Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Itssoeasy

Does trump not get the fact that a special prosecutor can investigate whatever they want ? I know Kenneth Starr wasn't looking into ms lewinsky when he was investigated the white water stuff. So I don't think it was a good move by Donald trump to kind of hint to bob mueller to stay away from his family finances.

Peregrinus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Does trump not get the fact that a special prosecutor can investigate whatever they want ? I know Kenneth Starr wasn't looking into ms lewinsky when he was investigated the white water stuff. So I don't think it was a good move by Donald trump to kind of hint to bob mueller to stay away from his family finances.

It's not quite true to say that a special prosecutor "can investigate whatever they want". Every special prosecutor (or special counsel, which is what Mueller is) operates under terms of reference, and the terms of reference delimit what they can and cannot investigate.

But the terms of reference can be pretty broad. Mueller's brief allows him to investigate not only any links between Trump campaign associates and Russia, but also "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". In other words, he can't go on a fishing expedition through all Trump's commercial dealings looking for evidence of links between the Trump campaign and Russia. But if following up information about a link between the Trump campaign and Russia leads him to commercial dealings, hell, yes, he can go there.

What should we conclude from the fact that Trump is warning Mueller off going there? That Trump (or whoever puts words in his mouth) expects that Mueller is going to find evidence that points him in that direction. Trump does not seriously expect his warnings to prevent Mueller from going where the evidence leads; what he hopes to do is to lay the groundwork now for a later claim, when this happens, that Mueller is acting improperly; Mueller has a conflict of interest; Mueller is compromised.

"Conflict of interest!" is going to be a large part of Trumps defensive stance, obviously. He is ludicrously obsessed with positioning everyone as biassed, compromised or conflicted. Rosenstein "is from Baltimore" and "there are few, if any, Republican from Baltimore". Rosenstein is in fact from Philadelphia, but even if he were from Baltimore how could that possibly impact on his performance as No. 2 in the Dept of Justice? Mueller applied for the post of Attorney General when it was vacant, but didn't get it; somehow in Trump's mind that now means he has a conflict of interest in acting as special counsel to investigate links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Etc, etc.

It;s not a good look. Trump is positioning himself to reject whatever findings emerge from the Russia investigation by making rather thin claims of conflict of interest. He wouldn't be doing this unless he was desparate to reject or rebut the findings of the investigation. Which means that he expects the findings of the investigation to be damaging to him.

Water John

Seems he is already looking at the possibility of pardoning family, aides and himself. Sure nobody did anything wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/21/donald-trumps-lawyers-investigating-special-counsel-robert-muellers-team

Peregrinus

If nobody did anything wrong, they would not need to be pardoned.

The idea of the President pardoning himself is interesting. SFAIK no President has ever attempted to do this, so the courts have never had occasion to rule on whether it is possible or effective. The academic commentary, I understand, is uncertain as to whether it can be done.

If a president were to pardon himself in order to try and close down an investigation into his own putative wrongdoing, he'd instead open up the possibility that Congress would regard the attempted pardon itself as misdemeanour worthy of impeachment.

Itssoeasy

I was just watching an MSNBC clip about him asking about pardons. That's interesting and I'd have assumed if a president could pardon himself, then Nixon would have done so after watergate and he didn't. Now as ye say it had never happened before so maybe the Nixon White House wasn't sure of whether it could be done.

It's a very interesting legal and constitutional question.

But you'd have to ask why is he thinking this way ? Has someone put the idea in his head in a discreet way ?

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

Seems he is already looking at the possibility of pardoning family, aides and himself. Sure nobody did anything wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/21/donald-trumps-lawyers-investigating-special-counsel-robert-muellers-team

I would have to question the validity of that article.

How do they know he was asking about pardons? One must assume he asked his lawyers, but they can't divulge it as client privilege. So how many people would be in the room when they talked about this?

Not many I would have thought, I mean they are not going to discuss this in front of the cleaner? So it would be very easy to work out who leaked this and therefore you must question whether it was leaked at all.

Peregrinus

As yet there's no smoking gun pointing directly to the President; he never met Russians, never lied about meeting Russians, never made any deals with Russians, etc. It's people in his circle who look like the most likely candidates for charges, on the basis of what we have seen so far - e.g. Mike Flynn. Nobody, of course, has yet been charged. The hope, or fear (depending on your perspective) is that if you charge someone in Trump's circle he attempts to defend/mitigate his position by saying that was someone else, someone more senior, was involved, and he, the little guy, was just following orders. And that way you get closer and closer to the orange-tinted top.

OK. Trump and his henchmen will have been asking themselves, can the President shut this down by pardoning, e.g., Flynn? And the answer is, no, the special counsel could still subpoena Flynn to talk to him about others in the Trump circle.

So can I pardon them?

Well, Mr. President, you'd have to pardon everyone the special counsel might investigate in order to shut down the investigation completely. Absolutely everyone.

What, even myself?

Especially yourself, Mr. President.

Can I even do that?

And now we're into the discussion about how wide-ranging the President's power of pardon is. But it's an academic discussion, because if the purpose is to avoid the emergence of grounds for impeachment of the President, the President pardoning himself looks, as I've already mentioned, like colourable grounds for impeachment on its own.

Nixon didn't pardon himself because doing so would be tantamount to admitting that he had committed a crime, for which he would have to resign, or be impeached. So, when his position became untenable, he just went straight to the resignation bit. He was subsequently pardoned by Ford, and there's always been a question hanging in the air over whether he had a deal or understanding with Ford that, if he resigned, Ford would pardon him, but no evidence for that has ever emerged.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would have to question the validity of that article.

How do they know he was asking about pardons? One must assume he asked his lawyers, but they can't divulge it as client privilege. So how many people would be in the room when they talked about this?

Not many I would have thought, I mean they are not going to discuss this in front of the cleaner? So it would be very easy to work out who leaked this and therefore you must question whether it was leaked at all.

Well, his personal lawyer has just resigned or been fired (it's not clear which) and the media relations spokesman the Trump legal team was using has also resigned. So, you know, this is the kind of situation in which leaks happen. Just sayin'.

Leroy42

Excuse my ignorance, but surely a pardon can only come after the person has been convicted? Up until that point they are innocent and as such no pardon is required.

So to activate a pardon, wouldn't Flynn etc have to first be convicted (gone through a trial or admitted the offence) at which point Trump then pardons them? But wouldn't the damage already be done?

I don't believe that a President can issue a pardon for act that haven't been carried out yet (or adjudged to have been). That would be a change in the law, which under the constitution would need to be applicable to everyone.

Captain_Crash

Another thing Trump has to be careful with in pardoning anyone is that once someone is free from criminal liability, they can no longer plead the 5th, which is what a lot of people involved in this may wish to do.

For example, as of now Flynn is not talking (there are suggestions that he is, but its not known for sure so lets assume he isn't)... as soon as the threat of any conviction has been removed, he has to talk as the 5th amendment its not necessarily the right to remain silent, it's the right to not say anything that may incriminate yourself.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but surely a pardon can only come after the person has been convicted?

Nope, see Nixon: A presidential pardon of Richard Nixon (Proclamation 4311) was issued on September 8, 1974, by President of the United States Gerald Ford, which granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president.

Peregrinus

No, you can pardon somebody before they're convicted or even charged; that was exactly the position when Ford pardoned Nixon. The effect of doing so is to prevent any charge or conviction and, usually, to bring about the abandonment of any ongoing investigation (because what would be the point?).

But you can only pardon him for acts which he has already done; a pardon for acts that might be committed in the future would be a licence to break the law, and the President can't do that.

Terms of the Nixon pardon:

"I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

9 August 1974 was the date of Nixon's resignation. Ford's pardon was issued a month later, on 8 September 1974.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

he'd instead open up the possibility that Congress would regard the attempted pardon itself as misdemeanour worthy of impeachment.

Yeah, but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't impeach him if he shot Obama live on TV.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yeah, but the Republicans in Congress wouldn't impeach him if he shot Obama live on TV.

There comes a point where the political cost of not impeaching Trump exceeds the political cost of impeaching him. Trump pardoning himself (and all his sisters and his cousins and his aunts) could well be that point.

The other risk of a self-pardon is that when the question reaches the Supreme Court (as it inevitably would) the Court says no, the President cannot validly pardon himself. As already noted, the Court has never been asked to rule on this, so it's still an open question. And of course if you pardon yourself and the court says that's ineffective you're in a very sticky position indeed, since the self-pardon will widely be taken to be an admission of guilt.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but surely a pardon can only come after the person has been convicted? Up until that point they are innocent and as such no pardon is required.

No. I believe a president can pre-pardon crimes. That's what Ford did with Nixon.

Leroy42

Thanks for the replies, I wasn't aware of that. Learning, and on a Friday to boot!

Blowfish

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Another thing Trump has to be careful with in pardoning anyone is that once someone is free from criminal liability, they can no longer plead the 5th, which is what a lot of people involved in this may wish to do.

For example, as of now Flynn is not talking (there are suggestions that he is, but its not known for sure so lets assume he isn't)... as soon as the threat of any conviction has been removed, he has to talk as the 5th amendment its not necessarily the right to remain silent, it's the right to not say anything that may incriminate yourself.

Indeed, without the 5th amendment, it opens up the possibility of sticking the pardened person on the stand and telling them to 'fess up or be faced with contempt of court, which would even include Trump himself. If it hits that point though and the GOP are still refusing to impeach, I'd imagine you'd be looking at a full blown Constitutional crisis.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

There comes a point where the political cost of not impeaching Trump exceeds the political cost of impeaching him. Trump pardoning himself (and all his sisters and his cousins and his aunts) could well be that point.

The other risk of a self-pardon is that when the question reaches the Supreme Court (as it inevitably would) the Court says no, the President cannot validly pardon himself. As already noted, the Court has never been asked to rule on this, so it's still an open question. And of course if you pardon yourself and the court says that's ineffective you're in a very sticky position indeed, since the self-pardon will widely be taken to be an admission of guilt.

The overall corruption of the GOP, their own exposure to Mueller's money laundering probes and any Kompromat that Trump and Russia has on key GOP individuals may mean the political fallout of not impeaching is never greater than impeaching.

Russian oligarchs have been laundering and corrupting in the US since the early 90's. Russian active measures have been infiltrating US politics, conservative think tanks, gun lobbies, Christian groups etc. for as long.
Russian criminality and politics go hand in hand: Any influence/kompromat gained will be used strategically.
How many GOP are in positions of power due to these measures, how many more are compromised, has the GOP's own funding been poisoned?

There may never be a point where the political/personal costs of impeaching him exceed those of not impeaching him.
There may be a point where the costs for Trump and the GOP are greater with a dead investigation than a live one. If we reach this point the USA is de facto an authoritarian State.

Billy86

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed, without the 5th amendment, it opens up the possibility of sticking the pardened person on the stand and telling them to 'fess up or be faced with contempt of court, which would even include Trump himself. If it hits that point though and the GOP are still refusing to impeach, I'd imagine you'd be looking at a full blown Constitutional crisis.

If the pardoned route is taken, I would give it at least a 90% chance of hitting this point. The only reason this might not happen would be if it were within 4-5 months of the 2018 elections. Were the Republicans to somehow keep both houses and it were to come after, I would move that up to a 100% chance.

Oafley Jones

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Another thing Trump has to be careful with in pardoning anyone is that once someone is free from criminal liability, they can no longer plead the 5th, which is what a lot of people involved in this may wish to do.

For example, as of now Flynn is not talking (there are suggestions that he is, but its not known for sure so lets assume he isn't)... as soon as the threat of any conviction has been removed, he has to talk as the 5th amendment its not necessarily the right to remain silent, it's the right to not say anything that may incriminate yourself.

Interesting, but I don't see how you'd force anyone to talk. What would be the charge.

Peregrinus

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Interesting, but I don't see how you'd force anyone to talk. What would be the charge.

You don't have to charge them; you can subpoena them as a witness.

Witnesses have to answer questions put to them, with certain exceptions. One major exception is that you can't be compelled to answer a question if the answer would or might show that you were guilty of a crime. But if you have already been pardoned for that crime you can't rely on that exception; you have to answer the question.

Which is why if Trump were, hypothetically, to pardon Flynn, that would make it easier for investigators to quiz Flynn about what he had been up to. And, if what Flynn has been up to is something that reflects badly on Trump, Trump won't want to make that any easier.

Oafley Jones

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't have to charge them; you can subpoena them as a witness.

Witnesses have to answer questions put to them, with certain exceptions. One major exception is that you can't be compelled to answer a question if the answer would or might show that you were guilty of a crime. But if you have already been pardoned for that crime you can't rely on that exception; you have to answer the question.

Which is why if Trump were, hypothetically, to pardon Flynn, that would make it easier for investigators to quiz Flynn about what he had been up to. And, if what Flynn has been up to is something that reflects badly on Trump, Trump won't want to make that any easier.

So, they'd just be held for contempt?

Blowfish

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't have to charge them; you can subpoena them as a witness.

Witnesses have to answer questions put to them, with certain exceptions. One major exception is that you can't be compelled to answer a question if the answer would or might show that you were guilty of a crime. But if you have already been pardoned for that crime you can't rely on that exception; you have to answer the question.

Which is why if Trump were, hypothetically, to pardon Flynn, that would make it easier for investigators to quiz Flynn about what he had been up to. And, if what Flynn has been up to is something that reflects badly on Trump, Trump won't want to make that any easier.

Indeed, plus from looking into it, even if Trump pardoned everyone who's being investigated, there's still no reason that the investigation will stop as the special council mandate will still exist, regardless of whether anyone can actually be charged at the end of it. In other words, Mueller's would still subpoena everyone and produce his findings either way.

Captain_Crash

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Interesting, but I don't see how you'd force anyone to talk. What would be the charge.

As mentioned my Peregrinus, no charge is needed. They just need to be subpoenaed. If they refuse to talk then they can and will be charged with contempt, or if the prosecutor is feeling lucky, obstruction of justice.

Oafley Jones

Captain_Crash wrote: »

As mentioned my Peregrinus, no charge is needed. They just need to be subpoenaed. If they refuse to talk then they can and will be charged with contempt, or if the prosecutor is feeling lucky, obstruction of justice.

Seems incredibly optimistic. It's a neat detail, but the practicalities seem severely limited as regards leveraging a position from it. I'd imagine there would be lots of memory issues for those called.

Captain_Crash

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Seems incredibly optimistic. It's a neat detail, but the practicalities seem severely limited as regards leveraging a position from it. I'd imagine there would be lots of memory issues for those called.

I'm not suggesting its likely, I'm just answering a question of what could happen.

Personally I think any possible trials are years away. I also think Muller will want to get as many people on the hook as possible and will only offer deals to a select few who can join the dots so to speak.

In fact, it would not be a surprise if things were kept under wraps until Trumps term is over, in order to remove the possibility of him being able to make things difficult should he or any of his sidekicks have to see the inside of a courtroom.

Water John

Whilst investigations like this take time, they don't take 4 years in US before a grand jury filing.
Nixon was a clever man and knew when the game was up, and would also have considered the good of the country, despite his flaws. Not so, the present incumbent.

Oafley Jones

Water John wrote: »

Whilst investigations like this take time, they don't take 4 years in US before a grand jury filing.
Nixon was a clever man and knew when the game was up, and would also have considered the good of the country, despite his flaws. Not so, the present incumbent.

Same could be said of the Republican party.

Water John

I still trust that there are some Rep, possibly the conservative ones, like Sasse, have genuine democratic credentials and will see the country, right.
Democrats need to build a bridge to these. Very different politically, but the country first.

Christy42

I would not count on the cost of not impeach in Trump getting too high for Republicans. Especially if they keep both Houses next year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russian-meeting-poll-majority-supporters-dont-believe-it-happened-despite-son-admitting-it-a7847636.html

I would take the exact percentages with a grain of salt as it is a democratic leaning polling company but even if we add the sort of slant Rasmussen tends to have (generally the heaviest bias) it still is a ridiculous amount of ignoring stated facts by a lot of Trump supporters.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

I still trust that there are some Rep, possibly the conservative ones, like Sasse, have genuine democratic credentials and will see the country, right.
Democrats need to build a bridge to these. Very different politically, but the country first.

Can't see that happening. Dems seem to have one plan and one message. We are not Donald Trump. Seems to be it.

TBF, they did work with the GOP in terms of the ACA and where did that get them? So GOP have made their own bed and you only ever hear calls from Parties for National Unity etc when they have run out of ideas.

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

I would not count on the cost of not impeach in Trump getting too high for Republicans. Especially if they keep both Houses next year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russian-meeting-poll-majority-supporters-dont-believe-it-happened-despite-son-admitting-it-a7847636.html

I would take the exact percentages with a grain of salt as it is a democratic leaning polling company but even if we add the sort of slant Rasmussen tends to have (generally the heaviest bias) it still is a ridiculous amount of ignoring stated facts by a lot of Trump supporters.

Saw a post that stated that 32% of surveyed GOP voters do not believe that the meeting with Trump Jr, Kushner etc and the Russians even took place. This is despite Trump Jr acknowledging it!

I mean, what can you do when people simply put their fingers in their ears?

Mr E

Looks like Spicey has resigned...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-steps-down_us_58ed2e0ee4b0ca64d91a07c0

Mahony0509

Sean Spicer is gone. Like rats off a sinking ship.

Water John

Think the job was eating him, gave that impression. Huckabee will have no problems. Cocking her left eyebrow, curling her lip and telling a porkie.

rossie1977

What an amazing first 6 months. I can't believe we have 42 months to go and potentially another 48 after that

MadYaker

Just heard it on Newstalk. I'm not surprised at all, he had an impossible job.

frag420

Does this mean Melissa McCarthy is out of a job too?

Harry Palmr

Poor guy is probably in need of a long lie down in a dark room.

Mahony0509

frag420 wrote: »

Does this mean Melissa McCarthy is out of a job too?

Those SNL sketches were gold.

Really Interested

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Poor guy is probably in need of a long lie down in a dark room.

Nope he needs a long shower to get rid of that feeling of being dirty.

frag420

Mahony0509 wrote: »

Those SNL sketches were gold.

Its odd how Dictator Trump wasn't a fan of those sketches considering his love for gold!!

Leroy42

I think they must spell Fired differently in the US than we do!

Resigned! He was first taken off the job then let go. Simple as. He couldn't keep up the pretence of lying convincingly (that is a good thing usually btw).

Sarah has shown him how its done. No need to be aggressive. Just treat everyone with contempt and a lack of professional courtesy and don't even think about the answers just give the agreed answer.

Harry Palmr

Does Scaramucci do the Fandango?

Headshot

lol Spicer just couldn't take the lies anymore

seamus

Constructive dismissal. Firing your press secretary looks really, really bad. Making their job impossible means they can quit and you can call them a loser and a quitter.

And it means you can force them to sign anything you want about non-disclosure. If you fire them you don't get that luxury.

rossie1977

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/888435212874649604

Leroy42

He really was rubbish tbf. Whether he was pushed or left the writing was on the wall. He was creating more problems when his job is to smooth the problems

Itssoeasy

He can relax now for the first time since he was appointed to the job. I mean his head must have been melted having to push a narrative that everything in the country and the WH was all sunshine and rainbows.

Itssoeasy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Poor guy is probably in need of a long lie down in a dark room.

I hope he can have a pint tonight and stop having to listen to donald trump talk rubbish and go out there and try and defend it.