EDITED: In the video, I mistakenly say that election day is “November 4, 2020.” It is “November 3, 2020.” My apologies for the error.
Trump and his nefarious associates believe they have perfected exploiting the delay in the court system to run out the clock and never be held to account. The fix is not as difficult as you might think.
There’s an abundance of specialized courts created to deal with specific types of cases. For example, there are drug courts, mental health courts, juvenile courts and domestic violence courts. In federal district court in Washington, DC, for example, there is reentry court.
Creating these courts do not require an act of Congress. It simply takes the judicial branch–a co-equal branch of the government–to recognize a particularized need in the criminal justice system and instituting common-sense rule changes to address the need.
If there was ever a need to address a deficiency, it is in the way nefarious actors exploit the delay inherent in the system. DC federal district court can easily remedy this weakness by creating an Inter-Branch Dispute Court (IBDC). When legal disputes erupt between the executive and legislative branches, like the need to enforce the House of Representatives’ subpoena for Don McGahn’s testimony in the impeachment inquiry, the IBDC can give the parties 72 hours to file their briefs, another 72 hours to present their oral arguments and the court decision would be entered within 72 hours of the conclusion of those arguments. The appeals court can follow the same 72/72/72 time table. Justice can be done in a matter of weeks, as opposed to the Trumps and McGahns of the world delay justice for months or years.
This common sense approach to fixing a proceduraly broken judiciary is a must for the health of our democracy.
If you are interested in supporting our content, please consider becoming a #TeamJustice patron at: https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschner
My podcast, “Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner” can be downloaded where you get your podcasts.
Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday said he doesn’t care if President Donald Trump told then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire special counsel Robert Mueller — the Mueller investigation is over.
“It’s all theater — it doesn’t matter,” the South Carolina Republican told “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan. “I don’t care what he said to Don McGahn — it’s what he did. The president never obstructed.”
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s comments about willingness to accept foreign opposition research, the status of election security legislation, candidate lineups for the upcoming Democratic presidential debates and the politics of Democratic socialism.
(12:18)AND NBC’S PETER ALEXANDER ADDING THIS REPORTING TO OURADDING THIS REPORTING TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOW WAR OFUNDERSTANDING OF THIS NOW WAR OF WORDS TODAY BETWEEN DON McGHANWORDS TODAY BETWEEN DON McGHAN AND DONALD TRUMP.AND DONALD TRUMP. PETER’S REPORTING THAT A PERSONPETER’S REPORTING THAT A PERSON CLOSE TO FORMER WHITE HOUSECLOSE TO FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGHAN IS DISMISSINGCOUNSEL DON McGHAN IS DISMISSING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMENTS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMENTS TO ABC NEWS WHERE HE DISPUTES McGAHN’S TESTIMONY SAYING,QUOTE, IT’S NOT FANTASY LAND. SO WE HAVE FANTASY LAND, WE HAVESO WE HAVE FANTASY LAND, WE HAVE THE TOOTH FAIRY.THE TOOTH FAIRY. McGAHN PUSHING BACK MORE THAN HEMcGAHN PUSHING BACK MORE THAN HE DID THE FIRST COUPLE ROUNDS OFDID THE FIRST COUPLE ROUNDS OF SMEARS AGAINST McGAHN.SMEARS AGAINST McGAHN. DO YOU THINK McGAHN IS SOMEONEDO YOU THINK McGAHN IS SOMEONE WHO MIGHT EVENTUALLY GETWHO MIGHT EVENTUALLY GET BATTERED ENOUGH TO TESTIFY?BATTERED ENOUGH TO TESTIFY? >> I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SENSE>> I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SENSE IN PUBLICLY ATTACKING DONIN PUBLICLY ATTACKING DON McGHAN.McGHAN. I — I CAN’T FATHOM IT.I — I CAN’T FATHOM IT. I REALLY CAN’T FATHOM IT.I REALLY CAN’T FATHOM IT. >> EXPLAIN THAT.>> EXPLAIN THAT. >> YOU’RE GOADING HIM INTO — I>> YOU’RE GOADING HIM INTO — I KNOW THIS IS JUST WHAT THEKNOW THIS IS JUST WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES AND I DON’T THINK–PRESIDENT DOES AND I DON’T THINK HE’S THINKING ABOUT IT IN ASTRATEGIC FASHION —BECAUSE WHO SHOULD EXPECT A PRESIDENT TO THINKSTRATEGICALLY. >> I DON’T BELIEVE HE IS>> I DON’T BELIEVE HE IS THINKING STRATEGICALLY.THINKING STRATEGICALLY. BUT IS HE JUST TRYING TO GOADBUT IS HE JUST TRYING TO GOAD DON McGHAN INTO MAKING A PUBLICDON McGHAN INTO MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT?STATEMENT? I MEAN, IT’S KIND OF — AND NOWI MEAN, IT’S KIND OF — AND NOW WE’RE SEEING, AGAIN, I WONDER IFWE’RE SEEING, AGAIN, I WONDER IF IT’S THE SAME SOURCE, BUTIT’S THE SAME SOURCE, BUT SOURCES CLOSE TO McGAHN WE’RESOURCES CLOSE TO McGAHN WE’RE SEEING THESE VERY SIMILARSEEING THESE VERY SIMILAR STATEMENTS.STATEMENTS. I DON’T KNOW.I DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, I DON’T THINK THISI MEAN, I DON’T THINK THIS CHANGES THE CALCULUS IN THECHANGES THE CALCULUS IN THE SHORT-TERM ABOUT WHETHER HESHORT-TERM ABOUT WHETHER HE TESTIFIES OR NOT, BUT I DON’TTESTIFIES OR NOT, BUT I DON’T SEE THE SENSE IN IT.SEE THE SENSE IN IT. >> ASHLEY PARKER?>> ASHLEY PARKER? >> AGAIN IT MAKES NO SENSE.>> AGAIN IT MAKES NO SENSE. THE PRESIDENT IS GETTINGTHE PRESIDENT IS GETTING DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ALMOSTDANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO ALMOST PUSHING FOR AN OUTCOME THAT HEPUSHING FOR AN OUTCOME THAT HE DOESN’T WANT AND WOULDN’TDOESN’T WANT AND WOULDN’T BENEFIT HIM.BENEFIT HIM. YOU HAVE DON McGHAN WHO ISYOU HAVE DON McGHAN WHO IS SOMEONE BASED ON THE MUELLERSOMEONE BASED ON THE MUELLER REPORT AND EVERYTHING WEREPORT AND EVERYTHING WE UNDERSTAND, REPEATEDLY ACTUALLYUNDERSTAND, REPEATEDLY ACTUALLY SAVED THE PRESIDENT FROMSAVED THE PRESIDENT FROM HIMSELF.HIMSELF. AND THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT HAVEAND THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT HAVE LIKED IT IN THOSE MOMENTS AND,LIKED IT IN THOSE MOMENTS AND, IN FACT, HE DIDN’T AT THE TIMEIN FACT, HE DIDN’T AT THE TIME WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CLASHESWE HEARD A LOT ABOUT CLASHES WITH DON McGHAN AND HE DIDN’TWITH DON McGHAN AND HE DIDN’T LIKE DON McGHAN BECAUSE DONLIKE DON McGHAN BECAUSE DON McGHAN WOULD STAND UP TO HIM ANDMcGHAN WOULD STAND UP TO HIM AND GIVE HIM THE LAWYER’S POINT OFGIVE HIM THE LAWYER’S POINT OF VIEW, IT TURNS OUT IN HINDSIGHTVIEW, IT TURNS OUT IN HINDSIGHT THE PRESIDENT IS LUCKY DONTHE PRESIDENT IS LUCKY DON McGHAN WAS THERE PLAYING THATMcGHAN WAS THERE PLAYING THAT ROLE.ROLE. DON McGHAN ONLY TESTIFIED FORDON McGHAN ONLY TESTIFIED FOR THOSE 30 HOURS YOU MENTIONEDTHOSE 30 HOURS YOU MENTIONED BECAUSE HE WAS ABIDING BY — YOUBECAUSE HE WAS ABIDING BY — YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH IF IT’S GOODCAN DISAGREE WITH IF IT’S GOOD OR BAD STRATEGY, HE WAS ABIDINGOR BAD STRATEGY, HE WAS ABIDING BY A STRATEGY COOKED UP BY THEBY A STRATEGY COOKED UP BY THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AT THE TIME,PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS AT THE TIME, AND NOW HE’S RISKING POSSIBLEAND NOW HE’S RISKING POSSIBLE CON TEMPT TO DEFY ACON TEMPT TO DEFY A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA. HE’S NOT LIKE THESE DEMOCRATS,HE’S NOT LIKE THESE DEMOCRATS, HE’S NOT THE PERSON YOU WANT TOHE’S NOT THE PERSON YOU WANT TO GOAD INTO FINALLY SAYING I’VEGOAD INTO FINALLY SAYING I’VE HAD ENOUGH.HAD ENOUGH. THAT’S NOT A SAVVY STRATEGY.THAT’S NOT A SAVVY STRATEGY. >>> HE’S ALSO ONE OF THESE SORT>>> HE’S ALSO ONE OF THESE SORT OF FIGURES IN TRUMP LAND WITHOF FIGURES IN TRUMP LAND WITH ULTIMATE CREDIBILITY.ULTIMATE CREDIBILITY. HE’S NOT A LIBERAL’S FANTASY,HE’S NOT A LIBERAL’S FANTASY, NOT A WHISTLE BLOWER, HE STANDSNOT A WHISTLE BLOWER, HE STANDS BEHIND THE SUPREME COURT PICKS.BEHIND THE SUPREME COURT PICKS. HIS LEGACY IS THIS VAST BODY OFHIS LEGACY IS THIS VAST BODY OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. HIS CLOSE ALLY IN THE SENATE ISHIS CLOSE ALLY IN THE SENATE IS MITCH McCONNELL.MITCH McCONNELL. HE’S NOT GOING TO BE THISHE’S NOT GOING TO BE THIS SATISFYING WITNESS FOR THE LEFTSATISFYING WITNESS FOR THE LEFT AND HE’S NOT, IT WOULD APPEAR,AND HE’S NOT, IT WOULD APPEAR, ANYMORE FEEL BEHOLDEN PERSONALLYANYMORE FEEL BEHOLDEN PERSONALLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.TO THE WHITE HOUSE. HE IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH TELLER,HE IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH TELLER, AND IF HE SIMPLY TESTIFIES TOAND IF HE SIMPLY TESTIFIES TO WHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT ONWHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT ON TELEVISION, IN FRONT OF CAMERAS,TELEVISION, IN FRONT OF CAMERAS, IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THISIT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO THIS PRESIDENT.PRESIDENT. >> IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING BUT I>> IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING BUT I THINK ALL THE THINGS YOU JUSTTHINK ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST MENTIONED ARE THE REASONS WHYMENTIONED ARE THE REASONS WHY DON McGHAN IS NOT TESTIFYING.DON McGHAN IS NOT TESTIFYING. THE PRESIDENT KEEPS ATTACKINGTHE PRESIDENT KEEPS ATTACKING HIM BECAUSE OF THE LAST THREE ORHIM BECAUSE OF THE LAST THREE OR SO YEARS, THE PRESIDENT HASSO YEARS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LEARNED ABOUT THE REPUBLICANLEARNED ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT HE CAN BEAT THEMESTABLISHMENT HE CAN BEAT THEM UP, ATTACK THEM, AND THEY’LLUP, ATTACK THEM, AND THEY’LL CAVE EVERY TIME.CAVE EVERY TIME. FROM EVERYTHING YOU HEAR, DONFROM EVERYTHING YOU HEAR, DON McGHAN AND TRUMP HATE EACHMcGHAN AND TRUMP HATE EACH OTHER.OTHER. >> ISN’T HIS INTEGRITY ON THE>> ISN’T HIS INTEGRITY ON THE LINE, HIS REPUTATION, AND HASN’TLINE, HIS REPUTATION, AND HASN’T HE TESTIFIED IN THE MUELLERHE TESTIFIED IN THE MUELLER REPORT TO THE TRUTH?REPORT TO THE TRUTH? >> THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT HIS>> THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT HIS REPUTATION IS WITH MITCHREPUTATION IS WITH MITCH McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICANMcCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT AND NONE OF THOSEESTABLISHMENT AND NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE HIM BRINGPEOPLE WANT TO SEE HIM BRING DONALD TRUMP DONE.DONALD TRUMP DONE. >> HE WOULD BE THE RARE FIGURE>> HE WOULD BE THE RARE FIGURE BECAUSE HE HAS THOSE ALLIES WHOBECAUSE HE HAS THOSE ALLIES WHO COULD SUSTAIN TELLING A FEWCOULD SUSTAIN TELLING A FEW MINUTES OF TRUTH OF THE GARBAGEMINUTES OF TRUTH OF THE GARBAGE THAT WENT ON IN THE WEST WING.THAT WENT ON IN THE WEST WING. HE ASKED TO WRITE A FOE ANYHE ASKED TO WRITE A FOE ANY LETTER.LETTER. >> HE MIGHT OR HE MIGHT BE AN>> HE MIGHT OR HE MIGHT BE AN OUTCAST IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTYOUTCAST IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JUSTINLOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO JUSTIN AMASH WHEN HE STOOD UP AND TOLDAMASH WHEN HE STOOD UP AND TOLD THE TRUTH.THE TRUTH. HIS DAYS AS A HERO OF THEHIS DAYS AS A HERO OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE PROBABLYREPUBLICAN PARTY ARE PROBABLY OVER.OVER. >> I WANT TO ASK ALL OF YOU
President Trump on Thursday said in a tweet that he had never asked then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, directly contradicting a detailed account in Mr. Mueller’s report.
“As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself.”
The special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election said that Mr. Trump “called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.” The report, which the Justice Department released last week, relied on interviews that Mr. McGahn gave Mr. Mueller’s team in March 2018, after which Mr. Mueller concluded that “McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.”
Mr. Mueller also wrote the president “made clear” to his chief of staff and chief strategist at the time—Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, respectively—that he was considering firing the special counsel. Both men spoke to the special counsel’s investigators. Mr. Trump declined to answer questions about obstruction of justice and declined to sit for an interview with Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Trump has long denied reports that he sought to have Mr. McGahn fire Mr. Mueller, telling reporters in January 2018 that it was “fake news.” He subsequently asked his White House counsel to publicly deny the reports, which Mr. McGahn refused to do, according to the Mueller report. The special counsel investigated that episode, among others, in seeking to determine whether the president obstructed justice.
In the week since the 448-page report was released to the public, Mr. Trump has gone from saying it exonerates him to attacking some findings as “total bullshit.” His comments Thursday marked his first effort to contradict a key part of the report that raised the question of obstruction.
.. After reports surfaced in January 2018 of Mr. Trump’s directive to Mr. McGahn, Mr. Trump publicly denied the conversation and sought to have his White House counsel do the same. According to the Mueller report, Mr. Trump sought to have aides including his personal lawyer, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders and former staff secretary Rob Porter ask Mr. McGahn to dispute the reports, at one point threatening to fire Mr. McGahn, according to Mr. Porter’s account to investigators.
In another instance recounted in the Mueller report, Mr. McGahn and the president met face-to-face in February 2018, where Mr. Trump asked him: “Did I say the word fire?” Mr. McGahn told the president that he had understood the conversation as “Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go.” Mr. Trump then demanded to know why Mr. McGahn kept notes, saying, “I never had a lawyer who took notes.”
Advisers described the president’s response to the report in recent days as more impulsive than strategic, saying he was driven by media coverage of the report and its fallout rather than any plan to undermine the investigation. “He’s going to talk about it if it’s current and discussed and out there,” Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, said in an interview. “He’s not if it’s not.”
Meanwhile, some of the president’s advisers have opted for a more muted response to the report. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had prepared a 30-page counter-report to Mr. Mueller’s document—whittled down from 150 pages originally—that they planned to release the day the report came out. One week later, they haven’t yet released it.
When the history of the Trump administration is written, one moment in mid-2017 may be seen as decisive—a moment when a staff member saved the president from himself.
On June 17, according to the report by special counsel Robert Mueller released last week, the president called White House Counsel Don McGahn at home and ordered him to tell the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, just as the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election was getting under way. Mr. McGahn declined to carry out the order.
Then, about six months later, when word of the president’s attempt to fire the special counsel leaked out, Mr. Trump met with Mr. McGahn in the Oval Office and pressured him to deny the account publicly. Again, Mr. McGahn refused.
Had Mr. McGahn agreed to do what Mr. Trump wanted—to have Mr. Mueller fired and later create a false narrative about the effort—the case that the president had attempted to obstruct justice would have been much stronger. As it is, Mr. Mueller declined to say whether the president had or hadn’t obstructed justice; the Justice Department has decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show he did so; and Democratic leaders in Congress, much as they are under pressure from activists in the party to impeach Mr. Trump, are skeptical they have a case for doing so.
The Trump-McGahn exchanges point to an important, larger truth: Presidents need people around them who aren’t simply yes-men and yes-women who will blindly do their bidding. They need aides willing to take the tough step of challenging the leader of the free world. One key question is whether Mr. Trump still has enough of them around him.
Anybody who manages an organization recognizes—or should recognize—the need to have subordinates who can walk the fine line between being loyal and being willing to tell the president he or she is making a mistake. Playing that role as a staff member is particularly tough in the rarified air of the White House—and especially in this White House, where the boss has shown a penchant for lashing out at anyone seen as disloyal.
Yet history is replete with examples of the need to have White House aides willing to stand up to the boss. “That lesson cries out” from the Mueller report, says presidential historian Michael Beschloss.
President Richard Nixon, a mercurial man, was self-aware enough to recognize his need for such staff work. When he was preparing to take office, he wrote a memo to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, specifically authorizing him to ignore orders that seemed impetuous or ordered in anger. “There may be times when you or others may determine that the action I have requested should not be taken,” Nixon wrote, according to a definitive biography by John A. Farrell. “I will accept such decisions but I must know about them.”
Mr. Haldeman and others acted accordingly, a practice that proved crucial as Nixon descended into depression amidst the Watergate crisis that ended his presidency. One Nixon aide recalled years later that the president, apparently drunk, encountered him in a White House hallway late at night during the opening phases of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and seemed to order him to unleash an American bombing attack on Syria. The order was ignored, and apparently forgotten by the president the next day.
Aides to President Ronald Reagan were frequently excoriated by conservatives for failing to “let Reagan be Reagan” when they pushed back against presidential instincts. Yet Mr. Reagan always defended his staff’s right to do so, and disputed the idea that he was being badly served by strong aides.
In his memoir, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates recounts a bitter argument with President Obama over implementation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that compelled military commanders to discharge or separate gays and lesbians from other troops if their sexual orientation became known. That policy was being disputed in the courts, and there was a movement in Congress to change the law. Mr. Obama wanted his defense chief to suspend implementation of the policy in the meantime.
Though he supported changing the law, Mr. Gates refused, arguing that existing law couldn’t simply be disregarded. Congress soon passed legislation changing the practice, which included a period to certify that a new policy could be implemented smoothly. It’s likely the change went down better with commanders because Mr. Gates had shown the need to abide strictly by law.
President Trump’s removal of John Kelly as his top aide is part of a rolling staff makeover that could soon result in the departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, White House officials and people close to the administration said... When Mr. Trump and National Security Adviser John Bolton faulted her for not taking sufficiently bold steps to shore up the border, Mr. Kelly would defend Ms. Nielsen’s performance... With Mr. Kelly on his way out, Ms. Nielsen is increasingly vulnerable. and department officials are bracing for a change, past and present administration officials said. “People there are waiting for the guillotine,”A current department official said Ms. Nielsen wouldn’t resign, leaving it to the president to fire her. “She loves this,” the official said. “They’d have to drag her out of here.”.. Having failed to lock in Mr. Ayers, Mr. Trump quizzed some of his advisers about potential candidates, people familiar with the conversations said. One person recommended Matthew Whitaker, now the acting attorney general. Mr. Trump said in reply that he liked Mr. Whitaker, who White House officials said is a viable candidate if not a favorite for the job... Another candidate is Energy Secretary Rick Perry, a former Texas governor, people close to the White House said. Over the weekend, a White House official said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wasn’t in the running. But another White House official said Tuesday Mr. Mnuchin is being discussed internally as a potential candidate. His preference is to remain Treasury secretary, a person familiar with his thinking said... Another corner of the White House that is in the midst of an overhaul is the White House counsel’s office, which has been hollowed out since the departure of Donald McGahn in October. The counsel’s office will be on the front lines of skirmishes with the new Democratic House majority