Trump's Russian Collusion

[njbill]

I thought I knew the answer to this, but it is a bit more complicated than I had figured, as I learned when I read up on the subject.

This site lays out most of the applicable rules pretty well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_library

It was interesting to me that historically all presidential papers were considered to be the personal property of the president which he could take with him when he left office.

Nixon was a unique case. After he resigned, a special federal law was passed (applicable only to him) that required the GSA to take possession of his presidential papers and tapes. The feds were to determine what materials were “historic” and preserve them as federal property. Anything deemed to be “private” would be returned to Nixon. Litigation ensued between Nixon and the government over the constitutionality of the law and other issues. Essentially, Nixon wanted to maintain control over his papers and tapes to preserve (or probably more accurately “influence”) his legacy. The case wound up in the Supreme Court which upheld the law and rejected Nixon’s claims in 1977. There has been further litigation/battles/disputes with the feds over his records that seem to have been largely resolved by now.

Other presidents (including Trump) are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 which provides that documents that relate to the president’s constitutional, statutory, official, or ceremonial duties are the property of the federal government. After a president leaves office, the National Archives takes custody of these records. Personal records are those that are of a purely private or non-public character which do not relate to any of the above types of records.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Presiden ... ct_of_1978

It is not clear to me who determines which records are "presidential" and which are "private" or when or how that determination is made. What if Trump takes a bunch of records he deems "private" but which are really "presidential"? How would the government know those records even exist? Is there some type of honor system whereby the government "trusts" the departing president to properly segregate the public from the private documents? That would seem to allow for mischief if the president were less than trustworthy. Gotta believe that feds are already thinking of this.

My understanding is that a former president cannot invoke executive privilege. His successor has the right to assert or decline to assert the privilege over documents of his predecessors. Thus, once Trump leaves office, he could not assert EP over any document created during his presidency. And his successor could “declassify” a document determined by Trump to be covered by EP. I think the same approach would apply to testimony from a former Trump official. Thus, if such a person were to be called to testify, neither he nor Trump could assert EP, though President Dem could.

Holmes, I agree. I would be very concerned about what Trump might do between Nov. 3, 2020 and Jan. 20, 2021. Given that there could well be criminal prosecutions coming, one would think the Trump Gang would be careful about destroying anything that could be evidence in a criminal case. I don’t know what the electronic records storage and back up systems are. If they are controlled by the Deep State, perhaps nothing nefarious will be done. If it is Jared and the Clean Up crew, who knows? And what about hard copy documents? What if the White House has a shredding party? Don’t know. May need a whistleblower.

[jhu72]

Nancy Cordes (a CBS reporter) has learned that a Trump confidante reportedly told Republican Senators that “a vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” Not much meat on these bones (yet), but I want to see a show of hands of those who believe this story is Fake News.

Same news organization that employed Dan Rather?

Ah, we have one vote for the story being Fake News.

[jhu72]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

[Trinity]

The Trumps don’t know Lev. IMPOTUS said so. And Adam Schiff is so mean. He keeps quoting Trump.

[CU88]

I suspect that over the next couple of days we will see the o d team drag Biden into this and smear his name.

Reminds me of the Nixon era defense, "What about Chappaquiddick?”

No defense to the facts or Impeachment charges, just smears...

MAGA

[CU88]

Trump on Soleimani: "We took him out."

Trump directing his “team” on al-Baghdadi and other ISIS terrorist: “Take them out.”

What Trump claims he said about Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11: “You have to take him out.”

Trump on Yovanovitch: “Take her out.”

Polly Sigh

The funny thing about Yovanovitch, is that o d got famous in the the eyes of the DEPLORABLES for saying "Your Fired!".

[Trinity]

I just hope Pompeo doesn’t send Russian thugs after NPR.

“Confronted by a skilled examiner, Trump would melt down in minutes. He’d be humiliated, and he knows it — which is why he’s too terrified to give testimony under oath, and why it won’t happen.” - @gtconway3d

[seacoaster]

I thought basic fairness meant I should post Dershowitz's letter to the Times, explaining himself:

"Re “Why Did Alan Dershowitz Say Yes to Trump?” (Op-Ed, nytimes.com, Jan. 22):

Stephen Harper asks why I said “yes to Trump.” I think he knows the answer, having been in my class at Harvard Law School. Throughout my career I have stood on principle, representing people with whom I disagree as well those with whom I agree. I have never made a distinction based on partisanship.

During the Richard Nixon impeachment, as a national board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I urged that organization to monitor the proceedings in order to protect Mr. Nixon’s civil liberties, even though I personally supported his impeachment. During the proceedings against President Bill Clinton, I testified in his favor and consulted with his defense team.

While it is true that most other constitutional scholars believe that impeachment can be based on completely noncriminal type behavior, such as abuse of power, my independent research conducted over the past two years has led me to the opposite conclusion — a conclusion shared by Justice Benjamin Curtis, who after resigning from the Supreme Court in protest of its decision in the Dred Scott case represented President Andrew Johnson, with whose politics he thoroughly disagreed.

Mr. Harper’s claim that I am not an expert in constitutional law is belied by the fact that I taught constitutional criminal procedure at Harvard Law School for nearly half a century. Were I arguing on behalf of impeachment, my credentials would not be questioned by those who question them now for partisan reasons.

As to my 1998 statement that “you don’t need a technical crime,” it was made during the Clinton impeachment when there was no debate over whether a crime is required, since Mr. Clinton was charged with perjury. I was not then aware of Justice Curtis’s argument. Now that the primary issue is whether criminal conduct is required, I have done extensive original research and have come to the firm conclusion that Justice Curtis was correct and that criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery is constitutionally required, and that vague terms like abuse of power and obstruction of Congress did not meet the criteria.

I will continue to fight to protect the Constitution and justice as I have for more than half a century, regardless of party or person.

Alan M. Dershowitz
Cambridge, Mass."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opin ... e=Homepage

The citation to Ben Curtis must have the community reeling....

[foreverlax]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

BOOM!!

[youthathletics]

This impeachment chaos is getting out of hand. Shiff saying “the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” is quite unnerving. IMO, his comments clearly project a god complex, that some on the left are clearly driven at all costs to be in power.

[seacoaster]

This impeachment chaos is getting out of hand. Shiff saying “the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” is quite unnerving. IMO, his comments clearly project a god complex, that some on the left are clearly driven at all costs to be in power.

It's hardly chaos; you know better than that. This is about the most controlled enterprise I've ever watched. And the thrust of the proceeding is nearly entirely factual. Wait for Pat Cipp and Sekulow for the chaotic whataboutism. It's coming.

And the point: Trump tried this little scheme using Rudy and Lev and Gordo in order to influence the election. There's nothing unnerving (well, to me, anyway) about saying that the President's misconduct forfeits his ability to campaign, stand for, and try to fix another election.

He won't be convicted. But history will have recorded, in detail and with some flair and passion, his gross misdeeds and his deeply flawed character, and the fecklessness of the GOP members of the House and Senate. Imagine having your legacy attached forever to this amoral scrote. That'll have to be enough to be going on with.

[Catbird]

This impeachment chaos is getting out of hand. Shiff saying “the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” is quite unnerving. IMO, his comments clearly project a god complex, that some on the left are clearly driven at all costs to be in power.

We've got a president being impeached for abuse of power, arguing he is beyond the reach of all law in this country, but no it is the democrats who are projecting a god complex, got it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Trinity]

“No one fing cares about fing Ukraine,” says Pompeo.

"Nobody at the White House threatened me. I scared myself!" David Frum, on the “heads on pike” faux outrage.

[jhu72]

“No one fing cares about fing Ukraine,” says Pompeo.

… what a diplomat. He scored big with Putin. Anyone think this wanker has any chance of ever being a Senator from Kansas?

[Typical Lax Dad]

This impeachment chaos is getting out of hand. Shiff saying “the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” is quite unnerving. IMO, his comments clearly project a god complex, that some on the left are clearly driven at all costs to be in power.

The constitution provide for impeachment. The possibility of the POTUS corrupting an upcoming election was/is one of the primary reasons it was included. If the Senate believes his actions did not rise to the level of removal, then acquit. Schiff is doing his constitutional job. Do your homework.....The Monkeys Throwing Poop phase of the Senate Trial is underway.

[Kismet]

NeverTrump Republican Bill Kristol on Twitter

"A Republican Senator Ruminates on Life

My handsome head, on a pike--
'Tis a sight whose prospect I do not like.
But my head securely attached to neck,
On a soft pillow...Ah! what the heck!
So a glance from master Donald Trump--
And "How high," I ask, "dost thou will I jump?""

[Peter Brown]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor?

FYI, Bill and Hill both agreed to testify to special prosecutors and to congressional investigators.

In contrast, Trump can only muster the courage to flame on twitter or during chopper time. He's afraid to testify under oath himself, and he's also afraid to let his guys do it either.

Even Nixon allowed that -- John Dean was Nixon's WH counsel after all.

Jesus Joseph, Gary is just eating your lunch today Pete. Stay dumb.

Hillary wasn’t indicted after being questioned by Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok! Say it ain’t so! I thought cops were impartial?!

Here’s some free advice: ‘cops’ aren’t your friends, even if you’re Mother frigging Teresa. If they ask you the weather, tell them you first want to speak to a lawyer. A 302 is simply a green light to abuse. Unless your wife is running for Conngress and the person you’re interviewing is the presumptive POTUS from the same party.

Also, my history is a little hazy. So help clear up this open item. Nixon and Dean spoke to prosecutors...how’d that turn out for them?

I’m still eating.

You don't get it, fellas. Pete thinks the goal here is for Trump to get away with it. He doesn't actually want Americans to hear what Trump did.

Quite the worldview you have Pete. First you tell us that it would be a swell idea for America to default on our debts.

And now you're advising our leaders not to testify to American citizens in public because if our leaders testify, Americans might figure out they've been doing bad things.

That about the sum of it, Pete? And you think the government is the problem here, and not your backasswards set of "morals". Got it.

Impressive set of values you've got at your disposal.

Oh, you have it wrong kimoasabe. I'd definitely tell a POTUS to testify, to a court with proper legal guidance. Just not to a clown car of congressional lefties preening for the cameras. This case isn't about any laws being broken...it's about signalling to the Dem base that their clowns are doing something.

I suspect there are tons of quiet Americans who will reject the Impeachment histrionics of the Left in November.

For me, Trump getting four more years would be so worth the pain of having the guy in our ears for those four years, just to teach this deserved lesson to the incoherent screaming mass of lefties and NeverTrumpers: perhaps it's best to actually legislate and earn electoral wins properly.

ps: Bernie will whip up voting majorities in the insane colonies of NY, MA, RI, and CA and still get slaughtered in the EC. He'll probably get more of a differential in the popular vote than Hillary did! And then watch and listen to the baying crazies scream about how unfair the EC is.

I can not wait; it will be delicious! Most life lessons are deserved; they will be to the insane Left in November as well.

[Kismet]

BTW it's KEMOSABE, Boomer.

You need to bone up on your Ojibwe....especially on anbaaga`adowe website.

[a fan]

Oh, you have it wrong kimoasabe. I'd definitely tell a POTUS to testify, to a court with proper legal guidance.

This IS the venue that you use for Presidents.

Or did you miss the DoJ ruling months and months ago that you can't indict a sitting President?

Of course you missed it. You also slept through American Civics in Junior high.

[RedFromMI]

Oh, you have it wrong kimoasabe. I'd definitely tell a POTUS to testify, to a court with proper legal guidance.

This IS the venue that you use for Presidents.

Or did you miss the DoJ ruling months and months ago that you can't indict a sitting President?

Of course you missed it. You also slept through American Civics in Junior high.

I would suspect any competent defense lawyer would be quite hesitant to actually put Trump on a stand. While I don't offhand recall hearing about him testifying in open court, I do know that Trump was _owned_ in at least one deposition where he sued someone (leading to the release of his financial/tax records at the time).

Trump does not have the normal sense of boundaries of when to stop lying anyway. Probably why the campaign is starting to float the idea of not debating.