~ Featuring ~
Should Trump Voluntarily Talk to Mueller? 
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Judge threatens to hold AG Sessions
in contempt over asylum deportation
by Stephen Dinan 
{ } ~ A furious federal judge threatened Thursday to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of court... in a touchy case over asylum seekers’ rights after learning that some plaintiffs might have been deported in defiance of his wishes. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said the government appeared to have “spirited away” a woman and her child who’d fled a violent husband in El Salvador and were seeking asylum in the U.S., but who were struggling against a new tougher asylum policy Mr. Sessions created in June. The mother, known in court files by the pseudonym “Carmen,” was taken from her detention facility and likely put on a plane Thursday morning, the American Civil Liberties Union said — even though the Justice Department had promised the court none of the plaintiffs would be deported before the judge could rule. “Turn that plane around,” the judge ordered the government, while repeatedly saying he was “extremely upset” with the development. He threatened to start issuing show-cause orders and then hold people in contempt of court if the situation wasn’t immediately remedied...
Carla Provost Officially Becomes Chief of U.S. Border Patrol – 
First Female Head of U.S.B.P.
by Pete Williams
{ } ~ Carla Provost, a 23-year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol, was officially appointed the agency's first female chief Thursday... more than a year after she was named acting chief. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Kevin McAleenan called it a historic announcement. "No one is better suited or better prepared to be chief,” he said. “Carla is an agent’s agent.” In becoming the Border Patrol’s 18th chief, Provost said, “I don’t know if it’s possible to be both humble and proud, but that’s the emotion I’m feeling today.” As for the challenges the agency faces, she said, "Border security is more than just what we do on the border every day." Supporting the men and women in the force requires closing "some of these loopholes that are drawing people to bring their families and their children in a very treacherous trip to come into this country."...
Former Ohio State Wrestler Recants Claim Against Jim Jordan
by sundance
{ } ~ Everyone with a reasonable amount of common sense knows the claims that Representative Jim Jordan knew of sexual abuse at Ohio State twenty-years-ago was a manufactured political hit-job... Now one of the accusers recants. A former Ohio State University wrestler is recanting his claims that Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan knew of sexual abuse allegations against a university physician when he coached wrestling at the school over 20 years ago. “At no time did I ever say or have any direct knowledge that Jim Jordan knew of Dr. Richard Strauss’s inappropriate behavior,” Mark Coleman, a former MMA fighter who wrestled at Ohio State when Jordan coached there, said in a statement. “I have nothing but respect for Jim Jordan as I have known him for more than 30 years and know him to be of impeccable character.”...
Special master finishes review of materials 
seized from Michael Cohen in FBI raids: Report
by Naomi Lim
{ The court-appointed special master tasked with reviewing materials seized during FBI raids targeting Michael Cohen has reportedly completed her assessment... a major development as federal prosecutors in New York investigate whether President Trump's former personal lawyer committed tax fraud. Barbara Jones has deemed 2,558 items to not be privileged nor highly personal given the lawyer-client relationship that once existed betwee} ~ n Cohen and the president, per an MSNBC report Thursday.  The materials may now be used by federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York as they probe Cohen for possible tax fraud violations related to his taxi medallion business. More than 3.7 million items were seized in April. The prosecutors are assessing whether Cohen under reported his income from the business in federal tax returns, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. Authorities are also investigating if Cohen was allowed to apply for loans through Sterling National Bank without providing necessary documentation, the report said... 
Truth Behind Alex Jones Banishment Surfaces, 
All Rooted in Jealousy from Millennial
{ } ~ There’s a hint of snark and undeniable glee in the reporting on some liberal media sites at the most recent assault on a high-profile voice... in the media that liberals love to hate. Alex Jones is the latest commentator to fall from the good graces of social media’s Apple, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify and liberals couldn’t be happier. The independent talk radio host and conspiracy theorist of Infowars fame is the target of a massive ban prompted by what is considered “hate speech” by the powers that be at those distribution platforms. While Jones has certainly said some unconventional, unpopular, and ultimately untrue things throughout his 22-year career, it may seem this latest action against him was more or less a premeditated attack from a surprising source — with a possibly surprising motivation. Enter, Jared Holt. He’s apparently the latest left-wing millennial attempting to make a name for himself by throwing media bombs at the biggest targets available outside the left-wing bubble. He advertises himself on his personal blog as a writer, an award-winning photographer and a video and imaging specialist. He’s a 2015 graduate of the University of Central Arkansas, and has a way of getting around in liberal circles. He’s written for People For the American Way, Right Wing Watch and Media Matters. The guy is a go-getter who isn’t short on opinion...


Should Trump Voluntarily Talk to Mueller? 
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

{ } ~ When federal prosecutors are nearing the end of criminal investigations, they often invite the subjects of those investigations to speak with them. The soon-to-be defendants are tempted to give their version of events to prosecutors, and prosecutors are looking to take the legal pulse of the subjects of their work. These invitations should always be declined, but they are not.

Special counsel Robert Mueller — who is investigating President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice, pre-presidential banking irregularities and conspiracy to solicit or receive campaign aid from foreign nationals the latter is what the media erroneously call collusion — has made it known to former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the head of Trump's legal team, that he wants to speak to the president.

Should Trump voluntarily speak with Mueller? In a word: No. Here is the back story.

Though I have been critical of some judgment calls made by Giuliani in his representation of Trump, I recognize, like anyone who has watched him or worked with or against him, that Giuliani is a smart and experienced lawyer. He has prosecuted directly or indirectly more than 5,000 criminal cases. He knows the criminal justice system, and he understands the power of prosecutors.

Yet the advice of most criminal defense lawyers and legal commentators familiar with the situation in which Giuliani finds himself today is to keep his client far away from the prosecutors. Here's why.

Thanks to Giuliani's numerous television appearances during which he has forcefully defended his client, Giuliani and Mueller have engaged in a very public series of negotiations on the limits, if any, that they might agree to as ground rules for an interview of the president.

Giuliani wants to limit the subject of questions to the alleged conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russians. After all, he argues, this is the stated purpose given by the Department of Justice for starting the special counsel's investigation. And he wants to limit the number of questions and the time for all questions and answers. He argues that the president's constitutional obligations transcend the needs of Mueller's probe.

Mueller argues that he has an ethical obligation to follow whatever evidence of criminal behavior lawfully comes into his hands, about the president or his colleagues. As such, because he does not know in advance what Trump's answers to his questions will be, he cannot consent to any limitations on his follow-up questions.

If I were Giuliani, I would tell Mueller that the negotiations are terminated and the president will not voluntarily sit for an interview with him. There are paramount and prudential reasons for this.

First, when prosecutors want to talk to a person they are investigating, the talk is intended to help the prosecutors, not the subject of the investigation. So why should Trump engage in a process that could only help those pursuing him?

Second, the prosecutors know their evidence far better than the president or his legal team possibly could know it, and these prosecutors know how to trip up whomever they are interviewing. So why should Trump give prosecutors an opportunity to trap him into uttering a falsehood in an environment where doing so can be a criminal act?

I recognize that Giuliani's client is the most powerful person on earth, someone who is accustomed to having his way followed. And he has said countless times that he wants to talk to Mueller. Yet President Trump does not use an economy of words. Experience teaches that the undisciplined use of words by the subject of a criminal investigation is a prosecutor's dream when it takes place in an official inquiry.

It is Giuliani's job to prevent that dream from becoming reality by convincing his client, perhaps through an aggressive mock question-and-answer session conducted by Giuliani himself, that no good for Trump could come from a Mueller interview. I have seen many criminal cases in which potential defendants who thought they could talk prosecutors out of an indictment tried to do so and made matters worse for themselves.

But there is an elephant in the room.

That elephant is a grand jury subpoena. The Mueller interview is voluntary. If Trump agreed to it, he would not be under oath, and he could consult with counsel during it. Also, he could leave it whenever he wished. A grand jury subpoena compels a person to testify. The testimony is under oath, takes place without counsel present and can go on for as long as prosecutors and the grand jurors want to question the person. And they can ask him any questions they want to ask.

Surely, Trump would challenge a subpoena before a federal district court, and the challenge might land in the Supreme Court. Yet the controlling case, United States v. Nixon, is a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender his infamous Oval Office tapes.

Though not directly on the point of compelled presidential personal oral testimony, the language in the Nixon case and the values underlying it all favor enforcement of a subpoena requiring personal testimony by the president. When the Ken Starr grand jury served a subpoena for the president's testimony on liar-Bill Clinton, whose crimes it was investigating, liar-Clinton and his lawyers concluded that he needed to comply with it, which he did.

Of course, Trump could accept the subpoena and then invoke his Fifth Amendment-protected right to silence. However, he once publicly said, "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?" So such an invocation would be catastrophic politically, but it would legally insulate him from helping Mueller to prosecute him.

Another president once weighed in on dealings with bureaucrats and prosecutors. Ronald Reagan quipped many times that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Mr. President, beware of prosecutors bearing invitations.

Views: 20


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Rudy Tirre on August 10, 2018 at 1:12pm

these federal judges are liberal-dummycrats-dems, it shows us that they don't understand the constitution and what to determine how its meaning is. they have no business in being a federal judge.

Comment by Bonnie Somer on August 10, 2018 at 1:04pm





Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok


LOOK: Obama Declared National Emergencies 13 Times Including Swine Flu, Iran And Flint Water Crisis

President Trump is expected to declare a State of Emergency at the US southern border on Friday.

Declaring the immigration crisis a national emergency is overdue. Presidents have declared national emergencies for nearly 50 years.


Barack Obama declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. The Obama emergencies included the Swine Flu, Flint water crisis and Iran.

The Conservative Tribune reported:

As it turns out, there are currently 31 ongoing national emergencies over which the president wields certain authorities, the first of which has been in existence since 1979 and is one of only two emergencies declared by Carter.

There were a total of six national emergencies during former President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, as well as four more during the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, all of which have ended.

Former President Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies — six of which remain in effect — while former President George W. Bush declared 12 national emergencies, of which 10 remain ongoing.

Then we get to former President Barack Obama, who declared 13 national emergencies, 11 of which continue to this day. Thus far, President Trump has declared three active and ongoing national emergencies.

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service