The Robert Mueller Investigation

[RomaVicta 29,774]

8 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

I realize Tahoe bashing is fun, but this seems like a pretty reasonable take on where we are at. I can’t find much to disagree with this.

 

Autobashing is not my favorite thing about Surly, and taking Tahoe's post at face value and out of context would lead many to your conclusion.

The problem is that this standard is only applied along the party line. Another problem is that you can use the standard all the way to the philosophical stance that nothing can really be known.

Mixed into a reasonable sounding post is the notion that the NY Times prints only facts that they "like." Oh, they're believable and everything except that they're prejudiced as to which facts they want to publish. With that stance about news sources, you can hold out forever that you don't have all the facts. That's the point of this fall back position.

Oh, I'm a reasonable person who only brings donuts to the meeting. I know the New York Times doesn't lie, but do they really want to print something they don't like? See. We all have to go to alternate sources who print the facts that they like which just happen to be the facts that I like and will support my seeming reasonable position of waiting on all the facts.

As he did in the Alabama senate race, Tahoe seems like he would stand before the burning building wondering if there really was a fire while everybody screaming from the windows either succumbed to the flames or leaped to their deaths.

I don't hate Tahoe. Over the years he has been a civil poster even if a very partisan one. I'd never consider putting him on ignore. He represents a lot of lost GOPs who can't tear themselves away from the changing dogma of the party. He stays in step.

Edited May 5, 2018 by RomaVicta

[bolverk 29,397]

33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It might not for the president. Donald Trump is doing his best to help us find out.

[Sawbonz 27,397]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit I don't understand the point of the emoluments clause if the President is immune from prosecution for violations thereof.  And that's what Trump is claiming.

Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books, but that law specifically exempts the president

 

If foreign govts are paying well over rack rate for his properties or booking rooms that are then not used then emoluments would be more clear cut  

China fast-tracking his patents or copyright or whatever they did could be as well if it can be shown they never do that for others and only did it as a favor to Trump as President, or if his companies have been awarded low-ball bids anywhere

There is no question his business actions break precedents going back decades at least and I have not heard an argument from anyone outside of trumps camp that his actions are ethical. Whether they are legal does seem to be a legitimate question 

And of course there is potentially a much lower bar with impeachment given the right political environment 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Sawbonz
Autocorrect all f’d up

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

...

The problem is that this standard is only applied along the party line....

Bull shit.  I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families.  I use it in life. 

There are some decisions we should make with partial information and judgement. There are other decisions which require getting the real facts.  Removing a President from office requires the facts.  We'll have them when Mueller reports.  I doubt if we will before then.  Trump's inappropriate behavior is not impeachable. 

His bizarre behavior will be impeachable if it is proven to be corrupt. There is no or scant evidence that it is corrupt.  Only strong suspicion.  (e.g. "He must have some deal with Putin" or "He The Russians must be blackmailing him".)

Again I challenge you to list an impeachable offense and your evidence.  For example if you think firing Comey was obstruction of justice tell me your evidence that it is corrupt.  Show me a deal with Russia or how he was protecting himself.  Suppose he had pardoned Flynn.  Would that have been an impeachable offense?  Show me something that isn't legal executive discretion, even if inappropriate unwise or sleazy.

[David Dennison 18,647]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Bull shit.  I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families.  I use it in life. 

There are some decisions we should make with partial information and judgement. There are other decisions which require getting the real facts.  Removing a President from office requires the facts.  We'll have them when Mueller reports.  I doubt if we will before then.  Trump's inappropriate behavior is not impeachable. 

His bizarre behavior will be impeachable if it is proven to be corrupt. There is no or scant evidence that it is corrupt.  Only strong suspicion.  (e.g. "He must have some deal with Putin" or "He The Russians must be blackmailing him".)

Again I challenge you to list an impeachable offense and your evidence.  For example if you think firing Comey was obstruction of justice tell me your evidence that it is corrupt.  Show me a deal with Russia or how he was protecting himself.  Suppose he had pardoned Flynn.  Would that have been an impeachable offense?  Show me something that isn't legal executive discretion, even if inappropriate unwise or sleazy.

You mean besides firing the FBI director because of the "Russia thing?" 

[retread 2,951]

 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

Quote

May 19, 2017
 WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You mean besides firing the FBI director because of the "Russia thing?" 

That is the prerogative of the President unless it is for a corrupt reason.  You need to explain your evidence of corruption.

[hobbes2702 12,797]

24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books, but that law specifically exempts the president

 

If foreign govts are paying well over rack rate for his properties or booking rooms that are then not used then emoluments would be more clear cut  

China fast-tracking his patents or copyright or whatever they did could be as well if it can be shown they never do that for others and only did it as a favor to Trump as President, or if his companies have been awarded low-ball bids anywhere

There is no question his business actions break precedents going back decades at least and I have not heard an argument from anyone outside of trumps camp that his actions are ethical. Whether they are legal does seem to be a legitimate question 

And of course there is potentially a much lower bar with impeachment given the right political environment 

My understanding is that the emoluments clause was intentionally broad to to ensure that any kind of profit or benefit is not gained.

And for Tahoe, the emoluments clause is the impeachable offense.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That is the prerogative of the President unless it is for a corrupt reason.  You need to explain your evidence of corruption.

Sure. The words that came out of President shitstain’s own mouth where he admits that he fired him for investigating Russian attempts to influence the election in favor of trump. He tried to stop a lawful investigation into an important matter that is in America’s interest because it potentially could harm his own personal interest. 

My God you are dense. 

[David Dennison 18,647]

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That is the prerogative of the President unless it is for a corrupt reason.  You need to explain your evidence of corruption.

I am of the opinion that firing James Comey to get him to stop looking into the "Russia thing" is evidence of corrupt intent.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, retread said:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

 

Yes.  Executives are fired by the thousands for reasons like that.  If the Ambassador to France doesn't get along with the French you might fire him to make the French happy.  That's not wrong.  It might be right.  But if you have a deal with the French to get a nice free estate on the Riviera and in return the French want a policy opposed by the Ambassador, you've got a problem.   It hinges on whether the reason is corrupt.  Show me the corruption.

Look, Mueller knows right now whether it was corrupt or not.  We'll find out.  We don't really know.  Those who hate Trump are sure it was.  Those who like him are sure it wasn't.  Even if I were sure it was I would want to wait for the evidence from Mueller.  Just like if I'm sure some heinous criminal is guilty I want to wait for the trial.  Our democracy demands that we do that.

I would VASTLY prefer Pence to Trump.  If the system had me choose I'd dump Trump.  But those are not the rules.  We need to provide the real evidence to the public.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sure. The words that came out of President shitstain’s own mouth where he admits that he fired him for investigating Russian attempts to influence the election in favor of trump. He tried to stop a lawful investigation into an important matter that is in America’s interest because it potentially could harm his own personal interest. 

My God you are dense. 

This has not been shown yet.

If Trump did nothing unseemly and he's mad because the investigation reflects poorly on him (it does), damages his ability to govern (it does), damages his chance to get reelected (it does) and damages his chances of improving relations with Russia (it does), then it would be totally appropriate for him to block the investigation.  He is the top executive.  He can have reasons you hate.  But he can't have corrupt reasons. 

You haven't shown me the personal interest it could harm.  The reasons listed above don't qualify.  Those are the legitimate interests of the President, not Trump the man.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

This has not been shown yet.

If Trump did nothing unseemly and he's mad because the investigation reflects poorly on him (it does), damages his ability to govern (it does), damages his chance to get reelected (it does) and damages his chances of improving relations with Russia (it does), then it would be totally appropriate for him to block the investigation.  He is the top executive.  He can have reasons you hate.  But he can't have corrupt reasons. 

You haven't shown me the personal interest it could harm.  The reasons listed above don't qualify.  Those are the legitimate interests of the President, not Trump the man.

I see. You believe the president should be allowed to shut down a legitimate investigation into something that legitimately could affects American interests because that investigation could reflect poorly on him. 

AAANNNDD...IIIII... think I’m done here. Good day sir! 

[TahoeHorn 107]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I am of the opinion that firing James Comey to get him to stop looking into the "Russia thing" is evidence of corrupt intent.

You need to explain why he didn't want Comey looking into the Russia thing.  If it was to stop him from finding out about bad things which Trump or his family did then it's corrupt.  If it's to stop damage to foreign relations then that's absolutely something a President should do. 

Why did/does he want the Russia thing stopped?  Is it to cover up a bad thing or to give the President back his bully pulpit?  Is it to protect him from massive embarrassment or is it to improve relations with a dangerous foe?  We need to know in order to understand whether he is engaging in obstruction.

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I see. You believe the president should be allowed to shut down a legitimate investigation into something that legitimately could affects American interests because that investigation could reflect poorly on him. 

...

I said the opposite.  He can't shut it down for that reason.  But there is a long list of reasons he can shut it down for.  We have to know why he wants it shut down.  And Mueller will be able to tell us.  He'll find what Trump doesn't want found or he'll tell us nothing is there - that Trump just doesn't like being investigated.  Who does?

Edited May 5, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Brisketexan 104,553]

Bull shit.  I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families.  I use it in life. 
There are some decisions we should make with partial information and judgement. There are other decisions which require getting the real facts.  Removing a President from office requires the facts.  We'll have them when Mueller reports.  I doubt if we will before then.  Trump's inappropriate behavior is not impeachable. 
His bizarre behavior will be impeachable if it is proven to be corrupt. There is no or scant evidence that it is corrupt.  Only strong suspicion.  (e.g. "He must have some deal with Putin" or "He The Russians must be blackmailing him".)
Again I challenge you to list an impeachable offense and your evidence.  For example if you think firing Comey was obstruction of justice tell me your evidence that it is corrupt.  Show me a deal with Russia or how he was protecting himself.  Suppose he had pardoned Flynn.  Would that have been an impeachable offense?  Show me something that isn't legal executive discretion, even if inappropriate unwise or sleazy.

You and yours use those EXACT criteria to determine that folks like “crooked Hillary” are 100% unfit for office, and nobody should vote for them. And then those SAME criteria....they don’t matter at all for GOP candidates.

It’s that the GOP fanboys have shouted from the highest mountaintop for years about how character, ethics, and respect for the Office and the rule of law matter, and then, posed with a test of those principles...they abandon every. Single. One. Without even pausing to take a breath.

Let’s talk about what has been proven: what has been proven is that when the GOP says it has principles, it is lying. Completely, and totally. It HAS no principles, other that “fuck you, suck it!”

If I were to create a party from scratch, founded on having zero ethics and principles, and pushing just one thing - cruelty and punishment of those who oppose them - it would look a LOT like the modern GOP.

Don’t worry, it would also have a supporting cast of sycophantic spineless enablers. There’s always room for Tahoe.

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

16 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

This has not been shown yet.

If Trump did nothing unseemly and he's mad because the investigation reflects poorly on him (it does), damages his ability to govern (it does), damages his chance to get reelected (it does) and damages his chances of improving relations with Russia (it does), then it would be totally appropriate for him to block the investigation.  He is the top executive.  He can have reasons you hate.  But he can't have corrupt reasons. 

You haven't shown me the personal interest it could harm.  The reasons listed above don't qualify.  Those are the legitimate interests of the President, not Trump the man.

You're out of your fucking mind.  It's obstruction of justice.  It is NOT his prerogative.  

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

Can we implement crowdsource banning?  Tahoe needs to be the first out the door.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I said the opposite.  He can't shut it down for that reason.  But there is a long list of reasons he can shut it down for.  We have to know why he wants it shut down.  And Mueller will be able to tell us.  He'll find what Trump doesn't want found or he'll tell us nothing is there - that Trump just doesn't like being investigated.  Who does?

So you said the opposite of what you said? 

Sorry. Just couldn’t resist letting that one go. 

Carry on.

[RomaVicta 29,774]

49 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Bull shit.  I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families.  I use it in life. 

Following the above, you give a demonstration of sophistry based on your habit of being obtuse. Your statements are either founded in the partisan habit of self-delusion or dishonesty.

Yes, you say you're fair and apply the same standard for all, but I've seen neither proof nor evidence of that.

[Anastasis 23,392]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Let’s talk about what has been proven: what has been proven is that when the GOP says it has principles, it is lying. Completely, and totally. It HAS no principles...

Welcome to 2003...

[David Dennison 18,647]

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You need to explain why he didn't want Comey looking into the Russia thing.  If it was to stop him from finding out about bad things which Trump or his family did then it's corrupt.  If it's to stop damage to foreign relations then that's absolutely something a President should do. 

Why did/does he want the Russia thing stopped?  Is it to cover up a bad thing or to give the President back his bully pulpit?  Is it to protect him from massive embarrassment or is it to improve relations with a dangerous foe?  We need to know in order to understand whether he is engaging in obstruction.

We do need to know. If he gets rid of Rosenstein so he can get rid of Mueller, I'm pretty sure we'll have our answer even before Mueller issues his report.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

I’m the strongest and most handsome man in the world. And if you claim I said that, you are misquoting me as that is clearly not what I said. 

[Loco 3,752]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We do need to know. If he gets rid of Rosenstein so he can get rid of Mueller, I'm pretty sure we'll have our answer even before Mueller issues his report.

He already told us... WITCH HUNT!!!!1!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

So when does trump actually create the ministry of truth? Because I think we’ve got an excellent candidate to head it right here on our very own board. 

As for the head of the ministry of Love, I think derka might make a suitable candidate. Or whatever his name is now. 

[PittsburghTiger 6,137]

This is kind of interesting.

-------------------------------------------

 

Lawyers for the company accused of funding Russia’s election interference trolls are demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller turn over reams of information, including the identities of informants, details of any electronic surveillance, and a list of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country.”

The ambitious demand for legal discovery surfaced Friday in Mueller’s criminal case against 13 individuals and three Russian companies linked to the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg troll farm that used fake accounts to organize demonstrations on U.S. soil and flood American social media with alt-right memes during the 2016 election. One of those defendants is Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian firm run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close Kremlin ally known as “Putin’s Chef,” who is also named individually as a defendant in the case.

Attorneys at the law firm Reed Smith are representing Concord. Though the Washington, D.C.-based lawyers have formally filed an appearance in the case, the government says they’ve refused to accept service of the court summons, and attempts to serve the Russian defendants through other means—like dropping off the summons with Russia’s prosecutor general in Moscow—have failed. Mueller’s team is seeking a postponement of a May 9th arraignment date until the technicality can be ironed out.

Concord’s attorneys, though, are wasting no time in demanding legal “discovery” in the case. Generally, the government is required to provide defendants with any evidence it intends to use at trial, as well as any material relevant to preparing a defense. To that end, the defense team is seeking a wealth of information on what the U.S. knows about the trolling operation, including a full list of fake social media accounts, the names of suspected co-conspirators, details of electronic surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, and identities of Americans who were tricked into aiding the Russian campaign.

The lawyers also want Mueller to define a number of terms used in the indictment, including “improper foreign influence,” “significant funds,” and “disparaging Hillary Clinton.” In addition, the defense is demanding information on every U.S.-run election-interference operation since World War II, perhaps telegraphing a pot-kettle defense to the eight-count indictment.

“This disclosure should include any and all information regarding the use of computer infrastructure inside and outside of the United States, false foreign identities, goals to sow discord in a foreign political system, assistance to a foreign elected official or candidate, attacks on a foreign elected official or candidate, assassination or conspiracy to assassinate a foreign elected official or candidate, buying political advertisements, posing as foreign persons and/or failure to honestly identify to foreign voters the involvement of any officer, employee or agent of the United States Government,” reads a letter sent to Mueller’s office last month by Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier.

Sensitive discovery usually comes with a court order forbidding the defendants and their lawyers from using the material for anything except trial preparation. It’s unclear how that might apply in a case where the defendant is viewed as an unofficial arm of the Kremlin.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-troll-farm-goes-after-muellers-files

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

10 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

his is kind of interesting.

I posted that two pages back and it’s hilarious, not interesting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Regarding the wild Judge in the Manafort case.

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Bull shit.  I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families.  I use it in life. 

Saying so now doesn't mean a hell of lot.  You have a long posting history and people don't forget where posters generally have stood on issues over time, even as specifics fade over time.  In fact, I distinctly remember you arguing around 2010 that Dems should vote for Rs in Congress because it isn't a good thing when one party has control of the entire government.  I remember because I argued the same thing under W, and that's the only time anyone else made the same argument (and I did vote R for the House in 2010).  Funny enough, you recently had the opportunity to do just that with a president who needs opposition more than anyone before and a pedophile R running for Senate, and you couldn't bring yourself to actually vote for a D. 

That's the thing though.  You admittedly post insincerely for "entertainment" to get reactions from people.   And then complain when people see through your bullshit.   I wouldn't be surprised if you not only voted Roy Moore, but were out handing out fliers for him.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,805]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books, but that law specifically exempts the president

 

If foreign govts are paying well over rack rate for his properties or booking rooms that are then not used then emoluments would be more clear cut  

China fast-tracking his patents or copyright or whatever they did could be as well if it can be shown they never do that for others and only did it as a favor to Trump as President, or if his companies have been awarded low-ball bids anywhere

There is no question his business actions break precedents going back decades at least and I have not heard an argument from anyone outside of trumps camp that his actions are ethical. Whether they are legal does seem to be a legitimate question 

And of course there is potentially a much lower bar with impeachment given the right political environment 

I haven’t read through the rest of this but you are full of complete shit.  He is enriching himself. How the fuck is that not clear?  

[Blotto 23,427]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

 

If Trump did nothing unseemly and he's mad because the investigation reflects poorly on him (it does), damages his ability to govern (it does), damages his chance to get reelected (it does) and damages his chances of improving relations with Russia (it does), then it would be totally appropriate for him to block the investigation.  He is the top executive.  He can have reasons you hate.  But he can't have corrupt reasons. 

 

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I see. You believe the president should be allowed to shut down a legitimate investigation into something that legitimately could affects American interests because that investigation could reflect poorly on him. 

 

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

I said the opposite.  He can't shut it down for that reason.  But there is a long list of reasons he can shut it down for.  We have to know why he wants it shut down.  And Mueller will be able to tell us.  He'll find what Trump doesn't want found or he'll tell us nothing is there - that Trump just doesn't like being investigated.  Who does?

It appears Tahoe is drunk from the intoxicating scent of Trump's KFC infused farts. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Lol at Kellyanne Conway now following Abramson on Twitter 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol at Kellyanne Conway now following Abramson on Twitter 

 

As awful as she's been, there was that one "unless" moment where she broke character for a split second.  And her husband is legit — so much so that I was surprised he wanted to work for Trump when I heard he was on the short list for SG.  Which, of course, has come through in his own tweets over the past couple of months.  So if there is a true abandon ship moment, I think she'll turn on Trump. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,106]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Again it was over a year ago when I heard the interview but the gist was “emoluments” is an arcane concept (think of a foreign monarch giving Washington a chest full of jewels rather than agreeing to buy all the yields from his farms at market price) and overly broad to be enforceable, which is why there is now a stricter anti-kickback law on the books

And our Constitution is filled with arcane concepts. The ones we didn’t like we amended out. Can you point me to the amendment that says this new law which excludes the president takes precedence over what’s already stated in plain language in the Constitution itself?

[VRHorn 718]

Tahoe makes me miss Swam. At least Swam was honest about his idiocy...Tahoe is playing this bullshit “of course I don’t like Trump, but we don’t know he’s actually violating the Constitution” while specifically ignoring the fucking Emoluments clause.

in a just world (or board) a dipshit like Tahoe would be shamed away, but here we are.

Edited May 5, 2018 by VRHorn

[JimmyJames 12,271]

So did a rogue element of the shaggy liberal cabal take out swammy? Because that subject was never brought up at the official meetings. 

[Pods 7,526]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Welcome to 2003...

Same year I switched my registration from GOP to independent. The repeated lies over attacking Iraq and squandering all the international goodwill we had after 9/11 was one of the stupidest decisions our government has ever made.  

[Sawbonz 27,397]

16 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

And our Constitution is filled with arcane concepts. The ones we didn’t like we amended out. Can you point me to the amendment that says this new law which excludes the president takes precedence over what’s already stated in plain language in the Constitution itself?

No I can only tell you what some guy on npr said is at issue and point you to an article that explains the likely arguments the 2 sides will make. Other than that unless there is a settlement we will all know what is allowed when verdicts are out

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

34 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

As awful as she's been, there was that one "unless" moment where she broke character for a split second.  And her husband is legit — so much so that I was surprised he wanted to work for Trump when I heard he was on the short list for SG.  Which, of course, has come through in his own tweets over the past couple of months.  So if there is a true abandon ship moment, I think she'll turn on Trump. 

I wouldn’t want her to flip on Trump as much as I’d want her to flip on Cambridge Analytica/Bannon/Mercers.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,106]

I don’t need to know what some guy on npr said to know what the constitution itself says. It is perfectly clear for anyone who wants to read it. 

But with the inaction of Congress, at least they are all admitting to us now that not a single one of them cares to follow their oath of office, because none of them are defending the Constitution. 

[Pods 7,526]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No I can only tell you what some guy on npr said is at issue and point you to an article that explains the likely arguments the 2 sides will make. Other than that unless there is a settlement we will all know what is allowed when verdicts are out

I've seen a number of legal scholars raise the issue that things like the annulments clause and the Logan act actually are completely legit and completely enforceable. The reason they've never been used is because no other campaign has ever been audaciously stupid enough to flagrantly violate them. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

[Pods 7,526]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Barrack is another skeleton key that will open a ton of doors if Mueller can crack him. 

[TwiceHorn 31,260]

23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No I can only tell you what some guy on npr said is at issue and point you to an article that explains the likely arguments the 2 sides will make. Other than that unless there is a settlement we will all know what is allowed when verdicts are out

The real problem here is that rarely is a Constitutional provision self-enforcing.  Most often, Congress has to promulgate a statute pursuant to a constitutional provision to limn out who is going to enforce it, and through what mechanisms, with what judicial review, if any, and what are the penalties/remedies.  That has not been done with the emoluments clause as applied to the President and so it's just kind of sitting there as a "right without a remedy."  Many Constitutional rights are asserted in a litigation about something else entirely, as in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments.  The First Amendment is often, if not exclusively, asserted as a defense to government actions, ie in a lawsuit about something else. It's why there's the Civil Rights Act of 1871, among others, to give life and teeth to the 14th Amendment.

 

I haven't followed the private-plaintiff litigation on Trump and the emoluments clause, but it's obvious to any lawyer that a private plaintiff is going to have trouble with standing to sue.  Without an Emoluments Clause Enabling Act or something to that effect, it really is a right without a remedy.

Edited May 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 12,797]

24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No I can only tell you what some guy on npr said is at issue and point you to an article that explains the likely arguments the 2 sides will make. Other than that unless there is a settlement we will all know what is allowed when verdicts are out

Read the opinion of the office of legal counsel.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

14 minutes ago, Pods said:

Barrack is another skeleton key that will open a ton of doors if Mueller can crack him. 

So this Barrack interview getting reported today happened MONTHS ago.

The shady shit between Barrack, Manafort, Gates stinks.

[Pods 7,526]

@TwiceHorn That's what I've seen so far. The only thing stopping/slowing lawsuits has been standing. Private parties don't have it, but a judge recently ruled that Maryland and DC do. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dc-maryland-may-proceed-with-lawsuit-alleging-trump-violated-emoluments-clause/2018/03/28/0514d816-32ae-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html?utm_term=.4c61366139c0

In that hearing, the Justice Department, arguing on Trump’s behalf, made a similar argument in an effort to throw out the attorney generals’ suit. Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, said that states such as Maryland had no right to sue Trump over these clauses.

“The states are not roving constitutional watchdogs,” Shumate said. He continued: “This is ultimately a political dispute. It should be left to the political process.”

In his ruling Wednesday, Messitte rejected that idea.

“The thrust of the President’s argument that only Congress can act is particularly concerning,” he wrote in a footnote. “Suppose a majority (simple? two-thirds?) of Congress (the House? the Senate? both?) is controlled by one party — that of the President. And suppose the Congress never undertakes to approve or disapprove the President’s receipt of such ‘emoluments.’ ”

“The President could continue to receive unlimited ‘emoluments’ from foreign and state governments without the least oversight and with absolute impunity,” Messitte wrote.

D.C., Maryland can proceed with lawsuit alleging Trump violated emoluments clauses

By David A. Fahrenthold and Jonathan O'Connell March 28 Email the author

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with a lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president.

In his opinion, Messitte gave credence to arguments by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) that Trump unfairly profits from business at downtown Washington’s Trump International Hotel, in which the president continues to hold a financial interest. 

Messitte cited examples of government clients — including Kuwait and Bahrain — 
patronizing the Washington hotel, possibly to the detriment of competitors and taxpayers. He wrote that Maryland and the District had sufficiently argued that Trump’s hotel “has had and almost certainly will continue to have an unlawful effect on competition.”

As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

If the ruling stands, it could allow Racine and Frosh to seek internal documents from the Trump Organization to determine how much money the Washington hotel has taken in from state and foreign governments.

Messitte’s ruling largely narrowed the lawsuit’s scope to the Washington hotel, saying that the District and Maryland had standing to sue because they could plausibly claim to have been injured by Trump’s receipt of payments from foreign and state governments.

For one thing, he said, the two jurisdictions have financial interests in their own convention centers — one in downtown Washington, another in Bethesda, Md. They argued that the Trump hotel had an unfair advantage in the battle for meeting business.

In addition, the court said, the District and Maryland could speak on behalf of their own businesses, which might also see clients lured away by the chance to do business with the president.

“The Court concludes that [the District and Maryland] are, quite plausibly, trying to protect a large segment of their commercial residents and hospitality industry employees from economic harm,” he wrote.

 3:06

 

The four biggest controversies surrounding Trump’s D.C. hotel

Messitte also raised examples of state governments having to make decisions related to the president’s company, which Frosh and Racine termed an “intolerable dilemma” between losing revenue or risking repercussions from the president. The judge cited a decision by District tax officials to lower the Trump hotel’s tax bill by nearly $1 million and a $6 million tax break being granted to a Trump-affiliated development by Mississippi officials.

The Justice Department, which is representing the president in this case, did not immediately say whether it would appeal. “As we argued, we believe this case should be dismissed, and we will continue to defend the president in court,” spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

After consulting with attorneys, Trump vowed last year to donate some profits from foreign governments to the U.S. treasury. This month the Trump Organization said it donated $151,470 but declined to explain how it came up with the amount.

Although Trump said he gave up day-to-day management of his business while he is in the White House, he still owns his businesses and can withdraw money from them at any time. 

A statement from the Trump Organization said: “While the Trump Organization is not a party to the lawsuit, the Court’s decision today does significantly narrow the scope of the case. The Court has yet to rule on several additional arguments, which we believe should result in a complete dismissal.” 

In an interview, Frosh said that “overall we are extremely pleased” and that he and Racine would be seeking the president’s financial documents and tax returns as the case proceeded. 

“The basic principle here is Donald Trump is not above the law, and the court recognized that and said that we can enforce the nation’s original anti-corruption law — the emoluments clause,” he said.

Those clauses were dusty corners of the Constitution, rarely tested in court during 240-plus years of American history. 

One bars federal officers from taking presents, or emoluments, from foreign governments. The other prohibits presidents from taking side payments from individual states.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that Trump violated one or both of these bans, because foreign and state governments have rented hotel rooms or banquet halls at his businesses.

Trump’s attorneys have said that the term “emolument” was never meant to cover transactions such as this — not outright gifts to the president but purchases made at fair-market value.

The first step in all these cases has been an argument over what lawyers call “standing” — in essence, determining whether the plaintiff has a right to sue.

In December, for instance, a federal judge threw out one of the emoluments lawsuits, brought by the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that the watchdog group lacked standing. He stated that the Constitution gave Congress — and only Congress — the right to enforce these rules. 

“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” Daniels wrote in his ruling.

The case involving the District and Maryland had a hearing earlier this year before Messitte at a federal court in Greenbelt, Md.

In that hearing, the Justice Department, arguing on Trump’s behalf, made a similar argument in an effort to throw out the attorney generals’ suit. Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, said that states such as Maryland had no right to sue Trump over these clauses.

“The states are not roving constitutional watchdogs,” Shumate said. He continued: “This is ultimately a political dispute. It should be left to the political process.”

In his ruling Wednesday, Messitte rejected that idea.

“The thrust of the President’s argument that only Congress can act is particularly concerning,” he wrote in a footnote. “Suppose a majority (simple? two-thirds?) of Congress (the House? the Senate? both?) is controlled by one party — that of the President. And suppose the Congress never undertakes to approve or disapprove the President’s receipt of such ‘emoluments.’ ”

“The President could continue to receive unlimited ‘emoluments’ from foreign and state governments without the least oversight and with absolute impunity,” Messitte wrote.

[TwiceHorn 31,260]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Read the opinion of the office of legal counsel.

Which one?  To my knowledge there are no opinions of the OLC directly addressing Trump's situation, only some on other situations, most not involving the President, from which one can read between the lines or connect the dots, but there is nothing directly on point.

 

I detest what Trump is doing with respect to self dealing and non-divestiture from his businesses, but it isn't clear to me that there is a remedy for it other than impeachment.

[Pods 7,526]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So this Barrack interview getting reported today happened MONTHS ago.

The shady shit between Barrack, Manafort, Gates stinks.

Tom Barrack was also tied in with Mike Flynn on the deal to build nuclear power plants with Russia in Saudi Arabia

Edited May 5, 2018 by Pods