Hmm. I would say the administration wants to put out the narrative that it hasn’t done anything wrong and the process is unfair/illegitimate. I would say the connection is that both narratives are favorable to the administration.
I think you want me to recognize that both narratives are demonstrably false. I’m not there yet. I think it’s likely that the administration is guilty of wrongdoing, but “likely” isn’t the burden I want to meet. And I am personally for closed-door investigations.
That’s true, but until today I didn’t even know my argument was a bogus argument. It came from the White House, yes, but I don’t think the hour or two I put into researching house rules and court cases were wasted.
We’ll have to wait and see what that is evidence of, won’t we?
I concur that what was found did appear to be a large mound of fecal matter, and yes, a large bull was observed by multiple credible witnesses to be walking away from the pile with a satisfied look on his face. However, we cannot yet rule out the argument, put forth from the bull and his spokescattle, that a rogue gang of squirrels stacked their own turds in an effort to discredit the bull because they hate bovines and want to destroy everything the bull has accomplished— which, by the way, is more than any other bull has ever done, despite what the fake farm reports claim. #BrahmanHoax#NoExcretion
Why on earth do you think any reasonable person is still willing to “wait and see”? Why are you still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt?
In addition to the executive failings I outlined in post #3140, we can now add a new one - - fails to understand the most basic function of the house oversight committee and embarks on a misguided legal strategy because of it. There are 7th graders who understand civics better than this guy. How much longer do we need to let this example in Dunning Kruger play out?
Most? The founding fathers were the best-educated minds available. They had honor and courtly-behavior codes ingrained in them as befitted the elghteenth-century elite. Trump would have been seen as a boor of the first order whether he had power of any kind or not.
These “best-educated minds” would have had more of a problem with Obama as president most likely and that would have nothing to do with his temperament. Who knows how a bunch of racists would have reacted to that? Wait, we do know how a country of racists acted after a black president served eight years: They elected Trump so he could erase it all and make America great again. And some of them were not uneducated.
Sorry for the high-jack but I think we need to keep in mind that our framers had a lot of blind spots and who knows if one of them would have been big enough to drive a Trump through.
The DOJ makes the determination whether to prosecute, pending the result of an investigation. The FBI takes in allegations of criminal activities and performs the investigation.
The DOJ is the end point not the start point. If the FBI needs assistance from Ukraine, I would expect that they already have Ukrainian contacts and simply go talk to them directly.
If political pressure seems necessary, that might go up to the DOJ but, from there, I would expect it to go to State. But, even if the AG himself becomes involved in this effort and directly goes out to try his hand at being a diplomat directly with a foreign state, this would always be at the request of the FBI.
The DOJ is always at a much higher risk of politicization than the FBI, so it makes sense to ensure that laws have actually been broken before weighing whether to take someone to court. You can’t be charged that you’re simply executing a political hatchet job if a non-partisan organization has already vetted and ensured that there was in fact illegal activity, before it gets to that point.
(I suspect that it also allows the conscionable members of the DOJ a way to take clearly politicized requests like Benghazi and the Kavanaugh investigation, chuck them into the non-partisan FBI, and then be able to apologize to the boss that their hands are tied if the result comes back different than they want.)
Overall, it seems unlikely that Barr should be involved with this at all and specifically not in terms of going to Ukraine or acting as a diplomat. And if he is, as said, it should only be as the result of a clear request from the FBI. Nothing that I have seen has given me the sense that it was. That I can tell, the investigation until Hunter has been an investigation run by and within the DOJ itself in hand with the President’s personal lawyer. The DOJ is not an investigative force and there’s zilch reason for them to work alongside the President’s personal lawyer.
Unless I am drastically missing something, there is no explanation for this particular set of activities by the people involved for the reasons that they state that could be considered “non-corrupt”.
The cover story of having a high interest in fighting Ukrainian corruption is also not particularly plausible.
For one, the President appointed Elliott Broidy and Michael Cohen to the RNC finance committee. Broidy has a previous conviction for bribing politicians, paid off his mistress during the election so that she’d abort their baby during the 2016 election, he has since had his home searched by the FBI under warrant and seems likely to end up in jail for either funneling foreign money into the Trump Inauguration party, having a party in the 1MDB money laundering scandal, and/or bribing American officials to give him a defense contract working with Romania. Michael Cohen has similarly had his home searched by the FBI under warrant and has already gone to jail for a variety of financial crimes and campaign finance crimes - the latter of which he did with Trump at his order.
Secondly, Trump has explicitly stated that he thinks American anti-corruption law is bad. (Google “Trump fcpa”)
Third, it’s very circumspect that his focus on corruption should just happen to be a place where his political opponent might have a weak spot and he should just happen to use only that matter as an example when talking about the subject and, in fact, completely refrain from speaking of it as being an example or even mentioning the general concept of “corruption” at all - regardless of whatever he might say after the fact.
Help fight my ignorance, please. What is constitutional immunity? I’ve tried to look up what it means, but with little luck.
From an article discussing the Administration’s plans to claim conditional immunity for Kupperman, they merely say:
“Executive privilege can excuse people from discussing specific occurrences within the White House. But constitutional immunity can excuse those same people from having to testify at all.”
It doesn’t say what constitutional immunity actually is, or means, or to whom or to what situations it might apply. A Google search didn’t clear things up for me.
It would be helpful if you cited the article that used the phrase.
My belief is it’s another made-up privilege that Trump claims for himself and exists nowhere except his brain and those of his low-information followers, but I’d like to read the article and see the context they’re using.
ETA: They’ve been using a phrase, “blanket immunity,” and that’s another made-up thing. It doesn’t exist within a constitutional context. This is probably a different way to refer to the same made-up privilege.
LOL, I love how The Hill makes the statement about “constitutional immunity” as if it is an established legal precedent. So far as I can tell, it isn’t.
I skimmed the pleading and, subject as always to opinions of actual lawyers who enjoy a far better understanding of these matters than I do, it looks to me like Trump’s usual attempt to bootstrap “executive privilege” into a new, never-seen-before privilege of “constitutional immunity.”
Trump can certainly make valid claims of executive privilege, but they would attach only to matters involving national security (which discussions of extortion surely are not) and not for a corrupt purpose (which discussions of extortion surely are). Executive privilege is not a blanket privilege. It is reviewed on a document-by-document basis or a question-by-question basis in the case of testimony.
At least, that’s how things have been done up to now. If this reaches the SCOTUS, I guess we’ll learn exactly how activist they are willing to be on Trump’s behalf.
then he is almost as delusional as FPT*. NOTHING that has happened in the past three years supports the premise that DJT is capable of taking advice, PARTICULARLY when that advice tells him he is wrong.
Neither of these articles explains constitutional immunity, or clears up that it isn’t even a real thing. I hope whatever judge hears the suit asks the lawyers what the Sam Hill they are even talking about.