Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I guarantee if Trump came on tv tomorrow saying Putin is his best friend and totally helped him beat Clinton in exchange for Crimea but it was totally ok because buttery males, the GOP won't do shit, and his supporters will act like it was a good thing.

Cannot disagree.

[Trekkin]

I mean, not just impeachable. Criminal, too.

It is, to be sure, but impeachability's the more immediately relevant standard given the impossibility of indicting a sitting president.

The untested and pretty certainly untrue "impossibility" that was pulled out of the ass of Nixon, who subsequently didn't have the balls (or had enough brains to not try) to go through with it. That was kinda' pissed on by the republican treatment of clinton, t'boot.

You're one letter off, I'm afraid; Robert G. Dixon wrote the Sept. 24, 1973 OLC memo Re:  Amenability  of the President,  Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while  in  Office, in which the President's unique immunity to criminal prosecution was established as OLC opinion. (While they specifically discussed federal prosecution, their arguments remain persuasive regarding prosecution by the states.) The 2000 version of the memo summarizes it, as well as then-Solicitor General Bork's arguably more structurally compelling agreement on the same grounds regarding Agnew that, to horribly TL;DR it, allowing the judicial process to incapacitate the executive branch violates the separation of powers (and any extension of the executive's power over prosecutions to a case in which the chief executive is the defendant an inherent absurdity) while also running contrary to the national interest, although the President is unique in having enough power personally that his indictment would constitute such an incapacitation.

Far from being "pretty certainly untrue", it's technically an open question (albeit one with persuasive structural arguments that OLC's opinion summarizes), but as a practical matter you'd be hard-pressed to try, no pun intended, to settle it before the President's term was up.

[smjjames]

The thing is that theres the concept of 'the President is not above the law', which contradicts all of that. Plus, he golfs so much and has so much 'executive time' that it'd be, in my view, hard to argue that he'd be 'incapacitated' if he has to take a few hours out of each day.

He's also tweeted that he's going to make a major announcement tomorrow from the WH about the border and the shutdown at about 3. I'd give an RNG chance that it's total BS.

[Trekkin]

The thing is that theres the concept of 'the President is not above the law', which contradicts all of that. Plus, he golfs so much and has so much 'executive time' that it'd be, in my view, hard to argue that he'd be 'incapacitated' if he has to take a few hours out of each day.

He's also tweeted that he's going to make a major announcement tomorrow from the WH about the border and the shutdown at about 3. I'd give an RNG chance that it's total BS.

That is true, but it doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that the national interest in having a functional Presidency takes precedent over the judicial interest in prosecuting one man more quickly than impeachment would allow, particularly given the speed at which impeachment proceedings can take place and the possibility of tolling the statue of limitations for whatever theoretically minor crimes are not impeachable. We as a country need the office immune to interference; given that, as you are right to point out, the occupant cannot be so immune, the logical reconciliation of the two is to remove the occupant from office first.

And, yes, Trump's an exception to this as to most norms of Presidential competence and basic human decency, but the precedent would remain even once we got a President who actually took the job seriously. He should definitely be indicted as fast as possible. He just can't be while in office without breaking things much more important than he is.

[smjjames]

A spokesperson for Muellers office is disputing the Buzzfeed article saying that it's inaccurate. However, they aren't saying what is inaccurate.

[Folly]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426130-buzzfeed-stands-by-cohen-report-mueller-should-make-clear-what-hes-disputing

In response to the statement tonight from the Special Counsel's spokesman: We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing.

[delphonso]

For the record, I'm fairly certain impeachment and indictment are the same thing - one applying to the President, and the other to everyone else. It's just an equivalent. I think the difference lies in who starts the process - an impeachment being sourced from the House.

Although Trump's criminality seems increasingly evident, impeachment seems unlikely. No recent president has been impeached in the way people mean it - Nixon dodged it by resigning. Clinton was impeached but wasn't voted out of office, which is an additional process after the fact.

[Trekkin]

For the record, I'm fairly certain impeachment and indictment are the same thing - one applying to the President, and the other to everyone else. It's just an equivalent. I think the difference lies in who starts the process - an impeachment being sourced from the House.

There are several other differences. For one, the result of impeachment is limited to removal from office and being barred from holding office in the future, per Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution. You can't be impeached into jail -- although, as it's explicitly exempted from double jeopardy laws, subsequent indictment can certainly do so.

For another, and arguably the more critical difference, impeachment is not a criminal process. No law need be broken, although there does need to be specific conduct to cite in the articles; you can't impeach someone for just general awfulness. (That's the point of "high crimes and misdemeanors" rather than "maladministration.") This also means that our proscription against post ex facto laws is inoperable here, so it's as close as we get legally to bills of attainder.

EDIT: Incidentally, it follows from the first point that impeachment is only possible against officeholders, although anyone holding (federal) public office can be impeached.

[smjjames]

So, apparently the announcement is supposed to be some sort of offer to the Democrats to end the shutdown, instead of declaring a national emergency as some have probably speculated.

I await with baited breath to see what his grand compromise will be. fakeedit: Lemme rewrite that more poetically: I await his grand compromise with bated (or is it baited?) breath.

[hector13]

Why does he need to announce it? Why doesn’t he, you know, actually talk to the Democrats?

Or are they only communicating through headlines now?

[smjjames]

He's a showman, you know that, plus it's a way of taking it directly to the public and making it harder for Democrats to ignore. It's probably going to be a press conference type thing rather than an Oval Office address since that attempt totally bombed and he didn't even want to do that in the first place.

Or maybe it will be from the Oval Office, either way, he's doing it in a way that he knows will grab peoples attention. It probably is because they aren't talking to each other and he wants to get his idea out, basically 'Hey Democrats! Heres my idea and I'm telling it to everybody so that everybody knows what my offer is, take it or leave it!'. Probably also a change of tactics since his previous attempts failed. It's also a proposal he's going to have to stick to, which he has problems doing with previous deals.

[Trekkin]

Alternatively, because his base wouldn't hear it if he just talked to the Democrats, and he's staging this for them. The point is to be seen trying, so he can regain control of the media narrative and try to change the course of public perception on the shutdown.

He will, in all probability, offer the Democrats some farcically token thing in exchange for the full $5.7 billion for the wall, then spend from now until the end of the shutdown tweeting about how Democrats refused the reasonable offer from him, the great negotiator.

[Enemy post]

What are the odds on the offer being two walls?

[smjjames]

Alternatively, because his base wouldn't hear it if he just talked to the Democrats, and he's staging this for them. The point is to be seen trying, so he can regain control of the media narrative and try to change the course of public perception on the shutdown.

He will, in all probability, offer the Democrats some farcically token thing in exchange for the full $5.7 billion for the wall, then spend from now until the end of the shutdown tweeting about how Democrats refused the reasonable offer from him, the great negotiator.

Yeah, I expect that it most likely will be BS, I'm sure you can tell from my attempt at poetic sarcasm.

I'd be surprised if it was a coherent well detailed, or even clever, proposal because at this point, his proposal boils down to 'I want 5.7 billion for x barely defined thing'

[Trekkin]

Yeah, I expect that it most likely will be BS, I'm sure you can tell from my attempt at poetic sarcasm.

I'd be surprised if it was a coherent well detailed, or even clever, proposal because at this point, his proposal boils down to 'I want 5.7 billion for x barely defined thing'

I'll be pleasantly surprised if it has words. He hasn't golfed in months, and the intervening time has been spent alone in the White House watching his poll numbers drop while Mueller closes in. Left to his own devices, he'll show up in a ketchup-stained bathrobe and beer-drinking MAGA hat filled with Diet Coke and just gesticulate wildly while sniffling in between bites of leftover fast food.

And call it the State of the Union.

More seriously, this doesn't feel like McConnell's doing and nobody official will say what he's going to do, so I doubt there's a plan ready. Just a rally, like the other speech but more animated.