Trang Ánh Nam

In a letter to Nadler, McGahn attorney William Burck said his client won't show up. Burck said current White House Counsel Pat Cipollone had communicated that Trump had instructed McGahn not to testify, and that Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel had said McGahn was immune from testifying. "Mr. McGahn understands from your prior correspondence that the Committee would vote to hold him in contempt should he not appear tomorrow and the House of Representatives may follow suit," Burck wrote to Nadler. "While we disagree with the Committee’s position and hope it will instead seek an accommodation with the White House, Mr. McGahn also must honor his ethical and legal obligations as a former senior lawyer and senior advisor to the President. In short, it is our view that the Committee’s dispute is not with Mr. McGahn but with the White House." The Justice Department issued an opinion today that protects White House counsel Do

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta took some time to test the scope of the argument. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank highlighted one of the key exchanges from the courtroom: Mehta, an Obama appointee, probed for the limits of this breathtaking theory but found none: Trump’s finances are not subject to investigation?  “Correct,” Consovoy informed the judge.  Congress can’t verify the accuracy of the president’s financial statements? “Correct.” If “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?”  No, Consovoy said, because that’s “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.” Of course, by this reasoning, Congress’ Watergate investigation was itself illegal. When the judge yesterday asked specifically whether Nixon’s corrupt enterprise should’ve been shielded from congressional scrutiny, Trump’s lawyer hedged, saying he’d “have to look” at some o

It's the question that has dominated politics for more than two years -- what exactly happened with counterintelligence activities conducted during the 2016 election and the Russia probe. Now, in his first interview since joining the Trump administration, Attorney General Bill Barr detailed how he plans to get to the bottom of the origins of the probe, his thoughts on James Comey, Robert Mueller and other issues related to the special counsel's investigation. While in El Salvador, Attorney General Barr told the Wall Street Journal that it wasn’t that he was trying to protect President Trump himsself, but rather the presidency: POLITICAL WIRE  – Attorney General William Barr told the Wall Street Journal that “his long-held belief in executive power is more about protecting the presidency than the current officeholder.” Said Barr: “I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump, and I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul.” He added: “

A Democratic state representative from Alabama is facing fierce backlash over his remarks in opposition to the abortion ban that was approved in his state, saying that "some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later." The Republican-controlled House in Alabama overwhelming approved a bill that would make it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy -- with a sole exemption for women whose health is at risk. The measure passed with a 74-3 vote. The bill will now advance to the state Senate. Supporters of the legislation hope that the fight will carry on to the U.S. Supreme Courtand encourage the justices to revisit the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973. However, one of the state-level opponents to the anti-abortion legislation, Democratic Rep. John Rogers of Birningham, spoke out against the vote. "Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the wo

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) tells Chuck Todd, “After his performance today, I’m not surprised [Barr] doesn’t want to repeat it again tomorrow,” and calls Barr testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, a “pretty sorry performance.” The Attorney General has now informed the House Judiciary Committee that he will NOT be in attendance for tomorrow’s scheduled hearing: A House Judiciary Committee side says the committee has been informed by DOJ that Barr will NOT be coming for his scheduled 9 am appearance before the committee tomorrow. There has been an ongoing dispute about whether staff could question him during the hearing. — Rebecca Kaplan (@RebeccaRKaplan) May 1, 2019 BREAKING: Per a congressional source, the House Judiciary Committee has been notified by the DOJ that Attorney General Barr is NOT coming to testify tomorrow. DOJ has told the committee to expect a letter officially stating that shortly, according to my source. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yami

AG William Barr has opted not to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler says the panel would "start a process" to get Barr to testify, and says the next step is a contempt citation. So Democratic Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler responded to Barr saying that he wasn’t goint to show up tomorrow. He is threatening to hold Barr in contempt:   House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler says if Attorney General William Barr doesn't provide the unredacted Mueller report to Congress in the next day or two, "the next step is seeking a contempt citation against the attorney general" However, when it came to hitting Barr with a subpoena, Nadler was non-committal about it. So, it’s kind of a showdown. Will Barr back down and show up? It sounds like Nadler will give him a few days to consider. But they can then hold him in contempt, and if that doesn’t work, hit him with another subpoena. But if

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) says he does not think Attorney General Bill Barr should recuse himself from further Mueller-related probes. “I realize I’m biased here, I’m a Bill Barr fan,” Kennedy says. Below is a liberal narrative, or argument, that the reason Mueller didn’t indict President Trump is that he was under order by a DOJ guideline that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Watch Senator Kennedy shoot that argument down at the 1:45 minute mark: The argument then goes like this – since Mueller cannot indict, he wants Congress to impeach. But Kennedy points out that in the testimony offered by Barr that Mueller told him directly that it was “absolutely not” the reasoning why he didn’t recommend an indictment. Interesting. Now the left might poke holes in that by saying Barr is lying. Well, if Barr is lying about what Mueller told him, then it is up to Mueller to clear that up. I would like to think that if Barr straight up lied about his intention that he would make

Attorney General Bill Barr agrees with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz that weaponizing the Department of Justice against a political opponent is an abuse of power no matter who does it. Ted Cruz finally got his chance to question to AG Barr in today’s judiciary hearing and while doing so he proceeded to masterfully expose the ludicrousness of Democrats obsessing over the Mueller letter to Barr than came out last night: This is classic Ted Cruz. Here’s a snippet if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing. The “19 pages” in the quote to the executive summaries Mueller wanted Barr to release: So their entire argument is: AG Barr, you suppressed the 19 pages that are entirely public, that we have and we can read, that they know every word of it, and their complaint is it was delayed a few weeks. And that was because of your decision not to release the report piecemeal but rather to release those 19 pages along with the entire 448 pages produced by the Special Couns