Trump's Russian Collusion

[Kismet]

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
—Martin Luther King Jr.

Sadly, this is the way it is right now. Better get used it it.

[Trinity]

Trial starts tomorrow. Moscow Mitch hasn’t announced the rules yet. Kafka would be proud.

[Brooklyn]

Double standards, much?

[ggait]

Dershowitz in 1998, talking about impeachment:

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1219058380431642624

What the heck happens to these people?

At least Dersh was correct about Clinton (at least on the perjury article). 1 out of 2 is better than 0 for 2 (Turley, Starr).

Starr and Turley argued (and are arguing now) that you have to have a crime; perjury is a crime; thus impeachment is valid. Totally wrong on Clinton and on Trump.

First, the Constitution talks about "High" crimes and "High" misdemeanors. "High" to the Brits referred to the status of the person, not the seriousness of the offense. A "High" person was someone with special power, authority, and public trust -- like a judge. So a High crime or High misdemeanor was a breach of that public authority/trust. If a judge murders his wife, that's not High crime that merits impeachment (which is a non-criminal process after all). If the judge presides over his wife's trial for murder and gives her favorable rulings in such trial, that's a High crime and impeachable. Even if the rulings might not rise to the level of criminal acts.

So Turley and Starr got Clinton wrong because Clinton's perjury (while a crime) was a "Low" crime -- it did not have anything to do with his public office or powers (like the judge's murder). Using the levers of power to obstruct the investigation, however, is certainly "High" and fair game for impeachment if proved (for Clinton and for Trump). On obstruction, Trump tells Clinton "hold my beer!!!"

Second, no statutory crime is required. Dersh had it right before and now is clearly wrong. Abuse of power/office/public trust is the gravamen. After all, in 1789 there were no federal statutory crimes yet.

Third, Trump's case (imo) pretty clearly shows bribery relating to an election. That is an actual crime (in 1789 under common law and also in 2020 per statue), that crime is "High", and it is actually right there in the Constitution. That's an impeachment bullseye, especially when combined with all of Trump's obstructive acts.

The Dems do argue bribery in the impeachment articles, even though they ultimately call it abuse of power instead. That was a tactical mistake in my opinion, but not a fatal flaw. I suspect they did that to avoid getting bogged down with having to prove all the criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt (which rightly doesn't apply here since this is not a criminal court proceeding).

End of day, the answer to Dersh, Starr and Turley is that impeachment and removal is whatever,respectively, a majority of the House and a super-majority of the Senate say it is. The high 67 vote threshhold in the Senate is what the Framers decided was the protection needed to keep impeachment from getting out of hand. History shows they were right about that, since no president has ever been removed (although Nixon would have been).

[seacoaster]

Word is spreading that the Senate GOP will simply adopt -- as they are being told to do -- the argument that an abuse of the powers of the office, without a discrete, statutory crime to undergird it, is not impeachable. Of course, the absurdity of this argument will not matter. Republicans one fancied themselves the keepers of the Framers' gospel. The next couple of days will put an end to that little fiction.

"The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

"The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands."

"In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

[a fan]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

[Typical Lax Dad]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

Yep. In all of those “liberal” cities. Current administration can use the power and tools of the office to create a barrier to entry for the opposition. If Trump manages to be re-elected that will be the end of the line. Democrats will get in in 2024 and that POTUS can use the power of the office and the popular vote mandate to ensure the party keeps control.

[ggait]

Word is spreading that the Senate GOP will simply adopt -- as they are being told to do -- the argument that an abuse of the powers of the office, without a discrete, statutory crime to undergird it, is not impeachable.

It has been obvious throughout is that the GOP position has been a result in search of a rationale. If the Dems zig, then of course that's wrong -- they obviously should have zagged instead. The impeachment process has been too fast, too slow, too secret, not secret enough, needs more evidence/witnesses, doesn't have enough evidence/witnesses. If it came to it, they'd allege you can't impeach in an election year, or in an R-month, or on an odd numbered day, etc. etc. etc.

So the latest twist is that there's no crime. Because the Dems didn't fully charge bribery. But if they'd charged bribery (which I would have done), then the defense would have been that the statutory crime of bribery (18 USC section 201) couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which was exactly what Turley argued). Of course that's BS. Since 18 USC 201 (and its related case law) didn't exist in 1789, and no crime is required.

But the real angle here is to shut down further evidence. If you need a statutory crime and the Dems didn't really charge one, then Trump is entitled to a summary judgment (effectively) after the opening arguments. So no witnesses would be required. That isn't a dismissal (which has been ruled out by Mitch) but it is basically the same thing.

Now that's exactly the kind of BS excuse/exit ramp that Susan Collins will go for.

[youthathletics]

Third, Trump's case (imo) pretty clearly shows bribery relating to an election. That is an actual crime (in 1789 under common law and also in 2020 per statue), that crime is "High", and it is actually right there in the Constitution. That's an impeachment bullseye, especially when combined with all of Trump's obstructive acts.

The Dems do argue bribery in the impeachment articles, even though they ultimately call it abuse of power instead. That was a tactical mistake in my opinion, but not a fatal flaw. I suspect they did that to avoid getting bogged down with having to prove all the criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt (which rightly doesn't apply here since this is not a criminal court proceeding).

General commentary....not nit picking.

Your 2 comments are why this entire impeachment is, at a minimum, challenging to grasp for many. You spell out the bribery argument (cite 1789 common law), then discount it by saying they may not have wanted to get bogged down 'having to prove all the criminal elements', closing with 'this is not a criminal court proceeding'

For the common citizen, that can barely name their state capital, the impeachment argument makes zero sense, when you can not prove anything 'illegal' took place.

I believe that is why the Framers wanted it to be so difficult and non-partisan, in order to bring forth articles of impeachment.

[ggait]

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Not quite right.

USDOJ actually has an admirable track record of successfully prosecuting local officials (Dem and Rep) for exactly this kind of stuff. Since those local officials don't have the benefit of the USDOJ OLC opinion.

But the system just totally breaks down when it is the president doing the deed. Then you get into the Alice in Wonderland world where USDOJ is under the direction of said president; plus the USDOJ OLC opinion; plus the difficulties of special/independent prosecutor/counsel laws that have been tried before.

If on top of that you then narrowly construe the impeachment process, a sitting president is in fact a king above the law. That is not what Madison and Hamilton were thinking, obvi.

So the right answer is that impeachment should be broadly construed to cover abuse of power/office/public trust. Since there is no other option. The check/balance is provided by the 67 votes needed to remove. You really don't need a law professor or a law degree to figure this out.

[a fan]

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Not quite right.

USDOJ actually has an admirable track record of successfully prosecuting local officials (Dem and Rep) for exactly this kind of stuff. Since those local officials don't have the benefit of the USDOJ OLC opinion.

Yes. But they have to order the investigations INDEPENDENTLY. In my example, the problem isn't the investigation into local political donors. The problem is when the Mayor ORDERS the investigation into political donors.

[ggait]

I believe that is why the Framers wanted it to be so difficult and non-partisan, in order to bring forth articles of impeachment.

They didn't make it all that hard to bring articles -- which is why it has happened multiple times before.

They did make it difficult to remove -- which is why that has never happened before. The 67 votes is the answer to every/all of these questions -- that is the check/balance in the design. So you don't need any of these law profs to pontificate for or against.

To paraphrase Gerald Ford (Yale Law grad fyi), "remove-able is whatever 67 Senators say is remove-able."

But I myself would have gone full bribery. Although that would have provided the Reps with a different set of prevarications to make (which they of course would make).

[old salt]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

...& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

[old salt]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

...& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

The (D)'s made it obvious that they would impeach Trump once they had control of the House.
They couldn't wait any longer, for anything better.
The (D)'s have made Impeachment a campaign stunt,

[Typical Lax Dad]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

...& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

I don’t know anyone who talks about and put as much emphasis on the impact of the Stupid Dossier.... the IG even said it wasn’t THE predicate for the investigation. Your guy firing Comey is what led to the SC...not the dossier. No matter how many times you write it here. B

[a fan]

..& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

Entirely, 1000% different.

Were the people who ordered the Steele Dossier in control of the Executive Branch of government?

Was the Steele Dossier ordered up by Obama? No.


Again: the problem is WHO ORDERS THE INVESTIGATION. "Some guy" in the Democratic Party is 1000%, entirely different then when a sitting President uses the power of the office to order investigations into a political rival.



The Steele dossier was wrong because it pulled in a foreign actor. And as I said when we first heard about.....make that a felony.

[old salt]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

...& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

I don’t know anyone who talks about and put as much emphasis on the impact of the Stupid Dossier.... the IG even said it wasn’t THE predicate for the investigation. Your guy firing Comey is what led to the SC...not the dossier. No matter how many times you write it here. B

Nobody talked about the Stupid Dossier, other than NYT, WP, MSMBC, CNN & this forum (as LP), until it fell apart.

Our IC included it in their post-election report.
The DoJ used it for FISA warrants.
It was the roadmap for the Teump-Russia collusion investigations.
I understand why so many smart people do not want to acknowledge they they were duped.

[Trinity]

It was not illegal to hire Steele to do oppo. Ffs.

[old salt]

..& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

Entirely, 1000% different.

Were the people who ordered the Steele Dossier in control of the Executive Branch of government?

Was the Steele Dossier ordered up by Obama? No.


Again: the problem is WHO ORDERS THE INVESTIGATION. "Some guy" in the Democratic Party is 1000%, entirely different then when a sitting President uses the power of the office to order investigations into a political rival.

The Steele dossier was wrong because it pulled in a foreign actor. And as I said when we first heard about.....make that a felony.

Whose Ox is being gored ?
You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?
Who was reading all those unmasked intercepts ?
Read Susan Rice's final memo to the the record. "by the book".
The FBI paid Steele as an informant until he started leaking to the media.

[Kismet]

Do tell us all about it, Inspector Clouseau.