OT: Trump obviously did not "Obstruct Justice" ...

[StephenJ]

Alan Dershowitz explains why:

"The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the
attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell
them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed,
the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation
of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to Comey:
"You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have
decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's
constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of
justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:25:23 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

simple common sense that we all knew before. but he even elaborates
that trump had the authority to forcibly stop the flynn investigation,
yet didn't. trump had the authorty pardon flynn, yet didn't.

that's why this incessant criticism by media of literally everything
trump does is getting worn. trump's no perfect man, no doubt. trump
has an unappealing personality often, no doubt. but if people want to
complain, save it for something legit. the flynn and russian
"tampering" thing is grasping straws, out in left field, and bad form
for a country with a brand new president. give him a yr for
chrissakes.

bob

[Metaphysical Punisher]

Can Trump pardon himself? He might need to...

[StephenJ]

Great points. I'm actually embarrassed i engaged TT in semantic debate
over what "hope" meant when legally it doesn't matter even if TT and
Comey are right and Trump was directing him to stop the investigation.

Though impeachment is political so it matters in that sense.

That said, it obviously is a wrong situation when someone being
investigated can order the investigator not to investigate them, or to
stop investigating someone else because they fear the trail may lead
back to them. Maybe we need Congress to set up a truly 'independent'
agency to do this, but I'm not sure how that would work. Police
departments have independent internal affairs sections to investigate
police. But even special prosecutors can be indirectly fired by the
President, as he can order his AG to fire them, like Nixon did in 1973.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:09:24 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

as long as this "independent" council is composed of humans that have
political biases it'll be a problem for the obvious reasons.

bob

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:09:24 -0400, StephenJ wrote:

> That said, it obviously is a wrong situation when someone being
> investigated can order the investigator not to investigate them, or to
> stop investigating someone else because they fear the trail may lead
> back to them. Maybe we need Congress to set up a truly 'independent'
> agency to do this, but I'm not sure how that would work. Police
> departments have independent internal affairs sections to investigate
> police. But even special prosecutors can be indirectly fired by the
> President, as he can order his AG to fire them, like Nixon did in 1973.

How about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
president partake in such activities?

[Brian W Lawrence]

Surely in order to pardon someone that person needs to have committed a
crime or an act against the United States. The president would be
agreeing that Flynn has committed a serious 'crime'. I doubt he'd want
to do that.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[bob]

how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
president partake in eating ketchup on his steak, so long as we
dislike this particular president?

give it a rest.

bob

[bob]

not necessarily.

and clinton btw pardoned an incredible # of "business partners."

bob

[calim...@gmx.de]

No, better wait a little bit longer. At some point the orange clown will make an impeachable mistake. When his favorability rates are around 30 percent Ryan should pull the trigger. Because then Trump's base is leaving him.


Max

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:54:36 -0400, bob wrote:

> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak,

Or Russian dressing on his salad? ;)

[jdeluise]

At any rate, firing one's investigator is a bit more of a serious matter
than condiments on food, no?

[bob]

very possible. that's why i say, why all the BS about meaningless
things that don't even exist, let alone can be proven?

> When his favorability rates are around 30 percent Ryan should pull the trigger. Because then Trump's base is leaving him.

he has no base in gov't. his base is his voters. and lots of his
voters also vote for/against congress. they're worried for their own
skin.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:08:02 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:04:36 +0000, jdeluise wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:54:36 -0400, bob wrote:
>>
>>> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
>>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak,
>>
>> Or Russian dressing on his salad? ;)

ahahhahahah.

>At any rate, firing one's investigator is a bit more of a serious matter
>than condiments on food, no?

no, it's not. comey was slipping into the abyss over the course of an
entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.

bob

[Federer Fanatic]

Exactly! Bunch of cowards ;-)

FF

ps. Any truly great congressman/woman?

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:48:28 -0400, bob wrote:

> no, it's not. comey was slipping into the abyss over the course of an
> entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.

Sure... you liked him when he was vocally investigating Hillary, not so
much when he was investigating your associates of your hero. Typical.

[calim...@gmx.de]

Comey let Hilary skate. For this alone he deserved to be fired.
Incredible that she isn't in prison. Could join a cell with the orange clown. Despicable persons both.


Max

[bob]

of the highest order.

>FF
>
>ps. Any truly great congressman/woman?

well there are 535 of them incl senate.
great? i'd have to think. i like bernie, maybe few more.
pathetic? many. warren, pelosi, schumer come to mind immediately.

bob\

[Federer Fanatic]

Yes. Bernie is very honest. But his policies strike me as untenable in the short term unless US
pulls out of large military spending internationally? Seems like a really bad idea.

FF

[Federer Fanatic]

Do you like Merkel? I.E., as a leader of modern Germany? She seems to enjoy her position of power.

FF

[calim...@gmx.de]

Yes, I like her. The best German (even european?) politician in a generation. Always voted for her (or for the Free Democrats if they were willing to form a coalition with her CDU party).
And no, she doesn't seem to enjoy her position. Typical Protestant.

Max

[StephenJ]

The problem with that is impeachment is for a president who has
committed a crime, and as of now, it's not a crime.

[StephenJ]

On 6/11/2017 1:05 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 15:25, StephenJ wrote:
>> Alan Dershowitz explains why:
>>
>> "The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the
>> attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell
>> them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed,
>> the president has the constitutional authority to stop the
>> investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.
>>
>> Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to
>> Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I
>> have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's
>> constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of
>> justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time."
>>
>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318
>
>
> Surely in order to pardon someone that person needs to have committed a
> crime or an act against the United States.

No, the President can pardon someone for crimes they may have committed,
even if they haven't yet been have been convicted or even charged.

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:05:07 -0500, Federer Fanatic

well he lost his bid for the presidency, but he's still a senator. he
had some ideas that likely would never become law, but at least he
broached the subjects. if i went through a list i could find a few
good ones, but mostly i'm of the drain the swamp mentality. they are
for the most part swamp creatures, leeches off the working public.

bob

[bob]

no fooling!

bob

[Federer Fanatic]

So she is the reluctant leader? She likes beer?

FF

[calim...@gmx.de]

No.

> She likes beer?
>
>

Lol, why would she like beer?


Max

[Brian W Lawrence]

I didn't state that they had been convicted because clearly that hasn't
always been the case.

I'll put this bit back.

"The president would be agreeing that Flynn has committed a serious
'crime'. I doubt he'd want to do that."

It could, and no doubt would, be denied that a 'crime' was being
acknowledged, but what would public opinion be like?

[Brian W Lawrence]

Why would anyone?

But, she clearly does like beer, there are many photos, including on
her recent Mexico visit.


<http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-1497062679-wgf6ckf1ge-snap-image-photo.html>

[Brian W Lawrence]

Well technically federal officials can be impeached for, "treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". A high crime or
misdemeanor is open to interpretation by Congress. In 1970 the House
Minority leader stated, "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority
of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in
history."

IOW if Congress decides it's a 'crime' it is a crime.

[DavidW]

On 12-Jun-17 12:25 AM, StephenJ wrote:
> Alan Dershowitz explains why:
>
> "The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the
> attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell
> them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute.
> Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the
> investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.
>
> Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to
> Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I
> have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's
> constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of
> justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time."

What a terrible justification. He gets off on a technicality and that's
okay? I can't believe that the American people believe it's okay for a
presidential campaign to collude with a foreign power to influence an
election, or would condone presidential interference into an FBI
investigation into such an activity. What sort of a government do you
want, anyway?

[Federer Fanatic]

Various pics on the internet?

FF

[*skriptis]

DavidW <n...@email.provided> Wrote in message:

For the people and world peace, perhaps?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[StephenJ]

That is true. Congress can impeach any federal official for any reason
they want. But surely, when defining whether something is an impeachable
offense, members of Congress consider whether an actual crime has been
committed or not.

[StephenJ]

No question, Presidents are often criticized for their pardons.
Frequently they are accused of letting personal friends or political
allies off the hook, of pandering to valued constituencies (e.g. Obama
pardoning Chelsea Manning). That's why they often do a raft of them at
the very end of their last term in office, when they are heading out the
door and it can't do them any political damage.

But what the public reaction might be and what the president's powers
are, are two different things. In this case, the president can
per-emptively pardon someone who is only being investigated for possibly
having done something.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

The main reason Trump isn't going to pardon anyone anytime soon is once you receive a pardon you can't plead the 5th if called to testify...

Trump can also only pardon federal crimes, which is why any financial collusion or activities in Trump Tower will likely be his downfall. The NY AG can prosecute them all for crimes that happened in NY. There is nothing the president can do about state crimes.

[TT]

Apparently they voted Trump to 'drain the swamp'. lol

[StephenJ]

On 6/12/2017 2:47 AM, DavidW wrote:
> On 12-Jun-17 12:25 AM, StephenJ wrote:
>> Alan Dershowitz explains why:
>>
>> "The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the
>> attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell
>> them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute.
>> Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the
>> investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.
>>
>> Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump had said the following to
>> Comey: "You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I
>> have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's
>> constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of
>> justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time."
>
> What a terrible justification. He gets off on a technicality and that's
> okay?

I don't think that a system that allows those being investigated to fire
the investigators is OK. The problem is designing a system that gives
investigators the freedom to investigate, while also maintaining
investigator accountability to the broader political system.
Investigators can't be fully independent, because that would mean they
are a power unto themselves.

[StephenJ]

> On 6/12/2017 10:42 AM, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
>There is nothing the president can do about state crimes.
>

Yes, the pardon power is only for offenses against the "United States",
meaning federal crimes.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:05:01 AM UTC+2, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 01:40, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:25:32 AM UTC+2, Federer Fanatic wrote:
>
> >> She likes beer?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Lol, why would she like beer?
>
> Why would anyone?
>
> But, she clearly does like beer, there are many photos, including on
> her recent Mexico visit.
>
>
> <http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-1497062679-wgf6ckf1ge-snap-image-photo.html>
>

And why do many photos with beer indicate that she likes beer?


Max

[calim...@gmx.de]

Which collusion do you mean?

This Sources guy has leaked many mean things about the orange clown. But nothing about any collusion.


Max

[bob]

she's got a head shaped like a beer can. 18oz.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 06:40:12 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

clinton did wonders for the mcdougal's and a host of other financial
elites just before leaving the WH.

>But what the public reaction might be and what the president's powers
>are, are two different things. In this case, the president can
>per-emptively pardon someone who is only being investigated for possibly
>having done something.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:48:11 -0400, StephenJ <step...@flex.com>
wrote:

you also don't want biased investigators in a toxic political
environment following investigations down the party lines. certainly
it's a problem.

bob

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Mueller has been appointed to senior positions by all R presidents starting with Reagan. He's an R guy. So no partisan/dem investigation is possible with him.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 13/06/2017 01:09, bob wrote:

> clinton did wonders for the mcdougal's and a host of other financial
> elites just before leaving the WH.

Really? The list of 140 pardons he made on Jan 20 2001 includes Susan
McDougal, who had already completed a prison term. If you are including
her ex-husband, James McDougal, he had been dead for three years. That
pardon doesn't appear to have had much of an impact on 'the mcdougals'.

Also, 'a host of other financial elites' - how many of the 140 were
'financial elites'?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/my-reasons-for-the-pardons.html>

Anyway, what a former-president did is relevant how? Most presidents
pardoned many people:


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States>

[bob]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:23:10 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:

>On 13/06/2017 01:09, bob wrote:
>
>> clinton did wonders for the mcdougal's and a host of other financial
>> elites just before leaving the WH.
>
>Really? The list of 140 pardons he made on Jan 20 2001 includes Susan
>McDougal, who had already completed a prison term. If you are including
>her ex-husband, James McDougal, he had been dead for three years. That
>pardon doesn't appear to have had much of an impact on 'the mcdougals'.

he pardoned her, i'm well aware he died yrs earlier. but they were
always phrased as "the mcdougals" in their business dealings with the
clintons so i just used the phrase.

>Also, 'a host of other financial elites' - how many of the 140 were
>'financial elites'?

i condisder any "business partner" of them to be financial elite -
i.e. not a guy on death row for having a bad lawyer.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy>

><http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/my-reasons-for-the-pardons.html>

>Anyway, what a former-president did is relevant how? Most presidents
>pardoned many people:

><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States>

is it normal to pardon criminals who are friends? or is it more normal
to pardon those whose guilt is questionable?

i'm not sure, it'd be good to know.

bob

[Brian W Lawrence]

Well many thousands have been pardoned by US presidents, I'd imagine
that only a small number could be classed as friends of the president,
although how would we know?

Similarly I imagine that the number whose guilt was questionable would
also be rather small - more so now than in the past.

If those assumptions are correct neither would be 'normal'.

The Wiki article is mostly based on this paper by PS Ruckman:


<https://web.archive.org/web/20110326045557/http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~PeterR/Papers/paper3.htm>

Prof. PS Ruckman, Jr. is at Northern Illinois University.

<http://psruckman.com/research.htm>

He also has a well respected blog on the topic of pardons in the USA.

<http://www.pardonpower.com/>