Tag Archives: Jeff Sessions

Rep. Nunes Aiming to Hold AG Sessions in Contempt for Ignoring Subpoena

Washington, D.C. – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, talking with Sunday on Fox and Friends, said he will “move quickly to hold the attorney general of the United States in contempt.”

After Nunes initially sent a letter to Sessions two weeks ago requesting classified information regarding counterintelligence investigations and FISA abuses, which he said was not acknowledged by the Department of Justice, Nunes followed up with a subpoena last week.

Nunes’ warning about holding Sessions in contempt comes in response to Attorney General Sessions’ refusal to comply with that subpoena.

On Thursday “we discovered that they are not going to comply with our subpoena,” he said. While the House intelligence chairman didn’t specify the exact information he was seeking from the DOJ, he called it “very important” information.

The official Justice Department letter refusing to comply with Nunes subpoena was shared with the Washington Examiner, and explained:

“After careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the White House, the Department has determined that, consistent with applicable law and longstanding Executive Branch policy, it is not in a position to provide information responsive to your request regarding a specific individual,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter.

Holding an attorney general in contempt is not without precedent, as the Washington Examiner reported that Congress voted in 2012 to hold then-AG Eric Holder in contempt for “not complying with the investigation into the Obama administration’s Operation Fast and Furious, which included gun trafficking across the border.”

Nunes explained that holding Sessions in contempt is the cumulative result of repeatedly being stifled by the DOJ in procuring information and documentation relating to the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into government surveillance relating to politicized FISA abuses in surveilling Trump campaign officials.

The California congressman said he’s not going to take any “excuse” that relates to alleged concerns about national security, asking “How many times have we heard this argument throughout this investigation?”

Judge Napolitano Breaks Down Raid On Michael Cohen, Says Jeff Sessions Should Never Have Been Attorney General

(DCNF) Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano broke down the raid on President Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and thinks Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the attorney general job.

Napolitano said the government raided Cohen’s office looking for evidence of bank fraud and believes it never would have escalated to this point if Sessions had made different choices.

“[Sessions] should have never accepted the appointment,” Napolitano said. “The Russia investigation started in October of 2016 and he knew he was going to be a witness. But if he felt he had to recuse himself — Mr. President you are entitled to an attorney general in whom have you great confidence. I’m not sure if I’m the guy if I recuse myself. Half of what the DOJ does, I will have nothing to do with.”

Click here to watch.

Napolitano said Sessions is “too tentative” and lacks the demeanor and faculties to be an effective attorney general.

“The last time I was here last Thursday the president was ranting and raving about the DOJ. And quite properly so, about the DOJ not complying with subpoenas from a Republican Congress,” Napolitano concluded. “The DOJ lacks the stern management and strong will that a strong attorney general should bring because Sessions is too tentative.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

 

This article was republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation

Sessions Death Penalty Memo Could Apply to State-Legal Cannabis Growers

Washington, D.C. – When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo to U.S. attorneys regarding seeking the death penalty for some drug traffickers, which was part of President Trump’s plan to combat the opioid epidemic released weeks ago, many pundits failed to miss the potential implications for legal marijuana growers.

The memo utilizes a little-known federal law that already allows for the death penalty to be used for certain criminal offenses, including specific racketeering activities, the use of a gun that resulted in a death during a drug trafficking crime, murder in advancing a criminal enterprise and dealing in “extremely large” quantities of drugs, according to The Hill.

“I strongly encourage federal prosecutors to use these statutes, when appropriate, to aid in our continuing fight against drug trafficking and the destruction it causes in our nation,” Sessions wrote.

Although Sessions’ memo seems focused largely on opioids, the federal law being referenced contains no such drug-specific limitation on prosecutors’ power. The Denver Post reported that upon following the law’s “meandering route through federal statutes,” the following conclusion will be reached: “that anyone convicted of cultivating more than 60,000 marijuana plants or possessing more than 60,000 kilograms of a substance that contains marijuana could face death as a punishment.”

Despite the law being on the books, the death penalty has never been sought before for those dealing large quantities of drugs, according to a Justice Department official cited by The Hill. The Post reported that in June, there were nearly 1 million marijuana plants under cultivation by Colorado’s state-licensed cannabis businesses.

“Under long established United States Supreme Court precedent it’s unconstitutional to use the death penalty for any offense that does not result in death,” said Robert Dunham, the executive director of the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center, which makes information on death penalty issues available but doesn’t take a position on the death penalty.

Washington Post data reporter Christopher Ingraham noted the potential implications for state-legal marijuana growers in a tweet:

Legal experts noted that while technically possible for the federal government to seek a death penalty against a state-licensed cannabis business, it is unlikely that a legal grower would face a federal death penalty case.

“I think it’s still very theoretical,” said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who, as harmonic luck would have it, is a specialist in both marijuana law and in the death penalty. “I don’t think anyone thinks the federal government is going to seek the death penalty against a state-licensed business. But what it highlights is this enormous disconnect with federal and state law.”

When asked by the Denver Post about the possibility of executions for marijuana business moguls, Aaron Smith, the executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, said, “I really think that’s just bluster.”

And while it may be “bluster,” Kamin cautioned that “what Sessions is reminding us is that losing your life is at least statutorily possible”; AG Sessions is a renowned cannabis prohibitionist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7ZeIC2Y40

Sessions “Seriously” Considering Gowdy and Goodlatte’s Calls for Second Special Counsel

Washington, D.C. — Following a letter sent by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) demanding the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate alleged FISA abuse by the FBI and DOJ, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, during an interview on Fox News on Wednesday night, said that he “will consider” the request, curiously stating that he’s appointed “a person outside Washington” to investigate the allegations of impropriety.

Gowdy and Goodlatte submitted a letter to AG Sessions on Tuesday demanding the appointment of a second Special Counsel, noting, “Matters have arisen—both recently and otherwise—which necessitate the appointment of a Special Counsel. We do not make this observation and attendant request lightly,” wrote the Congressional chairmen.

“There is evidence of bias, trending toward animus, among those charged with investigating serious cases,” Gowdy and Goodlatte wrote. “There is evidence political opposition research was used in court filings. There is evidence this political opposition research was neither vetted before it was used nor fully revealed to the relevant tribunal.”

During the interview on Fox, Sessions stated:

“Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations. I have appointed a person outside of Washington — many years at the Department of Justice — to look at all of the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us and we are conducting that investigation.”

Sessions went on to say the he is “well aware that we have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the FISA process.”

“We are not afraid to look at that,” Sessions reasoned. “The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong, but he has almost 500 employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors, and they are looking at the FISA process….We must make sure it is done properly, and we are going to do that, and I will consider the request.”

Contrary to the assertions by Sessions regarding the strength of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Gowdy and Goodlatte’s letter pointed out the inadequacy of using the OIG in this circumstance, noting, “While we have confidence in the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, the DOJ IG does not have the authority to investigate other governmental entities or former employees of the Department, the Bureau, or other agencies.”

In an interview with Fox News, Gowdy explained why he felt an OIG investigation is inadequate in these circumstances.

“What changed for me was the knowledge that there are two dozen witnesses that Michael Horowitz, the [DOJ] Inspector General, would not have access to,” Gowdy said. “When I counted up 24 witnesses that he would not be able to access were he to investigate it, yeah only one conclusion, that’s special counsel.”

Sessions’ nebulous statement regarding having “appointed someone outside of Washington” raises questions as to whom he is referring and what they have been tasked with doing, but according to Fox Host Shannon Bream the AG’s office has confirmed Sessions was referring to a separate “senior federal prosecutor” outside Washington, D.C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX88suyFcVs

Trump Praises Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Consolidation of Power

Palm Beach, FL – During a private luncheon speech to Republican donors at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, President Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for his recent moves to consolidate power and extend his political tenure.

“He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to a recording obtained by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

Trump’s comments followed an announcement from China’s Communist Party that it will be voting this week to alter the country’s constitution to abolish term limits — a move that would theoretically secure Xi as president indefinitely.

In a report for Vox, Carl Minzner, a professor at Fordham Law School, explained:

With the removal of these term limits in the constitution, that also sets up the likelihood — the extremely strong likelihood — that going forward, Xi Jinping is likely to serve in all three roles [head of state, general secretary of the Community Party, and head of the military] indefinitely into the future, which of course would be a significant reversal from recent practice since the beginning of China’s reform era.

CNN reported that during his speech, Trump appeared to reflect that he’d received unfair treatment regarding the ongoing Russian collusion investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in comparison to the lack of legal scrutiny opponent Hillary Clinton received for her activities.

“I’m telling you, it’s a rigged system, folks,” Trump said according to CNN. “I’ve been saying that for a long time. It’s a rigged system. And we don’t have the right people in there yet. We have a lot of great people, but certain things, we don’t have the right people.”

Trump was possibly referring to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was recently chastised byTrump for opening an OIG investigation into alleged FISA surveillance abuses rather than a criminal probe; Trump described the situation as “DISGRACEFUL” regarding Sessions’ continued refusal to launch a criminal investigation into other potentially criminal activities carried out by Clinton in regards to Uranium One and her private email server.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/968856971075051521

[RELATED: Reality Check: GOP Memo and FISA Problems]

Trump’s remarks, which CNN illustrated as “upbeat, lengthy, and peppered with jokes and laughter,” also questioned whether Clinton could be a “happy person” after her loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

“Is Hillary a happy person? Do you think she’s happy?” Trump asked. “When she goes home at night, does she say, ‘What a great life?’ I don’t think so. You never know. I hope she’s happy.”

Trump also took aim at former President George W. Bush and the intelligence community that provided false intelligence indicating Iraq possessed WMD’s, labeling the invasion of Iraq “the single worst decision ever made” and likening it to “throwing a big fat brick into a hornet’s nest.”

“Here we are, like the dummies of the world, because we had bad politicians running our country for a long time,” Trump proclaimed. “That was Bush. Another real genius. That was Bush,” he continued sarcastically. “That turned out to be wonderful intelligence. Great intelligence agency there.”

Trump Orders Sessions to Draft Regulations Banning Bump Stocks

“Just a few moments ago I signed a memo directing the attorney general to propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized, Jeff, very soon,” said President Donald Trump on February 20 at Tuesday’s Public Safety Medal of Valor Awards Ceremony at the White House.

In a memo to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the same day, Trump wrote, “Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns.”

Trump’s comments were aimed at bump fire stocks, a firearms accessory that uses a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to accelerate its firing rate closer to that of an automatic weapon at the expense of accuracy. Bump stocks were alleged to have been used by Las Vegas mass shooter Stephen Paddock in his deadly rampage.

[RELATED: Reality Check: Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Severely Mentally Ill People To Buy Guns]

The president’s effort to ban bump stocks comes in the form of a reinterpretation of existing law by the executive branch.

Commenting on the victims and families of last Wednesday’s deadly mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., President Trump said, “We cannot imagine the depth of their anguish, but we can pledge the strength of our resolve. And we must to do more to protect our children. We have to do more to protect our children.”

According to CBS News, the Justice Department said in a statement, “The department understands this is a priority for the president and has acted quickly to move through the rulemaking process. We look forward to the results of that process as soon as it is duly completed.”

New regulations of this type first stand for a period of public comment and legal challenges before going into effect.

Bloomberg notes that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said at a briefing, “Background checks are something that the president is supportive of making more efficient and looking at better ways to improve that process.” Sanders told reporters asking if Trump supports reauthorizing the Clinton-era federal assault weapons ban, “we haven’t closed the door on any front.”

When asked if President Trump would support raising the federal age limit to purchase a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 to 21 years of age or older, Sanders said according to CNN, “I think that’s certainly something that’s on the table for us to discuss and that we expect to come up over the next couple of weeks.”

Jeff Sessions Wages War on Cannabis

What entity should be in charge of marijuana law? Click here to vote in our poll.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is ready to wage war on cannabis. Or, should I say, he wants to return to the drug war of the 1980s.

I’ve warned you about this before. But the latest step taken by Sessions should ignite a real debate over states rights. Meanwhile, even after Sessions’s comments, cannabis has seen its biggest month ever in 2018.

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

Legalized cannabis just had an incredible month. January 1 of 2018 was a huge day for marijuana legalization.

On that day, California, the country’s most populous state and, by the way, the world’s 6th largest economy, officially launched the recreational marijuana industry.

More than 400 businesses were licensed as of January 1. Cities, including Los Angeles—the most populous in California—began letting businesses sell cannabis for recreational use, adding dozens more approved licenses to the state’s total.

All of that happening, with the backdrop of Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempting to double down on his hatred of marijuana. And a move he made that, despite what he hopes, may actually increase legalized cannabis.

To understand that, we have to go back to 2013.

In 2013, the Obama administration letter issued a memo called the Cole memo that essentially told federal prosecutors to use discretion.

Specifically, it focused on states that had legalized cannabis or recreational and medical use. It told those prosecutors to use discretion, to focus not on businesses that comply with state regulations, but on illicit enterprises that create harms like selling drugs to children, operating with criminal gangs, selling across state lines, and so on.

That memo, on its own, was problematic because it still turned into criminals, parents who might live in a state like Georgia where cannabis oil is legal, but cultivating cannabis is not. Those parents have to cross state lines to get the cannabis they need, and that forces them to break the law.

But as messy as all of that was, Sessions just made it messier when last month he ordered that the Obama-era memo be rescinded.

So what does that actually mean?

It means that federal prosecutors no longer need to keep their hands, for most part, off of state licensed dispensaries. It also means that all U.S. Department of Justice enforcement memos issued before and after the Cole memo are now gone as well. That includes a 2014 memo dealing with money laundering laws. It gave guidance on how financial institutions should be dealt with if they want to provide banking for the cannabis industry.

But it also means something else. Because since Sessions has announced the rescinding of that memo, the backlash has come from a number of places—most importantly, from congress.

There is a now a push to create a federal law that will require the DOJ to leave alone states where the cannabis industry is legal. Members of Congress are all about money, and they will likely move to protect an industry that is expected to generate $2.3 billion in state tax revenue by 2020.

And, even after the Sessions move, another state has just legalized recreational marijuana use.

According to Vox.com:

“…after Sessions announced his new marijuana policy, Vermont legislators, with the support of Republican Gov. Phil Scott, legalized marijuana for recreational use. The law won’t allow sales — only possession and growing. But it’s a big move because Vermont is now the first state to have legalized marijuana through its legislature.”

So what you need to know is that Jeff Sessions may hate marijuana, but polling numbers prove that, by and large, the majority of Americans hate the drug war even more.

In fact, the latest poll from Gallup shows 64 percent of Americans support the legalization of marijuana—the highest number in half a century. Oh and, by the way, in that same poll, for the first time, a majority of Republicans favor legalization, with 51 percent expressing support.

The war on cannabis is coming to an end. But what would be almost ironic, is if Jeff Sessions’s attempt to revive that war, was the catalyst to finally ending it for good.

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it tonight on Twitter and Facebook.

Fed Bank Approves Cannabis-Associated Colorado Credit Union

Washington, D.C — After years of litigation, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City has given conditional approval to a Colorado credit union to service cannabis-related businesses. But in order to secure approval, the Fourth Corner Credit Union agreed that it would not serve any business that directly handles funds from cannabis sales or any state-licensed dispensaries.

Fourth Corner Credit Union had originally planned to work with “any legal marijuana enterprise in Colorado,” but modified their plans after being denied by the Fed bank. Now, instead of working directly with dispensaries, the credit union will “focus on individuals and companies that support legalized marijuana” – such as “accountants or landlords,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Originally, in 2014, the credit union was awarded a charter by the State of Colorado to serve state-legal canna-businesses, but the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City refused to honor Fourth Corner’s request for a master account on grounds that federal law prohibits banks from serving businesses that handle funds related to an illegal substance. Without a master account, which allows access to the banking system, the credit union would not be able to operate.

According to a report from Merry Jane, a cannabis culture site, Fourth Corner dealt with a series of delays and legal woes before finally obtaining approval:

“In response to this challenge, Fourth Corner altered their charter, announcing that they would only open accounts for businesses that indirectly serve or support the cannabis sector, such as legalization advocacy groups, and accountants or lawyers with clients in the industry. Hence, the bank would technically would be operating legally, as long as they’re not handling funds directly related to growing, processing, or selling marijuana. Regardless of the change, the Federal Reserve continued to deny the bank’s request for a master account. Fourth Corner sued the Feds in 2016, and after losing the first round in court, finally won the right to a federal master account last summer in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Despite the court’s ruling, the Kansas City Fed still had not given the credit union their account by last fall, so the bank filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court in Denver. After years of disagreement, this month the Federal Reserve finally granted conditional approval to Fourth Corner.”

To secure the deal, the Fourth Corner Credit Union agreed that it would not “serve any state-licensed dispensaries or business that directly handles cannabis funds.”

In an effort to avoid any perception of setting a precedent, the Federal Reserve Bank noted specifically that “this letter does not express the policy views of” the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, “nor does it contain any supervisory, regulatory or enforcement guidance or precedent,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

As Truth in Media previously reported, following Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to revoke the Cole Memo— which gave Obama-era federal guidance for a hands-off policy towards state-legal marijuana— the Trump administration has recently been considering the removal of another Obama-era protocol, one that that permits banks to open accounts for marijuana-related businesses without being considered in violation of law.

Despite that move from Sessions, a bipartisan group of 31 House members recently collaborated on a letter that asked the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) agency to continue this cannabis banking guidance.

“FinCEN’s stated priorities have allowed such businesses to conduct commerce more safely through financial institutions which reduces the use of all cash, improves public safety, and reduces fraud,” the House lawmakers wrote in their letter. “Leaving your guidance unchanged will continue to encourage small companies to make investments by freeing up access to capital. It will also further provide for well regulation and oversight through suspicious activity reports. Rescinding this guidance would inject uncertainty in the financial markets.”

Drew Maloney, the U.S. Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs, wrote in response that his agency is “reviewing the [banking] guidance in light of the Attorney General’s announcement and are consulting with law enforcement.”

In testimony before the U.S. Senate, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Department Sigal Mandelker said that the FinCEN memo remains in effect as the Trump administration examines the possibility of revocation. On Wednesday, Maloney confirmed in his letter that prior guidance “remains in place” for now, adding that Congress would be informed of any policy changes.

Treasury Department Considering Removal of Marijuana Banking Protections

Washington, D.C. — The Trump administration is weighing the removal of an Obama-era protocol that permitted banks to open accounts for marijuana-related businesses without being considered in violation of law, according to a recent report by Forbes.

In the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ move to overturn the Cole Memo, which had previously laid a hands-off federal policy towards state marijuana policy under the Obama administration, federal prosecutors will now be allowed to decide how to prioritize enforcing federal cannabis prohibition in relation to possession, cultivation or distribution in states that have legalized the drug.

With Sessions’ revocation of three Obama-era memos last month, which had provided guidance that allowed banks to provide their services to marijuana businesses without the risk of federal prosecution, the Treasury Department is now “reviewing the [banking] guidance in light of the Attorney General’s announcement and are consulting with law enforcement,” Drew Maloney, the U.S. Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to members of Congress.

The letter from the Treasury Department was in response to an inquiry last month from a  bipartisan group of 31 House members, that included a request for the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) agency to carry on with the cannabis banking guidance.

“FinCEN’s stated priorities have allowed such businesses to conduct commerce more safely through financial institutions which reduces the use of all cash, improves public safety, and reduces fraud,” the House lawmakers wrote in their letter. “Leaving your guidance unchanged will continue to encourage small companies to make investments by freeing up access to capital. It will also further provide for well regulation and oversight through suspicious activity reports. Rescinding this guidance would inject uncertainty in the financial markets.”

According to the report by Forbes:

“The FinCEN document, issued in 2014, laid out a process for how banks can open accounts for marijuana businesses and avoid triggering federal enforcement actions.

The FinCEN policy, which requires financial institutions to regularly file reports on their cannabis customers, was intended to provide clarity and assurances to banks, but many have remained reluctant to work with marijuana businesses because of overarching federal prohibition laws.

Nonetheless, documents released by FinCEN late last year showed that the number of banks willing to work with the marijuana industry has steadily grown over time, though those figures were collected prior to Sessions’s move to revoke the broader Justice Department guidance.”

While cannabis use has been legalized or decriminalized in a majority of U.S. states, it is still considered a Schedule 1 substance— denoting no accepted medical use— under federal law, which has created a conflict between state and federal law.

[RELATED: Truth in Media: Feds Say Cannabis Is Not Medicine While Holding The Patent on Cannabis as Medicine]

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal:

A significant chunk of the financial system—including most credit-card companies and all banks that have access to the Fed’s payments highway—is regulated by the U.S. government, which considers distribution and use of marijuana a crime. As a result, marijuana dispensaries have had to rely mainly on cash, raising security and logistical concerns.

Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued legal guidance indicating that its priorities in combating illegal drug trafficking didn’t include the sale and purchase of state-legalized marijuana. It said it would crack down on the marijuana industry only in cases tied to other criminal activities, such as distribution to minors, firearm violence or trafficking of other drugs.

Last month, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Department, said that the FinCEN memo is still in effect while the Trump administration considers its revocation. On Wednesday, Maloney confirmed in his letter that prior guidance “remains in place” for now, and vowed to inform Congress of any policy changes.