The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[LordMortis]

So I guess Rush Limbaugh started an "If DOJ was worried about Russia trying to get to Trump why didn't they tell him:" tirade and just like a cheerleader audience

Was he so involved in his "not a puppet personna" to miss this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=manafor ... F2016&tbm=

[Unagi]

And, of course they did...

[Zarathud]

I blame FOX News for not including the DOJ warning in Trump's morning news feed.

[Holman]

The NYT has obtained a letter sent by Trump's legal team to Mueller in which they basically argue that by definition a president cannot obstruct justice.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are gambling that Mr. Mueller may not want to risk an attempt to forge new legal ground by bringing a grand jury subpoena against a sitting president into a criminal proceeding.

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance,” they wrote.

They also contended that nothing Mr. Trump did violated obstruction-of-justice statutes, making both a technical parsing of what one such law covers and a broad constitutional argument that Congress cannot infringe on how he exercises his power to supervise the executive branch. Because of the authority the Constitution gives him, it is impossible for him to obstruct justice by shutting down a case or firing a subordinate, no matter his motivation, they said.

“Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution,” they wrote of the part of the Constitution that created the executive branch. “As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction, whether viewed separately or even as a totality.”

[Unagi]

I mean the throw away comments are 'he think's he is above the law' (which he does, and that alone is all we need to discuss)

But more nuanced, he is on some level - above the law... in that he can direct the application of a lot of laws, and he also can pardon a federal crime. But he can't just demand that a law is ignored. They are squirming to try and get something to not even come to light. (clearly) He doesn't want to ever have to pardon something, he so CLEARLY doesn't want things to actually be exposed.


This is either going to be enormously satisfying or so devastatingly horrible (as in: this country is horrible) , and it should come in the next 6-12 ,months. I can't stand this.

It's like I've seen the cliff, and we've applied the brakes..... we now slide toward the edge and I can't tell if we will careen over the edge or stop in time... and either way - even if we stop, the scene caries on - and we've now seen to motives of one of the car's occupants.

[Zarathud]

The President cannot be above the law. By making the argument, Trump has already taken us back to the Nixon Presidency. If that isn't over the cliff, I don't know what is.

[Zaxxon]

we've applied the brakes....

We have? When did that happen?

[LordMortis]

The NYT has obtained a letter sent by Trump's legal team to Mueller in which they basically argue that by definition a president cannot obstruct justice.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are gambling that Mr. Mueller may not want to risk an attempt to forge new legal ground by bringing a grand jury subpoena against a sitting president into a criminal proceeding.

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance,” they wrote.

They also contended that nothing Mr. Trump did violated obstruction-of-justice statutes, making both a technical parsing of what one such law covers and a broad constitutional argument that Congress cannot infringe on how he exercises his power to supervise the executive branch. Because of the authority the Constitution gives him, it is impossible for him to obstruct justice by shutting down a case or firing a subordinate, no matter his motivation, they said.

“Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution,” they wrote of the part of the Constitution that created the executive branch. “As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction, whether viewed separately or even as a totality.”

It the letter is as stated, congress should impeach and release him of his presidency based on this alone... and won't.

[Moliere]

Giuliani: Trump 'probably' has power to pardon himself

If only Nixon knew!

[GreenGoo]

What in the fuck is wrong with Giuliani? I can only assume that Drumpf has some serious blackmail worthy shit on him, otherwise he's just lost his freakin' mind.

Except for a couple of guilty pleas, no one has really been convicted yet

[Smoove_B]

I am of the mind that Rudy is the official White House Court Jester. His job is to say the most insane, ridiculous stuff to the media to get everyone spun up about the absolutely insanity of what's been suggested. "Yes, I believe President Trump could heat a microwave burrito so hot that he's unable to eat it." This keeps everyone distracted from whatever else is going on or where Melania is.

[Kraken]

So what we have from Giuliani is:

1. The president can't obstruct justice because the president is in charge of justice;
2. Even if he could commit a crime, he can't be indicted for it while in office; and
3. Even if he could be convicted of a crime, he can pardon himself.

That should cover all the bases.

I want to say "We'll see about that!", but we won't...at least not as long as the GOP keeps its hammerlock on the federal government. Trump really is untouchable.

[Pyperkub]

Giuliani: Trump 'probably' has power to pardon himself

If only Nixon knew!

Wouldn't have stopped impeachment however.

[Pyperkub]

So what we have from Giuliani is:

1. The president can't obstruct justice because the president is in charge of justice;
2. Even if he could commit a crime, he can't be indicted for it while in office; and
3. Even if he could be convicted of a crime, he can pardon himself.

That should cover all the bases.

I want to say "We'll see about that!", but we won't...at least not as long as the GOP keeps its hammerlock on the federal government. Trump really is untouchable.

The legal look at it, and how Mueller may already have trumped it.

The Department of Justice has issued a memo discussing the constitutional concerns of indicting a sitting president. The memo notes, “A necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court in connection with it … would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else… To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.”

Prof. Diamond likewise noted, “Of course, the premise that no person is above the law is a sound one. Yet, a prosecution of a sitting president is a course of conduct no prosecutor or court ought to take lightly… Further, the specter of the president taking time off from his critically important duties to defend himself from possible loss of liberty is also problematic.”

In other words: indicting the president could distract him so much that he would be a less effective leader. However, we investigated the possibility of whether indicting the president under seal would remove this constitutional concern. A “seal” is an order by the court that the indictment must be kept confidential, including from the president and the public.

Prof. Carroll acknowledges that there could be a statute of limitations problem if the president is not indicted. In other words, Mr. Trump could argue that he is immune from prosecution while president and then immune after he leaves if the statute of limitations has run out. Prof. Carroll argues, “One possibility would be that the indictment issues and is sealed solving the sol [statute of limitations] problem and the matter does [not] proceed until after the President leaves office.”

Prof. Covey agrees, noting, “an indictment might be filed under seal and the matter stayed until the President were out of office.” A “stay” is an order by the court that proceedings are to be delayed until some future date.

The Constitution normally requires that court proceedings be open to the public. This helps to prevent courts from trampling on people’s rights outside of the public eye. However, courts often make exceptions to this general rule of transparency.

Mr. Trump, through his lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, has relied on this idea that indicting him would be too distracting. However, the old adage “what he doesn’t know can’t hurt him” rings true here. If Mr. Trump does not know he is under indictment due to a seal, the constitutional pitfalls associated with distracting a sitting president fall away.

[Smoove_B]

at least not as long as the GOP keeps its hammerlock on the federal government. Trump really is untouchable.

I can't help but believe that if there's a shift in power in the House and Senate, there's going to be a political maelstrom at the federal level the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. While it's unfortunate that this has become a political / party line issue, it really is beyond unthinkable that the GOP is complicit here.

[pr0ner]

The NYT has obtained a letter sent by Trump's legal team to Mueller in which they basically argue that by definition a president cannot obstruct justice.

In a brash assertion of presidential power, the 20-page letter — sent to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and obtained by The New York Times — contends that the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation into Russia’s election meddling because the Constitution empowers him to, “if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are gambling that Mr. Mueller may not want to risk an attempt to forge new legal ground by bringing a grand jury subpoena against a sitting president into a criminal proceeding.

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance,” they wrote.

They also contended that nothing Mr. Trump did violated obstruction-of-justice statutes, making both a technical parsing of what one such law covers and a broad constitutional argument that Congress cannot infringe on how he exercises his power to supervise the executive branch. Because of the authority the Constitution gives him, it is impossible for him to obstruct justice by shutting down a case or firing a subordinate, no matter his motivation, they said.

“Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution,” they wrote of the part of the Constitution that created the executive branch. “As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction, whether viewed separately or even as a totality.”

It the letter is as stated, congress should impeach and release him of his presidency based on this alone... and won't.

The NYT published the entire letter, so you can find out for yourself.

[Kraken]

at least not as long as the GOP keeps its hammerlock on the federal government. Trump really is untouchable.

I can't help but believe that if there's a shift in power in the House and Senate, there's going to be a political maelstrom at the federal level the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. While it's unfortunate that this has become a political / party line issue, it really is beyond unthinkable that the GOP is complicit here.

Relax. The GOP won't turn over control of Congress. There will be enough irregularities/foreign interference in the midterms to nullify results that they don't want to accept. They've got this. (This post needs either a or a . I wish I knew which.)

[Pyperkub]

at least not as long as the GOP keeps its hammerlock on the federal government. Trump really is untouchable.

I can't help but believe that if there's a shift in power in the House and Senate, there's going to be a political maelstrom at the federal level the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. While it's unfortunate that this has become a political / party line issue, it really is beyond unthinkable that the GOP is complicit here.

To be honest, there probably should be. I think that if it happens, the lame duck session will be fraught with peril.

[Smoove_B]

Has our President ever mentioned Mueller by name before in a "witch hunt" Twitter bomb?

Mark Penn "Why are there people from the Clinton Foundation on the Mueller Staff? Why is there an Independent Counsel? To go after people and their families for unrelated offenses...Constitution was set up to prevent this...Stormtrooper tactics almost." A disgrace!

[GreenGoo]

There should only be dependent counsels. Duh.

Also, if there are offenses, I'm pretty ok with going after them, whether they are related or not. Offenses by definition are offensive and should be dealt with.

For the champion chosen by those who would stigginit to the left, they sure picked a whiny bitch. The snowflake in chief sure likes to tell us how unfairly he's being treated.

[Kraken]

The snowflake in chief sure likes to tell us how unfairly he's being treated.

Robert Reich's essay of the week. Imma just quote the whole thing because he would want me to. Probably.

Imagine that an impeachment resolution against Trump passes the House. Trump claims it’s the work of the “deep state.” Fox News’s Sean Hannity demands every honest patriot take to the streets. Rightwing social media call for war. As insurrection spreads, Trump commands the armed forces to side with the “patriots.”

Or it’s November 2020 and Trump has lost the election. He charges voter fraud, claiming that the “deep state” organized tens of millions of illegal immigrants to vote against him, and says he has an obligation not to step down. Demonstrations and riots ensue. Trump commands the armed forces to put them down.

If these sound far-fetched, consider Trump’s torrent of lies, his admiration for foreign dictators, his off-hand jokes about being “president for life” (Xi Xinping “was able to do that,” he told admirers in March. “I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day.’), and his increasing invocation of a “deep state” plot against him.

The United States is premised on an agreement about how to deal with our disagreements. It’s called the Constitution. We trust our system of government enough that we abide by its outcomes even though we may disagree with them. Only once in our history – in 1861 – did enough of us distrust the system so much we succumbed to civil war.

But what happens if a president claims our system is no longer trustworthy?

Last week Trump accused the “deep state” of embedding a spy in his campaign for political purposes. “Spygate” soon unraveled after Republican House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy dismissed it, but truth has never silenced Trump for long.

Trump’s immediate goal is to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation. But his strategy appears to go beyond that. In tweets and on Fox News, Trump’s overall mission is repeatedly described as a “war on the deep state.”

In his 2013 novel “A Delicate Truth,” John le Carré describes the “deep state” as a moneyed élite — “non-governmental insiders from banking, industry, and commerce” who rule in secret.

America already may be close to that sort of deep state. As Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin Page of Northwestern University found after analyzing 1,799 policy issues that came before Congress, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, Gilens and Page concluded, lawmakers respond to the policy demands of wealthy individuals and moneyed business interests.

Gilens’ and Page’s data come from the period 1981 to 2002, before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in its “Citizens United” decision. It’s likely to be far worse now.

So when Trump says the political system is “rigged,” he’s not far off the mark. Bernie Sanders said the same thing.

A Monmouth Poll released in March found that a bipartisan majority of Americans already believes that an unelected “deep state” is manipulating national policy.

But here’s the crucial distinction. Trump’s “deep state” isn’t the moneyed interests. It’s a supposed cabal of government workers, intelligence personnel, researchers, experts, scientists, professors, and journalists – the people who make, advise about, analyze, or report on public policy.

In the real world, they’re supposed to be truth-tellers. In Trump’s conspiracy fantasy they’re out to get him – in cahoots with former members of the Obama administration, liberals, and Democrats.

Trump has never behaved as if he thought he was president of all Americans, anyway. He’s acted as if he’s only the president of the 63 million who voted for him – certainly not the 66 million who voted for Hillary or anyone who supported Obama.

Nor has he shown any interest in unifying the nation, or speaking to the nation as a whole. Instead, he periodically throws red meat to his overwhelmingly white, rural, and older base.

And he has repeatedly shown he couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

So what happens if Trump is about to be removed – by impeachment or even an election?

In early April, Sean Hannity predicted that if impeachment began, “there’s going to be two sides of this that are fighting and dividing this country at a level we’ve never seen” – “those that stand for truth and those that literally buy into the corrupt deep state attacks against a duly elected president.”

Last summer, Trump consigliore Roger Stone warned of “an insurrection like you’ve never seen,” and claimed any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.”

A second civil war? Probably not. But the way Trump and his defenders are behaving, it’s not absurd to imagine serious social unrest. That’s how low he’s taken us.

[GreenGoo]

If it gets as bad as that, Drumpf will be assassinated. Quite possibly by his own secret service entourage. Of course they'll try to "take him alive" but if there are no other options, and he truly is moving to become dictator, someone, somewhere will simply kill him. And I give their political leanings a 50/50 chance to be from either side of the aisle.

I firmly believe that.

[Remus West]

If it gets as bad as that, Drumpf will be assassinated. Quite possibly by his own secret service entourage. Of course they'll try to "take him alive" but if there are no other options, and he truly is moving to become dictator, someone, somewhere will simply kill him. And I give their political leanings a 50/50 chance to be from either side of the aisle.

I firmly believe that.

My fear is that that happens and the loyalty of the Right shifts undaunted to Pence or Ivanka. They really do not seem to care about the repeated attacks on the structure of our nation (in spite of repeatedly saying how great we are) only putting their trust in stiggnit.

[Holman]

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

No signs of autocratic tyranny here, nope. Just a totally normal leader casually asserting his "absolute right" to commit any and all crimes. Go about your business, America.

[Archinerd]

I just want to put it on record. I did not murder anyone this last weekend, not one person.

[Scoop20906]

Of all the things I never expected a president to say on Twitter, asseting he could pardon himself was never one. Never once. This feels like an alternative reality comic book we are living in.

[Paingod]

Of all the things I never expected a president to say on Twitter, asserting he could pardon himself was never one. Never once. This feels like an alternative reality comic book we are living in.

Which is what we've all been saying since he slipped past the bouncer at the front door and took the stage. Every week. "Never saw that coming" "How does he get away with it" "Wow"

[Unagi]

As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!

No signs of autocratic tyranny here, nope. Just a totally normal leader casually asserting his "absolute right" to commit any and all crimes. Go about your business, America.

I'm sorry - but this is just fucking NUTS. Will anyone stop this shit. I can't believe this. I mean it's seriously hard to imagine this is REAL.

[Holman]

The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Despite that, we play the game because I, unlike the Democrats, have done nothing wrong!

This is a delete-and-retweet of the same message from earlier in the morning where he misspelled "Counsel."

But, sure, totally normal for the leader to claim that the investigation of his behavior is actually illegal.

[pr0ner]

Which Fox News pundit said on TV today that Mueller's appointment was unconstitutional? That's the real question here.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure Trump and Lumpy were talking about it last night during their nightly phone call.

[hepcat]

I'm sure Trump and Lumpy were talking about it last night during their nightly phone call.

It's more like Turner and Hooch...but with 95 percent more Hooch.

[Unagi]

Article on the concept of pardoning one's self.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/exp ... don-debate

The Brian Kalt, in the above article, is a high school friend of my wife's. He written a number of interesting things, - one way back in 1997 (hotlinked in the article as well) titled, "Pardon Me: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons"

https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/ ... xt=facpubs


also wrote this book back in 2012. "Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies"

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/133 ... iffhangers


Guy's phone is ringing off the hook today.

[Unagi]

excerpt of some history on the pardon and what our Constitution's Framers context was... (from the above paper)

Spoiler:

English monarchs had the power to pardon well before the Norman Invasion. In the early centuries, pardons had little to do with mercy. Two popular rationales for extending royal clemency were raising money and raising armies: Early pardonees often gave either a cash payment or a promise to serve in the military.

Over the years, various Kings expanded and consolidated the power, ignoring a series of attempts by Parliament to limit it. By the middle of the sixteenth century, the royal pardon power was absolute, giving the King the "authority to pardon or remit any treasons, murders, manslaughters or any kind of felonies ... or any outlawries for such offenses ... committed ... by or against any person or persons in any part of this Realm. ''as A royal pardon only applied, however, to offenses against the state; the remedies of private prosecution and personal reparations remained for wronged individuals.

In England, there was no question about self-pardons or their legality because there could be no such thing as criminal executive action. "The law suppose[d] it impossible that the king himself [could] act unlawfully or improperly"; there was nothing that the King could do that would require a pardon. Of course, Parliament could, and occasionally did, exercise an extralegal option-removing the King-in response to which a self-pardon would have been useless.

In the late seventeenth century, Parliament was finally able to limit the royal pardon power legally instead of extralegally. Its actions were in response to an episode involving the impeachment of the Earl of Danby. The Earl, Thomas Osborne, was a Lord High Treasurer of England under King Charles II. In December of 1678, Parliament began impeachment proceedings against him for conspiring with France. It was the King, however, who was making deals with the French; Danby was merely acting ministerially. Parliament realized this, but the King was "beyond reach" of legal remedies; impeaching the hapless Treasurer was the best that Parliament could do.? Unfortunately for Parliament, the King revealed in March 1679 that he had issued a pardon for Danby. If Charles had only been trying to protect Danby he could have pardoned the Earl in December, but the King was now acting to solve a different problem. An examination of Danby's actions would have revealed that Charles had been receiving bribes from France; a pardon would end the investigation and spare the King this embarrassment.

The King's action sparked a "constitutional confrontation" with Parliament, which had come to rely on the impeachment power to ensure proper governance. If the King could foil impeachments, Parliament would have no means of controlling his ministers. A debate raged as to the legality of Charles's action. Those who believed the Danby pardon to be invalid looked poised to win the argument, but the King defused the crisis by dismissing Parliament. Charles won the battle but the monarchy lost the war: In the 1701 Act of Settlement, Parliament forbade pardons from being used to preempt impeachments. The King could still pardon and reappoint his officials after they had been convicted by Parliament, but he could not subvert the impeachment process and thereby cover up his own misdeeds. The King was still above the law, to be sure, but the newly restricted pardon power provided a little less insulation.

The Framers thus inherited a model of the pardon power-broad royal fiat-that would have to be adapted to fit the more circumscribed office of the presidency. The Danby episode vividly showed the danger of giving the executive an unrestricted power to pardon. As we will see, the appearance of the Danby scenario in the Convention debates casts light not only on the limits of the pardon power in general, but also on self-pardons in particular.

[Unagi]

and in his conclusion...

Spoiler:

A particularly interesting variation on Lee and Marbur' is found in the words of President Gerald Ford:

"Although I respected the tenet that no man should be above the law, public policy demanded that I put Nixon-and Watergate-behind us as quickly as possible."

At first glance, this may seem to muddle the themes discussed here. Ford understood that he was using his pardon power for the benefit of public policy, to heal the nation. He was wrong, though, in thinking that the pardon had placed Nixon above the law. Nixon was pardoned legally and legitimately by a President who had no improper personal stake in the matter. Consider, by contrast, how hollow Ford's words would have sounded if they had been spoken instead by Nixon. If Nixon had pardoned himself he would have been placing himself above the law, no matter how good his public policy intentions might have been. He would have been the judge in his own case. He would have clashed with the structure of the Constitution. His action would have been invalid.

It is important to examine the legality of self-pardons now, while the act is still a hypothetical one. An attempted self-pardon would likely undermine the public's confidence in the presidency and the Constitution. A potential meltdown of such magnitude would be no time to begin legalistic discussion; the political facts of the moment would distort our considered legal judgment. Looking at the question from a cooler vantage point, the intent of the Framers, the words and themes of the Constitution they created, and the wisdom of the judges that have interpreted it all point to the same conclusion: Presidents cannot pardon themselves.

[Jaymann]

I suspect that any such pardons will come from Pence, hopefully sealing his political doom.

[Holman]

link

I ask Ted Cruz if he agrees with Trump that the president can pardon himself. Cruz is silent for eighteen (18!) seconds before telling reporters it’s not a constitutional area he’s studied.

Alright, folks. Here's the audio

Profile in courage!

[El Guapo]

Ted, you sniveling coward.

[El Guapo]

Mueller accuses Manafort of witness tampering. Asks the judge to revise or revoke his bail.

[hepcat]

When you’re the son of the man who shot JFK, you have to be very careful how you word things.