US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Interesting article



http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/...nce-lets-find/

Did The Obama Administration Spy On Trump Using Flimsy Evidence? Let’s Find Out

After all, if the DOJ is incorruptible, there's nothing to worry about.


If the Justice Department and FBI are, as we’ve been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are Donald Trump’s antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president’s campaign? The American people should get a full accounting of what transpired during 2016. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing since the election?


You believe Trump is corrupt. I get it. But surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumor-mongering. Otherwise, any administration, including Trump’s, could initiate an investigation for whatever cooked-up superficial reason it wanted.



Perhaps all of this will lead to nothing exciting. Perhaps the competing narratives that have sprung up around Trump and Russia will end far less dramatically than either of their champions hope. But when “rule of law” enthusiasts keep arguing the DOJ is “independent” of the president, then turn around and argue that a congressional oversight committee shouldn’t have the right to ask the executive branch for documents pertaining to their inquiry, one begins to suspect that perhaps some of the hyperbolic rhetoric we’ve been hearing over the past two years has been little more than partisanship.

[vienna]

The core matter in the dispute over the document Nunes was seeking was not that DOJ and the FBI refused to turn over the document, since the did, in fact, turn over the specific document in question; the core dispute by Nunes is the name/identity of the informant was redacted, a normal procedure for persons involved in ongoing investigations. Protection of witnesses, informants, or other persons who are relevant to an investigation and may be in danger of harm is SOP for law enforcement/investigation...


A fact not known is Nunes never even read the redacted document he has so vocally criticized and decried, even after it was made public; that little bit of information came out when a reporter, who did have knowledge of the document's contents asked Nunes to comment on a specific aspect in te memorandum and Nunes could not do so, and then admitted he, in fact had never actually read the memo; Nunes claims he had a member of his staff read it and 'summarize' it for him; given the document is only a couple of pages, that must have been a very short summary...


I believe it is becoming evident the Trump team is trying to get a peek at what info the DOJ and Mueller may have on Trump and/or his associates. The Mueller investigation is new ground for Trump; he is not used to fighting 'in the dark'; in his business life, he has been able to use various tactics gaim information as means of leveraging his advantage, but now, against a blank wall, he has no advantage and it really is bugging Trump. Nunes has been his go to for intel, but Nunes has become less effective as time goes on and has become an increasing embarrassment. His other go-to sources are shrinking with the likes of his fixer Cohen now being swallowed up by the Trump web...


Trump's biggest problem is he's a "bluffer" poker player, who relies on bluster, braggadocio, and bullying to get the other guy to fold, and that has worked in his business dealings, particularly when used against weaker players; but, now, he is up against the consummate "poker face" player in Mueller who has kept a silent stone face throughout the his tenure as Special Counsel: no press conferences, no interviews, no press releases comment on progress, nothing at all for Trump to try and suss out what cards Mueller is holding, and, thus far, Mueller and his team have been very carefully dotting all the "i"s and crossing all the "t"s and not giving a crack in the wall for Trump to peek through; in other words, as a prosecutor, Mueller, and his team, are doing their jobs very well. Trump has relied on the naivete, incompetence, ignorance, or fear of his opponents to give him an advantage and, now, Trump has been disarmed and is flailing; given Trump's many self-failings and those of the people with whom he surrounds himself, Trump is seriously hurting...


I welcome the calls for the probe called for by Trump and Nunes, et al. I have a felling it may become a case of "careful of what you wish for": by trying to gain access to what DOJ/Mueller is holding, there is an equally strong possibility the Trump team may give the Mueller team intel it might not have had access to, sort of Trump looking into the abyss and having the abyss look back at him...
















<O>

[vienna]

Well, I guess you could call Trump's efforts to impugn the DOJ/Mueller a sort of witch hunt; if so, it is convenient when the witch hunters burn their own selves at the stake :


Rudy Giuliani adds another dumb comment to his greatest hits list --


https://www.salon.com/2018/05/22/rud...est-hits-list/


So, would an effort to derail a legitimate criminal investigation by trying to tamper with the investigation by actively seeking classified intel, on false premises, be considered a form of... oh, what is it called?... you know... obstruction?...


















<O>

[vienna]

<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

Interesting article



http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/...nce-lets-find/

great article, thanks for posting.

[vienna]

The NY Times has a pretty good sort of flowchart of the possible outcomes of the Mueller probes, with a bit of historical background:




How the Mueller Investigation Could Play Out for Trump --



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...er-russia.html


















<O>

[Platapus]

Even Nathan Larson.

Who is Nathan Larson?

Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress







Nathan Larson, a man who advocates pedophilia, white supremacy and rape, and who served 16 months in prison for threatening to kill the president, is running for Congress.



The 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Va., is running as an independent in Virginia's 10th congressional district. Larson identifies himself as a "quasi-neoreactionary libertarian." His platform includes drug legalization, the elimination of all regulations regarding firearms and "putting an end to U.S. involvement in foreign wars arising from our country's alliance with Israel."



...


In 2008, Larson sent a letter to the Secret Service in which he threatened to kill either George W. Bush or Barack Obama, according to The Washington Post. The following year, he pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a president and served 16 months in federal prison.
Before seeking a congressional seat, Larson ran for the Virginia House of Delegates as an independent. His candidacy became an issue in last year's Virginia gubernatorial race, because Larson is only able to run thanks to then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, restoring civil and voting rights to former felons.



Ed Gillespie, last year's Republican nominee in the gubernatorial race, cited Larson's candidacy as a reason that restoring rights to felons was a bad idea and faulted Democrats who supported the move.


While Ralph Northam — then the Democratic nominee and now governor — agreed Larson's views are "abhorrent" and that he is not fit for office, he stood by the move to restore rights to people who served their sentence and are now living as law-abiding citizens.



In a rambling, hate-filled stream of consciousness he calls his "campaign manifesto," Larson laid out his views on the world. A fan of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Larson said he wants to restore "benevolent white supremacy," rebuild the patriarchy, eliminate child labor laws and legalize early marriage. He has also advocated for the legalization of incest and child pornography.



When asked if he is a pedophile or just wrote about pedophiliac sex fantasies, Larson told HuffPost Thursday, "It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top there’s a grain of truth to what they say."
Given his views, Larson acknowledged to the news site that his candidacy is a long shot, but he said that he thought he has a chance amid a blowback against political correctness.



"A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it," Larson told HuffPost. "People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds."


He also noted that people who disagreed with "someone like Trump … might vote for them anyway just because the establishment doesn’t like them."


According to Larson, whites differ from other races because of "our cultural creativeness, our willingness to invest in the long term rather than living for today, and our conscientious desire to do the right thing even if it requires heroic self-sacrifice for the good of society."


Additionally, Larson blamed school shootings on feminists.


"Many boys end up fatherless because feminists encouraged female sexual promiscuity and undermined husbands' authority over their wives," he said. "Guns don't kill people — feminists do."

He believes Congress should repeal the Violence Against Women Act and that women should be treated as "sex slaves" and "baby factories."
"We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands," Larson said.


Larson also said sexual harassment only occurs because there are attractive females in the workplace when "it would be better if those girls got married no later than their early teens, so that they could spend their young womanhood in the marital home under the protection of their husbands."



Larson's view on sex and gender is laden with terminology often found in the misogynistic threads that populate the dark corners of the Internet on sites like 4Chan. He constantly refers to "cucks," alphas, betas, omegas, gammas and incels (involuntary celibates).

Larson confirmed to HuffPost that he was the creator of two websites that provided forums for pedophiles and misogynists. Both sites were shut down by their domain hosts on Tuesday.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ate/663215002/

This is one of the nicer articles about him. Other news reports would not be allowed to be posted on this website because they go into a little too much detail on what this person states.

This guy stands approximately zero chance, but it will be interesting to see how many votes he actually gets.

In the US, pretty much anyone can run for elected office. That is just one of the risks we advice to accept.

He is a part time accountant who lives with his parents.. at 37... and he wants to be in congress.

Yikes.

[em2nought]

Next thing you know this guy will be running for office.

[August]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Next thing you know this guy will be running for office.

A younger version of Cool Moose party candidate Bob Healey (RIP)

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Next thing you know this guy will be running for office.

LOL! Imagine trying to evict him from the White House....

[mapuc]

So you have some "special type" of people who wants to run for Congress, Senate.

Let them run, it is more the voters I would fear,
´cause they could give some of these people enough votes.

Markus

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Let them run, it is more the voters I would fear,
´cause they could give some of these people enough votes.

Markus

We should definitely fear voters who are informed by our mainstream media instead of possessing a lick of their own common sense.

[mapuc]

Sorry if this have been discussed.

Read in a Danish article Trump

Tweeted that he would pardon himself because as the President he could do so.

!!?? Being a total novice in American laws and Federal Laws I have to ask

Can he do that ?

Markus

[Platapus]

I wrote this post back in July 17. I hope it answers your question. This post has been updated with some new research I was able to come across.

The topic of Presidential pardons has come up on the Internets Tubes. Judging from the posts I have read on multiple forums, there are some misunderstandings about this. What better chance can I have to get all pedantic, bombastic, and pompous about something near and dear to me – policy


First of all, we need to understand the terminology. Despite the Constitution describing powers of pardon, what we are really talking about is powers of Clemency – Executive Clemency to be specific.


The President enjoys several different types of Clemency Powers


1. Commutation of Sentences – Reducing or removing the amount of time a convicted person has to serve in prison as a result of their conviction.
2. Respite– A temporary suspension of a sentence. Almost always used to delay the execution of a convicted prisoner to allow additional time for review
3. Remission – Just like a Commutation but applies to monetary fines. Commutations and Remissions are treated differently and the Executive has to render each separately.
4. Amnesty – A formal and irreversible decision that the government will not prosecute a person (or group of persons) for a specific crime or groups of crimes.
5. Pardons – The forgiveness of a crime granted after conviction. The crime and all its penalties are forgiven, but the fact of the conviction stays on the person’s record


Wait a minute. Secure the telephonic communication device there professor. Everyone on the Internet knows that President Ford pardoned Nixon and there was no trial no less a conviction. What gives?


Well technically Ford did not pardon Nixon and technically Ford did pardon Nixon.


Technically, what Ford issued was a Special Amnesty for Nixon, meaning that the federal government won’t prosecute Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. Amnesties are way better than Pardons as the issue of guilt never comes up. So why does everyone believe Ford pardoned Nixon?


Well Pardons are easier to understand and spell than Amnesty for one thing, but the real reason is that due to a circular definition, Amnesty is a type of Pardon… even though technically Amnesty is a type of Clemency, which is even harder to understand and spell. So to be really accurate, Ford issued Nixon a Type of Pardon, in which the specific type was a Special (limited) Amnesty. In the end, it really was a difference that made no difference.

This intermingling of the terms also appears in Ex Parte Garland 71 U.S. 333 (1866). It should be noted that this case only involved Mr. A.H. Garland. There is differing opinions whether this case established any precedent. This case becomes important later in this long and boring post of mine.

So now that we understand (kinda) that we are talking about Clemency, lets see what the Constitution says


“...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”


We can forgive the writers for the slightly inaccurate use of the terms Reprieves and Pardons. Word meanings and what they encompass can change. Rest assured that where the Constitution states Reprieves and Pardons, what they meant was Executive Clemency.


But let’s look at the other words. The next phrase is “for offenses against the United States..” This limits what the president can apply his or her powers of Clemency to. Offenses against the United States are usually violations of Federal Law.


The President does not have Executive Clemency powers where state laws are involved. That clemency power is held by the governor of the state where the crime was involved (and that can get complicated depending on the extent of the crime). A good way to find out if a specific case is an “offense against the United States" is to look at the case title.


If the title of the case is “The United States v. John Dough it is about an offense against the United States. If the case is “The State of Ohio v. John Dough, it is not an offense against the United States, but an offense against the State of Ohio.


Is there anything other than state and federal offenses? Yes.


There are Crimes against the Court. These include perjury (but often there is a companion federal law that prohibits perjury) and Contempt of Court. It needs to be recognized that there is a difference between Contempt of Court and Criminal Contempt of Court. The former is a crime against the court and the second is a crime against the state/federal government.

The President does not have Executive Clemency power concerning Crimes against the Court. Even if the President pardons a person from violating any federal laws about perjury, the court still maintains power over Crimes against the court.


A moments careful thought should illustrate the wisdom of this exclusion from Executive Clemency. If the president could pardon anyone who commits perjury or contempt of court, it would be impossible to hold the president accountable for any wrong doings.


There are also Crimes against Congress. These also include perjury and contempt. Yes Contempt of Congress is a crime, but fortunately only when under oath so pretty much all the citizens are safe. But in any case, the President does not have Executive Clemency power concerning Crimes against the Congress.


Again, a moments careful thought should illustrate the wisdom of this exclusion from Executive Clemency. If the president could pardon anyone who commits perjury or contempt of congress, it would be impossible to hold the president accountable for any wrong doings.


The final phrase in the constitutional article is “except in Cases of Impeachment.”. Impeachment is a power of the congress and the the President does not have Executive Clemency power concerning impeachment.


Once again, a moments careful thought should illustrate the wisdom of this exclusion from Executive Clemency.


Can the President Pardon him or herself?


Yes and no. It depends on if Ex Parte Garland established precedence.
If it did then yes

If, however, Ex Parte Garland did not establish precedence, then no.

However, any presidential pardon will have no effect on any impeachment proceedings as impeachment is a power reserved to the Legislative Branch.

Some facts to consider:

1. The president enjoys a temporary immunity from prosecution of state and federal crimes during their time in office. This immunity used to cover immunity from civil prosecution but that was removed during the Bill Clinton administration. So if the president has temporary immunity from prosecution, there can’t be a conviction and therefore no way to pardon.


2. The president can, however, be impeached. As stated in the Constitution, the President does not have the power to issue pardons in cases of impeachment. Once the president is successfully impeached (meaning convicted), he or she is no longer the president and therefore has no Executive Clemency powers at all.

The only effect of a president pardoning him or herself will be that after they leave office, he or she would not be able to be tried for any of the crimes for which they received a pardon. The Supreme Court would certainly become involved in evaluating whether a president can pardon themselves.

Can the president issue a special amnesty on him or herself?


Now that’s an interesting question. Fortunately, the answer is no and the answer is not contained in the Constitution. There is a long standing tenet of Natural Justice that "no-one should be a judge in his own cause". If you want to impress people, that would be nemo judex in sua causa.

Chicks dig guys that can speak Latin....no, I can't back that up. They mostly just roll their eyes at you.

Well, technically, the president can issue a special amnesty on themselves. But there would be an excellent chance of impeachment as this would truly be flaunting presidential power over the law. Also, just as with a self-pardon, the SCotUS will become involved.

Just like a pardon, self-issuing a special amnesty won't prevent congress from using their authority to impeach.

This is one of the examples of why the interpretation of the Constitution can not be limited to only the words contained in the constitution but must incorporate those tenets that the writers felt did not need to be repeated. If a constitution were to list every single tenet, the document would be hundreds of pages long. This is why ScotUS justices spend most of their time reading both US and foreign case studies. If interpreting the constitution were just based on the text, we would not need a Supreme Court and sure would not need so many justices to agree.


Most likely much more than you ever wanted to know about Clemency. By the way, the same restrictions that apply to the President also apply to the individual Governors with respect to their legislation and courts.


So when you read that the president can pardon anyone for anything, they are mistaken. A great deal of thought has gone in to the balance of allowing Executive Clemency but also protecting against its abuse. Not a perfect system, but one that all the political parties in our country have used for their advantage.

[mapuc]

I....I...I'....m speechless

Trying to get a grip of all this interesting information you have given me as an response to my question.

I tried to remember what you wrote back in July 2017, but I had to give up.

Ex Parte Garland established precedence

In your answer you wrote

"Yes and no. It depends on if Ex Parte Garland established precedence.
If it did then yes"

Lets say it does and Trump pardon him self.

Then a new question came into my mind
The Republican have majority in Congress and in the Senate right now.

Lets assume the Democrats wins the mid-term election. Can they as they have the majority in Congress and the Senate overrule this
Pardon and impeach the President ?

(I have the feeling you have given me the answer in your response)

Edit:
I may have found it.

"he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment "

Don't know if was the right part I copied

End of Edit.

Markus