Archive for the ‘Due Process’ Category

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, then the House Intel Committee. In both instances, the hearings will be public hearings. Democrats are touting this as a big win for the American people and Democrats. I’ll agree that it’s a win for the American people but I’m betting it’ll be a loss for Democrats.

Fox News had panel after panel, interview after interview on the potential ramifications of Mueller testifying. Capitol Hill Producer Chad Pergram is exactly right when he said “We’ve had some explosive hearings on Capitol Hill before. You think of James Comey testifying, Jeff Sessions in the Senate a couple of years ago. You think about Michael Cohen in February. This will dwarf that. The pure magnitude of this will be off the Richter scale.” Democrats will rue the day they insisted on calling Mueller to testify.

Speaker Pelosi issued this statement:

“We are pleased that the American people will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller. Our national security is being threatened and the American people deserve answers. The Mueller Report revealed that the Russians waged a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack on our elections, and America’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials have warned that the Russians will attack our elections again. Yet, sadly the President calls it a hoax, and suggests that he would welcome Russian interference again. Members of Congress must honor our oath and our patriotic duty to follow the facts, so we can protect our democracy.”

That’s PH.D. worthy spin, as in Pile it High and Dry worthy.

President Trump is right in calling the investigation being a hoax. Russia attacking our electoral system isn’t a hoax. The Obama-Biden efforts to prevent the Russians’ attacks weren’t a hoax. They were either a joke or an embarrassment. Team Obama-Biden flunked that national security test. (Remember, it was Democrats that controlled the levers of government at that point. It wasn’t Republicans.

Alan Dershowitz laid it out pretty nicely on what Democrats should expect. Dershowitz said Democrats should expect Republicans to question Mueller about the basis of the FISA warrant against Carter Page. There’s lots of fertile ground that Republicans can plow through. Rest assured that they’ll persist in getting answers to questions that Mueller didn’t investigate.

Mueller has stated repeatedly that his report is his testimony. When news broke Tuesday night, Mueller confirmed that his testimony would stay “within the 4 corners of the report.” Further, DOJ guidelines prevent prosecutors from going beyond saying who they refused to prosecute and who they prosecuted. Tuesday night, Dershowitz said that the questions that Democrats want to ask about are questions that DOJ guidelines prevent Mueller from talking about. Dershowitz said that the questions that Republicans want to ask can be asked because they weren’t part of the Mueller investigation.

Imagine how sensitive Mueller will be when (not if) a Republican asks him why he exclusively hired partisan Democrats to his attorney staff. Imagine the follow-up question to that initial question. Does anyone think that’ll turn out well for Democrats? I don’t.

Democrats were already tiptoeing past a minefield. Thanks to Tuesday night’s decision, Democrats face the possibility of tiptoeing through that minefield — while wearing snowshoes. Good luck with that.

John Ellenbecker, St. Cloud’s former mayor, is the worst kind of bigot. Like too many leftists, he’s heard things that’ve never gotten said. He’s certain of things that he doesn’t have proof for. This LTE caused lots of comments, including this comment from Mr. Ellenbecker:

the proposed moratorium WAS/IS about excluding people from St. Cloud. The desire to exclude people from St Cloud is based upon bigotry – that is a simple fact. You can delude yourself if you like – but bigotry is bigotry – and it is alive and well and living in those who proposed the moratorium. Bigots aren’t bigots because they disagree with me. Bigots are bigots because of what is in their heart and soul. Rather than arguing with me why not examine why you don’t want Somali Americans residing next to you.

This is simple fact? Forgive me if I’m not persuaded by Mr. Ellenbecker’s allegations. What’s his proof? FYI- Mr. Ellenbecker went to law school. I don’t know if he’s still a lawyer because I’ve heard that he’s had some ethical difficulties. He should be familiar with the concept of presenting verifiable evidence. Apparently, the law school he attended taught him that allegations are verifiable proof.

Here’s how Robert Ahles responded to Mr. Ellenbecker:

You keep making things up. No one mentioned Somali Americans or them residing next to me, next to Dave Bechtold, or next to many community member concerned about the additional taxpayer costs. I’m guessing I’d probably rather live next to a Somali American than next to a John Ellenbecker.

Well played, Mr. Ahles. Stick in the proverbial dagger, then give it a sharp twist or 2.

This isn’t surprising when you think about it. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee insisted that then-Judge Kavanaugh shouldn’t be afforded the presumption of innocence. The Obama administration’s Department of Education sent out a guidance letter instructing universities not to give people who were accused of sexual assault the right to an attorney, the right to cross-examine his accuser or any other due process rights.

Is it any wonder why lots of people don’t think that Democrats care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

Perhaps the more accurate title of this post should be ‘When will Leftists protest these civil rights’? FIRE’s Susan Kruth’s article on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s revised regulations outlines changes to Obama administration’s anti-due process regulations.

Let’s be clear. The Obama administration’s Education Department was anti-civil rights. When it came to dealing with alleged sexual assault on campus, the Obama administration’s Education Department “encouraged schools to have a single investigator adjudicate sexual misconduct cases through a series of separate meetings with the parties and witnesses.” By contrast, the DeVos-proposed regulations pertaining to alleged sexual assault “requires that schools ‘must provide for a live hearing’ when adjudicating a case.”

In other words, universities must allow a cross-examination of the accuser. Nameless, faceless accusers won’t have their ‘day in court’. Kruth continues with this:

Having a live hearing ensures that all parties can see exactly the same evidence and testimony that the fact-finder is seeing, so that he or she can rebut that evidence and testimony as fully as he or she is able.

The department’s new rules go on to require a typical and critically important feature of live hearings: cross-examination of all witnesses, including the parties. The Supreme Court has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” and it can be especially paramount in cases that hinge on witness testimony, as the Sixth Circuit emphasized just two months ago.

How an administration that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution can deprive people of this basic civil right is startling. Further, it’s time to admit that leftist Democrats are now fascists and/or anarchists. IF you think I’m kidding, check out Eric Swalwell’s proposal:

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Look at the mental gymnastics Rep. Swalwell employs to justify this confiscation:

You’re probably wondering what gun confiscation has to do with due process rights. That’s a fair question. They’re both part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a sacred right. I prefer referring to it as the right to protect myself and my family. It’s a natural right. The Supreme Court has called the right to due process and to confront your accuser the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”

It isn’t supposition to say that Democrats have opposed the right to protect yourself and your family from burglars and criminals as vigorously as they’ve opposed the right of people to cross-examine their accusers. What other constitutional rights do Democrats want to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness?

Progressives often get lumped in with liberals. That shouldn’t happen. Progressives frequently resemble fascists. They frequently ‘win’ their arguments by accusing people of lying. That’s the case with Maria Cardona’s op-ed. Ms. Cardona wrote “Trump claims several untruths: that nothing has been found thus far in this investigation; that they have found absolutely no collusion; that the whole thing is a partisan witch hunt; and that the sacrosanct attorney-client privilege is dead.”

What BS. I’d love hearing Ms. Cardona list the things Robert Mueller has found thus far that proves collusion. After all, that’s what President Trump has consistently complained about. As for President Trump’s statement that Mueller’s probe being a partisan witch hunt, that isn’t a lie. It’s President Trump’s opinion. It’s virtually impossible to lie when stating an opinion. As for whether “the sacrosanct attorney-client privilege is dead,” I’ll leave that to Harvard Professor Emeritus Dershowitz, who wrote “Clients should be able to rely on confidentiality when they disclose their most intimate secrets in an effort to secure their legal rights. A highly publicized raid on the president’s lawyer will surely shake the confidence of many clients in promises of confidentiality by their lawyers. They will not necessarily understand the nuances of the confidentiality rules and their exceptions. They will see a lawyer’s office being raided and all his files seized.”

Professor Dershowitz is a principled, old-fashioned liberal. Old-fashioned liberals frequently displayed a commitment to civil liberties. They frequently had a libertarian streak in them, too. The point is that old-fashioned liberalism isn’t compatible with hardline progressivism. Often, they’re opposites.

I’m happy that President Trump won but I’m not a win-at-all-costs person. I’ve seen enough of Professor Dershowitz to say the same thing of him. Watch his principles in this interview:

I can’t say that about Ms. Cardona.

I don’t doubt that President Trump’s heart is in the right place in terms of wanting to make students safer. I’m equally certain that there isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell of getting what he said he wants in terms of taking guns first, then giving the perp due process afterwards.

I’m confident that he’ll lose that fight and he’ll lose it badly. It won’t be part of any final bill that Congress passes. Period. To recap, during yesterday’s bipartisan meeting on eliminating school shootings, President Trump said “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

That sounds like a stream-of-consciousness-type statement. Once someone explains that the courts would rule that unconstitutional in a minute, he’ll snap out of dealmaker mode. People have already figured out that President Trump isn’t a great policymaker. He’s a dealmaker, not a policy wonk.

Democrats shouldn’t think that there will be an assault weapons ban. If they insist on that, they’ll lose the PR battle. Further, if President Trump insists on including a provision that people can’t buy a rifle until they’re 21, he’ll find that he’s bitten off more than he can chew.

Banning a 20-year-old single mother from buying a handgun or rifle is a PR and policy nightmare. How do you sell a policy that prevents a single mother from protecting her children? That’s a can’t-win situation.

I’m thankful that President Trump met with Congress to share ideas. I’m confidant that many of the things they talked about won’t be part of a final bill. Some of the ideas, frankly, sound good initially but sound stupid if you think them through.