What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Some quotations from Professor Turley's testimony 20 years ago, supporting the impeachment of Bill Clinton:

First, "other high crimes and misdemeanors" obviously refers to conduct other than treason and bribery. Second, it is generally accepted that "misdemeanors" encompasses non-criminal conduct in the sense of "misdeeds."

An impeachment standard must be evolutionary to serve any meaningful function in this system. In the course of the last two hundred years, a significant degree of conduct has become subject to criminal and civil penalties, reflecting changes in contemporary standards. Many issues that were once considered "private" concerns, such as sexual harassment, are now considered public concerns. Each generation must consider the gravity of a criminal act or misdeed by a president. Today, a proven case of sexual harassment or racial discrimination would be viewed by many citizens as inherently incompatible with the office of the President.

There is a tendency to view the impeachment provisions as a type of negative "qualification" provision without any view to its role as part of the checks and balances between the branches. Clearly, the Framers wanted to create a vehicle for removal to avoid paralysis in office. However, they also viewed impeachment as a critical check on the conduct of the President, including a lingering threat for failure to supervise other executive branch officers.

A President must have both legal and political legitimacy to lead a democratic nation. In times of crisis, a president must have sufficient legitimacy to demand the greatest sacrifice of citizens since a president cannot coerce a free nation. A president who is viewed as being without legitimacy suffers from a dangerous form of disability. Framers foresaw controversies in which "an officer . . . had rendered himself justly criminal in the eyes of a majority." Records vol. 1, supra, at 86 (Mason). The Framers created a process in which such questions of legitimacy could be resolved in an open and deliberative fashion. Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as "a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men

There are obviously some acts that do not raise serious questions of the legitimacy of a president as a person of "good virtue" or veracity. However, there are many criminal or noncriminal acts that seriously undermine such legitimacy in a person who must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, 3; cf. Gerhardt, supra, 68 Tex. L. Rev. at 88 ("The answer seems to be that someone who holds office also holds the people's trust, and an officeholder who violates that trust effectively loses the confidence of the people and, consequently, must forfeit the office.").

Hmm.

[Valmy]

Apparently a majority of Republicans believe that universities have a negative impact int he wellbeing of the US. This opinion has risen sharply in recent years, as back in 2015 they still had an overall positive opinion of them. This anti-intellectualism thing is getting out of hand, it seems...

The reason is because there is a recent series of outrages about safe spaces and trigger warnings and leftwing students out of control in the past couple years. Some college in Washington State, Evergreen State I think, has been their recent cause celebre. I think they think that mainstream Universities are all about left wing indoctrination and the free speech is being shut down on campus through intimidation and violence by out of control students. So that is the context of that.

I think their disapproval is just outrage at work and hopefully not a sign of a serious trend.

[Admiral Yi]

Assume the Russians violated US criminal law - that seems plausible if persons acting under state direction hacked the DNC servers.  Then you could charge conspiracy with proof that one or more persons on the campaign: (1) knew at least one object of the conspiracy and with the intent of helping accomplish that object and (2) performed an overt act.

A person can be convicted of conspiracy without knowing all the details and objects of the conspiracy.  The overt act doesn't have to be criminal itself and often isn't.  Making a phone call or attending a meeting can be enough.

The law of criminal conspiracy can be pretty loosey-goosey, not surprising everyone in the blast radius of this mess is lawyering up with white collar guys.

So bottom line is something that abets the criminal act?

[jimmy olsen]

https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/884798748152483840

Jared Yates Sexton @JYSexton

I...worked on this story for a year...and...he just...he tweeted it out.

Poor guy.

I agree with Mr. Dobbs

Jared, it's 9 minutes till noon, and at least in olden days, you could start drinking at noon. I suggest a two-martini lunch. Cheers!

[jimmy olsen]

nothing will happen because the derspiess' of America don't care, and there are more of them then there are democrats.

Actually, there aren't more of them, there are in fact several million fewer of them. They just happen to live in areas with disproportionate electoral influence.

[Ed Anger]

The Trump family as the cast of Always Sunny in Philadelphia:

Frank- Trump
Dennis- Eric Trump
Mac- Don Jr.
Sweet Dee- Ivanka
Charlie - Tiffany. Nobody wants to do Charlie jobs.

[Ed Anger]

If anybody watched Tucker Carlson tonight, Col. Ralph Peters jacknifed power bombed Tucker through a table over Russia.

[sbr]

There's a ton of articles/opinions on whether Trump Jr/Kushner/Manafort broke the law with teh meeting, but federal election law says:

The problem is that a federal law says foreign nationals cannot "directly or indirectly" give a "thing of value" to American political campaigns. Moreover, the law says no one is allowed to "solicit, accept, or receive" any thing of value from a foreign national to help a candidate.

So the question is, is "opposition research" a thing of value?

And to the "Donald Sr didn't know crowd"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/oh-boy-3

Philip Bump at the Post just flagged this Trump speech from June 7th, four days after Rob Goldstone's first contact with Don Jr and two days before the meeting at Trump Tower on June 9th.

Trump promises big news about Hillary Clinton's crimes in a speech on "probably" June 13th."


The video is set to start at the key moment. If that doesn't work, jump forward to the 7:00 minute timestamp.

Video is in the link.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's a ton of articles/opinions on whether Trump Jr/Kushner/Manafort broke the law with teh meeting, but federal election law says:

The problem is that a federal law says foreign nationals cannot "directly or indirectly" give a "thing of value" to American political campaigns. Moreover, the law says no one is allowed to "solicit, accept, or receive" any thing of value from a foreign national to help a candidate.

So the question is, is "opposition research" a thing of value?

I don't like that case.  Technically, yes information is a thing of value, and so a literal reading would make that a crime, but it would also make it a crime anytime a non-US citizen gives any information to any political campaign.  My guess is if pushed, the statute would either be interpreted narrowly to cover things of pecuniary value, or would be narrowed in scope by the First Amendment.

[CountDeMoney]

They'll just turn all this into a referendum on what the actual "dirt" was that the Russians had on Hillary.  THATS THE REAL STORY HERE

[alfred russel]

Haven't political parties traditionally have links with foreign parties? For example, UK Labour with the Democrats, and Republicans with the Tories.

[CountDeMoney]

Haven't political parties traditionally have links with foreign parties? For example, UK Labour with the Democrats, and Republicans with the Tories.

No, they haven't, fuckstickovich.  And I'm really getting tired of your Russian plant misdirection bullshit.  Keep spewing bullshit, and I'll ban you and your motherfucking disabled alt.

[FunkMonk]

If anybody watched Tucker Carlson tonight, Col. Ralph Peters jacknifed power bombed Tucker through a table over Russia.

Saw a clip of it. Tucker is as evasive and slimy as ever. Funny to see him be so offended when he was called out as a Nazi apologist 

[DGuller]

Haven't political parties traditionally have links with foreign parties? For example, UK Labour with the Democrats, and Republicans with the Tories.

No, they haven't, fuckstickovich.  And I'm really getting tired of your Russian plant misdirection bullshit.  Keep spewing bullshit, and I'll ban you and your motherfucking disabled alt.

I'm neurodiverse! 

[The Minsky Moment]

If anybody watched Tucker Carlson tonight, Col. Ralph Peters jacknifed power bombed Tucker through a table over Russia.

Saw a clip of it. Tucker is as evasive and slimy as ever. Funny to see him be so offended when he was called out as a Nazi apologist 

"America First" - where does he think that name came from?  it's a deliberate evocation from Bannon - like Pat Buchanan he openly identifies with the 30s era Nazi apologists.