DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[TGHusker]

This article notes some pros and cons to the argument on presidential self-pardon. 

 I think this is the strongest argument:

Then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton wrote during the Watergate scandal: "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself." This is one of the most heavily-cited opinions against a presidential self-pardon, highlighted again this morning by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

https://www.axios.com/can-trump-pardon-himself-mueller-investigation-cf3d6b85-a546-4dd8-ac2a-1c6997f23a03.html

To my point in my previous post about setting up a strong man dictator wt a compliant congress, the article states:

Be smart: The even bigger question is whether Republicans would move to impeach Trump should he ever decide to issue a self-pardon. As Axios' Jim VandeHei wrote about the president's sway on his own party: "If you think he won't try something unprecedented — and maybe get away with it, at least with Republicans — you aren’t paying attention."

 

[commando]

See above. Rudy is probably correct in his analysis that he is immune while he is in office.

i refuse to see the founding fathers saying that it is fine for a criminal to be in office.   unless this is where we are suppose to go grab our guns and have a new revolution because thats the only course left for americans

 

[BigRedBuster]

What is wrong wt what Rudy says is that it is a prime set up for a strong arm dictator.  If you have a congress that is fully in the tank for the president, then there may never be an impeachment trial.  Thus, you set up a situation where the president could literally get by with murder.  I do not believe the founding fathers had that as an intent of the impeachment or judicial process.  Having lived with kings, they were not about to set up a situation and they had too much foresight to allow for Rudy's faulty interpretation.   I suspect the SC would disagree wt Rudy.  And don't be surprise if this all ends up in the SC. 

Correct.

To take his comments the the extreme, if the President has the backing of the military, he could take over the capital building, abolish congress and become a dictator......and he couldn't be investigated or indicted on anything.

Pretty much BS.

 

[schriznoeder]

[No message]

 

[TGHusker]

Correct.

To take his comments the the extreme, if the President has the backing of the military, he could take over the capital building, abolish congress and become a dictator......and he couldn't be investigated or indicted on anything.

Pretty much BS.

Reminds me of a Latin American/South American dictator coming into power.  Get elected via dishonest means, have the support of a all to willing legislative body and then bam - declare martial law  then slap bam see you mam 

 

 

[RedDenver]

See above. Rudy is probably correct in his analysis that he is immune while he is in office.

The craziest thing is that the President could effectively pardon himself before he is removed from office and never undergo criminal proceedings. Because the founding fathers...

Yes, it's crazy and no where did the founding fathers say that the President is immune or could pardon himself. The founders were very careful to balance the powers of government between the 3 branches so that no one branch could be ascendant, and they were even more careful to make sure the President did NOT have powers like a king, so it's even crazier to think they'd have intended immunity or self-pardons.

But imagine for a moment that the President is immune and must be impeached before being indicted or arrested. Then Trump could literally go murder every member of Congress that he thinks might vote against him in an impeachment - and there's nothing that could be done about it. And he could do it before every single impeachment vote - over and over. And then if we imagine he can pardon himself, he can simply pardon himself over and over with absolutely no consequences - ever. This is an extreme example, but it clearly shows why immunity and self-pardon are not part of a functioning government and cannot be the interpretations of the Constitutions we agree to.

 

[Mierin]

The way people defend him. and the % of military members who likely support him, makes me legitimately concerned about the possibility of him testing whether he can stay in power. Especially if he's still around and loses the election in 2020. He questioned the legitimacy of the 2016 election before it even happened.

I think there aren't a small number of Republicans who would give up democracy if it meant abortion was made illegal.

 

[ZRod]

This article notes some pros and cons to the argument on presidential self-pardon. 

 I think this is the strongest argument:

https://www.axios.com/can-trump-pardon-himself-mueller-investigation-cf3d6b85-a546-4dd8-ac2a-1c6997f23a03.html

To my point in my previous post about setting up a strong man dictator wt a compliant congress, the article states:

I mean that's all nice and neat, but there is no legal precedent saying he can't do it. It's open to interpretation, and right now totally legal and plausible for him to do.

i refuse to see the founding fathers saying that it is fine for a criminal to be in office.   unless this is where we are suppose to go grab our guns and have a new revolution because thats the only course left for americans

They didn't say it's not fine, which is why we have the possible issue. I think they were counting on the idea that people would be so revolted by the mere perception of a dictator, that they would do the right thing and remove them from office. Context of the times and all.

 

[TGHusker]

The way people defend him. and the % of military members who likely support him, makes me legitimately concerned about the possibility of him testing whether he can stay in power. Especially if he's still around and loses the election in 2020. He questioned the legitimacy of the 2016 election before it even happened.

I think there aren't a small number of Republicans who would give up democracy if it meant abortion was made illegal.

The bold -  As a prolifer, I think you over estimate the repubs commitment to pro-life issues.  They do it out of political expediency.  I've noticed that in  the 2018 primaries here in Okla -social issues aren't even talked about to any length.  Repubs are more concerned wt keeping power and Trump is their ticket for that.  The issue is power and not abortion.  Many repubs wish the prolife issue would not be a part of the discussion - as they prefer a broader base of support. 

 

[ZRod]

Yes, it's crazy and no where did the founding fathers say that the President is immune or could pardon himself. The founders were very careful to balance the powers of government between the 3 branches so that no one branch could be ascendant, and they were even more careful to make sure the President did NOT have powers like a king, so it's even crazier to think they'd have intended immunity or self-pardons.

But imagine for a moment that the President is immune and must be impeached before being indicted or arrested. Then Trump could literally go murder every member of Congress that he thinks might vote against him in an impeachment - and there's nothing that could be done about it. And he could do it before every single impeachment vote - over and over. And then if we imagine he can pardon himself, he can simply pardon himself over and over with absolutely no consequences - ever. This is an extreme example, but it clearly shows why immunity and self-pardon are not part of a functioning government and cannot be the interpretations of the Constitutions we agree to.

If that were to happen it would effectively be creating new legal precedent. So far something like this has never been tried as far as I can tell, which means everything is open to interpretation and it's entirely plausible and legal at present thanks to Constitutional vagueness. I think the fathers left things so open ended because they were counting on people doing the right thing. Given the disdain for dictators at the time, something like this even being discussed didn't seem like a plausible reality because people would do something. But we all know what Edmund Burke said about good men doing nothing...

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]

 

[RedDenver]

If that were to happen it would effectively be creating new legal precedent. So far something like this has never been tried as far as I can tell, which means everything is open to interpretation and it's entirely plausible and legal at present thanks to Constitutional vagueness. I think the fathers left things so open ended because they were counting on people doing the right thing. Given the disdain for dictators at the time, something like this even being discussed didn't seem like a plausible reality because people would do something. But we all know what Edmund Burke said about good men doing nothing...

Agreed.

 

[Mierin]

The bold -  As a prolifer, I think you over estimate the repubs commitment to pro-life issues.  They do it out of political expediency.  I've noticed that in  the 2018 primaries here in Okla -social issues aren't even talked about to any length.  Repubs are more concerned wt keeping power and Trump is their ticket for that.  The issue is power and not abortion.  Many repubs wish the prolife issue would not be a part of the discussion - as they prefer a broader base of support. 

I've been surrounded by pro-life Republicans most of my life. And I'm talking about constituents. If Trump did a power grab and made abortion illegal they would probably think it's fine. At that point it would be too late for GOP politicians to act if they wanted to. I think you fall in that category too but I'm not saying every one of them would be fine with it.

 

[Danny Bateman]

This is a seriously big oops by Manafort.

Begs the question - how serious is the crap he's done that he'd go to such idiotic lengths to try to cover it up?



Looks like Mueller wants to terminate Paulie Walnuts' house arrest and toss him in jail. In other words, "LOCK HIM UP."

 

[Mierin]

This is a seriously big oops by Manafort.

Begs the question - how serious is the crap he's done that he'd go to such idiotic lengths to try to cover it up?

This is likely part of what Ukraine is no longer investigating:
 

"Don't fool yourself," Andrea wrote to her sister, according to the texts. "That money we have is blood money."

"You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly," she continued, according to the reviewed texts. "As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine. Remember when there were all those deaths taking place. A while back. About a year ago. Revolts and what not. Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that, to send those people out and get them slaughtered."

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-daughter-text-messages-ukraine-2017-3