Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

This voting commission he has put together to support sham charges of voter fraud while collecting people's personal data is another insult to the democratic process.

It is especially galling because the great threat to democracy is voter suppression and not voter fraud. He has set up a commission purportedly to protect the integrity of elections and yet is only willing to address a phantom issue. His voter fraud commission is an attempt by him to use the levers of his power to consolidate his power...even if it's ineffective, it's disgusting.

[trish]

In the long run, you are of course right. It’s best we correct this aberration of governance to minimize it's ripple of effects into the future. We must impeach those who’ve committed impeachable offenses. I personally, and I think a lot of other reasonable persons, would take great satisfaction and considerable comfort in the impeachment of this trumped-up reality show president.

Still, if the Dems initiate the impeachment, they will be the ones to suffer the blowback in 2018 - but not just the Dems: women of both party affiliations (and none at all) will suffer as Pence stamps out all Federal support of Planned Parenthood. The Indiana HIV outbreak is directly linked to Pence’s closing down of clinics there. It's the Republican Party is keeping this seventy-one year old, twittering toddler in office. I want them to initiate impeachment proceedings. Indeed, I don’t see how the Dems could possibly bring it off without them.

Perhaps more important than impeachment, is finding out exactly how the Russians hacked into the voting machine vendor servers of -what is it?-twenty some States; and figure out how to defend against such cyberattacks in the future - because they will do it again.

the great threat to democracy is voter suppression and not voter fraud

I only quoted this last line of yours, broncofan, because it's worth repeating.

[broncofan]

A variety of people who are considered liberal have made some puzzling arguments of late. Alan Dershowitz, a man who enjoys publicity and teaches criminal law, is pretending he's also a scholar on Constitutional law. While it is possible for someone who has not produced any meaningful scholarship in an area to say something useful about it, it is less likely when nobody agrees with his analysis and he does not cite any relevant precedent to support his position.

He claims that the President cannot commit obstruction of justice because he is the head of the executive branch and has full authority to do what he wants with any investigation. The problem with this line of reasoning is that while he may have the authority to control any federal investigation, the obstruction of justice statute requires a corrupt intent to impede the due administration of justice, which puts it outside the ambit of the typical executive duties. Subjecting the President to a law that applies to every other citizen would not curtail his authority, since the statute is only violated when one is not furthering those duties. His reasoning would imply that if the President would use the fbi to investigate and harass enemies he could not be guilty of a crime since he is vested with the authority to direct investigations.

There are others who have tried to sow confusion but this is a good place to start since the argument contains enough sophistry to be easy to repeat and takes some effort to rebut. I just don't know who agrees with Dershowitz...

There is also a lawsuit pending against the Trump campaign by those whose emails were released by wikileaks. If it is allowed to proceed, the discovery process will force a great deal of information into public view. I'll post more about this if the motion to dismiss against it is not granted.

[broncofan]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that while he may have the authority to control any federal investigation, the obstruction of justice statute requires a corrupt intent to impede the due administration of justice, which puts it outside the ambit of the typical executive duties.

The most succinct way to put this is to say that in order for the statute to interfere with the inherent authority of the executive it would have to be the responsibility of the executive branch to corruptly impede the due administration of justice.

[Stavros]

The latest twist in the Russia Investigations cuts to precisely what it is legal for a President to do, as compared with the 'norms and values' that have developed over the conduct of the President over many decades. The President has already instructed lawyers to begin attacking the Special Prosecutor and to insist that the family must not become part of the investigation.

But in any case, it appears that it no longer matters how many investigations there are, because if, to be hypothetical, all or any of the President's campaign team and his relatives are charged and found guilty of a crime, the President will simply issue an Official Pardon, and if he is the man charged, tried and found guilty, he will issue an Official Pardon for himself.

It appears that this may be entirely legal, and if it is beyond what people think it is 'right and proper' for a President to do, bear in mind he has taken the advice of Bannon and Miller, and believes himself that he can do what he likes as long as it is not illegal, and even it is illegal he can pardon himself, because there is a new way of doing things and that old way of adhering to 'norms and values' no longer works.

Crucial to this is the belief that he cannot lose, because he is a winner. The President's obsession with the election continues with the Commission established to prove voter fraud because he cannot, and will not accept that he lost the popular vote, and bears a grudge against anyone and everyone who tells him he lost it.

The USA is famous for its political system, its checks and balances. The founding fathers probably never imagined a President who would have no regard for any moral standard of governance. Winning is everything, and if you lose in the courts, you win in the White House with an Official Pardon: He does not lose, it is as simple as that.

But if there are winners and losers, who are the losers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7852181.html

[bluesoul]

i'm going to miss sean spicer (even though he was silenced recently). but i'm still going to miss the guy. what a great example of how to fuck up life.

[filghy2]

The USA is famous for its political system, its checks and balances. The founding fathers probably never imagined a President who would have no regard for any moral standard of governance. Winning is everything, and if you lose in the courts, you win in the White House with an Official Pardon: He does not lose, it is as simple as that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7852181.html

The key point to bear in mind is that Trump could only get away with this if lots of others choose to acquiesce: in particular, the Republican congress. We can assume that Trump will do whatever he thinks he can get away with, so the real question is what will it take for these guys to grow a spine and reign him in. Given Trump's declining approval ratings, one would hope that some point they will recognise they will need to do this out of self-interest, even if they don't care too much about democratic principles and the rule of law.

[broncofan]

I agree with you both that it is possible Trump avoids accountability and that the Republicans will have to suffer politically for them to act. I'm not sure whether our system has failed as there is no such thing as an institution that can function without people faithfully tending it. Congress can impeach Trump but so far they do not have the will or the integrity.

Trump's associates can be prosecuted but he retains pardon power, which is probably a flaw if it can be used to shield people who are furthering criminal objectives that benefit him. His incentive to pardon those who can incriminate him is tempered by the fact that those he pardons lose fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. If he pardons Kushner, for instance, or his son, or anyone else wrapped up in this scheme, they cannot plead the fifth and might be compelled to reveal something that incriminates Trump himself.

We want to give the head of the executive branch strong authority to control everything within that branch's purview but we haven't found a constitutionally acceptable way to prevent those officials from meddling in investigations that threaten them. Even the independent counsel statute does not completely insulate the special prosecutor from dismissal if the President has the audacity to do it.

Let's see how ugly this all gets if he really does try to fire Sessions and then Mueller, a man who had bipartisan respect until he began diligently investigating Trump as per his mandate.

[broncofan]

The latest twist in the Russia Investigations cuts to precisely what it is legal for a President to do, as compared with the 'norms and values' that have developed over the conduct of the President over many decades.

I think this is an important point you make but I think from time to time Trump does cross legal lines. He doesn't cross them by much so it's never self-evident that he's broken the law and he has enough people running interference for him that these legal transgressions can pass as unconventional ways of doing things. But I think if the average citizen plays fast and loose with election law or lies on forms sworn under penalty of perjury or obstructs justice, they don't get a break unless someone wants to give it to them. He hasn't flagrantly violated these laws, but in an adversarial system how do you prove illegality if nobody is willing to be his adversary?

But I agree with the big point that most of what Trump does is appalling to our sense of decency and fair play. For instance, let's say he did not personally direct the Russians in their hacking but they let him know they did it later on (afterall what is the purpose of doing someone a favor if they do not have assurance you did it?). Later he goes on television and says he doubts it's the Russians and that because our intelligence agencies have been wrong before they must be wrong now. How do we categorize this behavior? It seems like disloyalty even if it's not treason. It seems like a defense of espionage even if it is not itself espionage. But if it's not a legal issue then it's political and if it's political then we're liable to have people say, he's our guy warts and all.

[trish]

During NIxon’s Watergate fiasco Bork wrote that a sitting president can’t be indicted, for it would interfere with his ability to carry out the tasks of the office.

When Bill Clinton was being investigated for all manner of offenses (and finally for lying to Congress about receiving a blowjob from an intern) Kenneth Starr wrote that a sitting president can be indicted, for in America, no one - not even Clinton - is above the law.

https://nyti.ms/2tyW2pV