent about this. And i got to the point where i'm feeling more than urgent about it. We are going to hear from attorney. General merrick garland tomorrow. He says he's gonna talk about voting rights as one of the things. Which is his agency has done at least nothing that we can see publicly visible thus far. I imagine he'll be after talk about some of this stuff to. We will see what he has to say tomorrow. Thank you thank you. Rachel like you while nixon didn't do it..
Slate's Political Gabfest
"garland justice department" Discussed on Slate's Political Gabfest
"The department of justice under attorney-general merrick garland has really infuriated people on the left in the past couple of weeks. What have they done emily. Baz basilan well so easy. And carol sued president trump for defamation after she accused him of rape years ago in a department store and then he accused her effectively of lying and said he'd never even met her when there was actually a picture of him at a party with her. So this lawsuit was filed in state court Defamation suit in new york and just as a team like carol might get some discovery might be able to go in and try to prove that trump Knew he was lying. The former attorney. General william bar took the lawsuit and plopped down in federal court and he had the power to do that as attorney general then a federal district court judge said that the lawsuit could proceed rejecting the arguments. By the trump justice department that what president trump said about aging carol fell within the scope of his employment as president and that as a president he was a government worker covered by this federal law. Called the westfall act. That effectively gets federal employees out of lawsuits in the scope of their office or employment. So the question was what was the biden justice department going to do with this lawsuit. What was there a position where they are gonna continue the trump position and appeal this district court ruling or not and they have decided to stick with the trump position and the reason is probably two or threefold for one thing in general the justice department is not excited about changing the position. It takes in cases when a new administration comes in. They're supposed to be doing something called law which is different than something called politics kind of like judges and it's not great when every time you come into office you just like change all your positions in a bunch of cases because it makes the government seem like they are just driven by politics. And you can't rely on them so that's one kind of overall global reason for this sticking with the position and another is just about like defending the broad prerogatives power of the presidency and not making it easier for presidents to get sued for lots of different reasons right trying to protect the president from this type of civil lawsuit now. The problem with that argument for me is that bill clinton lost a lawsuit a lot like this one in a sexual misconduct claim that paula jones brought against him and the supreme court said like tough year an office. You can still get sued. And that seems like it's really at odds with what the justice department is arguing with here. But you know maybe they're trying to limit that position and there is this kind of broader institutional way of basically justifying the position that the by justice department is taking here. I don't personally agree with really. But i it's. It's a really interesting kind of law politics. Dilemma i wanted to deeper this just want to note there a couple other things that the guard administrate garland justice department. They've now they're siding with some religious colleges in a case just trying to defend a law and not get displaced from defending a law that allows for discrimination against lgbtq people by religious schools. And also emily the administration at least temporarily had been going along with some trump administration efforts to to extract records from the new york times. The washington post and cnn of reporters and in fact even gagging executives of the new york times and cnn from talking about their efforts to extract these records leak investigations. Although now the garland justice department has backed off of that right. Yeah and then. They're also trying to prevent through. Lisa the memo from the mola report so going back to the jim carroll case i remember even at the time we talked when we talked about this. The first time being pretty sympathetic to trump. There was this argument while he wasn't working when he defamed her when he's alleged to fainter because he's asked he's asked by reporters about this case and he gives a response which is allegedly defamatory. And then she. She sues based on that response. I don't understand how you can say. The president wasn't working when he responded to these questions. You're the president when reporters asked you questions. You have to answer like even if it's not about the budget or it's not about the particular signing ceremony or add. If it's something else you were you were. Your job is answering requests questions from reporters responding to reporters and so it does seem to me that that is very much in the process in the course of your regular work as you're in your job is is responding to these now. You shouldn't defame people when you're doing it. But if the law exists to protect federal officials who are doing their job does seem to me. That trump would be covered by that. Yeah i mean. I think some of the confusion here is the like you are correctly separating answering the questions about old rape allegations while you're president from old rape allegations from way before you were president and i think that's cracked like he's being asked the questions in the capacity of having to answer questions from reporters like you said. I don't understand how this squares with the ruling. I was just talking about in the clinton versus paula. Jones case in which a civil lawsuit was allowed to proceed during presidency. I mean especially now. Trump's not even present anymore because clinton's actions weren't while he was president. It was all a question of whether it was behavior that was done before and whether he could be held to account for that behavior. Whereas in this case is a question whether you're being held to account for behavior while you're president while you're doing your job. Yeah maybe that's exactly right. I mean certainly a really important distinction. You're right but then the question is surely there are limits on that because if you're president and particularly this last president gave us a real life example of this if you use the power of the office while i guess the answer to this is impeachment but i guess you use the power of the office to.