Mueller investigation

[Copernicus]

OK, you are really trying to save your position here by reading selectively and cherrypicking that passage that occurred well before the text I quoted.

Sigh...So the first thing the article says was exactly what I said and pointing that out is cherry picking. Whatever, dude/dudette.

The first thing I read was the title of the article. I suggest that you reread it.

My original comment:

And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify.

Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

Yes, court cases can establish new precedents. Right now, the consensus of opinion seems to be that Trump can be compelled to testify in this case for the reasons stated in my last post, which you did not try to refute.

 

[Artemus]

The first thing I read was the title of the article. I suggest that you reread it.

My original comment:

And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify.

Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

Yes, court cases can establish new precedents. Right now, the consensus of opinion seems to be that Trump can be compelled to testify in this case for the reasons stated in my last post, which you did not try to refute.

A consensus of opinion and news story titles do not establish precedence. If Trump fights a subpoena, precedence will be established. Until that happens everyone is just blowing smoke. (BTW I think that he will lose if he fights it. But that's just me blowing smoke.)

 

[Elixir]

The first thing I read was the title of the article. I suggest that you reread it.


Yes, court cases can establish new precedents. Right now, the consensus of opinion seems to be that Trump can be compelled to testify in this case for the reasons stated in my last post, which you did not try to refute.

A consensus of opinion and news story titles do not establish precedence. If Trump fights a subpoena, precedence will be established. Until that happens everyone is just blowing smoke. (BTW I think that he will lose if he fights it. But that's just me blowing smoke.)

What would losing such a fight look like? Armed agents overcoming the Palace Guard and hauling the King off in chains? Short of that, what can anyone do if he STILL refuses after all legal proceedings are final?

 

[Artemus]

The first thing I read was the title of the article. I suggest that you reread it.


Yes, court cases can establish new precedents. Right now, the consensus of opinion seems to be that Trump can be compelled to testify in this case for the reasons stated in my last post, which you did not try to refute.

A consensus of opinion and news story titles do not establish precedence. If Trump fights a subpoena, precedence will be established. Until that happens everyone is just blowing smoke. (BTW I think that he will lose if he fights it. But that's just me blowing smoke.)

What would losing such a fight look like? Armed agents overcoming the Palace Guard and hauling the King off in chains? Short of that, what can anyone do if he STILL refuses after all legal proceedings are final?

At that point it would be inarguable that he must be impeached, convicted, and removed. Oh wait that doesn't matter with this Congress.

 

[Opoponax]

Ah precedence. Yet another screaming fire alarm the GOP is willfully ignoring while the smoke builds.

Q: What do the courts say when a presidential candidate violates a statute prohibiting the seeking of aid from a foreign government to assist him in an election?
A: I don't know. There's no precedent for it.

Q: What do the courts say when a sitting president falsely accuses a former president of a felony?
A: I don't know. There's no precedent for it.

Q: What do the courts say when a president personally profits from the Office while still retaining the Office?
A: I don't know. There's no precedent for it.

Q: What do the courts say when a sitting president is subpoenaed for questioning in a criminal investigation but refuses to cooperate?
A: I don't know. There's no precedent for it.

Etc.

I know that had Obama pulled this kind of shit that I would've turned on him and asked for his head. I would've been furious at the betrayal and furious at how badly it would've damaged the Democratic Party. My thinking would be along the lines of oh fuck this is gonna allow the GOP to win every goddamn election for the next 20 years.

But Trump/GOP voters? 80+% are just fucking fine with it. The son of a bitch put the nation in a Constitutional crisis before he ever took office and not only do they not care, they support it. And the complicity from GOP officeholders---gah!

 

[ZiprHead]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/950884746082562048.html

"THREAD ON FUSION GPS. I spent the afternoon reading the transcript that Senator Feinstein released today. Here are the salient points, with citations. I am a lawyer and CEO. I was a securities fraud and human rights litigator in DC/NY for over 15 years. Read on for takeaways."

 

[Malintent]

What would losing such a fight look like? Armed agents overcoming the Palace Guard and hauling the King off in chains? Short of that, what can anyone do if he STILL refuses after all legal proceedings are final?

At that point it would be inarguable that he must be impeached, convicted, and removed. Oh wait that doesn't matter with this Congress.

I agree with the sentiment, however I do not think that the Republican party is quite ready to end its existence entirely yet. I say that because the result would inevitably be a fully democratic controlled house and senate.. and THEN impeachment... followed by a "Lame Duck" President Pence.. followed by a complete revamping of all Gerrymandered state maps following a systematic, computer-controlled method... followed by the current Republican party representing the "bottom" 20% or so of the country that wants women in the kitchen and black people tending the fields.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/950884746082562048.html

"THREAD ON FUSION GPS. I spent the afternoon reading the transcript that Senator Feinstein released today. Here are the salient points, with citations. I am a lawyer and CEO. I was a securities fraud and human rights litigator in DC/NY for over 15 years. Read on for takeaways."

The frightening part of all of this is the context. Trump keeps saying witch hunt, but we have four separate threads of history that combine into a single corroborated narrative.

1) We have the initial FBI investigation which starts before the GPS Fusion report.
2) We have GPS Fusion Report
3) We have what were seeing in the open (and feeling odd about).

32/ Simpson flagged how serious it got within the Fusion investigation when, post-reporting to the FBI, the hacking of the Democrats continued, the RNC platform as to Ukraine changed, and Trump continued to say bizarrely favorable things about Russia. (Tr. 169-170)

Number three is a crucial key because Trump and his campaign had made a bizarre swerve on Russia, out of the blue.

And of course, we have 4) the leaks and the Mueller Investigation putting names into news stories from nearly a year ago. Anonymous sources tell us have become Papadopoulous has pleaded guilty to...

It is so easy to forget everything that has come out, but once these things are spliced in line, you get a very bad feeling about what Trump has done to our country... and you have his brown shirts supporting every move.

 

[Malintent]

OK, you are really trying to save your position here by reading selectively and cherrypicking that passage that occurred well before the text I quoted.

Sigh...So the first thing the article says was exactly what I said and pointing that out is cherry picking. Whatever, dude/dudette.

My original comment:

And we may see a precedence-setting determination on if a president can be forced to testify.

Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

You know what else has not EXPLICITLY been established in court? That wearing a blue hoodie while raping someone does not make the rape legal. Go ahead... find a judge that has ruled and made that precedent... you can't. So we'll just have to wait and see if it is actually a good defense or not.

 

[Copernicus]

Sigh...So the first thing the article says was exactly what I said and pointing that out is cherry picking. Whatever, dude/dudette.

My original comment:


Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

You know what else has not EXPLICITLY been established in court? That wearing a blue hoodie while raping someone does not make the rape legal. Go ahead... find a judge that has ruled and made that precedent... you can't. So we'll just have to wait and see if it is actually a good defense or not.

Artemus, Malintent is being sarcastic, but he is making the same point I was trying to make to you. Every court case is potentially precedent-setting. That said, it appears that we have been locked in violent agreement, because you admit that Trump will probably lose his case, if he chooses to fight a subpoena. Trump has indicated that he doesn't think an "interview" is likely, but the worst case scenario for him is that Mueller subpoenas him to testify before a grand jury. At that point, the Supreme Court, based on past precedent, would likely rule against him. Trump, as President, is virtually above the law. He can ignore the subpoena, and there is nothing that Mueller could do about it. He can't have Trump arrested, and Trump has demonstrated in the past that he is willing to flaunt the law and play games with the legal system. The only possible remedies for a defiant law-breaking President are impeachment and the 25th Amendment. Neither is likely to happen. Republicans in Congress are able to use Trump as a smokescreen to bring about serious changes in the system of government that they have long championed. Trump empowers them. So they will keep him in power as long as they can. And Trump's cabinet, including especially Pence, show no inclination to notice his unfitness to do his job.

 

[Artemus]

Sigh...So the first thing the article says was exactly what I said and pointing that out is cherry picking. Whatever, dude/dudette.

My original comment:


Until it is explicitly stated by a court of law, precedence has not been established. We may see that if Trump fights it.

You know what else has not EXPLICITLY been established in court? That wearing a blue hoodie while raping someone does not make the rape legal. Go ahead... find a judge that has ruled and made that precedent... you can't. So we'll just have to wait and see if it is actually a good defense or not.

Artemus, Malintent is being sarcastic, but he is making the same point I was trying to make to you. Every court case is potentially precedent-setting. That said, it appears that we have been locked in violent agreement, because you admit that Trump will probably lose his case, if he chooses to fight a subpoena. Trump has indicated that he doesn't think an "interview" is likely, but the worst case scenario for him is that Mueller subpoenas him to testify before a grand jury. At that point, the Supreme Court, based on past precedent, would likely rule against him. Trump, as President, is virtually above the law. He can ignore the subpoena, and there is nothing that Mueller could do about it. He can't have Trump arrested, and Trump has demonstrated in the past that he is willing to flaunt the law and play games with the legal system. The only possible remedies for a defiant law-breaking President are impeachment and the 25th Amendment. Neither is likely to happen. Republicans in Congress are able to use Trump as a smokescreen to bring about serious changes in the system of government that they have long championed. Trump empowers them. So they will keep him in power as long as they can. And Trump's cabinet, including especially Pence, show no inclination to notice his unfitness to do his job.

First off, I'm going to steal the term "violent agreement."

Malintent was being sarcastic, but the argument is a strawman none the less. All I've ever said in this discussion is that precedence has not been established. The legal definition of precedence is

1)n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment

So precedence is like pregnancy, either it exists or it doesn't. The legal rule explicitly addressed by the courts is that rape is a crime so precedence is set whether the assailant is wearing a blue hoody or a Batman suit. Or if an employee of AT&T can be legally compelled to testify against his CEO, then an employee of IBM can be compelled to testify again her CEO. Or that corruption laws are found to apply to a Senator from Alaska then they also apply to a Senator from Hawaii. The wrinkle here is that the POTUS is a unique position. There has never been a judgment that determines if someone in a position equivalent to the POTUS can be compelled to testify before a grand jury when subpoenaed, so by definition precedence does not exist.

I didn't try to refute the article you posted because I'm in pretty much 100% agreement with it. The qualifier "Probably" in the title is an acknowledgment that precedence has not been established and the author directly states that in the part I quoted. The remainder is the author's informed (I assume) opinion of what is likely to occur if the precedence-setting case does happen, which in my uninformed opinion seems reasonable. Personally, I hope that the Bad-Dye-Job-in-Chief does fight it...him losing would only help the Dems chances of taking both houses in the mid-terms.

 

[Opoponax]

Personally, I hope that the Bad-Dye-Job-in-Chief does fight it...him losing would only help the Dems chances of taking both houses in the mid-terms.

That may, in the long run, be better for the nation. I would much rather see Trump fight and lose than simply be able to slink away in some other manner. Because of the gross abuses of office Trump has committed, new rules and procedure need to be implemented so that a more intelligent, informed, and capable individual doesn't get into the White House and really take advantage of all the flaws that have been exposed.

 

[Malintent]

...Trump, as President, is virtually above the law. He can ignore the subpoena, and there is nothing that Mueller could do about it. He can't have Trump arrested...

This is the bit I am most interested in. I am not too concerned with the specific path, but I am of the opinion that a criminal charge of some kind is a definite. If we could entertain just for the sake of argument that this is a given, I would like to know the mechanism for the normal "arresting authority" (police officer, officer of a court, FBI agent) to get through the Secret Service and physically take the president into custody. How would that work?

Are we looking at a civil war where the Secret Service would first need to be 'subdued' and the resisting force literally take over the White House?

 

[Artemus]

...Trump, as President, is virtually above the law. He can ignore the subpoena, and there is nothing that Mueller could do about it. He can't have Trump arrested...

This is the bit I am most interested in. I am not too concerned with the specific path, but I am of the opinion that a criminal charge of some kind is a definite. If we could entertain just for the sake of argument that this is a given, I would like to know the mechanism for the normal "arresting authority" (police officer, officer of a court, FBI agent) to get through the Secret Service and physically take the president into custody. How would that work?

Are we looking at a civil war where the Secret Service would first need to be 'subdued' and the resisting force literally take over the White House?

I think that the only option to deal with a President who disobeys the law is for Congress to impeach and convict. (The "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause.) That is why the midterms are so critical this year.

The Right(tm) is going full-out to down-play the obstruction of justice investigation, but situations like this are exactly the reason it is considered a "high crime."

 

[Elixir]

The legal rule explicitly addressed by the courts is that rape is a crime...

I don't get your point. The courts have also explicitly addressed and decided the questions of whether obstruction of justice is a crime, and whether it is a crime to ignore/disobey a grand jury subpoena. The open question - if there is one - is whether the President is subject to the laws of the land, or is above the law. The very existence of impeachment provisions would seem to be compensation for the insulation from the law that the President enjoys.

I think that the only option to deal with a President who disobeys the law is for Congress to impeach and convict. (The "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause.) That is why the midterms are so critical this year.

I violently agree!

 

[Artemus]

The legal rule explicitly addressed by the courts is that rape is a crime...

I don't get your point. The courts have also explicitly addressed and decided the questions of whether obstruction of justice is a crime, and whether it is a crime to ignore/disobey a grand jury subpoena. The open question - if there is one - is whether the President is subject to the laws of the land, or is above the law. The very existence of impeachment provisions would seem to be compensation for the insulation from the law that the President enjoys.

The President is subject to the laws of the land, but the question that hasn't been answered through precedent (correcting all my earlier misspellings!) is what the law of the land actually is in this case. Executive privilege means that the President has very different rules than the rest of us. The SCOTUS ruled that executive privlege did not allow Nixon to refuse to turn over material evidence directly related to a criminal charge against him when subpoenaed (a subpoena duces tecum, it seems) but not that a president must answer a subpoena ad testificandum that requires him/her to appear before a grand jury. Every analysis I've seen acknowledges that a constitutional question would have to be resolved in the courts if Trump refuses to answer the subpoena. (They also think that he would likely lose, but that is a different issue altogether.)

 

[Malintent]

The legal rule explicitly addressed by the courts is that rape is a crime...

I don't get your point. The courts have also explicitly addressed and decided the questions of whether obstruction of justice is a crime, and whether it is a crime to ignore/disobey a grand jury subpoena. The open question - if there is one - is whether the President is subject to the laws of the land, or is above the law. The very existence of impeachment provisions would seem to be compensation for the insulation from the law that the President enjoys.

I think that the only option to deal with a President who disobeys the law is for Congress to impeach and convict. (The "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause.) That is why the midterms are so critical this year.

I violently agree!

Exactly.. thank you. That was my point.

 

[Malintent]

The legal rule explicitly addressed by the courts is that rape is a crime...

I don't get your point. The courts have also explicitly addressed and decided the questions of whether obstruction of justice is a crime, and whether it is a crime to ignore/disobey a grand jury subpoena. The open question - if there is one - is whether the President is subject to the laws of the land, or is above the law. The very existence of impeachment provisions would seem to be compensation for the insulation from the law that the President enjoys.

The President is subject to the laws of the land, but the question that hasn't been answered through precedent (correcting all my earlier misspellings!) is what the law of the land actually is in this case. Executive privilege means that the President has very different rules than the rest of us. The SCOTUS ruled that executive privlege did not allow Nixon to refuse to turn over material evidence directly related to a criminal charge against him when subpoenaed (a subpoena duces tecum, it seems) but not that a president must answer a subpoena ad testificandum that requires him/her to appear before a grand jury. Every analysis I've seen acknowledges that a constitutional question would have to be resolved in the courts if Trump refuses to answer the subpoena. (They also think that he would likely lose, but that is a different issue altogether.)

There would have to be merit to a claim prior to requiring a sitting president to testify "testificandum". Enjoinment would be a way to keep one issue from being abusively made into multiple issues... or to simplify and condense multiple issues into one... no executive privilege needed there.

 

[Copernicus]

When I say that the President is "above the law", I do not mean to imply that he can ignore the Constitution. What I mean is that the remedy is not a judicial one. The Supreme Court can make all of the rulings it wants against the President, but it cannot enforce them. Congress can issue a warrant for his arrest, but it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces the law. The only means of permanently removing a President is political--an act of the legislature. Even Article 25 ultimately throws the power back to Congress, if the President affirms to Congress that he is fit to serve despite an attempt by his cabinet to remove him. At that point, only a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress can remove him. Only after removal from office is the President subject to judicial remedies for crimes committed.

So, given the current makeup of the Congress, Trump is virtually impeachment-proof, and Article 25 is even less likely to work. He can effectively thumb his nose at the Supreme Court and the Congress as long as he refrains from doing it in such a way that Republicans feel they have no other choice. Right now, most of them seem to feel that they have no other choice than to enable and support him, no matter how embarrassing and frightening his behavior.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Bannon is expected to testify today.

I look forward the the nuggets coming in the next few days.