The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Holman]

That argument wouldn't convince a houseplant, but it's still pretty chilling to see the president's lawyer announce that Glorious Leader is permitted to insist on whatever legal outcome he desires.

[malchior]

Trump's lawyers are bound to put forth any argument that gets him out of the fire. I think we should start from there. Another thing I consider is impeachment is a political process. It specifies high crimes and misdemeanors but that will ultimately mean whatever Congress believes that to mean. The only other party that could interfere in that determination would be the Supreme Court.

Stepping into that logic loop, I severely doubt the SCOTUS would step into Congress's impeachment lane to make some technical argument that the President by his nature can't obstruct justice. That seems highly improbable. Whatever the case, impeachment is not even remotely likely IMO. I'd only develop some hope if we saw any indication that normal standards of governance would return.

[Kurth]

I just don't get the complete lack of critical thinking in this country. To believe this is a conspiracy you have to believe:

People don't think. They feel.

Just cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there.

[Kurth]

Axios

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

Normally, if a lawyer starts speaking for his client, the context surrounding how the lawyer came to be doing that is protected by the attorney client privilege. In other words, if I'm at a deposition, and a lawyer makes a statement, I cannot ask the client whether he told his lawyer to make that statement. Answering that question would waive the privilege, and so any good lawyer will instruct his client not to answer.

It seems to me that a good case could be made that by (1) tweeting as Trump; and (2) publicly stating that the Trump tweet was actually Dowd's tweet and not Trump's, Trump/Dowd have waived the privilege. That would mean that if Trump were ever to be deposed, it could be difficult for his legal team to object to questions about their communications with Trump about the tweet in question, and, perhaps, his tweets generally. That could be a big issue for them.

Two caveats: First, it's the client's privilege to waive, so if Trump could argue that Dowd did all of this unilaterally without Trump's authorization, that would change things. Of course, Dowd would also face some very serious ethical issues that might impact his ability to practice law in the future if that were the case. Second, I'm not expert on executive privilege, so that might be an issue, too.

[El Guapo]

Axios

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

Normally, if a lawyer starts speaking for his client, the context surrounding how the lawyer came to be doing that is protected by the attorney client privilege. In other words, if I'm at a deposition, and a lawyer makes a statement, I cannot ask the client whether he told his lawyer to make that statement. Answering that question would waive the privilege, and so any good lawyer will instruct his client not to answer.

It seems to me that a good case could be made that by (1) tweeting as Trump; and (2) publicly stating that the Trump tweet was actually Dowd's tweet and not Trump's, Trump/Dowd have waived the privilege. That would mean that if Trump were ever to be deposed, it could be difficult for his legal team to object to questions about their communications with Trump about the tweet in question, and, perhaps, his tweets generally. That could be a big issue for them.

Two caveats: First, it's the client's privilege to waive, so if Trump could argue that Dowd did all of this unilaterally without Trump's authorization, that would change things. Of course, Dowd would also face some very serious ethical issues that might impact his ability to practice law in the future if that were the case. Second, I'm not expert on executive privilege, so that might be an issue, too.

Also, if Trump made the argument that Dowd did this unilaterally without his knowledge, couldn't Mueller then depose Dowd and ask him about the context of why and how he wrote the tweet? It's not protected by attorney-client privilege if it's not the result of the client's communications / will.

[Kurth]

Yep. Great point! If it didn't come from Trump, then where's the attorney-client communication? No privilege to be waived in the first place.

Dowd could potentially rely on attorney work product protections, but, then again, I think you run into a waiver issue.

This seems like a prototypical sword/shield privilege issue. Trump and Dowd cannot start talking about who drafted the tweet in order to help Trump defend against obstruction charges (sword) and then hide behind privilege in an attempt to protect those communications (shield).

[Fretmute]

Just cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there.

I see what you did there, there.

[Tao]

Just for clarification; the story is that Dowd drafted the language of the Tweet and then delivered it to a WH aide by phone (Dowd was asked to produce the email and claimed he dictated by phone so no paper trail), the aide/person then dictated to Trump who fired off the tweet. I suppose this is to imply Trump did not admit to anything as he was simply repeating what someone else said to write.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... et-n826036

[El Guapo]

Just for clarification; the story is that Dowd drafted the language of the Tweet and then delivered it to a WH aide by phone (Dowd was asked to produce the email and claimed he dictated by phone so no paper trail), the aide/person then dictated to Trump who fired off the tweet. I suppose this is to imply Trump did not admit to anything as he was simply repeating what someone else said to write.

That's a weird explanation. That is Trump talking, then, not the lawyer, even if Trump was talking at the lawyer's urging (even using Trump's words). So we're back in "Trump is essentially admitting to obstruction of justice" land.

[GreenGoo]

Don't you understand? It's not the president saying it if someone else told him to say it.

Dumb as a bag of hammers.

That has to be Drumpf's version. At this point I can just see Dowd. *wipes hands together* "welp, I tried. I'm out".

[YellowKing]

These guys are like Scooby Doo villain levels of incompetence. It's somewhat adorable that they think we're all as clueless as their base.

[Isgrimnur]

These guys are like Scooby Doo villain levels of incompetence. It's somewhat adorable that they think we're all as clueless as their base.

Well, the election certainly didn't dissuade them from that belief.

[malchior]

I'm not sure where to drop this but I don't think CNN thought this through enough. I don't know that leaning into Trump this way is a good look.

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/ ... 7249114112

[Chaz]

But isn't that what Trump just did?

[msteelers]

I must be out of sorts today, lots of things are going over my head.

What’s the issue with the photo?

[Skinypupy]

I must be out of sorts today, lots of things are going over my head.

What’s the issue with the photo?

Should be "alleged child molester", if anything.

I agree that it's a poor choice.

[Chaz]

But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.

[malchior]

It's 100% accurate but certainly could be taken as a bit of trolling.

[El Guapo]

But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.

If anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).

[El Guapo]

It's 100% accurate but certainly could be taken as a bit of trolling.

I dunno. It pretty well sums up the key issue with Trump endorsing Moore. Had these child molestation accusations not surfaced, Trump endorsing Moore would hardly make news (because of course he would endorse the GOP nominee). Trump choosing to endorse Moore notwithstanding the child molestation accusations *is* the story here.

[GreenGoo]

It's 100% accurate but certainly could be taken as a bit of trolling.

CNN is constantly being singled out by the president of the US. He recently put some of their international reporters at risk by undermining their legitimacy. The banner is absolutely more than I would tolerate in normal times, but in this case, I think I can give CNN a pass.

a) It's true
b) The president is trying to ruin their business by undermining them at every step
c) Moore has enough accusers, with evidence that directly refutes Moore's explanations, that he is almost certainly guilty of predation, and just as likely guilty of the things he's accused of. i.e. no reason to play nice with what is almost certainly a guilty molester of minors.
d) This is standard practice on Fox. And Fox's business model is "winning".
e) The president chose to endorse Moore, despite knowing what we all know (except Rip, for some reason). He should get blow back.
f) Lastly, fuck Drumpf.

[Isgrimnur]

But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.

If anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).

For civil, it's passed. For penal, it hasn't and doesn't:

Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

* No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
* Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
* Misdemeanor abuse: one year.

[malchior]

Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.

[GreenGoo]

Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.

But as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?

Moore, while a bit of a character and having some crazy ideas about guns and god, both of which would make him more news worthy and these facts would probably have been included in the banner if he wasn't reputably accused of child molestation.

I'm not sure how they can put the relevant information into a banner without setting off your "unfair" alarm.

[El Guapo]

But he's being accused by multiple women. How is "accused" not accurate? I guess it is if you're limiting it to bringing legal charges, but he's definitely been accused.

If anything "accused" is more accurate, since there are no legal filings alleging crimes by Moore (since the statute of limitations has long since passed).

For civil, it's passed. For penal, it hasn't and doesn't:

Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

* No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
* Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
* Misdemeanor abuse: one year.

Interesting.

Though it's still the case that there are no legal filings "alleging" anything here.

[Isgrimnur]

Or not...

At the time, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor would have expired three years after the alleged incidents, or sometime between 1980 and 1983. Neither Corfman nor Jones filed a police report after the alleged incidents and no charges were ever brought against Moore.

Alabama law was later changed to remove the statute of limitations for "any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age." However, the change only applied to crimes committed before Jan. 7, 1985 -years after the alleged Moore incidents- for which there were no existing statute of limitations law, meaning Moore couldn't be brought up on criminal charges now in connection to sexual abuse charges from 1977 to 1979.

So the court of public opinion is all that's left.

[Pyperkub]

Axios

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice would be a violation of the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Here's the relevant bit which just about every junior high-schooler has memorized at one point or another:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[El Guapo]

Axios

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.

Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
...
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."

I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice would be a violation of the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Here's the relevant bit which just about every junior high-schooler has memorized at one point or another:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Dowd's argument seems like more of an anti-impeachment argument than a obstruction of justice argument. It's hard for me to see "the President by definition cannot obstruct justice" as holding up in court. I can, however, see Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell using it as a reason to not impeach Trump over obstruction of justice allegations, however.

[coopasonic]

Dowd's argument seems like more of an anti-impeachment argument than a obstruction of justice argument. It's hard for me to see "the President by definition cannot obstruct justice" as holding up in court. I can, however, see Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell using it as a reason to not impeach Trump over obstruction of justice allegations, however.

You can see Mitch "the tax bill is revenue neutral" McConnell doing that, can you? You must have quite the imagination.

[Pyperkub]

Looks like it's Trump and Sessions coming for America's Guns:

Federal authorities sought to take back guns from thousands of people the background check system should have blocked from buying weapons because they had criminal records, mental health issues or other problems that would disqualify them.

A USA TODAY review found that the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests last year for agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retrieve guns from prohibited buyers.

It's the largest number of such retrieval requests in 10 years

[Isgrimnur]

last year

[Pyperkub]

last year

Requests. Enforcement would be this year

[YellowKing]

CNN has been blatantly going after Trump for some time now (to almost Fox News after Hillary levels), but Trump started the war. They did nothing but shower him with coverage during the campaign, and as soon as he took office he branded them FAKE NEWS and went after them at every step. So you can hardly blame them.

I typically turn to CBS (aka old people news) if I want a more even-handed approach, but I do enjoy CNN from a fuck Trump level.

[Isgrimnur]

last year

Requests. Enforcement would be this year

Yeah, nah.

It was not immediately clear how many gun seizure requests agents successfully executed last year or how many weapons were ultimately recovered. Since multiple firearms can be purchased in a single transaction, the actual number of guns that should have been banned could be even higher.

[Pyperkub]

last year

Requests. Enforcement would be this year

Yeah, nah.

It was not immediately clear how many gun seizure requests agents successfully executed last year or how many weapons were ultimately recovered. Since multiple firearms can be purchased in a single transaction, the actual number of guns that should have been banned could be even higher.

OK, reading comprehension fail

[malchior]

Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.

But as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?

Moore, while a bit of a character and having some crazy ideas about guns and god, both of which would make him more news worthy and these facts would probably have been included in the banner if he wasn't reputably accused of child molestation.

I'm not sure how they can put the relevant information into a banner without setting off your "unfair" alarm.

It isn't so much unfair as it perhaps wasn't wise. Big difference. Anyway I was more remarking there that here we are with a major outlet running that banner at all. Ridiculous times.

[El Guapo]

Fair enough on giving CNN a break but this is another 'look where we are moment'.

But as El Guapo said, the banner contains everything that makes it a story. Is it that it's too succinct? If it were a paragraph, with a single sentence explaining that Moore has recently been accused by multiple women who were under age at the time of the incidents, would that make it better for you?

Moore, while a bit of a character and having some crazy ideas about guns and god, both of which would make him more news worthy and these facts would probably have been included in the banner if he wasn't reputably accused of child molestation.

I'm not sure how they can put the relevant information into a banner without setting off your "unfair" alarm.

It isn't so much unfair as it perhaps wasn't wise. Big difference. Anyway I was more remarking there that here we are with a major outlet running that banner at all. Ridiculous times.

I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).

[malchior]

I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).

I agree in part and disagree in another.

I agree that media outlets printing harsh truth is better than what we had last year but I just disagree that they need to fall down to Fox News level trolling even if what they say is true. It is minor level criticism really. I would have preferred they went a little softer. Child molester is a bit of a pejorative and it's a bit trashy. However, so is the GOP at this point. Everything is a dumpster fire, etc etc. Call me crazy but I almost pine for standards at this point.

[El Guapo]

I disagree with it being unwise. CNN (and other cable news) running with 'balanced' headlines / chyrons / etc. during the campaign, as opposed to ones that were true even if harsh, is a big part of how we got into this mess. They should absolutely run chyrons like this that are objectively defensible and true, even if they may come across as harsh / partisan / etc. And Trump's going to attack CNN regardless of what they do (well, unless they fold and become obsequious, of course).

I agree in part and disagree in another.

I agree that media outlets printing harsh truth is better than what we had last year but I just disagree that they need to fall down to Fox News level trolling even if what they say is true. It is minor level criticism really. I would have preferred they went a little softer. Child molester is a bit of a pejorative and it's a bit trashy. However, so is the GOP at this point. Everything is a dumpster fire, etc etc. Call me crazy but I almost pine for standards at this point.

I just don't think it's trolling. It's an entirely fair and defensible descriptor of the story (which is uncomfortable and harsh in nature, insofar as a child molester is probably the front runner for a Senate seat). I'm not sure how else you would describe it in Chyron length without leaving out key elements of the story.

[msteelers]

The chyron is 100% accurate and contains everything about the story that makes it newsworthy.

“Trump supports gun-toting ex-judge for Senator” is factually accurate, but not relevant to why Trumps support is newsworthy.