Emoluments Clause v. Donald Trump, Expanded Investigation

Posted on June 15, 2017June 16, 2017 by Denise Simon

Update: June 16, 2017, 1:07 pm, est. One of President Trump’s own lawyers, Michael Cohen has now hired a lawyer, Stephen M. Ryan. Cohen apparently has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on September 5. Additionally, Michael Caputo, the White House advisor hired by Paul Manafort has been contacted by the FBI and too has hired a lawyer, Dennis Vacco. Vacco is a former New York state attorney general. Vice President Pence has hired a Virginia attorney, Richard Cullen.

Don’t shoot the messenger, this is merely an attempt to further explain the expanded Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation into President Trump and others on his team. There is a multi-track investigation that has been launched by the Mueller team in addition to a multi-track investigation being performed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does include Loretta Lynch.

This post is an attempt to offer information on the other moving parts for some additional clarity.

***

Emoluments Clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

***

almost 200 Democratic members of Congress to be filed against President Trump for violations of the “Foreign Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution. This is on top of another Emoluments Clause lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. earlier this week. The general theory is that under the Constitution, the President has an obligation to insulate himself from any foreign influence that would come in the shape of gifts or profits, and that the kinds of profits President Donald Trump receives through his international corporation are precisely the kind that violate such an obligation. In other words, presidents can’t take bribes, and doing business with foreign governments and large foreign companies is something of a bribe per se. Another similar case, CREW v. Donald J. Trump, was filed three days after the inauguration and is currently awaiting a response to Trump’s motion to dismiss in the Southern District of New York (that case is proceeding before Judge Ronnie Abrams, sister of LawNewz founder Dan Abrams).

*** Image result for robert mueller

The Hill reports in part that Mueller is investigating the finances and business dealings of Kushner as well as other Trump associates.Those being looked into include former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Carter Page, another campaign adviser to Trump.

“We do not know what this report refers to,” Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer, told the newspaper.

“It would be standard practice for the Special Counsel to examine financial records to look for anything related to Russia. Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about Russia-related matters. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.”

***

There is have significant pushback by the Trump White House and several outside advisors to Trump including Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and recently hired by Trump, Jay Sekulow. All of these people are correct to earnestly object to continuing investigations with regard to the Russian election intrusion and Trump, at least it appears to be the case and former FBI Director James Comey noted several times.

However, the expanded track of the Mueller investigation team also goes to the financial realm which does include financial corruption, money laundering, public corruption, organized crime and violations of the False Claims Act.

Sounds creepy for sure. There is evidence in this area and the Mueller investigation is not exclusive to finding guilt, but also to eliminate guilt and intent. All investigations include those two conditions and it requires repeating. We cannot know in full what President Trump or those on his team fully revealed financially on paper which is required as a government employee and for security clearance purposes.

Those items are remain undisclosed at this time in open source, however in a classified or undisclosed condition, all financial traces are being requested, gathered and examined by experts.

It should be noted here that additional names could be added to the list under the expanded investigation.

Mueller was named to be special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller has mobilized and interesting team so far. The backgrounds of the lawyers listed below provide an indication upon which Mueller is taking the investigation.

For your reference, they include:

Aaron Zebley, Former FBI assigned to global terrorism and cyber security

Steve Gaudin, Former FBI interrorgator and al Qaeda expert

James Quarles, Lawyer specializing in corporate and taxation law (Whitewater case)

Jeannine Rhee, Lawyer specializing in public corruption, criminal, securities enforcement

Andrew Weissmann, Former FBI and DOJ, criminal fraud division (Enron case)

Michael Dreeban, Former Solicitor General, criminal law

Lisa Page, FBI lawyer with organized crime, money laundering specialty, Russian/Soviet crime

*** Witness interviews have not begun and the time this article was published and Mueller’s office is located on D Street and has not been fully established. In full disclosure, three people on the Mueller team have previously donated to Democrats while one of the three also made donations to Republicans.

Lisa Page is of particular interest on this team due to her trial record which included on Semion Mogilevich. Several of Mogilevich’s associates own condos in Trump Tower in New York and the former felon and friend of Trump, Felix Sater was a Moglievich lieutenant. Additionally, Andrew Weissmann prosecuted several cases in US District Court in New York of mafia families and their infiltration of Wall Street.

For more details on those of the Mueller team, click here. Of note, this website has published more than one article regarding Felix Sater, Russian oligarch money laundering in the United States and Cyprus connections including documentation from the Panama Papers. The search feature is a useful tool to locate those articles.

At Least 34 Years of Immigration Debate, Loopholes and Dollars

Posted on June 15, 2017June 15, 2017 by Denise Simon

The proposed Department of Justice budget request for 2018 for the Executive Office of Immigration is $421.5 million and includes 2600 employees with 831 lawyers. Judges assigned to immigration courts are being hired, shuffled around the country and have in some areas have a five year base backlog.

Image result for immigration court FoxLatino

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983, through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) with the Immigration Judge function previously performed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now part of the Department of Homeland Security). Besides establishing EOIR as a separate agency within DOJ, this reorganization made the Immigration Courts independent of INS, the agency charged with enforcement of Federal immigration laws. The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) was added in 1987. In 2013, EOIR observed its 30th anniversary.

EOIR is also separate from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ Civil Division.

As an office within the Department of Justice, EOIR is headed by a Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General. Its headquarters are located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.

New York City Law Creates Loophole To Avoid Deporting Criminal Illegal Immigrants

A New York City law that reclassifies several low-level offenses as non-criminal went into effect Tuesday, allowing citizen offenders to keep clean records and illegal immigrant offenders to potentially avoid deportation.

The law, passed by the city council and signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2016, allows police to classify trial summonses for petty crimes as civil summonses, rather than criminal summonses. The change would affect crimes including public urination and drinking and staying in the park after dark, DNA Info reports. The change critically affects the impact of an executive order from President Donald Trump this spring ordering the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes.

Under the new law, illegal immigrants convicted of these crimes would receive a civil rather than criminal summons, which frees local law enforcement from the obligation of reporting the offender’s immigration status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The law would affect cases such as Alejandro Luna, a former gang member and an illegal immigrant caught in central park after dark June 5 who now faces deportation. This would be Luna’s second deportation, the first came in 2006 after he was convicted of home-invasion and robbery. He then illegally entered the country again only to be detained on the June 5 park offense. More here.

***

Illegals presently have access to government funded healthcare. However:

The ‘Verify First Act’ by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) would subsequently end American taxpayer-funded money going to illegal aliens in the form of healthcare insurance credits. The plan is being supported by NumbersUSA, a group which has staunchly advocated for Trump’s America First agenda.

“We applaud Rep. Lou Barletta for introducing the Verify First Act to ensure that illegal aliens cannot qualify for taxpayer-funded health insurance credits,” NumbersUSA Peter Robbio said in a statement. “We are grateful that the Ways and Means Committee and House Republican Leadership agreed to move this important bill forward.”

Since Obamacare’s enactment, illegal immigrants received more than $700 million in healthcare insurance credits by 2015, according to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In Barletta’s plan, healthcare insurance recipients through the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would have their citizenship and immigration statuses verified by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). More here.

***

In part: Traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called “don’t enforce” policies generally bar the state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, “don’t ask” policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person’s immigration status. Third, “don’t tell” policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This report provides examples of various state and local laws and policies that fall into one of these sanctuary categories. The report also discusses federal measures designed to counteract sanctuary policies. For instance, Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were enacted to curb state and local restrictions on information sharing with federal immigration authorities.

State or local measures limiting police participation in immigration enforcement are not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, many of the recent “sanctuary”-type initiatives can be traced back to

activities carried out by churches that provided refuge—or “sanctuary”—to unauthorized Central American aliens fleeing civil unrest in the 1980s.13 A number of states and municipalities issued declarations in support of these churches’ actions.14 Others went further and enacted more substantive measures intended to limit police involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities.15 These measures have included, among other things, restricting state and local police from arresting persons for immigration violations, limiting the sharing of immigration-related information with federal authorities, and barring police from questioning a person about his or her immigration status.16

Still, there is no official definition of a “sanctuary” jurisdiction in federal statute or regulation.17 Broadly speaking, sanctuary jurisdictions are commonly understood to be those that have laws or policies designed to substantially limit involvement in federal immigration enforcement activities,18 though there is not necessarily a consensus as to the meaning of this term.19 Some jurisdictions have self-identified as sanctuary cities.

The federal government’s power to regulate immigration is both substantial and exclusive.23 This authority is derived from multiple sources, including Congress’s Article I powers to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,”24 as well as the federal government’s “inherent power as a sovereign to conduct relations with foreign nations.”

The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Arizona v. United States—which invalidated several Arizona laws designed “to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States”28 as preempted by federal law—reinforced the federal government’s pervasive role in creating and enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.29 “The Government of the United States,” the Court said, “has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”30

Yet despite the federal government’s sweeping authority over immigration, the Supreme Court has cautioned that not “every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted” by the federal government’s exclusive power over immigration.39 Accordingly, in Arizona the Supreme Court reiterated that, “[i]n preemption analysis, courts should assume that the historic police powers of the States are not superseded unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”40 For example, in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law—related to the states’ “broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State”41—that authorized the revocation of licenses held by state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens.42 Even though the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) expressly preempted “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions … upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” the Supreme Court concluded that Arizona’s law fit within IRCA’s savings clause for state licensing regimes and thus was not preempted.43

Accordingly, based on current jurisprudence, federal measures that impose direct requirements on state or municipal authorities appear most likely to withstand an anti-commandeering challenge if they (1) are not directed at a state’s regulation of the activities of private parties; and (2) apply to the activities of private parties as well as government actors.

Finally, Congress does not violate the Tenth Amendment when it uses its broad authority to enact legislation for the “general welfare” through its spending power,62 including by placing

conditions on funds distributed to the states that require those accepting the funds to take certain actions that Congress otherwise could not directly compel the states to perform.63 However, Congress cannot impose a financial condition that is “so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’”64 For example, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) that purported to withhold Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid programs.65 The Court found that the financial conditions placed on the states in the ACA (withholding all federal Medicaid funding, which, according to the Court, typically totals about 20% of a state’s entire budget) were akin to “a gun to the head” and thus unlawfully coercive.66

violations of federal immigration law may be criminal or civil in nature, with alien removal understood to be a civil proceeding.71 Some immigration-related conduct potentially constitutes a removable offense and also may be subject to criminal sanction. For example, an alien who knowingly enters the United States without authorization is not only potentially subject to removal,72 but could also be charged with the criminal offense of unlawful entry.73 Other violations of the INA are exclusively criminal or civil in nature. Notably, an alien’s unauthorized immigration status makes him or her removable, but absent additional factors (e.g., having reentered the United States after being formally removed),74 unlawful presence on its own is not a criminal offense.

Some jurisdictions have adopted measures that restrict or bar police officers from making arrests for violations of federal immigration law. In some jurisdictions restrictions prohibit police from detaining or arresting aliens for civil violations of federal immigration law, like unlawful presence.75 Other jurisdictions prohibit police from making arrests for some criminal violations of federal immigration law, like unlawful entry.76 Still others prohibit assisting federal immigration authorities with investigating or arresting persons for civil or criminal violations of U.S. immigration laws.77 And some other jurisdictions have prohibitions that are broader in scope, such as a general statement that immigration enforcement is the province of federal immigration authorities, rather than that of local law enforcement.

Some states and localities have restricted government agencies or employees from sharing information with federal immigration authorities, primarily to prevent federal authorities from using the information to identify and apprehend unlawfully present aliens for removal.88 For instance, some jurisdictions prohibit law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authorities about the release status of incarcerated aliens, unless the alien has been convicted of certain felonies.89 Similarly, other jurisdictions prohibit their employees from disclosing information about an individual’s immigration status unless the alien is suspected of engaging in illegal activity that is separate from unlawful immigration status.90 Some jurisdictions restrict disclosing information except as required by federal law91—sometimes referred to as a “savings clause”—although it appears that the Department of Justice has interpreted those provisions as conflicting with federal information-sharing provisions. For the full summary and context with access to footnotes, go here.

Hamas and Gaza, the Shame of Qatar, PA and Egypt

Posted on June 15, 2017June 15, 2017 by Denise Simon

Dealing with Hamas in Gaza includes who pays for the supply of electricity there.

Following an Israeli decision to cut down its electricity supply to the besieged coastal enclave by some 40 percent, Egypt has offered to provide more electricity to Gaza, if Hamas cooperates with Egypt in its harsh ‘counterterrorism’ crackdown, reported Alsharq Alawsat newspaper.

Israeli authorities approved the electricity cuts Monday, upon the request of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the occupied West Bank, which foots Gaza’s monthly electricity bill from Israel by subtracting from taxes collected by Israel on behalf of the PA.

According to a report Tuesday from the London-based Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat, Egypt has since offered Hamas an increased electricity supply and more freedom at the Rafah border crossing in exchange for a list of security demands.

Egypt has reportedly demanded that Hamas hand over 17 men wanted by Cairo on terrorism charges, more protection by Hamas at the border, the cessation of alleged weapons smuggling into the Sinai Peninsula, and information on the movement of “elements” into Gaza via underground tunnels.

NBC

Tower: The secretary-general of the Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates accused the Gaza-based terrorist organization Hamas on Monday of provoking Israeli forces by firing rockets from a field hospital during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, a war crime under international law, Ynet reported.

According to Secretary-General Mohamed Ateeq Al-Falahi, the Red Crescent’s staff was stationed at a UAE field hospital in Gaza when Hamas fighters began firing rockets from their facilities to provoke an Israeli response.

“This shows (Hamas’s) wicked intentions and how they scarified us,” said Al-Falahi. “They always claim the enemy targets humanitarian envoys, but the betrayal came from them,” he added.

Al-Falahi also accused Hamas of attempting to prevent the distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza. “What hurts is that the betrayal came from our own people,” he said. “Muslims fighting Muslims, who were giving humanitarian aid to Muslims,” the secretary-general lamented.

This was not the end of Hamas’s hostility towards the group. When they left, Hamas had the Red Crescent targeted by Sinai jihadists, which shot at them and planted landmines in their path. They “accused us of being spies, undercover foreign intelligences who were escaping,” Al-Falahi explained.

When the Red Crescent left Gaza through Sinai, Hamas had apparently informed “extremist militias in Sinai… that there was a group making their way there, so prepare for jihad against them…,” Al-Falahi said. “As we stopped at a grocery store to buy something to eat, they started shooting at us,” he added.

Behind

Hamas has long been accused of using civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields, in violation of international law, to provoke a response from Israel and thereby increase the civilian toll for its own political advantage.

Bilal Razania, the brother of a senior Hamas official, told Israeli interrogators last year that Hamas used the Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza as a military base during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Hamas leaders similarly used Shifa hospital in Gaza City as “a de facto headquarters” during the conflict, The Washington Post reported. A report compiled by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center found that Hamas used over 10 hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in 2008 to launch rockets at Israeli towns and attack Israeli troops.

News crews from France 24 and India’s NDTV recorded incidents of Hamas terrorists setting up and firing rockets from positions located near civilians during the 2014 conflict. A year later, a Polish journalist wrote an op-ed describing how Hamas would fire from populated areas.

Hamas, in fact, admitted to using human shields following Operation Protective Edge.

Turkish Thugs Arrested in DC After Erdogan’s Visit

Posted on June 15, 2017June 15, 2017 by Denise Simon

http://asbarez.com/164327/warrants-issued-for-erdogan-goons-dc-officials-confirm/

WASHINGTON — Police say two men have been arrested for their role in a violent altercation outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence during a visit to Washington by Turkey’s president last month.The Metropolitan Police Department said in a brief statement that Sinan Narin had been arrested in Virginia on an aggravated assault charge.

It said Eyup Yildirim had been arrested in New Jersey on charges of assault with significant bodily injury and aggravated assault.

The department released no further details about the suspects but said additional information would be available Wednesday.

U.S. officials had strongly criticized the Turkish government after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s security forces pushed past police and violently broke up a protest outside the residence on May 16.

***

(AFP) – US authorities said Thursday they have issued arrest warrants for 12 members of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s security detail accused of assaulting protesters during a street brawl in Washington.

Washington Police Chief Peter Newsham said the 12 were identified in detailed video footage of the May 16 attack on Kurdish and Armenian protesters outside the residence of Turkey’s ambassador, following a meeting between Erdogan and President Donald Trump.

The men, all Turkish citizens, include nine Erdogan security guards and three Turkish police.

Police outside Turkey’s embassy in Washington during a May 16, 2017 visit by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The scene erupted in violence a short time later when members of his security detail brawled with anti-Erdogan demonstrators (AFP Photo/Dave Clark)

Washington (AFP) – US authorities said Thursday they have issued arrest warrants for 12 members of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s security detail accused of assaulting protesters during a street brawl in Washington.

Washington Police Chief Peter Newsham said the 12 were identified in detailed video footage of the May 16 attack on Kurdish and Armenian protesters outside the residence of Turkey’s ambassador, following a meeting between Erdogan and President Donald Trump.

The men, all Turkish citizens, include nine Erdogan security guards and three Turkish police.

“In the United States and particularly in the District of Columbia, we hold our ability to peacefully protest as a sacred right,” Newsham said.

“We do not care particularly what your views are, what you support or what you do not support,” he added.

Video footage of the fracas shows Turkish security aides beating and kicking demonstrators, leaving nine people injured.

The State Department formally protested the attack to Ankara, registering its concern in the “strongest possible terms.”

Newsham did not say how the police hoped to arrest the 12, saying the State Department would determine how to execute the warrants.

In addition to the 12, warrants were issued for the arrest of two Canadian citizens who took part in the brawl. Two Turkish Americans were arrested at the scene on May 16, and two more were arrested on Wednesday.

Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser condemned the attack strongly, saying it violated US Constitution’s first amendment right to peaceful protest.

***

The following 14 individuals who are part of Erdogan’s security team have outstanding warrants for their arrests:

Turgut Akar, a Turkish security official, charged with misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Ismail Dalkiran, a Turkish security official, charged with misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Servet Erkan, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Tugay Erkan, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Ahmet Karabay, a Turkish security official, charged with misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Feride Kayasan, a Turkish security official, charged with misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Lutfu Kutluca, a Turkish security official, charged with misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Mustafa Murat Sumercan, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Gokhan Yildirim, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury

Ismail Ergunduz, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Mehmet Sarman, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Aggravated Assault and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Hamza Yurteri, a Turkish security official, charged with felony Aggravated Assault and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner

Mahmut Sami Ellialti, charged with felony Aggravated Assault and felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury

Ahmet Cengizham Dereci, charged with felony Assault with Significant Bodily Injury and misdemeanor Assault or Threatened Assault in a Menacing Manner