I guess I mostly agree with you, I think (?), except here:
I don’t think I fully agree with this. If some politician goes to say, Mexico, on official business and for photo ops to use for a re-election campaign, is that a criminal act? I don’t think so. Even if the official visit would not have happened but for re-election material, I wouldn’t say that’s criminal so long as there is a legitimate basis for the visit.
He’s the head of all federal law enforcement agencies, and were it not for the statutes which establish those agencies it would be the President himself who enforces the entirety of federal law.
ETA: I imagine he would nominate deputies for the Senate to confirm, despite the lack of a law establishing the office of deputy.
This is a distinction that hinges on accepted practice and execution of duties. The Chief of Police is just that – the chief, or highest ranking, law enforcement officer in a city. That the chief of policy ultimately answers to the Mayor doesn’t change that. Likewise the CIO is the chief information officer, and just because they answer to the CEO does not actually make the CEO an IT person.
The independence of the justice department is admittedly a convention and not a law, but an important one. The president may set the direction of the US law enforcement agencies via their various heads, but he is not a law enforcement agent himself.
So I’ve been checking out the Twitter accounts of my Republican senators. It wasn’t what I expected.
The comments are 99.9% negative. I was going to say 100% but I just saw one brief tweet from a supporter on Burrs account ( none on Tillis’s yet) so I’ll give him that. I love it. Thom Tillis is dropping his drawers for Trump on national TV and NO ONE has given him so much as a quick thank you.
Maybe their supporters post on their campaign accounts ?
OK, there’s a handful of supportive messages there, but it’s still about 90% negative.
Boy, these guys are putting it all in the line for Trump, aren’t they? It’s like they can’t get ANY votes unless the Gangster Clown God asks his worshippers for a favor.
For the first time in a long time, I’m optimistic.
Well, it is the President’s job to make sure the law is faithfully executed. That part is right there in his job description. Even the executive power itself, I’m not sure how you can separate enforcement of the law from execution of the law.
Max, I’ve researched this extensively and I’d like to see a cite for their being any precedent or procedure laid out for an “informal MLAT request”. MLAT is a treaty with signatories and it lays out terms and conditions. Its purpose is to protect American citizens from injustice in countries that no not conform to the rule of law.
I’m taking the position that the idea (excuse) of an “informal MLAT agreement” is up there with the idea of an “informal search warrant”. It does not exist except as the most misleading euphemism possible for “illegal law enforcement action”.
Well, they chose a bizarre way of going about that. “I’m going to stop giving you military assistance in order to guarantee that you won’t be strong-armed! And when you comply with my demands, the military assistance will resume!”
That theory of the crime – that holding up aid is an anti-corruption measure – isn’t credible on its face when we look at the facts that are universally agreed upon.
I meant that there is no reason for an adult to believe impotus was doing anything except his own business, and shafting the US in trying to manipulate the ukraine govt.
WHere do you think the rubber hits the road on any of these arguments? Where do they get decided and implemented, so that this discussion has a meaning for the real world and you aren’t just wasting your time?
It’s a judge that has to decide these things. You don’t even seem to be aware that they have a job to do in deciding the relevance or conversely the ridiculousness of any argument. Are you not seeing any riduculous in the arguments?
I refer to trump as toirnop sometimes. Or other spellings. It’s a hobby of mine.
Yes. He’s a civilian. He’s the commander but has no operative function except to be the commander. In fact that is the whole reason and point of having a civilian commander. If he goes beyond that it is a withering of democracy.
Well, it’s certainly not parts B or C or D or E or F, which all describe specific processes that weren’t followed in this case. And the only reason A might hold up marginally better than a snowball in Hell is that the phrase “shocks the judicial conscience” has ceased to have any meaning in the age of Trump.
Do you understand that Ukraine is not what is referred to “as a rule of law” country? Do you understand that Ukraine has a long tradition of using its judicial system for political persecution, much in the same way that Russia does? It’s not like he asked Great Britain for this “favor”.
I don’t know about you, but I think the most disturbing part of this story is Trump trying to set up his opponents son to be tortured and potentially murdered. You may think I’m being dramatic, but this stuff happens all the time in the former Soviet Republics, I’ve been following the stories since before Trump slithered down that escalator in 2015.
PM me if you want a reading list.
Perhaps I have done a poor job of relaying the defense argument. Biden/Burisma is not, in the defense theory, directly related to the withholding of funds. The defense argues that the withholding of funds was due to concerns about the new Ukrainian administration’s ability to fight corruption and concerns about foreign aid burden-sharing, both of which were apparently addressed to the President’s satisfaction in early September. Defense brief p.89-96, see also Sage Rat’s summary points 2 & 3 in post #78-[POST=22081782]79[/POST].
The defense cites VP Pence’s Sept. 1 talk with President Zelenskyy, the August 29 inauguration of the new Rada (Ukrainian parliament), the September 5 commencement of a High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, and finally the September 11 meeting between President Trump and Senator Portman as convincing the President to lift the pause on the aid. VP Pence’s talk was apparently the most significant factor. (So the theory is that the September 9 headlines are merely a coincidence.)