Día: 11 mayo, 2017

¿Es posible destituir a Donald Trump?

Deje un comentario

Imagen: http://www.dw.com/image/38733729_403.jpg

Después de haber despedido al director del FBI, James Comey, más voces en EE.UU. reclaman la destitución del cada vez más impopular Donald Trump. DW analiza qué tan real es esta posibilidad.

“Huele a destitución”. La frase estalló ayer miércoles, 10 de mayo de 2017, en las redes sociales. Ya desde el inicio de su mandato, las encuestas del instituto de opinión Gallup mostraron que más de la mitad de los estadounidenses no están contentos con Donald Trump. Desde que despidió al director del FBI, James Comey, las apuestas sobre un posible proceso de destitución se han disparado en las casas de juego. Trump se convertiría en el primer presidente de los Estados Unidos en perder su puesto de esa manera. Pero, ¿cómo sería su proceso de destitución? ¿Qué tan probable es que se lleve a cabo ahora?

¿Qué habla a favor de un proceso de destitución?

1.  El despido de Comey es un indicio de abuso de poder

Trump argumentó su decisión diciendo que el director del FBI “no hizo bien su trabajo” de investigación en el asunto de los correos electrónicos de Hillary Clinton. Muchos medios reputados, como New York Times, CNN y Washington Post, informaron que Comey había pedido más medios para su investigación sobre las conexiones con Rusia. Si Trump despidió a Comey para impedir nuevas investigaciones en su contra, estaríamos ante encubrimiento y una forma de abuso de poder.

2.   Las acusaciones contra Trump no desaparecerán sin investigación

El Washington Post se remite a “30 fuentes de la Casa Blanca, del ministerio de Justicia y del Gobierno” para asegurar que Trump estaba “furioso” contra Comey porque este no quería apartarse de la investigación de la “conexión rusa”. La cantidad de artículos y reacciones de la opinión pública muestran que el presidente ha logrado justo lo contrario de lo que deseaba y que arrecia el interés por el esclarecimiento de la supuesta “conexión rusa”.

3.   Hay suficiente fuerza política para implementar un proceso de destitución

Aunque aún no se ha dado ningún paso concreto,  el debate actual sobre un posible proceso de destitución se basa en una situación administrativa real. Si bien es cierto que los republicanos quieren dar la imagen de unidad en torno al presidente, reputados miembros del partido, como John McCain, no han ocultado su oposición a la política de Trump. Las acusaciones contra Trump de que Rusia intervino a su favor en las pasadas elecciones implican traición a la patria, algo que contradice el profundo patriotismo con el que los republicanos se identifican. Hacer oídos sordos a algo así significaría la ruina política incluso para los más fieles seguidores de Trump.

¿Qué habla en contra de un proceso de destitución?

1.   Los indicios no bastan para probar el encubrimiento

Hay dos posibilidades para destituir a Trump o sacarlo del sillón presidencial antes de que concluya su mandato. La vigésimo quinta enmienda de la Constitución de EE.UU. contempla la declaración de “incapacidad para el puesto” contra la voluntad del presidente. La segunda posibilidad es el proceso de destitución, mediante el cual, según el Artículo II, Párrafo 4, se puede interponer una demanda presidencial a Trump por “traición, soborno o cualquier otro delito y conducta”, que finalmente conduzca a su destitución. Aunque este proceso es jurídico, se necesita para llevarlo a cabo una decisión política.

2.   Los republicanos deben situarse contra Trump

Ambas opciones requieren una mayoría de dos tercios en el Congreso, que actualmente está dominado por el propio partido de Trump, los republicanos, tanto en el Senado como en la Cámara de representantes. Dos de sus líderes, los diputados Paul Ryan, portavoz de la Cámara, y Mitch McConnell, presidente del partido mayoritario en el Congreso, ya han mostrado su conformidad con la decisión de Trump de despedir a Comey.

McConnell ya rechazó el día de la destitución de Comey el nombramiento de un investigador especial para el asunto de la “conexión rusa”, porque “solo serviría para obstaculizar el trabajo actual del FBI y de la comisión del Senado”.

3.   Su propio Ejecutivo tendría que querer destituirlo

Para poder aplicarse la declaración de incapacidad que contempla el Artículo 25, el propio gabinete de Trump, junto con el vicepresidente, Mike Pence, tendría que aprobar el procedimiento. Pence ya respaldó públicamente la decisión de Trump de despedir a Comey, diciendo que “tomó la decisión adecuada en el momento justo”.

Conclusión: Posible, pero improbable

Aunque se pudiera formular una demanda para iniciar un proceso de destitución contra Trump por encubrimiento y abuso de poder, sería difícil probar estas acusaciones. Además, faltaría apoyo político por parte de su partido y de su Ejecutivo.

Autor: Maximiliane Koschyk (MS/DZC)

En: DW

Flashback to F.B.I. Chief’s ’93 Firing, and to Saturday Night Massacre

Deje un comentario

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was established in 1908 when the Justice Department created an agency to conduct investigations for it. The first leaders of the F.B.I., known then as chief examiners, were appointed by the attorney general. That custom remained until 1972, when the F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover, died in office after overseeing the bureau for 48 years.

In the years before Hoover’s death, a new confirmation process for the F.B.I. director was developed. After Hoover, the director was nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. In 1976, it became law that the director would be limited to a 10-year term.

In its 109-year history, only one F.B.I. director had been fired — until Tuesday, when President Trump fired James B. Comey. In July 1993, President Bill Clinton fired William S. Sessions, who had been nominated to the post by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Mr. Clinton said his attorney general, Janet Reno, reviewed Mr. Sessions’s leadership and concluded “in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau.”

Mr. Sessions had been cited for ethical lapses, including taking free trips on F.B.I. aircraft and using government money to build a $10,000 fence at his home. Mr. Sessions was asked to resign, and was fired when he refused to do so. “Despite the president’s severe tone, he seemed to regret having to force Mr. Sessions from his post,” The New York Times wrote about his dismissal.

Similarly, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey on the recommendation of his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. (No relation to William S. Sessions.) There are no United States statutes that discuss the president’s authority to remove the F.B.I. director.

The termination of Mr. Comey also brought to mind for many the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. On Oct. 20, 1973, President Richard Nixon, seeking to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor leading the Watergate investigation, accepted the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus after they refused to take action. Robert Bork, the solicitor general, complied with the president’s order to fire Mr. Cox. Mr. Nixon also abolished the special prosecutor’s office.

But Mr. Nixon did not fire the director of the F.B.I.

Mr. Comey was in the fourth year of his 10-year term. The term limits were imposed after Watergate.; only one director, Robert S. Mueller III, was allowed to serve beyond 10 years. Mr. Mueller, who became director just before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was asked by President Barack Obama to stay on an additional two years, citing “ongoing threats facing the United States.” The Senate unanimously approved the extension.

Two men had their nominations for director withdrawn. In April 1973, Mr. Nixon withdrew the nomination of L. Patrick Gray III, and in September 1977, President Jimmy Carter withdrew the nomination of Frank M. Johnson Jr.

In: nytimes

Rosenstein’s Case Against Comey, Annotated

Deje un comentario

Contextualizing the deputy attorney general’s memorandum on the former FBI director

Depúty Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Image: http://www.trbimg.com/img-591241de/turbine/bal-rod-rosenstein-fbi-memo-20170509

In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In his letter dismissing Comey, Trump told him: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau.”

The White House said that Trump acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey’s dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and offers examples of bipartisan condemnation of Comey’s actions.

For context, we’ve annotated Rosenstein’s letter below.

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”

Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision“was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as“real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was“astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

 In: theatlantic

Comey sought more resources for Russia investigation before he was fired, officials say

Deje un comentario

Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General: “(…) I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails (…)”. Image: https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/gettyimages-615189902-e1488467829409.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all

FBI Director James B. Comey met last week with Rod Rosenstein, the new deputy attorney general, and asked for both money and personnel to step up the investigation into possible coordination between Russian intelligence and members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, according to two officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

One Democratic congressional aide said the request was for a “significant increase in resources.”

But a Justice Department spokesman denied that Comey had made the request.

“Totally false,” said Ian Prior. Comey “never made the request for more resources and money for the Russia investigations.”

Prior declined to comment on whether Rosenstein and Comey met last week, and what was discussed. The FBI declined to comment.

Trump abruptly fired Comey on Tuesday, saying he based his decision on a recommendation from Rosenstein and Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions.

In a letter dated Tuesday, Rosenstein said Comey should be replaced because he had breached department protocol by repeatedly making statements about the FBI investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails.

But the future of the Russia investigations looms over Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

Rosenstein, who was confirmed as deputy attorney general on April 25, is heading the Justice Department’s investigation into the Russia dealings.

Sessions recused himself after news reports revealed he had met with the Russian ambassador twice during the campaign and failed to disclose the meetings in his Senate confirmation hearing.

In: latimes

The last president to fire an FBI director? Bill Clinton

Deje un comentario

It’s been 24 years since a president fired the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In 1993, President Clinton ousted William Sessions as FBI director after Sessions refused to voluntarily step down amid ethical concerns. It was the first and only time to happen in U.S. history. That is, until Donald Trump fired James Comey.

Sessions, appointed by Ronald Reagan, had been under investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility during George H.W. Bush’s final year in office.

Here’s how The Times reported the findings at the time:

“The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.”

Sessions dismissed the findings and refused to resign.

Clinton, at the recommendation of his attorney general, Janet Reno, dismissed Sessions.

“We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI,” Clinton said at a White House news conference. “It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

Sessions serves on the board of directors for non-profit think tank, The Constitution Project. According to the website, he is a partner at the Holland & Knight law firm Washington, D.C.

In: latimes

Defiant FBI Chief Is Fired by President : Law enforcement: Alleged ethical abuses by Sessions are cited as reason for dismissal. He refused to resign.

Image; http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-20/news/mn-15006_1_law-enforcement-agencies

July 20, 1993|RONALD J. OSTROW and ROBERT L. JACKSON | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON — FBI Director William S. Sessions, who stubbornly refused to resign despite Justice Department ethics findings that he abused his office, was fired Monday by President Clinton–the first time a director of the storied agency has been dismissed.

Clinton and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, steeling the Administration against claims that the decision was politically motivated, used unmistakably blunt language to describe Sessions’ failings. Reno “has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community,” Clinton said, adding that he fully agreed with her recommendation to replace Sessions immediately.

Clinton is expected to announce today that he plans to nominate U.S. District Court Judge Louis J. Freeh of New York, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, to succeed Sessions. Clinton met with Freeh for 90 minutes Friday night.

“With a change in management in the FBI, we can now give the crime fighters the leadership they deserve,” Clinton said. Administration officials said Monday that they know of no other candidate under consideration for the post.

Clinton dismissed Sessions after the director rejected Administration entreaties to resign, contending that to voluntarily step down would violate the principle of an independent FBI. The FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term but serves at the pleasure of the President.

Sessions was appointed 5 1/2 years ago by former President Ronald Reagan.

“We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI,” Clinton said at a White House press conference. “It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

With Senate confirmation of the next FBI director not likely before fall, Clinton said that Deputy Director Floyd I. Clarke would serve as acting director. Sessions’ wife, Alice, has repeatedly accused Clarke of leading an internal cabal to force her husband from office, and Sessions has publicly questioned Clarke’s loyalty.

At his press conference, Clinton rejected the suggestion that Sessions fell victim to an internal vendetta and responded “absolutely not” when asked if the removal of Sessions would create the impression that the FBI is being subjected to political pressures.

Clinton cited the six-month-old highly critical report on Sessions’ conduct by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the director in the final year of the George Bush Administration.

Clinton noted that the attorney general had studied the findings and thoroughly reviewed Sessions’ leadership.

Reno said that, when she took office last March, then acting Atty. Gen. Stuart Gerson, a Republican holdover, advised her that Sessions “had exhibited flawed judgment which had an adverse effect within the FBI.”

But Reno said she wanted to make her own independent assessment of Sessions’ ability to lead the FBI, noting that she felt very strongly that the FBI director “should be above politics and not automatically subject to replacement with a change of administrations.”

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.

Sessions dismissed the findings as biased and said that they resulted from “animus” toward him by former Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, who–on his last day in office last January–presented the report to Sessions with orders to take remedial actions.

In addition to the sections of the report that have been released, the investigation looked into whether Sessions had accepted a “sweetheart” deal on his home loan from a Washington bank and into other matters that have not been made public, sources familiar with it said.

Reno said that she reviewed “all the circumstances,” including the Office of Professional Responsibility report and responses to it submitted by Sessions. Her conclusions, couched in language even stronger than Clinton’s, were detailed in a letter to the President that she read aloud at the press conference.

“I have concluded that the director has exhibited a serious deficiency in judgment involving matters contained in the report and that he does not command the respect and confidence needed to lead the bureau and the law enforcement community in addressing the many issues facing law enforcement today,” she wrote.

Sessions, in a prepared statement, said that “because of scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years it has been decided by others that I can no longer be as forceful as I need to be in leading the FBI and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation.

In: latimes