Is the only way to trump through impeachment? What happens if there is a smoking gun to some serious crime? Let’s say a video emerges of him murdering someone, can he be prosecuted like any normal suspect?
Trump is not easy to control, and that’s one of the big reasons why the Republicans aren’t getting anything done. Yes, it’s been reported that he’s easily swayed by whoever he spoke with last… but that doesn’t stick. He’s got no beliefs, no loyalties, no principles beyond what gives him immediate ego-gratification. And even more importantly, he’s incredibly touchy and obviously resentful of attempts to control him, and because of that lack of principles, he will perversely go against what he’s being steered towards, just to show that he’s nobody’s puppet.
5 Likes
Nah, “power for its own sake” is what the USA already had, in the plutocratic “big tent” parties. Although those are nowhere near as ideologically neutral as they like to present themselves; they represent the interests of the ruling class.
I don’t advocate seeking power “for it’s own sake”.
I advocate building and using power so that we can resist war, militarism, white supremacy, class exploitation, patriarchal violence, etc.
https://twitter.com/igd_news/status/926618298069827585
Compromise in the face of oppression is the tool of the oppressor. Negative peace is not acceptable.
Progress is won by struggle, not gifted by the benevolence of the oppressor.
10 Likes
Shortly after the White House announcement, FBI agents sealed off the offices of Richardson and Ruckelshaus in the Justice Department and at Cox’s headquarters in an office building on K Street NW.
An FBI spokesman said the agents moved in “at the request of the White House.”
Agents told staff members in Cox’s office they would be allowed to take out only personal papers. A Justice Department official said the FBI agents and building guards at Richardson’s and Ruckelshaus’ offices were there “to be sure that nothing was taken out.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm
1 Like
“Mueller is a stone-cold professional.” Every time I read that, I smile. Maybe not a nice smile, but I smile. It’s a start.
2 Likes
I’m impressed one of the actors lists “C.H.U.D.” among his acting chops. I mean, I enjoyed that movie a lot. But I’m not sure it’s resumé material…
2 Likes
3 Likes
I beg to differ. The GOP Congress can’t impeach Trump under any circumstances, the risk to individual pols is too great since Donald’s so popular with the base. Too, any GOP pol who votes for impeachment would almost certainly be primaried by someone even more extreme than they. Meanwhile, I can’t see enough Dems being willing to vote for impeachment unless there’s at least a significant number of Republicans voting as well.
Meanwhile, if there’s an impeachment and conviction, Pence in charge wouldn’t be the worse – while Donald’s ignorance is a problem for Congress, the incompatible factions are a bigger problem. Worse than POTUS Pence would be a controlling number of conservative extremists in Congress, which would be a highly likely response by the base to impeaching Donald.
Me, I’d be happy just seeing Donald’s actual finances exposed.
I know, my opinion here is cynical AF. But I think facts and reality support my conclusions.
1 Like
faster faster stone-cold professional
1 Like
It’s even worse than that; you sound like you’ve already accepted defeat.
2 Likes
Or it is a recognition that elections have consequences and policy matters. I don’t vote against Republicans because we need some type of fabled homeostasis, but because their policies kill and impoverish people. I’m not looking for moderate amounts of war and levels of poverty just below the pitchfork threshold. It is okay to oppose an ideology because it is wrong and not just to seek a squishy center.
3 Likes
Not in any meaningful sense for federal charges, maybe it all gets really fuzzy if we’re honest. The president can nominally face federal charges, this was covered in Nixon v. Fitzgerald as a side note. This is met by two possible mammoth complications that we would all like to avoid. 1) He would remain president. We have no case law for a serving president sitting in a federal prison, but it isn’t ruled out by black letter law. 2) The presidential pardon power is effectively unlimited for federal charges. We don’t have case law on a president pardoning themselves, but reasonable legal scholars exist on both sides. Best case we’re looking at a constitutional crises of major proportions.
So, yeah people go for the well understood impeachment process. It isn’t a good process, but almost purely avoids the risk of civil war and constitutional breakdown and that’s pretty nice.
2 Likes
This is true. Once you’re pardoned, jeopardy now applies. That means no immunity deals or fifth amendment protections. You can’t be prosecuted for the crimes you’ve been pardoned for, so refusing to testify against others opens you up for contempt charges.
Even better, if the case gets prosecuted at the state level, 45 has no pardon authority.
This depends on the state. Some states will apply jeopardy for federal charges disallowing prosecution at the state level. Others don’t. I’m not sure where NY stands on this.
3 Likes
Elections have consequences, and policy matters, only to the degree that people trust the government to act in their best interest.
The government becomes just one more street gang among many, once that trust has eroded. For many USian neighborhoods, that’s been true for a very long time.
Referring to the code of criminal procedure, I believe there is an NY exception against double jeopardy that applies here, for the tax evasion charges. That could leave a lot of leeway to assert fifth amendment privilege.
And a general comment: this is interesting, but it’s not what restrains Trump from firing Mueller. If that happened, Congress would be under huge pressure to bring back the independent counsel law, or consider impeachment (particularly in the case of preemptive/blanket pardons, I would think). Just letting it become a state investigation would not be adequate to really getting to the bottom of the matter.
And do you think aiming for some type of partisan balance will establish that trust better than sound policy? Aiming for balance only works if you assume both parties are putting forth reasonable policy and negotiating in good faith.
3 Likes
I think a two party system with majority rule, only serves those with enough money to back both sides.
Preference voting won’t fix everything, but it would be a start.
The general legal opinion on the subject seems to be that a sitting president can not be charge with a crime. The key bit being sitting. As in while in office. So generally you need to impeach a president, remove them from office. And then criminal charges can be filed. Which makes rather a lot of sense. You’ve got the issues of how a sitting president could govern from prison. And the problem of pardon power. Removal from office as a pre-requisite for charging a president side steps a lot of potential complications, and maintains the primacy of the impeachment process. Its more important to get the guy out of power than it is to punish him frankly.
@moortaktheundea mentioned Nixon v Fitzgerald. The decision states that a President is personally immune from civil liability resulting from official acts undertaken as president. So you can’t sue the president personally for harm you’ve suffered from his official acts, just the government. As for the criminal side it just states that the president is not immune in any way from criminal liability resulting from any acts (official or otherwise) during his time in office.
So it doesn’t make a determination about when and how a president may be charged for acts before after or during his presidency. Only that there is no immunity from criminal charges for things he does while in office.
But to a certain extent its an open legal question. There’s nothing barring you from filing criminal charges against a sitting president. Its just that the most plausible interpretations of the law, given the lack of precedent and specific statutes, indicate that’s unlikely to succeed.
Per the linked article. NY mostly extends jeopardy to federal charges. Which appears to be why Mueller’s charges against Manafort are structured just the way they are. It looks like Mueller may have carefully charged the minimum amount of serious federal charges, to allow for additional pressure to be placed on him later and avoid direct involvment from Trump. While also carefully avoiding anything NY may be able to charge at the state level.
A lot of what Manafort may have done, and could be charged with apparently falls under NY (and NYC’s) jurisdiction. So by not charging Manafort with things that NY could charge him for he’s side stepped double jeopardy problems if Manafort gets a pardon. Mueller also seems to have started communicating with Eric Schneiderman (the NY Attorney General) and his office rather closely.
2 Likes
I mentioned Nixon v. Fitzgerald not for it’s headline finding, but some of the arguments they made in the body, where they point out that their decision is only meant to limit civil suits, not criminal. One of the passages I had in mind was from the dissent…
“Taken at face value, the Court’s position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible.”
1 Like
