Could Trump Be Prosecuted for Shooting James Comey While Still in Office?
Candidate Donald Trump bragged that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and not lose any support, and now President Donald Trump’s lawyer says Trump could shoot the FBI director in the Oval Office and still not be prosecuted for it.
“In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted,” Rudy Giuliani told HuffPost Sunday, claiming a president’s constitutional powers are that broad. “I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”
Giuliani said impeachment was the initial remedy for a president’s illegal behavior ― even in the extreme hypothetical case of Trump having shot former FBI Director James Comey to end the Russia investigation rather than just firing him.
“If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day,” Giuliani said. “Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”
First of all, the assumption that Trump would automatically be impeached if he were guilty of an act is not immediately obvious. The tendency of Trump’s supporters when he does something wrong is to rally around him, rather than impose consequences on him. Every criminal defendant has a defense, and sufficiently motivated people can be convinced to accept any defense. If O.J. Simpson taught us anything, it is that no amount of evidence and logic can overcome the mixture of identity politics and fame. Inject politics into the mix and the brew is even more potent.
Are we to assume that the right half of the party would suddenly abandon its habit of defending Trump on literally any point, no matter how flimsy, simply because he committed a murder? Keep in mind: Democrats and Big Media would almost certainly be saying that he committed the crime, and that he should be removed from office. That alone would be enough to trigger reflexive disagreement in the lizard brains of many partisans — disagreement that literally no amount or quality of evidence could overcome. I can hear, in my mind, the rationalizations of the partisans even now: “Didn’t Obama drone U.S. citizens? What president hasn’t murdered people? This is just the left’s way of undoing an election!” These partisans vote, and if the polls showed lawmakers that removal was not a solid plus, getting the necessary numbers in the Senate for removal might not be certain.
But let’s put all that aside for a moment and look at the most relevant precedent we have: Clinton v. Jones. Several passages in that decision suggest that the Supreme Court would not hold Trump above the law for a personal act (and possibly even for an official act, if one can imagine such a thing) of shooting James Comey. Here are two passages that suggest that prosecution for a personal act would almost certainly be permitted:
With respect to acts taken in his “public character”– that is official acts–the President may be disciplined principally by impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages. But he is otherwise subject to the laws for his purely private acts.
. . . .
Whatever the outcome of this case, there is no possibility that the decision will curtail the scope of the official powers of the Executive Branch. The litigation of questions that relate entirely to the unofficial conduct of the individual who happens to be the President poses no perceptible risk of misallocation of either judicial power or executive power.
It would be incorrect to read this language, however, as clearly stating that Trump is beyond the reach of the courts in all cases where he takes official action. In other words, could Trump order the federal government to drone James Comey, and take refuge in the notion that this was an official act that removes him from the judgment of the courts? I doubt it. As Justice Stevens explained — speaking for a unanimous court, the courts have often made determinations regarding the president’s official actions as well:
First, we have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law….Second, it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances….Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty….If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President’s official conduct, and if it may direct appropriate process to the President himself, it must follow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President’s time and energy that is a mere by product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions.
In the context of Clinton v. Jones, which was a private matter, Justice Stevens was making the point that if the judiciary can decide official questions in many cases, it can certainly decide unofficial ones.
Keep in mind: governors have been indicted by state prosecutors (Rick Perry being a glaring and absurd example) and I am not familiar with any decision that says this cannot happen on state constitutional grounds of separation of powers.
This is not to say that Giuliani’s argument is insane. Some agree that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted. For a law student’s detailed argument to that effect, see here. The arguments include the notion that the President is different, since he, as one person, embodies an entire article in the Constitution. Vincent Bugliosi made a similar argument in his book No Island of Sanity.
But the Supreme Court had a different view, and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in our system. And based on its decision in Clinton v. Jones, I suspect they would allow a prosecution even before an impeachment.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
If O.J. Simpson taught us anything, it is that no amount of evidence and logic can overcome the mixture of identity politics and fame. Inject politics into the mix and the brew is even more potent.
If the Russia collusion investigation taught us anything….
Why not use a more recent example?
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:09 amthat would be considered a high crime, I know talking to fern todd, is unproductive,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:11 amand that was a civil lawsuit, not entirely the same thing,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:13 amAre we to assume that the right half of the party would suddenly abandon its habit of defending Trump on literally any point, no matter how flimsy, simply because he committed a murder?
Because assuming the worst in roughly half your audience is surely the path to “finding peace among all men”.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:18 amot, the connection to the lieges event,
http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/?m=1
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:20 am4. Finding the worst in roughly half of Pat’s audience isn’t an assumption, given what I’ve seen here so far.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:22 amGiuliani is an idiot for saying it. He’s too fond of the sound of his voice that guy.
nk (3276be) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:24 am7. Giuliani started believing his own hype after 9/11. He’s the perfect helpmete for Trump.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:25 amwhen you are confronted with an utterly ludicrous waste of time, you answer likewise,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:28 amsay this fellow, from ‘the most trusted name in news’ on earth 18
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1003480968873889794
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:30 amI am an absolutist on this. A POTUS is personally criminally untouchable so long as he holds office. The instant this status changes, with the possible exception of the invoking if the temporary assignment of powers due to a surgery or some such, he answers to a bonafide warrant or subpoena as anyone else must.
If a Congress were feckless enough to not instantly impeach and try a POTUS for the crime you described, our republic would already be too far gone to matter.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:31 am“the Supreme Court had a different view, and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in our system.”
There are no ‘final arbiters’ in a three-way separation of powers, no matter how much lawyers and others who narrowly specialize in one facet of the system would very much like to think that. You should be glad there isn’t even as you complain about the implication: as soon as any such ‘final arbiter’ is declared, there flows the corruption budget, the toadies, the string-pullers, and the misshapen power-mad activists.
Or perhaps you really miss that fiduciary attention?
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:31 amRandom Viking, apparently you were under the misimpression, shared by others, that my desire to have peace meant I would stop calling out bullshit and hypocrisy. I said precisely the opposite in my post. What I won’t do is get into endless personal debates in the comments with people about it. I will continue to state my opinions, not only about Trump, but also about the mentality that defends him at every turn regardless of facts and logic. This will continue to upset many people. I am under no illusions about that, and I am willing to live with it.
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:32 am“Because assuming the worst in roughly half your audience is surely the path to “finding peace among all men”.”
I sure hope the better half of our host prevails in this struggle!
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:32 am12. I have to agree with Sam here. The Supreme Court is the “final arbiter” of so many questions in our republic because it vested itself with power and authority not given it by the constitution (cf. Marbury v Madison). With that ruling and many others compounding on it, lawyers were allowed to become a foundation of the very ruin of our system (cf. Dred Scot et. al)
Gryph (08c844) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:34 amA personal “constitutional crisis”… his own Private Idaho.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:34 amEd from SFV, the president already answers to a bona fide subpoena. See the Nixon tapes case.
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:34 amPatterico:
Your link to the law student doesn’t work. (And I was curious to see what he had to say about Clinton v. Jones)
Appalled (96665e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:34 am“A farce is a comedy marked by buffoonery and crude, ludicrously impossible events. So is the Democratic party.
Take Nathan Larson, who is running for congress in Virginia as an independent. Larson supports pedophilia, incest, white supremacy and marital rape. I am not kidding. So naturally you ask: How on earth did this felonious loon get in the race? Well, remember when Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe was so desperate to get votes for Hillary Clinton he approved a law allowing felons to vote and run for office? That paved the way for this shmoe, who would have otherwise been barred because he’d done time for threatening to kill the president (W. or Obama, he wasn’t picky). So basically, Democrat corruption not only failed to get its candidate to the finish line, but also put this raving clown at the starting gate. Which would be a pretty funny piece of farce if it weren’t for the whole, you know, satanic evil of it all.”
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/the-democrats-descend-into-farce/
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:39 amI further doubt a sitting POTUS can even voluntarily respond to a criminal process, except to fight the process itself.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:41 amColonel, next they’ll claim Nathan Larson is a Republican because Trump.
Rev.Hoagie (c5d6cf) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:42 amThe wish list includes more items than capping some guy on 5th Avenue, and if you believe the recent “Where’s Melania?” gossip miasma, we might not be far from this:
http://www.yahoo.com/news/duterte-slammed-kissing-filipina-huge-audience-130133878.html
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:43 am@13: “Calling out bullshit and hypocrisy” is admirable. Manufacturing it and then calling it out is not.
The entire hypothetical arises out of a conspiracy theory collusion investigation, for which the “bullshit and hypocrisy” need not be manufactured.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:43 amAppalled,
I now see it was co-written by a professor. Here’s the link, although I can’t change it in the post until later.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=fss_papers
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:44 amPat – Give me 5 guys (not burgers) with black robes, chevrons optional, who say otherwise and voila!
The people have a remedy and it is impeachment.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:47 amCo-equal branches. Not superior. Unless you want court packing to become a thing again.
NJRob (b00189) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:48 amof course, fern chuck, didn’t even finish his degree, before he started working for red tom harkin,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:50 amabout that order, back to the phantom zone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-court-invalidates-gov-terry-mcauliffes-order-restoring-felon-voting-rights/2016/07/22/3e1d45f6-5058-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:53 am21… yes, Hoagie! In other news, SCOTUS ruled on cake bake case…
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:54 am@13: “Calling out bullsh!t and hypocrisy” is admirable. Manufacturing it and then calling it out is not.
The entire hypothetical arises out of a conspiracy theory collusion investigation, for which the “bullshi!t and hypocrisy” need not be manufactured.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:55 amso this doesn’t look menacing at all
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/03/portland-sees-bloody-fighting-as-antifa-activists-storm-patriot-prayer-rally.html
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:56 amikes i’m terribly worried about whether or not President Trump can be indicted if he shoots James Comey
will check back frequently for updates
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:56 am“A farce is a comedy marked by buffoonery and crude, ludicrously impossible events. So is the Democratic party.”
The Democrat Party IS organized crime, full stop. You’ll recall that shows about the life of mobsters were often entertaining, hilarious, and farcical apart from all the bloodshed!
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:05 amof course, bush derangement 1.0 from southern yellow dog john grisham, showed how it might happen, see if this sounds familiar, a private party commissions a law firm, to develop a solution to a problem, and they subcontract it out out,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:12 amI know I changed the particulars, but there is still malpractice at the heart of it,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:15 amDon’t should on me:
If Trump intentially shoots anyone who is not an imminent threat to himself or others, and the facts are not in dispute, he should be arrested and charged accordingly.
The VP should assume the powers of the presidency till a speedy trial decides the issue. All constitutional protections and rights to appeal apply. During his first term Trump’s name would appear on all ballots should a presidential election intervene.
If exonerated Trump would resume the presidency assuming his term hasn’t expired.
ropelight (267def) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:18 amIn a “narrow” (per Reuters) 7-2 decision, they ruled in favor of the Colorado baker.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:19 amGo figure. The Supreme Court actually decided the government overstepped its bounds in brutalizing a poor couple who wanted to worship freely. Now what does this do to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa decision in Oregon where they were bankrupted by a biased state official?
NJRob (b00189) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:25 amThe other issue with Clinton v. Jones is that Clinton’s transgressions occurred before he came to office. As for whether Trump could be indicted for shooting Comey while president, the OLC made their opinion on the matter in 1973, and affirmed it in 2000, 2014 and again this year, the latest coming from Rosy himself. DOJ policy is to defer criminal indictments on sitting presidents, delegating to Congress the process of impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. Once out of office, there’s nothing stopping the justice system from indicting and prosecuting the ex-president. Long story short, Giuliani is right under current policy, but I can see the constitutional argument going the other way.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:26 amThat’s not in the Constitution ropelight. Can’t make it up as we go along. Have to follow impeachment or the 25th Amendment. It’s the only way.
NJRob (b00189) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:27 amthese conditions the democrats are insisting on with any North Korea deal just serve to underscore how much they hate jews cause of how starkly it contrasts with their nuke-the-jews-deal with Iran
i don’t even understand why they even care about north korea all of a sudden – food stamp was president for eight years and he just jacked off the whole time
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:42 amfrom fitz’s gunslingers:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-pardons-robert-mueller-russia
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:43 amThe author of Patterico’s link in #23 is, in part, a Yale law professor named Akhil Amar. It’s nice to see that, with the advent of Trump, he has not changed his stance. He does deal in the article explicitly with the guilty of a state crime issue raised here in comments.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/yale-law-school-professor-akhil-amar-whether-sitting-president-can-prosecuted-indicted-even-obstruct-justice/
This is true, even though Amar is extremely opposed to Trump (do the google for links). Since so many Democratic appointed judges seem to like to do the “he’s Trump and therefore too icky to have that authority” exception, it’s nice to see an anti-Trump legal professor not make use of that bit of legal bogosity.
Appalled (96665e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:54 amChuck Grassley on Giuliani: “I think I would hire a new lawyer.”
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:04 amthe dirty cowardly men and women of the sleazy corrupt fbi raided President Trump’s lawyer to dissuade other lawyers from working with him
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:09 amI haven’t kept up. What is the recent gossip? That her kidney operation was faked and that Trump actually had her killed?
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:13 amIf he did shoot Comey, Give him the Nobel Peace Prize.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:16 amSo to summarize the pelican brief an oil baron wants to drill in a wetland a lawsuit is filed and an opposing party decides two justices are in the way, the oil baron hires an assassin to smooth the way for the case.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:18 amThere is a Grand Canyon of distance between the authority of Article III Court’s to determine whether Article II actions by the Executive Branch are contrary to law, and the authority of an Article III Court to jail the duly elected Article II Executive.
The “power” or “authority” of the Courts has always been rooted in the willingness of the other co-equal branches to respect the Courts’ decisions, and comply with their orders.
If/when an Article III Court set itself at odds with the institution of the Presidency by purporting to hold unto itself the power to incapacitate the Executive by jailing him, the Article II Executive is unlikely to be willing to cooperate.
If the Article I Legislature is unwilling to impeach and remove the Article II Executive over that lack of cooperation, the Article III Court will have the authority of a piece of paper — nothing more.
You might want to check the organization structure of DOJ.
There you will find both the US Marshall Service and the Bureau of Prisons.
They do not work for the Article III Court, they work for the Article II Executive.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:22 amWhat’s that saying about a “pot” and “kettle”??
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:26 amThe tendency of Trump’s supporters when he does something wrong is to rally around him, rather than impose consequences on him.
I’ve always said there is a lot of Democrat political style in Trump.
AZ Bob (9a6ada) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:27 amBut Rudy is a bigger negative than a plus. He has to go.
AZ Bob (9a6ada) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:28 amIt’s a shame that none of this is in the Constitution.
Why didn’t the framers think of that????
Maybe they understood the chaos that could be created by politically motivated prosecutions brought by Court officers installed by the party out-of-power if they allowed the Article II Executive to be subject to compulsory court processes.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:30 amthis is what National Soros Radio are do with your tax monies:
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:32 amNot defending Trump if he were to shoot Comey or trying to feed the authors disdain for his readers; but is shooting Comey as bad as arming drug cartels, weaponizing the government against citizens, and stealing tens of thousands of emails, some classified and top secert then allowing them to be exposed to hostile foreign nations and ending up on a pediophiles laptop? The line of what is a crime and should not be tolerated has gotten ptetty gray the last 8 years. Comey’s life more important than Brian Terry’s?
What would it take for someone in Washington to actually be held accountable?
If Trump did murder someone would the anti Trumpers actually complain about the murder or still make up complaints like he doesn’t read?
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:32 amTrump is now saying he has the right to pardon himself.
Seems like he thinks this Russian collusion investigation will indeed show he did something wrong. History in the making!
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:33 amthis is President Trump’s actual twatter Mr. Dustin
remember the sleazy men and women of the corrupt lickspittle fbi fabricated the whole Russia Collusion Hoax, and President Trump knows this very well
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:35 am51 — Rudy plays to the same constituency that elected Trump, and is still largely invisible to the Beltway and NYC mindset that hears what his comments, and then say to each other “Can you believe he just said that???”
It’s the old Pauline Kael story — “How did Nixon ever get elected?? I don’t know anyone who voted for him” (which I think is a not quite 100% accurate statement of her quote, but close enough).
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:36 am45, Mr. Mous: the rumors are that Melania is simply fed up with DJT himself (since the Stormy rehash) and being in Washington and that 1) she will go back with Baron to the Tower at a minimum and that 2) the D word has been discussed and that process would go into high gear post-midterms.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:44 am53, taken to its logical conclusion “below the equator”, its worth the cost as a public service announcement to contractors and aid workers.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:46 amBut it has as much validity as Gallagher killing the union organizer, in ‘malice’
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:47 amand that was a civil lawsuit, not entirely the same thing,
And it was a suit that started PRIOR to Clinton taking office as president. That is an important distinction wrt the harassment rationale for preventing suits and criminal charges against the Executive.
Note also that Sarah Palin was driven from office by a plethora of suits which threatened to break her financially (which is why they were brought). To say that there is no protection at the state level is not an argument in favor of stripping the president of immunity. It argues more for extending the immunity downwards.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:53 amNow what does this do to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa decision in Oregon where they were bankrupted by a biased state official?
I suspect that official has complete immunity. They could perhaps sue Oregon. Perhaps the official could be charged under federal civil rights laws, but I’d not hold my breath. In any even the ruling today only applied in the instance in question, since the state commission was openly hostile to Christians.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:58 amIn a “narrow” (per Reuters) 7-2 decision, they ruled in favor of the Colorado baker.
It’s narrow in the ruling, not the vote. Basically they said “rulings from kangaroo courts cannot stand” without touching upon the underlying issue.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:00 amhappyfeet, I quoted Trump accurately, as you can see in the part of your quote you didn’t bold, preceding the part you did.
Trump does indeed say “why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” but as we have seen proven time and time again, Trump lies about everything so why should I believe him about this? Actions speak louder and Trump has been building the case for pardoning himself lately. He believes he can’t win this on merits.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:01 amOf course, the lawfare abuse arise from a bureau dishing exposition abetted by a corrupt witness and his compromised handler.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:02 amMaybe they understood the chaos that could be created by politically motivated prosecutions brought by Court officers installed by the party out-of-power if they allowed the Article II Executive to be subject to compulsory court processes.
After all, there were some VERY astute politicians in the room. Elbridge Gerry [-mander], for one. Not to mention Franklin and Rufus King.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:03 amThese days Congress is in session about 90% of the time… but what if Congress was out of session?
Still, one way or another, it probably wouldn’t fly. The military would not obey any illegal orders, and he’d be faced with the death penalty if he tried to hang on.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:03 amNah.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:04 amSeems like he thinks this Russian collusion investigation will indeed show he did something wrong. History in the making!
Speculation based on pernicious juxtaposition of snippets from a hostile press. Booooring.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:06 amThese days Congress is in session about 90% of the time… but what if Congress was out of session?
Uh, Trump would make 300 recess appointments?
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:07 amHe believes he can’t win this on merits.
Yes, the FISA warrants, campaign infiltration, dossier, unmaskings, etc. are certainly an indication the anti-Trump crowd felt they could “win this on merits.”
random viking (b52e12) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:07 amDone for good at Redstate for the exchange in this thread on a similar topic as here, which is probably for the best. Streiff is an insufferable asshole.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:13 amSeems like he thinks this Russian collusion investigation will indeed show he did something wrong. History in the making!
Mueller’s questions to Trump include asking him what was going through his mind when he fired Comey. If that’s all they got, then they have nothing.
AZ Bob (9a6ada) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:20 amHere’s the thing…..at some point, when designing a system of checks and balances,the decision must be taken as to which entity should enjoy supremacy. In terms of criminal liability, I believe the Founders correctly understood that a rogue USA, or even DOJ (of course there can never be a rogue DOJ, riiiiiiiight????) is much the greater risk. The natural urge for political shenanigans even in criminal matters was, and remains ridiculously obvious. So, should power and privilege rest ultimately with unelected and inferior officers, or with THE Executive, who necessarily undergoes an enormous vetting in the process of her/his election.
It is not a close call for me.
The odds of a subversive administrative state taking after a sitting president and gaining a favorable judge are overwhelmingly lower than a given president committing a heinous felony.
Also, impeachment adds another layer of accountability to the people as the prosecutors and jury answer to the voters.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:20 amSo was the Oregon state commissioner which is why I mentioned it. He targeted Sweet Cakes by Melissa deliberately and maliciously.
NJRob (b00189) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:21 amActually, my basis is that Trump is indeed a very corrupt individual, lies all the time, and is saying he suddenly has the power to pardon himself.
I understand Kevin, that you adore the Republican party and believe that your loyalty to this political party is not disgraceful. But that doesn’t mean criticizing the president’s lack of respect for my country is boring.
Now Kevin, if you wanted to look for dishonest press, look at the sources of a lot of this garbage, such as the joke campaign infiltration lies. You’d have to read blogs like stormfront or Aceofspades to believe this crap.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:21 amKevin M and NJ Rob — no state commissioner has complete immunity when it comes to violating someone’s federal civil rights.
So the Oregon cake shop owner would have a Sec. 1983 action against the Oregon official for deprivation of her civil rights under color of authority.
Commissioners on the Colorado CR Comm are also now exposed to such liability.
There are significant hurdles the plaintiff’s would need to overcome to be able to prevail, but their status as state actors does not provide them blanket immunity – and by virtue of their official positions, both the State of Oregon and the State of Colorado are exposed.
Its the same principle as unlawful use of force by police cases. Those typically involve both claims of 5th Amendment violations (loss of liberty), 4th Amendment violations (unlawful seizures), and 8th Amendment violations (Cruel and unusual punishment).
The cake shop owners, to the extent they have been damaged, and the conduct causing their damage was a violation of their 1st Amendment Free Exercise rights, have the same kind of potential claim against the state actors.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:28 amY’all remember back in the day the conversation in these discussion sections about whether accepting a pardon requires an imputation of guilt?
For Trump to say he can pardon himself does indeed carry a guilty connotation. If Trump believes he can win on the merits, he would take that path instead. Pardons are not about innocence. Trump is telling us he is guilty of colluding with Russia.
And let’s be honest: everyone knows he did. The guy publicly called for Russia to leak classified information about Hillary. He’s completely guilty. This is very interesting stuff, and I’m surprised Kevin is saying it’s boring.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:31 am76 — it seems to me Dustin that the FBI has acknowledged the reports in the NYT and WaPo that Stefan Halper was working at the direction of the FBI when he made contacts with Carter Page, George Papadopolous, and Sam Clovis, all of whom were Trump campaign officials.
It seems to me that he did not tell them he was approaching them on behalf of the FBI.
And it seems to me that he reported back to the FBI his communications with them.
How precisely does that add up to “joke campaign infiltration lies”??
Didn’t James Comey testify in oath before Congress in March 2017, that the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation into allegations of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign?
Didn’t the Halper revelations simply add a few specific details to the “hows” in connection with Comey’s confirmation?
Its been in all the papers.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:33 amthe joke campaign infiltration lies.
Ah, so the FISA warrants happened, unmaskings and the bogus dossier, too. But, the campaign infiltration— total nonsense. Got it, Dustin. Still all about “merits”, aren’t we?
random viking (b52e12) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:33 amif President Trump colluded with Russia why’s dirty fbi-nazi Bobby Mueller spending all his time dicking around with Paul Manafort’s 2006 tax returns?
you’d think he’d feel a sense of urgency or something
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:34 am78 — Trump is saying what he’s been told, and what he’s seen in the press from Trump-friendly legal analysts.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:34 amThe example that Giuliani chose, murder, is an extremely poor one for this context. Murder is almost always prosecuted as a crime under state laws and by state authorities. If Trump shot Comey in Manhattan, it would likely be Cy Vance prosecuting him, not SDNY U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman.
If Trump shot Comey, there might also indeed be federal crimes implicated. Think Timothy McVeigh. Murdering a high federal official certainly could generate criminal charges in the federal courts under a variety of different federal statutes.
But straight-up murder is enough of an exception to regular federal practice that in 2012, the monthly U.S. Attorneys Bulletin had a special issue devoted to prosecuting murder and violent crimes as a rare beast of federal criminal practice.
To plot the perfect murder-plus-self-pardon of Jim Comey, then, Trump apparently would have been better off committing that crime in the District of Columbia:
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:37 amSo was the Oregon state commissioner which is why I mentioned it. He targeted Sweet Cakes by Melissa deliberately and maliciously.
Yes, but you’d have to prove that, and that the degree of hostility was the same. The SC ruling carries very little precedential weight.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:37 amcakes are pretty easy to make yourself I found out
maybe too easy actually
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:38 amWas it Giuliani that posed the situation? So much of the press is half-truths, lies and damned lies when it comes to Trump. On both sides.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:40 amDustin:
So, if you ever get convicted of a bum charge, you won’t take the pardon?
Appalled (96665e) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:40 amFor Trump to say he can pardon himself does indeed carry a guilty connotation.
And again, what context? He obviously CAN pardon himself — the power is plenary. Now, Congress has its own plenary powers, and impeachment can be for whatever they want it to be. “You’re ugly” would be sufficient grounds. It’s not like the COURTS are going to get in front of the hydrant.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:43 amAn example even fern Todd might be able to understand, maybe.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:44 amPresident Trump can pardon anybody the corrupt nazi fbi even looks at funny
and guess what he knows it too
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:45 amReporter: So, suppose Trump shot Mother Teresa in Times Square….
Giuliani: He’d have to dig her up first, she’s been dead for a while.
Reporter: Oh. OK, suppose he shot Comey.
Giuliani: He wouldn’t.
Reporter: OK, but suppose anyway.
Giuliani: He wouldn’t.
Reporter: But suppose.
Giuliani: OK. Fine. No one could charge him, state or federal until he left office.
News: Giulini claims Trump could get away with shooting Comey!!1!!1!!!!!!
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:49 amAnother inconvenient point for partisan fans of the disgraced Republican party:
The president does not have the power to pardon himself. You can’t be a judge in your own case. Common law; common sense. But if anyone is lawless enough to do it, Trump is. He will lie to our faces about the contents of a letter he didn’t read or whether his advisor exists or whether he groped his employees or forcibly raped his wife, and he is impressed by government abuses such as the Tienanmen Square massacre, so from that calculus, being dishonest in flagrant act of power is indeed the ‘right’ thing to do.
Just think: in 100 years students will puzzle over how partisans actually thought this was OK, much as students today are mystified by the guys fighting for freedom and rights but owning slaves.
I do think with Trump talking about pardoning himself the calculus changes a lot for our votes. Every single Republican Senator in office is a bad thing now. We would have a more ethical government if the Democrats can hold Trump accountable. I greatly disagree with democrats on basically everything, but the only way I will vote for one in this midterm is if the Republicans show us they are ethical enough to hold Trump accountable. Obviously they are failing and find this topic ‘boring’.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:51 amKevin M – that’s a great characterization of the decision.
In general, I think it’s reasonable to apply nondiscrimination law to business owners, even if the business owners have a religious basis for discriminating.
But the state has an obligation, both a legal one under the first amendment and a moral one under basic principles of how states should behave to their citizens, to apply such laws neutrally, rather than with bias against religion.
The Colorado CRC should be ashamed of itself, here.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:52 amnk #7 – “Giuliani is an idiot for saying it. He’s too fond of the sound of his voice that guy.”
Tru Dat !!
What Giuliani SHOULD HAVE SAID was something along the lines of:
“Suppose President Obama found out from reading the NYT that his Secretary of State sold the U.S. uranium rights to the Russians in exchange for a sweet donation to her private foundation. If he called Ms. Clinton into his office, and put a cap in her a**, he couldn’t be indicted for the crime while he was still president.”
bendover (8c9eab) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:53 am83 — it’s normally a rare matter for the feds to take murder cases because most offices do not have experienced homicide prosecutors, and its better to leave those cases in the state courts where the sentences are just as severe, and the state court prosecutors have much more experience.
I was involved in the early stages of the Yosemite Park murder case back in the late 1990s, when the three park visitors, and later a park employee were killed by Cary Stayner. In fact, I was the “Duty” attorney the weekend he was first identified as a suspect, was questioned, and then arrested. I handled the various search warrants issued for his car and belongings which turned up evidence used to convict him.
All the murders happened inside Yosemite Park on federal property, so there was concurrent jurisdiction between the feds and Calif DA’s office in Mariposa County. There was a lot of discussion about which office would prosecute the cases, and the US Attorney’s office ended up holding on to the case. One reason it was able to do so was because in the office there was one AUSA who had been a homicide prosecutor in the Fresno County DA’s office for 10 years, and the case was assigned to him. I helped with some of the pretrial stuff involving the warrants and interrogation, but moved back to doing stuff more in my “wheelhouse” as the case moved forward.
The closest I came to a “murder” case was a drug prosecution where one of the charges was conspiracy to solicit the murder of a federal agent.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:53 amThat should have been “Beldar” 83.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:54 am92… harummmppppp! Take it to Parliament.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:57 amFollow-up on Stayner.
Initially he was charged with a federal death penalty offense, but the Janet Reno DOJ opted to accept a guilty plea offer with a stipulation to life in prison without parole. That was very controversial in our office, but we had no choice.
In reaction, Mariposa County decided to charge him with murder and seek the death penalty under California law. He was convicted in state court and sentenced to death. He sits on death row now.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:00 pmThe president does not have the power to pardon himself
The president has the power of the [federal] pardon. Congress has the power of impeachment. Neither of these has any limit of interest, other than what they impose on themselves.
Trump could pardon himself. Congress could impeach Trump for boorishness. The Court won’t get involved.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:03 pmKevin M is right, Dustin is wrong.
The Sun rose in the East, and will set in the West.
Repeat tomorrow.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:04 pm“The guy publicly called for Russia to leak classified information about Hillary.”
Somebody did not understand the context, or the joke.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:04 pmHe sits on death row now.
In CA. He probably gets a favorable life insurance policy.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:04 pmLooks like it’s “Lose Your Schiff Monday”!
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:06 pmDustin, I don’t know how you become such a tool. I used to agree with you a lot. But your ability to discriminate fact from fiction these days seems to hang solely on whether the statement helps of hurts Trump.
If Trump delivered world peace, you’d find fault.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:07 pmTrump delivers world peace — women and minorities hardest hit.
random viking (b52e12) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:09 pmTake a look at these here redactions:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De3DrwwUcAA7Mtd.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De3DrwwUcAA7Mtd.jpg
To update, they’re not spies, they’re “OCONUS lures” or ‘foreign testimony bait’
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:09 pm“The guy publicly called for Russia to leak classified information about Hillary.”
Hillary literally leaked classified information to Russia and others. One is a crime and the other is not. Telling you go after the non criminal in the case.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:11 pmKevin, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I have no patience for partisans. Your sneering about how bored this subject makes you doesn’t seem to be honest, as you’re pretty obsessed with defending Dear Leader. But then, being dishonest is part of being a Republican now.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:12 pmSo the Oregon cake shop owner would have a Sec. 1983 action against the Oregon official for deprivation of her civil rights under color of authority.
Yes, I suggested that they would have a federal case, but that I didn’t see it happening. IIRC, there is some tension between US Attorneys and citizens trying to file their own cases. It’s a bit hazy to me now.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:15 pmYeah, Hillary is bad. One can think Hillary is bad and also think Trump is bad. In fact, when the main response to criticism of Trump used to be ‘Hillary is bad’ I recognized this for what it is: partisanship.
Trump’s the one imputing criminal guilt onto himself by saying he can pardon himself. Yes, I realize he yammers incoherently, and part of his statement is that he did nothing wrong and will ‘play the game’ but if you pardon yourself you are guilty on a number of levels, and Trump’s dishonesty is well established.
He fired Comey in an effort to obstruct justice. He begged Russia to leak classified intel. He’s crooked and partisan Republicans supporting corruption deserve to be condemned repeatedly for their disloyalty to our great nation.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:15 pm107. Most of it wasnm’t classified, but some of it might have been criminal or near criminal, or would providxe clues to it. If Russia, that is, had it. Truymp actually said if they could find it – so he was asking thjem to find deleted emails that certain;y were not connected to the Internet.
(That actually wouldn’t have helped Trump. If they were too damaging it could lead to Hillary dropping out of the race a la New jersey senator Robert Torricelli and then he’d have a harder time winning.)
Trump has since described that as a joke
He called on Russia if they were listebning, to try to “find” Hillary’s already deleted emails n her disconnected server.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:17 pmYour argument appears to focus exclusively on the issue of incarcerating a president, and does not seem to deal with the issue of indicting him or trying him.
It is always the case that if the executive flouts a court order, it will prompt a constitutional crisis. One would like to think that the conviction of a president by a criminal court for a serious crime would indeed prompt an impeachment and removal, even if the mere accusation didn’t. If it didn’t, then the observation that others have made would be accurate that our republic is in a lot of trouble regardless.
However, there is no necessary theoretical bar to the courts issuing an injunction ordering that the Bureau of Prisons incarcerate the president and ignore any contrary order that he might give.
The mere fact that a power falls within an article other than Article III does not automatically deprive the Article III courts of jurisdiction on the question of whether the power has been or can be exercised constitutionally. For example, the fact that the veto power is located in Article I rather than Article III does not mean that Article III courts have no jurisdiction over determining whether, for example, a line-item veto is constitutional. I don’t even think such an argument was even considered by the court in Clinton vs. City of New York, which ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional.
Of course, if the president were to continue to use a line-item veto in defiance of the court’s decision, and if Congress were to refuse to impeach him for doing so, I suppose one could argue that the court’s decision would have amounted to nothing more than a piece of paper that was unenforceable. If that were to happen, however, it would not mean that the court never had actual authority to decide the matter, but that our system had completely broken down in the wake of the decision.
I do not think it wise to endorse that breakdown prospectively.
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:18 pmReading that was a laugh out loud moment.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:18 pmI am not saying you are defending Trump or that you would if he shot Comey. Nor did I express disdain for my readers in the post. (A charitable reading of the use of the term “the right half of the party” in my post obviously does not include every member of the right half of the Republican party in the country.) However, if Trump were actually accused of a serious crime and denied it, these are the sorts of arguments that I would expect to see used by partisans on his behalf. I thank you for the detailed object lesson.
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:18 pmHappyfeet, use this one when satirizing Team R next time. It’s hilarious.
I’m not concerned with the popularity of criticizing Team R hacks on this great blog. Its discussion section is full of folks who don’t agree with me. and when it comes to Partisans, there’s always an effort to pile on in criticism of the heretic. Especially when he’s right. Trump is a national embarrassment, and his statements that he can pardon himself, that Trump is above the law, are disgraceful. Those defending him on this subject are going to be personal about it. Kevin was just the first to get there, but the more I bring it up, the uglier you guys will get. I’m not worried about it. I suspect the ugliness comes from a guilty heart.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:22 pm83. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:37 am
Well, he could always move the body to federal property, take control of the investigation (if the investigating agencies were proepry under his thumb) and say it happened there.
In this scenario, the president admits it.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:23 pmSo there are mechanisns of dealing e rhe hypothetical situation
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:24 pmAre you sitting down? Because I have some news you may find troubling. Dustin, you are a partisan.
Carry on.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:27 pmDustin, I am sorry you don’t see that the ability to work together as a party (“partisanship”, as you sneer) is the bedrock of political action in America. Without it, all we have are posturing narcissists insisting that everything be done exactly their way, as if anyone gives a sh1t.
I have spent some time in that particular egotistical wilderness, and have found it unrewarding. The solution is to move a party in a better direction, but you cannot do that if you stand aloof.
I despise Donald Trump. Yet I support the GOP because the other party (there are ONLY TWO, and there will only BE two) is so far gone that it’s not even on the same planet. The GOP is far move favorable to economic freedom, personal choice and freedom from state control than the other guys who favor the opposite of all that (the Democrat view of “choice” is limited to a very few areas, none of which threaten their need to control).
So, I want the GOP to move forward. I prefer any number of Republcians to Trump. Yet I cannot think of a SINGLE Democrat who I would prefer to have as president instead. That simple realization tells em I have the right side.
Now, why do I find it necessary to defend Trump? Because the UTTER BULLSH1T coming from his attackers, present company included, is designed to get Democrats back into office and not much else.
You decry partisanship, yet every word you type could have come off the DNC fax machine (aka the Washington Post). I know this because I read the Post daily just to see what new turd they produced.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:28 pm92. Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:51 am
he probably shouldn’t have, but he does. Only from federal offenses, of course, and not from impeachment. Nobody has tried it.
A president can also probably be indicted, tried and covicted. What Trump’s lawyers got Mueller to agree to, was that, since he’s acting under the auspices of the Department of Justice and is not a special prosecutor appointed by federal judges, like Kenneth Starr was, he was bound by a Justice Department legal ruling issued during the term of President Bill Clinton.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:29 pmThe law student Patterico cites in his article eventually grew up to become a law professor with a twitter feed and a definite non-opinion on the pardon question that is bothering everyone today:
https://twitter.com/ProfBrianKalt/status/1003279125711409152
I’m not kidding on the non-opinion. He says this is a case of first impression, and there are arguments both ways. He dies, however, dump cold water on the idea of a pardon as a legal acceptance of guilt.
Appalled (96665e) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:31 pmFirst the President. Now, his lawyer. Talking about shooting someone.
A man like that needs a fixer. And when this mob-style fixer gets his home and office raided, there is trouble ahead. Naturally, the answer is that this same President has the “absolute right to pardon himself”.
How nice.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:32 pmListening to those that say that Trump is Putin’s buddy, despite every single piece of evidence available, is like listening to 9-11 Truthers. Tiring. And pretty much as devoid of rationality.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:32 pmI disagree. You cannot be a judge in your own case. Conflict of interest is common law. But my argument is purely based on ethics and the law. A president insisting he can just pardon himself is, of course, arguing that the president is above any law. So who cares if he legally can’t do something, because he has today inflicted upon our country a legal crisis. The damage is done. This little bit of seeming Trump trivia is actually a significant point in American history.
Bill Clinton didn’t pardon himself or hold himself above the law when he committed perjury. Had he done so, the very people scoffing and fainting that I’m condemning it today would be raising pitchforks.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:32 pmand not from impeachment
Mainly because the Constitution says exactly that. Why oh why did they forget to limit the pardon power to himself, or his minions? Those shipshod drafters!
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:35 pmBill Clinton didn’t pardon himself or hold himself above the law when he committed perjury.
He was being impeached, and that might have crossed a line. And in any event he avoided conviction on the perjury charge.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:36 pmThanks for sharing on this point alone. Burdick v US hasn’t been overruled so legally accepting a pardon does indeed include an imputation of guilt, but this is purely a legal point. If I were innocent and convicted and offered a pardon, my acceptance just means I don’t want to be penalized for something I didn’t do. I do get your point. Personally, I think the pardon is for those who are morally innocent despite legal guilt, if that makes sense. Of course, in today’s age, it just means the president got money or political juice out of the pardon.
But I’m a little fixated on the idea the President holds himself above the law. I’ll be hearing for two more years at least that defending the Republicans is a lot like being morally right, and this is the party whose leadership believes it is above the law. This kind of ‘I have the power so I can use it for any reason’ is the kind of thing a monarch would believe. It really is a critically serious problem.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:38 pmCould Trump Be Prosecuted for Shooting James Comey While Still in Office?
Could Trump be prosecuted for shooting Jim Acosta while still in office?
Could Trump be prosecuted for strangling Rosie O’Donnell while still in office?
Could Trump be prosecuted for decapitating Kathy Griffin while still in office?
Rudy’s winging it; dropping chaff.
“That’s our number six plane, the decoy plane. It’s trying to draw your fighters away from our other plane…carrying the bombs. It carries only defensive equipment. You don’t have to worry about it.” – General Bogan [Frank Overton] ‘Fail-Safe’ 1964
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:45 pmBut I’m a little fixated on the idea the President holds himself above the law.
Fixation on a ridiculous hypothetical yields the usual results.
The question posed by Stephanopoulos to Rudy is reminiscent of his question to Romney about birth control in 2012. Ridiculous hypothetical, and the tribe runs with it.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:47 pmRudy is the best thing about the Trump administration. Much unlike a lot of Trump’s guys, Rudy actually thinks he is doing the right thing, and wants to be accountable and honest about his decisions. Only through open communication has he exposed exactly what the GOP has become, thanks entirely to the concept of the two party system.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:51 pmI knew it, Ghouliani’s just a nut.
Tillman (a95660) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:54 pmRandom Viking, Trump is the person raising the idea he has the power to hold himself above the law. I didn’t just make this up. He and his administration have been setting the stage and now the President simply asserted he has this power, right now, and that he is above the law. It’s no hypothetical. The expression of this power already happened, whether he goes through with the actual pardon.
Mockery is a last resort, but I expect to hear tons of this, and tons of ‘but but but Hillary and democrats.’ What Team R really needs is an honest appraisal that no man is above the law, and that the law is the supreme ruler of our nation, and Trump’s comments to the contrary are absolutely wrong morally.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 12:54 pmDustin:
I really get where you are. The GOP used to be the party of “character matters”. Now, it’s “winning matters”. Great things can be done by evil people (see, LBJ and the Civil Rights Bill), but it’s nothing you can or should count on.
The problem with Trump is that he seems to have a unique capacity for bringing out unsuspected wrongness (evil seems too strong) in his supporters and his opponents. That is hurting our country.
Appalled (96665e) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:00 pmPresident Trump’s got a lot on his plate!
he never did any crimes that’s for sure and it just pisses them dirty fbi slutboys off how they can’t pin anything on him
this is why you wait til you have evidence before you run off half-cocked
you’d think the slutty men and women of the fbi would know this
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:00 pmThings to come- a Trump presser tease:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJAK8cxJTA
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:02 pmRandom Viking, Trump is the person raising the idea he has the power to hold himself above the law. I didn’t just make this up.
Rudy was asked a question. He answered. If Rudy thinks his answer is rooted in law, should he have given a different answer?
I’ve got an idea. Let’s talk reality, instead of ridiculous hypotheticals. I’ll start: Bruce Ohr. Discuss. Dustin?
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:02 pmHe thinks that he shouldn’t be investigated. He can’t be indicted. Cannot be served a subpoena. Cannot be convicted. But he can pardon himself. Yes, he thinks he is above the law.
He has always felt like he was 68 stories above the rest of us. But, of course, even that was a con. He lives on the 58th floor, not the 68th floor in Trump Tower, as he claims. It’s true…. but you won’t believe it. Some of you won’t. This decades-long con is just too appealing.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:12 pm134 it never stopped the rbi before. Ask liberals who formally critics of the fbi.
cococo12 (848a74) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:13 pmWell said, Noel!
And there’s no argument we can offer that will change anyone’s heart at this point. No Trump fan was surprised by what he said or confused about what it meant. He thinks he’s above the law. We all know it’s wrong. It’s just a matter of whether ‘wrong’ is a problem. It’s literally just a statement about whether we should practice ethics. You can’t win an argument on ethics with someone who rejects the concept of ethics.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:14 pm“Of course, if the president were to continue to use a line-item veto in defiance of the court’s decision, and if Congress were to refuse to impeach him for doing so, I suppose one could argue that the court’s decision would have amounted to nothing more than a piece of paper that was unenforceable. If that were to happen, however, it would not mean that the court never had actual authority to decide the matter, but that our system had completely broken down in the wake of the decision.
I do not think it wise to endorse that breakdown prospectively.”
It’s not ‘breaking down’, two branches working among themselves to correct overreaches of a third branch is simply ‘working as intended.’ Congress not only ‘not impeaching’ but ‘actively cooperating in’ a Presidential decision on how budgets are passed between themselves and the President implies that they, too, have granted consent.
You keep throwing out all these NIGHTMARE SCENARIOS of a court that has less than the ABSOLUTELY FINAL SAY on an issue where normal people hear ‘three branches of government’ and say ‘Oh yeah, that’s where the limits are.’ Granted, corporations and lobbyists spend a crap-ton of money on lawyers and flunky lower-court judges who rubber-stamp corporate boilerplate, but they also used to spend a crap-ton of money on GOPe ‘consultants’ like Rick Wilson.
You may have to just sit down, have a martini, and contemplate on whether you’re really on the ‘right side of history’ rather than someone who honed locally optimal but holistically suboptimal tactics in a game that people with money and influence got tired of playing and repeatedly losing at while their supposed representatives in the ring made money either way. Maybe shifting finances to Congressional lobbying rather than legal wrangling was the smart play. Or maybe investing in celebrity executives with a love for the bully pulpit gets more bang for your buck over the long term.
Skin in the game, friend, skin in the game.
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:15 pmWell said, Appalled. And yes, Trump is special in ways that could do some good. If he wanted to or even if he didn’t. I don’t think he’s staying up at night worrying about the consequences of his appointments, which have been better than Hillary’s would have been.
I can see Trump shutting down, permanently, tons of federal agencies, firing a million of our federal employees, and balancing the budget… if he was a conservative at least. While my problem with Trump today is that he’s causing such long term damage to our nation, to what it means to be a free country, my problem with him last week was that he’s just plain not motivated by conservatism, by small government, by accountability, or even spending less money. We paid a high price for a bridge to nowhere.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:18 pmYou can’t win an argument on ethics with someone who rejects the concept of ethics.
In the midst of a legal argument, I’ve found that lawyers are easily swayed by an appeal to ethics.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:18 pmThe president issuing a royal decree that he may pardon himself is certainly not what our founding fathers intended. They were very clear on what the American revolution was intended to do, and Trump’s conduct is well described by Thomas Paine in my quote above.
This limitation on power is a critical point to a government vesting the entire executive power in a single man, called a President because he merely presides over our government, and merely executes the law.
The president is not the law, and he not above the law, and his announcement that he can pardon himself violates what the founders established.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:26 pm137. noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:12 pm
These are apparently legal claims made duringh the Clinton Administration. Quietly.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:28 pmI’m certain Thomas Paine would’ve found a kindred spirit in Bruce Ohr.
(I don’t doubt your ability to misconstrue the above, so suffice to say it’s sarcasm.)
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:32 pm79. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:33 am
No, I think he;s referring to some matters that are not yet public. What Stefan Halper did doesn’t really fit.
Here is Trump’s latest complaint: (and follow up)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003266374473519105
One problem with that:
Comey and othwrs chose to brief top Obama Administraiton officials not about manafort, or Mike Flynn, but Carter Page!
Trump followed up:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003268646070874113
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:38 pmi need to poop brb
gonna run to starbucks
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:39 pmEven Nixon didn’t pardon himself. Are we getting close to rock-bottom yet?
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:39 pmTrump coomplains about the existence of the special counsel, citing Mark Penn:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003328970069331968
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:40 pmDustin,
read your own remarks. Your personal hatred of the man is blinding you to discussing the hypothetical objectively. That you cling, like Dave, to a joke asking Russia to “release the documents” shows how far down the rabbit hole you’ve gone. Please come back to a place where you can debate without impugning the motives of those who disagree.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:42 pmTrump says he can pardon himself: (but won’t since he’s done nothing wrong)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003616210922147841
He says he’s co-ooperating with the special counsel because he’s done nothing wrong: (unlike the Democrats, he says)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003637916919320577
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:45 pmNJRob,
It’s truly bizarre that you are bashing me personally while complaining about ‘impugning motives.’
Read your own words. I do indeed hate the idea of a president announcing he can pardon himself. I have gone to some length to explain why this is absolutely wrong. You say this is ‘personal hatred of a man’, and indeed Trump is contemptible, but my basis for this argument was laid out clearly and was not personal in any respect.
Actually, now you’re personally bashing Dave as well, while virtue signalling how bad it is to personally bash people. And no, that was no joke. We know this because Trump really did work with Russia to get dirt on Hillary, and his fans defended this all day long.
Dustin (8dc6df) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:47 pmI think he got that line that he did nothing wrong (which may be true, legally) from Alec Baldwin.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:47 pm148. noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:39 pm
No court has ruled on whether or not that would be effective, and courts can say anything.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:49 pmother jokes are include the sleazy Mueller Witch Hunt
the probity of the hot and horny men and women of the slutty slutty fbi
the CIA
the incompetent and sleazy Mattis military
blood orange diet coke yuck yuck yuck
and Rose McGowan’s nasty haircut
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:50 pmI will place my bet. Pardoning yourself is an act that places the President above the law. The courts can say almost anything but they will NOT say that. Or… we are now a dictatorship.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:55 pmYou could argue that there is still a Congress with impeachment powers. Those spineless Republicans in the House will not stand up to him if a majority of Republican voters insist that they back him. Like I said…. dictatorship.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 1:59 pmafter spending hundreds of millions of dollars dirty nazi slutboy robert mueller still has nothing to charge President Trump with, so what would President Trump have to pardon
mueller’s just gonna hang around spending money until the end of President Trump’s second term then write a report and hand it to corrupt Attorney General Rod Rosenstein the end
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:02 pmThis is what would happen in the terror and the directory within 20 years
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/308
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:05 pmWhat they say is that if a president;s approval rating gets into the 2os (and I guess this concerns issues f right and wrong) the House of Reprsennatatives iwll impeach, and the Senate will remove.
The Cabinet and the vce president might even try a manuever.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:05 pm“Those defending him on this subject are going to be personal about it. Kevin was just the first to get there, but the more I bring it up, the uglier you guys will get. I’m not worried about it. I suspect the ugliness comes from a guilty heart.”
There’s that penchant for mischaracterrization and impugning the motivation of others he’s known and loved for.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:08 pmThe founders had seen a counterexample
https://www.ancient.eu/Tribune/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:08 pmSammy, you raise the most important point. As best as I can tell, a lot of Americans support Trump and the Republican party. We do get the government we deserve. Ultimately, responsibility resides with the voters.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:09 pm150… just saw this, NJ Rob… exactly.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:10 pmDo I think we are a dictatorship already? No. I just don’t like the trend line. And a President pardoning himself and all of his criminal friends would force me to think its possible.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:13 pmPatterico:
I have to say, this is weak sauce.
First of all, what Guiliani says off the cuff is not a legal brief. So you cannot parse it to the Nth degree.
Second, he said impeach and then do what you want to him for (hypothetically) shooting Comey. So even under his remark, the President does not escape criminal liability for murder (or manslaughter), it is just that you first have to remove him from office.
Don’t know what his source for that is, but it sounds reasonable (and there are academic arguments for it.) Do you want the President of the US to be arrested during his term? For anything? How about speeding? (IIRC, LBJ used to speed terribly.) How about throwing gum on a sidewalk?
The more interesting question is, can he be criminally charged with something (obstruction of justice) for FIRING Comey? The answer to that, IMO, is clearly, No. The President has the absolute authority to fire anyone in the Executive branch. That is simply not reviewable by a court, no matter his motivation.
Bored Lawyer (998177) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:19 pmThis must have horrified you:
https://www.npr.org/2014/01/20/263766043/wielding-a-pen-and-a-phone-obama-goes-it-alone
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:22 pmShooting’s too good for Comey anyway. Proper retribution will require him to face trial. Until then, this might be a solution.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:24 pmBored Lawyer, is speeding an arrestable offense in your state? It isn’t in Texas.
Actually, the president is not above the law, and he has no absolute authority in any matter whatsoever. We don’t have a king, and no lawyer should wish that we did. The rule of law is king.
The entire executive branch is vested in President Trump, however he cannot fire people with the intent to obstruct justice, which is part of what Trump is currently in hot water about.
He can, of course, fire Comey just because he wants to fire Comey. He doesn’t need to explain why he fires people. But he still cannot do it in the commission of a crime.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:27 pm@ Bored Lawyer, who wrote (#166):
Cite?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:28 pmRegarding self-pardoning, the issue is moot because, under DOJ policy, a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted, therefore cannot be convicted in a court of law while in office. The real question is whether Trump can issue a blanket prospective self-pardon. Gerald Ford issued a prospective pardon on Nixon, but I think Turley is wrong and the OLC is right: No one may be a judge in his/her own case. If Trump shoots and kills Comey, then the process should be impeachment in the House and removal by the Senate, with any indictment and prosecution to occur when Trump becomes an ex-president.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:28 pmRegarding Trump’s belief that he’s above obstructing justice, I agree with Mr. Wittes, although ultimately that’s up to the House and Senate to decide.
(I mean, something more detailed and on point, e.g., a court opinion recognizing its lack of power to review such a decision. Don’t just say, “Article II.”)
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:28 pmPresident Donald J Trump is the best thing that’s happened in America since Ronald Reagan. And everyone knows it, everyone, even if a few whack jobs, knuckleheads, #NeverTrumpers, and certifiable lunatics can’t bring themselves to admit the obvious reality happening right in front of their noses.
If it wasn’t for Trump, and the voters who put him in the White House, Hillary Clinton would have already stabbed Uncle Sam in the back and had the Park Police dump his lifeless body in Fort Marsey Park.
The sycophant media, led by the NY Times and the WaPo, would be assuring us that only mean-spirited racists, sexists, and homophobes would deny that Hillary could pardon herself, or anyone else with enough cash to attract the attention of one of her b*tches.
Just imagine: Eric Holder would be Attorney General, Mueller Director of FBI, Brenner at CIA, Loretta Lynch on the Supreme Court, Lois Learner at IRS, Slick as Secretary of State, and Chelsea Manning as Secretary of Defense.
Then, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to imagine Hillary whispering in Putin’s ear about how much flexibility she’d have after proclaiming herself She who must be obayed.
ropelight (3baf2a) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:34 pmso arming Mexican cartels, wiretapping the whole ap directory, subpoenaing reporters, forcing business to comply against their conscience, that isn’t autocracy, that’s just Monday,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:35 pmthe hobbes of the last administration:
https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2009/09/14/tom-friedman-hails-chinas-one-party-autocracy-n957246
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:36 pmTwo past Houses of Representatives — the one that was on the brink of impeaching Nixon, and the one that did impeach Clinton — have expressed the view that a POTUS’ obstruction of an investigation into himself by a special prosecutor looking into that POTUS can indeed qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor justifying the House in impeaching him, and the Senate in removing him. Both listed obstruction of justice as grounds for impeachment.
I would suggest that that is the relevant historical precedent here, even though it’s more a political than legal precedent. Both Houses were explicitly reasoning by analogy as to the elements of the offenses charged from federal statutes, including obstruction of justice statutes.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:37 pmPaul, I agree both with this policy and with your view that it makes the issue seemingly moot. However I don’t really think it’s disposed of. Our president announcing he can pardon himself is dangerous. The trend of his fans supporting any lie he tells or ethical abuse he makes is also dangerous. Trump’s argument that he can do whatever he wants is quite bad for this country, as a country free of being ruled by a man who is his own sovereign.
For decades now we’ve heard from nuts who say Obama or Bush are about to pardon themselves and rolled our eyes, but I really think Trump’s conduct has damaged the rule of law, whether he actually ever gets to invoke his pardon of himself. Great links and I enjoyed the Atlantic article.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:38 pmOff topic:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/remembering-richard-pipes-great-scholar-extraordinary-man
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:39 pmif dirty fbi slutboy Robert Mueller feels obstructed he should take a laxative and find the nearest Starbucks end of discussion
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:39 pm177. A person doesn’t have to be indicted in order to be pardoned. Nixon wasn’t (one of the problems with the pardon)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:39 pmFord gave Nixon a pardon for anything – any offenses committed against the United States.
That’s maybe questionable.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:40 pm“The trend of his fans supporting any lie he tells or ethical abuse he makes is also dangerous. Trump’s argument that he can do whatever he wants is quite bad for this country, as a country free of being ruled by a man who is his own sovereign.”
Harrrrummppppp! Take it to Parliament!
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:41 pmTheer are two kinds of obstruction of justice: One where there is an underlying crime, and one where the investigation is just interfered with or stopped. I think there’s a good case for saying the second kind os ntot soemthibng a president or attorney general can be guilty of.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:42 pmThis sounds like a religious thing. It sounds like you literally worship President Trump. I disagree that Trump has produced such obvious positive results, and if you look over my comments on this blog over the years, I’ve always been very clear as to what results I believe are good.
A balanced budget is usually near the top of my list.
A president who yields to the rule of law.
Equality of all before the law (classic liberalism).
Foreign policy that doesn’t coddle evil.
Trump has done poorly in these respects. This isn’t even controversial. It’s pretty much objective fact that he has failed my ideals.
I think the results so far have been terrible, in fact, and instead of praising job creation, we are hearing how it’s not possible to cut spending, fix the labor participation rate, solve problems in North Korea. Same excuses we heard during the last administration, that Trump’s supporters mocked before they began repeating them.
What’s funny about this is that Putin’s people were clearly complaining about Obama’s lack of flexibility. For all we know, Obama was playing Putin for a fool, and the consequence was the Trump+Putin collusion and the instability of our democratic process we’ve all seen so many examples of.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:43 pmsome perspective on past kerfluffles,
https://www.redstate.com/diary/Bonchie/2018/06/04/false-reagan-nostalgia-tactics-defeating-liberalism/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:43 pmTrump doesn’t want people to think he’s guilty of a crime. Therefore he has to let Mueller carry on.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:43 pmright so when he pulled interceptors out of eastern Europe, and Alaska for good measure, when he let the entire polish cabinet to perish, without comment in circumstances similar to katyn, now moving against a long time Russian client, Libya was the exception,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:47 pmit’s a gonzo world:
http://therightscoop.com/stick-to-facts-chris-cuomo-calls-out-morning-joe-defends-giuliani/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 2:49 pmIf you want to speculate on the alleged constitutional horrors that would result from the president being subject to the same laws as any citizen, let’s follow the alternative through to its obvious denouement:
If the president can pardon himself, there is no legal impediment to arresting or murdering every member of congress who might vote to impeach him, and then pardoning himself and his accomplices for the deeds.
Under the theory that the president can pardon himself, he would be legally free and clear, and any order or attempt to remove him from office for his actions would, itself, be unlawful.
Spout all the theory you want about “Article III this” and “Article II that”; I don’t think this sort of despotism is what the Founders intended.
Dave (c483cd) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:02 pm@148.Even Nixon didn’t pardon himself. Are we getting close to rock-bottom yet?
No, but according to Ford himself, WH CoS Haig pitched it to Ford on August 1, 1974, as one of several options “the WH staff” [more than likely a cover phrase to include The Big Dick himself] saw for Nixon as the end approached w/t pending release of the ‘smoking gun’ tape. Ford discusses it in this brief interview–it’s about 4 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdsehsvnFMA
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:05 pmDave — there’s a philosophical principle which says that republican liberty requires virtue in order to work.
I am concerned that we are in the process of discovering that this is true, and that neither our executive nor our legislature any longer has the required virtue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:09 pmTeh Assassination of Comey James By Teh Coward Donald Trump
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:11 pmYou have probably been concerned ever since you witnessed how Obamacare became a law.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:12 pm_Myers_ says the President can fire someone without Congressional approval, but it says nothing about judicial oversight.
It seems pretty clear to me that if, for example, the President were to fire an official because he was a Jew, that a court *could* and *would* intervene.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:13 pmThe use of the reconciliation process to approve Obamacare was no more out of the ordinary than the use of the reconciliation process to create COBRA was. It’s been an occasional legislative practice since before I was born.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:14 pmThis is a memorandum prepared for the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, on the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. It was prepared by Carl Feldbaum and Peter Kreindler:
WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor
DATE: August 9, 1974
FROM: Carl B Feldbaum & Peter M. Kreindler
SUBJECT: Factors to be Considered in Deciding Whether to Prosecute Richard M. Nixon for Obstruction of Justice
In our view there is clear evidence that Richard M. Nixon participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice by concealing the identity of those responsible for the Watergate break-in and other criminal offenses. There is a presumption (which in the past we have operated upon) that Richard M. Nixon, like every citizen, is subject to the rule of law. Accordingly, one begins with the premise that if there is sufficient evidence, Mr. Nixon should be indicted and prosecuted. The question then becomes whether the presumption for proceeding is outweighed by the factors mandating against indictment and prosecution.
The factors which mandate against indictment and prosecution are:
1.His resignation has been sufficient punishment.
2.He has been subject to an impeachment inquiry with resulting articles of impeachment which the House Judiciary Committee unanimously endorsed as to Article I (the Watergate cover-up).
3.Prosecution might aggravate political divisions in the country.
4.As a political matter, the times call for conciliation rather than recrimination.
5.There would be considerable difficulty in achieving a fair trial because of massive pre-trial publicity.
The factors which mandate in favor of indictment and prosecution are:
1.The principle of equal justice under law requires that every person, no matter what his past position or office, answer to the criminal justice system for his past offenses. This is a particularly weighty factor if Mr. Nixon’s aides and associates, who acted upon his orders and what they conceived to be his interests, are to be prosecuted for she same offenses.
2.The country will be further divided by Mr. Nixon unless there is a final disposition of charges of criminality outstanding against him so as to forestall the belief that he was driven from his office by erosion of his political base. This final disposition may be necessary to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system and the legislative process, which together marshalled the substantial evidence of Mr. Nixon’s guilt.
3.Article I, Section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution provides that a person removed from office by impeachment and conviction “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.” The Framers contemplated that a person removed from office because of abuse of his public trust still would have to answer to the criminal justice system for criminal offenses.
4.It cannot be sufficient retribution for criminal offenses merely to surrender the public office and trust which has been demonstrably abused. A person should not be permitted to trade in the abused office in return for immunity.
5.The modern nature of the Presidency necessitates massive public exposure of the President’s actions through the media. A bar to prosecution on the grounds of such publicity effectively would immunize all future Presidents for their actions, however criminal. Moreover, the courts may be the appropriate forum to resolve questions of pre-trial publicity in the context of an adversary proceeding.
-source, watergate.info
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:17 pmI think you are leaving some of the process out, aphreal. Are you leaving it out on purpose?
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:18 pm177. The prospective self-pardon may not be disposed of if Trump invokes it, Dustin. I don’t think the House or Senate could address it in impeachment/removal proceedings, so the other co-equal branch, the Supreme Court, would probably be the ultimate arbiter on the matter.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:20 pmThat makes sense, Paul. I think that’s appropriate and I would also prefer if impeachment proceedings were handled by the Court.
Of course, by the time we get to that point, we have a president pardoning himself. The Court can tell him that was wrong and he can just pardon himself again or otherwise ignore them. To me, things have gone too far at the point the President expresses this power exists in the first place (meaning we’re already there).
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:23 pmBuDuh — can you be more clear about what part of the process you think demonstrated a lack of virtue that threatens the ability of the republic to remain a republic?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:25 pm@181. Ford gave Nixon a pardon for anything – any offenses committed against the United States.
It’s academic now, Sammy, but the pardon was bracketed w/a time frame. Doesn’t pardon him for his ’68 campaign shenanigans, like the ‘treason’ through Chennault over pitching woo to Vietnam which LBJ was aware in the days before the election– but then the electorate wasn’t aware of it for many years either…
“By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:31 pmI don’t think that the Senate gutting an already House passed, and completely unrelated bill, to replace its language with the Senate’s version of The ACA to circumvent the rules of where budget related legislation is supposed to originate is in common with the virtues of the Republic.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:38 pmkreindler, was the critter, who Clarice reversed the conviction of a certain official, because they didn’t set a quorum, at the time of the hearing, he went on to be a vp at united technologies,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:38 pmtomorrow is the hearing:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/24/timing-chairman-goodlatte-and-chairman-gowdy-schedule-testimony-from-bill-priestap/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:41 pmNevertrumper?
Also probably not a Team R guy.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:46 pm> I don’t think that the Senate gutting an already House passed, and completely unrelated bill, to replace its language with the Senate’s version of The ACA to circumvent the rules of where budget related legislation is supposed to originate is in common with the virtues of the Republic.
That’s also been common practice since well before I was born, both at the federal and state level.
I don’t think it’s a good practice, but we seem to have muddled along decently well with it.
How is this comparable to the assertion that the president can commit any crime he wants and then pardon himself?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:53 pmDustin – it’s amazing to me how blind the contemporary right is to the danger of abuse of power by the executive. It’s not just today; the roots of this legal argument can be seen in legal filings by the Bush administration (the whole unitary executive theory, by which independent agencies are unconstitutional, points in this direction).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:54 pmfood stamp engaged in wholesale corruption of the slut-suck CIA and of the coward-ass men and women of the knob-job fbi, to say nothing of what dirty Lois did at the IRS
President Trump can’t hold a candle to slutbama’s lawlessness and corruption
and it is so good
it is so so good
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:57 pmPerhaps Trump just enjoys trolling all of the usual suspects.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:58 pmaphrael, you’re right, and indeed this stuff didn’t just emerge this morning with Trump. We did inch our way over here, often with good intentions in bad times that opened the door to bad intentions now. Good observation on your part.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 3:59 pmIt isn’t. It was in response to:
I was unaware that it was a common practice to gut unrelated legislation in the Senate to pass budget resolutions in the past. Maybe this was a one off because the House couldn’t change anything and send it back to the Senate because of Scott Brown’s win and the fear that the people of the United States could stop the cram through.
What are some other examples of this common practice?
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:04 pmDustin: thank you for your integrity in this dangerous and troubled time.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:05 pmWhat is this… Punch n’ Judy!?!?
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:06 pm200. But at least if the SC rules against self-pardons, all the more grounds for impeachment/removal for the next president who tries it.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:07 pmMr. Dustin if you need to poop i’d like to recommend starbucks it has a dedicated poop room, dedicated just for this purpose that anyone can use plus free wi-fi
you know who likes to poop at starbucks is han solo and his fuzzy boyfriend plus they enjoy the free wi-fi
the important thing of note is that herr mueller has managed to draw his phony investigation out one more day
and that’s his job
to draw it out as long as possible
it’s like how hitler dragged out ww2 (famous war from forever ago)
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:15 pm216. Wipe that drool off your chin, for God’s sake…
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:20 pm173.President Donald J Trump is the best thing that’s happened in America since Ronald Reagan.
Much better ratings. Doesn’t take much to piss on Reagan’s grave.
“Well done. Exemplary. Keep it up.” – Arthur Jensen [Ned Beatty] ‘Network’ 1976
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:23 pmhey happyfeet you’re bringing up Nazis a lot lately!
Starbucks isn’t really for me, though I must stop for coffee at least 20 times a week. Austin is fortunate to have a few terrific spots. Dunkin isn’t a bad option just because I like their staff, but I really do prefer the mom-and-pop independent places.
At the moment, I am sipping on H-E-B Cafe Ole’ “Taste of San Antonio” medium roast, which I ground in some cheap burr grinder and then brewed in a nice Bonavita. It’s terrific!
My concern for my country has nothing to do with my digestive function. People can be unhappy with something because that thing is bad, and still be healthy, happy people. But I can appreciate Trump’s fans believing all political perspectives come from a rotten, frustrated place. After all, isn’t that what George Washington and Ben Franklin are talking about above?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:27 pm“But where, say some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Great Britain.”
Dustin wants an R.J. Rushdoony-style theocracy, good to know.
“Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the Charter; let it be brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.”
America also modeled its government very clearly on the Old Testament…and have you actually READ what happened to Israel during its ages of Judges/ages of ANARCHO-CAPITALISM?
“For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the Crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.”
A Crown, a Robe, whatever, when one gets abused to the point where Da People won’t stand for it, demolish and scatter, got it, looks like Dustin didn’t read very hard.
“A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello may hereafter arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the liberties of the Continent like a deluge.”
Tom Paine was also a partisan of Le French Revolution, which ended in La Code Napoleon, so his ability to take his own advice wasn’t quite all that good. As far as ‘desperate and discontented’ goes, well, I’m not the party that depends entirely on the dependent, the aggrieved, the enslaved, amd the degenerate masters of the same who maintain control over their pets as a higher good than any improvement in themselves. Bioleninism comes from the Party of Lenin!
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:29 pmso, we pull back the curtains
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/04/mangiante-papadopoulos-collusion/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:31 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8
“Jimmy, don’t make me have to kill you.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:34 pmPREDICTION: Thomas Paine could easily understand this argument, may be a little too spicy for Dustin to use outside of blindly grabbing any cudgel he thinks he can beat Trump with:
“Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.
Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families. The same happened in China, where e.g. the 5 provinces which formed the southern Mongolian steppe were joined up into “Inner Mongolia autonomous region”, what Sailer calls “consolidate and surrender”.
In Communist countries pedigree was very important. You couldn’t get far in the party if you had any little kulak, noble or landowner ancestry. Only peasants and workers were trusted. Why? Because only peasants and workers could be trusted to be loyal. Rich people, or people with the inborn traits which lead to being rich, will always have status in any natural society. They will always do alright. That’s why they can’t be trusted; the stakes are never high for them. If anything they’d rather have more freedom to realize their talents. People of peasant stock though, they came from the dregs of society. They know very well that all they have was given to them by the party. And so they will be loyal to the death, because they know it, if the Communist regime falls, their status will fall as fast as a hammer in a well. And the same goes for everyone else, especially those ethnic minorities.”
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:35 pmmy brother gets that coffee to take back every time he goes to texas!
i miss H.E.B. i did a summer merchandising for them when i was little and got to go all over texas it was a pretty cool little job
i would beseech you to look upon our president with kindness
He’s doing a helluva job and under the most extraordinary circumstances
I support him one hundred percent and that’s ALL the percents you can devote for support according to science
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:35 pmtom paine, was a radical, but he didn’t note the distinction being the lockean American revolution, to the rousseauian Jacobin terror, which did give rise to a massanello, Charles fox, lead whig in the opposition to pitt, had the same category error,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:36 pmyes, lenin was an outsider because of his Kalmyk and Chuvash roots, napoleon as a Corsican, fidel had Spanish with Lebanese roots, stalin was Georgian, bin laden was kindite Yemeni, all felt alienated from their place of residence, and the regimes that ruled over them,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:41 pmMarxism was just another version, of the original heresy, the promise of heaven on earth, ‘ye shall be as gods,’ was satan’s temptation, and on went the fall. laws were instituted to fill the gap, yet since they are enforced by mortal men, they are themselves flawed. now in british colonial history, there was some experience of prosecuting corrupt officials with hastings of the british east india company, that Edmund burke, did push for,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:46 pmSince you and Dave have both posted on here that his zinger to Russia to “find Hillary’s missing emails” is evidence of collusion it’s stating a fact, not bashing anyone. Care to quote your evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election?
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:46 pmsome context here:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Pitt-the-Younger#ref242495
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:50 pmI wasn’t aware that constitution specified the rules for conduct of business. In fact the opposite is true:
But the Origination Clause, itself, specifically allows the Senate to amend revenue bills that originate in the House:
The Origination Clause and various artifices used to enforce and/or evade it, are documented in this excellent (as usual) Congressional Research Service white-paper.
The courts have consistently held that what happens in the process of passing a revenue bill is not relevant, and that whether the bill is ultimately enrolled as a House or Senate bill is all that does matter.
In Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911):
Conversely, in Hubbard v. Lowe (1915) the court voided a bill which, as originated in the Senate, barred certain types of transactions from the mail. The House amended the bill to change the complete ban to a prohibitive tax. Even though the taxation measure originated as an amendment in the House, the court ruled that the bill, enrolled as a Senate bill, violated the Origination Clause.
Dave (c483cd) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:53 pmThat is fancy, Dave. You may want to tackle what I said, though.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:56 pmin the end though, hastings was acquitted, but he was bankrupt, so an early version of the ‘process is the punishment,’
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:57 pm“I mean he’s governed more conservatively than I certainly could’ve imagined. He’s the most conservative president in my lifetime, through these first 590 days. In terms of policy, I’m extraordinarily happy with President Trump. In terms of rhetoric, I mean the Twitter is what the Twitter is…I wish he could keep his rhetoric under control.”
—- Ben Shapiro
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:00 pmBen Shapiro gets it… the young man gets it. Dustin and the Faculty Lounge spokesperson, not so much.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:03 pmI think Paine’s views are worth discussing, and that it is possible to quote them without meaning I subscribe to literally every view Paine ever had. I also think you are fully aware of what my point was, and you are now arguing in bad faith. I quoted George Washington above too. That does not mean I believe in owning slaves. It just means I think his view about partisanship is worth discussing.
Paine’s actual point was that no man is above the law in a free country, and that King George’s refusal to hold himself accountable in any way was a powerful justification for the Declaration of Independence. This Declaration of Independence does indeed preface our equality in our creation, and has a religious element, but it would be extremely stupid to say these views make America a theocracy. Dysphoria Sam’s objection to Paine’s views are disingenuous.
Dysphoria Sam also offers some bizarre communism copypasta. It doesn’t appear to pertain to anything being discussed in this thread and is obviously nothing Thomas Paine brought up. I think he just wanted to suggest that if you don’t support Trump today, you are a socialist or something. No, this is BS. Trump holding himself above the law is wrong. Period. His critics were right all along.
This rambling is a childish attempt to move the goalposts. Trump’s begging Russia to leak classified emails from Hillary happened, whether you characterize this as a ‘zinger’ or find some other silly reason to dismiss it. It happened. Period. Trump wanted our nation’s enemy to help him win the election, and you think that’s OK because of your political party.
Papadopoulos not only met with Russians for this classified material, obviously for use by the Trump campaign, he lied to the investigation as part of the campaign’s effort to obstruct justice.
There isn’t much point trying to make my case on your terms, NJRob. You’re a partisan and this is all about politics to you. Trump is literally announcing he is above the law and you’re still with him.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:03 pmHang in there, NJ Rob and Sam. You can lead the jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:07 pmMangiante, had previously worked fir mifsud, rabbit #1, tied to mi 6, sismi and general intelligence.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:10 pmThis is the water and this is the well. Drink full, and descend. The jackass is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:10 pm233… make that 500 days.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:11 pmhttp://dailycaller.com/2018/06/04/melania-attends-first-event-surgery/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=site-share
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:23 pmthe law is corrupt
the DOJ a rancid poisonous pool of corruption
the hot and horny men and women of the fbi acknowledge no restraint to their lawlessness
hillary and her once potentially-historic boobies? they scoff at justice!
but not all is lost
President Trump, our paladin, our hope!
he’ll slay the dragons of iniquity and restore the rule of law, that once again all are equal before it and under it!
In Jesus’ name we pray amen
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:25 pmPaine’s actual point was that no man is above the law in a free country, and that King George’s refusal to hold himself accountable in any way was a powerful justification for the Declaration of Independence.
Dustin, I commend you for introducing the thoughts of Paine, Franklin, etc.
What they were concerned about is accountability before the law, and before the people. Regardless of what pardon powers the president has, he is directly accountable via impeachment, and elections (including mid-terms).
There was nothing like the FBI/CIA/DOJ in their time. I very much doubt they would be on board with the calls for “independence” of these agencies that we hear today, since independence in this context means unaccountability. Do you disagree? Hence, I think their warnings are much more applicable to the administrative state today.
This is why I keep bringing up Bruce Ohr, a topic which you have conspicuously avoided.
random viking (ab961c) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:28 pmEssentially Mueller has been lying since word 1, to the last adminstratuon, Israel and the gulf states sans Qatar were the enemy, and Iran was an ally regime.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:35 pm112 — how would you ever compel the Article II Executive to sit for a trial? You can’t send the Marshall’s for him — the USMS is a DOJ component, and the Secret Service has a mission statement that precludes allowing it.
We don’t do criminal trials in absentia unless the defendant personally appears, submits to the court’s jurisdiction, and then fails to return after trial begins.
If the GJ returns and indictment, and the defendant doesn’t appear in response to a summons, the court can then issue a warrant.
Who serves the warrant — oh yeah, the US Marshall.
They work for the President.
Its not a question of whether the US Marshall service WANTS to serve the warrant, the POTUS can simply suspend the police powers of any Dep. US Marshall who takes possession of the warrant with the intent to serve it. No police powers, no power to arrest.
And you again have that sticky problem of the Secret Service.
And lets next assume that there is a judgment made in DOD that the prosecution is politically inspired and baseless. Would DOD have an obligation to protect POTUS??
Send in the Marines!!!!
Oh yeah — there are already Marines stationed at the WH.
See, there are all these “practical” complications that arise if the President might say “Sorry, can’t make it to your show trial”, and Congress backs him up by not impeaching.
THAT is why the caution from DOJ is that you don’t indict a sitting President — there are no good answers to some of the predicaments that might follow, so you don’t go down that road.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:41 pmBreaking- Mueller files to have Manafort bail revoked for attempted witness tampering.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:50 pm@241. Make yourself perfectly clear, Mr. Feet; dust for jowl prints.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 5:52 pm@236. You can lead the jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink.
=Haiku!= Gesundheit!
Diet Coke aside, he doesn’t drink.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:05 pmI believe, on this investigation, Trump will end up before the Supreme Court sooner or later. Thank goodness there are no Mexicans on the Court cuz we know they cannot be fair, right? (Remember Judge Curiel)
Sotomayor? Nope. She is of Puerto Rican descent.
Whew.
noel (b4d580) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:05 pmFlynn, Manafort, Papasmurfpolis, and all the other creepers we know are guilty of lying about the meetings with Russia… they didn’t really make a dent with his fans. NJ Rob thinks all that was just a punchline that just happened to happen right after Trump learned what the Russians were offering his campaign. So funny! What a joker!
Now Trump prefaces his testimony with this ‘I’m above the law’ argument, which has led to some really emotional arguments from Dysphoria Sam, who apparently is very very super smart, albeit absolutely mortified of staying on the subject, and apparently of the concept of the rule of law.
Firing Sally Yates and Comey were emotional decisions based on establishing some kind of loyalty rule, and the same frustration with Sessions refusing to fix the investigation has been crystal clear.
Now these crooks are tampering with witnesses.
I’ve been pretty clear for a while that I don’t really think Trump even is a Republican. You Team R guys have an easy out here. Just cast him out. You might think this is all about giving the democrats the win, but in the long term, the GOP is making itself irrelevant. Anyone catch Ted Cruz asked about Trump’s power to pardon himself? He was unable to speak. I’ve never seen Ted Cruz at a loss for words.
Mock me to your heart’s delight if that helps you sleep at night, but Trump is leading the GOP to a long term crisis. I know I’ll never vote for a Republican again without considering this situation.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:09 pmFiring Sally Yates and Comey were emotional decisions based on establishing some kind of loyalty rule,
You want Yates, Comey et al accountable to no one, apparently. This jibes with Paine and Franklin, somehow I’m sure….
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:15 pmThe court cannot usurp plenary power granted to the Executive by the Constitution. If it could, we live in an oligarchy, not a republic.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:22 pmCurious isn’t, fridman and khaan challenge the dossier, Mueller indicts the son in law, Cohen does as well, Jones leaks to mcclatchy, Mueller collaborates with avenatti, letting him vet Cohen’s files dumping the rest to the press.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:24 pmShipwreckedcrew
Stop, just stop with the law and common sense
Your hurtibg feeelllings of the schiffed happens crowd
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:31 pmDustin,
You’re the partisan accepting nonsense as evidence of a conspiracy because you find the president unworthy of the office he holds. So you will find common cause with the left to remove him, no matter the harm that will do to the republic.
Good luck with that.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:31 pmHappyfeet, I’m happy to mail you a bag any time you want one.
Far from being able to change my mind and support Trump, I no longer support Senator Cruz either. His cowardice when asked about this pardon matter today is a national embarrassment.
I do! I feel very sorry for Trump, who appears to be a miserable SOB despite being wealthy, married to a model, and the most powerful man in the free world. He is always angrily tweeting away, caught in the web of lies of the day, and he wasted the opportunity to turn his life around and be more than a fancy con artist who rode the wave against Hillary. He could have a legacy of lasting reforms but instead he’s going to be known as russia’s tool against democracy. His fans don’t see it coming for some reason. Trump needs our prayer as much as anyone.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:32 pmthank you! i’m good though I’m a nespresso guy and lil punkhead’s all good cause they went to the gulf not long ago
i don’t think you’re looking at President Trump through the eyes of adoration and awe
he gets up every day and hits it out of the park every time
he’s out there every day moving the ball down the field for the american people (nice ones)
he’s game set match for economic freedom
and he’s sinking those 3-pointers for peace peace peace
he’s a superstar and a plum lolly both
we’ve never seen his like and we never shall again
this is an age of singular promise
and we
will
RISE
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:37 pmIf it is true that the president can pardon himself for any crime he commits, then we live in a dictatorship, not a republic; we’ve just been lucky that our dictatorship have chosen to abide by Republican constraints.
aphrael (ef3fae) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:38 pmAn investigation arising from fisa warrants derived from a partisan pop research outfit, whereas the beef.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:41 pmThe “abuse of power” by the Deep Staters… the biggest American political story in my lifetime – bigger in every way than Watergate – and we have to suffer through this nonsense, manufactured stories, feigned outrage from the usual suspects in the media.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:42 pm49. “also about the mentality that defends him at every turn regardless of facts and logic”. (previous from host)
Sure sounds like “characterizing”. But that is only allowed from the host, not on the host. [No pun on communion wafers intended.]
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:46 pmFunny stuff watching this guy from the Today show grilling Bill Clinton on the Lewinsky Affair. The media carried water for and protected the Clinton’s for years… until they didn’t. The Democrat Party and their operatives in the media want the Clinton’s gone and the Clinton’s just won’t go away.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:48 pmA lot of truths emerge from adversarial interactions. Yes, some of the people investigating Trump have been democrats. I guess in a die-hard partisan environment, they only real check and balance left is indeed the ‘bad’ political party.
FISA warrants were totally cool when Bush was using them. I agree they are suspect in practice, but they are lawful. This has dragged on a long time. They surely know if Trump was that 4:27 pm call by now, for example. And Trump knows if he’s in real trouble. He is, after all, creating a whole lot of drama for himself by announcing this power to pardon himself. He plans to use that power.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:49 pmugh i forgot about how racist McCain is
like we needed another reason to deplore him
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:51 pm262. Based on the FISA court ruling describing abuse of “about” searches by FBI Federal contractors as well as the Strozk text of APR16 that they had shifted from electronic methods to human undercover operatives, it is apparent that it wasn’t just the Page FISA warrant (which was approved, even if their was “lack of candor” in the Steele memo background). Those about searches were wrong. Were stopped. And completely discontinued.
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/4/2018 @ 6:56 pmCuriously comey presided over a surveillance framework 100 times more vast than when complained back in 2004, on the eve of the Madrid bombing.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:00 pmI took Guliani to be meaning that in his mind the constitutionally tidiest way to do it would be to impeach first.
Lawfare needs a kick in the nuts
steveg (a9dcab) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:00 pm@ ropelight: When I read your reference to “She who must be obayed,” your typo caused me to instead read it, for just a moment, as: “She who must be eBayed.” I’d bid $10 if it included the right to shut her up, but I’m confident many others would bid much more. This is not me teasing you for your spelling (this time), ropelight, this is me thanking you for an unintended chuckle.
Likewise, “Marshall” is a surname, and “marshal” is a court officer. They’re a proud group in my experience, but reasonably tolerant of this common misspelling, of which I’ve surely been guilty myself.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:00 pmSee if you notice a pattern between then and now
http://.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_eckenrode_1
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:05 pmBetter hope she’s not p*ssed about Trump golfing while a hurricane wiped out her homeland.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:10 pm“I think Paine’s views are worth discussing, and that it is possible to quote them without meaning I subscribe to literally every view Paine ever had. I also think you are fully aware of what my point was, and you are now arguing in bad faith. I quoted George Washington above too. That does not mean I believe in owning slaves. It just means I think his view about partisanship is worth discussing.”
THOMAS PAINE MADE DIRECT APPEALS TO DIVINE AUTHORITY OVER THE AUTHORITY OF A HUMAN KING BUT I DON’T LITERALLY SUBSCRIBE TO THAT VIEW EVEN THOUGH IT’S THE ONLY ONE THAT’S ACTUALLY DEFENSIBLE nooooooope, you’re not getting away that easily!
The American Revolution was fought in part by people whose battle cry was “NO KING BUT KING JESUS!”, dismissing the contributions of both them and Tocqueville to the pretty-much-unassailable conclusion that only a people already of the same moral and religious upbringing (and already trusting of one another not to operate in bad faith!) can even pretend at a rule of law over a rule of men is disengenuous in the extreme.
Also, it may be relevant that Jesus spent a whole lot of his time upbraiding people whose entire power lay in their ability to set the active interpretation of the law to the benefit of themselves and the detriment of their people, but if we just keep repeating RULE OF LAW!!! (that all Christians readily admit cannot save you) then we’ll be all better.
“Paine’s actual point was that no man is above the law in a free country, and that King George’s refusal to hold himself accountable in any way was a powerful justification for the Declaration of Independence.”
The most oft-repeated line from Common Sense was “Why should an Island Rule a Country?” King George’s foibles notwithstanding, the real uniter wasn’t George Chimpy McHapsburg specifically but England’s very claim to sovereignty over a territory that those who lived and grew up in it knew far better:
“Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.”
Thomas Paine wanted Skin In The Game!
“This Declaration of Independence does indeed preface our equality in our creation, and has a religious element, but it would be extremely stupid to say these views make America a theocracy. Dysphoria Sam’s objection to Paine’s views are disingenuous.”
I’ll forgive an appeal to Divine Providence when the appeal to Divine Providence ISN’T FRIGGIN’ CENTRAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST KINGS!
“Dysphoria Sam also offers some bizarre communism copypasta.”
‘Bizarre’ is a great verbal tell for ‘I am deathly afraid of dealing with these extremely good arguments because they resemble me too much to avoid talking about without great emotional pain.’ I pulled them from a link because they offer an exhaustive, detailed, and historical contrast to the lazy, ahistorical, and disinterested arguments you were throwing out there.
“It doesn’t appear to pertain to anything being discussed in this thread and is obviously nothing Thomas Paine brought up. I think he just wanted to suggest that if you don’t support Trump today, you are a socialist or something. No, this is BS. Trump holding himself above the law is wrong. Period. His critics were right all along.”
Please note that Thomas Paine also held himself above petty peasant concerns like “advancing the religion you actually believe in”:
“Many have noted that Paine’s skills were chiefly in persuasion and propaganda, and that no matter the content of his ideas, the fervor of his conviction and the various tools he employed on his readers (e.g. asserting his Christianity when he in fact was a Deist), that Common Sense was bound for success.”
The man was a King Of Discourse, his audience merely his faithful subjects in bringing about the Age of Reason! No wonder you like him so much! At least he had the decency to fade out when the grown-ups with bitter experience in business, law, and governance started putting the government together, but disciples often swallow the BS supply that the teachers are too wise to get high on.
Dysphoria Sam (f03292) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:16 pm@ aphrael, who wrote (#257):
If the president could pardon himself with no political or legal consequences, you’d be right. None ever has, because there would indeed be political consequences at a minimum, and it’s not so much that we’ve been lucky as that every POTUS — including, I believe, this one, at least so far — has recognized the severity of those consequences.
Political will within the Congress remains the key check, and ultimately the only effective check, on abuse of presidential power. That is by design, and it has served us well since 1789.
Perhaps some despair of the willpower of the current Congress, or the next one, to stand up against a hypothetical self-pardon by the POTUS. But recall that in 1973, Nixon was re-inaugurated after winning 49 states to McGovern’s one state and the District of Columbia; 520 electoral votes to McGovern’s 17; and a popular vote total of 46.7M to McGovern’s 28.9M. Although both chambers of Congress remained in Democratic hands, that was when there was still a vibrant conservative wing within the Democratic Party, and he had an effective governing coalition on many, many domestic and international issues to go with his huge electoral mandate.
But barely a year and a half later, by the summer of 1974, he’d lost a key case before the SCOTUS, and then the House Judiciary Committee was unanimously voting out articles of impeachment against him, and Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN), the Senate minority leader, was dispatched to tell Nixon that he assuredly would be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate — whereupon Nixon resigned.
I don’t know if Nixon knew how to play 47-dimensional chess, but he was, before this downfall, one of the most politically astute players on the world scene for decades. But in the end, that only served to make him heed Sen. Baker’s advice to resign, because that Congress did have the political will to stand up to the POTUS.
Even if a presidential self-pardon were honored by the federal courts — which is a genuinely open question, because of the POTUS’ unique constitutional position and the fact that no POTUS has ever tried it — it would have no effect on any state-court prosecutions after the POTUS was out of office. There are certainly enough blue states in which an impeached-and-convicted Donald Trump could expect to be prosecuted for something or other as to make a self-pardon into cold comfort.
So let us hope that this POTUS, like his predecessors, will quit this silly prattle about pardoning himself. Let us hope that he’ll stop acting like he’s guilty.
I so hope. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:20 pmIf it is true that the president can pardon himself for any crime he commits, then we live in a dictatorship, not a republic
Right, one of those dictators who can be impeached and/or voted out of office.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:21 pmNKRob, you’re calling me a partisan! That’s awesome. It’s called projection, man! It’s a little too on the nose today.
That’s almost as funny as Dysphoria trying to write the next great American Philosophy primer.
Bad day for you guys, today. It’s going to get worse. The next GOP convention better start with a lengthy apology if you expect me to give you guys my vote.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:22 pm@ Dustin: FWIW, I wouldn’t compare Trump’s firing of Yates to Trump’s firing of Comey. Their positions were too dissimilar, as were the circumstances of their respective terminations. I see no colorable argument that firing Yates was obstruction of justice; whether such an argument can be persuasively made as to Comey, I’m still doubtful, but vastly less so than with respect to Yates.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:24 pmIs there even the slightest reason to believe any of the Trump Tower collusion meeting attendees’ account of what transpired at the meeting, considering that it would be in ALL their interests to deny that any deal was struck or assistance provided to the campaign by the Russians, and to paint the meeting as a failure even if it wasn’t?
I find it remarkable that this group of people arranged a meeting in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy to facilitate violation of the campaign laws by a foreign dictatorship and we just … take the conspirators’ word that the meeting didn’t achieve its object.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:25 pmWrong. According to you, he can lock up or murder congress, cancel future elections, pardon himself for all of it, and have the law on his side.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:29 pmskanky sally yates said, “this travel ban is unconstitutional!”
but the supreme court shoved that up her butt!
how could she have been so wrong about something so fundamental?
she was in the wrong job, that’s for sure
she’s an ignorant skank with faulty constitutional knowledge, not unlike barack obama
she didn’t belong at the department of justice – she’s a corrupt and vile usurper of justice!
and this is why everybody hates her stupid guts
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:29 pmInteresting podesta and the mercury group did the lobbying for this hapsburg group which included that ex polish premier I mentioned, now podesta was said to have embezzled the funds in bad art, the same lobbyist also represents zte and mercury, which is nevertrumps Schmidt and webers roost, they didn’t get charged either.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:34 pmSally ran Bruce ohr whose Stalinist mindedwife was a member of fusion gps staff, which Cohen’s lawsuit was investigating till Daniel Jones of the second dossier leaked to mcclatchy.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:37 pm“The guy publicly called for Russia to leak classified information about Hillary.”
That’s one way to spin it. Care to find the actual quote? No? Well here it is:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282
This wasn’t asking Russia to hack her email — the messages had been deleted so they couldn’t. He was asking them to fess up that they had already hacked them — due to Clinton’s criminal negligence. If they HAD produced them, it would have been absolute proof that Hillary had exposed national security info to a foreign power. But the Trump Truthers keep spinning it nonsensically. It’s really embarrassing and lessens their effectiveness, but there is no telling what people will do when the spittle is flying.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:38 pmDave: Wrong. According to you, he can lock up or murder congress, cancel future elections, pardon himself for all of it, and have the law on his side.
Even ridiculous hypotheticals are limited, in this case the impossible task of making all that fall under federal crimes.
As a McMullin supporter, Dave, do you believe in an independent DOJ/FBI as he does? If so, they are accountable to who exactly? In your world, Trump can’t touch them, and I haven’t noticed any outrage from you at the slow walking of subpoenas from Congress. So, it seems you’re against a “dictator” but are okay with an oligarchy. Correct me where I’m wrong.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:40 pmSure, taken as individual actions, of course Trump fired the other party’s AG, Ms. Yates, because she is his administration’s political adversary. Why wouldn’t he be able to do this? But then you add in Comey. Trump denied this at times, but at other times he has admitted the Russian collusion investigation was some of his basis for firing the man investigating Trump for the crime. Add in another layer: Trump’s anger that Sessions recused himself. Or another, the potential witness tampering, the guilty pleas by his campaign staff regarding these meetings, etc.
The pattern is clear at this point. Trump wanted his AG to run this investigation in a way that produced an unethically biased result. For the same reason Trump today asserts his right to pardon himself. He sees himself as above the law because he has more power than the rest of us. I can’t see the earlier actions outside this context.
Would my point do anything in a courtroom? I’ll trust your experience that it absolutely would not, but I still hold the opinion.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:43 pmand I very much appreciate the response, Beldar! The only silver lining to living in interesting times is talking about how interesting they are. Our president is doing what no other president dared. Unfortunate, but definitely plenty to discuss these days!
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:45 pmInteresting analysis on Ukraine connections to Spygate. Had not seen before.
https://themarketswork.com/2018/03/09/victoria-nuland-alexandra-chalupa-ukrainian-ties-the-steele-dossier/
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:47 pmYet, hes still president
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:48 pmNo that was the black box the IRS investigation, and fast and furious went into, the witness tampering between lorettalynch and the Clinton, the deepsixing of wieners laptop till a week before the election, the burying of the Benghazi diplomatic security tape, shall I go on.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:50 pmAnd there’s an irony, pointed out before it is trump so I think unwisely ventured into the Ukrainian civil war, whereas obama looked the other way.
But as you can see eickenrode interviewed all the key witnesses in the blame matter, from the start, then lost the 302s, only difference is he didn’t pretend to have an affair.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:54 pmInteresting analysis on Ukraine connections to Spygate.
Spygate does not exist. It’s called Schmygate here.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:55 pmI always smile when lawyers argue for judicial supremacy.
The real answer is whom the military will follow. I suspect that if Congress impeached and convicted a president, and the former executive refused to leave, backed by his minions in the bureaucracy, the military would follow the orders of the duly-sworn successor.
If, however, some court in Oregon found the president guilty of a crime (or “crime”) and demanded he leave office, absent clear constitutional authority the President is still Commander-in-Chief. If the charge was actually valid, and Congress would not impeach, I suspect that the next election would be decisive.
In the end, political questions are settled at the ballot box.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:56 pmThat would take more time than I have, but there is a simple principle here: nobody should be able to use their official position to intervene in or influence legal proceedings involving themselves, their relatives or their close personal associates.
Judges do not try cases to which they are a party. Jurors do not sit in judgment of relatives or close friends. Police officers do not investigate accusations of wrong-doing against themselves.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 7:57 pmThe president can send any opponent to Gitmo, and then pardon himself for it.
All with the law on his side, according to the TrumpWorld theory.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:00 pmNixon resigned because the GOP Senators would not stand by him. He had become so toxic that any attempt to keep Nixon in office would have rebounded ten-fold in 1974. They got hit badly enough as it was.
So, to assert that an openly criminal President, who shoots innocents in broad daylight, would have the backing of his party in Congress is absurd, and really only useful in postulating absurd and unreachable crises.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:01 pmDave, sure he can, until he’s impeached. And if that doesn’t happen, his party will lose every seat they have. Again, you have built up a 6-story strawman to prove a point and we’ve all forgotten what it was.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:03 pmAnd Nixon faced the undertow if the 73 oil shock and the Vietnam war, lets not forget that.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:09 pmDoes anyone ever call out hf on the sexist comments? Just wondering.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:11 pmit’s obvious President Trump didn’t collude with russia
if he had the hot and horny men and women of the fbi would never have had to make up the McCain memo about the urinating hookers
fbi slutboy robert mueller (nazi) just wants to frame President Trump on a process crime… like lying to some cowardly fbi poofter slut or raping him like they raped Martha Stewart (vicious fbi rape)
fbi slutboy robert mueller (nazi) seriously needs a hobby he should take a cooking class
and stop obsessing over his hair like there’s a boy he wants to impress
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:13 pmDoes anyone ever call out hf on the sexist comments? Just wondering.
nope never happens
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:14 pmDave: nobody should be able to use their official position to intervene in or influence legal proceedings involving themselves, their relatives or their close personal associates.
Nobody, for example, should be able to redact information that the people and their representatives are entitled to see so as to cover up an illegal activity. Or, how about redacting the cost of a conference table even?
Who keeps them accountable? You dodged that.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:15 pmPaul, I used to beat him over the head about it. He used to call people ‘cooze’ and don’t google what that means. I think the long-timers here have simply given up on it. Simon Jester used to speak very passionately about being good guests here, with that kind of thing in mind.
By and large, for all his flaws, happyfeet rarely attacks commenters here, even if the whole damn thread is bashing him. He always keeps it on the powerful. There’s more to him (or her) than meets the eye.
Dave, your view that “there is a simple principle here: nobody should be able to use their official position to intervene in or influence legal proceedings involving themselves, their relatives or their close personal associates.” is exactly right. No more really needs to be said. If Trump’s fans do not line up to agree with this, it’s certainly not surprising.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:16 pmYou’re still not getting it.
If the president can pardon himself for any federal crime, then he can prevent congress from ever meeting to impeach him. And be guilty of nothing.
The only remedy, we’re told, to a president running amok is impeachment. But a president determined to run amok doesn’t have to allow impeachment to occur. He would be guilty of no crime, according to you, and entirely secure in his position, under the law, if he executed the entire congress and then pardoned himself.
“Oh, well, that’s entirely different than firing the FBI director to prevent a politically damaging investigation of his close associates and then pardoning himself,” you’ll claim.
I say it’s only a matter of degrees of criminality.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:16 pmBeldar and nk do, sometimes.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:18 pmsexist srsly?
isn’t that a wee lil bit reductive
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:20 pmTrump just kicked the Super Bowl Champs in the sac, canceling their visit.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:21 pmDustin,
my being partisan when the other side is a communist society where I am a slave is a moniker I will proudly own up to. I want my family to be free. How dare I support that right rather than stay above the fray because T. Coddington Voorhees doesn’t like the cut of Trump’s shirt. And he doesn’t even crease his pants. For shame.
Which makes your remarks doubly disappointing.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:24 pmActually, I do believe Trump was justified in firing her for insubordination. Comey is another story.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:25 pm“Again, you have built up a 6-story strawman to prove a point and we’ve all forgotten what it was.”
I do seem to recall it was moronic, as in keeping with his traditions.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:26 pmAs we’ve been told on here time and time again, impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. A pardon means nothing when it comes to impeachment.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:28 pmIt does if you can pardon yourself for locking up or killing the only people who can impeach you.
Dave (445e97) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:38 pm299. Well, I’m half-amused by all the prolific gushing over Trump, along with the denigrating of anyone who looks crosswise at him, and half-bewildered.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:40 pmLet me echo that, Dustin. (Same for aphrael, who gave you the compliment.) You were absent from the blog for a while and were deeply missed. I worry that (like me) you may be feeling some frustration as the people in the cheap seats throw tomatoes at you. But you’ve always been a stand-up guy and always will be — and you know that troubled times are the times when such people are really needed. Thanks for being one of them. It is noticed and appreciated, probably by more people than are willing to say so.
I could say the same about a few others here, but I want to say that about you, here and now.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:45 pmGood word choice, reductive, but I’m not seeing a lot of difference between “skank sally yates” and “feckless cvnt Ivanka”. Not intending to pick a fight, just reading the words as presented. Granted, I’m a relative newbie here.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:47 pmAnd I don’t think that opposing an immoral person from your own political side of the aisle makes you a “partisan” — you are anything but. I think shame is driving a lot of the nastiness towards you.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there was no shame in voting for Trump, and my criticizing him is not a criticism of anyone who voted for him. But people are very simple, and they will take it that way no matter how many times you tell them they’re wrong.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:48 pmLOL good point. The main difference may be that I haven’t (to my memory) added “skank” to the filter yet. But why not? I noticed another one today too: “slutboy.”
brb
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:50 pmThanks! Very kind words, and I’m touched.
I’m fortunate that if I want, I can just take a break from politics, and indeed from the nature of political comments on the internet. And I have done that a few times.
This blog’s content is great, but often I get invested in my views, and apparently Trump’s fans get very invested in theirs, and it inevitably is an unpleasant conversation. I have such a deep frustration that people who probably live normal lives, have families, jobs, and enough interest in this country to discuss politics on this blog, are willing to carry water for something that seems so obviously wrong. It’s a patience issue on my part.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:50 pm@292/@293.
Yep.
The man was a crook.
And history rhymes.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:56 pmYou’re still not getting it.
No, Dave, you’re not getting it. You keep constructing wild-assed things piled one atop another and say that if the law doesn’t stop all this then the law has failed.
What you don’t seem to get is that if the president is doing all these outrageous things, what the F does he need to pardon himself for? He could just have all his critics shot.
Your piled-up nonsense has got the the point that it refutes itself.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:58 pmIt does if you can pardon yourself for locking up or killing the only people who can impeach you.
The pardon seems redundant then.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 8:59 pmIntegrity? I call it moronic repetition of refuted talking points with little to no basis in fact. But po-tay-to, po-tah-to, I guess.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:02 pmLike lbj who became a millionaire in public service?
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:02 pmExactly Kevin. What a strange world we live in where people act like the presidency we live in now is so much more dangerous than the previous 8 years.
NJRob (5f729f) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:03 pmPatterico: Do you believe that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton’s emails? If so, please point to the quote. If not, stop lauding the truther.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:03 pmSad.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:06 pmNow jfk stole the 1960 election, he audited right of center activists
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:09 pmThat Trump quote works like this:
Let’s say that my house has been burglarized. One of my neighbors thinks that a local kid did it, and asks the kid’s parents to look for the loot.
Spin 1) He’s trying to be helpful.
Spin 2) The two neighbors are colluding to burglarize my house.
Only one of those things makes sense, but the other one is what we keep hearing.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:10 pmAnd it has come to this:
Senate Republicans on Monday warned President Trump, with varying degrees of alarm, against entertaining the prospect of pardoning himself of any federal crime
Tillman (a95660) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:14 pmhttps://tinyurl.com/yckbmew4 [Washington Post]
@322:
I think Manafort, Papadopoulos and Page were unavailable to relay the request directly to Putin so Trump had to do it in a speech in front of reporters.
Compared to the ridiculous hypotheticals in this thread, this almost seems plausible.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:15 pmWhat is the gop senate good for?
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:21 pmWhat do you do when you’re a sleazebag who laundered money, did business with a Putin pet oligarch and worked for a political party whose head was a Putin stooge? You tamper with witnesses so that everyone gets their phony stories straight.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:24 pmFor the same reason that in 2012 Romney was discussing whether or not the SCOTUS decision in Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned. Because George Stephanopoulos wanted to talk about it.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:24 pmBeldar, having refreshed my memory thanks to Paul’s link I have to admit I was wrong about Sally Yates. My memory of her termination conflated her insubordination over the immigration policy with the investigation about collusion, but really she was pretty discretely terminated for insubordination over a policy she didn’t like. In all honesty that termination was completely justified and above board. A shame Trump didn’t keep it up from there, but just because he’s talking about pardoning himself today doesn’t mean I will blame him for every problem he dealt with. Trump did fine on that one.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:25 pmSenate Republicans on Monday warned President Trump, with varying degrees of alarm, against entertaining the prospect of pardoning himself of any federal crime
It IS a problem that Trump cannot help interjecting himself into stupid discussions. He would do FAR better ignoring these things. But no.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:27 pm“I don’t know why we’re talking about this.”
Because it trolls Trump.
Kevin M (752a26) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:29 pmGood call, Dustin.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:29 pmThere isnt a crime, there wasnt a crime to lobby for russia or the ukraine either.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:34 pmWhat do you do when you’re a sleazebag who laundered money, did business with a Putin pet oligarch and worked for a political party whose head was a Putin stooge? You tamper with witnesses so that everyone gets their phony stories straight.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:24 pm
If only prosecutors could administer justice, without trials getting in the way.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:39 pmLike lbj who became a millionaire in public service?
his wife made the texas highways pretty and to this day the texas highways, they are very pretty
that’s not nothing
plus he killed JFK so that’s bonus points
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:44 pmAs I recall, Manafort will be going to trial in September and, in the interim, he’ll be in a jail cell instead of one of his million-dollar domiciles.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:46 pmWell it wont be forty years like thosr framed for bulgers crimes.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:48 pmneither hillary and her one-time potentially historic boobies NOR her rapey husband with the herpes penis have *ever* licked the bars from inside a jail cell (except for pretendsies)
thanks fbi lickspittle Jim Comey! (fish taco)
thank you for all you do
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:50 pm329.“Politically, it would be a disaster,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said. “I don’t know why we’re talking about this.”
Sure he does; they’re prepping the battlefield of public opinion. You got Rudy dropping pardon chaff and other nonsensical musings on every media outlet that’ll book him and Dershowitz is out pedding one of his quickie books, ‘The Case Against Impeaching Trump.’
Are you not entertained?! And in this day and age, there’s always the chance that in the end, JR Ewing might just beat the rap.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:52 pm330 — Dustin, I’m glad you refreshed your view.
I was really puzzling over your earlier comment on Yates because it was so counter-factual. I couldn’t quite figure out why you seemed to link her firing to anything connected to any investigation.
Beyond that, she was simply a holdover in an “Acting” capacity — she was only fulfilling the functions of the AG, she was not herself the AG.
Many similar appointees are asked to resign, or do so on their own, the first day of an administration based on the very reasonable view that they will find it distasteful to implement some of the new policy directives that get launched at the beginning of a new administration. They leave for the very purpose of avoiding the kind of controversy that Yates created.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:54 pmAnd you ask why i’m cynical
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/04/wasserman-schultz-awan-islamophobe/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:56 pmAs I recall, Manafort will be going to trial in September and, in the interim, he’ll be in a jail cell instead of one of his million-dollar domiciles.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:46 pm
Yep, trials are for defendants who don’t sing, or have nothing to sing about.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:56 pmShe had filed one of the fisa warrants derived from the dissier, she was bruce ohrs supervisor part of obama insurance policy.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:58 pmMore on Manafort from Turley:
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 9:58 pm340 — I think Rudy’s comments are 0% about the prospect of Trump actually considering a self-pardon, and more about simply trying to get into the public consciousness that there should not be any kind of formal criminal proceeding regardless of the nature of Mueller’s conclusions on questions of “obstruction.”
I think Rudy is “preparing the field” for the eventual announcement somewhere in late July that Trump will not participate in a question and answer session, and Mueller should just go ahead and write his report based on the information he already has.
The leak of the letter yesterday — and I agree that it likeley came from Trump’s legal team — was simply to “road test” and get into the conversation some of the justifications they plan to use. They are letting various ones play themselves out now in the press, so that they won’t have any “sting” when some of those reasons form the formal basis for Trump to decline to be interviewed.
I think the “pardon” issue is one of those “bright shiny objects” that Trump so famously puts out there for the press and Dems to chase.
I think its interesting how much more the press has been taken in by this than Capitol Hill Dems.
They seem to be learning faster than the press.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:00 pmNot surprising hes jailed men not guilty of a certain offense. Its nonsensical he had contracted with podesta and mercury because they worked capitol hill.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:03 pmWell said, SWC. I do stand corrected on that. To be sure, I didn’t follow politics that closely after the election. I was amazed but not invested. And I won’t pretend I’m not biased against Trump today. I do assume the worst of a president who is announcing he can pardon himself. It’s so disrespectful to our country, and to folks like who that worked so hard to administer our justice system fairly. No matter where we stand on Trump’s policies or his behavior in his personal life, we should all agree that he is not above the law.
Paul, I really hope they don’t make a deal with Manafort, if it turns out he really was tampering with witnesses. What a slimeball. I really do not have this impression that the whole investigation is some horrible deep state conspiracy. Manafort, Flynn, Papasmurfolis, these guys really help me feel comfortable with that opinion.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:04 pmI guess we’ll find out in three months. It seems likely that he’ll be in jail for a long time, either by plea bargain or a guilty verdict. It makes me wonder why he’s doubling down. For a person with his character, my guess is that someone–maybe a Putin-affiliated someone–has something on him.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:04 pmYes its better for your atty general to run interference for you, two contempt citations didnt matter,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:07 pm“don’t worry, they’re only road testing this idea, they wouldn’t actually use it” is hardly reassuring. or consistent with past behavior.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:09 pmThe lead player in the anti magnitsky alliance was skadden arps the supervizing partner for russian matters was allowed to resign without issue, his supervisor is,pat fizgersld.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:09 pmWho was selected by james comey,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:11 pmYates essentially picked an issue — if it hadn’t been this, it would have been something else — that she could refuse to support the Trump Administration upon, so that she’d get the press coverage of being fired. As a PR move it was inspired and well executed, and she instantly went from being an anonymous underling on her way out of a job anyway to being Heroine of the Resistance, with corresponding future career benefits in both private practice (where she’ll build up a personal bankroll) and, before long, as a candidate either for elected office or maybe even AG in a Democrat POTUS’ cabinet the next time her party takes the WH.
It’s the sign of a political hack rather than a principled lawyer — who, therefore, it would be very dangerous to ever allow back into government. But what I see as a bug (unethical showboating), her partisans see as a future. So yeah, she’ll be back.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:18 pm* as a feature, I meant to write in #354.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:20 pmNo POTUS can suffer to remain in office an acting cabinet department head who has refused to take political direction from the POTUS. It’s hard to put the Yates firing into any kind of pattern of obstruction of justice because she forced her own firing.
@ swc (#346): I largely agree about Rudy’s breezy speculations and the leak of the letters from Trump’s lawyers to Mueller both being part of a Trump publicity and public opinion battlespace-conditioning exercise. And they’re surely gauging the push-back they get, both in opinion polling and, far more significantly, on the Hill.
I continue to believe, though, that Trump will sit for an interview. Mueller’s options if he does include not only closing shop and writing a report without it, but instead getting Rosenstein’s approval to serve the subpoena, and putting it to the test in court. I believe that’s what Mueller would seek, and I believe Rosenstein would back him on it, and I believe — based mostly on Clinton v. Jones — that the courts would enforce the subpoena. And I believe Trump’s lawyers share that view and will indeed decline to force a showdown over a subpoena, instead letting him be interviewed with the best set of restrictions they can manage. Trump is an experienced witness who actually has done reasonably well under hostile cross-examination in civil litigation. Even when he’s lost — as in the USFL antitrust trial — he’s not come remotely close to any kind of perjury situation. And if there’s no smoking gun hidden in Mueller’s files that the public is presently unaware of, his giving that interview is indeed the shortest and most direct path to putting this entire thing behind him. (If that’s what he really wants, which: Sometimes I wonder about.)
But that’s ultimately a hunch, based on my guesses as to what his lawyers actually think (which surely doesn’t correspond with everything they, or Trump, says in public), and ultimately it depends on Trump’s behaving rationally in taking legal advice. I’m offering no wagers on this prediction.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:36 pmAck — serious editing error. In #356 that ought have read: “Mueller’s options if he [Trump] does not agree to sit for an interview include not only closing shop and writing a report without it, but instead getting Rosenstein’s approval to serve the subpoena ….”
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:37 pm@ Paul Montagu: Our host owns this garden, and culls it only as he sees fit, which is as things should be. I view “happyfeet” as a source of vile yet childish hated spewed on this blog’s comments daily, with no redeeming content; I view him as the garden’s most noxious weed. His comments aren’t just sexist, but occasionally racist, with fixations on STDs and prostitutes and transvestites side-by-side with rants about Goldman Sachs or John McCain or the cowardly members of our armed forces. If I took offense at 1% of them, I’d spend all my time here commenting about nothing else, and certainly my views are known to the host for what they’re worth, and I doubt that he’ll find fault with you for expressing yours. In the meantime, if you wish, you might want to look into the comment blocking script designed to allow each reader to curate his own experience — to weed, in effect, his own virtual version of this garden — which is described in the sidebar, in the paragraph beginning “Make the comments of annoying commenters disappear …,” with a link to some fairly simple instructions for setting the script up for your own browser.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:48 pmI hear you, Beldar. I suppose that’s why so few folks actually engage with hf. Too much noise-to-signal or such. I just couldn’t help but notice the sexism in this thread and the resultant non-reaction.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:57 pmFTR, I don’t block on Disqus or anywhere else. Over the last 15 years of commenting and blogging, I’ve learned who to engage with and which battles to pick.
I think happyfeet is well named. Fun!
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/4/2018 @ 10:59 pmBill Clinton is the root of the metoo movement.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:04 pmWhen Bill Clinton loses Mika…
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:47 pmThe irritating part is that liberals didn’t hold Bill Clinton to account for his serial sexual abusing ways until long after his presidency was over and after his wife’s political career was toast. There’s no bravery in Democrats saying now that the Big He is a pig.
I will share here another observation, regarding Manafort and the risks he poses to Trump.
I’ve not seen anyone allege — and please correct me if I’m wrong — any connection between Trump and Manafort much before March 29, 2016, when he suddenly joined Trump’s campaign as campaign convention manager. Never mind that the guy looks and sounds like a recurring bit character from The Sopranos. (So does Trump.) He was already controversial because of his lobbying for shady Ukrainians. But he did have a history of experience during the 1976 GOP convention in exactly the area that Trump thought, at that time, he was very likely to need — wrangling delegates at a contested convention. That was a task for which the Trump campaign, comprising volunteers and outsiders with little to no convention experience, was singularly ill-fitted.
By the time Manafort was promoted over the psychotic Corey Lewandowski to campaign manager on May 19, 2016, though, the likelihood of a contested convention was rapidly dwindling to zero, and Trump numerically clenched the nomination on May 26, 2016. But then, in further infighting, Lewandowski cozied back up to Trump; Bannon and Conway began taking larger roles; Manafort kept generating troubling headlines, albeit not on page 1, about his past connections; and the Mercer family reportedly conditioned their further campaign efforts on Trump getting rid of him. So Manafort was fired by April 19, 2016.
That timeline is Trump’s best friend when it comes to Manafort, and closely behind it is the history of Trump’s unconventional, unruly, and chaotic campaign organization, with all its infighting as an improbable new cast of All the Presidential-Wannabes Men was assembled. Recall that at this time, even as Trump’s grasp on the nomination was becoming genuinely secure, his prospects for winning the general election were thought to be spectacularly poor. Many of the people working on Trump’s campaign did so with no expectation that he’d win, but with the goal of adding a few lines to their political resumes, for use in some other election cycle that wasn’t another Democratic blow-out.
Except he won, or Hillary lost, however one chooses to view that.
I have no idea what Manafort’s end-game was, if he had one. I have no idea whether he’s guilty of any crimes under American law, or if so, whether they involve Ukrainians or Russians. Nothing would surprise me, except if his crimes were committed with any particular finesse or creativity — that would surprise me.
But my gut tells me that whatever mischief he was into wasn’t the kind of thing he’d be quick to try to involve Trump in directly. Their relationship was too short, too superficial, too happenstance: Nobody would have suggested his name to Trump but for the contested convention scenario, which made some people say, “When was the last time we had a contested convention?” To which the answer was: 1976. So when the next question is, “Who’s still around who knew anything about how that played out?” that’s when his name came up. You couldn’t have seen this coming unless you’d been able to predict that Trump would, in fact, be getting close enough to the nomination, without having put it away, for talk of a contested convention to seem realistic.
Which leads me to conclude that it’s improbable that Manafort has any dirt to dish on Trump, and that Manafort is, in fact, the biggest fish that Mueller intends to try to land.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:53 pmBah! In #363, that ought to have read: “So Manafort was fired by August 19, 2016,” not “April.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:55 pmI don’t credit Manafort with being clever enough to come up with a convincing lie implicating Trump. Beyond his own testimony, there would need to be a substantial amount of other evidence, and fabricating that in a way that would fool the Feebs is beyond the abilities of a schmuck like him.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/4/2018 @ 11:59 pmI doubt Manafort has a lot on Trump, Beldar, but I read something somewhere (can’t dig out the link, will take too long) that Manafort was still laundering money after he took the job as campaign chair. If Manafort knows anything, it’s more about Putineers than Trump, which may be why he’s doubling down on his pushback against Mueller.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:04 amAnd I’m wondering whether it was accidental or on purpose when you said that Trump clenched the nomination.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:05 amI think the “pardon” issue is one of those “bright shiny objects” that Trump so famously puts out there for the press and Dems to chase. I think its interesting how much more the press has been taken in by this than Capitol Hill Dems. They seem to be learning faster than the press.
‘Taken in’- no. Hungry- yes; The Beast needs fed, 24/7, 365.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:35 amReactions like these reported from GOP members of the House and Senate lead me to conclude that today’s Congress would no more approve of a Trump self-pardon than the Congress that impeached Nixon would have, had he tried to pardon himself. I’m somewhat surprised to read in this article, though, that my old Federal Civil Procedure professor, former Thurgood Marshall law clerk and self-avowed Marxist and Critical Legal Studies proponent Mark Tushnet (now at Harvard), came out in favor of Trump having the presidential power to self-pardon.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:37 am356 — I’m not in total disagreement on your view of him being interviewed. And there is a precedent with Clinton on terms of negotiating limits on time and subject matter.
And I think Trump can be prepared in a way that conditions him to toss in a lot of very practical and useful phrases that eliminate “definiteness” in responding to questions.
One of the hardest parts about prosecuting “false statement” claims is having sufficiently definitive statements to work with. Someone properly prepared, and not caught off guard by the FBI questioner, will pepper their answers with comments like, “I’m not entirely certain, but my best recollection today is that ……” “Based on your question, I would think that at the time ……”, and other similar efforts.
All attempts to pin him down would be met with “I wish I could recall it more clearly, but what I’ve told you is the best that I can recall at this time.”
And its ALMOST impossible to make a winning 1001 case out of a “he said, he said” situation. Given Comey’s problems, I don’t think Mueller would ever try to make a false statements case out of any discrepancies between answers given by Trump with answers given by Comey concerning what they talked about. The best 1001 cases come from circumstances where the defendant’s statement to the FBI is flatly contradicted by the defendant’s earlier statement that is captured in some fashion like an email or voice recording.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:12 amPaul Montague — there has been some speculation here for a while that what HF is doing is a form of performance art. No one accepts his stated motivations at face value. He’s more of a curiosity than anything, and is pretty much impervious to criticism.
He’s like our Cousin It. We’re not sure what to make of him, but we’ve accepted him as a bug in the matrix.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:14 amHey mr nk, if you aren’t too busy right now:
LOL
Pinandpuller (8b5528) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:17 amHaiku says, “The “abuse of power” by the Deep Staters… the biggest American political story in my lifetime –…”
Now, tell us who said this, Colonel Haiku….
“I don’t believe there’s a deep state at the State Department.” “You know, this term ‘deep state’ has been thrown around,” he said. “I’ll say this, the employees that worked for me at the CIA nearly uniformly were aimed at achieving the president’s objectives and America’s objectives.”
Go ahead. Tell us. And then tell us how you know more about the subject than that particular VIP. I can’t wait to hear it.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:13 am“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” Carl Sandburg
I would add…. if all of that fails, start a conspiracy theory.
Deep State.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:20 amI remember when Bill and Hillary pulled that “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” conspiracy. Nobody has topped that one…. till now.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:24 amfor a dirty fbi turdslut like Robert Mueller to accuse somebody *else* of witness tampering has to be the biggest hippopotamus ever seen in the whole swampy-swamp
way to get your goosestep on like the sad and swishy fbi nazi you are
i got your witness tampon right here bobby
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:25 amYou mean like vast right. Wing conspiracy:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/trumps-war-on-the-washington-bureaucracy
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:28 amHey happyfeet. You know I hate to acknowledge your existence but I love ya at the same time. Anyway…. do you believe these “Deep State” things like some of your more gullible friends? Just wondering.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:30 ami used to but ever since skeezy sally yates went full pussyhat on the job i kinda suspect everybody actually knows who these people are now and what their agenda is
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:35 am“Everybody knows who these people are…”
Don’t forget to tell Pompeo.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:36 amAnd the folks who undermined the interrogation Program, like grenier dannenberg, kirikaou (who went to jail, for nearly 3 years) Mccarthy and Carle who leaked rendition sites.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:43 amMr. Pompeo has his own agenda plus he’s not only harvardtrash through and through as an impressionable yoot he steeped in the sewer of west point
he wouldn’t know a deep state if it crawled up his leg and bit the inside of his ass
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:43 amNo, I believe he asked them to leak them, which is what Dustin said. You quoted Dustin saying a leak was requested and then went to DEFCON 1 saying Trump asked for a leak and not a hack, and you acted like Dustin was a “Truther” for saying the same thing you said.
I haven’t read every comment in this thread, being on a phone, but since you specifically pointed to it, I read your comment , which I’ll reproduce here so nobody has to scroll up:
Each and every time I read it it looks like Sustin wrote “leak” and not “hack.” So where does all the vitriol in your comment come from, given that you did nothing but confirm Dustin’s claim?
“Truther” indeed.
PS he wasn’t asking them to fess up but to release more emails.
Patterico (d93e1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:45 amThere was a marked uncuriosity about a level 5 security breach, at the time they were romping up crossfire hurricane.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:55 am“The guy publicly called for Russia to leak classified information about Hillary.”
these are the yoga emails Mr. Dustin there wasn’t anything in there that was classified
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:00 amMeanwhile the ona paid helper upwards of a million dollars to dangle at trump campaign operatives.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:05 amToday in tweetland….
“The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself…I would have quickly picked someone else….” Donald Trump
Just unpack that one tweet. What are we to conclude from that? Maybe the obvious?
My AG does what I tell him. He is my fixer.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:28 amHe clearly states that this investigation exists “all because” Jeff Sessions did not stop it.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:34 amAre there any decent theories for what Trump is trying to accomplish with his Sessions hate tweetstorms? He does know he can fire the guy, right? Or is he afraid of obstruction of justice charges?
Appalled (96665e) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:41 amSo…because the “impossible” threads weren’t enough…What if Trump shot Comey? What if Rudy answered a hypothetical off the top of his head. Since we’re down the rabbit hole anyway, why not get really creative…
What if Donald Trump made a clone of himself and that clone went back in time and worked with members of the KGB to murder Hillary’s parents, then Trump issued a pardon for his clone? Could he be impeached for that?
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:44 amOh…and by “he” I mean the original Trump, not the clone. But that does raise the issue would a pardon the original Trump issued to the clone also apply to any future murders that original Trump might commit or would he (or his clone) need to issue new pardons?
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:46 amArguing with “Deep Staters” feels kinda like pulling a bone out of a rottweiler’s mouth.
noel (b4d580) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:47 amwhy indeed:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/05/mueller-fbi-wrongful-conviction-case/
now if he borrowed the time machine, it would create a new timeline,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:55 amwheels within wheels:
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/06/03/following-the-money-in-spygates-london-connection-a-small-but-crucial-piece-of-the-puzzle/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:00 amArguing with “Deep Staters” feels kinda like pulling a bone out of a rottweiler’s mouth.
Sez the chihuahua chasing after the collusion car.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:02 amI am now on a computer and have done a control-F for the word “hack.” I do not see a comment in which Dustin accused Trump of asking the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails.
So: outrage officially misplaced.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:04 amhttps://www.chicksonright.com/2018/06/05/leftists-are-outraged-at-talk-about-trump-pardoning-himself-but-um-what-about-this/
These ladies did the work no one else wanted to do. Good times.
NJRob (b00189) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:04 amwhy indeed:
Interesting. From a Boston Globe article (no time right now to verify, which is important because TBG is one of my least trusted sources of information…but found this interesting none the less):
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/20/pardoning-past/AyXTNsqOCiDk4qnizdCbPM/story.html
I’m guessing none of this would have been an issue for Greco if it weren’t for classifying gambling as a crime.
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:07 amI think the question assumes a fact not necessarily in evidence. A child doesn’t always have a well thought out plan when he throws a tantrum. He just throws it. Trump is, temperamentally, a child. His hitting Twitter is like a child throwing his toys.
The only difference being that children who throw toys don’t get their tantrums validated by throngs of fans.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:07 amPatterico,
He didn’t use hack. He used “work with” whatever you determine that means.
NJRob (b00189) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:08 amYes, because adults throw tantrums when election results don’t turn out like they wanted, and they spend the next two years trying to overturn it with references to a “crap electorate”.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:10 ambecause there was no reason for sessions to recuse, as it was with Ashcroft, but otherwise Rosenstein and fitzgerald, couldn’t make their move,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:16 amBecause if a Republican doesn’t recuse when he doesn’t need to, he’s adopting the immoral tactics of the Left.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:19 amHe would not only have to fire Sessions, he’d also have to fire Rosy as he would be interim AG, because Rosy already said that he would not fire Mueller except for cause, which would cause a political firestorm (especially since Trump tried to persuade Sessions to un-recuse himself) and only add to potential obstruction of justice charges. The Senate already signaled that they would not confirm a replacement. Trump could fire Sessions, but there would be hell to pay, so all he can really do is just bitch about it.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:22 amThe only difference being that children who throw toys don’t get their tantrums validated by throngs of fans.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:07 am
On the other hand, we see asshole buddies, one who consistently praises the other’s tantrums and acting out and characterizes it as “integrity”.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:24 amas I pointed out earlier, the father of the briefer caught felt, leaking indiscriminately from grand jury, Holland noted the discrepancies between what was in the transcripts, and what ended up in woodward and Bernstein copy, and what ended up in the film, he probably didn’t know he had been outed for his supervising of black bag operations in the media, penn, ‘data breach’
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:25 amAt best Mueller’s greatest hits, (boston, BCCI, anthrax, aipac, plamegate, et al) show him as inspector clousseau, at worst grand scale malpractice,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:29 am#399 — Trump is lousy at administration, thinks government can be run like a closely held family business, and seems to be just about the worst boss ever. But there are games he knows how to play. If this particular piece of whining was just a one time tweet lament, I would accept the President as toddler explanation. Since this is a recurring theme, there is likely some kind of strategy (even a bad one) behind it all.
#402 — Sorry, no sale. The question is — why diminish Sessions openly the way he does without simply firing him? The question is not — why is DJT angry with Sessions? I think we all know why.
Appalled (96665e) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:31 amAnother Trump “tantrum”:
“What is taking so long with the Inspector General’s Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery James Comey. Numerous delays. Hope Report is not being changed and made weaker! There are so many horrible things to tell, the public has the right to know. Transparency,”
Indeed, it was supposed to be released today. Calling for transparency is soooo childish.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:32 amI used to send links to PP posts on in emails to friends and family all the time in hopes of spurring interest in what I’d thought for years was one of the best all-around site’s there was. I haven’t done that in well over a year now. I am not cheered by that.
Colonel Haiku (33b771) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:34 amthe guns were delivered to the right cartels, the right Islamist militias, the exchanges info to Russian hackers, long time allies were deposed, hundreds of thousands of criminals were taken off gun records, where is the hangup,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:35 amSorry, no sale. The question is — why diminish Sessions openly the way he does without simply firing him?
Calling him out without firing him = childish
Firing him = obstruction of justice
Sorry, the guy didn’t get to be president playing by your insane rules.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:36 amThought the issue of whether a president can murder a citizen with impunity was already settled.
the Bas (ab264c) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:47 amCarr and Hannity and Dershowitz and others have been fact-checked on this. There is no evidence that Mueller was involved in the wrongful imprisonment case.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:03 amfact checked by the new York times, debate the documents then, how do you think that bulger wasn’t nabbed for 30 years, because key people up and down the line were in on it,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:08 amthere’s a reason, Scorsese, named one of Costello’s henchmen, Delahunt, after the future congressman and da back in the 80s, they were diligent in stamping out the providence gang,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:11 amThere is no evidence that Mueller was involved in the wrongful imprisonment case.
Well after spending some time with this, what a complete mess. I had little respect for TBG before hand but this (which is refuted elsewhere) may be the source of much of this problem…
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/1970/01/19/one-lingering-question-for-fbi-director-robert-mueller/613uW0MR7czurRn7M4BG2J/amp.html
The parsing of words by the original author, the lack of effort in fact checking. The whole thing rather pathetic. But these are our news sources. And TBG is far from being a right-wing outlet.
Ahh…but further clicks in attempt to find TBG’s refutation of TBG’s columnist above I run across this:
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Mueller-directs-resp-to-Greco-posthumous-pardon.pdf
Is it manufactured, a la Mary Mapes/Rathergate? Hell, I don’t know. Anyone care to figure this out? I actually have real work to do…
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:31 amCarr and Hannity and Dershowitz and others have been fact-checked on this.
Citing the NYTimes as a fact check is like citing Yahoo News to corroborate a dossier.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:32 amThe above letter/pdf that I link was from this original article which appears to be a refutation of the “fact checked” NYT article. Again, who ya gonna trust?
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/05/mueller-fbi-wrongful-conviction-case/
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:36 amin the film, it was a guy named pappas, who died of a heart attack, for the Connelly standin, Sullivan, had covered for Costello,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:43 amAd hom noted. It was written by the judge (not an NYT reporter) who presided over the civil case. She’s about as good a source on the details of the matter as anyone.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:46 amIt was written by the judge a Clinton appointee, who according to the DC link (again, who do you trust):
….I really should get back to work…whenever everybody else gets back from lunch…sigh….
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:52 amAd hom noted.
Ad hom? You mean referencing FBI/DOJ techniques is an ad hominem? Quite an acknowledgement. Good, making progress!
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:53 amAd hom?
As I believe I noted here a few days ago, on the internet, cries of ad hom signal uncle 99.6% of the time.
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:55 amAlso consider…”consider the source” is not necessarily a logical fallacy. In most instances it’s, as I say, an excuse to bail. Especially when the source is (or should be) known to both parties to be considered suspect by at least one of the parties…Consider this article…not that I agree with all of it…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:05 amI didn’t say that Trump demanded Russia hack anything. Trump did, famously, on national television, ask Russia to leak classified emails. I can see why there’s this need to say he wasn’t serious, or burn a straw man and pretend I accused Trump of personally entering the Matrix to hack Hillary’s server before she wiped it with a cloth. Trump did indeed put our nation’s classified intel remaining secret behind his own ambitions for office, though. We all saw him do it.
Nah, he’s completely unphased by it. You guys didn’t respond to the merits of his point. I think his source is reasonable and if you didn’t agree you could explain why she is wrong instead of attacking Paul for linking the piece and attacking the author of the piece because Clinton1!!!!
At any rate, clearly there were some secretive meetings taking place between guys like Manafort, Flynn, Papawhatever, and Trump Jr on the Trump campaign’s side, and Russia’s government on the other. We’ll have to wait to learn what the investigation uncovers about the meetings. As many have noted, the prosecutions from these investigations are often ‘process’ crimes, like Bill Clinton’s perjury or Manafort’s alleged witness tampering. That doesn’t mean they were innocent. It just means there was something so bad they wanted to cover it up.
Soon after these meetings, Trump was telling us he was going to give us something “very interesting.” That could mean absolutely nothing, because Trump is a BS artist, but I think at the time we all thought he had some real dirt on Hillary. I imagine that’s a major reason why he’s going to be asked to testify.
But all that is just speculation. Beldar thinks Trump is a savvy witness and can weasel through this pretty well and I have no reason to doubt him.
What I do know is that our president has announced he’s above the law. I don’t need to know much more to feel validated in my opinion he shouldn’t be president.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:22 amlike the bureau covered up William allen’s offenses, in return for unverifiable evidence against ted stevens, which prompted the ethics blitzkrieg, in Alaska, what happened with Ronnie earles airtight case against delay, seems to have sprung a leak, Cyndi archer and the walker campaign,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:29 amNah, he’s completely unphased by it. You guys didn’t respond to the merits of his point.
Odd charge, Dustin, for someone who refused to respond way back @243.
Bruce Ohr, Yahoo News, dossier— nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:35 amnow true, barboza died a little over forty years ago, but he didn’t brush his teeth, unless whitey told him to,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:43 amOh it was Kevin who was concerned about my (fictitious) super hacking claims.
Kevin, I meant what I said about you being a devoted partisan, but I apologize for insulting you personally, suggesting that you as a partisan are not trustworthy.
I do think partisans will often make untrue claims, ignore truthful claims, and otherwise spend a lot of time carrying water and trading in BS instead of debating on the basis of facts and ideals. You know, in your heart, how wrong Trump’s pardon commentary is. The effort to defend him upthread over his behavior was an effort to defend actual tyranny. They say it could never happen in our country, but it can because of the disturbing loyalty Trump has inspired, particularly in smart guys who know better, but are invested in partisanship.
Your goal is the advancement of a political party which is increasingly corrupt these days. My view is that the GOP is the single most significant impediment to many of the most critical reforms our nation needs. After all, the honest voters hoping for a balanced budget, ethical, small government, where we are equal before the law, are more likely to waste their vote on the GOP. And the GOP swallows up any effort to accomplish those objectives while its savviest supports roll their eyes and sneer at the naivety of purpose.
At any rate, I should have kept my points more generalized. Let’s have a moment of silence for the straw men you’ve burnt in response and then let’s talk past each other in the future.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:47 amabout a decade or two later,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:53 amThis is not a surprise that the FBI prefers to divulge less than more information. Since Carr provided no follow-up, the easy assumption is that the FBI showed cause and the case moved forward. In other words, nothingburger.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:10 aminbetween both fiascos:
Both Mr. Terwilliger and Mr. Mueller were senior Justice Department officials when BCCI got away. Mr. Terwilliger was Deputy Attorney General; and Mr. Mueller ran the Criminal Division at Main Justice from 1990 to 1993. When it came to making decisions about investigations and prosecutions in the BCCI affair they were the men at the switches. …
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:11 amIndeed.
And if there’s one thing we’ve learned in the past 18 months, it’s that when Trump gets an idea in his head, it’s because somebody put it there.
Blurting out a felonious request for Russia’s intelligence services to torpedo Hillary for him strongly suggests that somebody was talking to him about that very eventuality.
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:22 amDustin – Is impeachment not a part of “The Law?” If not, please explain why. If it is, then your assertion that DJT declared himself above The Law is factually incorrect.
I promise you I am not trying to pick a fight. This is an important point and I am truly interested in any response you may offer.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:28 amDave, riding in the ridiculous hypothetical clown car again.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:32 amThat’s a good question.
Ed, as I quoted above, Ben Franklin passionately justified the need for an impeachment process. It exists in writing as a literal law, yet it lacks the intended power the law was given, much like the Emoluments clause and the tenth amendment. I believe Trump has calculated, accurately, that the GOP will never convict him, nor would a GOP house impeach him, and he can muse about getting away with shooting someone dead. That message from his administration is crystal clear. As I’ve complained about at length, partisanship is a fundamental problem that I argue does indeed compromise Franklin’s vision of the impeachment protection against corruption and tyranny. Rudy did explain that even if Trump pardons himself, the GOP would impeach him, and this is supposed to be a realistic thing? I simply reject this because it won’t happen no matter what Trump does. The argument is already upthread. What’s shooting Comey compared to [insert thing a democrat did a few years ago] therefore impeaching him would be politically wrong. How many Senators need to reject this argument to make impeachment functional? Too many to prevent tyranny. But this isn’t really what you asked about.
Which leads us to the real meat of your question: does Trump saying he can pardon himself mean he has placed himself above the law? And I’ve argued upthread that the mere act of our President issuing this royal decree, that he can pardon himself no matter what Mueller’s investigation might show he did, has placed Trump beyond the reach of our laws. The reason for this is simple: The federal government is a sovereign, and execution of our laws is vested in Trump, and if he decrees that he is above the law, then he is indeed beyond the law’s reach. Let’s look past the conflict of interest in Trump being the judge presiding over his own case. The entire executive branch is saying this when Trump says it.
I don’t see Trump divesting from his hotels, which he is constantly renting to foreign powers, so I don’t think the constitution has been respected during this administration. With partisanship, we lack a legitimate impeachment process due to the lack of an adversarial process needed for a functional administration of a criminal justice process. The constitution is only real if made real through action. The words on paper are just history otherwise. But the only way to hold Trump criminally accountable would be to first impeach him, and second to charge him criminally. Impeachment isn’t just not functional, it’s not really effective unless the President cannot pardon himself prospectively.
Trump’s statements are unique in centuries of presidents because they are the words of a monarch. There is a law over our country, and right now, because the president is the executive branch, Donald Trump has placed himself above that law. This is a disturbing change in how presidents have views the law, after a couple of years of Trump completely ignoring the boundaries of ethics in many other areas.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:57 amYeah, he started talking about how interesting his revelations about Hillary were going to be right after these meetings with Russia started. That’s one basis of the collusion accusation.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 11:58 amNope. When someone says “Citing the NYTimes as a fact check is like citing Yahoo News to corroborate a dossier,” it’s an ad hominem argument, by definition, by downtalking the NYT.
That’s your take. Mine is that it’s an argument-avoidance tactic. If I wanted to go ad hom, I’d say the Daily Caller has its own pro-Trump credibility issues, such as when they published the works of a white supremacist like Jason Kessler, but I’d rather address the substance, such as the words of a judge who lived and breathed the case in question for months.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:02 pmTaking a step back, it would be interesting to know the ages of the commenters here, because this PR campaign against Mueller is straight from the Clinton playbook 20 years ago, during the Lewinsky Unpleasantness, when squadrons of Clinton defenders would swoop down onto the cable channels and other media to go all scorched-earth on Ken Starr. I’m not surprised that Donald is doing this. After all, he was a Democrat during the GW Bush era and big-time Democrat donor, so I’d say his Democrat proclivities haven’t gone away. I am surprised that so many Trump defenders are pom-pom waving on these tactics.
As much as us conservatives disagree with David “Camera” Hoggs and views on gun control, SWATting his house is beyond the pale. The person (or persons) who did this needs to be jail.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:09 pmPaul,
3 articles, none of which had to do with quote unqoute white supremacy. The NYTs has has pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers, communists, employees ans contributors
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:11 pmThank you, Dustin.
I believe that the sanction of removal from office is an immense “sentence” if you will. It’s clearly on the books, and there was, in fact, a trial not so long ago. Another president resigned rather than face a trial (self-imposed plea bargain).
That we may have timid, worthless and weak prosecutors is not a failure of The Law as written. It is a bug that cannot be overcome by anything on paper. Basically, no system can be devised to overcome such.
The reason it must be difficult to topple an executive was borne out in Wisconsin. Did you see the length and depths of conspiracy which was required – and it happened! The Law was damn close to being hopelessly corrupted to get after Walker.
Our republic won’t well survive anything short of the most robust safeguard of the executive as a core feature. Kind of like a favorite abortion argument – removal must be safe and rare.
As i was typing this, DJT was fully disgusting, obscene, and abhorrent. That “Celebration of America” was the worst of who he is, and of what too much of our country has become. Jefferson Smith is rolling over in his grave.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:16 pmDustin,
Again what meetings with Russia.
You seem to have information that you have an immediate duty to share with the FBI.
It’s the highest moral duty for you to go to the field office with your unique information that only you seem to have discovered.
Highest moral duty
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:17 pm440 – I’d bet that it was a false flag operation.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:17 pmWhen someone says “Citing the NYTimes as a fact check is like citing Yahoo News to corroborate a dossier,” it’s an ad hominem argument, by definition, by downtalking the NYT.
Downtalking, because why exactly? Why would a comparison to vaunted FBI/DOJ methods be downtalking in any way?
Mine is that it’s an argument-avoidance tactic.
I guess a better argument avoidance tactic is to just avoid answering the question.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:21 pmAnd what’s worst is: this will become the new normal.
I view Trump as akin to Colonel Klink, on the scale of villainy. He’s a loathsome figure with no redeeming qualities, but a lazy, incompetent and cowardly one. However, having elected one morally degenerate demagogue, there will be others, and the next one (e.g President Bannon or some equivalent SJW from the left) may not be lazy or incompetent.
Unless the Trump model of politics is crushed, annihilated, and ground into dust (by doing the same, politically, to him) it will drive out everything else.
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:23 pmOfficer, don’t shoot. I’m reaching for my hairbrush.
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:23 pmI also think it’s interesting that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence but it’s collusion to joke that someone or some country who everyone already knew, probably had the emails, that she risked prison to get rid of.
Wierd, Clinton breaks the law, it’s trumps fault
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:25 pmYes, the NYTimes is a self-anointed news and fact-checking source. I give TheDC credit for fully disclosing that it’s neither.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:26 pmOn his last article, he wasn’t just reporting, he was an active participant in a neo-Nazi rally, which is a conflict of interest as well as a repellent thing to do. He’s a POS human being for his overt racism.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:27 pmVery good points, ed. To be honest, I do not predict Trump will be charged with anything at all, and to lose the presidency is indeed an immense sentence. And Clinton did have his trial, but despite being 100% guilty, he was never at risk of conviction. We’re far based that level of partisanship today.
And I have to acknowledge that this is a great point. I don’t think Mueller really is a democrat stooge hell-bent on changing the results of an election, but let’s suppose the possibility because of the nuts in Madison. That can and would eventually happen, therefore the burden to oust a president should be substantial. But it should also be non-partisan to the best extent possible, and should have been a matter for the US Supreme Court rather than our legislature.
I do hope that any criminal charges a president faces can be handled in open court after he leaves office, and any effort that president makes to pardon himself simply laughed at, however right now, the president has asserted these laws don’t really apply to him. Impeachment does to the extent it did to Bill Clinton, but the real laws… he can just pardon himself.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:37 pmEPWJ, actually I posted the DOJ documentation of these claims above in this thread. It seems that everyone is aware these meetings took place, except for partisans who have their fingers stuck in their ears. Your snooty little know-it-all routine is as disrespectful as it is ignorant, and it fits the tone I would expect from someone defending Trump for announcing he has discovered the power to pardon himself.
Trump may be president for the next 1000 years but I’ll still speak the truth about him, and call evil what evil is every time.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:43 pmNewt may slowly be waking up – http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newt-gingrich-trump-pardoning-himself-would-be-arrogant-statement-of-power/
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:45 pmThis looks self-anointed fact-checking to me, which is really beside the point on folks’ uses of ad homs.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:56 pmPutting wife #3’s ambassadorship at risk…
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 12:57 pmDustin, no you made assertions of meetings, you should immediately go to the FBI, you have no higher moral duty
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:00 pmthe FBI’s a deeply corrupt and fundamentally un-American organization
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:02 pmDustin, this ia very serious, you made the fact based claim that there were meetings, you must go to the federal authorities with your unique information.
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:02 pmDustin, take that truth to the FBI
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:04 pmPaul,
Disengenuous, you are equating three minor articles, that once the persons backgtound was known, were scrubbed to the nyts century of knowingly hiring scum even today, of writing and contributing
EPWJ (df834f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:07 pmThis looks self-anointed fact-checking to me, which is really beside the point on folks’ uses of ad homs.
A point still not addressed re@446.
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:08 pmDoes Walter Duranty still do fact checking for the NYT?
random viking (b63958) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:11 pmTed Cruz Lays Out Constitutional Case For President Trump Pardoning Himself
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:17 pmGood link Happyfeet, but Cruz remains a disappointment. Cruz is right that it’s a well established concept in law today that you can’t preside over your own case. No one is above the law. Nothing happened to change this concept. We just finally have elected that guy.
Cruz’s efforts to say ‘well that’s not written in the constitution though’ are weak.
Weaker still: his ‘well it doesn’t matter because afaik Trump didn’t do anything wrong.’ He just did something wrong in announcing his new power to pardon himself. Don’t kick that can down the road.
If Ted Cruz isn’t principled enough to speak plainly and directly about this, I doubt more than a handful of Republican Senators are. How can impeachment work with such a weak legislature? Trump’s tested the waters and found he can indeed get away with anything he wants to get away with.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:28 pmAnd we see commenters who call me an asshole given a one-week vacation for failing to observe even basic standards in the comments section.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:33 pmDustin, Mike lee said the same thing on fox today I believe,
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:35 pmTrump was aware of Donny Jr.’s meeting with the lawyer thought (correctly) to be Kremlin-connected, who claimed to have Hillary dirt. Dustin is right about this.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:36 pmI love President Trump he’s already pardoned in my heart and that’s where it counts
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:47 pmfor the love of cake-baking Jesus wtf is wrong with National Soros Radio
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:48 pmThis relates well to Ed’s great challenges to my point of view. If the only law that is above Trump is the GOP Senate, then it’s hard for me to accept his new pardon power doesn’t place him above the law. I appreciate how sternly Mike Lee warns against the practice, but I really dislike this new talking point, now being repeated in unison that ‘There’s nothing in the text of the constitution against this absolute pardon power.’ Oh to be a fly on the wall during that conference call. None of these guys would be saying this if Obama had declared his ‘absolute power’.
And maybe I do sound like I’m having a tantrum… I don’t know but I’m definitely invested in my point of view. But this is simply because I love my country and Trump’s entire course of conduct, from the campaign attacks on family, to the violence at his rallies, to the Hillary email stuff, to the use of his hotels, and a million other things led right up to this new pardon power.
It is very dangerous how so many supporters simply refuse to consider these things outside the context of ‘but hillary’ or ‘but democrats’. This partisanship is horrible for our country, but Trump’s the first time I think the president has actively exploited it to this degree.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:49 pmCNN reports State Department officials say Walrus Gumbo’s ‘Libyan Model’ comments were intentional; to ‘blow-up’ NorK summit. Our Captain was confused by the attempted scuttle; Pompeo, pissed.
No strawberries for a week, Wally.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:56 pmto the violence at his rallies
That’s a big tip-off as to your frame of mind. The origin of the violence probably doesn’t matter to you.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 1:58 pmYou mean the woman who met with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson both before and after the meeting with Trump Jr.?
NJRob (7b259a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:04 pmDustin – As time moves forward, I am as sure as I can be that we will learn that BHO veritably dared anyone or anything to stop him. His perfidy is/was a true danger. A loud and obvious buffoon like DJT can never do the damage a determined and slick despot like BHO can (and did) do. The sickening thing about it is that BHO was correct. We will never seek to make right most of the illegal usurpations of power in which he engaged. His use and corruptions of the Administrative State have been ruinous. With each passing day they are not firmly challenged, BHO’s audacious actions are further cemented. Just watch as the Deep State survives the current rollback efforts by Hannity and DJT.
The overwhelming irony is that while BHO is untouchable in a de facto sense, there is much screaming as to DJT’s de jure protections. “The White House is running this.” There is NOTHING publicly known about DJT’s actions that come close to implications of that phrase and BHO’s criminality. But, but, but….DJT said he can’t be indicted! Off with his head!!!!!!!!
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:05 pmYou mean like these:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.”
“Clinging to their guns and religion.”
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
“The police acted stupidly.”
“Get to the back of the bus.”
And on and on.
NJRob (7b259a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:11 pmEd,
Obama’s administration was indeed abusive in many ways. Lois Lerner should have her own page in history textbooks. But the GOP’s response to this wasn’t to run a clean ship and demand accountability. No, Trump was talking about using the IRS in much the same way, if I recall correctly (I’m sure I’ll be told this was a ‘zinger’).
At any rate, you’re right that he seems to have completely gotten away with whatever he did do wrong. I am not convinced his smoother, more savvy operation was a greater threat than Trump’s clumsy one, because with Trump there is such a fear of crossing him in the GOP today, and there is such an energy behind defending him no matter what he does.
But I get what you mean. At a minimum, I do not think Trump watched Obama’s abuses, or contemplates the “deep state” and wishes that stuff never happened. I he sees them as examples, and opportunities. This is a guy who hired Manafort, after all.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:15 pmWe are in total agreement that DJT could not care less as to the abuses to the Rule of Law and our republic. He sees only opportunity for self-promotion.
As to the relative dangers of known and unknown evils…Even the very best of us, like Pat, Dana, DRJ, Beldar and others in here, have any chance of plugging holes of which they are ignorant. It’s Satan’s greatest trick – to avoid being consciously seen. As far as I am concerned, that is EVERYTHING. he who can fight a war without the opposition even aware of war, wins. Every. Single. Time. Again, at least with DJT, we see him coming.
I fully acknowledge that one must be super careful in ascribing Satanic involvement. If everything is Satan, nothing is Satan. I am well satisfied that BHO best represented the darker forces as POTUS than anyone since Wilson. The paradoxes which abound are a dispositive clue, for me. I may be woefully wrong.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:26 pm422 — haven’t ever weighed in on the Mueller problems connected to the mob case in Boston.
But the Judge’s comments are interesting, in that I think both sides are referring to different aspects of “Bob Mueller”, and the Judge’s defense of him based on a claim he was “smeared” by Hannity and Fox is not convincing.
It does not matter to me if Mueller was personally involved in the efforts to direct attention away from the fact that the FBI was covering up for its informant.
When Mueller was an AUSA, and later the acting US Attorney in Boston, he would not have been directly in control of what the FBI in Boston might have chosen to hold back — its entirely conceivable to me — it happens — that the Agents hold back information from the prosecutors.
There is no good way for an AUSA to dig out that fact, because AUSA’s don’t personally go to the FBI office and physically dig through their files. So if an agent — in that time period — wanted to bury a particular piece of information, he’d put it in a 1A envelope (his notes), not write a 302, and file the 1A envelope in the physical master case file with a purposely vague description of its contents in the index.
The FBI was not “on-line” with most of its record-keeping late into the 1990s. Each office had massive file rooms, and a cadre of employees called “routers” if my memory is correct. It was the “routers” job to physically place documents and pieces of evidence that could fit into envelopes into the case file for each case in the filing cabinets. There was then a master index for each case that was updated with each new addition to the file.
When it came time for a case to head to court, the AUSA would meet with the agent to go over the master index, and the AUSA would tell the agent which items from the index were needed for examination and to possibly turn over in discovery.
IF the prosecutor wasn’t made aware of something by the agent, it would have been hard to make that determination.
So, it might be defensible to claim that Mueller played no role in the FBI’s withholding of evidence while he was with the US Attorney’s Office in Boston.
But, on an accountability basis, its absolutely appropriate to call him out for misconduct committed by others that he was working with. To the extent the FBI tried to cover up that misconduct once it was discovered, and if that extended into the time after Mueller became Dir., then its a huge black eye for him.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:27 pm@ Paul Montagu, who wrote (#404)
I agree with this, and would simply add a couple of supporting data:
First, Rosenstein, in saying he would only fire Mueller for cause, is merely referencing 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(d), which provides:
Rosenstein was therefore only signaling his knowledge of the reg and acknowledging that it would be binding upon him as Acting AG.
Second: Huge holes remain in the DoJ ranks of Senate-confirmed officials: Take a look at the chart showing the un-filled offices that require Senate confirmation, including that of Associate Deputy Attorney General, vacated last February by Rachel Brand when she bailed out for a sweet in-house job at Walmart where she’ll never possibly be called to take over for Rosenstein’s supervision of Mueller if Trump fires Rosenstein:
I honestly don’t know what to make of the report that the effort to fill that slot has been put “on the back burner.” Surely there are still some members within the portion of the Venn diagram where “people the Senate might confirm” intersects with “people who are qualified” and “people who are willing to work for Donald J. Trump.” But certainly when Trump continues to savagely kick Jeff Sessions in public on his Twitter feed on a regular basis, he’s moving people out of that last category.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:37 pm@ Haiku (#405): And yet the guy you deride as “asshole buddies” with another commenter here, our host, continues to pay for the bandwidth for you to heckle him.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:40 pmBreaking- Kelly Sadler handed her hat, and McCain, Jeeves; jettisoned from WH.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:43 pmI posted #480 before reading #465, to which my reaction is: “Huzzah.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:48 pmPersonally, I don’t think it’s a winning argument to be on side that is defending the media organization that so poorly vetted their contributors that one of them turned out to be a neo-Nazi. And it’s not just Kessler.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:56 pmOne of the unfilled DoJ positions that requires Senate approval is the DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Can you imagine the Senate confirmation gauntlet any nominee to that position would be obliged to run, given Trump’s free-wheeling and impulsive pardoning of so many people who haven’t even applied for one?
The triple-intersection on the Venn diagram for that office may actually be a null set.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:58 pmDustin @ 437:
Or maybe the reluctance of Congress to embark on a course of impeachment is based on the consideration that impeachment upends a duly constituted election where the winner received 60+ million votes, and carried 30 out of 50 states; and that there is another election for the same office scheduled for 2020; and that political disagreements in our system are intended to be settled at the ballot box by the citizens, and not in the Halls of Congress.
Maybe we should await actual “corruption and tyranny” before we wring our hands over Congress’ failure act, rather than puzzle over imagined vision of “corruption and tyranny” that are dancing in your head because you dislike the current occupant of the office.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 2:59 pmIs there a definitive source for this conclusion, or is it just your view based on the fact that it is more likely than not that the nature of the meeting — before and/or after — was something that Trump would have been made aware of in late June, 2016?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:06 pmI completely agree, Beldar.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:07 pm479 Beldar — its not quite as dire as it might seem from the outside.
I think the reluctance to fire Sessions is related to the question of what to do about Rosenstein in that instance, and if he then fired Rosenstein the fact that the Dems would use every maneuver under the sun — with support from guys like Flake — to block consideration of any replacement.
So the end result would be that Noel Francisco, the Solicitor General, would become the Acting General as next in line.
The remaining vacancies in the next level of political appointees isn’t quite the problem imagined by the press. In the key posts I’ve looked at — Crim Div., Civil Div., Envir & Nat. Resources, and Civil Rights, the current “Acting” Assistant AGs have all been put in place by Trump. Two have nominations pending, one is former Jones Day partner when Jones Day has been the single biggest contributor of big name talent to the legal ranks of the Trump Admin, and the last one is a former Senate Counsel to Sessions.
So the idea that DOJ is dysfunctional at the litigating component level because of unfilled vacancies is a bit of overblown rhetoric in the press.
The bigger issue in firing Sessions is that it just sets in place a chain of events in the Senate that would be beyond the WH’s ability – and McConnell’s ability — to control.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:28 pmAd hominems for thee, but not for…
NJRob (7b259a) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:29 pmIt’s not imagined, SWC. Trump is indeed claiming a new “absolute” power to hold himself above the law. That’s yesterday’s news.
There needs to be an asterisk by “winner” in this sentence, given that most of the voters actually supported his opponent. It’s a little rich for Trump to sit on his high horse all the time about how amazing it is that he won, when he did win on a technicality. In fact, the sole reason we the people permit him onto the White House grounds at all is because of our respect for the rule of law. Therefore, your statement actually highlights the need for Trump to respect the supremacy of law, and not his “absolute” power.
Let me be honest, SWC, as I’ve been several times in this thread: I am deeply critical of Trump’s actions. I am deeply in contempt of his lack of moral character, and I was before he ran for office. If this means my views carry a little less credibility with you, well you get to decide your own opinions and I take no offense.
But I assure you, had Ted Cruz or Rick Perry won the presidency, and they announced this power, I would hold them in contempt and consider the announcement itself to be a serious event.
—
Ed, fascinating look at Obama vs Trump. You are certainly right we see it coming with Trump. There really are no surprises. Obama was certainly no virtuous president in many respects, however the biggest thing in his favor today is that he will be compared to Trump and just seem more professional. I always thought it would be his skin color that got him a pass, but no, it’s his successor. In fact, to your larger point, I imagine Obama is pleased about being succeeded by Trump. After all, Obamacare isn’t going anywhere.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:30 pmThe issue of whether a President’s plenary pardon authority extends to himself has been a matter of scholarly debate for a long time.
Given that it’s never happened, the debate has never been settled.
But just because it’s never happened does not mean that it’s “new.”
Re the election — he received 60+ million votes in carrying 30 of 50 states. That’s how the winner is determined under the process that has been in place since the founding of the REPUBLIC.
The US is a collective of States. The states have a process for deciding what candidate their citizens select. The influence of the states is weighted for their size.
Trump won, and it had nothing to do with a technicality. The US is not a democracy.
No asterisks are needed or appropriate.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:37 pm489. Ad hominems for thee, but not for…
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:44 pmWell, random viking certainly went ad hom at #418. At #439, I expressly said that I wasn’t going there. That the person at #460 chose to defend a media organization that publishes the content of neo-Nazis is ancillary.
I would be happy to be corrected on this, but I have never heard of a US President announcing that he has the “absolute” (and yeah I know I’m quoting this word a lot) power to pardon himself.
I wouldn’t be surprised if scholars have discussed this among all sorts of things. I read something about whether Trump could build concentration camps (obviously from nutty critics). That’s not very important.
I agree and I’ve never said Trump isn’t the rightful winner of the election.
I said it is only because of the rule of law that we the people, the voters who rejected Trump by a margin of millions, allow him this win. Therefore, Trump should love the law, and he should not hold himself above the law.
We had an election and most of us voted against Trump. He won anyway because of the technical rules, and that’s a technicality. He will forever have an asterisk by his name when people say he’s a ‘winner.’ Again, a matter of our differing opinions, but the fact is that our nation didn’t consent to be government by Trump, who is indeed claiming absolute powers no other president has ever claimed for himself. Just imagine if our president was someone most of the voters actually voted for, and then imagine if that president didn’t claim for himself disturbing lawless powers? Wouldn’t that be better than the situation we are in today?
That creates a lot of tension, and is something I intend to be pretty critical of him for. Not that I believe my commentary is that important, but this is America and though Trump’s fans are often very hostile to it, I exercise my right to criticize their Dear Leader.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:47 pmPaul Montagu, you are guilty of the ad hominems as I did not comment at any of the comment #’s you attribute to me. Nor, did I issue an ad hominem anywhere else. Take it back.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 3:50 pmYour 418 was certainly argumentum ad hominem.
While “ad hominem” literally means “to the man”, what it really means is attacking an argument on the basis of who made it, rather than the content of the argument. As Wikipedia explains:
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:05 pmJoo keep youseeng that torm — Ed om in em. I doan theek eet means houat joo theek eet means.
Saying Stormy Daniels is a erohw is not ad hominem. Saying what she says should not be given any credence because she is a erohw is ad hominem. And in her case, it is not a fallacious argument. serohW lie.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:07 pmAlso, what Dave said.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:08 pm@418 was not my comment!!
Talk about Trump’s twitter tantrums all you like, but if you screw something up this bad you ding your credibility just a tad.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:11 pmOr maybe not.
“Citing the NYTimes as a fact check is like citing Yahoo News to corroborate a dossier” is not ad hominem. It is a fair and kind appraisal of the credibility of the New York Times. You know, there’s a reason why the most famous defamation case is New York Times v. Sullivan.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:11 pmDustin:
Do you really think Trump meant to declare himself above the law when he announced he had the ability to pardon himself? Or was he just being ad hoc with whatever problem he had on his mind today?
Appalled (1a17de) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:13 pmThe comment numbers are not the same for each commenter guys. Particularly if you’re one to cuss or otherwise trip moderation.
I do agree with NK though. When we’re complaining about people being Nazis or mocking the credibility of the Times, we can at least have a laugh that these guys do have a credibility problem. That’s Trump’s biggest advantage: a lot of his critics in the media really are pretty bad. Unfortunately, he’s played that fake news thing for cover and concealment, rather than playing it straight.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:15 pmI personally do think this pardon stuff is a thoughtful strategy. I think the Trump team is engaged in a proactive defense, and considering how they will handle Mueller’s interview questions. They may or may not be privy to what’s going on with Manafort and what that entails, but we’ve seen quite a lot of ‘pardon’ stuff in the last couple of weeks.
But if Trump was just blurting out nonsense on twitter, well he is the President of the United States and he should be a little more careful about announcing the existence of new powers, talking about his ‘bigger’ nuclear buttons, etc.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:17 pmRV, this shows up for me comment 418, first line in italics because you were quoting.
Why you have a different comment at 418 is unguessable by me. But that’s why you’re being cited as the author of 418.
Appalled @500
kishnevi (c338bc) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:24 pmMy 2 cents
Both: Trump thinks he should be above the law but was merely reacting ad hoc.
The comment numbers are not the same for each commenter guys. Particularly if you’re one to cuss or otherwise trip moderation.
I do agree with NK though. When we’re complaining about people being Nazis or mocking the credibility of the Times, we can at least have a laugh that these guys do have a credibility problem.
OK, thank you Dustin for clearing that up. I had quoted the host directly way earlier in the thread, where he had used a bad word and a comment of mine was in moderation all this time. So, my bad I guess.
I was actually mocking the credibility of the DOJ, and not sure we should be laughing at that. The credibility issues with the press should be a given.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:28 pm@ random viking (#498):
There are comments to this post made in your screenname from three different IP addresses, which as I understand it, Patterico’s website uses to create the hexadecimal hash in the parenthetical after each screen name to help detect sock-puppetry.
For 6a54c2, the following comments appear:
1
4
29
129
136
142
145
242
250
272
281
298
326
335
343
395
401
403
409
412
472
494
498
For b52e12, the following comments appear:
80
105
418
423
428
436
445
449
461
462
And for ab961c, the only comment is 242.
If you’re using different ISPs (e.g., between home and office, or home desktop and mobile phone), that would account for the different hash values. But the hash value for the comment at #481 which you complain is not yours, b63958, has nine other associated comments. Did you leave any of those?
If you’re being sock-puppeted, you should flag that for our host or a moderator to look into.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:29 pmYes, Kishnevi you are right. I had a comment in moderation, so apologies for jumping on others.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:30 pmThis is Beldar (fa637a on all my other posts today from this IP) pretending to be random viking.
random viking (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:31 pmAnd you see, #506 used fa637a as my hash value, exposing my (one-time only) sock-puppetry.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:32 pmKishnevi, he can see a comment he wrote that the rest of us can’t, bumping all subsequent comments up by one. This is a silly example because I’m not even sure what we’re supposed to be arguing about, but it’s easier to cite by name and time.
Some Democrat Senator on twitter has a joke: Donald Trump’s running the most polite administration in history. They are always saying “Pardon me.”
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:33 pmI suppose it’s actually impersonation, not just sock puppetry. Both are bad, impersonation is probably worse.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:35 pmYou mean the paper that covered up the holomodor, and the holocaust, the cultural revolution, and the umap, the turbas and spread the black legend against the shah, they have a credibility problem,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:37 pmAnd this is from my smartphone, which has a different IP (if I’m not using WiFi).
Beldar (9b56f9) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:38 pmas far as i’m concerned the gaywad eagles should *never* be invited anywhere cause they’re basically just trashy thugs
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:40 pmI gather, though, that this may be a numbering issue, not an impersonation or sock-puppetry issue. Are all the comments I listed at #505 yours, adjusting for the different numbering you see (but we don’t) while you’ve got a comment in moderation? I think when your comment is released, it will change the resulting numbering for everyone, making the numbers not entirely reliable for purposes of discussion, but still handy enough to be worth using.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:42 pmPaul, at 295: I don’t see why anyone would bother. HF is who he is and he’s not going to change, and trying to make him change is just aggravating.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:45 pmBeldar, thank you for your explanation.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:46 pmOnly the best people
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/arrest-made-outside-white-house/
Although contractor might describe anyone from the paperboy on up.
kishnevi (c338bc) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:52 pmback at the ranch, re the eickenrode of this saga,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/05/demoted-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-had-larger-role-in-clinton-russia-probes-than-previously-known.html
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:52 pmApparently he worked for the NSC and used offices in the Old EOB, not the WH.
kishnevi (c338bc) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:55 pmWe had an election and most of us voted against Trump. He won anyway because of the technical rules, and that’s a technicality. He will forever have an asterisk by his name when people say he’s a ‘winner.’ Again, a matter of our differing opinions, but the fact is that our nation didn’t consent to be government by Trump, who is indeed claiming absolute powers no other president has ever claimed for himself.
Whoooa…
Dustin, enjoy life, trump shouldn’t affect you to this extent, lots of presidents didn’t get 50 percent, there is no winning the popular vote, just relax
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 4:58 pmso Strzok’s the designated fall guy
which explains why they made gofundme break their rules to raise him a buttload of cash
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:00 pm@513. Skip the scrapple; try the cheesesteak, Mr. Feet.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:02 pmHere’s a list that Dustin thinks were illegitimately elected
Adams
Hayes
Harrison
Bush
JFK
Garfield
Nixon
Cleveland
Wilson
Truman
Polk
Lincoln
Reagan*. His first election, in several states they stopped tabulating the vote once he carried California
Cleveland again
Clinton
Clinton
Taylor
Buchanan
Of the 49 presidential elections 30 won the popular vote and the electoral college
19 won the electoral college but lost the popular vote
Of the 30 who won both the college and the popular vote 6 of those were in the margin of error of tabulation (less than one percent)
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:18 pmhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
Eric,
Thank you for your sincere concern that my criticism of your Dear Leader is causing me to be unhappy. I’m actually pretty happy while engaging in a little free speech about how President Trump thinks himself above the law. It’s but one of many amazing examples of the man’s lack of personal character.
I wasn’t trying to troll you when I pointed out that Trump failed to get as many votes as Hillary in the last election. But that is the fact. Trump is ‘still the president’ despite the wishes of most hard-working American voters. We the people didn’t put him in the White House. We go through our days following the rules, paying our taxes, keeping our contracts, not filing bankruptcies or groping our employees. We have jobs we would lose if we were as dishonest for one day as Trump is every day. We are not above the law, the way Trump is. And we didn’t want him to be our President. As he spends enormous sums of tax-dollars on himself and gets richer renting rooms to those who wish to engage the president in various ways, we notice how broken Washington DC and the Republican party have become.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:18 pmEric is a liar. Here’s my actual words:
Interesting that he claims I said the opposite of what I did say. I merely pointed out that this guy who boasts about ‘winning’ actually did not have the mandate of our actual literal votes. Trump only is president because of the American people’s respect for the rule of law, so Trump shouldn’t put himself above the law.
Partisan Republicans seem to have a lot of contempt for honesty these days, which is why Eric is lying about what I actually said.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:20 pmSo basically adding in the less than one percent, it’s 25 lost the popular vote to 24 who won the popular vote, so in essence, it’s very very common, to win that persky electoral college and not bother with the popular vote
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:21 pmSeymour Hersch:
I always thought my business as a reporter was to take a dispute and resolve it. I mentioned in the introduction about treating things as the tip. The first story the Times wrote on [Hillary Clinton’s] email—that was off-the-top, flimsy, one or two days after they had it. They had no idea what a good story it was.
In the book I’m writing, I can segue into this stuff; I’m writing a lot about what was going on in the FBI. There was a lot going on that was counter-Trump, I will tell you that. I’m telling you, it’s the missed story of all time.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/seymour-hersh-monday-interview.php/
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:22 pmDustin, you said many times his election was not legitimate, over several threads. In fact weren’t you advocating to get rid of the electoral college?
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:23 pmWe the people didn’t put him in the White House.
Thank again for proving my point, the people did put trump in the whitehouse annnd he’s still there
EPWJ (abcfb5) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:25 pmeric your comparison of Trump to Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton and those other presidents is misplaced.
Lincoln, Bill Clinton, and much of the rest of your list won more votes than any other candidates when they ran for President. Obviously they are who the voters selected. Perhaps you are calling for run-off elections? I think that would be an even better idea in the GOP primary.
Trump did not win more votes than Hillary, and despite how terrible a candidate she was, the voters rejected Trump on election day.
George W Bush, the man Donald Trump claims to be the worst president in American history, was in the same boat as Trump. The only reason Bush got to be president was the rule of law. This is a very important point to consider when our leadership considers itself above the law, don’t you think?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:28 pmWhy do you feel it so necessary to lie like this? Do you think you’re fighting the good fight? I have made clear many times that Trump won the election by the laws, plain and simple, and that he is very fortunate that America so values peaceful transitions of power under the law.
I think discussing election reforms is indeed very interesting, but no, I’ve never said Trump isn’t the legitimate president. You are simply a liar, Eric.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:29 pm520 — LOL.
In 1992, Bill Clinton received just a bit less than 45 million votes.
“Not Bill Clinton” received 58.8 million votes.
That’s a “loss” by almost 14 million votes — thank God for those “technicalities”!!!!!!
Talk about getting “wiped out” and still being allowed to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for 8 years…. that’s as good as it gets.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:46 pmyes, because the electoral college, they did cover that in civics right?
https://babalublog.com/2018/06/05/libertarian-golden-boy-jeff-flake-welcomed-in-totalitarian-cuba-to-congratulate-dictator-castros-eunuch-puppet-diaz-canel-and-to-denounce-freely-elected-u-s-president-trump/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:50 pm14 million more people didn’t want Bill Clinton to be President than did want Bill Clinton to be President — they just couldn’t agree on who should serve instead of him.
Under Dustin’s theory, that’s still a rejection of a President by historical margins in terms of raw vote totals.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:50 pmAnd Bush 41 lost with 39 million.
And Perot lost with 19 million.
This isn’t very complicated as to who the voters preferred of the three. In 2016, Trump was not the candidate the voters preferred.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:51 pmSWC, you’re actually flying over my head on this one. I consider Bill Clinton to be a sleaze and a liar, so by all means tell me he shouldn’t have been president, but if he won the most votes how is this a rejection? It’s just a plurality instead of a majority, but a clear win by any honest analysis.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 5:53 pmthe only way to know for sure if President Trump can be prosecutered for shooting Jim Comey is for him to just do it
so what say we make a pitcher of grasshoppers and go out on the deck while they figure this out
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:02 pmDustin,
Look at the facts, look at the results, calling me names doesn’t walk back your obvious comments and that the historical record proves your feelings are somewhat misguided.
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:05 pmDustin, moving the goal posts, Hillary didn’t get 50% either, so the “people” clearly didn’t favor her
Lincoln didn’t win the popular vote, didn’t, as much as you want to change that fact, there it is.
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:08 pmI’m going to dispute the “hard working” aspect of that quote. You might want to say despite the majority of voters.
NJRob (7b259a) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:22 pmThis is the usual BS from the sore loser faction.
The last time a majority of Americans voted a president into office was, well, never.
More incoherence from partisan Team R. Guess who voted, Kevin? The voters. This isn’t that complicated.
The last time a majority of American voters voted a president into Office was President Obama. Previous to that was President George W Bush’s second term. Before that, President Bill Clinton. You see, it’s actually the norm, and something that is very, very important for common sense reasons. We as a people implicitly believe in a sense of justice and democracy, even if our wise expert leaders from generations ago decided to complicate matters enormously as they devised a rather silly political system that immediately fell into rampant partisanship such as yours. It is a system of easy manipulation and “us vs them.” It flies in the face of the nation’s purpose and motto.
It was not contested on the popular vote basis. If it had been, the vote in uncontested states like California would have been much different. For starters, it would have been contested.
What’s your point? Why do people feel the need to explain the already well understood, and pretend the truth of basic, but unrelated facts is a replacement for a point?
If your point is that Trump would obviously not be president if the majority of American voters decided the election (whether or not California went to Trump, bwaahahahahahahahahahaha), then you are correct.
Yes, I recognize that a popular vote model is supposed to be more advantageous to the left for some reason, I think urban areas being easier to cheat with. But I’m talking about reality today. The reality is as it has always been: most Americans, and most American voters, do not want Trump to be president. They never did. Trump winning the EC but not the people is actually a reasonable thing to say, and does not make me a “sore loser.” In fact, the folks who are sore about this fact appear to be partisan Republicans (also known as the problem with our country).
Dustin (ba94b2) — 4/24/2018 @ 1:58 am
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:22 pmDUSTIN
HELLO
you’re not doing the correct opinions all up in it
number one you fail (spectacularly) to acknowledge about how our president, President Donald Trump, has many fantastic qualities
number two sometimes you’re acerbic in reference to our president, President Donald Trump
these are deficiencies on your part and i should think you would be eager to correct them
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:23 pmThe electorial college is a constitutional right.
To take away that right because, Trump
No, because “wrong.” Like many things our founders thought up, this isn’t working.
That states would only get to choose which democrats would run 100 percent of congress
If the GOP doesn’t really have the mandate of the people, that’s not the people’s fault. The democrats actually represent the liberal point of view. The republicans only pretend to represent a contrary point of view, and actually perform interference that totally prevents any reduction in the scope, size, and price of our government. That’s a big reason why the GOP is afraid of democracy. Power to the voters is a potential disruptive solution.
An election by national referendum of all the senators and representatives?
I have a neat idea: how about each congressional district that a representative ‘serves’ will have a popular vote decide on reps? And then we just do the same thing on a national level for presidents?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 4/24/2018 @ 11:17 am
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:23 pmThis is why this blog should pick up Disqus. I thought referencing comments by their numbers was kosher.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:24 pmThis isn’t very complicated as to who the voters preferred of the three.
Really? If there had been a Clinton-Bush runoff, I think Bush would’ve won. But, that’s not how it works. Bush supporters didn’t talk about asterisks or electoral college, as I recall.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:26 pmI gotta say I’m amazed at how many times in this thread one of the Team R guys simply outright lied about my point of view on something. Instead of discussing my views, they just swap them with something else. I get that on the internet people like to fight and troll, but it’s pretty silly. All I have to say is “no, that’s not what I said” or better yet, just ignore you.
More amusing is the Team R complaining that Bill Clinton won his election by a mere 5 million vote plurality, being the guy with the most votes in that election. Well if that’s so bad you can see the problem with Trump’s loss in voter totals. The same people whose respect for the rule of law is the sole reason Trump is in office, get to watch Trump say and act as though he is above the law. We notice what the GOP is these days.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:26 pmGood grief, discus, that’s inviting a whole army of flying monkeys throwing their scat instead of perhaps or two,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:32 pmI hear you, Dustin. I’ve been there.
I did get confused though. Does Trump deserve an asterisk because he survived the technicality that every other President survived since the inception of the Electoral College?
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:32 pmyes, it must 24/7/ 365 hate, on every outlets sans the animal channel and the cartoon network, the actual statistics of economic growth or foreign policy improvement, must be ignored, and rinse and repeat backwards with Obama,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:38 pmThis bit of alternative history from Victor Davis Hanson is a clever and rhetorically splendid example of its genre.
In the law, there’s a concept whereby courts are supposed to view a factual record (e.g., the transcription of a trial’s testimony and its admitted exhibits) “in the light most favorable” to one side or the other. Hanson’s mirror universe here does that persistently on behalf of the 2024 version of Bernie Sanders in order to score points, and it’s deftly done. Its effectiveness depends in large part on the reasonableness of his comparisons, and many of them — Sessions meeting with Pence’s wife, for example (in the alternate version of Lynch meeting with Bubba) — seem astonishingly reasonable.
So it’s a well-told tale, and I congratulate him on it. I think counterarguments could be constructed, but I’ll leave that to others less amused than I am.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:38 pmwe have been hearing counterarguments for a year and a half, every aha moment is readily explainable if you add in the context,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:41 pmDustin,
You’ve made many assertions, when faced with facts you change the rules, engage in Name calling, calling people liars, is not the best way to engage.
The popular vote means 50.01 percent, now you claim the plurality.
The facts show more presidents than not didn’t win a popular vote, in fact 19 lost including Lincoln, by substantial margins, even Reagan’s first win may not have been a popular vote win.
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:42 pmThe only thing that matters in a presidential contest is who wins a constitutional majority, and all of our 45 presidents have gotten that. Popular votes, pluralities, etc. are really beside the point. The problem with Trump is that he wasn’t satisfied with a constitutional majority, he had to claim (falsely) that he would’ve won popular vote but for all those millions of illegal voters. Of course, he was fact-checked on that and came up short.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:45 pmNarcisco
Loved your description of discus
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:48 pmYeah, that was embarrassing, but I actually do think it’s relevant how much you win the popular vote. When the public sends a message that they strongly prefer this guy’s platform, that’s a mandate. When the public sends a message that they actually prefer you not be president, that’s not a mandate. Legally, yes, this is beside the strict point of who won the election, but it’s important politically.
It’s particularly important today, as Republicans are engaged in defending a president’s “absolute” power to pardon himself. The law either is so important and sacred to them, or it isn’t. Can’t have it both ways guys.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:51 pmWhat is the source of Trump claiming that he would have won the popular vote, Paul? I didn’t see it in the link. I may have missed it. Thanks in advance.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:52 pmAnd they still spin, the fact is trump won
EPWJ (db4190) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:54 pmbut of course, more dossiers, more extortion and legal malpractice must prevail,
https://saraacarter.com/lawmakers-warn-ig-being-pressured-to-slow-roll-clinton-fbi-report/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 6:54 pmI remember when Bill Clinton claimed that he had a MANDATE in 1992 despite him not getting a majority vote in either election. And there was his picture on the front of TIME, with that smug grin of his face and the MANDATE word below in big letters. It was f**king bulls**t, but there were Democrat majorities in both houses and the MSM was pretty fired up about it. Those were glory days of Rush Limbaugh, pre-FoxNews, when he really was a lone conservative voice to counter all the biased, liberal crap out there. To answer your comment, I don’t think the popular vote is that important because a win is a win.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:02 pmnow as to actual computer intrusions, by foreign powers, not crowdstrike magick,
http://therightscoop.com/woah-debbie-schultz-tech-guy-imran-awan-has-struck-a-plea-deal/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:05 pmSecond paragraph of the link, BuDuh.
Using Trumpian math, he won the popular vote by 100,000 to 2.1 million when you knock out those “illegal votes”.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:06 pm@ Paul Montagu, re your #553: You’re right about the “constitutional majority,” but Rutherford B. Hayes got there in a little bit different way than did all the rest, via the Compromise of 1877 — whose pernicious effects facilitated Jim Crow in the South until the mid-20th Century. Now that was a constitutional crisis, and it resonated for a long, long time.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:11 pmI saw that, Paul. But the WaPo had no named source.
Was there another link that went to something more factual.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:13 pm> The only thing that matters in a presidential contest is who wins a constitutional majority, and all of our 45 presidents have gotten that
The partisans of Jackson would beg to differ, and loudly bray about the election of 1824.
And everyone who was around in 1800 would look at you in puzzlement.
aphrael (3f0569) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:13 pmYes, but as usual that isn’t the whole story, the c
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:15 pmKlan like their imitators among Islamic state, had made an all out campaign to target African American voters in certain states, so there want this great groundswell of tilden
Paul, great points.
What I find fascinating about Bill Clinton is that, for a BS artist, he did play his hand well. The GOP also played its hand well. These parties had divided power and yet got stuff done that simply wouldn’t happen in today’s environment. The GOP was passing budgets that seem like a fantasy today, for a federal government that was far smaller than today’s vastly overemployed government.
While Trump’s fans are upset I said he needs that asterisk by his name, Bill Clinton’s fans don’t care. Trump mentions that he won that election quite often. Bill Clinton’s legacy is in how productive his administration was. A lot of the results he would cite are things the GOP actually did, which also is annoying to me because the GOP used to be useful and conservative.
I mean, that’s the only reason Hillary stood a chance, right?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:16 pmThats leaving out many things like the slashing and intelligence like the cra revisions and the doj to create yhe subprime demand. Mau mauing the gop over oklahoma city.
Narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:40 pmTo this, I reply: No, Chuck, no — it’s a trap, don’t fall for it! McCabe seeking immunity for Senate testimony on Clinton email probe.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:42 pmMake him come to Congress. Make him sit in the chair. Swear him in under the C-SPAN cameras. And make him take the Fifth over and over and over again.
Then send him on his way, pending the IG’s investigation and criminal referrals therefrom. He can take the Fifth at that trial, too.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:44 pmI dont think grassleys game with that. Hes one of the bright lights of this possom congress. So much so propublica tried to gaslight his top staffer brian foster.
Why did hillary think she had a chance have you seen the tenor of her press coverage she could not only walk on water she could floatvover it.
Narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:49 pmMcCabe should hold out for immunity AND his pension, LOL. 🙂
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 7:54 pmSounds like great TV, Beldar.
How disgraceful to go from being the Director of the FBI, such an amazing position in law enforcement, to now asking for criminal immunity.
No one argues Hillary was clean, at least not in good faith. Indeed I can easily imagine Hillary finding a less grandiose, but altogether equally offensive way of saying she has absolute authority to pardon herself and her lackeys.
These two candidates were the best our country can do? They were the choice we got?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:04 pmBut put more bluntly:
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018
Narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:04 pmHe is accused of lying about something stupid and completely irrelevant to outcome of the investigation, but it would be foolish for him testify about it while facing prosecution, don’t you think?
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:13 pmHe may be trying to pull an Ollie North. North talked so much to Congress after his grant of immunity that he immunized himself from the bulk of the government’s case against him even though the immunity was “use” and not “transactional”.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:18 pmAnd I agree with happyfeet. The only we can for sure know whether Trump can be prosecuted for shooting Comey is if he actually shoots Comey. But I don’t think it would be the right kind of “test case”. Too drastic. Maybe if he only hit Comey with a banana cream pie?
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:21 pmNit even within the same parsec, now general flynn on the other hand was never allowed to speak on his own behalf after that concocted plea agreement by strzok and company.
He dodnt want to face the fate of warren Hastings.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:24 pmYep, NK. It’s like the cop who gets his Garrity Warning and then admits to a whole bunch of stuff. Beldar is right that there’s no reason give him immunity. He already lost the job.
Dave, unfortunately process crimes are a big problem with these complex investigations, but the director of the FBI should be pretty savvy about that. As a leader of the FBI, Mccabe should consider himself accountable to the American people, and offer the truth with no special favors attached. If he did wrong, he should just own up to it, and if he did no wrong, he should just give us every detail he can that isn’t some sort of official secret.
The thing is, if his honest testimony would make things harder for him when he faces prosecution, that’s not a reason to feel bad for him. If he’s worried about the impact the truth would have on his fate before criminal law, that means he did wrong.
I genuinely feel this way about accountability, and I do understand the many lawyers here have a different view about zealous defense. It’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t have made a very good lawyer.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:25 pmMaybe if he only hit Comey with a banana cream pie?
you’re no fun anymore
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:44 pmBeldar, that explains the uneasiness when I wrote “45 presidents”. I didn’t fact-check myself.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:49 pmHow about strike a large fish, preferably wearing a knoghrz armor.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:51 pmI think that would be the Kalkines warning, Dustin, which promises exclusion of the employees’ statements from use in a criminal prosecution. Garrity is like Miranda — it warns that any statements can be used in a criminal case.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2018 @ 8:57 pmYou could go by Trump’s own words, BuDuh.
This would have to mean that, according to Trump, there were at least 2.9 million illegal votes, presumably 100% of them favoring Hillary, which is a provably false statement.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:00 pmQuite right, nk! I guess I’m glad I never had to deal with one of these warnings in person because I had already had the impression it was indeed a coerced statement that was not admissible, but the warning makes clear that’s not the case.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:03 pmhttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/05/spygate-president-trump-highlights-lou-dobbs-segment-outlining-december-2015-fbi-cointel-operation/
I think we will be hearing a lot about what oconus lures are in the next few days. I anticipate that they will be described by some as measures used to protect the Trump campaign.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:08 pmI wonder why Factcheck didn’t use the tweet in there debunking? Thanks, Paul. I was unable to find anything in my own search.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:13 pmOf course, just in like that song by the police, not stalkery at all.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:17 pmBeldar — don’t you see the sweet irony in the appeal for use immunity to be extended to McCabe in order to testify??????
Who is McCabe’s attorney seeking the immunity???
Michael Bromwich.
Where did Michael Bromwich see this movie before???
He was one of the DOJ trial attorneys who prosecuted Oliver North.
Why was North’s conviction reversed???
Because he had testified before Congress pursuant to a grant of immunity, and when he appealed his conviction the Gov’t couldn’t prove that it had an independent source for the evidence used to convict him, and that none of the testimony from witnesses they called were influenced by North’s immunize testimony.
Bromwich lost the conviction because Congress granted immunity.
Now Bromwich wants Congress to give his client immunity, setting up an issue for appeal should McCabe ever be in the position of having to go to trial and suffering a conviction.
LOL.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:37 pmanon y mous — a basic mistake being made by the examination of this issue on various sites is the assumption that the reference to “lure” means to a person. It does not.
In the parlance of the intelligence agencies, “lure” is a reference to any of a variety of authorized efforts to coax the target of the “lure” to respond.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:40 pmThat suggests category error on his part, colonel north was doing a good thing, even though some of his methods might have left something to be desired
narciso (d1f714) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:49 pmswc: That makes sense. Instead of the agent/spy/whatever being the “lure”, whatever method used by the agent to take a run at the subject is the lure.
Useful to understand the vocabulary being used, but from the POV of Page/Strzok they might have meant both the method as well as the agent being used to make the run at the subject. That what was being approved was both the method as well as the personnel deploying the lure. The whole package.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/5/2018 @ 9:53 pmJigging the lure in the appropriate manner can land you a big fish.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:27 pmBut the process crime (your description, not mine) had nothing directly to with the investigation.
Someone in the Obama Justice Dept. told McCabe to put the Clinton Foundation investigation on the back burner until after the election. McCabe refused. So to punish him, that same Obama DoJ official leaked a false story … that McCabe had put the Clinton Foundation investigation on the back burner until after the election.
Recall that Trump, with his usual scrupulous respect for the truth, was using McCabe as a whipping boy in his stump speeches, falsely claiming that McCabe had been involved in the Clinton investigation at the time his wife received a political contribution from a Democrat PAC in Virginia (where she was running for state senate). In truth, McCabe had consulted with the FBI ethics office pro-actively when his wife decided to run, and had been recused from all matters where there might have been a conflict of interest.
So the lie spread by the DoJ official played right into the lie spread by Donald Trump. Up until the end of October, there is no evidence McCabe had done anything unethical, much less illegal, despite being demonized by all sides.
McCabe corrected the story through a Public Affairs Officer after consulting with the FBI General Counsel. Although apparently unauthorized, he might have been able to get away with doing that by claiming it was to protect the bureau from false reports. It was unethical because he (in effect) revealed confidential information to protect his own reputation from a lie. But he stupidly denied doing it, and as usual, it’s the cover-up rather than the crime that does you in.
Still, I think it’s a bit much to suggest that someone volunteer to increase their risk of going to prison for what they may feel was either not a crime, or where there were extenuating circumstances (it’s unclear what McCabe’s defense will be).
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:28 pmDave, I get where you’re coming from. I appreciate Trump isn’t arguing in good faith. I just feel that Trump and Mccabe both ought to set the highest examples for accountability and public service. My contempt for one has no bearing on my contempt for the other. If there really is no evidence of wrong doing on Mccabe’s part, I hope he answers every question he’s asked.
Like they say in many LEO trainings, surely including the FBI: You lie, you die. You can get away with a lot of mistakes if you are honest about them. Indeed you are probably right that it’s that cover up that causes the most trouble. These process crimes may not seem worthy of the drama and investigation. I know Scooter Libby would say they aren’t. But Mccabe ran the FBI and he lived by this sword, if that makes sense.
We’ll see what his defense turns out to be. Personally, I hope he just runs right up to the podium and tells all, warts and all.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:34 pmIt’s also conveniently ignored by the anti-FBI crowd that McCabe’s screw-up was investigated aggressively and thoroughly by multiple internal offices of the FBI while he, himself, was Acting Director.
As in plenty of other cases, the narrative of the FBI being the seat of some kind of corrupt, Deeeeeeeeep Staaaaaaaaate conspiracy orchestrated from the highest levels fails to pass the laugh test.
Dave (445e97) — 6/5/2018 @ 10:49 pmOf course, of course. How could I have overlooked it. Trump’s plan is to pardon himself for high crimes and misdemeanors. No crimes…. no impeachment. Brilliant!
noel (b4d580) — 6/6/2018 @ 5:56 amTrump is at that 68-dimensional chess while we all stand here playing twister over his last move.
noel (b4d580) — 6/6/2018 @ 5:57 amSpeaking of 68. The Deep State is trying to claim that there are only 58 floors to Trump Tower. We all know that Donald and Melania live on the 68th floor.
noel (b4d580) — 6/6/2018 @ 6:00 amnever change, juche dave, not that your able, yes horowitz reviewed the events, six months after the events, and this report is waiting for godot,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/6/2018 @ 6:05 amAs in plenty of other cases, the narrative of the FBI being the seat of some kind of corrupt, Deeeeeeeeep Staaaaaaaaate conspiracy orchestrated from the highest levels fails to pass the laugh test.
We only know about this “screw-up” as a result of an IG. The existence of an IG itself runs counter to the “independent” FBI Dave’s “conservative” candidate McMullin is an advocate for. If it were up to Dave and McMullin, the IG would’ve been told to take a hike.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/6/2018 @ 6:34 amhorowitz, was the guy who tried to get to the bottom of fast and furious, as well, not that issa was any help.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/6/2018 @ 6:45 amAny Trump building with 68 floors is going to have a Floor 69. And you don’t want to know what’s going on there. Just that it will be magnificent and wonderful, and nobody says Trump has small hands on Floor 69.
Appalled (96665e) — 6/6/2018 @ 6:59 amappalled isn’t it clear we got stormied these last eight years,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-06/trump-wants-kim-to-commit-to-disarmament-timetable-in-singapore
narciso (d1f714) — 6/6/2018 @ 7:01 amah we know he was a tool of the Chinese:
https://twitter.com/The_War_Economy/status/1004359991334187009
but the Russians too,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/6/2018 @ 7:55 amPaul Ryan and Richard Burr agree with Trey Gowdy that the FBI did “exactly” what it should have done over its handling of a confidential source. (CNN)
“I think that Trey Gowdy’s description of the process was correct,” Burr said
Paul Ryan…. “I think Chairman Gowdy’s initial assessment’s accurate.”
No spy? The Deep State cover-up continues. And by Deep State, I mean everybody but Donald Trump and Devin Nunes.
noel (b4d580) — 6/6/2018 @ 1:37 pmInteresting article on prosecutorial over-reach:
https://spectator.org/prosecutorial-fanatics/
The older I get and the more I learn, the less sanguine I am. I don’t think any of these people cackle with glee while abusing their power. But I think they do (abuse power) and they self-justify it. Scary thing about Mueller is he is not that smart but is dogged. Also, he is not self-reflective. Does not admit mistakes.
Anonymous (e82ace) — 6/7/2018 @ 3:45 amDitto, anonymous, you remember Eliot rosen, the little weasel, that wiretapped Gallagher, that’s a schneiderman or
narciso (d1f714) — 6/7/2018 @ 6:11 amSpitzer.
Scary thing about Mueller is he is not that smart but is dogged. Also, he is not self-reflective. Does not admit mistakes.
Interesting how far one can go in politics, law enforcement, academia, etc. with that approach. Which is why these “investigative” institutions that get created, effectively outside the realm of the constitution’s wise separation of powers, are so incredibly dangerous.
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/7/2018 @ 6:41 amThose latter 2 attributes are shared by his targeted prey, 606/608.
urbanleftbehind (b23bbe) — 6/7/2018 @ 6:50 amReally Conrad black, Stephen hatfill, the entire Arthur Anderson edifice.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/7/2018 @ 6:59 amFirst it was his comments that backed up Trey Gowdy, and yesterday Not-Brave Sir Ryan speaks out against self-pardons.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/7/2018 @ 7:38 amThose latter 2 attributes are shared by his targeted prey, 606/608.
Yes, but the point is that his targeted prey is subject to the checks and balances of the other two constitutional institutions. In this instance, Mueller’s prey is his (de jure but not de facto) boss. What has been done here is that the executive branch has had a poison pill shoved down its throat and is being denied ipecac.
Skorcher (5b282a) — 6/7/2018 @ 7:42 am