Patterico's Pontifications

7/21/2017

READER POLL: Would You Support Trump Pardoning Himself?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am



A report in the Washington Post, based on anonymous sources (natch), suggests that Trump is looking into pardons, including even a pardon of himself:

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

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 those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Reports based on anonymous sources are not to be taken at face value until corroborated. But it made me wonder:

If President Trump pardoned himself, would you support that action?

Would you support President Trump pardoning himself?

Yes
No

create surveys

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

219 Responses to “READER POLL: Would You Support Trump Pardoning Himself?”

  1. HELL NO! HE’LL GO!

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  2. He can pardon anyone but his craven self.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  3. I’d be very interested in hearing why someone voted yes to this question…

    Craig (cd2f82)

  4. Trump just emptied his AK-47 on constituents!

    “So?”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  5. i don’t trust washington post fake news propaganda sluts and their anonymous sources

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. Trump eats a live baby!

    “Look how far *not* eating live babies got Bush, McCain and Romney – pass the ketchup!”

    Dave (711345)

  7. Um, you left out a kind of important component of the question: FOR WHAT?

    For some made up, BS Scooty Libby-esque charge? Maybe. For a real crime, like colluding with the Russians to hack the Democrats? No.

    A.S. (23bc66)

  8. Trump shared his ‘Football’s password w/Pootie then they enjoyed a candlelight dinner..

    “ANNNNND..?”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  9. Trump dosen’t need a pardon, winning the presidency is only a criminal offense in the anti-American eyes of our hate-filled establishment media and their violent knuckle dragging leftist brownshirts.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  10. And … for WHAT?

    Better would be to order the AG to fire Mueller for illegally expanding his investigation into a fishing expedition. Spin: “Having been unable to find any wrongdoing in what he was appointed to investigate, he decided to widen the probe in hopes of finding something. I’m not going to allow this crap.”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  11. Um, you left out a kind of important component of the question: FOR WHAT?

    It would be in his interest to leave it as open-ended as possible, like Ford’s pardon of Nixon:

    Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

    Instead of his inauguration day, Trump’s would probably need to go back to his date of birth to be sure he was in the clear…

    Dave (711345)

  12. ie: knuckle dragging brownshirts – two of which are actively displaying their self-loathing projections on this very thread.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  13. ropelight has a ceiling on tolerance for criminals Republican. I’d like to know how much it takes.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  14. “Having been unable to find any wrongdoing in what he was appointed to investigate…”

    Don Jr. confessed a couple weeks ago. Try to keep up.

    Dave (711345)

  15. Yes, absolutely. Because a pardon does not prevent impeachment, and in order for the pardon to have effect he would need to admit to the crimes, and that admission would be enough to impeach him.

    And whichever WaPo reporter came up with this, his sources must have the initials THC, PCP or LSD. It’s too wild a fantasy for Daniels, Walker or Smirnoff.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. I have voted “Yes”.

    1) The charges made,against Trump are about that level of seriousness. That or they went over the top so soon that I lost any patience beforemthey got to some substance.

    2) I voted for Trup because he would be entertaining. Think how entertaing it would be to watch the Usual Suspects losemtheir flaming minds after he pardoned himself.

    3) If we actually has that authority (which I doubt) Imsuspect it’s,something the Left handed of O’jug-ears, in which casemit would serve,them right.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  17. A pardon is an admission of guilt. Better to fire Mueller for conflict of interest and letting his new organization leak.

    Ingot (9e6ea2)

  18. There is little accountability for white collar crime. Especially Executive malfeasance, bribery and corruption. It’s like too many parking tickets..slap on the wrist..YOURE FIRED! No orange jumpsuit. It’s too traumatic for Americans to see the Presidunce behind bars.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  19. I do think the better thing to do would be to take Mueller out of the headlines by prosecuting Hillary. Whatever deal was made with Obama the night of the election, (“Sorry to keep you waiting, folks, complicated business,”) has been abrogated.

    Ingot (f05ab0)

  20. Wow

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  21. I voted for “pardon”.

    And the House/Senate can always Impeach/Convict for removal (before or after the pardon).

    Governor and Presidential Pardons (and commuting sentences, etc.) are highly political (and, can be, corrupt) and short circuit the entire criminal justice/parole system. I would support ending Pardoning. And if “The People” still believe that a method for bypassing judgments, then let the Gov/Pres have the ability to nominal a trial by jury (or similar) through the normal court system where politics/compassion could be raised (or similar non-imperial methods of pardon).

    In the end, I don’t trust any of the un-sourced news. The mainstream news folks have been proven wrong many times with these nebulous sources.

    Just waiting for for actual information/actions and not following TMZ type news.

    BfC (5517e8)

  22. Why would anyone waste any time in contemplation of any thing regarding Trump, “reported” by the Washington Post?

    Phu Bai Phat (f35c80)

  23. What is the correct response to the dirty pool we are witnessing? The constitution is being undermined, without compunction or shame, by an assortment of zealots who demonstrate utter contempt for the voting public and the rule of law. It’s sickening – and frightening – especially since the nation’s top law enforcement agency and agents are playing leading roles. Who can argue with the use of constitutionally ordained presidential powers to counter unconstitutional over-reach?

    Yes. Absolutely, yes. Do what needs to be done.

    I like your response Kevin M.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  24. Turnabout is fair..

    “Trump, embracing the spirit of the “LOCK HER UP” mob chants at his rallies, threatened: “If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation – there has never been so many lies and so much deception,” he threatened.

    He needs Tank Time

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  25. Jeff Sessions has to go! As long as he remains AG, the DoJ’s hands are tied, no indictments touching on treacherous conspiracies to remove an elected president from office can proceed to prosecution.

    And, as every loyal American knows, or should know, those indictments are long over due: justice delayed is justice denied.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  26. Pattericos potty-shaming on the last poll worked on the rhinohides..bringing his estimate of Doomwankers down to 60% from 80.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  27. Mueller ‘demands’ without subpoena?

    Wtf?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  28. Gawd. Spicer resigns..now it’s Huckabeast 24/7

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  29. He doesn’t get to beg our pardon. He promised us a rose garden!

    Tillman (a95660)

  30. That is correct, Ben. In this age of body positivity (the “great personality” of the 21st century), Huck-Sand has a vice-grip on that gig for the forseeable future.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  31. She’s reason enough to hate the amiable Evangelical sperm donor.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  32. Why would anyone waste any time in contemplation of any thing regarding Trump, “reported” by the Washington Post?

    True, very true, and this is even below their usual level of twatwaffling mendouchiousness.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. Pardon me. If it makes people go bat crap crazy, by all means pardon everybody.

    mg (31009b)

  34. Mendouchious twatwaffling?

    nk (dbc370)

  35. hucky huck has proven herself to be capable and adroit

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. WAPO? CNN?

    How about Runes or petroglyphs?

    Ok, then Fox, Breibart and Alex Jones

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  37. Let’s hope Spicer sings like a canary…

    Dave (711345)

  38. Townhall reporting that Spicer’s resignation was in protest over the hiring of Scaramucchi as WH Communications Director.

    They say Reince is royally pissed about it too.

    Between them, those two must know where at least a few of the bodies are buried, so stay tuned…

    Dave (711345)

  39. AP fake news propaganda slut Julie Pace says it’s all good in the hood

    Reince puts a positive spin on the situation, tells @AP he supports Scaramucci “100 percent.” Says it’s “all good here.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  40. It seems they are pulling a delay/mcdonnell/ Stevens play.

    Looking around I see that Wilmer hale has a,lot of business with Qatar which in turn has a lot of activity in Syria Libya and yemen, not to mention northern eurabia

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. I’m willing to cut a deal here: he can pardon whomever the hell he wants in his Administration, but in return he agrees not to run for reelection in 2020 and to vex us no longer evermore. If he decides to pardon himself too, he has to immediately resign.

    JVW (42615e)

  42. READER POLL: Would You Support Trump Pardoning Himself?

    Let’s ask Spicer. Oh, wait– what’s with the parachute, Sean?

    Aufviedesein Hess. Willkomen Gobbels!

    “Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome… Im Cabaret, au Cabaret, to Cabaret!” – The Master Of Ceremonies [Joel Grey] ‘Cabaret’ 1972

    ___________

    Today’s Beldar the Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words of Wonder:

    “Well, one hell of a lot of people don’t give one goddamn about this issue of suppression of the press, and so forth.” – President Nixon discussing pressuring media outlets covering Watergate with John Dean, secret White House Oval Office tapes, February 28, 1973

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. It wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out that Reince has been leaking to the #NeverTrumpers all along, who of course immediately inform the media’s most vicious guttersnipes.

    I’ve never thought Reince had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Old Dragons running the GOP establishment. They oppose the upstart Trump Administration every bit as much as the pinko Dems and their dirty rotten commie rat fellow travelers.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  44. Has Donald EVAH! been held accountable, financially or otherwise?

    Is age 70 too late?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  45. It’s the same crew handing out the fruity pebbles to mensch.

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. DCSCA (797bc0) — 7/21/2017 @ 10:00 am

    “We created an echo chamber. They [the allegedly independent experts of the Iran deal] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” — Ben Rhodes, New York Magazine, May 2016.

    JVW (42615e)

  47. The Ledger is all black. Can he steal the $10b in time?

    https://www.wired.com/story/trump-2020-campaign-money

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  48. Trump pardoning his election team, on general principal, would further shatter the shattered. As Ms. Stewart says “that’s a good thing”.

    gbear (c97ba2)

  49. So what is the solution to a sham charge

    http://www.hoover.org/research/americas-media-meltdown

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. I’m eager to see if #NeverTrumpers are more interested in indulging their hate or standing up for the rule of law. I can guess.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  51. Thor, that article is terrible.

    What on God’s green Earth do the 2013 Miss Universe pageant or Trump’s sale of a house in 2008 have to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election? Nothing.

    Hinderaker admits the people who made that $20 million payment also set up the meeting with the Russians regarding using Hillary’s emails to impact the 2016 election. That’s not “nothing.” The sale of the house is also a transparent payoff.

    Hinderaker says he deserves no credibility even though Mueller is one of the most respected law enforcement investigators in the country, with a stellar reputation. Hinderaker can’t name any misconduct Mueller has committed. He’s mad that Trump is crying Uncle over the most basic step of investigating a serious crime (follow the money).

    And now Trump is testing the waters on a pardon. You know who doesn’t need a pardon? Innocent people. Pardons are for the guilty. Trump has a history of doing wrong, making close deals with the mafia, hurting the weak, and escaping accountability with lawfare, bankruptcy, lies. Now he’s considering pardoning himself? What a national embarrassment.

    Powerlineblog, like Aceofspades, is too desperate to lift up a criminal operation. They put the country behind the party, and they have the reputation they deserve.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  52. I’m eager to see if #NeverTrumpers are more interested in indulging their hate or standing up for the rule of law. I can guess.

    ThOR (c9324e) — 7/21/2017 @ 10:32 am

    You sound like the hater to me. Why do you keep up this bizarre rant at these ‘nevertrumpers’? Do they live in your closet? Under your bed at night? Mueller’s authority to follow the money in this investigation is wholly lawful. Trump’s effort to obstruct him are probably not.

    At the end of the day, Trump did this to himself, and the accountability for his behavior has nothing to do with ‘nevertrumpers’. Stop projecting. Trump’s critics simply believe no one is above the law. That’s not hate.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  53. You sound like the hater to me.

    omg you are so summer bummer

    Mr. Trump is awesome!

    He’s a good man. I can’t even imagine where we’d be if that maladroit harvardtrash bozo Ted Cruz had won. Probably knee-deep in 5 wars and sick of looking at his butt-ugly face.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  54. The more appropriate question is:

    Should Pence pardon Trump?

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  55. The Supreme Court had a ruling years ago that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. Obviously attempting to give yourself one, whether you go through with it or not, is also an admission of guilt. Otherwise, Trump would have confidence he would be vindicated in a court of law, like the rest of America’s citizens who disagree with their charges.

    Time for the GOP to say enough.

    Ben, interesting link. Trump’s association with American and eastern european crime families is one of the major reasons I predicted he had no shot of beating Hillary. I did not predict he could actually leverage those connections into tampering with our election. Before Trump’s fans get angry that I’m pointing this fact out: Trump already admitted he did it. That’s what a pardon means. He’s guilty.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  56. Should Pence pardon Trump?

    AZ Bob

    Yes, I think that would be much more appropriate and it would be better for the country. And our nation would be so much better off with Pence in charge. Pence might even begin appointing his government and working to pass legislation, make deals across groups of Senators, etc. Long past time.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  57. Should Pence? Ya think?

    If his purity buns are toast…should Ryan? Pecking order of co-conspirators drips down to McTurtle…whos next?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  58. so lying criminal pig-skeezer Susan Rice testified in front of the sleazy senate trash today

    i wonder if they put her under oath

    that would be very quixotic huh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. Thanks Dustin, but afraid I am a hater to 10th power.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  60. I think a case could be made that pardoning Trump is in the nation’s best interest. If Trump had resigned and Pence was trying to get the nation back on track. Remember, it still means he’s considered guilty.

    But Trump talking about pardoning himself and his kids (of course these are leaks, so we have to employ a grain of salt) implies he would not resign. There would be no justice. Pardoning one’s self in a matter regarding elections, and keeping the office? That would be really bad for our country.

    I just realized that Trump’s being defending over talking about pardoning his own daughter… and the defense is that Mueller has a conflict of interest. Amazing how twisted this saga has made the GOP. Trump has done you guys no favors. You’re not getting much for the steep price.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  61. Don Jr. confessed a couple weeks ago. Try to keep up.

    To something that is in no way a crime. He took a meeting, and nothing came of it.

    I confess to eating tacos last night. Arrest me!

    Kevin M (752a26)

  62. The premise of the question is faulty. The President has not been convicted of a crime, because no crime exists for which he can be convicted. In order to be convicted of a crime, there would actually have to be a crime committed that we could all point to.

    For example, if Trump were to be convicted of murdering a person, there would first be a murder. Then a court would have to convict Trump of it. There are plenty of unsolved murders in places where Trump has been, I concede; but so far none have been connected to Trump.

    At the moment, there are no crimes that anyone can point to that can plausibly be connected to Trump.

    But the poll is excellent for trolling the commenters, certainly.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  63. I do think the better thing to do would be to take Mueller out of the headlines by prosecuting Hillary

    Or appointing independent counsel to investigate the Foundation, and ask the DoJ to reopen the case on mishandling classified information.

    Also, several another independent counsel to look at Obama’s IRS games, Fast & Furious, and the unauthorized expenditure of treasury funds.

    And hope they all leak.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  64. I’m eager to see if #NeverTrumpers are more interested in indulging their hate or standing up for the rule of law. I can guess.

    With me, it’s more practical. Impeaching a president over High Crimes is one thing. Over things that aren’t crimes is quite another. I would prefer Pence as president, but only slightly because he’s a different direction of unfortunate. But not this way. Amendment 25 based on some mental deterioration would be better. Stepping down for medical reasons would be ideal.

    But I have no more love for Social Morality Warriors like Pence than I have for SJWs.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  65. That toggle switch is never on, Kevin, good riddAnce to cirallo he can go back to fracking for Lebanese warlords who looted Nigeria

    narciso (4b9c9a)

  66. careful what you wish for

    these are the best days we’ve had in America in so long

    cherish them that’s my advice

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. Even if we had a videotape of Mr Trump handing Vladimir Putin a million dollars in cash for damaging information on Hillary Clinton, that would not be a crime! It is perfectly legal to buy information, and American companies do it all the time; that’s where all of these idiotic sales calls originate.

    Donald Trump and his campaign used every means at their disposal to win the election, which was the right thing to do; in an election, there are no points for second place.

    That Mr Trump is personally a scumbag not not take away from the fact that he saved the United States from a far worse fate: Hillary Clinton as President.

    The realistic Dana (2f144f)

  68. Pence might even begin appointing his government

    The Senate is slow-walking every under-cabinet and judicial appointment. Every delay and dilatory tactic possible is being used. Obama had 90% of his under-cabinet appointments passed on a voice vote. Almost none of these for Trump.

    Yes, it’s going slow, but the sabotage of the government by the Democrats in the Senate is a large part of it.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  69. Incidentally, are people here under the impression that a pardon can cancel a removal from office due to impeachment?

    Because if a President were to pardon himself for a crime, impeachment would surely follow. And I am not a lawyer, but in order to convict a sitting President of a crime I’m pretty sure he would first have to be impeached and the Senate vote to remove him from office–I’m not sure anyone knows what would have to happen.

    But in practice if there were that much evidence that a sitting President would be convicted of a crime, I would imagine the removal from office would take place long before the guilty verdict, whether or not removal from office would be required first.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  70. @Kevin M:I confess to eating tacos last night. Arrest me!

    Ok. You are now being charged for mail fraud.

    @realistic Dana:Even if we had a videotape of Mr Trump handing Vladimir Putin a million dollars in cash for damaging information on Hillary Clinton, that would not be a crime!

    It would be mail fraud.

    But here’s the thing: under our legal system, until evidently just now, it is not legal to investigate people in the hopes of uncovering some sort of crime that no one yet knows about.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  71. Yes, it’s going slow, but the sabotage of the government by the Democrats in the Senate is a large part of it.

    Kevin M

    Kevin, if I recall correctly, you have complained about how Trump has not appointed so many of these positions yet. Indeed he’s leaving Obama folks in a lot of powerful spots. Now we’re complaining that those damn democrats are holding things up?

    Not to mention, didn’t the GOP hold up a Supreme Court vacancy for a year? Now it’s bad to do that? It gets a little tiresome seeing both sides do the same things, switching back and forth between the same complaints, with the loyal partisans on each side switching from shaking their heads to nodding, every few years. Just gets tiresome.

    if we had a videotape of Mr Trump handing Vladimir Putin a million dollars in cash for damaging information on Hillary Clinton, that would not be a crime!

    What if the damaging information was classified, obtained by unlawfully circumventing security on a computer and human engineering including impersonation fraud? What if the arrangement wasn’t just for cash, but for foreign policy and to conceal the identity of the perpetrators of the hack, in exchange for maximizing the election impact and even hiding damaging information about the GOP side?

    At any rate, as much fun as it is to discuss whether there’s a crime, we’ve moved past that. If Trump is looking into pardoning himself, he is guilty. This is Supreme Court precedent for over a century. Accepting a pardon is considered guilt. Trump wanting to give himself one is just more egregious, but obviously still guilt. He has himself to blame for his actions leading to this place where he is crying uncle as soon as he learns that Mueller took that insane and unprecedented step of following the money.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  72. That Mr Trump is personally a scumbag not not take away from the fact that he saved the United States from a far worse fate: Hillary Clinton as President.

    But look at what we’re missing. Instead of Trump’s SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch, we could be enjoying the brilliance of a handicapped, Hispanic, transsexual moslem. But happyfeet is right, these are the best day’s in America but that’s soon over. The left cabal has spent 9 months 24/7 using the media, the arts, celebrities, TV, comedy, academia, teachers, preachers and all of their elite millionaire puppeteers to rail against Trump. That much propaganda and one sided *narrative* has to be having an effect. We have learned that if the left ever looses it will drag down the country. They hate America anyway so I suppose if they’re not in charge it’s intolerable.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  73. @Dustin:What if the damaging information was classified,

    Like what all the government employees leaking against Trump have been doing.

    If Trump is looking into pardoning himself, he is guilty.

    Of what crime? Or is he just generally guilty of everything and anything that could potentially be a crime?

    Assuming these anonymously-sourced leaks are true, he couldn’t even be “looking into it” as an abstract exercise in determining the limits of the power of his office? He must as a matter of logic be absolutely 100% guilty of crimes which you can’t even say what they are, when they were to have occurred, what the act was, and who were the participants?

    Really?

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  74. No. Congress would likely view that as an abuse of power and voila, right back into the fire POTUS would go where the case for impeachment would be stronger.

    Provocative question – bad idea – unlikely to be under serious consideration even by a POTUS like Trump.

    crazy (11d38b)

  75. @crazy:unlikely to be under serious consideration even by a POTUS like Trump.

    Hey, when have leaks from anonymous sources steered us wrong before?

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  76. @74. Sorry Frederick. Didn’t see your post or intentionally step on your point.

    crazy (11d38b)

  77. But here’s the thing: under our legal system, until evidently just now, it is not legal to investigate people in the hopes of uncovering some sort of crime that no one yet knows about.

    Frederick (64d4e1) — 7/21/2017 @ 11:38 am

    LOL this is absurd and hilarious.

    But more to the point: you’re making an assertion that Mueller has no specific leads or crimes in mind just because he’s keeping his mouth shut. The talking point is that following the money is some absurd fishing expedition but it is not… it’s common sense and any investigator as respected as Mueller had every intention of doing this from day one. Trump’s reaction, to draw a red line around the issue, comes across as obstruction of justice (that’s a crime that Mueller may be investigating, in case you really needed one named). Trump looking into pardoning himself is a red flag that he doesn’t think he would be vindicated in a court of law.

    And what possible moral justification would he have to pardon himself? That he’s the president? That he’s above the law? Honestly the GOP needs to move forward with Pence now.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  78. He must as a matter of logic be absolutely 100% guilty

    Not as a matter of logic, Frederick, as a matter of law.

    If Trump goes through with this, pardoning himself, he is guilty. That’s simply how pardons have worked in America for over a century. If Trump believes himself to be innocent, he should not accept the pardon (or give himself the pardon… same thing).

    Also, there’s no question that the emails had classified intel on them. That’s one of the reasons Hillary was unacceptable for the presidency, remember?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  79. at this point i think all our thuggy FBI coward-trash know the FBI brand is irretrievable crap so they might as well go Full Gestapo

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. @Dustin:LOL this is absurd and hilarious.

    This says a lot more about you than about me.

    obstruction of justice

    Name the act, the time, the participants. What was done to obstruct justice?

    Trump looking into pardoning himself

    But you don’t know if this happened. You know that a reporter said someone said it happened.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  81. @81. Exactly. Normally you would think the first time POTUS would be thinking about his power to pardon would be when reviewing candidates for clemency or pardon that had worked their way through DOJ to the WH but we live in interesting times so it’s not shocking for the WH to be thinking about this stuff. Hopefully, POTUS will be wise in using it but then with Trump all things are unpredictable.

    crazy (11d38b)

  82. @Dustin:If Trump goes through with this, pardoning himself, he is guilty

    MOVE those goalposts! This is what you said that I criticized:

    “If Trump is looking into pardoning himself, he is guilty.”

    This is what you say now:

    “If Trump goes through with this, pardoning himself, he is guilty”

    and I don’t dispute it.

    I would appreciate you answering my real point, not the one you invented for me–alternatively you can repudiate your statement “If Trump is looking into pardoning himself, he is guilty.”

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  83. Frederick, calm down. For someone who is so upset about ‘your real point’ and moving the goalposts, you sure were fast to rephrase my comments.

    He must as a matter of logic be absolutely 100% guilty

    I didn’t say this. You said this. I explained my point. Trump’s trying to give himself something that would mean he is guilty. He’s not sitting at a table asking himself if he should accept some other president’s pardon, which would be a choice to admit guilt. He’s actually trying to give himself one. so in my opinion he is clearly guilty.

    Name the act, the time, the participants. What was done to obstruct justice?

    This is even more hysterical, Frederick. Trump fired Comey specifically over ‘the russia thing’. He specifically drew a red line around Mueller following the money in his investigation. He specifically is angry that Sessions recused himself and is unable to interfere with this investigation. He tweeted to Sally Yates before her testimony in a clear effort to thwart what she was going to say. The acts as numerous.

    This says a lot more about you than about me.

    No, it says something about both of us. That I’m aware that it is not unlawful to audit something with no specific crime in mind, and that you’re not aware of this.

    Anyway, you’ve been very hysterical and if you keep it up I’m just going to ignore you. Life’s too short. So simmer down. Trump’s guilty if he’s really looking into about pardoning himself, period. He’s a disgrace. His supporters who really didn’t see this coming can just admit their error, or they can be hacks and defend a man who would hold himself above the law. No skin off my nose either way, but I still think you shouldn’t let this upset you so much.

    Surely you knew Trump was a serial fraud, tied to the mafia, boasting about groping women, and basically an all around scumbag, right? It’s not a bad thing that he’s approaching some version of accountability.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  84. POTUS will be wise in using it but then with Trump all things are unpredictable.

    crazy

    I think SWC has a good suggestion, if he meant it as one. JWC too. Pence pardoning Trump after Trump resigns would make sense. If Trump wants a pardon (wants to use his power to criminal justice), the price should be that he’s no longer in charge of federal law enforcement.

    What a triumph this week has been for Robert Mueller and James Comey! I hope we can put politics aside and recognize that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  85. @Dustin:He must as a matter of logic be absolutely 100% guilty. I didn’t say this. You said this.

    I phrased it as a question to you. What is he “guilty” OF?

    Trump’s trying to give himself something that would mean he is guilty.

    Wait a second. You said “accepting” a pardon is evidence of guilt. No dispute here.

    But now you say “trying to give himself” would mean he is guilty. So, which is it? Because “trying” or “looking into” is not “accepting”.

    If you are arguing in good faith, then you are not running motte-and-bailey by exploiting ambiguity in what you are saying. So, which is it? Did you mean “accepting” a pardon or “giving himself” a pardon is evidence of guilt, which no one disputes? Or did you mean “looking into” or “trying to give himself” is evidence of guilt, as a matter of law, which is not actually true? Please say one or the other is the one you really meant.

    Glad to talk about the other things after you have clarified which statement you intended.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  86. @Dustin:I still think you shouldn’t let this upset you so much.

    Kindly refrain from unjustified speculation about my emotional state. It’s a flavor of ad hominem and I don’t tolerate it, and it’s just tone trolling. I’m sure you are not a troll, and will not act like one.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  87. Wait a second. You said “accepting” a pardon is evidence of guilt. No dispute here.

    But now you say “trying to give himself” would mean he is guilty. So, which is it? Because “trying” or “looking into” is not “accepting”.

    I have patiently explained this to you twice. Your rapid fire hysterical replies suggest you’re barely reading the comments before replying. If Trump is trying to give himself the pardon, he is guilty because if anyone accepts one, they are guilty as a matter of law. It’s an argument against himself, and therefore has credibility, unlike almost everything from Trump. If you would calm down and just re-read my first couple of comments, you’ll see I explained this already, and then again, and now again.

    Kindly refrain from unjustified speculation about my emotional state.

    No. You’re being nasty while also being thin skinned. I do not care what you wish to tolerate. I will continue to say what I want whether you wish to tolerate it or not. You can always leave if you continue to be this upset about it.

    Suggestion: slow down. Try to understand and learn from my comments before you decide they must be wrong because I’m critical of Trump.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  88. @Dustin: If Trump is trying to give himself the pardon, he is guilty because if anyone accepts one, they are guilty as a matter of law.

    You are equating then the intention and the action, and this is illegitimate.

    Your rapid fire hysterical replies

    Okay, now you’re doubling down on the emotional speculation. I have politely asked you to stop injecting speculation on my emotions–you have no evidence for what they are. You have refused, and escalated, and I will not engage you further.

    before you decide they must be wrong because I’m critical of Trump.before you decide they must be wrong because I’m critical of Trump.

    More assumptions.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  89. @Dustin: I’m not letting this go by:

    before you decide they must be wrong because I’m critical of Trump.

    This is a smear. I think you are wrong because you said something I believe to be wrong. It has nothing to do with whether you are critical of Trump. I am critical of Trump myself.

    I will not let this smear pass. You can apologize if you like, or not, but I will not let it stand without comment. This is the partisan reasoning our host decries and takes commenters to task for.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  90. Frederick, what are your criticisms of Trump?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  91. @89 I’ll play along in the spirit of non-partisanship you suggest but don’t appear to practice consistently. The conspiratorial “plea deal” you’re suggesting would be the first article of impeachment drawn up against President Pence likely before sundown on his first day in office.

    If Mueller conducts a lawful and professional investigation the public will support it. Thus far he appears to have strayed far from the original counter-intel probe that had wide support which in the end will be just as a big a problem for him as many think it to be for Trump.

    crazy (11d38b)

  92. @Dustin:Frederick, what are your criticisms of Trump?

    A BS artist and a crony capitalist, the worst manifestation of our celebrity culture. That Trump is guilty of some moral failings does not mean he is guilty of any other in particular, or that the special prosecutor investigation is right to do all it is doing.

    Now we have that out of the way, as I said, you can apologize for your smear, or not. But unless you do I won’t engage you further. I have been civil and substantive, and you have responded with ad hominems and escalated them.

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  93. A BS artist and a crony capitalist, the worst manifestation of our celebrity culture. That Trump is guilty of some moral failings does not mean he is guilty of any other in particular, or that the special prosecutor investigation is right to do all it is doing.

    Now we have that out of the way, as I said, you can apologize for your smear, or not. But unless you do I won’t engage you further. I have been civil and substantive, and you have responded with ad hominems and escalated them.

    Frederick (64d4e1) — 7/21/2017 @ 12:56 pm

    Please do not engage me further. Keep your promise. You’ve been nasty and thin skinned and it’s annoying to explain myself repeatedly to a troll.

    See ya!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  94. Fredrick, Dustin is a long time commenter here with a pretty extensive record of not only reasonable opinions but also demonstrated personal integrity, except when it comes to Donald J Trump, then he’s crazy as a sh*t house rat.

    When Trump is the topic, he’s every bit as unhinged as Rosie O’Donald, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the other whack jobs spewing unfiltered animosity.

    Check him out on any other topic and you wouldn’t think it was the same guy.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  95. I voted no because he’d be admitting to a crime he hasn’t committed.

    I’d also vote for him to fire and campaign again all the people that are trumping up false charges against him as well as using lawfare against them like they do against us.

    NJRob (92060f)

  96. Yes. Trump has that Pastoral influence on human beans. It’s a divine gift.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  97. yes yes Mr. Trump is magnificent.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Happy, full Gestapo is pattycake, go full Muslim cop, and I’m talking about the Turkish one from December, not the skinny from Minny.

    urbanleftbehind (6f5dbb)

  99. Fredrick, belay my #99. I just read Dustin’s #37 on the Spicer thread. He’s gone so far off the deep end he reminds me of Beldar during the primeries.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  100. except when it comes to Donald J Trump, then he’s crazy as a sh*t house rat.

    Hey, I laughed!

    But anyway, I don’t want to discuss Trump with someone who is that thin skinned in his defense. It sounds like misery. My views on Trump have aged very well. He’s doing about as poorly as I thought he would, and I don’t think there’s anything crazy about my view that a man without integrity, who has boasted of harming others, is not suitable for high office. Can’t stand the guy and never pretended otherwise.

    I voted no because he’d be admitting to a crime he hasn’t committed.

    NJRob gets it. If Trump pardons himself, he’s guilty as a matter of law. If he’s asking lawyers if he has the power to do it, he sure looks guilty as hell to me already.

    Don’t agree about the lawfare part. Trump should instead open his books up, not just to Mueller, but to you and me. He should start with his tax returns, which he promised to release and then reneged on this promise. He should shine light on his finances, and be transparent. Of course we all know why he won’t be able to do this, but he should.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  101. i just worry that people are gonna get disillusioned Mr. ulb

    the corrupt sleazy FBI’s behaving so shamelessly

    they’re not accountable

    they still haven’t answered whether or not Fusion GPS was on their payroll

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. I just read Dustin’s #37 on the Spicer thread. He’s gone so far off the deep end he reminds me of Beldar during the primeries.

    ropelight (a7d89c) — 7/21/2017 @ 1:56 pm

    About Hannity? Yeah, I’m really out of line there to quote him lying, while falsely claiming Tapper is lying, and pointing out I dislike that sort of projection and gaslighting.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  103. If Trump pardons himself, he’s guilty as a matter of law.

    that’s not even true

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  104. Excellent related article today by David French:

    Call me pessimistic, but we’re moving toward a political reality where GOP silence and loyal GOP defenses may lead Trump to believe he can do virtually anything and escape accountability. The GOP is enabling his worst instincts. After all, Democratic rage is meaningless to him, and he relishes conflict with the “fake news”–peddling mainstream media. Because of its current capitulations, the GOP may find itself facing a president truly out of control, willing to do or say anything to escape meaningful scrutiny or accountability.

    Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think we’re “moving toward” that reality, I think we’re already living in it.

    Dave (711345)

  105. #107, lightweight self-anointed psudo conservatives inexplicably and invariably que up to kiss Bill Buckley’s pompous rear end, and have for years.

    Buckley’s over-the-top panoply of pretentious mannerisms mark him as the single most affected talking head on TV, and that’s quite an infamous distinction given the high level of competition.

    However, when Buckley’s son can call Buckley’s nephew, and claim some imaginary birthright to put the kibosh on an award alredy approved and announced it demonstrates the tedious presumptions of the father have been eclipsed by the rising son.

    ropelight (a7d89c)

  106. @66, re: Don Jr. confession

    To something that is in no way a crime. He took a meeting, and nothing came of it.

    Conspiracy to commit a crime is, itself, a crime. From Findlaw.com:

    A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law.

    In particular, note that the crime of conspiracy does not require the planned crime to actually be consummated, but only an overt act in furtherance of the crime (in this case, the meeting).

    Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign director all conspired to violate the election laws of the United States by accepting something of value from a foreign government on behalf of his campaign. Trump Sr. was almost certainly also involved in the criminal conspiracy.

    Dave (711345)

  107. I voted yes, and if vehemently offended Congress can impeach him over it, or he can be voted out of office in 2020.

    My reason for voting yes is that the government cannot function with a President who has an Inspector Javert chasing him.

    I think the current circumstances capture perfectly the warning from Scalia in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson.

    I’d be curious to know if the Weekly Standard still believes that was Scalia’s best opinion ever like they wrote after his death in 2016.

    From Scalia’s dissent:

    Mr. Olson may or may not be guilty of a crime; we do not know. But we do know that the investigation of him has been commenced, not necessarily because the President or his authorized subordinates believe it is in the interest of the United States, in the sense that it warrants the diversion of resources from other efforts, and is worth the cost in money and in possible damage to other governmental interests; and not even, leaving aside those normally considered factors, because the President or his authorized subordinates necessarily believe that an investigation is likely to unearth a violation worth prosecuting;

    To repeat, Article II, 1, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides:

    “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”
    As I described at the outset of this opinion, this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power. It seems to me, therefore, that the decision of the Court of Appeals invalidating the present statute must be upheld on fundamental separation-of-powers principles if the following two questions are answered affirmatively: (1) Is the conduct of a criminal prosecution (and of an investigation to decide whether to prosecute) the exercise of purely executive power? (2) Does the statute deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power?

    In what other sense can one identify “the executive Power” that is supposed to be vested in the President (unless it includes everything the Executive Branch is given to do) except by reference to what has always and everywhere – if conducted by government at all – been conducted never by the legislature, never by the courts, and always by the executive. There is no possible doubt that the independent counsel’s functions fit this description. She is vested with the “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice [and] the Attorney General.” 28 U.S.C. 594(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). Governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 138 (1976); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974).

    As for the second question, whether the statute before us deprives the President of exclusive control over that quintessentially executive activity: The Court does not, and could not possibly, assert that it does not. That is indeed the whole object of the statute. Instead, the Court points out that the President, through his Attorney General, has at least some control… I cannot refrain from pointing out that the Court greatly exaggerates the extent of that “some” Presidential control. “Most importan[t]” among these controls, the Court asserts, is the Attorney General’s “power to remove the counsel for `good cause.'” Ante, at 696. …. “it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another, cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will.” Id., at 629. What we in Humphrey’s Executor found to be a means of eliminating Presidential control, the Court today considers the “most importan[t]” means of assuring Presidential control. Congress, of course, operated under no such illusion when it enacted this statute, describing the “good cause” limitation as “protecting the independent counsel’s ability to act independently of the President’s direct control” since it permits removal only for “misconduct.” H. R. Conf. Rep. 100-452, p. 37 (1987).

    The case is over when the Court acknowledges, as it must, that “[i]t is undeniable that the Act reduces the amount of control or supervision that the Attorney General and, through him, the President exercises over the investigation and prosecution of a certain class of alleged criminal activity.” Ante, at 695. It effects a revolution in our constitutional jurisprudence for the Court, once it has determined that (1) purely executive functions are at issue here, and (2) those functions have been given to a person whose actions are not fully within the supervision and control of the President, nonetheless to proceed further to sit in judgment of whether “the President’s need to control the exercise of [the independent counsel’s] [487 U.S. 654, 709] discretion is so central to the functioning of the Executive Branch” as to require complete control, ante, at 691 (emphasis added), whether the conferral of his powers upon someone else “sufficiently deprives the President of control over the independent counsel to interfere impermissibly with [his] constitutional obligation to ensure the faithful execution of the laws,” ante, at 693 (emphasis added), and whether “the Act give[s] the Executive Branch sufficient control over the independent counsel to ensure that the President is able to perform his constitutionally assigned duties,” ante, at 696 (emphasis added). It is not for us to determine, and we have never presumed to determine, how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control of the President. The Constitution prescribes that they all are.

    We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecution of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States.

    Is it unthinkable that the President should have such exclusive power, even when alleged crimes by him or his close associates are at issue? No more so than that Congress should have the exclusive power of legislation, even when what is at issue is its own exemption from the burdens of certain laws. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (prohibiting “employers,” not defined to include the United States, from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). No more so than that this Court should have the exclusive power to pronounce the final decision on justiciable cases and controversies, even those pertaining to the constitutionality of a statute reducing the salaries of the Justices. See United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 211 -217 (1980). A system of separate and coordinate powers necessarily involves an acceptance of exclusive power that can theoretically be abused. As we reiterate this very day, “[i]t is a truism that constitutional protections have costs.” Coy v. Iowa, post, at 1020. While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty. [487 U.S. 654, 711] The checks against any branch’s abuse of its exclusive powers are twofold: First, retaliation by one of the other branch’s use of its exclusive powers: Congress, for example, can impeach the executive who willfully fails to enforce the laws; the executive can decline to prosecute under unconstitutional statutes, cf. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946); and the courts can dismiss malicious prosecutions. Second, and ultimately, there is the political check that the people will replace those in the political branches (the branches more “dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” Federalist No. 78, p. 465) who are guilty of abuse.

    shipwreckedcrew (03134f)

  108. Dave — your huge assumption is that “information” is a “thing of value” under the campaign finance laws. I do not think that interpretation ever holds up under the First Amendment right to free speech and right to association. Nor does it hold up against a “void for vagueness” claim.

    Its a HUGE reach by Trump’s opponents, and a legal LOL claim.

    shipwreckedcrew (03134f)

  109. @111. Manafort, Trump Jr. to Be Interviewed, Won’t Testify at Senate Hearing

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/manafort-trump-jr-be-interviewed-won-t-testify-senate-hearing-n785471

    “Never mind what I told you! I’m telling you!!” – Captain Morton [James Cagney] ‘Mister Roberts’ 1955

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. Dave @ 111. If you voluntarily terminate, or withdraw from, the conspiracy before the substantive crime is committed, you’re free and clear.

    nk (dbc370)

  111. Just in passing, peculiar legal arguments. “Information” has value; if not, why the hell do we pay for it in various forms and mediums. Information is power; which has value as well.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. Some information has value, but not all. That ought to be obvious.

    kishnevi (0dce2b)

  113. @112:

    Morrison v. Olson concerned the Independent Counsel statute, which is not even on the books any more. You obviously know this – what relevance do Scalia’s objections to it have? Mueller was duly appointed by an acting cabinet official nominated by the president.

    @113:

    Campaigns pay untold millions of dollars to conduct and collect opposition research and other forms of actionable information. To claim it is not a thing of value seems ludicrous to me. Don Jr. seemed absolutely convinced that what he sought had great value. And it was explicitly described and understood by all as a gift from the Russian government. Hard to believe that half of the caporegimes in TrumpWorld would make time for something inconsequential and valueless, isn’t it?

    If the Russians had shipped armies of “volunteers” to the US to work on GOTV or fundraising, would you claim that was protected by the right of association too? After all, anyone is free to walk into an office and start accepting instructions without pay.

    For that matter, if you’re right, I guess running phone-banks for Trump straight out of Moscow would also be fine and dandy.

    Far from being vague, I think the prohibition on accepting gifts from foreign governments is a bright line rule. If the lawful origin of a gift can’t be documented as required, it cannot be accepted. Period.

    But we are far from any edge-cases here. If somebody tells you “foreign government X wants to give your campaign a very valuable gift as part of its efforts to help you win the election,” and your response is “Hell yes! Let’s make it happen!”, isn’t it sophistry to deny the law has been violated, and violated flagrantly?

    Dave (711345)

  114. First, the minor question of “value”. Sure, info has value. But we don’t deal with that “value” under campaign finance laws. Just like words have value, but we don’t credit endorsements, testimonies, speeches, or even publicly released videos as “a thing of value”. If they were, every time Hillary gave a speech for a political benefactor, they’d have to count that as a $200,000+ “donation”.

    When most of the cast of west wing filmed a piece for Hillary — how much would you have to pay those 8 actors to show up at a studio, and do that shoot? That’s the “value”, but we don’t count that as a “thing of value”.

    This is the first time we’ve discussed “oppo info” as a “thing of value”, and the reason is we are trying to find something that needs to be “investigated”.

    Second, I apologize for the harshness, but anybody saying “Trump is Guilty” if he is asking whether he can pardon himself is stupid. Even if you accept the premise that “accepting a pardon” is an admission of guilt, wondering if you HAVE PARDON POWER clearly is not, it’s the wrong side of the equation.

    It is possible he could write a pardon for himself, without ever “accepting” it. That was the convo with the Nixon pardon, Ford pardoned him for “anything he might ever have done in the past 6 years” — but Nixon didn’t have to “accept” the pardon because the existance of the pardon took the sails out of any interest in actually pursuing charges.

    Anyway, I voted yes, because I PRESUME that if he pardons himself, he’ll also resign, or be impeached. And given how self-serving Trump is, better he waste his OWN complete lack of credibility on that decision, than force some good man or woman who follows him to do that dirty work. Don’t make Pence do it.

    Charles (50537e)

  115. @117. That’s debatable. Information in itself has value by its very nature– to ‘inform’– and of course, value is relative. Yesterday’s weather report may seem of little value to us now- but in years to come, it is a data point to map trends. Nixon’s tapes recorded information deemed of value at the time- so much so he fought to keep them private all the way to SCOTUS. Today, less so- more a historic curiosity, a damning echo to some; a warning from history to others.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. @119

    Your examples are not really good ones.

    If they were, every time Hillary gave a speech for a political benefactor, they’d have to count that as a $200,000+ “donation”.

    The law specifically excludes honoraria.

    When most of the cast of west wing filmed a piece for Hillary — how much would you have to pay those 8 actors to show up at a studio, and do that shoot?

    The law specifically excludes “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee”. (Which also covers the “$200K Hillary speech”…)

    Also, endorsements are not traditionally an item that campaigns have paid money for, or listed among their expenses. Opposition research is.

    This is the first time we’ve discussed “oppo info” as a “thing of value”

    On the contrary, campaigns at all levels have been paying for it, and reporting it among their expenses, for a quarter century or more.

    Apart from the fact that the law specifically excludes your examples, you seem to be trying to make a point that the precise dollar value of certain contributions may be ambiguous. That matters, at least theoretically, with regard to the donor limits on US citizens and legal residents.

    But it is irrelevant with regard to foreign gifts. The legal limit on foreign gifts is exactly zero. The fact that something does not have a precisely defined dollar value does not mean it has no value. And the law prohibits accepting any thing of value from a foreign source, whether it’s worth one kopeck or a billion rubles.

    Dave (711345)

  117. Constitutional Restrictions on Foreign Gifts Don’t Apply to Presidents

    The point—->>>

                       O<—— happyfeet’s head

    Dave (711345)

  118. The 16th Amendment Does Not Apply To Wages and Salaries.

    And this guy looks like he bathes and shaves.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. still luvin that trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. Dave with the lefty talking points in post #111. No matter how nonsensical they are or how you could hold ever Democrat complicit with the media coverage they intentionally solicit, he’ll still believe his own BS.

    NJRob (2ccb82)

  121. One of the commenters in happyfeet’s article raises an interesting point.

    Trump is required by law to transfer any gifts received from foreign governments to the National Archives.

    Like the tacky piece of swag the Saudis gave him for bowing to their King, for instance.

    Congress has provided that the president may accept such gifts otherwise forbidden by the Emoluments Clause, since refusing them could cause offense or embarrassment, but they are accepted on behalf, and become the property, of the United States.

    Given Trump’s core belief that no laws apply to him, it would hardly be surprising if he attempted to keep any gifts he happens to like.

    Dave (711345)

  122. Some information has value, but not all. That ought to be obvious.
    kishnevi (0dce2b) — 7/21/2017 @ 7:01 pm

    If something is informative, it already has value. Perhaps you would consider:

    Some information has value [to a certain purpose], but not all.

    felipe (023cc9)

  123. Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/21/2017 @ 10:10 am:

    “The Ledger is all black. Can he steal [emphasis mine] the $10b in time?”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/21/2017 @ 10:59 am:

    “So many octopussy tentacles, so do [sic] little time.”

    It’s obvious you don’t read the articles you cite. The first says what Trump is doing is perfectly legal, which doesn’t square with your use of the word “steal”. The second references “former Trump associates” multiple times.

    You did the same thing yesterday in another thread when you cited The New Republic…..there is absolutely nothing there except the sale of condominiums. In your world, every restaurateur, jeweler, and car dealer should be put in jail for selling their wares to similar people.

    In this neck of the woods, they call people like you schmegeggy.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  124. @126

    So the belief that foreign governments shouldn’t be invited to covertly intervene in our elections is now a “lefty talking point”?

    or how you could hold ever Democrat complicit with the media coverage they intentionally solicit

    This attempt at “whataboutism” more irrational and illogical than most.

    You’re trying to say that every Democrat is complicit in inviting foreign governments to covertly intervene in our elections…because they solicit media coverage? Are you sure you thought this one through?

    Dave (711345)

  125. shipwreckedcrew (03134f) — 7/21/2017 @ 6:14 pm

    I completely agree. My previous comment should not be taken as an assumption that “information” is a “thing of value” under the campaign finance laws.

    felipe (023cc9)

  126. So the belief that foreign governments shouldn’t be invited to covertly intervene in our elections is now a “lefty talking point”? Dave (711345) — 7/21/2017 @ 8:58 pm

    No more than “the belief that foreign governments should be invited to covertly intervene in our elections is now a “right-wing talking point.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  127. I would totally support Trump pardoning himself on “Russia Spy!!!” stuff just the same as I would support Patterico pleading the fifth if he’s brought up for trial of molestation against his kids.

    jcurtis (f86094)

  128. So let’s look at buckleys braintrust for a bit, his leading strategic thinker James burnham was a former Trotskyist, chambers was a Soviet asset who came from the cold. Meyer also has communist ties, how could youbdu from the same spoon.

    narciso (d1f714)

  129. Magic eightball would say ues.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/pspoole/status/888613098097188864

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. So the belief that foreign governments shouldn’t be invited to covertly intervene in our elections is now a “lefty talking point”?

    This attempt at “whataboutism” more irrational and illogical than most.

    You’re trying to say that every Democrat is complicit in inviting foreign governments to covertly intervene in our elections…because they solicit media coverage? Are you sure you thought this one through?

    Dave (711345) — 7/21/2017 @ 8:58 pm

    You silly child. You want the Mexican national Carlos Slim held in jail for his interference through the NY Times.

    Wow, you don’t believe in free speech at all, do you?

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  131. Narciso,

    did you ever think you’d see the day when so many former conservatives on here were just aligning with the far left because they hate Trump so much that they don’t care that they’re pushing the left’s agenda which will end with our nation becoming a one party state?

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  132. “that’s not even true

    happyfeet (28a91”

    Take it up with the Supreme Court. They decided this over one hundred years ago. Guess that precedent doesn’t apply to Trump. Nothing else does so why should this.

    Dustin (2bf0bc)

  133. did you ever think you’d see the day when so many former conservatives on here were just aligning with the far left because they hate Trump so much that they don’t care that they’re pushing the left’s agenda which will end with our nation becoming a one party state?

    Tens of thousands of conservative candidates across the nation have won elections in recent years without wanting or needing Putin’s help.

    If preserving the rule of law and the integrity of the election process is “pushing the left’s agenda” (I don’t think so, but you insist that it is), then so be it.

    If you can’t see that Trump’s ignorance, dishonesty, mental instability and corruption are doing more to help “the left” than all the conservative blog commenters in the world, then you are blind.

    Dave (711345)

  134. You guys just won’t get it. Covfefe.

    https://youtu.be/0wyjRVRhFmI

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  135. Take it up with the Supreme Court. They decided this over one hundred years ago. Guess that precedent doesn’t apply to Trump. Nothing else does so why should this.

    The decision in question was Burdick v U.S. (1915). The court’s opinion described acceptance of a pardon as tantamount to admission of guilt in several places. The most direct language is in the penultimate paragraph:

    This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it. [emphasis added]

    Some have argued that the “guilt theory” in Burdick is obiter dictum, an incidental expression of opinion not necessary to resolve the core issues of the case before the court, which therefore does not establish legal precedent.

    That argument is fairly persuasive. An earlier case, United States v Wilson (1824) had established that pardons had to be accepted by the pardonee to have any legal effect, and that pardons could be refused, even in capital cases. Wilson was silent on whether any guilt was implied by accepting a pardon. To resolve Burdick, the court needed to do nothing more than reaffirm Wilson. The guilt theory was introduced as an example of a reason someone might refuse a pardon, but it was in no way necessary for the court to rule on whether such acceptance is, in fact, an admission of guilt. As such, it looks a lot like obiter dictum to my non-lawerly eyes.

    Dave (711345)

  136. Well I was here during macho grande, which would have taught some caution,

    narciso (d1f714)

  137. Well I was here during macho grande, which would have taught some caution,

    narciso

    You mean that time I called a weasel a weasel even though she and I were both Republicans? Yeah I already learned about integrity loooong before that buddy. You seem to think you have some deep wisdom about O’Donnell’s mistreatment by the left, but no, just because the left hates a weasel doesn’t mean I’m obliged to support a weasel. I’m also pretty consistent about this sort of thing. I’m no partisan.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  138. id you ever think you’d see the day when so many former conservatives on here were just aligning with the far left because they hate Trump so much that they don’t care that they’re pushing the left’s agenda which will end with our nation becoming a one party state?

    NJRob

    We aren’t former anything. The fact we don’t support Trump, who is not in any way conservative, and the fact we have a problem with obstruction of justice, does not mean we’re the far left. Just because the far left also has a problem with Trump doesn’t mean we’re pushing the left’s agenda.

    It’s pretty foolish to make integrity and the rule of law equal to ‘the left’s agenda’.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  139. I have stated my policy reservations with the administrations, tillerson seems to collecting the dwamp.

    narciso (d1f714)

  140. Yes its a typo, Michael castle the fellow who went fracking for aljazeera which is based on Qatar which employs the whole legion of doom of terrorist and their support system through cair, which was involved in the Hawaii case.whose citizens contract with Wilmer hale.

    narciso (d1f714)

  141. I distrust much coming Bezos who employs the son in law of a Cuban regime spymaster as their chief Latin American correspondent, Carlos slims perfidy re cuba micaragua Iran is well know.

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. This happened while Rhodes was pursuing the back channel, should have been a reason to pause.

    http://babalublog.com/2017/07/22/the-5th-anniversary-of-the-assassinations-of-oswaldo-paya-and-harold-cepero-by-cubas-castro-dictatorship/

    Paya might have been the havel or ororban but the regime lambrakis’s him

    narciso (d1f714)

  143. It really is striking how the murder of a dissident and his associate, how a third party witness from Spain was extorted into silence. But I think thAt was the summer of mitts haircut fifty years prior.

    Meanwhile there is a slaughter right out of the hunger games occurring every day in caracas, but the press is mostly basenghi about that as with Charlie gard.

    narciso (d1f714)

  144. There is a reason Orwell based minitrue on the bbc world service, but they were better than the post or the times

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. This was the dog trainer at the time:
    http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-oswaldo-paya-20120724-story.html

    I think they use the same template like salonika nearly 50 years before

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. So my extended question is this are we going to accept charged filtered through disloyal security services that have vouched for fraudulent assesments from dubious,sources like akhmatchin and perhaps the sbu who have their own ahemda.

    narciso (d1f714)

  147. I hate to seem like John Nash but it is,all connected;

    https://stream.org/investigating-planned-parenthood-interview-david-daleiden/

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. So mother Jones was one of the places that laundered the dossier through David corn.

    narciso (d1f714)

  149. Narco is on fire, but not in a good way.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  150. Narco is on fire, but not in a good way.

    I think he’s getting to part where the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor

    Dave (711345)

  151. I would,say there are justified reasons for my skepticism, one doesn’t have to go all the way to russia, slaying happen facilitated by the atf quartermasters to the cartel, the next successor was noted in rolling stone (I say without irony)

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. “FUSION GPS head Glenn Simpson won’t testify before Senate Judiciary next week, his rep attacks “partisan” hearing and vows to plead Fifth”

    Where’s the poll on should all Fusion GPS witnesses take the fifth?

    harkin (536957)

  153. You would think that would be a more pressing concern

    narciso (d1f714)

  154. Well you could bring the al khaimah Prince, vanderslip, daleidin himself to illustrate exactly how fusion works, that’s if we had a Republican party in power in three branches I was told that was the sitiation.

    narciso (d1f714)

  155. One day later, the poll is 40/60 in favor of “No”.

    So “only” 40% of the generally literate and well-educated readers (including many lawyers) of a conservative website think the president should be exempt from the law…

    /cry

    “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal” – Richard Nixon

    Dave (711345)

  156. Always take the Fifth!

    nk (dbc370)

  157. Slate..

    Recent articles by Matt Taibbi and Julia Ioffe, who have both lived in and written extensively about Russia, assert that the Russian government works side-by-side with organized crime figures in the theft and embezzlement of corporate wealth, which is often ultimately derived from the sale of natural resources. According to these accounts—and to NGO watchdog reports like Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index—major business figures in Russia only operate with the approval and assistance of corrupt officials and organized crime.

    2. Wealthy Russians have for years moved their fortunes out of Russia into assets and bank accounts in stable and/or low-scrutiny locations in the United States, Europe, the Caribbean, and elsewhere. This process can run afoul of other countries’ rules against moving illegally obtained money into the above-board financial system, a.k.a. laws against money laundering.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  158. The left, like our own trolls, have so muddied the waters no one remember what the actual claim was nor how nonsensical it was.

    And then you have Dustin screaming impeach over a nonexistent obstruction charge that’s started on a baseless claim.

    Ask Scooter Libby how justice is served in that case.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  159. The mud-wrestling POTUS!

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  160. But we used not to get the vapors on these instances well mostly.

    narciso (63624e)

  161. the justice system in failmerica is an obscene perversion

    FBI slutboy Robert Mueller is taking full advantage

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  162. I hope Patterico does not have cause to ban Bun Burn like he did Spartacus. I need somebody to remind me of the alternative to Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  163. And happyfeet to keep me from straying too far towards Trumpkindom.

    nk (dbc370)

  164. Trump Tower is the World’s largest washing machine…

    Interesting article. I had not seen that Preet Bharara was investigating Manafort’s real-estate deals/money-laundering at the time Trump fired him. Makes total sense though.

    So how many counts of obstruction are we looking at now? I count four:

    1) Fire Bharara
    2) Threaten Comey
    3) Fire Comey
    4) Threaten Mueller

    Dave (711345)

  165. You didn’t know,the lambrakis tie, the regime is,old school, but George will would say, sctyally I don’t give a farthing.

    narciso (63624e)

  166. Why do we pretend there is,a story and ignore the real story, that nines has been pursuing.

    narciso (63624e)

  167. Nk,

    you have Dave, Tillman and Dustin for that already. It’s just another spambot.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  168. So we have the previous administration who abetted russia and Iran in Syria who stepped over the body of paya, whose head considered chavez a brother from another mother, while allowing Hezbollah and aq to slip into the country for four years

    narciso (63624e)

  169. is it ironic that we’re just a few months in and already Jeffy Sessions’ most palpable legacy is to have degraded even further (even further) the faith people have in the perverted apparatus of justice in our sick corrupt little country?

    yes yes it is ironic indeed

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  170. is it ironic that we’re just a few months in and already Jeffy Sessions’ most palpable legacy is to have degraded even further (even further) the faith people have in the perverted apparatus of justice in our sick corrupt little country?

    Seems like a pretty major screw-up by whoever appointed him, doesn’t it?

    Dave (711345)

  171. you can’t know a man’s a coward until he’s been tested

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  172. How is it up there on the tightrope, nk?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  173. you can’t know a man’s a coward until he’s been tested

    No, but you can ask him questions about things that matter to you, like

    “Do you understand that I expect you to lead the cover-up our campaign’s work with the Russian intelligence services during the election, and not recuse yourself despite your glaring conflicts of interest?”

    And then if he says, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but I have to do what’s right,” you look for somebody else.

    Dave (711345)

  174. Stop stalling for time and just SUBPOENA!

    “Washington (CNN)The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee have cut a deal with President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to avoid being subpoenaed for a high-profile public hearing next week, with the two men agreeing to provide records to the panel and to be privately interviewed ahead of any public session.

    In a joint statement, panel Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dianne Feinstein said, “(W)e will not issue subpoenas for them tonight requiring their presence at Wednesday’s hearing but reserve the right to do so in the future.”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  175. Yes Burnie,

    it’s time to start subpoenaing all of the former Obama thugs that unmasked Americans for political purposes and targeted them.

    https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/31/politics/russia-unmasking-probes-expand-to-obama-aide-samantha-power

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  176. “” you look for somebody else…”

    But they do it for the good of America…Patriots!!!

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  177. First though, let’s call the Hague Nutjob. Let’s incarcerate in order.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  178. We could even dig up Ollie North..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  179. the trashy senate committee’s all about politics it has nothing to do with pretending to conduct an honest inquiry

    that’s what our actual attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, appointed corrupt democrat FBI turdboy Robert Mueller to do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  180. it’s time to start subpoenaing all of the former Obama thugs that unmasked Americans for political purposes and targeted them.

    Anyone who broke the law should be pursued, but that story fabricated by the White House to back up Trump’s lies about having his phones tapped was debunked long ago:

    Democratic and Republican lawmakers who viewed the intelligence reports in question after Nunes, however, have said they show no evidence that Rice or any other member of the Obama administration did anything unusual or illegal.

    Dave (711345)

  181. We dont have the luxury of indulging these we got induced hallucination, or,an I wrong?

    narciso (364166)

  182. just think if Bush had wiretapped food stamp and his jew-hating sidekick valerie

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  183. Twitter is a wonderful political messaging app, and not just for President Trump:

    “Unlike the Dems, I didn’t sabotage Bernie Sanders in the primaries, then try to cover my tracks with ludicrous Russia conspiracy theories.”

    – Dr. Jill Stein

    ThOR (c9324e)

  184. Makes me proud that I voted for her.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  185. these are the times what try men’s souls

    who knows maybe Jill Stein will prove to have the sort of integrity Jeffy Sessions has already shown he lacks

    you can learn a lot these days about these people if you deign to notice

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  186. It is nice to be reminded by a left-wing source just who is behind the collusion hoax: the Elite and their toadies. And, also, how the Elite’s political dirty tricks aren’t reserved for President Trump or even Republicans.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  187. BREAKING: Great news, patriots! President Trump will have some major legislation to sign in the next week or so:

    The House and Senate reached a deal Saturday to slap Russia with fresh sanctions and give Congress new veto power to block any easing of those sanctions — an agreement that could send a new bill to President Donald Trump’s desk before the end of the month.

    House and Senate negotiators announced an agreement was reached Saturday morning for a bill that would include new sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

    Even better, in case President Snowflake is too busy golfing, hate-tweeting B-list celebrities or watching Anthony Scaramucci on cable to sign the bill, it is expected to pass with solidly veto-proof majorities in both houses.

    Dave (711345)

  188. “Try men’s souls”?

    Yes, but it also allows us to view the evil that is hidden within. Somehow, Trump plays Claudius: “Let all the poison that lurks in the mud, hatch out.”

    ThOR (c9324e)

  189. Claudius was a genius who played dumb.

    Trumps the Antonym.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  190. Dave,

    like a good lefty is trying to run interference once again for the corrupt Obama administration and debating issues that weren’t mentioned while ignoring that the administration clearly spied on and unmasked American citizens.

    Keep trying to move those goalposts like a good lefty. You can do it. Disinformation is your stock and trade.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  191. Burnie,

    you realize we follow the Constitution, not some global world order, right? You leftists really have delusions of grandeur believing you’ll control the magnifying glass while the rest of us burn like the little ants you killed as a kid.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  192. Trump’s obvious Shakespearean alter-ego is Sir John Falstaff.

    Dave (711345)

  193. OT by a day…RIP my choice to play Spicer in a flick, John Heard.

    urbanleftbehind (8d42ac)

  194. Sancho, dave. Windmills hit back.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  195. Name someone who has outsmarted Trump? Anyone?

    If Trump is the idiot – and I won’t even dispute the point – what does that say about his flailing, self-beclowning critics?

    Stupidity is a spectrum.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  196. Yes I understand the method of transfer, but torture remember

    https://www.investigativeproject.org/case/599/us-v-damache-et-al

    narciso (d1f714)

  197. like a good lefty is trying to run interference once again for the corrupt Obama administration and debating issues that weren’t mentioned while ignoring that the administration clearly spied on and unmasked American citizens.

    Nobody has ever denied that they “spied on” and unmasked American citizens. The law allows the government to do that, subject to certain safeguards.

    Everyone except Devin Nunes, Democrat or Republican, who has seen the supposedly incriminating evidence say it doesn’t support what Nunes and Trump claimed. The senate intelligence committee held closed-door hearings just last week. All cases where identities of US residents are revealed in intercepts of foreign communications are documented and audited. Rice and the other anonymous Obama officials accused are the ones who (as the law requires) created the very records that Nunes claimed proves their guilt…

    President Snowflake, the self-proclaimed victim, controls the entire law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus. If laws were broken, why isn’t anyone being prosecuted?

    Dave (711345)

  198. If Trump is the idiot – and I won’t even dispute the point – what does that say about his flailing, self-beclowning critics?

    We’re not nearly as good at lying as he is?

    Dave (711345)

  199. It’s not to say he isn’t clever like a weasel. Lying, even with his transparent methods takes some baseline intelligence. So how about awarding him average intelligence with super-human arrogance.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  200. “It’s not to say he isn’t clever like a weasel. Lying, even with his transparent methods takes some baseline intelligence. So how about awarding him average intelligence with super-human arrogance.”

    Are the goalposts moving again?

    Also, you must have nicer friends than I have. I’d rate Trump’s arrogance as average to slightly above.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  201. I blame his diet and exercise ‘ethic’. You are what you eat.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  202. So how about awarding him average intelligence with super-human arrogance.

    Ben burn, Trump shill.

    Dave (711345)

  203. Well you have to issue him some cress, Dave. He uses eating utensils and walks upright..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  204. If I had to rank the 10 Things I Like Best About Trump, ketchup on well-done steak would be right up there. Give the man credit where credit is due! He’s no chi-chi poser.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  205. Maybe that’s the true binary choice: which side of the chi-chi poser divide you identify with.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  206. Dissapointing even if you know the ending

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/film-review-dunkirk-ktq2gfl6z

    narciso (d1f714)

  207. I thought his premise was faulty but his theory was sounx:

    https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/07/22/o-ye-of-little-faith/

    narciso (d1f714)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1709 secs.