The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Obstruction of justice by a President who then refuses to resign does set off a Constitutional crisis. So does violation of the emoluments clause, and collusion with foreign powers for personal gain. That would be among the grounds for impeachment - that refusal to resign, creating a Constitutional crisis in violation of the oath of office.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Lucky impeachment doesn't require evidence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Makes no difference here. Evidence is piled all over.
    Unlucky that evidence is not enough.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It helps convince people who care about the truth. And it helps the public that cares about the truth to elect representatives that also do.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,883
    #trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I sincerely doubt you can make the case that selectively declassifying information in order to mislead the public about genuine legal issues and evidence equals Constitutional duty.

    18 USC § 1512(c)(2), "Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so", would appear to be in effect. Deliberately misrepresenting information in an attempt to influence an official proceeding, such as declassifying as part of the Nunes memorandum process, is problematic.

    To the other, do you have anything more than question marks and sloth? Please understand, the problem with unsupported partisan talking points—

    "Executive branch cannot be legally charged with obstruction, nor intimidation, of departments under its own legal authority." (#2309↑)

    "Charging a president for executing his Constitutional duty would set off a constitutional crisis. But what specific parts of your cited US code did you think were relevant? I couldn't find it." (#2318↑)

    —nobody really knows how to answer the unsupported, undeveloped talking points, because beyond the bland, featureless general statements, there isn't really anything particular to address. That the executive authority cannot be charged with obstruction for manipulating departments under its control is an abstract proposition finding stronger and more resolved effect outside constitutional republics; it is a potential of authoritarian façade republics like Russia or China.

    Meanwhile, in these United States, President Nixon lost the argument about subpoena, and resigned the presidency before we could test the question of prosecution; still, though, as Philip Allen Lacovara↱, an actual Watergate counsel to special prosecutors, explained last year, including constitutional silence on presidential immunity compared to limited Congressional immunity (I.6); presidential obligation to subpoena, such as U.S. v. Nixon itself, and the Court's ruling upholding the special prosecutor's subpoena power; nor did the Court spare Bill Clinton; the Constitution, in addition to offering no particular presidential immunity, neither forbids his arrest and prosecution prior to impeachment.

    And here is the tricky part, which isn't really so tricky:

    A single section in Article II of the Constitution specifies, without distinction, that the "president, vice president, and all civil officers" may be impeached by the House and may be removed upon conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution does not distinguish between treatment of the president on the one hand and the vice president and other civil officers on the other. History has demonstrated, however, that hundreds of civil officers, as well as vice president Spiro Agnew, have been prosecuted for federal offenses without having been impeached and removed from office ....

    .... Whether Mueller and a grand jury conclude that Trump has violated the federal criminal law against obstruction of justice is a complex matter. There may be reasons of "prosecutorial discretion" not to pursue a criminal charge, even if one is otherwise justified. But the president and his supporters are claiming an immunity from criminal culpability that our constitutional system of justice does not and should not tolerate.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Constitution oft the United States of America. http://bit.ly/2r9FFNM

    Lacovara, Philip Allen. "Yes, Trump could be indicted. The 'Nixon tapes' case proves it." The Washington Post. 7 December 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 2 February 2018. http://wapo.st/2nCNete

    "18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 — Obstruction of Justice". http://bit.ly/2FENsY5
     
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Rumors are certainly piling up.
    The public cares more about their biases.
    Who told you the president can't declassify whatever he likes?
    Not duty, but certainly Constitutional authority.

    As far as I know, the Mueller investigation is both continuing apace and has access to all the underlying intelligence mentioned in the memo.
    Releasing to the public is only political, rather than criminal, just like impeachment proceedings would be. Mueller can also make his findings known, if he ever concludes his investigation.
    Who would bring charges? The DOJ that answers to the president? They tried that under Nixon, and it took an impeachment proceeding to do anything about it. Until he resigned, he was free to fire people at will.

    It's okay if no one can answer. They're not obligated to.

    Before any subpoena can be issued, Mueller needs to convene a grand jury, which would actually deliver an indictment.
    The Nixon subpoena was for tapes and other materials (not testimony), and Clinton agreed to testify (no court intervention attempted), with Starr withdrawing the subpoena.

    Who arrests the president that he doesn't have the authority to fire? Hence constitutional crisis.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Hopefully that's a minority.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Actually, his findings go to the justice department, which doesn't have to do anything with them. Also I agree that impeachment is the only remedy for a corrupt president, short of revolution.
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No indication it is.
    Comey made findings known, and so can his replacement or the AG.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Alongside the evidence, yep.
    But they'll take time off for distractions.
    That's irrelevant. Using his authority to obstruct justice is illegal.
    Nixon was never impeached.
    He's convened two, so far, covering different jurisdictions. He has been obtaining testimony by threatening grand jury subpoenas all along.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    As a slight aside:
    Consider that even though the Mueller investigation may ultimately fail to reach a "regime changing" outcome, it certainly has prevented any chance of Russian collusion by the Trump administration since it's inception.
    If people were fearful of Trump's possible Russian ties, the ongoing nature of Mueller investigation affords some solace.
     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    "Could Mueller just pull a Comey and publicize his findings anyway? Perhaps..."
    "Mueller is required to submit a report to the attorney general at the conclusion of his investigation."
    "There is, however, an exception to the confidentiality mandate. Rosenstein may release the report if he determines that doing so "would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.""
    "He will have to take into account the traditionally confidential nature of criminal investigations that don't result in an indictment..."

    Lots of options there. If no indictment, it may be moot.
    Mueller hasn't released any evidence.
    Releasing info to the public is obstruction?
    That is why I said "impeachment proceeding".
    None so far pertaining to charges against the president.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So there's going to be even more, when he does.
    Seems to have been. And that was just one little item.
    That didn't happen either.
    How would you know? We know they have seen evidence against the President - at least as much as we have. We know they are still convened - so there are more indictments under consideration.
     
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Even more than what?
    How?
    Really?
    An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States[1] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
    What evidence? What grand jury has seen it?
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Than what we've seen so far - such as the violation of the emoluments clause at his hotels and resorts, and his visible collusion with Putin's government, and his firing of Comey.
    Oh alright - but that was technically an investigation into whether future impeachment proceedings were justified. A semantic quibble, I agree.
    Both grand juries have seen testimony from some of the principals involved in what has been made public - so they would know more, not less, than we know.
     
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Where?
    Owning a business violates emoluments clause?
    What visible collusion?
    How did Comey's firing hinder the Mueller investigation or anything else?
    Good for you.
    Who said they would know less? And what testimony has the public seen?
    And what has been made public that has adhered to the president?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Trump's do. He's taking in business profits from foreign people and foreign governments, while President - that's not legal.
    Joke? The latest would be refusing to enforce Congressional sanctions - refusing to do his job, essentially.
    Comey's firing hindered the Comey investigation of Trump's Russian connections. That may have been impeachable in itself.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Most businesses run the risk of doing business with foreigners.
    "It's unclear whether Trump is breaking the law in his decision, but legal experts say he'll probably never have to implement them if he doesn't want to. Congress doesn't have a lot of viable options to force the president's hand on foreign policy — other than incredibly confrontational ones such as suing or impeaching him."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gress-can-do-about-it/?utm_term=.9d43a81b4c83
    "Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, fired FBI Director James Comey says President Trump wasn't under investigation."
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/93527520-132.html
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's illegal for Trump - he's the elected President.
    Visible collusion, grounds for impeachment.
    His Russian campaign connections were. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page