Rule of Law

Professor William C. Banks on Spectrum: Election Could Go Off the Rails

Trump, The Blue Shift, and The Legal Aftermath

(Spectrum Capital Tonight | Oct. 1, 2020) For months, President Trump has been laying the groundwork to claim that, if he loses the election, it must be because the election was rigged.

In fact, he said just that in August:

“The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged—remember that. So we have to be very careful. . . The only way they’re (Democrats) going to win is that way. And we can’t let that happen.”

The president is specifically targeting mail-in voting, claiming it’s “dangerous for this country because of cheaters” and that it’s an invitation for fraud …

… William Banks, a professor of law and public affairs at Syracuse University told Capital Tonight, he’s more than a little worried.

“On a scale of one to 10, I’d say my worry is about a nine,” Banks said. “There are several plausible scenarios that could cause this election to go off the rails.”

One scenario? Because of partisan fighting around mail-in ballots, some key states like Pennsylvania or Florida won’t get their votes into the Electoral College by December 14, the date the electors meet and cast their ballots for president and vice president.

Professor Banks explains that if neither candidate gets to 270 electoral votes, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives.

“On January 6, they’re supposed to count the votes. If neither candidate has 270 votes because of the circumstances you just described, there will be 1 vote per state, so 50 potential votes,” Banks explained.

Each state would determine which candidate had won their electoral votes and they would pass that information along to the House.

Under this scenario, the Republicans would be likely winners.

“As things stand now, there are more Republican-controlled states than Democratic-controlled states,” Banks explained …

Read the full article.

 

Professor William C. Banks Comments on FISA Reform for USA Today

A report on FBI surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser shows dysfunction, not political bias. That’s still a problem.

President Donald Trump has used the words spying, political bias, even treason to describe the FBI’s controversial surveillance of a former campaign aide.

“All the politics that surrounded the headlines of this story would rear their ugly head again … It could end up with more amendments to FISA that do more harm than good.”

A massive report released this week by the Justice Department’s watchdog didn’t back up any of those claims. But it did expose errors that hint at systemic problems with how the FBI conducts surveillance on American citizens suspected of working on behalf of foreign powers.

When investigators asked judges for permission to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, they provided documents that didn’t back up their assertions. A supervisor said he didn’t necessarily review the full documents to make sure they supported what the agents claimed, according to the report.

Investigators overstated the reliability of a former British intelligence officer whose information they used to justify the warrants. They described Christopher Steele as someone whose information had previously been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” the report said. That wasn’t true.

These “basic and fundamental errors,” as the report described them, were made by investigators handpicked to work on a case that was sure to be scrutinized. They raise questions about the accuracy of more than 1,000 wiretap applications processed every year under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA …

… During Horowitz’s testimony Wednesday, several Republicans expressed horror at the FISA process, with some suggesting the law needs to be changed.

William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor who studies FISA, said congressional action could further insert politics into a process that should be free of it.

“All the politics that surrounded the headlines of this story would rear their ugly head again,” he said. “It could end up with more amendments to FISA that do more harm than good.”

Aside from the inspector general, who has promised more oversight of the surveillance process, Banks said the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, another independent agency that vets policies and regulations, can review the FISA process.

Still, some say Congress should take action.

“The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government’s secret submissions,” Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

Aftergood agreed.

“This is a case where the existing procedures were not adequate,” he said. “The FBI needs to do some of that. I would say Congress needs to do a lot of it.”

Congress must renew certain provisions of FISA in March. If lawmakers want to rewrite laws in response to the inspector general’s report, that would be the time to do it, Banks said …

Read the full article.

 

Sinclair Speaks to Professor William C. Banks About Horowitz Report, FISA Reform

Amid partisan warfare over Russia probe, lawmakers agree FISA reforms needed

(Sinclair Broadcasting Group | Dec. 12, 2019) The release of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s long-awaited report on the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and its surveillance of a former aide to President Donald Trump’s campaign has fueled a heated partisan debate over the extent to which the 480-page document refuted the president’s claims of a politically-motivated conspiracy to spy on his campaign.

“For many of us who’ve been FISA people for a long time, it came as a surprise and a disappointment.”

But the political theater on Capitol Hill this week threatened to overshadow a central point of Horowitz’s report: that safeguards put in place to protect Americans from inappropriate government surveillance appear to have utterly failed multiple times and need to be fixed …

… Investigators obtained a FISA order to wiretap Page in October 2016 and the permission for surveillance was renewed three times in the following year. Horowitz’s review provided an unusually in-depth look at the applications and the evidence within them, and the results were troubling for national security experts, civil rights advocates, and many members of Congress.

“For many of us who’ve been FISA people for a long time, it came as a surprise and a disappointment,” said William Banks, founding director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism and professor emeritus at Syracuse University.

When concerns have been raised about FISA in the past, proponents have often stressed how thoroughly FISA applications are vetted before they are submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. However, Horowitz identified at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” in the four Page FISA applications …

Read the full article.

 

William C. Banks Comments to China Daily on Impeachment, 2020 Elections

Impeachment Seen as Impacting 2020 Election

(China Daily | Dec. 11, 2019) As the US House Democrats sought on Monday to bolster the case for impeaching President Donald Trump, analysts said the move would have political repercussions on the campaign trail even if the result is “impeached but not removed”.

Trump “constitutes a continuing threat to the integrity of our elections and to our democratic system of government,” Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the panel heard from House Intelligence Committee staff members on their investigation of Trump on Monday.

“Such conduct is clearly impeachable. This committee will proceed accordingly,” said Nadler, a New York Democrat …

… William C. Banks, a Syracuse University College of Law professor, said the scenario that Trump is subjected to a trial and ultimately acquitted may help him politically, but “only time will tell how voters react”.

“For those who believe in the rule of law and the importance of constitutional norms, his impeachment is nonetheless important because it upholds and reinforces the importance of those norms,” Banks said.

Banks, who co-authored National Security Law and the Power of the Purse, a 1994 book about tensions between the executive and legislative branches over security and spending, said there will undoubtedly be an impact on the 2020 campaign.

“Biden is of course central to the Ukraine scandal, and his testimony will be more damning of the president than harmful to Biden,” Banks said.
Banks also said it is impossible to know the immediate repercussions of the impeachment for Democrats in next November’s election.

“Trump continues to have a constant 40 percent approval rating, but given the electoral system, he could win again with less than a majority of votes. It’s too soon to tell,” Banks said …

Read the full article.

 

David M. Crane Publishes “Every Living Thing: Facing Down Terrorists, Warlords, and Thugs in West Africa”

David M. CraneDavid M. Crane L’80, Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence, has published a memoir of his time as Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL). Every Living Thing: Facing Down Terrorists, Warlords, and Thugs in West Africa—A Story of Justice is drawn from Crane’s personal journals and is the first ever detailed account written by a chief prosecutor of an international war crimes tribunal.

Appointed by then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, from 2001 to 2005, Crane—the first American since Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1945 to be named the Chief Prosecutor of an international war crimes tribunal—worked with a team of intrepid investigators to unravel a complicated international legal puzzle. In doing so, he became the only prosecutor in the modern era to take down a sitting head of state for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Set in the ravaged West African country of Sierra Leone, Every Living Thing shows how multiple countries were devastated by an international criminal enterprise led by presidents Muammar Gadhafi of Libya, Charles Taylor of Liberia, and Blasé Compare of Burkina Faso, with an assist from a vast network of terrorists—including Al Qaeda—vying for the control of diamonds.

Following the creation of Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2002, a small band of lawyers, investigators, and paralegals changed the face of international criminal law with their innovative plan to effectively and efficiently deliver justice for the tens of thousands of victims, most of them women and children. Among those Crane indicted was Taylor, the first sitting African head of state to be held accountable in this way. Taylor was found guilty in April 2012 of all 11 charges levied by the SCSL, and he was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Writes Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “In Sierra Leone, David Crane masterfully built up a fully-fledged court, investigating and prosecuting some of the worst cases of international crimes and many of the most notorious war criminals of our era. He brought with him a deep commitment to justice, and genuine empathy for a country and people who had endured unbearable atrocities. The memoirs of this admirable and learned public servant will undoubtedly convey important lessons on how—and why—we must strive to deliver justice for all victims, even in the most challenging circumstances.”

 

William C. Banks Reviews Impeachment Day 2 with KPCC

Impeachment Hearing: Day Two with Marie Yovanovitch

(KPCC Los Angeles | Nov. 15, 2019) On the second day of impeachment hearings, former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House Intelligence Committee.

Yovanovitch was removed from her post in May by what she described as a “smear campaign” by the Trump Administration and the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yurij Lutsenko. Yovanovitch had clashed with Lutsenko over alleged corruption in his department, say Ukrainian officials.

Yovanovitch previously testified to Democrats behind closed doors last month that she was warned to “watch her back,” before being ousted as ambassador. She said that she was the victim of a “campaign of disinformation” by Trump’s allies working through “unofficial back channels.” She attributes her loss of position to her anti-corruption stance. Without sustaining any criticism from the State Department itself, Yovanovitch was removed from office in May.

Republican House members largerly wrote off the relevance of Yovanovitch’s testimony. California Representative Devin Nunes said she “is not a material fact witness.” But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff asserted that by removing Yovanovitch, Trump and his allies had “set the stage for an irregular channel” of foreign policy communication with Ukraine led by Rudy Giuliani to pressure Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and the Democratic Party …

Listen to the segment.

 

Impeachment & Public Opinion: William C. Banks Speaks to China Daily

Public opinion could be telling as impeachment proceedings unfold

(China Daily | Nov. 2, 2019) The impeachment proceedings against US President Donald Trump could shape and sway public opinion and impact the 2020 presidential campaign, analysts said.

The House of Representatives, in a 232-196, mostly party-line vote on Thursday, approved rules for the next, more public, stage in the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry into Trump’s attempt to have Ukraine investigate former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Over the past five weeks, the probe has primarily been shaped by closed-door testimony from several officials who have raised questions about whether Trump and his inner circle withheld nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine in order to pressure Kiev to investigate Trump’s political rivals, thehill.com reported.

The probe focuses on a July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymr Zelenskiy, to investigate Joe Biden, a 2020 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter, who had served as a director for Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings …

… William C. Banks, co-author of National Security Law and the Power of the Purse, a 1994 book about tensions between the executive and legislative branches over security and spending, said that to win a second term, Trump would need the impeachment effort to fail and backfire, showing the Democrats as interested only in partisan victory and not the rule of law.

“If the public impeachment process builds the Ukraine abuse of office case clearly, so that average Americans can see what the president did, it should lead to impeachment and a trial in the Senate,” said Banks, a Syracuse University College of Law professor.

“From there on, everything depends on events that have yet to occur,” he said …

Read the full article.

 

Professor William C. Banks Helps CNN Fact Check “Unconstitutional” Impeachment Claims

(CNN | Oct. 31, 2019) Moments after the House passed a resolution establishing procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, the White House condemned the vote.

In a statement, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that the resolution “fails to provide any due process whatsoever to the Administration,” calling it “unconstitutional.”

Trump echoed his administration’s complaints in an interview with British radio station LBC that aired soon after the vote. Referring to the resolution he said, “They gave us absolutely no rights” …

… William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, told CNN that “some will see the new procedures as providing due process, and there is no harm in that view. As such ‘due process’ is a synonym for ‘fairness.'”

“There is nothing in the Constitution or any law, nor any rules of the House, that prescribes a particular procedure for impeachment proceedings,” Banks added.
The Constitution notes only the basis for impeachment and that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment” while the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”

“The House resolution is not in any way ‘unconstitutional,'” Banks said. “The resolution provides more than is required.”

Read the full article.

 

William C. Banks Reflects on Trump Impeachment for China Daily

Democrats start Trump impeachment probe

(China Daily | Sept. 26, 2019) Republican president calls US House’s drive ‘positive’, yet tweets with fury.

“If the allegations are true, the abuse of power is significant.”

Democrats made their move against US President Donald Trump on Tuesday, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives will open an impeachment inquiry over a phone call Trump had with Ukraine’s president in which former vice-president Joe Biden and his son were reportedly discussed.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Pelosi said after meeting with House Democrats at the Capitol. “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”

The phone conversation was reported to be included in a whistleblower complaint that the Trump administration has not turned over to Congress, although a news report on Tuesday said the White House would release it.

The impeachment probe will center on whether Trump sought help from a foreign government in his bid for reelection next year. Biden is now a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination …

… William C. Banks, a law professor at New York’s Syracuse University, told China Daily: “If the allegations are true, the abuse of power is significant, and many members of Congress will be motivated to conduct impeachment proceedings.” He is the co-author of a 1994 book about tensions between the executive and legislative branches, National Security Law and the Power of the Purse.

As for the impact on the 2020 election, Banks said: “It’s too early to say. It could be the beginning of the end for President Trump, or the proceedings could backfire and propel Trump to reelection” …

Read the full article.

 

William C. Banks: Trump’s Assertion “May Be Unlawful”

(Associated Press | June 13, 2019) An expert in constitutional law tells the Associated Press that President Donald Trump’s assertion that he would be open to accepting a foreign power’s help in his 2020 campaign is not appropriate and “it may be unlawful.”