Biodun.BBC: Suzanne Gould

Showing posts with label Suzanne Gould. Show all posts

Friday, October 25, 2019

ANALYSIS AND BREAKING: Judge validates Trump impeachment inquiry, orders Mueller document release

October 26, 2019 08H:46 GMT/ZULU

by Suzanne Gould, BBC News and Reuters News Analysts, Washington

A U.S. judge on Friday validated the legality of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump and ordered his administration to hand over an unredacted copy of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report detailing Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, handing a major victory to the Democratic-led House of Representatives, undercut an argument that Trump’s fellow Republicans have made in attacking the impeachment inquiry. The judge said the House need not approve a resolution formally initiating the effort.

The U.S. Constitution gives the House wide latitude in handling impeachment. Democrats began the inquiry without putting such a resolution to a vote.

The judge gave the Justice Department until next Wednesday to provide the blacked out material from the Mueller report that was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee.

“The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information,” the judge wrote, using an acronym for the Justice Department.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling “another blow to President Trump’s attempt to put himself above the law.”

“This critical court ruling affirms Congress’s authority to expose the truth for the American people,” Pelosi, the top elected Democratic official, said in a statement, adding, “The President will be held accountable – because no one is above the law.”

The Justice Department had argued that the redacted information could not be disclosed because it contained material from grand jury proceedings that was required to be kept secret, but the judge strongly disagreed.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump departs for travel to South Carolina, at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., October 25, 2019. REUTERS/Tom Brenner -/File Photo

“DOJ is wrong,” Howell said, adding that the committee’s need for disclosure of the materials “is greater than the need for continued secrecy.”

“Impeachment based on anything less than all relevant evidence would compromise the public’s faith in the process,” added Howell, a former federal prosecutor appointed to the bench by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

Howell also ruled that the House has undertaken a legal and legitimate impeachment inquiry and criticized efforts by the Justice Department and the committee’s ranking Republican Doug Collins to argue that Democrats had not met the legal threshold.

“Blocking access to evidence collected by a grand jury relevant to an impeachment inquiry, as DOJ urges, undermines the House’s ability to carry out its constitutional responsibility with due diligence,” the judge added.

The Democrats sought access to the redacted materials as part of their effort to build a case for removing Trump from office.

The committee, Howell ruled, “has presented sufficient evidence that its investigation has the preliminary purpose of determining whether to recommend articles (of) impeachment,” referring to formal charges that the House could approve that would trigger a trial in the Senate on whether to remove Trump from office.

A Republican resolution introduced in the Senate on Thursday criticized the process that House Democrats are using in the impeachment inquiry. It argued that a resolution is needed to initiate such an inquiry. The judge disagreed.

“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” the judge wrote.

‘THOUGHTFUL RULING’

Democrat Jerrold Nadler, the panel’s chairman, lauded the ruling.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee at a hearing on the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., July 24, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

“The court’s thoughtful ruling recognizes that our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution and thoroughly rejects the spurious White House claims to the contrary,” Nadler said.

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department is reviewing the decision.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sought to minimize the importance of the judge’s comments on an impeachment resolution, saying Republicans had argued that it was “unfair and wrong” but “not unconstitutional” for the House to have failed to pass such a measure.

Mueller submitted his report to U.S. Attorney General William Barr in March after completing a 22-month investigation that detailed Russia’s campaign of hacking and propaganda to boost Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 election as well as extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

But when Barr, a Trump appointee who Democrats have accused of trying to protect Trump politically, made the 448-page report public the following month, some parts were blacked out, or redacted.

Mueller said his investigation found insufficient evidence to establish that Trump and his campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

Trump’s administration has refused to comply with subpoenas from House committees in the impeachment inquiry seeking documents and testimony. But some current and former administration officials have defied the White House and testified in the impeachment inquiry.

The impeachment inquiry centers not on the Mueller report but on Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival, Democrat Joe Biden.

Friday, June 8, 2018

Nearly 1,800 families separated at U.S.-Mexico border in 17 months through February

June 9, 2018 06H:32 GMT/UTC/ZULU TIME

by Suzanne Gould, Renee Celeste, and Biodun Iginla, BBC News and Reuters, WASHINGTON/SAN YSIDRO (CALIFORNIA)

WASHINGTON/SAN YSIDRO (CALIFORNIA) - Nearly 1,800 immigrant families were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border from October 2016 through February of this year, according to a senior government official, as President Donald Trump implemented stricter border enforcement policies.

FILE PHOTO: Undocumented immigrants just released from detention through "catch and release" immigration policy stand at a bus station before being taken to the Catholic Charities relief center in McAllen, Texas, U.S., April 11, 2018. REUTERS/Loren Elliott/File Photo

The numbers are the first comprehensive disclosure by the administration of how many families have been affected by the policies. Previously, the only numbers provided by federal officials on family separations covered a single two-week period in May.

The government official, who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity, said he could not provide up-to-date statistics, but acknowledged the number of separations had risen sharply in recent weeks, largely because of new administration policies.

In May, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a ‘zero tolerance’ policy in which all those apprehended entering the United States illegally would be criminally charged, which generally leads to children being separated from their parents.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official testified last month to Congress that between May 6 and May 19, 658 children were separated from 638 parents because of the stepped-up prosecutions. That brings the total of officially acknowledged separations to more than 2,400, though that does not include recent weeks or the period from March 1 to May 6.

Immigration and child advocates, Democratic lawmakers and the United Nations have all condemned the practice of separating families at the border, but the administration has defended its actions saying it is protecting children and making clear that illegal border crossers will be prosecuted regardless of their family circumstances.

In most of the 1,768 cases of families separated by border agents between October 2016 and February, children were removed from parents for medical reasons or because of security concerns, the official said, citing examples such as parents needing hospitalization or officials discovering the parent had a criminal record either in the United States or in their home country.

In 237 cases, the official said, children were removed because border agents suspected adults were falsely posing as the parents of minors in their charge.

FILE PHOTO: After being detained and released by law enforcement, an undocumented immigrant from Honduras and his son pass the time before beginning a bus journey to Louisiana at the Catholic Charities relief center in McAllen, Texas, U.S., April 6, 2018. REUTERS/Loren Elliott/File Photo

The period for which statistics were provided included the final three months of the Obama administration in 2016, but the official could not say whether any of the separations occurred then.

‘PUBLIC INTEREST’

The practice of separating families has not been systematically tracked until now, the official said, and the figures given to us at Reuters had to be compiled manually.

“Why weren’t we pulling these statistics before? Because it wasn’t a big enough phenomenon that had public interest,” the official said. “Now it’s increasing and it’s of public interest.”

The bulk of the separations involved Central Americans, who make up the majority of families crossing the southwest border. Some were apprehended trying to cross the border illegally, while others crossed illegally and then presented themselves to border patrol agents asking for asylum because they feared returning home.

Immigrants can also go to an official port of entry to request asylum before crossing the border. The official said separations in such circumstances are rare, but that the numbers are not tracked separately.

The official noted that the number of separations from October 2016 to February this year represented less than 2 percent of the 106,700 family units arrested along the southwest border during that same period.

‘THE MOST DRACONIAN THING’

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the government on behalf of a Congolese asylum seeker who turned herself in to border guards in California only to have her 7-year-old daughter taken from her and housed in government custody more than 2,000 miles away in Chicago for months.

The government said in legal papers that it took the child into custody because it could not corroborate the two were related. The ACLU argued the question could have been quickly resolved by a DNA test, which was only done much later.

Slideshow (4 Images)

Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney representing the woman and other parents in similar situations, said the Trump administration is using allegations of fraud and security concerns to justify a policy that is actually aimed not at protecting children but at deterring future border crossers.

“Taking a child away from their parent and interfering with the basic constitutional right to family unity, that’s about the most draconian thing you can do and it needs the most compelling reason possible,” Gelernt said. “Deterrence is a policy measure that uses these children as pawns and violates the basic fundamental notion of what’s in the child’s best interest.”

The official said some families were separated because human smugglers had tried to game the system by placing children with unrelated adults, hoping the adults would fare better if caught.

Only a few immigration detention centers have the capacity to house parents and children together, so families caught at the border have often been freed to await court hearings while living in the United States.

On Friday, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with 26 other Democrats and two independents introduced a bill that would put new limits on federal law enforcement’s ability to separate immigrant children from their families unless a court decides that would be best for the child.

The bill specifically states that a minor cannot be removed from a parent or legal guardian “solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United States.”

Friday, January 5, 2018

'Fire and Fury': Excerpts from tell-all book on Trump

06 January 2018 - 01H40 GMT/UTC/ZULU TIME

by Suzanne Gould and Biodun Iginla, France24, New York

(Disclosure: Susanne Gould bought the book this morning at Barnes & Noble at East 17th Street in Manhattan)

NEW YORK -

The following are excerpts from "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," an incendiary new book by Michael Wolff which was rushed into bookstores Friday after President Donald Trump failed to suppress it.

The book quickly sold out in shops in the New York City and Washington DC, with some lining up at midnight to get their hands on the instant best-seller, dismissed by Trump as "phony" and "full of lies."

Without addressing specifics, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said there were things in the book that were "completely untrue," while Trump denounced comments attributed to Steve Bannon, saying his former chief strategist had "lost his mind."

- Team Trump: running to lose -

"'We're all losers,' Trump would say. 'All our guys are terrible, nobody knows what they're doing.'"

"'This thing,' he told the Mercers, 'is so fucked up'".

Trump was reportedly addressing the family of Bob Mercer, the ultra-conservative billionaire sponsors who swung behind his campaign in its final months -- and who reiterated their support in the wake of Wolff's bombshell book.

- The shock of election night -

"When the unexpected trend -- Trump might actually win -- seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he called him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania, to whom Donald Trump had made his solemn guarantee, was in tears -- and not of joy."

"There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon's not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States."

- Bannon on meeting with Russians -

"'The three senior guys in the campaign,' an incredulous Bannon went on, 'thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers.

'They didn't have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.'"

Bannon was referring to Trump's son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign manager Paul Manafort.

- Learning the constitution -

"Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, (campaign aide) Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: 'I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.'"

- George W. Bush on Trump's inaugural address -

"That's some weird shit."

- Trump's Putin obsession -

"'What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?' pressed (the late Fox News chairman Roger) Ailes. 'Mostly,' said Bannon, 'he went to Russia and he thought he was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn't give a shit about him. So he's kept trying.'"

- Trump's Murdoch obsession -

"'I'll call him,' said Ailes. 'But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits down. I just worry about who's jerking whose chain.'"

- Murdoch on Trump? -

"'What a fucking idiot,' said Murdoch, shrugging, as he got off the phone" after talking immigration issues with Trump.

- Too much to think about -

"'I wouldn't give Donald too much to think about,' said an amused Ailes. Bannon snorted. 'Too much, too little?doesn't necessarily change things.'"

- Trump fears being poisoned -

"He had a longtime fear of being poisoned, one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald's -- nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely pre-made."

- Flattery and Egyptian shoes -

"Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the Egyptian strongman, ably stroked the president and said, 'You are a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.' (To Sisi, Trump replied, 'Love your shoes. Boy, those shoes. Man.?')"

- 'Our man' in Saudi -

"Within weeks of (Trump's Saudi) trip, MBS (Mohammed bin Salman), detaining MBN (Mohammed bin Nayef) quite in the dead of night, would force him to relinquish the Crown Prince title, which MBS would then assume for himself. Trump would tell friends that he and Jared had engineered a Saudi coup: 'We've put our man on top!'"

- Ivanka's presidential ambitions -

"Balancing risk against reward, both Jared and Ivanka decided to accept roles in the West Wing over the advice of almost everyone they knew. It was a joint decision by the couple, and, in some sense, a joint job. Between themselves, the two had made an earnest deal: If sometime in the future the opportunity arose, she'd be the one to run for president. The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump."

- Her brothers' presidential nicknames -

"His sons, Don Jr. and Eric -- behind their backs known to Trump insiders as Uday and Qusay, after the sons of Saddam Hussein."

- And the comb-over: explained by Ivanka -

"She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate -- a contained island after scalp-reduction surgery -- surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray. The color, she would point out to comical effect, was from a product called Just for Men -- the longer it was left on, the darker it got. Impatience resulted in Trump's orange-blond hair color."