Connect with us

Politics

Trump Marks Mueller’s Report as a Win, Others Push to Make it Public

On Friday, Mueller handed in his report on whether or not Trump’s team colluded with Russia during the election to Attorney General William Barr, recommending no further indictments. In a summary on the report, Barr says that Mueller concluded that there was no collusion, but did not say one way or the other about obstruction […]

Published

on

  • On Friday, Mueller handed in his report on whether or not Trump’s team colluded with Russia during the election to Attorney General William Barr, recommending no further indictments.
  • In a summary on the report, Barr says that Mueller concluded that there was no collusion, but did not say one way or the other about obstruction of justice.
  • Trump is counting this as a big win for himself, but Democrats want the full report released to the public.

Barr’s Summary

Robert Mueller’s report concluded that President Donald Trump’s campaign did not conspire with Russia during the 2016 election. However the report did not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, according to Attorney General William Barr.

On Friday, Special Counsel Mueller turned in his report on his two-year-long investigation into Russia’s interference with the 2016 election to the attorney general. At the time, he recommended no additional indictments.

On Sunday, Barr released a letter to Congress that contained a four-page summary of Mueller’s report. Barr’s summary said the report was broken down into two parts, the first being Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

According to Mueller’s findings, there were two main efforts by Russia, one from the Internet Research Agency, and one from the Russuian government. The investigation has already resulted in arrests regarding both of these efforts.

The investigation did not find, however, that Trump or his colleagues aided these efforts. Barr quoted Mueller’s report, saying,  “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The second part of the report centered around obstruction of justice, but the findings were not conclusive.

“The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” Barr said in his letter.

He also went on to quote the Special Counsel, which said in their report, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

So what does this mean? In their report, the Special Counsel outlined the various activities investigated, and the arguments on each side. They drew no conclusions, and instead left it up to Attorney General Barr to decide if the actions constituted as criminal behavior.

In his letter to congress, Barr said he discussed the report with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that they “concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

What Does This Mean for Trump?

Many view this as a big win for Trump and his administration. The Special Counsel found there was no conspiracy or collusion in the campaign, and while they did not say either way if he obstructed justice, the Attorney General said there was not enough evidence, which was enough for Trump to take to Twitter to make a statement.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders went on the TODAY Show on Monday morning, backing up Trump’s comments. Anchor Savannah Guthrie asked Sanders, “Would you acknowledge that it is incorrect for the president to call this a total exoneration?”

“Not at all. It is a total and complete exoneration,” Sanders said. “And here’s why. The special counsel, they said they couldn’t make a decision one way or the other. The way that process works is that they then leave that up to the AG. The AG and the Deputy AG went through and based their decision on Mueller’s investigation.”

Push to Release the Report

On the other side, democrats are arguing that Mueller’s full report should be released.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a joint statement calling for the report to be made public, given biases the Attorney General may have.

“Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers,” the statement read.  “The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay.  Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report.”

Others like Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris took to Twitter to demand the full report.

The democratic leaders are not alone in wanting the report to be made public. Earlier in the month, the House voted 420-0 to demand the Department of Justice release Mueller’s full investigation to lawmakers, and as much as possible to the public. This vote was non-binding and does not mandate anything, but it does put pressure on Barr.

So will we ever get to see the report? That still remains unclear. In his letter to congress, he said the report remains confidential, but also added that he was aware of the “public interest in this matter.”

“For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies,” Barr stated.

What those laws, regulations, and policies could limit is also unclear, but material in the report is likely relevant to other investigations, or could be a security risk. So if the public were to see it, there is a good chance that there would be heavy redactions.

Many are also debating whether or not Trump would be able to use Executive Privilege to prevent the public from seeing certain parts of the report. This could include internal communications and private conversations involving the president. But right now, whether or not he could use it is up in the air. It is also unclear if he would want to, as in the past he tweeted in support of the Republicans voting for transparency regarding the report.

If the Department of Justice were to not make the report public, Representative Jerry Nadler said he would be willing to take legal action. On CNN, he said he would go so far as to take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Well we will try to negotiate and we will try everything else first,” said Nadler. “But if we have to, yes, we will certainly issue subpoenas to get that information.”

“And you’re going to be willing to take that up to the supreme court if you have to,” anchor Dana Bash asked.

“Absolutely,” Nadler responded.

See What Others Are Saying: (Wall Street Journal) (Washington Post) (CBS)

Politics

Federal Court Throws Out Alabama Congressional Map, Citing Racial Gerrymandering

Published

on

The judges ruled that the Republican-held legislature gerrymandered the map so the state only had one Black-majority district despite Black residents composing 27% of the state’s population.


Alabama Ordered to Redraw Map

A panel of federal judges tossed Alabama’s new congressional map on Monday, ruling that the current version significantly weakens the voting power of Black residents.   

In their decision, the three judges noted that while about 27% of Alabamians are Black, the map drawn by the Republican-led legislature after the 2020 census was gerrymandered to leave just one of the state’s seven districts with a Black majority.

“Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the judges wrote. “We find that the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable harm if they must vote in the 2022 congressional elections based on a redistricting plan that violates federal law.”

As a result, the panel also ordered state lawmakers to redraw their map so that it includes “two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.”

The legislature was given 14 days to redo their map before they appoint a special master to do so.

Ongoing Legal Battles

Shortly after the ruling, a spokesperson for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement that his office “strongly disagrees with the court’s decision and will be appealing in the coming days.” 

According to reports, the matter could ultimately go to the Supreme Court, which would decide whether lawmakers can draw maps that are gerrymandered along racial lines.

The high court ruled in 2019 that federal courts do not have the power to block congressional maps that are gerrymandered to skew districts in a partisan manner unless a state’s constitution explicitly prohibits such gerrymandering. The justices did keep parts of the Voting Rights Act that ban racial or ethnic gerrymandering, which the federal panel claimed was the case in Alabama.

Alabama’s congressional map is not the only one drawn by Republicans that has been thrown out in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Ohio’s Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to redraw a map that would have given Republicans 12 congressional seats and Democrats just three despite the fact that recently the GOP has only won about 55% of the popular vote statewide.

The state’s high court ruled that the map clearly violated a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2018 that effectively banned partisan gerrymandering.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (AL.com)

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affirmative Action Cases at Harvard and UNC

Published

on

The decision to take up the two cases marks the first time affirmative action will go before the high court’s latest conservative-majority bloc.


SCOTUS Takes on Race-Conscious Admissions, Again

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will again consider whether race-conscious admissions programs at universities are legal in two cases that could have serious implications for affirmative action.

The two lawsuits center around admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), both of which were brought by the conservative nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions.

The Harvard case started in 2014 with a lawsuit that claimed the school discriminated against Asian American students by effectively creating a quota for their admission. It also alleged the school a subjective standard to measure personality traits like likability, courage, and kindness.

The Ivy League school denied the allegations, claiming the challengers used incorrect statistical analysis and broadly arguing that race-conscious policies are legal.

In the case against UNC, the group alleged that the school discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic, and Native American students.

The university, for its part, argued that its policies create more diversity among its student body, also echoing Harvard’s argument that such rules are legal under decades of Supreme Court precedents.

Past Precedent Up in the Air

Lower courts ruled in favor of both schools, finding they did indeed comply with Supreme Court decisions.

But in taking up these two cases, the high court’s conservative majority will now examine whether race-conscious admissions are legal at all. The move could decide the future of affirmative action and undermine more than four decades of precedent on the use of race in college admissions.

The last two times the high court took up cases regarding affirmative action, the justices upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious programs by slim majorities. Now, those majorities have been replaced by a conservative bloc that includes three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump.

According to reports, the justices will likely hear the cases in October. 

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (NPR)

Continue Reading

Politics

Pelosi Reverses Course, Signals Openness to Stock Trading Ban for Congress

Published

on

The move comes as public and bipartisan support for legislation banning Congress members from stock trading has grown in recent weeks.


Pelosi Backtracks on Member Trading

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) on Thursday signaled openness to legislation that would ban members of Congress from trading stocks, reversing her previous position on the matter.

“I do come down always in favor of trusting our members,” Pelosi said at a press conference. “If the impression that is given by some that somebody is doing insider trading, that’s a Justice Department issue and that has no place in any of this.”

“To give a blanket attitude of ‘We can’t do this and we can’t do,’ because we can’t be trusted, I just don’t buy into that. But if members want to do that, I’m okay with that,” she continued.

The speaker’s remarks come as she has faced mounting backlash for voicing opposition to such a ban. 

“We are a free market economy,” she told reporters when asked about the matter last month. “They should be able to participate in that.”

While Pelosi herself does not trade, her husband has invested millions in stocks. Those trades have been made public under the 2012 STOCK Act, which has required Congress members and their spouses to disclose when they buy and sell stocks for the last decade.

But the law has a mixed track record. A recent investigation by Insider found that “dozens of lawmakers and 182 senior congressional staff” have violated the law.

The act also came under intense scrutiny after financial disclosures filed by lawmakers exposed that members of both parties made trades in 2020 that benefited their portfolios after receiving early briefings on the seriousness of the pandemic. 

The Justice Department reviewed some of the cases, but it ultimately did not bring any charges. 

Momentum Grows for Congressional Ban

In recent weeks, pressure to reform the STOCK Act has been growing both among the public and in Congress.

Proponents argue that Congress members should be banned from trading stocks altogether to ensure they do not have conflicts of interest or use their access to classified briefings to make money.

According to a new poll from the progressive firm Data for Progress, 67% of voters support a ban. That number rose to 74% when the respondents were given arguments both for and against the idea.

In Congress, there is widespread bipartisan support for legislation to impose stricter regulations, including among top leadership.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) has reportedly said he is considering banning members from trading if Republicans win control of the House and select him as Speaker in 2022.

“I cannot imagine being a Speaker of the House with the power of what can come before committee, you name them and what can come to the floor and trading millions of dollars worth of options,” he told NPR earlier this month. “I just don’t think the American people think that’s right.”

Members of both parties have already put forth proposals. Last week, Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Kelly (D-Az.) introduced legislation that would effectively ban lawmakers, as well as their spouses and dependents, from buying and selling stocks.

The same day, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) rolled out a very similar bill, though his version would not include dependents.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Hill) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading