OT: The Power to Pardon

[NIN Irish]

Trump spent a year bashing Hillary and Cruz for their ties to Goldman Sachs. Then he gets elected and appoints a bunch of Goldman Sachs' guys. And cuts regulations to make it easier on the big banks and tougher on the "little guy."

This flip flop proves Trump is a hypocrite. Tough talk against Wall Street to get elected, then immediately shows where his allegiance lies.

Of course, trump is a lying hypocrite. He provides examples daily. How about when he said, he'll release his taxes when the audit is finished, or once in office he'll release them. Try explaining it to sheep though.

 

[benko's army]

What are the unproven crimes? If Trump flew to Moscow and asked Putin to help him beat Hillary, well that may suck, but it's not a crime.

There are a number of possible crimes by Trump and his campaign staff:

1. Perjury: Sessions lied, under oath, about having no contacts with Russians during the campaign. This has been proven false. Other Trump associates, including Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Donald Jr., have lied about contacts with Russia, though they were not (yet) under oath.

2. Lying on SF-86 forms: Kushner, Flynn, Manafort, and Sessions all omitted their Russian contacts on their SF-86 forms for security clearances. They have had to amend those forms after the secret meetings were discovered. If it is found that they intentionally falsified those forms (and common sense tells you they did), that is a crime.

3. Violation of federal election law: It is against federal law for a campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign country or a foreign citizen. If the three Russians that Junior and Kushner secretly met with provided anything "of value" to the campaign, that would violate 52 USC section 30121.

4. Federal conspiracy law: 18 USC section 371 provides it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit an offense against the United States or defraud the United States. Obviously, "defraud the United States" is a broad category. Secret meetings with Russians to affect a presidential election could meet that definition.

5. Information theft? Electronic privacy laws? Remember, the Russians hacked the DNC and stole over 20,000 emails from American citizens, which they then released. If Trump's people played any role in the theft or the strategic release of those emails, that would be a crime.

We don't know the whole story yet; there could be (and probably are) more offenses we will find out about. A month ago, we had no idea that Kushner, Manafort, and Junior held a secret meeting with three influential Russians as part of "Russia's efforts to help Mr. Trump."

Trump's people kept that secret for a whole year, lying to us repeatedly and claiming Russia's involvement was "a hoax." They were told in an email that Russia was working for Trump and they lied, straight-faced, for over a year. And when they were caught, it was "well sure we met with Russia...no big deal!" It amazes me that anyone can take what they say seriously after being lied to so brazenly.

A year ago, we would have been outraged to learn that Russia was hacking Americans, stealing from Americans, and f*cking with our elections. Now we're saying "Well, it's not really a crime..." What a copout.

What about right and wrong? By any metric, allowing Russia to screw with our elections is wrong. Helping them is wrong. Encouraging them is wrong. Knowing they are screwing with us and sitting by, doing nothing, lying to the American public - that's all wrong. It's wrong no matter who's doing it. Quit playing politics and find your moral compass.

 

[57Patrick]

How can Russia be any type of threat at all? Didn't President Obama mock Romney when Romney suggested Russia was a threat. President Obama is a very intelligent man. He wasn't wrong, was he?

 

[SeanPol355]

Pardon likely requires a conviction, not just a charge.

You are probably correct about that. Presidents aren't immune from indictment for a crime though tradition has held that they should not be indicted while in office. Given all the traditions Trump is breaking, that will likely be broken too.

 

[echowaker]

Echo...I don't presume to know how or what you teach. That said, is there any debate that our education system is largely mediocre; that the teachers unions and associated PACs put teacher salaries and job security before the education of our young; that there has been a systemic shift toward liberal bias in all things education over the past thirty years; that our education institutions have largely shut down open discussion and derided conservative thought to the point of censureship? We have teachers in our family and we value their dedication and efforts, and most represent a very small minority of teachers striving to provide an education that exposes students to a wide range of thinking, where alternative views are respected and encouraged for open discussion as part of the daily teaching experience. You may be of a similar mind and practice, and I hope you are, but chances are overwhelming that you fit the liberal bias stereotype that is so overwhelmingly present among our teachers today.

I see. The teachers in your family are terrific but the rest of us are left leaning nuts. You are about as out of touch with the state of public education in America as the current secretary of education is.

 

[echowaker]

How many of the Russia collusion conspiracy truth seekers on this board were so adamant about getting to the truth, whatever it took, on the issues of Fast and Furious, "Reverend Wright"...did Barry know his preacher was a racist and when did he know it, Benghazi, IRS scandal, Solyndra, and the Clinton email scandal? How many posted on this very board that they wanted truth and justice in all these scandals? Echo and your "like" pals...I'm talking to you. Did you come out publicly seeking the truth or is your truth seeking selective? I know the answer to all these questions. None, none, no and yes.

Typical. You are just like all the Obama supporters who could only point out George Bush's failings because there was no defense for their guys. Get with the present.

 

[echowaker]

How can Russia be any type of threat at all? Didn't President Obama mock Romney when Romney suggested Russia was a threat. President Obama is a very intelligent man. He wasn't wrong, was he?

He was wrong many times. Not sure what that has to do with the current administration.

 

[Pennick44]

Trump spent a year bashing Hillary and Cruz for their ties to Goldman Sachs. Then he gets elected and appoints a bunch of Goldman Sachs' guys. And cuts regulations to make it easier on the big banks and tougher on the "little guy."

This flip flop proves Trump is a hypocrite. Tough talk against Wall Street to get elected, then immediately shows where his allegiance lies.

Give me more businessmen and push out the hacks!
#MAGA

 

[Pennick44]

There are a number of possible crimes by Trump and his campaign staff:

1. Perjury: Sessions lied, under oath, about having no contacts with Russians during the campaign. This has been proven false. Other Trump associates, including Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Donald Jr., have lied about contacts with Russia, though they were not (yet) under oath.

2. Lying on SF-86 forms: Kushner, Flynn, Manafort, and Sessions all omitted their Russian contacts on their SF-86 forms for security clearances. They have had to amend those forms after the secret meetings were discovered. If it is found that they intentionally falsified those forms (and common sense tells you they did), that is a crime.

3. Violation of federal election law: It is against federal law for a campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign country or a foreign citizen. If the three Russians that Junior and Kushner secretly met with provided anything "of value" to the campaign, that would violate 52 USC section 30121.

4. Federal conspiracy law: 18 USC section 371 provides it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit an offense against the United States or defraud the United States. Obviously, "defraud the United States" is a broad category. Secret meetings with Russians to affect a presidential election could meet that definition.

5. Information theft? Electronic privacy laws? Remember, the Russians hacked the DNC and stole over 20,000 emails from American citizens, which they then released. If Trump's people played any role in the theft or the strategic release of those emails, that would be a crime.

We don't know the whole story yet; there could be (and probably are) more offenses we will find out about. A month ago, we had no idea that Kushner, Manafort, and Junior held a secret meeting with three influential Russians as part of "Russia's efforts to help Mr. Trump."

Trump's people kept that secret for a whole year, lying to us repeatedly and claiming Russia's involvement was "a hoax." They were told in an email that Russia was working for Trump and they lied, straight-faced, for over a year. And when they were caught, it was "well sure we met with Russia...no big deal!" It amazes me that anyone can take what they say seriously after being lied to so brazenly.

A year ago, we would have been outraged to learn that Russia was hacking Americans, stealing from Americans, and f*cking with our elections. Now we're saying "Well, it's not really a crime..." What a copout.

What about right and wrong? By any metric, allowing Russia to screw with our elections is wrong. Helping them is wrong. Encouraging them is wrong. Knowing they are screwing with us and sitting by, doing nothing, lying to the American public - that's all wrong. It's wrong no matter who's doing it. Quit playing politics and find your moral compass.

Russia is a big fat nothing burger! Stop watching CNN.
#MAGA

 

[Telx1]

I see. The teachers in your family are terrific but the rest of us are left leaning nuts. You are about as out of touch with the state of public education in America as the current secretary of education is.

Well, you answered the question. Actually, every teacher in my family is a registered Democrat, and all are left of center in their political views. My point was that most, not all, teach in ways that encourage open discussion of all views, and their personal liberal views are not on display in the classroom. You apparently self identify as a left nut liberal who does not embrace this approach to teaching.

 

[echowaker]

Well, you answered the question. Actually, every teacher in my family is a registered Democrat, and all are left of center in their political views. My point was that most, not all, teach in ways that encourage open discussion of all views, and their personal liberal views are not on display in the classroom. You apparently self identify as a left nut liberal who does not embrace this approach to teaching.

The way you presented your position would not indicate that at all. Glad to hear that the teachers in your family are just like the majority of the rest of us in the approach we take day in and day out in our underappreciated profession. Kudos to them.

 

[TDIrish27]

Telx they obviously don't teach at they college level then.

 

[Toby Smart]

Yes, there is considerable debate about these issues and the efforts of educators. Your views are more supported by your biases than by the evidence.

And education, backed by the NEA, is all about social issues and not much about students learning or teachers teaching. Not all teachers support or belong to the NEA and that's a good thing, but, many educators do bring their agendas and bias into the classroom. That view is supported by fact.

 

[beachcardinal]

There are a number of possible crimes by Trump and his campaign staff:

1. Perjury: Sessions lied, under oath, about having no contacts with Russians during the campaign. This has been proven false. Other Trump associates, including Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Donald Jr., have lied about contacts with Russia, though they were not (yet) under oath.

2. Lying on SF-86 forms: Kushner, Flynn, Manafort, and Sessions all omitted their Russian contacts on their SF-86 forms for security clearances. They have had to amend those forms after the secret meetings were discovered. If it is found that they intentionally falsified those forms (and common sense tells you they did), that is a crime.

3. Violation of federal election law: It is against federal law for a campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign country or a foreign citizen. If the three Russians that Junior and Kushner secretly met with provided anything "of value" to the campaign, that would violate 52 USC section 30121.

4. Federal conspiracy law: 18 USC section 371 provides it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit an offense against the United States or defraud the United States. Obviously, "defraud the United States" is a broad category. Secret meetings with Russians to affect a presidential election could meet that definition.

5. Information theft? Electronic privacy laws? Remember, the Russians hacked the DNC and stole over 20,000 emails from American citizens, which they then released. If Trump's people played any role in the theft or the strategic release of those emails, that would be a crime.

We don't know the whole story yet; there could be (and probably are) more offenses we will find out about. A month ago, we had no idea that Kushner, Manafort, and Junior held a secret meeting with three influential Russians as part of "Russia's efforts to help Mr. Trump."

Trump's people kept that secret for a whole year, lying to us repeatedly and claiming Russia's involvement was "a hoax." They were told in an email that Russia was working for Trump and they lied, straight-faced, for over a year. And when they were caught, it was "well sure we met with Russia...no big deal!" It amazes me that anyone can take what they say seriously after being lied to so brazenly.

A year ago, we would have been outraged to learn that Russia was hacking Americans, stealing from Americans, and f*cking with our elections. Now we're saying "Well, it's not really a crime..." What a copout.

What about right and wrong? By any metric, allowing Russia to screw with our elections is wrong. Helping them is wrong. Encouraging them is wrong. Knowing they are screwing with us and sitting by, doing nothing, lying to the American public - that's all wrong. It's wrong no matter who's doing it. Quit playing politics and find your moral compass.

Sorry but you know little of the law.

1. Perjury requires knowing lie, nit something left out of a form that was later added. In addition it must be material. Session left out a meeting with an ambassador in his capacity as senator and an encounter at a conference. He testified to these under oath at the senate hearing. No perjury charge.
2. See above
3. A meeting is not a thing of value
4. Not sure you are serious. Meeting with someone is fraud? Hard to believe even MSNBC would float that one.
5. Sort of. If one could prove Trump knew the Russian hacked a computer as part of his plan, then yes.

Look no one seriously believes there is an underlying crime. Even liberal icon Alan Dershowitz states there is no crime based on anything that is even rumored.

 

[echowaker]

And education, backed by the NEA, is all about social issues and not much about students learning or teachers teaching. Not all teachers support or belong to the NEA and that's a good thing, but, many educators do bring their agendas and bias into the classroom. That view is supported by fact.

Such as ? I think you need to sit in a public school classroom for a few days. You have a lot to learn about public education.

 

[benko's army]

Sorry but you know little of the law.

1. Perjury requires knowing lie, nit something left out of a form that was later added. In addition it must be material. Session left out a meeting with an ambassador in his capacity as senator and an encounter at a conference. He testified to these under oath at the senate hearing. No perjury charge.
2. See above
3. A meeting is not a thing of value
4. Not sure you are serious. Meeting with someone is fraud? Hard to believe even MSNBC would float that one.
5. Sort of. If one could prove Trump knew the Russian hacked a computer as part of his plan, then yes.

Look no one seriously believes there is an underlying crime. Even liberal icon Alan Dershowitz states there is no crime based on anything that is even rumored.

1. Yes, Sessions lied at his confirmation hearing. In response to questions by Franken, Sessions said he "did not have communication with the Russians" during the campaign. That's a lie. Look it up; his testimony transcript is on line.

2. Lying or intentional omission on the SF-86, a security clearance form, carries a criminal penalty. Read the form or google it.

3. Documents are a "thing of value." You don't know what Junior and Kushner got from the Russians in that secret meeting. Could easily have gotten something "of value." We shall see.

4. Conspiring to defraud the U.S. isn't a crime? Yes, it is. You don't know if it was just the one meeting. You didn't even know about the meeting until the Times busted the Trumps. We'll see what else there is.

5. We agree. And Kushner's electronic operations and possible cooperation with the Russians are under investigation.

Dershowitz has been one of Trump's biggest allies on the Russia issue. Plenty of credible lawyers think laws may have been broken. We will see, but Mueller certainly knows more than we do.

 

[beachcardinal]

1. Yes, Sessions lied at his confirmation hearing. In response to questions by Franken, Sessions said he "did not have communication with the Russians" during the campaign. That's a lie. Look it up; his testimony transcript is on line.

2. Lying or intentional omission on the SF-86, a security clearance form, carries a criminal penalty. Read the form or google it.

3. Documents are a "thing of value." You don't know what Junior and Kushner got from the Russians in that secret meeting. Could easily have gotten something "of value." We shall see.

4. Conspiring to defraud the U.S. isn't a crime? Yes, it is. You don't know if it was just the one meeting. You didn't even know about the meeting until the Times busted the Trumps. We'll see what else there is.

5. We agree. And Kushner's electronic operations and possible cooperation with the Russians are under investigation.

Dershowitz has been one of Trump's biggest allies on the Russia issue. Plenty of credible lawyers think laws may have been broken. We will see, but Mueller certainly knows more than we do.

I like to think of myself as a credible lawyer and I can tell you internet law doesn't work. Ask your attorney friends about your ideas or just wait and see. Do you really think if someone misrepresents something to voters it is defrauding the US? I may like this idea because all politicians would be in jail.

 

[benko's army]

I like to think of myself as a credible lawyer and I can tell you internet law doesn't work. Ask your attorney friends about your ideas or just wait and see.

I'm an attorney. ND Law, class of 2001. We can trade resumes or debate statutory interpretation of these USC sections, if you like.

 

[beachcardinal]

I'm an attorney. ND Law, class of 2001. We can trade resumes or debate statutory interpretation of these USC sections, if you like.

That's a fine school. Hard to believe a grad could make such obvious mistakes, Really not trying to be a jerk but you aren't even close on these. I understand that different people can have different opinions but yours are so far off. 18 USC 371 is broad, but the idea that saying something about an opponent that isn't true or getting someone to release truthful emails is a crime is nonsense. Under your definition any false statement against candidate released by a media outlet would be a crime; a conspiracy between the person providing the false info and the media.

Please remember the email released by Wikileaks were true. If the NYT had released them they would get the Pulitzer. So unless you can show knowledge of the hacking well...sorry.

 

[benko's army]

We can agree to disagree. Again, we don't know what else, if anything, was done by the Trump crew.

The original question I responded to was what are the possible "unproven crimes?" There are many possibilities, including conspiracy, as I explained. Once we learn all the evidence, we can reach final conclusions as to whether the evidence fits the statute.

Hopefully Trump won't fire Mueller before he's able to complete his investigation.

 

[zonairish]

1. Yes, Sessions lied at his confirmation hearing. In response to questions by Franken, Sessions said he "did not have communication with the Russians" during the campaign. That's a lie. Look it up; his testimony transcript is on line.

2. Lying or intentional omission on the SF-86, a security clearance form, carries a criminal penalty. Read the form or google it.

3. Documents are a "thing of value." You don't know what Junior and Kushner got from the Russians in that secret meeting. Could easily have gotten something "of value." We shall see.

4. Conspiring to defraud the U.S. isn't a crime? Yes, it is. You don't know if it was just the one meeting. You didn't even know about the meeting until the Times busted the Trumps. We'll see what else there is.

5. We agree. And Kushner's electronic operations and possible cooperation with the Russians are under investigation.

Dershowitz has been one of Trump's biggest allies on the Russia issue. Plenty of credible lawyers think laws may have been broken. We will see, but Mueller certainly knows more than we do.

Really, he did not lie That is the problem with sheeple like you . watch cnn and msnbc with Russia Russia Russia it is complete BS started 20 minutes after President trump won the election . watch ABC and of election nite coverage and democratic operativves started this nonsense.

 

[BGI User 1596]

Really, he did not lie That is the problem with sheeple like you . watch cnn and msnbc with Russia Russia Russia it is complete BS started 20 minutes after President trump won the election . watch ABC and of election nite coverage and democratic operativves started this nonsense.

We frequently hear people say they have nothing to hide - so surrendering privacy and constitutional rights to the Surveillance State may not be such a big deal if it helps catch a terrorist or two. But with each passing day in the RussiaGate drama we are learning that this superficial exoneration is dangerously beside the point.

We are referring here to the unrelenting witch hunt that has been unleashed by Imperial Washington against the legitimately elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. This campaign of lies, leaks and Russophobia is the handiwork of Obama’s top national security advisors, who blatantly misused Washington’s surveillance apparatus to discredit Trump and to effectively nullify America’s democratic process.

That is, constitutional protections and liberties were systematically breached, but not simply to intimidate, hush or lock up citizens one by one as per the standard totalitarian modus operandi. Instead, what has happened is that the entire public debate has been hijacked by the shadowy forces of the Deep State and their partisan and media collaborators.

The enabling culprits are Obama’s last CIA director, John Brennan, his national security advisor Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power. There is now mounting evidence that it was they who illegally “unmasked” NSA intercepts from Trump Tower; they who confected the Russian meddling narrative from behind the protective moat of classified intelligence; and they who orchestrated a systematic campaign of leaks and phony intelligence reports during the presidential transition—-all designed to delegitimize Trump before he even took the oath of office.

So all three of them should be lockedup—-that’s for sure. But the more urgent solution would be to unlock and make public all the innuendo, surmises, assessments, half-truths and boilerplate intelligence chatter on which the entire false narrative about Russian meddling and collusion is based.

Stated differently, without the nation’s massive intelligence apparatus and absurd system of secrecy and classified information to hide behind, the RussiaGate witch hunt would have never gotten off the ground.

In truth, as we will essay below, there is no there, there. So what this new chapter in McCarthyite hysteria actually demonstrates is that the Imperial City’s far-flung, 17-agency, $75 billion Intelligence Behemoth is a plenary threat not just to individual liberty, but to the very constitutional democracy on which the latter depends.

To appreciate the severity of the threat, it is necessary to recognize that the post-9/11 Deep State has lowered a double whammy on our system. That is, it unconstitutionally collects the entirety of all internet based communications of America’s 325 million citizen, while at the same time it has effectively disenfranchised 98% of the 535 members of the House and Senate who have been elected to represent them.

Accordingly, behind the Surveillance State’s vast wall of secrecy and so-called “classified” information, there operates a Dark Government that is unaccountable to the public and largely unconstrained by normal constitutional limits, which the Patriot Act and secret FISA courts have more or less suspended.

In the realm of this Dark Government, the heart of American democracy—-the US Congress—has been completely usurped. Almost everything behind the secrecy wall is off limits to the rank and file. Only a handful of intelligence committee members and the House and Senate leadership gets sworn into the classified intelligence.

Yet just consider the hideous asymmetry of this arrangement. The so-called “Gang of Eight,” comprising the heads of the intelligence oversight committees and their respective party leadership, gets orally briefed in a secure “vault”, where they can’t take notes or carry-out any documents.

 

[IRISHJD98]

And what were the comments of this esteemed law prof concerning Fast and Furious, IRS scandal, email scandal, and the Benghazi cover up? Wait, I know. Silence. Even you would not stand up to the steady negative investigation every second of every day. Things are still getting done despite these fools who want blood because things didn't go their way. Are you one of them?

Gurule was teaching criminal law when I was at ND, though he was not my criminal law professor so I don't know how he addressed political issues in the classroom. But I do know that Gurule was a very good federal prosecutor when Reagan was president. And he was an Assistant Attorney General under HW Bush. After 9/11, W.Bush appointed Gurule as an Under Secretary of Treasury (enforcement) to address and investigate international terrorism financing operations. He also served on an Advisory Committee to Mitt Romney during his presidential run. My impression has always been that he's been viewed as a man of integrity, and he certainly had the esteem of two republican presidents and at least on wannabe.

IMO, I think it would be a mistake to assume that the ND Law faculty is filled with a bunch of disgruntled liberal pawns who feel things didn't go their way when Trump beat Hillary.

 

[benko's army]

Gurule was teaching criminal law when I was at ND, though he was not my criminal law professor so I don't know how he addressed political issues in the classroom. But I do know that Gurule was a very good federal prosecutor when Reagan was president. And he was an Assistant Attorney General under HW Bush. After 9/11, W.Bush appointed Gurule as an Under Secretary of Treasury (enforcement) to address and investigate international terrorism financing operations. He also served on an Advisory Committee to Mitt Romney during his presidential run. My impression has always been that he's been viewed as a man of integrity, and he certainly had the esteem of two republican presidents and at least on wannabe.

IMO, I think it would be a mistake to assume that the ND Law faculty is filled with a bunch of disgruntled liberal pawns who feel things didn't go their way when Trump beat Hillary.

Great post. Who'd you have for criminal law -- Blakey or Dutile?

 

[Toby Smart]

Gurule was teaching criminal law when I was at ND, though he was not my criminal law professor so I don't know how he addressed political issues in the classroom. But I do know that Gurule was a very good federal prosecutor when Reagan was president. And he was an Assistant Attorney General under HW Bush. After 9/11, W.Bush appointed Gurule as an Under Secretary of Treasury (enforcement) to address and investigate international terrorism financing operations. He also served on an Advisory Committee to Mitt Romney during his presidential run. My impression has always been that he's been viewed as a man of integrity, and he certainly had the esteem of two republican presidents and at least on wannabe.

IMO, I think it would be a mistake to assume that the ND Law faculty is filled with a bunch of disgruntled liberal pawns who feel things didn't go their way when Trump beat Hillary.

The question remains. What were his opinions on Fast and Furious, IRS, emails, Benghazi? If an esteemed law prof has comments about one thing, surely he has public opinions about other scandals outside this White House. Clearly, you have taken a side concerning this wannabe president so your comments can't really be taken at face value.

 

[IRISHJD98]

The question remains. What were his opinions on Fast and Furious, IRS, emails, Benghazi? If an esteemed law prof has comments about one thing, surely he has public opinions about other scandals outside this White House. Clearly, you have taken a side concerning this wannabe president so your comments can't really be taken at face value.

You misunderstood the wannabe statement - I was referring to Mitt Romney. Gurule was advising him (served on his advisory committee of attorneys) during his presidential campaign. Since he wasn't elected, I referred to him as a wanna-be. Perhaps a better reference might have been "would be". Regardless of wording, I wasn't referencing Trump as a wannabe.

I'm not sure what the face value stuff is about. You claimed interest in Gurule's background, and I shared some because I knew a little. Gurule actually was an Assistant Attorney General under George H.W Bush, and actually was and Under Secretary of Treasury under George W. Bush. If that's what you think I'm lying about, look it up yourself. Its not that hard.

If you were a little less dismissive, I'd tell you about my constitutional law professor, William Kelley, who worked directly for Kenneth Star to investigate Clinton and the Whitewater/Lewinski scandals. He took a leave of absence from ND to serve as Deputy Counsel (**) for George W. Bush. He was strongly partisan, outspoken, conservative, and he was welcomed back to his teaching position at ND when he was done working for Bush. He's still on the faculty.

The idea that ND's Law Faculty is filled with a bunch of disgruntled liberals is uninformed. Its fine if you don't want to believe me - I get that. Try looking up Jimmy Gurule yourself and see what you find. If you're interested in his opinion on other scandals, then do some research and share what you find.

**Related random fact: Trump's present White House Counsel, Don McGahn, is a Notre Dame grad.

 

[IRISHJD98]

Great post. Who'd you have for criminal law -- Blakey or Dutile?

Blakey. Had him for jurisprudence and some additional classes too.

 

[beachcardinal]

We can agree to disagree. Again, we don't know what else, if anything, was done by the Trump crew.

The original question I responded to was what are the possible "unproven crimes?" There are many possibilities, including conspiracy, as I explained. Once we learn all the evidence, we can reach final conclusions as to whether the evidence fits the statute.

Hopefully Trump won't fire Mueller before he's able to complete his investigation.

If your point is there could be something, about someone, that someone knows, but might somehow, lead to someone, being charged with something,: I concede the point.

 

[Nocalirish]

Fake president comrade Trumpsky is a liar and a traitor and will be impeached and tried for treason. He and his family are the biggest disgrace in American history.

 

[Toby Smart]

Fake president comrade Trumpsky is a liar and a traitor and will be impeached and tried for treason. He and his family are the biggest disgrace in American history.

Were you outraged at the scandals, lies, and cover ups that actually killed American citizens during the Obama years or is your search for the truth selective? Funny how I can't get a straight answer to this question from anyone on this board who is showing fake outrage now. Now, I will ask straight forward questions of you. What did Trump lie about? How is he a traitor? What is impeachment and how can it legally be used in this case? What is treason and how can it legally be used in this case? How is Trump worse than say, John Wilkes Booth, Timothy McVeigh, John Walker Lindh aka Johnny Taliban, Lee Harvey Oswald, Joshua John Ward, and Robert Hannsen? You made the statements. Answer the questions.

 

[twalsh]

I've never seen so many fawn over another politician. What has Trump done for you? Does it not make you sick to hear the people that work for him (really us) say how they love Trump like he's the next Jesus Christ? That crap is not normal. So called republicans wished for power they can careless of the hero worshiping going on.

What has the so called "worst President ever" done so far to make your life worse? Or anyone's life worse?

 

[Quest4Twelve]

What has the so called "worst President ever" done so far to make your life worse? Or anyone's life worse?

First of all I've never made such a statement. Secondly, there are plenty of people who claim Trump has done so much in his first 6 months. If anyone can come up with tangible facts outside of SCOTUS appointments and reversing Obama executive orders I'm all ears. Thirdly, I don't ever remember hearing Obama cabinet staff speak on loyalty and how they love the president, do you?!?! If you think any of that is normal or becoming of a government staff please raise your hand.

 

[stu4don]

Treason.

 

[benko's army]

What has the so called "worst President ever" done so far to make your life worse? Or anyone's life worse?

"Worst ever?" That remains to be seen. Most dishonest, most conflicted, rudest, most immature, least professional? Yeah, probably.

He's tried to push legislation and executive orders that potentially affect many people. Fortunately, many of his plans have stalled. Off the top of my head:

Removing environmental restrictions, which will lead to dirtier air and water. Deregulation of the financial industry and removing consumer protections, which will hurt ordinary Americans.

Pushing a healthcare law that will cost millions their health care and reduce Medicaid while cutting taxes for the very rich. Stopping refugees from getting desperately needed refuge. Passing a travel ban that disrupted the travel of hundreds, if not thousands.

Pushing a budget that cuts welfare programs, like nutritional assistance, by hundreds of billions. Cutting the children's health insurance program. Cutting the federal student loan program for low income students. Cutting from the social security disability program.

There are other ways his actions may affect us in the long run. He's hurt our relationships with allies by his behavior. Pulling out of the Paris agreement, insulting NATO allies, taking such a protectionist stance on trade, insulting Mexico and pushing the ridiculous wall.

America's standing in the world isn't helped by his dishonesty and petulant antics. We need our leader to stay credible and his image is anything but.

 

[rgc7]

We frequently hear people say they have nothing to hide - so surrendering privacy and constitutional rights to the Surveillance State may not be such a big deal if it helps catch a terrorist or two. But with each passing day in the RussiaGate drama we are learning that this superficial exoneration is dangerously beside the point.

We are referring here to the unrelenting witch hunt that has been unleashed by Imperial Washington against the legitimately elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. This campaign of lies, leaks and Russophobia is the handiwork of Obama’s top national security advisors, who blatantly misused Washington’s surveillance apparatus to discredit Trump and to effectively nullify America’s democratic process.

That is, constitutional protections and liberties were systematically breached, but not simply to intimidate, hush or lock up citizens one by one as per the standard totalitarian modus operandi. Instead, what has happened is that the entire public debate has been hijacked by the shadowy forces of the Deep State and their partisan and media collaborators.

The enabling culprits are Obama’s last CIA director, John Brennan, his national security advisor Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power. There is now mounting evidence that it was they who illegally “unmasked” NSA intercepts from Trump Tower; they who confected the Russian meddling narrative from behind the protective moat of classified intelligence; and they who orchestrated a systematic campaign of leaks and phony intelligence reports during the presidential transition—-all designed to delegitimize Trump before he even took the oath of office.

So all three of them should be lockedup—-that’s for sure. But the more urgent solution would be to unlock and make public all the innuendo, surmises, assessments, half-truths and boilerplate intelligence chatter on which the entire false narrative about Russian meddling and collusion is based.

Stated differently, without the nation’s massive intelligence apparatus and absurd system of secrecy and classified information to hide behind, the RussiaGate witch hunt would have never gotten off the ground.

In truth, as we will essay below, there is no there, there. So what this new chapter in McCarthyite hysteria actually demonstrates is that the Imperial City’s far-flung, 17-agency, $75 billion Intelligence Behemoth is a plenary threat not just to individual liberty, but to the very constitutional democracy on which the latter depends.

To appreciate the severity of the threat, it is necessary to recognize that the post-9/11 Deep State has lowered a double whammy on our system. That is, it unconstitutionally collects the entirety of all internet based communications of America’s 325 million citizen, while at the same time it has effectively disenfranchised 98% of the 535 members of the House and Senate who have been elected to represent them.

Accordingly, behind the Surveillance State’s vast wall of secrecy and so-called “classified” information, there operates a Dark Government that is unaccountable to the public and largely unconstrained by normal constitutional limits, which the Patriot Act and secret FISA courts have more or less suspended.

In the realm of this Dark Government, the heart of American democracy—-the US Congress—has been completely usurped. Almost everything behind the secrecy wall is off limits to the rank and file. Only a handful of intelligence committee members and the House and Senate leadership gets sworn into the classified intelligence.

Yet just consider the hideous asymmetry of this arrangement. The so-called “Gang of Eight,” comprising the heads of the intelligence oversight committees and their respective party leadership, gets orally briefed in a secure “vault”, where they can’t take notes or carry-out any documents.

 

[beachcardinal]

I know many here hate Trump and frankly he does a lot to deserve some of that. But calling someone a traitor is just nuts. The most aggressive, unfounded Rachol Madow statement ever made would not justify a treason charge. One thing to remember is that things done by the opposition at one time become a template for the opposition in another. So if you want to move to a system where noting can be done without 60 votes in the Senate and the same party holding the house and presidency, well fine.

We already had the first time ever filibuster of a Supreme Court candidate which resulted in a rule change. Heck maybe I am wrong and the Republicans will get so fed up they eliminate the filibuster rule entirely and then can do more.

But please consider applying some standards to your comments when it comes to calling someone a traitor. Or a least provide some facts that would legally support such a charge.

 

[Telx1]

The way you presented your position would not indicate that at all. Glad to hear that the teachers in your family are just like the majority of the rest of us in the approach we take day in and day out in our underappreciated profession. Kudos to them.

Well, I would argue that it wasn't the way I presented my view, but rather the way you chose to interpret and read between the lines. Regardless, we agree on two aspects. Yes, teachers are largely under appreciated and many go to extreme efforts and personal expense to provide a great learning experience. And we agree that good teachers facilitate open discussion of all views and leave their bias outside the classroom. We disagree as to whether these qualities are practiced by the majority or minority of teachers. We also disagree as to whether there is a dominant liberal bias in our education system, but I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that American K-12 education, as measured in science and math and reading, is producing discouraging and mediocre results when compared internationally.

 

[beachcardinal]

"Worst ever?" That remains to be seen. Most dishonest, most conflicted, rudest, most immature, least professional? Yeah, probably.

He's tried to push legislation and executive orders that potentially affect many people. Fortunately, many of his plans have stalled. Off the top of my head:

Removing environmental restrictions, which will lead to dirtier air and water. Deregulation of the financial industry and removing consumer protections, which will hurt ordinary Americans.

Pushing a healthcare law that will cost millions their health care and reduce Medicaid while cutting taxes for the very rich. Stopping refugees from getting desperately needed refuge. Passing a travel ban that disrupted the travel of hundreds, if not thousands.

Pushing a budget that cuts welfare programs, like nutritional assistance, by hundreds of billions. Cutting the children's health insurance program. Cutting the federal student loan program for low income students. Cutting from the social security disability program.

There are other ways his actions may affect us in the long run. He's hurt our relationships with allies by his behavior. Pulling out of the Paris agreement, insulting NATO allies, taking such a protectionist stance on trade, insulting Mexico and pushing the ridiculous wall.

America's standing in the world isn't helped by his dishonesty and petulant antics. We need our leader to stay credible and his image is anything but.

All this is based on the premise that these programs were good and effective, primarily because they sound helpful. If fact many such programs are wasteful and can hurt others. Good intentions do not assure good results. To go off topic a little take the raise to a 15 dollar per hour "living wage". A recent Cal Berkeley study showed that this increased unemployment, costing many jobs and hurt the economy.

The Paris accords were non-binding as to emission standards but binding as to procedural issues. So the parties agreed to set targets for reductions which were self established and could not be enforced. We need an agreement for that? Not everything is good because it feels or sounds good.

As a lawyer you know that executive orders have limits and can be overridden by legislation, so one must conclude they have the backing of the existing elected legislative bodies.

 

[rgc7]

BGI,
You nailed the whole thing ! Excellent ! That is why, I think that Trump must start draining the swamp
By firing Rosenstein and Muller ASAP. There is absolute no crime and there should be no Special Counsel
to investigate innuendos and suspisions and false accusations.
Under our legal system, can our local police start an investigation in every action that a citizen may
Have done in his life because they feel that he may have committed some crime that he was never convicted of ? How would any of us like to have someone investigating every thing that we may or may have done in our past lives or our contact with any person or group that we may have met with in the past ? Since when
Is it against the law for any citizen or politician to meet with a Russian or Russian official at any time ?
If that is a crime, them President Obama ( " Tell Vladimir, that I will have mare flexibility after the election ! ") should have been impeached ?
Our President is also a citizen and , just like any other citizen, there must be a crime committed
Before any law enforcement agency can start an investigation into that crime.
President Trump committed no crime and neither did any one else in the Trump Administration
That any one knows of. In short, first there must be a crime, and only then do the police start an investigation. No Crime ! No Investigation !
Draining the Swamp must start with firing the Witch Hunters first, then indicting the leaker starting
With Comey and who ever else is found to to have illegally leaked classified information or unmasked
A citizen !

 

[Quest4Twelve]

BGI,
You nailed the whole thing ! Excellent ! That is why, I think that Trump must start draining the swamp
By firing Rosenstein and Muller ASAP. There is absolute no crime and there should be no Special Counsel
to investigate innuendos and suspisions and false accusations.
Under our legal system, can our local police start an investigation in every action that a citizen may
Have done in his life because they feel that he may have committed some crime that he was never convicted of ? How would any of us like to have someone investigating every thing that we may or may have done in our past lives or our contact with any person or group that we may have met with in the past ? Since when
Is it against the law for any citizen or politician to meet with a Russian or Russian official at any time ?
If that is a crime, them President Obama ( " Tell Vladimir, that I will have mare flexibility after the election ! ") should have been impeached ?
Our President is also a citizen and , just like any other citizen, there must be a crime committed
Before any law enforcement agency can start an investigation into that crime.
President Trump committed no crime and neither did any one else in the Trump Administration
That any one knows of. In short, first there must be a crime, and only then do the police start an investigation. No Crime ! No Investigation !
Draining the Swamp must start with firing the Witch Hunters first, then indicting the leaker starting
With Comey and who ever else is found to to have illegally leaked classified information or unmasked
A citizen !

Seriously? So you're willing to go on record to say that the mis-statements, failing to disclose information until reported on, etc is the fault of our imaginations? This administration is it's own roadblock. Transparency is the best policy and it all started during the campaign. If taxes, meetings, etc were released there wouldn't be half the issues. Stop doubling down and recognize these important facts.