The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

Ehh. Trump's act is getting old for alot of us, but defending the 9th circuit is not the hill I would pick to die on. There is a reason this stuff always seems to come from them. If they don't like being called political activist hacks in judge's clothing, then they should probably stop acting like political activist hacks while they wear robes.

You know who wrote that, right?

[Jaw]

You know who wrote that, right?

Yup.

[Julio3000]

Yup.

Seems like you missed the point, then.

[57Brave]

Elliott Lusztig‏ @ezlusztig 6h6 hours ago

Cost of security for Trump Tower: $183 million/year
Budget for National Endowment Arts/Humanities: $148 million/year

Let them eat diamonds.

[57Brave]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...of-impeachment


The sitting president has accused his predecessor of an act that could have gotten the past president impeached. That’s not your ordinary exercise of free speech. If the accusation were true, and President Barack Obama ordered a warrantless wiretap of Donald Trump during the campaign, the scandal would be of Watergate-level proportions.

But if the allegation is not true and is unsupported by evidence, that too should be a scandal on a major scale. This is the kind of accusation that, taken as part of a broader course of conduct, could get the current president impeached. We shouldn’t care that the allegation was made early on a Saturday morning on Twitter.

he basic premise of the First Amendment is that truth should defeat her opposite number. “Let her and Falsehood grapple,” wrote the poet and politician John Milton, “who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

But this rather optimistic adage only accounts for speech and debate between citizens. It doesn’t apply to accusations made by the government. Those are something altogether different.

In a rule of law society, government allegations of criminal activity must be followed by proof and prosecution. If not, the government is ruling by innuendo.

Shadowy dictatorships can do that because there is no need for proof. Democracies can’t.

Thus, an accusation by a president isn’t like an accusation leveled by one private citizen against another. It’s about more than factual truth or carelessness.

The government’s special responsibility has two bases. One is that you can’t sue the government for false and defamatory speech. If I accused Obama of wiretapping my phone, he could sue me for libel. If my statement was knowingly false, I’d have to pay up. On the other hand, if the president makes the same statement, he can’t be sued in his official capacity. And a private libel suit mostly likely wouldn’t go anywhere against a sitting president -- for good reason, because the president shouldn’t be encumbered by lawsuits while in office.

The second reason the government has to be careful about making unprovable allegations is that its bully pulpit is greater than any other. True, as an ex-president, Obama can defend himself publicly and has plenty of access to the news media. But even he doesn’t have the audience that Trump now has. And essentially any other citizen would have far less capacity to mount a defense than Obama.

For these reasons, it’s a mistake to say simply that Trump’s accusation against Obama is protected by the First Amendment.

False and defamatory speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

And an allegation of potentially criminal misconduct made without evidence is itself a form of serious misconduct by the government official who makes it.

When candidate Trump said Hillary Clinton was a criminal who belonged in prison, he was exposing himself to a libel suit. And the suit might not have succeeded, because Trump could have said he was making a political argument rather than an allegation of fact.

But when President Trump accuses Obama of an act that would have been impeachable and possibly criminal, that’s something much more serious than libel. If it isn’t true or provable, it’s misconduct by the highest official of the executive branch.

How is such misconduct by an official to be addressed? There’s a common-law tort of malicious prosecution, but that probably doesn’t apply when the government official has no intention to prosecute.

The answer is that the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment.

That would have been the correct remedy if Obama had “ordered” a wiretap of the Republican presidential candidate’s phones. The president has no such legal authority. Only a court can order a domestic wiretap, and that only after a showing of probable cause by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Breaking the law by tapping Trump’s phones would have been an abuse of executive power that implicated the democratic process itself. Impeachment is the remedy for such a serious abuse of the executive office.

That includes abuse of office in the form of serious accusations against political opponents if they turn out to be false and made without evidence. These, too, deform the democratic process.

The Constitution speaks of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” A lot of ink has been spilled over these words, which date back at least to impeachment proceedings in the 14th century. This isn’t the place for a detailed analysis.

Suffice it to say that what makes crimes “high” is that they pertain to the exercise of government office. That’s exactly what accusations by the executive are: actions that take on their distinctive meaning because they are made by government officials.

What’s more, government acts that distort and undercut the democratic process are especially serious and worthy of impeachment. The Watergate break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters was part of an effort to steal the 1972 election. A wiretap of Trump’s campaign would’ve had political implications.

And accusing the past Democratic president of an impeachable offense is every bit as harmful to democracy, assuming it isn’t true. Obama is the best-known and most popular Democrat in the country. The effect of attacking him isn’t just to weaken him personally, but to weaken the political opposition to Trump’s administration.

Given how great the executive’s power is, accusations by the president can’t be treated asymmetrically. If the alleged action would be impeachable if true, so must be the allegation if false. Anything else would give the president the power to distort democracy by calling his opponents criminals without ever having to prove it.

[Jaw]

Seems like you missed the point, then.

The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues [on the Ninth Circuit] were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse—particularly when they came from the parties. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.

I agree with Bybee that courts of law should be more than that. I think he picked a poor example to illustrate his point, seeing as how the 9th circuit has made itself a political tool of leftism in general, and according to his argument, in this case specifically.

[Julio3000]

The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues [on the Ninth Circuit] were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse—particularly when they came from the parties. It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.

I agree with Bybee that courts of law should be more than that. I think he picked a poor example to illustrate his point, seeing as how the 9th circuit has made itself a political tool of leftism in general, and according to his argument, in this case specifically.

You think he chose a poor example in the 9th circuit. The circuit on which he sits and is specifically referring to. Hmmm. He's right that the courts should be more than that, but he's wrong in referring to the court that he's precisely referring to. OK.

Seems like, while he disagrees with his colleagues' decision, he decries this kind of rhetoric:

"if they don't like being called political activist hacks in judge's clothing, then they should probably stop acting like political activist hacks while they wear robes."

I mean, granted, that's coming from you as a private citizen, rather than from a party to the case (specifically, the President, to whom he seemed to be referring) but the concept seems to be the same.

[sturg33]

I appreciate the left demanding evidence about the wiretapping.

No such burden of proof is required for RUSSIA! though

[Julio3000]

I appreciate the left demanding evidence about the wiretapping.

No such burden of proof is required for RUSSIA! though

Putting aside for a second all the ways the administration has tried to move the goalposts with regard to the president's actual accusations, both questions really boil down to waiting for the congressional investigations to play out.

Now, taking the President's words literally, it would seem that those claims have already been shot down on a neutral and bipartisan basis. I'm content, though, to wait for the investigation to play out, on both scores.

[Hawk]

Spicer just said the Senate Intelligence Committee hadn't contacted the DOJ. I found that morsel interesting.

Could just be stalling too.

[57Brave]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

Mulvaney just said Meals on Wheels "sounds great" but it's one of those programs "not showing any results" —via @MSNBC


Axios‏Verified account @axios

Mulvaney: No evidence that after-school programs to help kids get fed improves performance.

[sturg33]

The problem with the left - is the budget continues to get bigger and bigger, and when someone tries to cut something - it's always an emotional response.

I thought his answer was great... The compassionate thing to do is to stop taking income from families for functions the federal government has no business doing.

Feel free to hit me with your "everyone's a libertarian until..." quote

[57Brave]

Did you see the post above that the money spent on securing Trump Tower so his boy doesn't have to change schools is in fact $4M more than the contribution to Meals on Wheels

you were saying something about the budget and emotions.
i got distracted
/////////////////////////

"...taking money for functions ..." there was a breakdown today == Meals on Wheels cost you $0.28 a year

Military --- you defend them taking money from humanitarian purposes but I have yet to hear you ( or any of your other Ayn Randian buddies) offer as many opinions as you do defending stripping not only Meals on Wheels but Habitat for Humanity

Ever stop to wonder how / why the government is/got involved in those endeavors in the first place ?

[Julio3000]

How funny is it that, while furiously spinning and moving the goalposts on wiretapping claims, Spicer was citing press reports that the administration had previously tried to discredit?

[Julio3000]

Spicer just said the Senate Intelligence Committee hadn't contacted the DOJ. I found that morsel interesting.

Could just be stalling too.

I'd want some context before buying that one. Sounds dubious on its face.

[Hawk]

Did you see the post above that the money spent on securing Trump Tower so his boy doesn't have to change schools is in fact $4M more than the contribution to Meals on Wheels

you were saying something about the budget and emotions.
i got distracted
/////////////////////////

"...taking money for functions ..." there was a breakdown today == Meals on Wheels cost you $0.28 a year

Military --- you defend them taking money from humanitarian purposes but I have yet to hear you ( or any of your other Ayn Randian buddies) offer as many opinions as you do defending stripping not only Meals on Wheels but Habitat for Humanity

Ever stop to wonder how / why the government is/got involved in those endeavors in the first place ?

It's easy to get distracted with all the /////'s, incoherent rambling, boldfaced copypastas from liberal Twittersphere, and general bull****.

[Julio3000]

The problem with the left - is the budget continues to get bigger and bigger, and when someone tries to cut something - it's always an emotional response.

I thought his answer was great... The compassionate thing to do is to stop taking income from families for functions the federal government has no business doing.

Feel free to hit me with your "everyone's a libertarian until..." quote

Just as a f'rinstance, I'd be curious to know where you came down on, for example, Legal Services Corp. I think I know, but I'd like to hear you say it.

[Julio3000]

Spicer just said the Senate Intelligence Committee hadn't contacted the DOJ. I found that morsel interesting.

Could just be stalling too.

Warner spox denies, FWIW.

[Krgrecw]

You guys hear about Bow Wows tweet?

I'm sure there's someone in here who thinks there's not anything wrong with it.

[jpx7]

The problem with the left - is the budget continues to get bigger and bigger, and when someone tries to cut something - it's always an emotional response.

I thought his answer was great... The compassionate thing to do is to stop taking income from families for functions the federal government has no business doing.

My answer is simply that the state should generate more revenue—but I likewise take issue with the assertion that a lot these services are functions the state "has no business doing." I want the state to make it a lot harder to be poor in this country, and I have no qualms about that meaning it's also harder to be very wealthy.