Obama appointee Beryl Howell has always been on the top of my impeachment list.
For nearly a decade, she has wielded her unchecked power--mostly as chief judge of DC district court--behind the scenes to try to destroy President Trump. She oversaw grand jury proceedings for both Robert Mueller then Biden's DOJ for criminal investigations into Trump. She is a power hungry, out-of-control psychopath who needs to be removed ASAP.
In a 36-page seething tirade just docketed, (h/t Kyle Cheney), Howell takes numerous personal shots at the president while ordering the reinstatement of a Biden-appointed member of the National Labor Relations Board, who was removed by Trump last month.
These are not the words of a fair-minded, even-tempered judge. It is the ranting of a lunatic who is infuriated her decade-long crusade to crush Donald Trump didn't work. Frustrated at her failure, Howell repeatedly insists the president broke the law by failing to give the dismissed NLRB member a reason why she was getting the boot.
IMPEACH.
Howell:
"The President seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme.
The courts are now again (AGAIN?) forced to determine how much encroachment on the legislature our Constitution can bear and face a slippery slope toward endorsing a presidency that is untouchable by the law. The President has given no sufficient reason to accept that path here.
To start, the Framers made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king—the President included—and not just in name only. A President who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on presidential authority. The President’s interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power— or, more aptly, his aspiration—is flat wrong.
The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a blatant violation of the law. Defendants concede that removal of plaintiff as a Board Member violates the terms of the applicable statute...and because this statute is a valid exercise of congressional power, the President’s excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained.
In the ninety years since the NLRB’s founding, the President has never removed a member of the Board. His attempt to do so here is blatantly illegal, and his constitutional arguments to excuse this illegal act are contrary to Supreme Court precedent and over a century of practice.
Under our constitutional system, such checks, by design, guard against executive overreach and the risk such overreach would pose of autocracy. An American President is not a king—not even an 'elected' one—and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here."
For nearly a decade, she has wielded her unchecked power--mostly as chief judge of DC district court--behind the scenes to try to destroy President Trump. She oversaw grand jury proceedings for both Robert Mueller then Biden's DOJ for criminal investigations into Trump. She is a power hungry, out-of-control psychopath who needs to be removed ASAP.
In a 36-page seething tirade just docketed, (h/t Kyle Cheney), Howell takes numerous personal shots at the president while ordering the reinstatement of a Biden-appointed member of the National Labor Relations Board, who was removed by Trump last month.
These are not the words of a fair-minded, even-tempered judge. It is the ranting of a lunatic who is infuriated her decade-long crusade to crush Donald Trump didn't work. Frustrated at her failure, Howell repeatedly insists the president broke the law by failing to give the dismissed NLRB member a reason why she was getting the boot.
IMPEACH.
Howell:
"The President seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme.
The courts are now again (AGAIN?) forced to determine how much encroachment on the legislature our Constitution can bear and face a slippery slope toward endorsing a presidency that is untouchable by the law. The President has given no sufficient reason to accept that path here.
To start, the Framers made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king—the President included—and not just in name only. A President who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on presidential authority. The President’s interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power— or, more aptly, his aspiration—is flat wrong.
The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a blatant violation of the law. Defendants concede that removal of plaintiff as a Board Member violates the terms of the applicable statute...and because this statute is a valid exercise of congressional power, the President’s excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained.
In the ninety years since the NLRB’s founding, the President has never removed a member of the Board. His attempt to do so here is blatantly illegal, and his constitutional arguments to excuse this illegal act are contrary to Supreme Court precedent and over a century of practice.
Under our constitutional system, such checks, by design, guard against executive overreach and the risk such overreach would pose of autocracy. An American President is not a king—not even an 'elected' one—and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here."
Keep in mind just a few tricks Howell pulled in the past few years.
She took the extraordinary step of piercing attorney-client privilege between Trump and Evan Corcoran, claiming the "crime fraud exception" to force Corcoran to produce privileged records to DOJ related to classified docs case.
She consented to Jack Smith's request to not only seize all of Trump's Twitter data but authorized a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting Elon Musk from notifying Trump of the warrant. She then imposed a $350,000 fine on Twitter for a 51-hour delay in producing the files while claiming Trump was trying to "cozy up" to Trump. (Four judges on the DC appellate court BLASTED Howell for her reckless decisions and for ignoring presidential privilege claims in the matter.)
She also permitted grand jury proceedings in the classified docs case to commence in DC although the proper jurisdiction was southern Florida.
Howell has been overturned twice by the DC appellate court for imposing unlawful sentences against J6ers and the Supreme Court reversed Howell and 14 other DC district court judges for unlawfully applying 1512c2 against hundreds of J6ers.
Now she wants to lecture the president about "illegal acts" and pushing the boundaries of his authority?
The federal judiciary has gone completely rogue and no other entity--Congress or SCOTUS--is willing to stop it. A serious constitutional crisis in progress.
She took the extraordinary step of piercing attorney-client privilege between Trump and Evan Corcoran, claiming the "crime fraud exception" to force Corcoran to produce privileged records to DOJ related to classified docs case.
She consented to Jack Smith's request to not only seize all of Trump's Twitter data but authorized a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting Elon Musk from notifying Trump of the warrant. She then imposed a $350,000 fine on Twitter for a 51-hour delay in producing the files while claiming Trump was trying to "cozy up" to Trump. (Four judges on the DC appellate court BLASTED Howell for her reckless decisions and for ignoring presidential privilege claims in the matter.)
She also permitted grand jury proceedings in the classified docs case to commence in DC although the proper jurisdiction was southern Florida.
Howell has been overturned twice by the DC appellate court for imposing unlawful sentences against J6ers and the Supreme Court reversed Howell and 14 other DC district court judges for unlawfully applying 1512c2 against hundreds of J6ers.
Now she wants to lecture the president about "illegal acts" and pushing the boundaries of his authority?
The federal judiciary has gone completely rogue and no other entity--Congress or SCOTUS--is willing to stop it. A serious constitutional crisis in progress.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
