Quantcast
Connect with us

Mike Pence killed judicial nomination of former solicitor to cover up his ‘controversial’ tenure as Indiana’s governor: report

Published

on

The former solicitor general who defended the Indiana governor’s policies in court lost his shot at becoming a federal judge after Vice President Mike Pence intervened — to shield his controversial tenure from scrutiny.

The vice president scuttled the nomination process for Tom Fisher, who had defended Pence’s policies when he was Indiana governor, because he didn’t want that period of his political life dragged through his former solicitor’s confirmation hearings, reported Politico.

ADVERTISEMENT

Don McGahn, whose personal mission as White House counsel was packing the courts with younger conservative judges, had a deputy call Judge Michael Kanne in January 2018 and urge him to retire so President Donald Trump could nominate Fisher, the judge’s former clerk, as his successor.

Kanne was amenable to the plan, and notified the president he would take senior status — a type of semi-retirement that would allow him to stay on the bench until the successor was confirmed.

But the plan was quickly snuffed out after Pence’s lawyers, Matt Morgan and Mark Paoletta, and his then-chief of staff Nick Ayers intervened.

Neither McGahn nor his deputies consulted with the vice president’s office before reaching out to Kanne, which irritated Pence and his aides, who were concerned Fisher’s work for the former governor would hurt his future political considerations.

They were particularly concerned about Fisher’s involvement with Pence’s attempt to stop Syrian refugees from settling in Indiana — which was savaged by an appeals court in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The political issues that had been very controversial in Indiana, while Pence was governor, Fisher had also been very involved in because he was solicitor general, and that nomination would reignite those battles,” said a former administration official involved in the failed nomination, “and they could potentially embarrass the vice president.”


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘The country got an education’: Nicolle Wallace explains why impeachment could move public opinion

Published

on

MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace offered her analysis after the day of televised hearings in the impeachment inquiry.

Wallace, who served as White House communications director under President George W. Bush, drew upon her experience as a top Republican strategist.

"Listen, I haven’t spent a nanosecond in a courtroom, but I’ve spent my career in the court of public opinion. And if you look at what the Democrats have set out to do and you look at why this has swung public opinion in a way the Mueller probe never did is that they have laid brick on top of brick on top of brick," Wallace explained.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Room erupts in laughter as Democrat Peter Welch destroys Jim Jordan during impeachment hearing

Published

on

There was a moment of levity four-hours into the first televised hearing in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the bombastic Freedom Caucus member who was added to the committee at the last moment by Republicans, had argued that the White House whistleblower started the scandal.

"There’s one witness, one witness that they won’t bring in front of us, they won’t bring in front of the American people, and that’s the guy who started it all, the whistleblower," Jordan argued.

Unfortunately for the wrestling coach turned politician, Jordan was followed by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT).

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe succinctly debunks Jim Jordan’s defense of Trump

Published

on

Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe debunked the key defense of President Donald Trump that was offered by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) during the first televised hearing in the impeachment inquiry.

Jordan did not address the fact President Donald Trump solicited foreign election interference in violation of federal law, but attempted to debunk the additional charge that there was extortion/bribery.

The Ohio Republican argued that there could not have been a quid pro quo because the aid was eventually released.

But Tribe, who has taught at Harvard Law for half a century and argued three dozen cases before the United States Supreme Court, fact-checked the congressman who never passed the bar exam.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image