Some might turn to violence for a bit - might have a seige situation in Oregon again, a bit of rioting. Nothing we haven't seen before.
I once asked my host father, who was a grunt in Korea and a junior officer in Vietnam, whether he ever killed someone. He said he probably did in those wars, but he didn't know for sure. He did know for sure that he shot someone during the Watts Riots in LA. He saw the guy drop.
The USA is a far more fractured and violent place than Australia. Then again, we are only 25mil.
Sorry if I've missed this previously, but is violence a real concern if Trump was to be lawfully removed? Would his supporters turn to violent means to express their dissatisfaction?
edit: I am not saying this is a reason NOT to do it; I'm more interested in what the outcomes could be and how they could be mitigated.
I have wondered this, but I'm not convinced. I think the remaining True Trumpeters are shrinking in number in some places, and for many others, I think this is simple Reality Show entertainment -- a way to have a celebrity express for them the anger and disillusionment they feel at being left behind (politically, that is, not religiously), and which they're too hemmed in from all sides to express directly. There may be some outbreaks of violence, but they'll be localized and relatively small. Though that will be no comfort to anyone killed or maimed in the process.
Yep. This circles back to my question: is there a constituency that this is likely to work on?
Yes. Low information voters who tend to go Republican but are uncomfortable erratic viciousness. The modern conservative electoral strategy seems to revolve around shaving off just enough votes in critical constituencies to squeak through, so there don't have to be a lot of these voters, just enough in the right, carefully gerrymandered Congressional districts.
But the op ed goes out of its way to emphasize Trump's erratic behavior:
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
If you're trying to be reassuring, I don't think you want your message to be "it's a real shit-show, folks - bad enough that we were essentially considering having him declared insane - but still a few of us anonymous cowards are barely keeping it together!"
It seems a lot more straightforward to just deny the chaos (as is the press secretary's habit) and reassure them that anything that doesn't sound like winning is just fake news and Democrats whining. They're low information Republican voters (by hypothesis) - they're not looking for trouble and they want to believe, so just tell them the lies that will make them feel better.
Sorry if I've missed this previously, but is violence a real concern if Trump was to be lawfully removed? Would his supporters turn to violent means to express their dissatisfaction?
edit: I am not saying this is a reason NOT to do it; I'm more interested in what the outcomes could be and how they could be mitigated.
I think the problem is that any removal of Trump is likely to be seen as highly political. Impeachment is a political, not a judicial act, and Trump has spent most of his time since being sworn in branding the Mueller investigation political.
People are likely to see any removal of Trump not as a neutral, sensible, lawful, and legal action to safeguard the nation's higher interests but as a nasty political manoeuvre which would create some terrible precedents.
Nixon at least had the decency to resign before such a process could get too far. Trump is not the same kind of personality.
People are likely to see any removal of Trump not as a neutral, sensible, lawful, and legal action to safeguard the nation's higher interests but as a nasty political manoeuvre which would create some terrible precedents.
Nixon at least had the decency to resign before such a process could get too far. Trump is not the same kind of personality.
Whether people see this as legal/judicial or political dirty tricks is likely immaterial. Either will probably be seen as yet another episode in a sort of reality show played out on the TV news in distant Washington, far removed from their own daily lives.
It would be interesting to know how far recent rally attendees traveled to get into those events; it might tell us something their levels of commitment to the Dear Leader.
But the op ed goes out of its way to emphasize Trump's erratic behavior:
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
If you're trying to be reassuring, I don't think you want your message to be "it's a real shit-show, folks - bad enough that we were essentially considering having him declared insane - but still a few of us anonymous cowards are barely keeping it together!"
It seems a lot more straightforward to just deny the chaos (as is the press secretary's habit) and reassure them that anything that doesn't sound like winning is just fake news and Democrats whining. They're low information Republican voters (by hypothesis) - they're not looking for trouble and they want to believe, so just tell them the lies that will make them feel better.
"Low information" does not mean "no information". The author seems to have concluded that we've reached the point where it's no longer convincing to point out the finery of the Emperor's new wardrobe. The fallback position is to admit that yes, the Emperor wanders around buck naked but there's no cause for concern since he's surrounded by courtiers who can (mostly) make sure he doesn't leave the palace grounds and might be able, if no one presses the whole "nudity" point too much, to convince him to at least put on a bathrobe for important occasions. It's not an ideal solution, but it's what was easily to hand. Or, to quote another tale about a similar circumstance:
Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.
"Low information" does not mean "no information". The author seems to have concluded that we've reached the point where it's no longer convincing to point out the finery of the Emperor's new wardrobe.
And I think this is a dubious assumption at best - there seem to be a growing constituency of people who don't mind that the Emperor is wearing no clothes so long as his nakedness upsets other people even more than it upsets them.
Resigning rather than being impeached strikes me as marginally more respectful of the institution than trying to take it down in flames with you when the game is up.
And I think this is a dubious assumption at best - there seem to be a growing constituency of people who don't mind that the Emperor is wearing no clothes so long as his nakedness upsets other people even more than it upsets them.
As I said, the true believers don't need any reassurance and the op-ed wasn't aimed at them.
Resigning rather than being impeached strikes me as marginally more respectful of the institution than trying to take it down in flames with you when the game is up.
I'm not so sure there's an inherent "decency" in saying "you can't fire me, I quit!", especially if you're going to be fired for cause and even more especially if doing so is a way to evade the consequences of your actions.
Resigning rather than being impeached strikes me as marginally more respectful of the institution than trying to take it down in flames with you when the game is up.
This is key. Nixon was a crook and his resignation was almost certainly partially self-serving but was also better for the republic than a Senate Trial.
So here's a hypothetical (Or not):
Mueller reports multiple impeachable acts. The Democratic congress votes to impeach... anyone wanna offer odds on Trump resigning?
This is key. Nixon was a crook and his resignation was almost certainly partially self-serving but was also better for the republic than a Senate Trial.
I've never been convinced of this oft-repeated piece of conventional wisdom. The fact that Nixon was never held accountable for his crimes and abuses of power seems to have imparted the lesson that "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", at least to the Republican party. (Offer void if the president has a D after his name.) You can draw a pretty straight line from Watergate (where the president got off scot free) to Iran-Contra (where not just the president got off but none of his advisors did jail time either) to the Bush administration's lies about Iraq WMDs (and at that point such things weren't even considered 'wrong' anymore).
Why does Trump believe that, as president*, he's above the law? Because the past four decades have taught him that lesson. I'm not convinced that this is "better for the republic" than actually holding high officials liable for their acts.
Why does Trump believe that, as president*, he's above the law? Because the past four decades have taught him that lesson. I'm not convinced that this is "better for the republic" than actually holding high officials liable for their acts.
I'd be more persuaded by this argument if there were any reasonably current evidence that Trump is capable of learning. I suspect he actually "learned" he's above whatever-passes-for-law-in-the-circumstances before hitting kindergarten and nothing has penetrated since.
And I think this is a dubious assumption at best - there seem to be a growing constituency of people who don't mind that the Emperor is wearing no clothes so long as his nakedness upsets other people even more than it upsets them.
As I said, the true believers don't need any reassurance and the op-ed wasn't aimed at them.
They will nevertheless sigh deeply and vote on party lines, and then write columns about civility.
How well the rule of law operates at these high levels is a key issue. Noting additionally that America has threatened the international criminal court (ICC). Everything being legal if the powerful do it, whether leaders or nationals.
What? The person who said he might not concede if Hillary would win the election? I don't think his narcissistic thoughts would even entertain that idea for half a second.
So here's a hypothetical (Or not):
Mueller reports multiple impeachable acts. The Democratic congress votes to impeach... anyone wanna offer odds on Trump resigning?
Not if Bannon is still somehow whispering in his ear or if Trump half-remembers some of his spiel. And besides, Trump will wriggle and wriggle and sow more havoc as he does so, eyeing the ratings.
Trump would need a deal in order to resign. Like a pardon for Don Jr and maybe himself.
Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days" suggests otherwise, but I did wonder whether Nixon was on a "nod and a wink" re Ford's subsequent pardon. As an ex-President, following a successful impeachment, I think he could still have been an indicted co-conspirator and I wouldn't have fancied his chances in front of a jury.
Yes, he did save the country the misery of a full-scale impeachment event, and that was probably better. But I think his resignation was probably in his best interests as well.
Yes, he did save the country the misery of a full-scale impeachment event, and that was probably better.
The U.S. has one of the most punitive justice systems in the world. In part this is because of the efforts of Richard Nixon initiating the "War on [ some classes of people who use certain types of ] Drugs". But for some reason all this gets put aside when there's the prospect that someone rich, powerful, or both might be put through the same system. I'd say that having a blatantly two-tiered system of justice is even more miserable than the prospect of expecting America to face up to the reality of high crimes by high officials.
What? The person who said he might not concede if Hillary would win the election? I don't think his narcissistic thoughts would even entertain that idea for half a second.
Yep this. Hence the comparator with Nixon in which Tricky Dicky looks good.
I've never been convinced of this oft-repeated piece of conventional wisdom. The fact that Nixon was never held accountable for his crimes and abuses of power seems to have imparted the lesson that "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", at least to the Republican party.
I completely agree with the conclusion but not the attribution. The problem here is the full and free pardon that was granted not the manner in which he stopped being president. As @Barnabas62 said, there is evidence that this wasn't some sort of deal but suspicions that a 'go quietly and we'll give you a pardon' may have played some part in it are inevitable. In which case, that potentially undermines my point completely, I think. Let's put it like this; resigning and avoiding the trial before the Senate was probably a good thing in itself but if the price was the pardon then it wasn't worth it. However, circling back, I am very much of the view that Trump won't resign no matter what...
Croesos is right, there is an element of "two tier" in this.
I think the legal complication remains the limits of executive privilege. What are those limits?
There was a spoof draft opinion written by one of the clerks to one of the Supreme Court Justices (Marshall I think) at the time of the Nixon decision. From memory, (it's in "The Final Days") the spoof went something like this.
The Supreme Court affirms the wide discretion granted to the President under the doctrine of Executive Privilege. These powers are necessary for the effective and prompt exercise of the constitutional powers of the office.
However in this case, we're going to rule differently, because Nixon is a crook and somebody should throw his ass in jail.
Actions which would be considered a crime but for the doctrine of Executive Privilege may not be while the President is in office. Given those actions took place while in office, I don't think anybody knows for sure whether he could be could be prosecuted, even if those actions led to successful impeachment.
Actions which would be considered a crime but for the doctrine of Executive Privilege may not be while the President is in office.
Just to be clear "executive privilege" is constitutional term of art meaning the ability of the president (and other members of the executive branch) to resist certain subpœnas issued Congress or the judiciary. It's somewhat similar to the idea that communications between an attorney and a client are "privileged" from discovery via subpœna. In Nixon's case the question was whether a sitting president can be compelled to produce documents (audio tapes, plus some paper documents) by a judicial subpœna. The Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, stated that whatever the scope of executive privilege it doesn't go that far.
"Executive privilege" is definitely not a doctrine that extends to criminal activities beyond resisting subpœnas. Somewhat problematically for Constitutional originalists executive privilege is not explicitly granted by the Constitution.
The President can 'obstruct justice' by denying access to information using a claim of executive privilege. Isn't it still pretty fuzzy how far he can go down that road?
If Trump becomes a convicted co-conspirator and moves to Mar-a-lago to nurse his wounds and is pardoned by President Pence, will he be able to vote in Florida?
It would be interesting to know how far recent rally attendees traveled to get into those events; it might tell us something their levels of commitment to the Dear Leader.
Do you have to pay to get into those events, or can you just turn up and make faces like that wonderful kid in the plaid shirt?
Also, speaking of the Dear Leader, what do people make of the idea of a second summit? Is kim going in for a second bite before Pompeo can find a straitjacket to fit over Trump's belly?
I can't believe he fist pumped at the ceremony for Sept 11.
edit: got wrong news
According to CNN he fist pumped after he got off the plane when travelling to the ceremony in Pennsylvania and was being greeted by supporters. That's near enough the ceremony for me to think he's a disrespectful arse.
And I see that yesterday he tweeted out a year-old picture of a 9/11 commemoration at the White House. Whether that's "lying" (the Daily Mail's angle) or not, it seems to me to be at least so incompetent and careless that it's just as insulting.
A point not reflected anywhere critically, as far as I can tell, is that he also began yesterday by railing on Twitter against the Russia-conspiracy investigation.
I can't believe he fist pumped at the ceremony for Sept 11.
edit: got wrong news
According to CNN he fist pumped after he got off the plane when travelling to the ceremony in Pennsylvania and was being greeted by supporters. That's near enough the ceremony for me to think he's a disrespectful arse.
In the oral evidence in United States v Nixon the exchanges between the Justices and James St Clair (for Nixon) provide some fascinating insights into the limits of immunity and executive privilege.
Of particular note is the exchange between Thurgood Marshall and James St Clair (for Nixon) at 2 hours 18-20. Also Special Prosecutor's Number 2 (Philip Lacovara) does an excellent job of responding to the detailed questions from Justices. His exchanges with the Justices last about half an hour (from about 2 hours 23 forwards) but I found listening to them to be time well spent. Lacovara is generally reckoned to have done much better than Special Prosecutor Jaworski (and better than St Clair) in addressing the issues of law.
The other thing that I found really interesting recently was an interview with Walter Dellinger on Slow Burn Plus.* He's the Department of Justice lawyer who argued for Clinton before the Supreme Court in Clinton vs Jones.
The argument here is that because of how Article 2 confers all the powers of the President in one person only (absent the later 25th amendment) litigation is a threat to the effectiveness of the President because of the burden of defending a lawsuit and the risk of political harassment by enemies. The counter-argument (which won, of course) is that the President is not above the law.
This is a civil matter but it is arguably a relevant precedent when arguing whether a president can be indicted. The other key decision presumably is Nixon vs Fitzgerald which grants the President immunity from civil liability stemming from official acts as President. Included in this ruling is a specific emphasis by the SCOTUS that this does NOT give the President immunity from criminal charges.
What's really interesting about Dellinger is his thoughts on the matter. He felt at the time and for some time afterwards that the SCOTUS was wrong because the Justices did not have any insight into how distracting defending a lawsuit could be and how much of the President's time would be taken up with such a matter. (And to be clear the argument was never that the president couldn't be sued but purely that the proceedings should be held in abeyance until after the President left office. Conversely, from teaching law in China, he learned from his students' reflections that Clinton vs Jones was a really powerful statement that the President is not above the law and that on balance this was more important than the potential threat to the President's ability to carry out his executive functions.
As an aside, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Jones' case, some part of this was clearly highly political as Clinton offered a settlement that was basically everything Jones was asking for that was turned down. Jones's original lawyers resigned from the case at this point. And as we all know it was the testimony given in this case that was taken on by Starr to Impeach Clinton.
AFZ
*Slow Burn is an excellent Podcast on Impeachment - series 1 last year told the story of Nixon and Watergate. Series 2 is telling the story of Clinton's Impeachment. This interview is in the 'Plus' episodes and thus only available to SlatePlus subscribers sadly.
A quick footnote re Lacovara in the light of some exchanges above. When Ford pardoned Nixon, Lacovara resigned in protest. After listening to the tapes, he was convinced that justice would have been best served by the Special Prosecutor indicting Nixon, but Jaworski thought otherwise. Lacovara was a Republican.
Self interest amongst elected representatives makes them fearful of offending their voter base. 80% of which think Trump is doing a good job. That is the reality behind their silence.
It changes only when the other electors show he is no longer a winner. Then self-interest switches. Trump is seen to be a liability. Then the knives come out.
Does this show a lack of integrity? Moral malleability? Sure it does.
Its easy to forget (because Trump wants us to forget) that Comey and Mueller are Republicans.
As far as I recall Trump was a kind of Democrat supporter until it dawned on him that he could only get nominated by the Republican Party (in a poor year) and elected by supporters of that party. He's whatever he chooses to be.
Its easy to forget (because Trump wants us to forget) that Comey and Mueller are Republicans.
As far as I recall Trump was a kind of Democrat supporter until it dawned on him that he could only get nominated by the Republican Party (in a poor year) and elected by supporters of that party. He's whatever he chooses to be.
Yep, I got the free-sample of Woodward's book on Kindle to decide if I wanted to get it. It tells of a first meeting between Bannon and Trump in 2010 in which Trump undertakes to ensure that he donates more to Republican candidates and in the course of what sounds like 3 minutes goes from being 'pro-choice' to 'pro-life' in order to be acceptable to the GOP base. The point is that he had previously donated to mostly Democrats and was apparently all in favour of a woman's right to choose
On the eve of major weather events and major risks to life and limb, President Trump has decided to declare war on the official study by George Washinston University (Miliken Institute) - a study commissioned by the governor of Puerto Rico. The governor has accepted the study. But because the President has claimed an "unsung success" the report, its analysis, and its recommendations must be a Democratic plot aimed at making him look bad.
Consider this in which we find the following quotation.
In a statement, the White House said the federal government supported the governor's efforts to "ensure a full accountability and transparency of fatalities" in the hurricane.
Another example of the Trump approach to the truth.
DonaldJTrump
3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000...
I guess he doesn't realize that dead people have a way of keeping quiet about themselves until they're discovered.
Of course, his idea of "unsung success" is 3000 dead brown-skinned people. Three thousand dead orange-haired people would be an "unmitigated disaster."
If you read the detailed report, it is pretty clear that there were several deficiencies in the way the original death statistics were collected. So the lower figures were related at least in part to bad data collection. In Trump's mind, lower figures make him and his claims look good. So he'd rather go with bad stats which support him than good stats that don't.
That's an "alternative facts" story we've heard before.
If you read the detailed report, it is pretty clear that there were several deficiencies in the way the original death statistics were collected. So the lower figures were related at least in part to bad data collection. In Trump's mind, lower figures make him and his claims look good. So he'd rather go with bad stats which support him than good stats that don't.
That's an "alternative facts" story we've heard before.
Yep, I've just been scanning through it. It's not really my area of expertise but I often read epidemiological data in a different context. The key here is the very significant mortality in the aftermath of the hurricane. How does one decide if a death is attributable or not? Just a little reflection shows that it's not actually straight-forward. Consider, if tree is blown over and falls on your car then that's clearly a hurricane death. Conversely if its your thyroid cancer and you just happened to die on the same day then it's probably not.
But what if you didn't have clean water or sanitation after the hurricane and then developed dysentery? In which case, clearly it's the hurricane that led to your death. It then gets a little more subtle as someone with a life-threatening pneumonia may or may not survive in any situation but when the healthcare resources are severely over-stretched then demonstrably the survival chances go down. It's usually impossible to unpick which particular individuals are thus afflicted but on the population level, it's actually quite straight-forward. Allowing for seasonal variations etc, we can say that in this time period we would expect x number of deaths; we had y deaths. y-x=excess mortality.
Why does that matter? Well, for the most part, these are deaths due to modifiable factors. Whilst natural disasters do disproportionately affect the poor, if a hurricane hits where you live, the chances of serious injury and death and quite high for everyone. But once the hurricane has passed, the wealthy person/population has access to all they need to get on with their lives. The poor are often left without shelter, sanitation, clean water or food. The cause of these life-threatening afflictions is clearly the hurricane but also they are something we (the human race) or more specifically the government of the richest nation of earth can do something about.
I donated to one of the relief charities for Puerto Rico. I don't say that to show off - I couldn't tell you how much, because I can't remember but I am willing to bet that I gave more than one of the richest men in the world who happens to also be President. (This is based on his record of charitable donations to himself). My point here is that he was in a position to give a lot more than I or any other shipmate could (I suspect, I don't think we have any billionaires on board but I might be wrong). One can argue about the charitable imperative here but what is clearly his moral and constitutional responsibility is to direct and ensure the response of the United States government.
One could take the view that the deaths should not be held against Mr Trump. After all natural disasters happen and aside from the wider, more complex discussion about resources allocated to public safety and infrastructure, no president is able to control the weather. However, these deaths are Trump's responsibility as a proper post-disaster response would have prevented many of them. How many? Who can say, but the sooner that clean water, sanitation and shelter is restored, the sooner the over-stretched medical services receive vital supplies, the less people die. It's as simple as that.
And the reason I described the specific tweet as evil, is that the complete self-centredness of it when people have died and he is at least in some part responsible, is truly horrific.
So one final thought: God save the Carolinas. Because I don't know if your government will be there with what you need tomorrow.
He's one step away from a statement on Holocaust-denial.
I wish he was one step away from the loony bin. Keep dreaming, I know. In the meantime, he's trying to turn the rest of the planet into his very own personal loony bin, i.e. into what he thinks reality is.
Comments
I once asked my host father, who was a grunt in Korea and a junior officer in Vietnam, whether he ever killed someone. He said he probably did in those wars, but he didn't know for sure. He did know for sure that he shot someone during the Watts Riots in LA. He saw the guy drop.
The USA is a far more fractured and violent place than Australia. Then again, we are only 25mil.
I have wondered this, but I'm not convinced. I think the remaining True Trumpeters are shrinking in number in some places, and for many others, I think this is simple Reality Show entertainment -- a way to have a celebrity express for them the anger and disillusionment they feel at being left behind (politically, that is, not religiously), and which they're too hemmed in from all sides to express directly. There may be some outbreaks of violence, but they'll be localized and relatively small. Though that will be no comfort to anyone killed or maimed in the process.
It seems a lot more straightforward to just deny the chaos (as is the press secretary's habit) and reassure them that anything that doesn't sound like winning is just fake news and Democrats whining. They're low information Republican voters (by hypothesis) - they're not looking for trouble and they want to believe, so just tell them the lies that will make them feel better.
I think the problem is that any removal of Trump is likely to be seen as highly political. Impeachment is a political, not a judicial act, and Trump has spent most of his time since being sworn in branding the Mueller investigation political.
People are likely to see any removal of Trump not as a neutral, sensible, lawful, and legal action to safeguard the nation's higher interests but as a nasty political manoeuvre which would create some terrible precedents.
Nixon at least had the decency to resign before such a process could get too far. Trump is not the same kind of personality.
Whether people see this as legal/judicial or political dirty tricks is likely immaterial. Either will probably be seen as yet another episode in a sort of reality show played out on the TV news in distant Washington, far removed from their own daily lives.
It would be interesting to know how far recent rally attendees traveled to get into those events; it might tell us something their levels of commitment to the Dear Leader.
"Low information" does not mean "no information". The author seems to have concluded that we've reached the point where it's no longer convincing to point out the finery of the Emperor's new wardrobe. The fallback position is to admit that yes, the Emperor wanders around buck naked but there's no cause for concern since he's surrounded by courtiers who can (mostly) make sure he doesn't leave the palace grounds and might be able, if no one presses the whole "nudity" point too much, to convince him to at least put on a bathrobe for important occasions. It's not an ideal solution, but it's what was easily to hand. Or, to quote another tale about a similar circumstance:
Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor!
And I think this is a dubious assumption at best - there seem to be a growing constituency of people who don't mind that the Emperor is wearing no clothes so long as his nakedness upsets other people even more than it upsets them.
Resigning rather than being impeached strikes me as marginally more respectful of the institution than trying to take it down in flames with you when the game is up.
As I said, the true believers don't need any reassurance and the op-ed wasn't aimed at them.
I'm not so sure there's an inherent "decency" in saying "you can't fire me, I quit!", especially if you're going to be fired for cause and even more especially if doing so is a way to evade the consequences of your actions.
This is key. Nixon was a crook and his resignation was almost certainly partially self-serving but was also better for the republic than a Senate Trial.
So here's a hypothetical (Or not):
Mueller reports multiple impeachable acts. The Democratic congress votes to impeach... anyone wanna offer odds on Trump resigning?
AFZ
I've never been convinced of this oft-repeated piece of conventional wisdom. The fact that Nixon was never held accountable for his crimes and abuses of power seems to have imparted the lesson that "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal", at least to the Republican party. (Offer void if the president has a D after his name.) You can draw a pretty straight line from Watergate (where the president got off scot free) to Iran-Contra (where not just the president got off but none of his advisors did jail time either) to the Bush administration's lies about Iraq WMDs (and at that point such things weren't even considered 'wrong' anymore).
Why does Trump believe that, as president*, he's above the law? Because the past four decades have taught him that lesson. I'm not convinced that this is "better for the republic" than actually holding high officials liable for their acts.
I'd be more persuaded by this argument if there were any reasonably current evidence that Trump is capable of learning. I suspect he actually "learned" he's above whatever-passes-for-law-in-the-circumstances before hitting kindergarten and nothing has penetrated since.
They will nevertheless sigh deeply and vote on party lines, and then write columns about civility.
Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days" suggests otherwise, but I did wonder whether Nixon was on a "nod and a wink" re Ford's subsequent pardon. As an ex-President, following a successful impeachment, I think he could still have been an indicted co-conspirator and I wouldn't have fancied his chances in front of a jury.
Yes, he did save the country the misery of a full-scale impeachment event, and that was probably better. But I think his resignation was probably in his best interests as well.
The U.S. has one of the most punitive justice systems in the world. In part this is because of the efforts of Richard Nixon initiating the "War on [ some classes of people who use certain types of ] Drugs". But for some reason all this gets put aside when there's the prospect that someone rich, powerful, or both might be put through the same system. I'd say that having a blatantly two-tiered system of justice is even more miserable than the prospect of expecting America to face up to the reality of high crimes by high officials.
Yep this. Hence the comparator with Nixon in which Tricky Dicky looks good.
I completely agree with the conclusion but not the attribution. The problem here is the full and free pardon that was granted not the manner in which he stopped being president. As @Barnabas62 said, there is evidence that this wasn't some sort of deal but suspicions that a 'go quietly and we'll give you a pardon' may have played some part in it are inevitable. In which case, that potentially undermines my point completely, I think. Let's put it like this; resigning and avoiding the trial before the Senate was probably a good thing in itself but if the price was the pardon then it wasn't worth it. However, circling back, I am very much of the view that Trump won't resign no matter what...
AFZ
I think the legal complication remains the limits of executive privilege. What are those limits?
There was a spoof draft opinion written by one of the clerks to one of the Supreme Court Justices (Marshall I think) at the time of the Nixon decision. From memory, (it's in "The Final Days") the spoof went something like this.
Actions which would be considered a crime but for the doctrine of Executive Privilege may not be while the President is in office. Given those actions took place while in office, I don't think anybody knows for sure whether he could be could be prosecuted, even if those actions led to successful impeachment.
Just to be clear "executive privilege" is constitutional term of art meaning the ability of the president (and other members of the executive branch) to resist certain subpœnas issued Congress or the judiciary. It's somewhat similar to the idea that communications between an attorney and a client are "privileged" from discovery via subpœna. In Nixon's case the question was whether a sitting president can be compelled to produce documents (audio tapes, plus some paper documents) by a judicial subpœna. The Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, stated that whatever the scope of executive privilege it doesn't go that far.
"Executive privilege" is definitely not a doctrine that extends to criminal activities beyond resisting subpœnas. Somewhat problematically for Constitutional originalists executive privilege is not explicitly granted by the Constitution.
If Trump becomes a convicted co-conspirator and moves to Mar-a-lago to nurse his wounds and is pardoned by President Pence, will he be able to vote in Florida?
@Ohher wrote:
Do you have to pay to get into those events, or can you just turn up and make faces like that wonderful kid in the plaid shirt?
Also, speaking of the Dear Leader, what do people make of the idea of a second summit? Is kim going in for a second bite before Pompeo can find a straitjacket to fit over Trump's belly?
edit: got wrong news
According to CNN he fist pumped after he got off the plane when travelling to the ceremony in Pennsylvania and was being greeted by supporters. That's near enough the ceremony for me to think he's a disrespectful arse.
And I see that yesterday he tweeted out a year-old picture of a 9/11 commemoration at the White House. Whether that's "lying" (the Daily Mail's angle) or not, it seems to me to be at least so incompetent and careless that it's just as insulting.
A point not reflected anywhere critically, as far as I can tell, is that he also began yesterday by railing on Twitter against the Russia-conspiracy investigation.
He has no class and no dignity. None.
Presidential immunity?
AFZ
And what visit to a mass casualty site doesn't call for mugging for the camera and a big thumbs up?
Thank you for that link. Simultaneously depressing and deeply comical.
In the twitter thread there's a comment, "It's like Ron Burgundy is president now...." Excellent.
This link may only be for you and me!
In the oral evidence in United States v Nixon the exchanges between the Justices and James St Clair (for Nixon) provide some fascinating insights into the limits of immunity and executive privilege.
Of particular note is the exchange between Thurgood Marshall and James St Clair (for Nixon) at 2 hours 18-20. Also Special Prosecutor's Number 2 (Philip Lacovara) does an excellent job of responding to the detailed questions from Justices. His exchanges with the Justices last about half an hour (from about 2 hours 23 forwards) but I found listening to them to be time well spent. Lacovara is generally reckoned to have done much better than Special Prosecutor Jaworski (and better than St Clair) in addressing the issues of law.
You may well be right
The other thing that I found really interesting recently was an interview with Walter Dellinger on Slow Burn Plus.* He's the Department of Justice lawyer who argued for Clinton before the Supreme Court in Clinton vs Jones.
The argument here is that because of how Article 2 confers all the powers of the President in one person only (absent the later 25th amendment) litigation is a threat to the effectiveness of the President because of the burden of defending a lawsuit and the risk of political harassment by enemies. The counter-argument (which won, of course) is that the President is not above the law.
This is a civil matter but it is arguably a relevant precedent when arguing whether a president can be indicted. The other key decision presumably is Nixon vs Fitzgerald which grants the President immunity from civil liability stemming from official acts as President. Included in this ruling is a specific emphasis by the SCOTUS that this does NOT give the President immunity from criminal charges.
What's really interesting about Dellinger is his thoughts on the matter. He felt at the time and for some time afterwards that the SCOTUS was wrong because the Justices did not have any insight into how distracting defending a lawsuit could be and how much of the President's time would be taken up with such a matter. (And to be clear the argument was never that the president couldn't be sued but purely that the proceedings should be held in abeyance until after the President left office. Conversely, from teaching law in China, he learned from his students' reflections that Clinton vs Jones was a really powerful statement that the President is not above the law and that on balance this was more important than the potential threat to the President's ability to carry out his executive functions.
As an aside, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Jones' case, some part of this was clearly highly political as Clinton offered a settlement that was basically everything Jones was asking for that was turned down. Jones's original lawyers resigned from the case at this point. And as we all know it was the testimony given in this case that was taken on by Starr to Impeach Clinton.
AFZ
*Slow Burn is an excellent Podcast on Impeachment - series 1 last year told the story of Nixon and Watergate. Series 2 is telling the story of Clinton's Impeachment. This interview is in the 'Plus' episodes and thus only available to SlatePlus subscribers sadly.
It changes only when the other electors show he is no longer a winner. Then self-interest switches. Trump is seen to be a liability. Then the knives come out.
Does this show a lack of integrity? Moral malleability? Sure it does.
This link is your link, this link is my link.....
rofl and [notworthy]
As far as I recall Trump was a kind of Democrat supporter until it dawned on him that he could only get nominated by the Republican Party (in a poor year) and elected by supporters of that party. He's whatever he chooses to be.
Yep, I got the free-sample of Woodward's book on Kindle to decide if I wanted to get it. It tells of a first meeting between Bannon and Trump in 2010 in which Trump undertakes to ensure that he donates more to Republican candidates and in the course of what sounds like 3 minutes goes from being 'pro-choice' to 'pro-life' in order to be acceptable to the GOP base. The point is that he had previously donated to mostly Democrats and was apparently all in favour of a woman's right to choose
AFZ
On the eve of major weather events and major risks to life and limb, President Trump has decided to declare war on the official study by George Washinston University (Miliken Institute) - a study commissioned by the governor of Puerto Rico. The governor has accepted the study. But because the President has claimed an "unsung success" the report, its analysis, and its recommendations must be a Democratic plot aimed at making him look bad.
Consider this in which we find the following quotation.
Another example of the Trump approach to the truth.
AFZ
Of course, his idea of "unsung success" is 3000 dead brown-skinned people. Three thousand dead orange-haired people would be an "unmitigated disaster."
That's an "alternative facts" story we've heard before.
Yep, I've just been scanning through it. It's not really my area of expertise but I often read epidemiological data in a different context. The key here is the very significant mortality in the aftermath of the hurricane. How does one decide if a death is attributable or not? Just a little reflection shows that it's not actually straight-forward. Consider, if tree is blown over and falls on your car then that's clearly a hurricane death. Conversely if its your thyroid cancer and you just happened to die on the same day then it's probably not.
But what if you didn't have clean water or sanitation after the hurricane and then developed dysentery? In which case, clearly it's the hurricane that led to your death. It then gets a little more subtle as someone with a life-threatening pneumonia may or may not survive in any situation but when the healthcare resources are severely over-stretched then demonstrably the survival chances go down. It's usually impossible to unpick which particular individuals are thus afflicted but on the population level, it's actually quite straight-forward. Allowing for seasonal variations etc, we can say that in this time period we would expect x number of deaths; we had y deaths. y-x=excess mortality.
Why does that matter? Well, for the most part, these are deaths due to modifiable factors. Whilst natural disasters do disproportionately affect the poor, if a hurricane hits where you live, the chances of serious injury and death and quite high for everyone. But once the hurricane has passed, the wealthy person/population has access to all they need to get on with their lives. The poor are often left without shelter, sanitation, clean water or food. The cause of these life-threatening afflictions is clearly the hurricane but also they are something we (the human race) or more specifically the government of the richest nation of earth can do something about.
I donated to one of the relief charities for Puerto Rico. I don't say that to show off - I couldn't tell you how much, because I can't remember but I am willing to bet that I gave more than one of the richest men in the world who happens to also be President. (This is based on his record of charitable donations to himself). My point here is that he was in a position to give a lot more than I or any other shipmate could (I suspect, I don't think we have any billionaires on board but I might be wrong). One can argue about the charitable imperative here but what is clearly his moral and constitutional responsibility is to direct and ensure the response of the United States government.
One could take the view that the deaths should not be held against Mr Trump. After all natural disasters happen and aside from the wider, more complex discussion about resources allocated to public safety and infrastructure, no president is able to control the weather. However, these deaths are Trump's responsibility as a proper post-disaster response would have prevented many of them. How many? Who can say, but the sooner that clean water, sanitation and shelter is restored, the sooner the over-stretched medical services receive vital supplies, the less people die. It's as simple as that.
And the reason I described the specific tweet as evil, is that the complete self-centredness of it when people have died and he is at least in some part responsible, is truly horrific.
So one final thought: God save the Carolinas. Because I don't know if your government will be there with what you need tomorrow.
AFZ