Fox News:
Christopher Ruddy, the founder of Newsmax Media and close friend of President Trump, told PBS News Hour Monday that he believes the president is “considering perhaps terminating” special counsel Robert Mueller, the man charged with investigating Russian interference in the U.S. election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign.Personally, I find this story, if true, to be politically dangerous for Trump. If he fires Mueller, after just hiring him, then Trump looks guilty in the court of public opinion. Even though I consider the Russia story to be weak, there is little excuse for firing a special counsel immediately after hiring him.
The comments come amid increasing frustration at the White House and among Trump supporters that the investigation will overshadow the president's agenda for months to come — a prospect that has Democrats are hoping for.
When reached by Fox News after the remarks, Ruddy said, “while I am not claiming the president said it to me, I am confident of my sourcing. He is definitely considering it as an option.”
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said Ruddy “never spoke to the president regarding this issue. With respect to this subject, only the president [or] his attorneys are authorized to comment.”
The New York Times reported that to fire Mueller, Trump would have to order Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to turn back regulations that protect [the] special counsel from being fired for no good reason. If Rosenstein refused, Trump could fire Rosenstein.
The other intriguing aspect to the story is the Left versus Right view, specifically in the question of: How close is Christopher Ruddy to President Trump? Notice how Fox makes one mention of their friendship in the first paragraph. On the other hand:
CNN:
One of President Donald Trump's friends said Monday he believes the President is considering dismissing special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed to lead the FBI investigation into Russia's potential ties to the 2016 election.Not only is Ruddy a "friend", but he was at the White House yesterday! Notice that particular fact wasn't mentioned by Fox.
"I think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel," Christopher Ruddy -- who was at the White House Monday -- told PBS' Judy Woodruff on "PBS NewsHour." "I think he's weighing that option."
What does all this mean? Other than an exercise in revealing how facts get accentuated by biased reporters, there isn't much to this story. It isn't a big deal if Trump considers firing the special counsel. It is when he takes action that political consequences happen.
In other news...
Los Angeles Times:
It’s decision time at the Supreme Court, as the justices prepare to hand down the final rulings of their current term by the end of this month. They are due to rule in 21 cases, including disputes over religion, free speech and immigration that could have broad significance...
Church schoolsIf states can regulate all schools, and they can fund public schools, why can't they fund private schools?
Must a state offer equal funds to church schools if other private groups may qualify? A seemingly small dispute over the playground at a Lutheran day center in Missouri could trigger a major shift in church-state law. Most states’ constitutions forbid sending tax money to a church. Religious rights advocates sued when Missouri refused to pay for rubberizing a church school’s playground, and they argue the court should strike down the limits on state funds going to churches as discriminatory and abridging the 1st Amendment’s protection for the “free exercise” of religion.
Trademarks and free speechWhen political correctness becomes law, it infringes on freedom of speech. If you personally are offended by a trademark, you don't have to patronize it. The government should not be allowed to arbitrate such matters.
Does the federal trademark law violate the freedom of speech because it forbids names and phrases that “may disparage” people or groups? Washington, D.C.’s pro football team, the Redskins, are in danger of losing their trademark because of this provision. The justices heard the case of an Asian American band that calls itself the Slants and seemed divided over whether this was a racial slight or humor.
Jail and deportationThe 5th Amendment is pretty clear: "No person". It doesn't specify "No citizen".
May U.S. authorities arrest and jail for as long as needed immigrants who face deportation, or does the Constitution’s guarantee of “due process of law” accord them a bond hearing within six months and possible release if they pose no danger or flight risk? A class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles challenged the long-term detention of these immigrants, many of whom typically go on to win their cases and are eventually set free. It led to a ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals putting limits on the jailing of immigrants.
Border shootingsThe key there is "under control". Mexican land is not "under control" of the United States. In my opinion, if the boy's parents sought to get the border patrol agent charged in Mexico, then any extradition treaties we have with Mexico could apply.
Can a U.S. border patrol agent be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager who was standing on the other side of the border? Video of the officer killing the 15-year-old boy provoked outrage along the border, but U.S. officials refused to prosecute the agent, and federal judges threw out a lawsuit filed by the boy’s parents on the grounds that the Constitution did not protect the Mexican boy on Mexican soil. In cases about the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, however, the court has said the Constitution’s protection did extend to territory beyond the border that was under the control of U.S. authorities.
Deportation and burglaryThis is one of those classic legal arguments where the lawyers miss the legal forest for the legal trees. Should burglary count as a reason to deport a legal immigrant? If convicted, absolutely.
Is breaking into a garage or empty home a “crime of violence” that requires the deportation of a longtime legal immigrant? The law says noncitizens who are guilty of an “aggravated felony,” including a crime of violence, must be deported. But it is not clear what crimes qualify. A Filipino native who has lived in Northern California since 1992 faces deportation for a 10-year-old burglary conviction involving break-ins of a garage and a house. But the 9th Circuit Court said the law itself was unconstitutionally vague because it did not define a crime of violence.
But those are my not-so-legal opinions. Your Supreme Court results may vary.
No comments:
Post a Comment