The president’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and discussing Trump’s authority to grant pardons aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe.
Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, reports the Washington Post. Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of his legal advisers. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.
Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that Trump’s lawyers and aides are scouring the professional and political backgrounds of investigators hired by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, looking for conflicts of interest they could use to discredit the investigation — or even build a case to fire Mueller or get some members of his team recused.
The announcement that the Supreme Court will hear the case sets the stage for a major decision on the scope of presidential power.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide whether President Trump’s revised travel ban was lawful, setting the stage for a major decision on the scope of presidential power, reports the New York Times. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures. Two federal appeals courts have blocked key parts of the order.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last month that the limits on travel from the six countries violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. Relying on Trump’s statements during the presidential campaign, where he called for a “Muslim ban,” the court said the order “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recently blocked both the limits on travel and the suspension of the refugee program. It ruled on statutory rather than constitutional grounds, saying Trump had exceeded the authority granted him by Congress.
Anthony Kennedy, who turns 81 next month, sparked speculation that he was set to announce his retirement when he moved up by a year a long-scheduled reunion of his former clerks. The event was held Saturday, but Kennedy–the key swing vote on the sharply divided court–did not mention retirement.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the subject of potent gossip in legal circles amid rumors that Justice Anthony Kennedy will return soon. The 80-year-old Kennedy sparked the speculation that he was set to announce his retirement when he moved up by a year a long-scheduled reunion of his former clerks, reports Politico. But he made no announcement about his future at the event, held Saturday at the court, one attendee said. He did not address the rumors. But the legal site Above the Law quoted Kennedy as joking at the reunion that he had an announcement that had been the subject of speculation: “The bar will remain open after the end of the formal program.”
The court’s current term ends today. Although there are no firm indications that Kennedy will step down, some of his former law clerks have said he is considering it. White House counsel Don McGahn told President Trump recently that he expected Kennedy to step down soon. Kennedy is often the swing vote between the court’s liberal and conservative wings. Kennedy has sided with the court’s four liberals on some major issues, most notably gay rights. His retirement would give Trump an opportunity to recast the court in a more conservative posture, possibly for decades to come.
The president used the Maryland city as an example of a crime dystopia while campaigning, but it was not among 12 cities selected for a new federal program to help local cops.
Baltimore, which President Trump used as an example of the country’s “out of control” crime while campaigning, was not among 12 cities chosen for a new Justice Department initiative to help local law enforcement, reports the Baltimore Sun. Attorney General Jeff Sessions unveiled the program, the National Public Safety Partnership, this week. It will work with cities including Buffalo, Cincinnati and Houston.
Why Baltimore — a city frequently held out by Trump an example of a place that needs help tackling crime — wasn’t included in the program is not clear. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on why the city wasn’t selected, or whether the consent decree recently finalized between the department and the city played a role in the decision. Justice Department spokesman Ian D. Prior said cities were chosen for the new program through a process that “considers both quantitative and qualitative measures.” Participating cities, he said, “must have levels of violence that far exceed the national average” and must also “demonstrate a commitment to reducing violent crime and be ready to receive the intensive training and technical assistance available.”
The answer is far from clear. But the battle lines are already being drawn in Congress and in statehouses across the country.
Is the drug war back on the nation’s agenda?
That depends on whom you ask. But uncertainty over the answer begins with President Donald Trump himself.
Nearly two decades ago, in a Miami speech to 700 Florida business executives, he offered policy prescriptions that would have pleased most drug reformers.
“You have to legalize drugs,” Trump told the executives, at a time when the cocaine crisis was ravaging south Florida. Speaking at an awards ceremony hosted by the Miami Herald, he declared, “You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.”
Today, such views are becoming mainstream—shared by advocates on both the left and right. But if the administration’s budget released this week is any guide, those views now have little traction in Washington. Instead, Trump’s new “law-and-order” justice team seems bent on pursuing the zero-tolerance enforcement policies that he described in his Miami speech as a “joke.”
The President’s 2018 budget package supports a federal drug control budget of $27.8 billion—with the bulk (56 percent) going to supply reduction strategies such as increased interdiction and enforcement. That’s in contrast to the Obama administration’s “Drug Policy for the 21st Century,” which emphasized demand reduction programs such as treatment and prevention over law enforcement efforts.
While some drug reformers maintained Obama was still being over-cautious in backing away from zero-tolerance drug enforcement policies, his administration was the first in history to propose more funding for drug treatment and prevention than for enforcement and interdiction.
Trump’s budget also exposes some sharp differences between the new administration and legislators on both sides of the aisle who have been supporting efforts to reduce the fiscal and human costs of mass incarceration (joined by state and local officials)—efforts that include changing, if not reversing, the now four-decade old combative approach to drug enforcement.
How that conflict plays out remains to be seen. But the President’s budget suggests reformers who want to prevent the country from sliding back into the punishment-oriented and law-enforcement-dominated strategies that characterized the so-called War on Drugs” have an uphill battle ahead of them.
One clear indication of which way the wind is blowing: the Trump budget calls for $84 million in new funding for the federal prison system in anticipation of a swell of inmates caught up in the administration’s new enforcement initiatives.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr
Noting that these efforts resulted in “unduly harsh sentences and perceived or actual disparities that do not reflect our Principles of Federal Prosecution,” the memo added that “long sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses do not promote public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation.”
Such sentences are a major reason why the U.S. has led the world in per capita incarceration rates. Although it’s unclear what impact the Holder memo has had on drug prosecutions, the release of thousands of federal prisoners jailed for nonviolent drug offenses contributed to an overall drop in the nation’s prison population in 2015 to its lowest level since 2002—a decline that was further fueled by the decision of many states to re-think their own “tough on crime” sentencing strategies.
Sessions believes, however, that such “soft” sentencing is responsible for recent crime spikes in many cities, and the increase in the proposed funding for the federal prison system seems to many critics an implicit acknowledgment that the new policies will reverse the prison-population decline.
“Donald Trump is pushing an outdated approach to criminal justice that virtually everyone now recognizes is a staggering waste of money,” Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, told The Crime Report.
“Trump can tinker with federal criminal justice policy, but he won’t be able to reverse the cultural shift that has occurred across the nation,” predicted Leach.
Will the hardline rhetoric make a difference at the state level? Responses so far have been varied.
States Rethink Drug Policy
The Florida Senate rejected a bill this month that would have created new mandatory minimums for trafficking the synthetic opioid fentanyl. In Pennsylvania, however—where prison reform measures led to the largest drop in the state inmate population in four decades—Republican lawmakers have been advancing a measure to re-introduce mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes.
One key driver of drug policy reform has been the spreading opioid epidemic. And in this area, the lines between hardliners and reformers seem blurred. During the campaign, Trump put it high on his agenda, giving special weight to addressing the issue as a public health problem rather than a law enforcement problem—and that appeared to resonate with voters. Many of the epidemic’s victims are in states that voted Republican last November.
The new budget proposes $10.8 billion to support recent legislation aimed at expanding treatment for substance abuse, such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA)—which was passed by Congress last year to improve state programs in drug treatment and overdose prevention.
That’s a slight increase over 2017 continuing resolution levels; nevertheless it represents a drop from the $13.2 billion earmarked for treatment efforts in 2016. The new budget earmarks $128 million for CARA-related programs—$25 million less than 2017—with most of those cuts coming from a reduction in Targeted Enhancement Grants to expand the availability of medication-assisted treatment, an evidence-based approach that uses suboxone and methadone to help reduce drug dependency.
The mixed signals—a renewed emphasis on treatment combined with cuts—make it hard to draw conclusions about White House policy.
Adding fuel to the skeptics’ concerns, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, sparked an outcry from the medical community during a multi-state opioid “listening tour” when he stigmatized people on opioid replacement drugs like methadone and buprenorphine.
HHS Secretary Tom Price. Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr
“If we’re just substituting one opioid for another, we’re not moving the dial much,” Price said of MAT, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail. “Folks need to be cured so they can be productive members of society and realize their dreams.”
The President’s decision to tap Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz, a respected addiction expert and a strong proponent of medication assisted treatment, to head the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has eased some anxieties. But critics worry that any progress on treatment will be undercut by massive cuts to social services programs and health care.
The President has also proposed $150 million in new funding toward law enforcement strategies specifically to address the opioid crisis. This includes an extra $30 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration that will be used to expand the agency’s Tactical Diversion Squads —which investigate doctors and pharmacies suspected of being “pill mills”—and to hire more U.S. attorneys to pursue federal drug cases against them.
According to budget documents the money will also be used to help the DEA implement forthcoming recommendations by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recently created Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety. Officials say the task force will work closely with Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis— led by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—to develop the details.
Sessions named Steve Cook, former head of the National Association of Assistant US Attorneys — a conservative group of U.S. Attorneys strongly opposed to criminal justice reform — to lead his crime reduction task force.
Adding doubt to the importance placed by the new administration on the treatment approach, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week projected that Trump’s signature health care bill, which passed the House on May 4, would leave 23 million people without health insurance (including support for substance-abuse programs and counseling) over the next decade.
“What’s often overlooked… is that economic safety net programs and overall health care services are also critical [in treating addiction],” said Leo Beletsky, an expert in public health and law at Northeastern University. “If Trump succeeds in slashing resources to those programs, the opioid crisis will spiral into something a lot more deadly.”
The Drug War Abroad
In other areas, Trump has evoked the specter of an expanding drug war by connecting his proposals to build a ‘Great Wall’ on the southern border with Mexico with effort to stem addiction. Among other things he proposes hiring 1,500 new federal border and immigration agents to block international drug trafficking—one of the centerpieces of previous Washington policy—and i asking Congress to funnel more than $2.6 billion to border enforcement.
Critics like Beletsky argue such strategies have not been successful in the past—and are not likely to be successful in the future.
“Given the dynamics of the illicit drug supply chains, I can predict with 100 percent confidence that [border enforcement] will do nothing to stem the flow of illegal drugs to the US,” Beletsky said. “In fact, ramping up interdiction efforts at the US-Mexico border may exacerbate the problem by making fentanyl and other cheap synthetic drugs that much more attractive to dealers.”
The shifts in criminal justice policy—including drug policy—have already elicited a vocal backlash from current and former public officials in both political parties, including Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, and former Attorney General Holder—who issued a statement calling the effort “dumb on crime.”
Last week, 15 Democratic state Attorneys General joined in, with a letter admonishing the new administration’s tough on crime stance.
“Pursuing the toughest criminal penalties against defendants is an outdated approach that has not lowered recidivism rates or reduced crime,” said Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois.
“We need the Justice Department to be at the forefront of implementing proven policies to reform our criminal justice system in ways that lower prison populations and make our communities safer.”
The criticism isn’t limited to Democrats. Brett Tolman, the U.S. Attorney for Utah during the Bush administration, says the administration’s rhetoric signals a failure to recognize that state and local policy changes have already saved taxpayer dollars on unnecessary incarceration, with little or no impact on crime rates.
“I think there is a shift in the mindframe, which is unfortunate because even many conservative states have recognized that this is not the solution,” he told The Crime Report.
But the other side in the battle over the future of drug policy is equally vocal. Many prosecutors—particularly those in sparsely populated, cash-strapped counties—view mandatory minimum sentences as a crime-fighting tool.
Lisa Lazzari-Strasiser, the District Attorney of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, says mandatory minimums are “desperately needed.” Without them, she said in testimony in Harrisburg this week, DA’s have no “leverage” to pursue bigger game like drug kingpins.
“We have nothing to get them to sit down at a table and tell them how much time they’re going to spend in jail if they don’t move up the food chain,” she explained. “It gives smaller communities (the ability) to attack and at least fight this battle on an even playing field.”
Who will win the debate? The jury is out.
Alex Whiting, faculty co-director of the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School, questions how much impact Sessions hardline strategy will have at the grassroots level, given the momentum of reform. “How far this gets implemented and with what kind of energy I think is really an open question,” he said in a recent article in The Hill.
One unknown is whether even the expected increase in federal drug prosecutions will significantly reverse the policy changes that are already underway in jurisdictions around the country.
“[The feds] could increase their volume somewhat but they don’t have the resources to take enough cases to make a big difference,” said a veteran prosecutor in Pennsylvania, who asked to comment off the record, citing office policy.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the federal government technically takes precedence over state and local jurisdictions in prosecuting a number of drug and firearms offenses. However, it frequently relies heavily on local law enforcement to help build a case.
Asked what would happen if local cops and DAs simply avoided cooperating with their federal counterparts, the prosecutor conceded that such an outcome could create an unprecedented challenge for the Trump administration.
“If the case originates in the state system it would be hard for [the Feds] to just start snatching those cases,” he told The Crime Report. “They have never done that in the past.”
For the time being, Sessions’ best bet may be to stack the deck in his favor. Shortly after his confirmation he fired more than 40 U.S. Attorneys. As of last month, the Department of Justice had yet to hire a single replacement; but finding individuals who share Sessions’ drug war fervor is almost surely a top priority.
And the ultimate question is whether voters’ apparent support for Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric during the campaign will extend to policies that effectively criminalize friends and family for nonviolent drug offenses, or treat victims of the opioid crisis as a law enforcement problem rather than a health issue.
Voters (most recently in Philadelphia) have been rejecting tough-on-crime prosecutors in favor of DAs who favor more evidence-based approaches.
Nevertheless, some law enforcement officials who have spent years in the drug war’s trenches argue that still leaves room for a more focused approach—if the administration is able to resolve its mixed signals.
“There is no appetite from where I am sitting for going back to retail drug prosecutions.” said Jerry Daley, Executive Director of the Philadelphia-Camden High Intensity Drug Traffic Area (HIDTA) program. “Nobody is really looking to prosecute those cases aggressively. But when it comes to drug traffickers, well that’s a different story.”
That opens the possibility of a re-calibrated anti-drug strategy that mixes a public health approach with aggressive pursuit of kingpins and drug cartels.
There’s no sign of that yet, but as the Trump White House has already demonstrated, policymaking is anything but predictable.
One example: last week Washington was in a tizzy over rumors that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)—long a centerpiece of the nation’s combative drug war strategy but which has been shifting towards a public health approach under recent drug “czars”—would be gutted in the budget proposals.
When the budget details were finally made public, the ONDCP was untouched.
Christopher Moraff is a frequent contributor to The Crime Report. Readers’ comments are welcome.
The anti-sanctuary legislation would require local police to detain people for immigration agents and would permit them to investigate a person’s immigration status upon arrest.
President Trump’s plan for a deportation force is meeting resistance in the courts, but Texas is about to pass a bill that will make all of the state’s law enforcement part of it—whether they like it or not, says the Daily Beast. Seven years after Arizona enacted a similar law, Texas is on the verge of passing a bill that would give every police officer in the state the power to say “show me your papers.” The bill, SB4, demands that local police hold people for immigration agents and permits them to investigate a person’s immigration status upon arrest.
In March, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he was willing to throw law enforcement leaders in prison if they didn’t spend their resources on immigration enforcement. Talking specifically about Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, Abbott said Texas would pass legislation “that will impose criminal penalties where the sheriff herself can wind up behind bars, and hence be removed from office, fines that could add up to millions of dollars per year, as well as other penalties. We’re gonna make it so costly, so expensive, there’s no way that any city or county can take on sanctuary city policies.” Why do cities opt to become immigrant sanctuaries? Because for many years, ICE would essentially ask local police to do them an unconstitutional favor: hold a person up to 48 hours without probable cause until ICE agents were able to pick them up. Multiple federal courts have determined that this had violated people’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The election of Donald Trump has prompted the group to shift priorities. “People are channeling their energy into organizing locally, recognizing that in Trump’s America, our communities are under direct attack,” said one leader.
The Black Lives Movement is evolving away from street protests in the Trump era, reports the Washington Post. News about controversial police encounters with black Americans has been met with relatively subdued responses in recent weeks. Activists say the movement’s efforts have entered a new phase — one more focused on policy than protest — prompted by the election of President Trump. “What people are seeing is that there are less demonstrations,” said Alicia Garza, who helped coin the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag in 2012. “A lot of that is that people are channeling their energy into organizing locally, recognizing that in Trump’s America, our communities are under direct attack.”
The issue that galvanized the movement hasn’t subsided. So far in 2017, police have shot and killed 23 unarmed people, a higher rate than in 2016, when 48 unarmed people were killed all year. But like most of the political left, Black Lives Matter leaders were stunned by Trump’s electoral victory in November. They’ve grappled with the role of an anti-racism movement at a time when political threats to other groups — immigrants, Muslims and women — have gained urgency and pushed more progressives into the streets in protest. In interviews, more than half a dozen leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement said the election prompted renewed focus on supporting other minority groups as well as amassing electoral power to fight the new administration.
At least six states are considering new laws to tamp down the wave of hate that has washed over the country since the caustic presidential election. One expert says some Americans “are reverting back to a kind of tribalism and acting out with hate crimes or acts of uncivilized bigotry.”
A wave of hateful attacks and threats across the country in recent months has prompted at least six states to consider anti-hate legislation aimed at beefing up penalties and expanding definitions of what constitutes bias-motivated crimes, reports the New York Times. Many advocates point to the caustic presidential election as a culprit for the rash of hate unfolding since November, including threatening calls and notes, physical assaults and confrontations, and even deadly shootings. The legal definition of hate crimes varies from state to state, with the same acts bringing vastly different punishments depending on where they occur. Five states do not have any anti-hate statutes: Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Wyoming and Indiana.
A patchwork of state and federal laws, along with underreporting, means it is unclear how often hate crimes occur — a portrait advocates say is needed to help shape public policy and heighten awareness. The F.B.I.’s latest report, released in November, showed a 6.7 percent rise in reported hate crimes in 2015. But reporting is optional for police agencies, and nearly nine out of 10 reported that no hate crimes happened in their jurisdiction in 2015. Anecdotal evidence suggests hates crimes are climbing again this year. “What you are seeing is this widespread feeling of fear and disenfranchisement,” said Brian Levin, a California criminal justice professor who studies hate. “Social, political and demographic changes are becoming so rapid and unpredictable that people are reverting back to a kind of tribalism and acting out with hate crimes or acts of uncivilized bigotry.”
How did a penthouse-dwelling real estate mogul who once supported gun control become the favored presidential candidate of the NRA? The Trace says it began in 2015, when a political operative secured an eight-minute speaking slot at the group’s annual meeting in Nashville. “I love the NRA,” Trump declared.
Donald Trump will speak at the NRA’s Annual Meeting today in Atlanta — the first sitting president to do so since Ronald Reagan in 1983. The Trace recounts the 14 steps it took to accomplish a gun-rights makeover for the penthouse-dwelling real estate mogul who once supported a ban on assault weapons and waiting periods for firearms purchases. To get to the White House, Trump had to convince the NRA that he was their kind of candidate. As he prepared to launch a presidential campaign in early 2015, Trump took a key first step by hiring Chuck Laudner, an Iowa-based political operative who secured for him an invitation to speak at the NRA annual gathering in Nashville that February.
Laudner’s bit of matchmaking marked the beginning of a political marriage of convenience between Trump and the NRA. From the gun group, the novice candidate gained well-funded advertising support, an organized get-out-the-vote operation, and a well-tuned anti-establishment messaging machine to vouch for his newfound populism. From Trump, the NRA got a nominee who echoed the group’s dire rhetoric and attacks on the media — and now a president whose embrace has made the gun group perhaps the most influential organization on the ascendant right.
Sales spiked to all-time highs last year under the irrational trope that President Obama was going to “take away our guns.” But gun manufacturers and retailers are seeing a downside as President Trump snuggles with the NRA: Gun sales have dropped sharply since he was elected.
Donald Trump might seem to be the NRA’s perfect president. He has signed an executive order to unwind Obama-era gun restrictions, put NRA president Wayne LaPierre at his side during a White House meeting of conservatives, and is spending his 99th day in office speaking to the NRA convention today in Atlanta. His “Second Amendment Advisory Commission” is chaired by the NRA’s top lobbyist. But the Trump era hasn’t been all good news for the NRA and the gun industry, says the Daily Beast. For one thing, gun sales have tanked since November’s election, after reaching all-time highs under President Obama.
The number of instant FBI background checks dropped by about 1 million applications in the first two months after Trump was elected, compared to the same time a year before, and were down again in February and March. Experts said that fear of gun restrictions under Obama prompted the sky-high sales. A Trump presidency, with a Republican controlled House and Senate and 31 Republican governors, is also testing the lengths the NRA can go to without running into a backlash from voters, especially in the highly educated suburban districts where Trump struggled in 2016.