Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Admiral Yi]

What if we discover crimes after he has left office?

That would look less like double jeopardy.

[Valmy]

What if we discover crimes after he has left office?

That would look less like double jeopardy.

Ok well we did that with the documents deal, but he got immunity on that right?

[Admiral Yi]

Ok well we did that with the documents deal, but he got immunity on that right?

I thought it only applied to the insurrection case, but maybe Joan can settle it.  I thought all crimes committed in the docs case occurred when he was out of office.

[The Minsky Moment]

My rearguard is going to be that prosecuting an unimpeached president looks a lot more like double jeopardy.

Prosecuting an impeached President is even worse from a 2x jeopardy perspective, because not only are you holding the President in jeopardy twice, you are punishing him twice for the same offense.  Double jeopardy and double punishment.

But it isn't because the impeachment process is entirely separate from criminal process.  It's a political process with a political consequence.  It doesn't require proof of a criminal act, or any special burden of proof at all. It doesn't involve rules of evidence or any rules at other than those that the Senate chooses to apply. On the flip side, the consequence is purely political, it has none of the consequences of criminal conviction.

There are other situations like this - a person can be sued civilly and criminal prosecuted for the same offense; can be subject to administrative sanctions like loss of professional licenses or the right to bid on contracts, can be subject to deportation proceedings.  All those proceedings are law-like proceedings that can have very serious punishments and none of them are double jeopardy that bar a subsequent or simultaneous criminal prosecution.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not entirely separate from criminal process.  Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Admiral Yi]

And anyway, aren't you arguing my case?  We're talking about a guy who wins his deportation hearing then gets charged somewhere else for being in the country illegally.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's not entirely separate from criminal process.  Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art; it can include things that aren't chargeable crimes like abuse of power and some things that are chargeable crimes may not be impeachable.

This was the original design.  Hamilton was the foremost proponent of strong Presidential power. But right there in Federalist 69 he explains the design permits BOTH impeachment and "prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

Hamilton went on to say: "he person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York."  I don't believe anyone has ever claimed a New York governor is immune from prosecution . . .

And anyway, aren't you arguing my case?  We're talking about a guy who wins his deportation hearing then gets charged somewhere else for being in the country illegally.

Different purposes, different standard of proof.  If a non-citizen assaults and kills someone, the people may wish to charge that person criminally for the usually reasons - deterrence, retribution etc.  But when the sentence is up, we also want to ability to deport.   OJ Simpson kills two people, gets off because the police mishandled DNA.  But the families can still sue for wrongful death.  There can be abuses but I'm OK with that system.  And it is our system and always has been.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok well we did that with the documents deal, but he got immunity on that right?

I thought it only applied to the insurrection case, but maybe Joan can settle it.  I thought all crimes committed in the docs case occurred when he was out of office.

As charged, yes.

[Admiral Yi]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art; it can include things that aren't chargeable crimes like abuse of power and some things that are chargeable crimes may not be impeachable.

This was the original design.  Hamilton was the foremost proponent of strong Presidential power. But right there in Federalist 69 he explains the design permits BOTH impeachment and "prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

Hamilton went on to say: "he person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York."  I don't believe anyone has ever claimed a New York governor is immune from prosecution . . .

I know it's a term of art.  Congress could impeach a president for bad breath and I might disagree but I wouldn't base my disagreement on the Constitution.  However Congress "tried" Trump for insurrection and found him innocent.

What Hamilton said about impeachment and prosecution doesn't interest me right now.  What might interest me is if he said something about *no* impeachment and prosecution. 

Different purposes, different standard of proof.  If a non-citizen assaults and kills someone, the people may wish to charge that person criminally for the usually reasons - deterrence, retribution etc.  But when the sentence is up, we also want to ability to deport.  OJ Simpson kills two people, gets off because the police mishandled DNA.  But the families can still sue for wrongful death.  There can be abuses but I'm OK with that system.  And it is our system and always has been.

How does this version of the deportation case fit this case?  He kills someone, gets punished.  Serves his term, gets a deportation hearing.  Two separate wrong acts, two separate processes.  Congress and Jack Smith both charged Trump with the same act.

I've always thought civil cases when the defendant was found innocent are hinky.  I'm not as OK with it as you are.

[Solmyr]

Trump does not need Musk and will eventually get annoyed by him.

How?  What has Musk done in his life that would annoy Trump?  We all get annoyed by him because of his bizarro beliefs on free speech.  That won't annoy Trump.

You think they'll fall out because of X vs. Truth market share?

If Trump starts to feel Musk is steeling limelight from him, it's going to turn ugly.

Everyone should heap praise on Musk online for every single thing, so that Trump gets jealous ASAP.

[DGuller]

Allegedly Yezhov's downfall began when there was a banner unveiled at party congress that lauded both Stalin and Yezhov. 

[celedhring]

The Trump administration will essentially be a Baroque court, with all the different chancers competing for the ear and favour of the indolent king. So yeah, at some point Musk will be Scaramucci'ed.

[The Minsky Moment]

What Hamilton said about impeachment and prosecution doesn't interest me right now.  What might interest me is if he said something about *no* impeachment and prosecution. 

He said both punishments were available.  I'm not understanding the significance of the distinction. The Supreme Court's decision is not based on that distinction at all - immunity applies whether articles of impeachment were brought, whether the Senate convicts, or not. The double jeopardy problem (or lack of problem) is the same whether the Senate convicts or not. It's actually more problematic if the Senate convicts because it raises the prospect of double punishment as well as jeopardy.

It's a particularly odd objection to raise in this specific context, because a bunch of the GOP Senators who acquitted (including McConnell) did so explicitly on the reasoning that impeachment wasn't appropriate for the circumstances and that he should be tried by the criminal law instead. At the time, no one raised the argument that Trump couldn't be tried criminally.

I've always thought civil cases when the defendant was found innocent are hinky.  I'm not as OK with it as you are.

That's fine, you can argue it's unfair, but it is and always has been a basic attribute of the American legal and constitutional system. 

In the Presidential context, the dual purposes are pretty compelling.  Imagine a President commits an unimaginably heinous crime - let's say he directs the US military to kidnap 100 American children, murders their parents, sells the kids to depraved foreign pedophiles and pockets the proceeds.

On your "double jeopardy" view, the President could be removed from office by impeachment or charged criminally, but not both. Either the President is removed but lives happy and free. Or Americans have to wait out the rest of his full term in office and then punish him criminally.

Perhaps you would counter that it is OK to do both as long as the impeachment comes first and results in conviction.  But imagine in my hypothetical that the President threatens the families of 34 Senators with murder and torture if they convict him in an impeachment.  Then he is safe: any impeachment fails, and therefore he stays in office and is free from any criminal consequences after he leaves office.

[Zanza]

Trump does not need Musk and will eventually get annoyed by him.

How?  What has Musk done in his life that would annoy Trump?  We all get annoyed by him because of his bizarro beliefs on free speech.  That won't annoy Trump.

You think they'll fall out because of X vs. Truth market share?

Two of the biggest narcissists on the planet will eventually find some cause of disagreement to trigger a fallout.

[Maladict]

The Trump administration will essentially be a Baroque court, with all the different chancers competing for the ear and favour of the indolent king. So yeah, at some point Musk will be Scaramucci'ed.

I don't see him doing a podcast I would listen to.