Runnin
Well-known member
But Putin says he has a recording of the meeting.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
But Putin says he has a recording of the meeting.
McConnell won't call for impeachment. Trump picked his wife to run the Department of Transportation.
striker42
Well-known member
A few thoughts:
First, I think people are being way to cavalier throwing around impeachment. You shouldn't impeach a president just because you don't like him (if you want to argue that's what Republicans did to Clinton then you're falling into the two wrongs making a right fallacy). The Constitution is clear that the President has to be convicted of some kind of violation of the law. Being a bad president is not enough. So blabbing about classified documents or firing someone who serves at his leisure are alone not sufficient.
Second, the criminal basis people are throwing around for impeachment is obstruction of justice. The idea is that Trump obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. We again need to be very, very careful in defining this to be obstruction of justice. By that definition, Obama committed tens of thousands of counts of obstruction. Remember, he ordered the Department of Justice not to pursue cases against certain kinds of illegal immigrants. Additionally, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting people under federal marijuana laws. He used his presidential power to end investigations and prosecutions. By the definition being applied to Trump's actions, that's obstruction.
That leads us to the final point. The Department of Justice needs to be an independent agency or at least have some aspects of independence from the executive. Leaving the discretion of what criminal laws to enforce, investigate, and prosecute to a single partisan individual is a very dangerous thing.
First, I think people are being way to cavalier throwing around impeachment. You shouldn't impeach a president just because you don't like him (if you want to argue that's what Republicans did to Clinton then you're falling into the two wrongs making a right fallacy). The Constitution is clear that the President has to be convicted of some kind of violation of the law. Being a bad president is not enough. So blabbing about classified documents or firing someone who serves at his leisure are alone not sufficient.
Second, the criminal basis people are throwing around for impeachment is obstruction of justice. The idea is that Trump obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. We again need to be very, very careful in defining this to be obstruction of justice. By that definition, Obama committed tens of thousands of counts of obstruction. Remember, he ordered the Department of Justice not to pursue cases against certain kinds of illegal immigrants. Additionally, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting people under federal marijuana laws. He used his presidential power to end investigations and prosecutions. By the definition being applied to Trump's actions, that's obstruction.
That leads us to the final point. The Department of Justice needs to be an independent agency or at least have some aspects of independence from the executive. Leaving the discretion of what criminal laws to enforce, investigate, and prosecute to a single partisan individual is a very dangerous thing.
Runnin
Well-known member
Only if Obama was in the process of being arrested for smoking pot.
57Brave
Well-known member
" First, I think people are being way to cavalier throwing around impeachment. You shouldn't impeach a president just because you don't like him (if you want to argue that's what Republicans did to Clinton then you're falling into the two wrongs making a right fallacy). The Constitution is clear that the President has to be convicted of some kind of violation of the law. Being a bad president is not enough. So blabbing about classified documents or firing someone who serves at his leisure are alone not sufficient. "
Like him or not his violation of the Emoluments Clause is grounds in itself.
Second, the criminal basis people are throwing around for impeachment is obstruction of justice. The idea is that Trump obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. We again need to be very, very careful in defining this to be obstruction of justice. By that definition, Obama committed tens of thousands of counts of obstruction. Remember, he ordered the Department of Justice not to pursue cases against certain kinds of illegal immigrants. Additionally, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting people under federal marijuana laws. He used his presidential power to end investigations and prosecutions. By the definition being applied to Trump's actions, that's obstruction.
you are talking about two different scenarios. The Flynn investigation is an ongoing investigation involving Trump. It is illegal for any person of standing to try to in any way obstruct that investigation. Obstruction of Justice in this case is firing the person leading the investigation into Trump dealings.
In the case of Obama and immigration that is more the allocation of resources. Trump is legally doing the same thing on many many issues. One for instance is EPA. He has slashed the EPA budget and hindered enforcement. Completely wrong in my opinion but, perfectly legal
That leads us to the final point. The Department of Justice needs to be an independent agency or at least have some aspects of independence from the executive. Leaving the discretion of what criminal laws to enforce, investigate, and prosecute to a single partisan individual is a very dangerous thing.
When government functions that is the ideal case. "Ideal" being the key word
Like him or not his violation of the Emoluments Clause is grounds in itself.
Second, the criminal basis people are throwing around for impeachment is obstruction of justice. The idea is that Trump obstructed justice by asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. We again need to be very, very careful in defining this to be obstruction of justice. By that definition, Obama committed tens of thousands of counts of obstruction. Remember, he ordered the Department of Justice not to pursue cases against certain kinds of illegal immigrants. Additionally, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop prosecuting people under federal marijuana laws. He used his presidential power to end investigations and prosecutions. By the definition being applied to Trump's actions, that's obstruction.
you are talking about two different scenarios. The Flynn investigation is an ongoing investigation involving Trump. It is illegal for any person of standing to try to in any way obstruct that investigation. Obstruction of Justice in this case is firing the person leading the investigation into Trump dealings.
In the case of Obama and immigration that is more the allocation of resources. Trump is legally doing the same thing on many many issues. One for instance is EPA. He has slashed the EPA budget and hindered enforcement. Completely wrong in my opinion but, perfectly legal
That leads us to the final point. The Department of Justice needs to be an independent agency or at least have some aspects of independence from the executive. Leaving the discretion of what criminal laws to enforce, investigate, and prosecute to a single partisan individual is a very dangerous thing.
When government functions that is the ideal case. "Ideal" being the key word
striker42
Well-known member
1- The last time Emoluments Clause was really an issue was, I think, in reference to John Jay getting a horse. John Jay being one of the founders. This is a clause that has almost no judicial interpretation. Even if it was determined Trump violated the Emoluments clause (a big if because, again, there is virtually no interpretation of it) that still probably isn't grounds for impeachment. Impeachment is only constitutional for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The most likely consequence of a violation of the Emoluments Clause would be an order to repay whatever benefit you got.
2-I think it's absolutely wrong for a President to be able to order the Justice Department to stop an investigation of himself. However, under the way the system is set up he probably does have that power. The only way the President doesn't have the power to stop an investigation of himself would be to interpret obstruction laws to make it illegal for a president to stop an investigation. Considering the words of the statutes here, to interpret it that broadly would include Obama stopping marijuana prosecutions.
You want to boil it down to the reasoning behind the order to drop investigations/prosecutions. You want the criminal intent to be the intent to stop an investigation that could personally harm you. That's not the criminal intent required to violate an obstruction statute. All you need to violate that statute is the intent that your actions will interfere with the investigation. So, if you're going to say that a president ordering an investigation closed is obstruction then Obama ordering the cessation of prosecutions of marijuana offenders is obstruction. His intent was clearly to interfere with the investigations and prosecutions. That was the stated purpose. Whether the reasoning was allocation of resources or personal gain is legally irrelevant.
What you're wanting is a statute that makes it illegal for a president to stop an investigation that might implicate himself or someone in his administration. While that statute is a good idea, it does not exist.
3- What we're witnessing is the reason why leaving the Justice Department wholly under the President is a bad idea.
57Brave
Well-known member
1) I said "grounds" and meant it as the most trivial of accusations. Technically -- grounds
2) I re read the Obstruction charges spelled out in the Nixon Impeachment and #4 of Article 1 was this " interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"
The difference then and now ?
3) "wholly under the President" not sure what you mean by "wholly". Separating it from the Administrative Branch ?
side note: to be clear I hope this doesn't come to Impeachment. I have lived through 2.
Thinking a strong opposition legislative branch can act as a bulwark and would as soon see a (D) House and Senate any way..
I have felt for years the Nixon fiasco was in effect a coup and the Clinton just silliness.
We agree any President can be found for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Shoot, strict definition JayWalking is a Misdemeanor
2) I re read the Obstruction charges spelled out in the Nixon Impeachment and #4 of Article 1 was this " interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"
The difference then and now ?
3) "wholly under the President" not sure what you mean by "wholly". Separating it from the Administrative Branch ?
side note: to be clear I hope this doesn't come to Impeachment. I have lived through 2.
Thinking a strong opposition legislative branch can act as a bulwark and would as soon see a (D) House and Senate any way..
I have felt for years the Nixon fiasco was in effect a coup and the Clinton just silliness.
We agree any President can be found for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Shoot, strict definition JayWalking is a Misdemeanor
"If he really needed to get information to them it could have been done quietly, without turning the meeting into a major story."
Dum dum dummmmmmmmm.
I'm just curious, are you suggesting the case for impeachment be entirely built on the President saying, "I hope you can let this go" (RE: Flynn) to the FBI Director?
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Even if there were a tape recording of him saying those words, verbatim, you are going to have an exceedingly hard time getting an obstruction conviction on that evidence alone.
He says he has a transcript. He also says no classified information was exchanged.
Hmm.
"At the press conference in Sochi, Putin made light of the allegations.
"I think we need to come up with some sort of punishment for him, because he didn't share this secret information, not with us, not with the special services. This is really not nice of him," Putin joked, laughing with Lavrov, who was also at the conference.
But he then took a more serious tone, accusing Americans of "rocking the internal political situation in the US under anti-Russian slogans."
"They either don't understand that they are harming their country -- which makes them just dumb -- or they understand, which makes them dangerous and dirty.""
57Brave
Well-known member
I am not suggesting impeachment at all just talking about what we have all been reading.
From my readings technically that conversation if in fact it happened would be grounds for Obstruction of Justice. Based on what was written in Article 1 vs Nixon.
Or even a conversation on the subject with for example Joe Biden -- conspiracy to commit Ob of Jus.
Please understand
Not a lawyer so any of these opinions you think I have are lay opinions shrouded in questions. Or questions shrouded in opinions
.Striker is an attorney if memory serves ????
I am not suggesting impeachment at all just talking about what we have all been reading.
From my readings technically that conversation if in fact it happened would be grounds for Obstruction of Justice. Based on what was written in Article 1 vs Nixon.
Or even a conversation on the subject with for example Joe Biden -- conspiracy to commit Ob of Jus.
Please understand
Not a lawyer so any of these opinions you think I have are lay opinions shrouded in questions. Or questions shrouded in opinions
Striker is an attorney if memory serves ????
The conversation alone likely isn't powerful enough. You have to find a way to link Trump firing Comey to the conversation to prove obstruction. Unless there's another memo or a trove of recordings we aren't yet privvy to, that's going to be a difficult task.
striker42
Well-known member
I am not suggesting impeachment at all just talking about what we have all been reading.
From my readings technically that conversation if in fact it happened would be grounds for Obstruction of Justice. Based on what was written in Article 1 vs Nixon.
Or even a conversation on the subject with for example Joe Biden -- conspiracy to commit Ob of Jus.
Please understand
Not a lawyer so any of these opinions you think I have are lay opinions shrouded in questions. Or questions shrouded in opinions
Striker is an attorney if memory serves ????
You're right, I am an attorney. I'm trying to give this more of an objective legal look.
Don't get me wrong, a President absolutely can commit obstruction of justice. My position is that a President telling the FBI to drop an investigation is probably not obstruction. A President can do lots of other stuff that is obstruction though. Here's an excerpt from a Washington Post article during the Nixon impeachment process:
"The obstruction of justice article approved last night accuses Mr. Nixon of making false statements to investigators, withholding relevant evidence, approving or counseling perjury, interfering with the Justice Department's investigation, approving payment of hush money to Watergate defendants, passing on information about the investigation to his aides who were suspects, making false statements to the American people about White House involvement in Watergate and causing defendants to believe they might receive clemency for the silence."
So there's a lot more there than simply asking the FBI director to back down.
Now if Trump did ask the FBI to stop the Flynn investigation, I find that reprehensible. However, I don't believe that reprehensible acts are enough of a basis for impeachment under the Constitution.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I think it would depend on if anything came of the Russia investigation. If even a minor tie was there, it could be construed as Treason. As one of the reasons for the natural born citizen clause for president is to try and keep foreign interests out of the White House.
57Brave
Well-known member
The Rude Pundit @rudepundit 60m60 minutes ago
Serious question: Does anyone know a story about Trump being kind? Some charming anecdote? Because for the life of me, I can't think of one.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
President Trump: "No politician in history ...has been treated worse or more unfairly."
-- during commencement speech as US Coast Guard Academy
Serious question: Does anyone know a story about Trump being kind? Some charming anecdote? Because for the life of me, I can't think of one.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
President Trump: "No politician in history ...has been treated worse or more unfairly."
-- during commencement speech as US Coast Guard Academy
striker42
Well-known member
Treason has a very, very specific definition. You pretty much have to appear on a battlefield wearing the other side's uniform.
If other stuff with Russia comes out that constitute crimes on their own then the situation changes. What we currently have is smoke and smoke really shouldn't be enough for impeachment. Wait for the fire.
sturg33
I
Not sure what's dumber... the tweet or the fact that you thought it was worth posting here