Trump's swamp

[Shadowy Man]

Bribery? He's giving out a resource he's allowed to give out at his judgment. Obviously they never envisioned they would be sold but I don't see bribery here.

Then I think that you are willfully blinding yourself to the obvious. The Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for the impeachment of public officials, including the president. So it is officially acknowledged by the Constitution that it is real and bad, and Trump was obviously a real bad president when it came to corrupt behavior. Once out of office, Trump became liable for federal prosecution under the law cited by Zorq. Proving it in a court of law requires evidence that would convince a jury, so prosecutors would not necessarily be moved to drag Trump before a jury without unimpeachable evidence. Trump is notoriously good at stymying prosecutions, so he pretty openly gets away with a lot.

I'm saying that he's allowed to pardon whoever he chooses to. Accepting money to do so is horribly wrong but I think it's a case of the law not envisioning such misconduct.

So you don’t think it’s technically illegal? What about being paid to veto a bill? Or any other Presidential duty or power? Is all of this up for personal enrichment?

 

[Copernicus]

Bribery? He's giving out a resource he's allowed to give out at his judgment. Obviously they never envisioned they would be sold but I don't see bribery here.

Then I think that you are willfully blinding yourself to the obvious. The Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for the impeachment of public officials, including the president. So it is officially acknowledged by the Constitution that it is real and bad, and Trump was obviously a real bad president when it came to corrupt behavior. Once out of office, Trump became liable for federal prosecution under the law cited by Zorq. Proving it in a court of law requires evidence that would convince a jury, so prosecutors would not necessarily be moved to drag Trump before a jury without unimpeachable evidence. Trump is notoriously good at stymying prosecutions, so he pretty openly gets away with a lot.

I'm saying that he's allowed to pardon whoever he chooses to. Accepting money to do so is horribly wrong but I think it's a case of the law not envisioning such misconduct.

I didn't disagree with his power to pardon, just in using his office in exchange for a bribe. I don't know who you believe was not envisioning such misconduct. I've already pointed out to you that the Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment, so the framers of the Constitution did envision it. It is certainly a violation of the presidential oath to break a law, and it is really weird to argue, as you seem to be, that presidents are technically above the law. They are public officials, the same as other elected officials, and they can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office once they leave office. Here is the text from Article II:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't disagree with his power to pardon, just in using his office in exchange for a bribe. I don't know who you believe was not envisioning such misconduct. I've already pointed out to you that the Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment, so the framers of the Constitution did envision it. It is certainly a violation of the presidential oath to break a law, and it is really weird to argue, as you seem to be, that presidents are technically above the law. They are public officials, the same as other elected officials, and they can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office once they leave office. Here is the text from Article II:

I'm not saying he's above the law. I'm saying the law fucked up and didn't consider the possibility of a dirty president. Sometimes bad guys get away with things because the law didn't envision their crimes. (Look how slow we are to criminalize revenge porn, for example.) I think this is one of those cases. He's done plenty of other bad deeds we can nail him on, I'm just saying I question whether we can nail him on this particular one.

 

[Elixir]

Pretty sure Cheato has convinced both Naughty Walt and that DeOliviera guy that he will pardon them when he gets back in office, as long as they don't spill the beans. Anyone else in a position to know where bodies are buried who isn't co-operating at this point, is probably also suckering for the phantom pardon gambit. AFAIC, this is worse than actually selling pardons - it is a conditional promise to do a corrupt act in exchange for the suckers acting corruptly. "Hey, at worst, you might do a year, and it will be the most lucrative year of your life!"
I worry, because such folk are placed in a desperation situation wherein they are virtually forced to commit whatever heinous act Trump demands of them.

 

[bilby]

I'm saying the law fucked up and didn't consider the possibility of a dirty president.

Given the endemic nature of corruption across the British Empire at the time that the USA decided not to be a part of it anymore, I would say that the near certainty of corruption at every level of government, and particularly in the highest of offices, was indisputably at the forefront of everybody's minds when your nation's laws were first established.

Likely those considerations were split between "How do we ensure our new republic is less corrupt?" and "How do we ensure that the corruption in our new republic benefits us?"; But nevertheless, it was surely considered.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I didn't disagree with his power to pardon, just in using his office in exchange for a bribe. I don't know who you believe was not envisioning such misconduct. I've already pointed out to you that the Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment, so the framers of the Constitution did envision it. It is certainly a violation of the presidential oath to break a law, and it is really weird to argue, as you seem to be, that presidents are technically above the law. They are public officials, the same as other elected officials, and they can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office once they leave office. Here is the text from Article II:

I'm not saying he's above the law. I'm saying the law fucked up and didn't consider the possibility of a dirty president. Sometimes bad guys get away with things because the law didn't envision their crimes. (Look how slow we are to criminalize revenge porn, for example.) I think this is one of those cases. He's done plenty of other bad deeds we can nail him on, I'm just saying I question whether we can nail him on this particular one.

How do you interpret this:

18 US Code section 201

It does not appear that this particular scenario is outside of this law.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Who else is willing to downscale his/her appreciation of the strategic genius of the Founding Fathers? Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion. The supposed remedies depend on good faith, which I suppose they thought would prevail in America.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion.

It was set up for wealthy white men to control things. And it's a compromise. Despite the noise coming from those who think we ought to worship these guys because they were so wonderful the whole shebang is a compromise, admittedly between wealthy white men. They spread the power around so that no one of them could rule the roost.

 

[lostone]

Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion.

It was set up for wealthy white men to control things. And it's a compromise. Despite the noise coming from those who think we ought to worship these guys because they were so wonderful the whole shebang is a compromise, admittedly between wealthy white men. They spread the power around so that no one of them could rule the roost.

Similar to the ancient Roman Senate, which may have been somewhat of a model for them. But the Roman Senate broke down, eventually.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't disagree with his power to pardon, just in using his office in exchange for a bribe. I don't know who you believe was not envisioning such misconduct. I've already pointed out to you that the Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment, so the framers of the Constitution did envision it. It is certainly a violation of the presidential oath to break a law, and it is really weird to argue, as you seem to be, that presidents are technically above the law. They are public officials, the same as other elected officials, and they can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office once they leave office. Here is the text from Article II:

I'm not saying he's above the law. I'm saying the law fucked up and didn't consider the possibility of a dirty president. Sometimes bad guys get away with things because the law didn't envision their crimes. (Look how slow we are to criminalize revenge porn, for example.) I think this is one of those cases. He's done plenty of other bad deeds we can nail him on, I'm just saying I question whether we can nail him on this particular one.

But laws aren't written specifically to single out US presidents. I don't understand why you think that laws against bribery would not apply to a US president. I agree that prosecutors might not be able to nail him on this one, but not because the law failed to envision his crimes. It is even specifically mentioned in the Constitution that presidents can commit crimes. It just leaves it up to laws passed by legislatures to identify the crimes and assign penalties. Trump might be exempt from prosecution while in office (although that is controversial), but there is nothing to suggest that being president means the the person holding the office is immune to future prosecution just because he held office when he committed a crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what law did Blagojevich break in trying to sell a Senate seat that selling a pardon wouldn't break?

 

[robnisch]

The pundits keep talking about mob boss culture with tRump. Kinda reminds me of the classic mob days in the 20's and 30's. A lot of people thought it was kool back then. Maybe that is part of his appeal.

 

[Elixir]

The pundits keep talking about mob boss culture with tRump. Kinda reminds me of the classic mob days in the 20's and 30's. A lot of people thought it was kool back then. Maybe that is part of his appeal.

Maybe. I think most of his "appeal" is that people are afraid of him. People such as Naughty Nauta and the DeOliviera guy choose to believe tRump when he whispers in their ear.
"You probably won't even go to jail if you stick with me because the trial won't be until after I'm elected, and I'll pardon you before it goes that far. But if you flip and rat me out, you're guanranteed to go to jail, and then when you get out... you know I'll be paying attention!"
I doubt that either of those guys are thinking "This is so kool!" right now. OTOH, EMPLOYEE #4 is probably sleeping pretty well. He's the one who told Jack Smith's boys that DeOliviera told him "The boss wants to get rid of the server", and God knows what else.
DeO. will probably be the next to flip, if he has an IQ over 80.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't disagree with his power to pardon, just in using his office in exchange for a bribe. I don't know who you believe was not envisioning such misconduct. I've already pointed out to you that the Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment, so the framers of the Constitution did envision it. It is certainly a violation of the presidential oath to break a law, and it is really weird to argue, as you seem to be, that presidents are technically above the law. They are public officials, the same as other elected officials, and they can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office once they leave office. Here is the text from Article II:

I'm not saying he's above the law. I'm saying the law fucked up and didn't consider the possibility of a dirty president. Sometimes bad guys get away with things because the law didn't envision their crimes. (Look how slow we are to criminalize revenge porn, for example.) I think this is one of those cases. He's done plenty of other bad deeds we can nail him on, I'm just saying I question whether we can nail him on this particular one.

How do you interpret this:

18 US Code section 201

It does not appear that this particular scenario is outside of this law.

Ok, I guess that could cover his actions.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Politesse]

Who else is willing to downscale his/her appreciation of the strategic genius of the Founding Fathers? Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion.

By design, of course. The powerful always want a little bit of leeway for their own customary corruptions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Who else is willing to downscale his/her appreciation of the strategic genius of the Founding Fathers? Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion.

By design, of course. The powerful always want a little bit of leeway for their own customary corruptions.

You mean the people that left the question open on whether or not a a president can pardon themselves?

 

[Politesse]

Who else is willing to downscale his/her appreciation of the strategic genius of the Founding Fathers? Turns out our Constitution set up a government that is way too susceptible to corruption, manipulation, and outright subversion.

By design, of course. The powerful always want a little bit of leeway for their own customary corruptions.

You mean the people that left the question open on whether or not a a president can pardon themselves?

I doubt that crossed their mind. But they intentionally placed considerable unilateral power on the presidency; draft one would have made the president damn near unimpeachable, with only a small cadre of naysayers holding back the monarchism that has never quite been expunged from the system. Their assumption was that the president would always be, more or less, "one of their own". Selected by them as candidate, voted on by electors they also chose. Overconfident in their own ability to control the office, and unaware of the degree of power the Supreme Court was destined to attain, too few of the constitution daddies were fearful of the natural consequences of putting so much power in one place.

Myself, I am no Republican and a reluctant Democrat, but I am a republican and a democrat to the core. It was a colossal mistake to create an executive institution that would crumble the second their ye olde boi network started to crack. It was peer pressure keeping the pre-Jackson presidencies in line, not lack of ambition. Without it, there are and always have been too few substantial checks on presidential power, and the one power the founding legislators reserved for the Congress - impeachment and removal of the offender - proved politically impossible to use and therefore useless.

 

[ZiprHead]

We Regret To Inform You Of These Transcripts Of Rudy Giuliani Talking Dirty

Transcriptions of audio recordings documented America's Mayor apparently speaking inappropriately to a woman who is now suing him.

www.huffpost.com

Noelle Dunphy filed suit against the former New York City mayor earlier this year over allegations that he coerced her into sex and failed to pay her wages totaling some $2 million. Dunphy says she worked as an off-the-books consultant for Giuliani between 2019 and 2021 when he was still serving as a personal lawyer for former President Donald Trump.
The brief recordings were typed out by a legal transcription service and filed in New York state court on Tuesday, revealing sexist, homophobic and antisemitic sentiments.
“I’d never think about a girl being smart. If you told me a girl was smart, I would often think she’s not attractive,” Giuliani allegedly told Dunphy in one exchange from August 2019.

Another, from March 2019, showed Giuliani saying: “Come here, big tits.”
“These breasts belong to me,” he went on, per the transcript. “Nobody else can get near these, okay? I don’t care if they’re flirting or they give you business cards. These are mine, you got it?”

Creepy...

 

[ZiprHead]

Exclusive: A veteran FBI agent told Congress that investigations into Giuliani and other Trump allies were suppressed

The FBI agent's bombshell allegations of political bias appeared in a leaked statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

www.businessinsider.com

A veteran FBI counterintelligence agent says his supervisor told him to stop investigating Rudy Giuliani and to cut off contact with any sources who reported on corruption by associates of former President Donald Trump, according to a whistleblower complaint obtained by Insider.

The agent, who served 14 years as a special agent for the bureau, including a long stint in Russia-focussed counterintelligence, claimed in a 22-page statement that his bosses interfered with his work in "a highly suspicious suppression of investigations and intelligence-gathering" aimed at protecting "certain politically active figures and possibly also FBI agents" who were connected to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.

Those figures, the statement claims, explicitly included "anyone in the White House and any former or current associates of President Trump."

The statement, which was prepared for staffers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was apparently leaked and posted in mid-July to a Substack newsletter. Insider has independently obtained a copy of the complaint and verified its authenticity but has not corroborated all of its claims.