And when the testimony comes out, even we here at DU will probably be shocked.

Already it's been worse than I feared, and I already feared the worst.
So I fully expect that there will be greater shocks ahead.
If our citizens and representatives rouse themselves, stand up for our democracy, and manage to stop this corrupt and cruel regime in its tracks, and then institute reforms to reduce the chances of this happening again,we will be OK.. . it could even be a great moment in our history.
But we roll over and let this wrecking crew have their way with our natural resources, our people, and our Constitution, we are finished.

Either way, it's going to be a rough ride.

I'm ready now!

NOBODY wants tRump "exposing himself" The parts we see are repulsive enough.

So in other words, we know our client is guilty, and an idiot, we just don't want him to prove it. Besides, he's above the law.

It's most definitely a Trump camp leak. They want to get it out there so they can start talking about how it isn't proper, legal and possible.

Trump does know one thing well - PR and Media. I will grant him that.

from building a narrative of course. I agree with you on the PR.

How many people were stupid enough to vote for Trump?
How many people are willing to support Trump no matter what he does?

This was leaked by trump's team to make a political appeal to trump's base

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Kennedy being the swing vote and Gorsuch possibly siding with his originalist philosophy

The four Fed Soc justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch - and Scalia before him) are Republican partisan ideologues who have been promoted within the Fed Society because they side with the billionaire donors that run the GOP. The Fed Soc starts with a small number of “conservative” law students in top law schools and selects and grooms the ones that will help the pro-billionaire agenda. Unsurprisingly the Fed Soc is largely funded by GOP billionaires to do this work.


The “originalist” and “textualist” stuff they spout to legitimize their partisan leanings is just a front.
Here’s Richard Posner exposing Scalia’s “originalism” as a thin fake veneer over his conservative ideology.

https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

Yes it's all a name they gave themselves to appear like they are in tune with the Founding Fathers

My thought would be that he could be subpoenaed and compelled to testify since the founders were crawling out from under an unaccountable king, BUT ........

ETA - I should have read further before asking - quite a discussion down thread

See the Posner and especially the Tribe articles- two of our most preeminent constitutional scholars (one conserv) tear the “originalist” philosophy to shreds.



But in predicting what Gorsuch will do, he may well put country above party. Let’s hope. There is a chance the liberal judges will try to get him to recuse too. Maybe Kennedy would buy that, or Roberts. Beyond Roberts’ pro-billionaire bias, in some cases he does actually seem to care about the country and American values.

I was going to phrase his originalism as quite flexible - or to use a more succinct word, bullshit.

And good news is that a liberal group called Demand Justice is advocating for good SCOTUS judges. Hopefully they will balance out the Fed Society takeover of the court.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/merrick-garland-judicial-trump.amp.html

Here’s Larry Tribe saying that “originalism” is just a pretend story so Scalia can claim he’s not just a conservative partisan.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/27/the-scalia-myth/

All these Fed Society judges are conservative partisans. Scalia died on a gun hunting junket paid for by a GOP billionaire!!! (No civil servant would have been allowed to accept that trip due to ethics rules. The Republican Supreme Court justices apparently don’t care.)

Appointee to the Supreme Court to save his sorry ass.

Gorsuch is an originalist, like Scalia, so he will take the Constitution pretty literally - and there's nothing in it that says or even suggests that the president is above the law. I don't think any of the Supremes, as conservative as some of them are, would rule that way. Back in 1974 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to turn over the tapes; even justices Burger, Blackmun and Powell, who were Nixon appointees, ruled against him. And they emphasized the equal and differentiated powers of Article III courts vs. the executive. I think the current court, including Gorsuch, will follow the precedent of United States v. Nixon. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5132513257326080850&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

his History in Colorado scares the living crap out me. Met someone who dealt with him in a Court Case in the Colorado Springs setting. Long story short,he is a Fundie from the get go and believes in absolute power.

having worked for an appellate court, is that they are very protective of their own power. They are likely to remind the president (any president), "you aren't the boss of us." Gorsuch may be an authoritarian, but I doubt that he'd uphold a decision that would in any way render the courts secondary to the executive.

Gorsuch history scares many. The Truck Driver Ruling tells me,this Guy lacks something and one can only speculate as to what that is.

of corporate interests vs. individuals. So far he's done that quite reliably. However, I don't think he'll roll over and agree to Article III courts ceding power to the president.

You and I both live in or have lived in States that value the rule of Law. Millions have not had our opportunities .

Originalism is just a way for Fed Society extremist judges to pretend they have a coherent approach behind their Republican partisanship.

Just because Trump believes it doesn't make it so.
Just ask Dick Nixon.

The headline should be
“Ignoring legal precedent, Trump’s team flimsily argues that he is above the law.”

I can't see him allowing his legacy to be presiding over a Supreme Court opinion declaring the President to have king-like powers. He will find some way to justify some degree of constraint on the legality of POTUS actions which ends up encompassing Trump's misdeeds.

protect the Supreme Court and thus his legacy. I don't see him burning the bridge out from under himself. He has to have noticed that Congress, under Rethug rule, has ceded their 1/3 of Federal power to Trump. Will the SC do the same?

This obsession with Mueller's "witch hunt" has itself become the best testimony to his guilt. He's like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment tormented by his own demons to the point he convicts himself.

best paying "gig" tRump has ever had. He makes money hand over fist from his Mar-A-Lago crap house. He also makes a lot of $$$$ from the DC post office hotel and golf courses. His supremely ugly mug is on TV daily, and he loves that. His golf trips are very costly, as it should be with royalty. His grifting "kids" are also getting publicity, making contacts and getting business. Life is good. All at the expense of the US citizens. The gop should be ashamed that they are represented by this orange, bloated, vile, uncouth MORON.

My guess at Mueller's response.

Actually, Trump can't say a complete sentence without lying, so it is a safe bet he would be charged with perjury.

How sad is that?

Wouldn't that be something else?

Surely they would have all submitted to the will of the invader and obeyed their sneak-stooge president all the way to the death of the republic. Washington and Franklin and Adams and Hamilton and Jefferson were all men bound by skillful misinterpretation of language to commit hari-kiri on the command of their enemy.

Because logic. Right? And saying it over and over makes it true.

Logic law language! They can say it! So they win!

If we as a nation cannot set these crimes right because the criminals say words then we get what we deserve, along with the rest of humanity. Some other planet will survive somewhere. Not us.

But we will set this right.

And let us not engage in half-measures. Let us make this a lesson for the next thousand years.

Mueller isn't going to get any information from an interview with Trump. All he'll get is one meandering bullshit answer after another. We need to get rid of Trump. NOW!

The only viable ways to get rid of him that I can see are 1) impeachment, and 2) defeating him in 2020.

The first is dicey because we'd need to take 2/3 of the Senate, which isn't happening in 2018, or some Republicans would have to wake up and vote with us. I could see the latter if Trump's crimes are really over the top. If there's any wiggle room at all, though, they'll allow him to squeak through.

Assuming the former happens, he might be so politically damaged (and he's most certainly toxic already) that he'd either not get their nomination for a second term, or he'd lose if he did. If impeachment never happens, and if the Russians screw with the system again, he could win a second term if the economy is still humming along and unemployment stays low.

Getting rid of him "NOW" leaves only two options, both of which could provoke another civil war. I agree he's got to go, but not at the expense of damaging the Union beyond repair. It's already fragile without a calamity like war.

That's all I got. What do you suggest?

And that means...

https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

Trump is not above the law. John Adams called us, “a nation of laws and not of men” because even though a president has a lot of power, he is also sworn by oath to uphold the immense duty to comply with the laws of the land.

Sekulow and Dowd, attorneys who strike fear in cable TV cameramen and random DC lunch time diners hearts.

Yeah I know Dowd was caught publicly chatting it up with Ty Cobb not that xtian reich mouthpiece but why let facts get in the way of good story?

If the president does it, it's not illegal, UNLESS he admits he did something illegal, then obviously he would be in trouble and we don't want that...but if he actually did do that illegal thing, it wouldn't be illegal cause he's the president and whatnot, but we'd still rather him not have to answer any questions or anything...because Reasons and Things.

good one, counselors! Youse guys are smrt. S M R T. smrt

You are a lawyer that has somehow found yourself on this trainwreck about to happen. You can sense that your reputation will be dragged down with Trump's, and you will find it hard thereafter to represent a jay-walker. You know, from past history, that Trump's reputation for paying his lawyers has been ... sketchy.

So what do you do? You leak. You make sure that every bone-headed decision by the legal team (which generally is being pushed by Trump) gets out to the public, and you do so until someone discovers you and you get fired. Being fired by this administration is rapidly becoming a badge of honor.

They're dead ends for Dumpster. Just ask Tricky Dick and Bill Clinton.

"IF a court battle ensues over whether he could be ordered to answer questions?"

Will this evil bastard EVER have to answer questions?

Link to tweet

My initial thought was that Trumps team was trying to "testify" for Trump. Giuliano proposed the written answer option and I decided the team knew he'd implode on paper too, so they decided to float their letter as a Hail Mary to Mueller.

Your idea makes more sense

that's what their argument is saying.

The take care clause articulates the most fundamental constraint on the exercise of the president's enumerated powers.
The stupid and insipid commentary on Trump and his unconstrained use of the pardon power simply ignores the fact that the President swears an overriding oath to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." None of his enumerated powers, including the pardon power, or his oversight of the executive branch, or his power as commander-in-chief, entitles him to use those enumerated powers in a way that is inconsistent with his duty to faithfully execute the law. Moreover, in requiring the president not just to do this, but to "take care" to do this, it seems to me that the constitution is requiring the president not to act on mere whim or impulse or grievance but deliberately and only for good and considered reasons. Failure to do so, is a violation of his solemn oath and an abuse of his enumerated powers. Bottom line, it seems to me that independently of what Mueller eventually comes up with in the Russia probe, there is already ample evidence that Trump routinely violates his oath of office. Indeed, he openly flaunts his violations of the oath, and flaunts them with glee. If this madness is not stopped soon, it is basically the end of the presidency as the constitution envisions it.

Here are a couple of important articles on this score, one journalistic, the other academic. both worth reading.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-overlooked-part-of-the-constitution-could-stop-trump-from-abusing-his-pardon-power/2018/03/14/265b045a-26dd-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.6ed653708a44

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3177968

And in his mind fux-tv and slavering paid-for trumpies are justification for continuing to destroy the country.

When the toadies and bankster/plutocrats stop returning his texts/calls, he might start to realize that he is just a lonely little boy that nobody loves. That most people hate.

That's ok with dump since he can just ratchet up the "unfair" label to the rest of the world.

Let's hope that when this all comes to a head, TRUMP doesn't either.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

This memorandum is poorly written and contains political and not legal arguments. Here is a link to the NYT article

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

and hell's coming with him

It's going to be exciting, that's for sure.

"If the President does it, it's not a crime". Didn't quite work out that way, though.

Trump is going to fuck up big time.

............. ................

The only thing tRump has unfettered authority over is his McDonald's orders.

Link to tweet

From Prof. Tribe and others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4