President Trump- The Implications

[Breadburner]

I am not a Hamas supporter, but we all should have some real sympathy for what is being done to the Palestinians and the current Israeli leadership with our backing is doing everything they can to make the situation worse.  I pointed out Amman because it's an Arab city not even 10 miles from the West Bank so advanced that it has "signs in English." Hell, Amman is only 45 miles from Jerusalem with the entire West Bank in between. About the distance of Bartlesville to Tulsa. Amman and Jordan in general, populated by the same ethnic people as the West Bank and Gaza, has no problems with terrorism. How can that be if they are such animals? Maybe it's the situation under which they have to live their lives.

And actually, all the street signs in the West Bank are also in English. Israel doesn't allow the Palestinians to put up their own road signs. There are reasons, that Israel is shares a ton of fault for, that there are terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. From another perspective those terrorists might just be called "freedom fighters", especially after 70 years of armed occupation. Consider that.

You said:I pointed out that Columbus very much acted like a terrorist. Or worse. And what he did wasn't because "The world was a different place", he was arrested for it and shipped back to Spain.  He was awful then as well.

Trump's actions have real consequences. And he just doesn't care or is too stupid to realize it. The stupid trade war he's started with our damn allies is yet another example.

Lol...Your "White Privilege Guilt" starting to wear on you...

[swake]

So according to Giuliani, Trump can't obstruct justice because he has the absolute right to stop any investigation. He further went on and said that Trump could shoot Comey and pardon himself.

This was said in public on TV by the president's attorney. According to him Trump not only has the absolute right to stop any investigation but also to pardon himself for any crime. And then only thing that could be done is to impeach him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/giuliani-under-constitution-trump-could-shoot-comey-and-not-be-indicted/2018/06/04/8107ed96-67e2-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.1ef5c33416b2

What's to stop him from shooting congress and pardoning himself?

These people have to go. This isn't fascist all, nope. Can you imagine if Obama had said this?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not sure why I included blacks (African slaves). Indians yes, that is similar. But again, we did nothing that individual tribes hadn't been doing for centuries before we got here. We just happened to end up on the winning side (ala Israel) so we get to write the history books where we are the good guy. This has happened as long as there has been man inhabiting this earth. And before that, animals did the same. It is primal to expand your territory.

There it is...the Fake Fox News World View that since other people did it too, we should be excused because we did the same and/or worse.   Guess I am a little surprised it took so long to surface again..

The "RWRE Christian" philosophy. 

[cannon_fodder]

It does present an interesting legal argument - nothing in the Constitution nor case law limits the pardon power.  There are clarifications on what it means (admission of guilt, etc.) and if one has to actually be charged with a crime before a pardon can be exercised, but I'm not aware of anything else. Mostly because there were very few Federal Crimes to be pardoned for when the Constitution was ratified  (I can think of piracy, treason, counterfeiting, and violating the "law of nations" [which I think meant messing with the diplomacy of the US, like assaulting a foreign diplomat]).  

So on the face - no limit.  Pardon various celebrities, people who broke the law to help your political camp, your friends, family and yourself!

Then again... the founding fathers were breaking away from a monarch who was literally above the law.  It seems unlikely they would have intentionally set up a system placing someone above the law.

Then again... the founding fathers assumed an adversarial relationship between Congress and the executive and loathed political parties (let alone a one party state).    There was a suggestion that the Senate's consent should be required for a Pardon, but it was rejected.  One concern was the definition of "treason" can be made to mean anything and used as a form of oppression - so a Presidential Pardon could help stop misuse. If the President got high and mighty, it was assumed that they would be gleefully impeached by the Congress.

Then again... those poor suckers thought the President would be a statesmen and the Congress would be Representatives drawn from their neighbors.  1 Congressman per ~33k people.  I think we are approaching 1 per 800k people now and our President is notorious among his supporters and detractors for shockingly non-statesmanlike behavior.

To answer your question - I think we'd be having the same discussion if Obama brought it up.  Democrats would be defending it as a hypothetical, Republicans would be losing their minds about a dictator.  But I also think Obama would have raised the issue as a Constitutional hypothetical during a lecture somewhere (resulting in Am radio freaking out), given that he was a Constitutional lawyer, as opposed to saying a Federal investigation might as well give up because he has a get out of jail free card.

[heironymouspasparagus]

At a noticeably lower rate than when Obama was there.  But that would mean understanding the facts, wouldn't it..?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Okay, explain to me how President Obama brought unemployment back from 9.6 to 4.8 and gets nothing but dissed.  President Trump took over a year to take unemployment from 4.8 to 3.8 and all you can do is act like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread?  I don't get it.  The thing is President Obama handed President Trump a gift and you say he was the worst president ever.  Look at those point spreads and help me understand how a rise of 4.8 points is less than 1 point.  Thanks, I am listening. 

Think about who you are discussing that with.   You are right - the previous 8 years was a boon to this country - it counteracted much of the worst effects of the Bush years, but we still have some hangover effects.  The next 2...well, we will see, won't we.  My company has already seen 18% increases in metal costs under Trump - steel, aluminum and copper.  The tariffs, if they go through will add another 25% increase.  Plus the loss of $tens of billions in farm sales.  Can you spell recession?

[heironymouspasparagus]

It does present an interesting legal argument - nothing in the Constitution nor case law limits the pardon power.  There are clarifications on what it means (admission of guilt, etc.) and if one has to actually be charged with a crime before a pardon can be exercised, but I'm not aware of anything else. Mostly because there were very few Federal Crimes to be pardoned for when the Constitution was ratified  (I can think of piracy, treason, counterfeiting, and violating the "law of nations" [which I think meant messing with the diplomacy of the US, like assaulting a foreign diplomat]).  

So on the face - no limit.  Pardon various celebrities, people who broke the law to help your political camp, your friends, family and yourself!

Then again... the founding fathers were breaking away from a monarch who was literally above the law.  It seems unlikely they would have intentionally set up a system placing someone above the law.

Then again... the founding fathers assumed an adversarial relationship between Congress and the executive and loathed political parties (let alone a one party state).    There was a suggestion that the Senate's consent should be required for a Pardon, but it was rejected.  One concern was the definition of "treason" can be made to mean anything and used as a form of oppression - so a Presidential Pardon could help stop misuse. If the President got high and mighty, it was assumed that they would be gleefully impeached by the Congress.

Then again... those poor suckers thought the President would be a statesmen and the Congress would be Representatives drawn from their neighbors.  1 Congressman per ~33k people.  I think we are approaching 1 per 800k people now and our President is notorious among his supporters and detractors for shockingly non-statesmanlike behavior.

To answer your question - I think we'd be having the same discussion if Obama brought it up.  Democrats would be defending it as a hypothetical, Republicans would be losing their minds about a dictator.  But I also think Obama would have raised the issue as a Constitutional hypothetical during a lecture somewhere (resulting in Am radio freaking out), given that he was a Constitutional lawyer, as opposed to saying a Federal investigation might as well give up because he has a get out of jail free card.

Federal crimes only is the limit.   And the impeachment clause was the main limit and was taken directly from English law...that was their limit on the King.

[erfalf]

There it is...the Fake Fox News World View that since other people did it too, we should be excused because we did the same and/or worse.   Guess I am a little surprised it took so long to surface again..

The "RWRE Christian" philosophy. 

It's not justifying it, just stating reality. At this point, what do you suppose we do to right all those wrongs? Hand back over the states to the Indians. Give back Israel to the Jews, wait, never mind.

[swake]

It does present an interesting legal argument - nothing in the Constitution nor case law limits the pardon power.  There are clarifications on what it means (admission of guilt, etc.) and if one has to actually be charged with a crime before a pardon can be exercised, but I'm not aware of anything else. Mostly because there were very few Federal Crimes to be pardoned for when the Constitution was ratified  (I can think of piracy, treason, counterfeiting, and violating the "law of nations" [which I think meant messing with the diplomacy of the US, like assaulting a foreign diplomat]).  

So on the face - no limit.  Pardon various celebrities, people who broke the law to help your political camp, your friends, family and yourself!

Then again... the founding fathers were breaking away from a monarch who was literally above the law.  It seems unlikely they would have intentionally set up a system placing someone above the law.

Then again... the founding fathers assumed an adversarial relationship between Congress and the executive and loathed political parties (let alone a one party state).    There was a suggestion that the Senate's consent should be required for a Pardon, but it was rejected.  One concern was the definition of "treason" can be made to mean anything and used as a form of oppression - so a Presidential Pardon could help stop misuse. If the President got high and mighty, it was assumed that they would be gleefully impeached by the Congress.

Then again... those poor suckers thought the President would be a statesmen and the Congress would be Representatives drawn from their neighbors.  1 Congressman per ~33k people.  I think we are approaching 1 per 800k people now and our President is notorious among his supporters and detractors for shockingly non-statesmanlike behavior.

To answer your question - I think we'd be having the same discussion if Obama brought it up.  Democrats would be defending it as a hypothetical, Republicans would be losing their minds about a dictator.  But I also think Obama would have raised the issue as a Constitutional hypothetical during a lecture somewhere (resulting in Am radio freaking out), given that he was a Constitutional lawyer, as opposed to saying a Federal investigation might as well give up because he has a get out of jail free card.

Article II:
Section 2:
He (the president) shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I:
Section 3:
Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


I would read this that the method to prosecute a president is not indictment, it's by impeachment, and a president cannot pardon himself or anyone else to avoid impeachment. Once impeached and convicted the impeached party can then be indicted criminally. No path to pardon.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's not justifying it, just stating reality. At this point, what do you suppose we do to right all those wrongs? Hand back over the states to the Indians. Give back Israel to the Jews, wait, never mind.

It's like the really OLD story that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


In this case, stop supporting, condoning, and doing bad behavior.  Those simple acts would make the world a much better place almost overnight.

Can't fix the past - but knowing about the past, one can make a choice to not repeat the mistakes.  We have not arrived at that point yet - ESPECIALLY when collectively we have such little knowledge or sense of history - a huge problem in this country.   I have commented several times before - once in direct response to you, IIRC - about how no other nation has done as much good as the US, and no other nation has done as much bad.  We can choose to stop doing the bad.

[erfalf]

It's like the really OLD story that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


In this case, stop supporting, condoning, and doing bad behavior.  Those simple acts would make the world a much better place almost overnight.

Can't fix the past - but knowing about the past, one can make a choice to not repeat the mistakes.  We have not arrived at that point yet - ESPECIALLY when collectively we have such little knowledge or sense of history - a huge problem in this country.   I have commented several times before - once in direct response to you, IIRC - about how no other nation has done as much good as the US, and no other nation has done as much bad.  We can choose to stop doing the bad.

We can stop, but can't undo.

And some people here (not you) insist on being sypathectic to Hamas, when Israel is literally the Native American's in our story if they had the firepower to really screw us over in modern day and make us regret doing so in the first place.

[rebound]

We can stop, but can't undo.

And some people here (not you) insist on being sypathectic to Hamas, when Israel is literally the Native American's in our story if they had the firepower to really screw us over in modern day and make us regret doing so in the first place.

OK, I may be the only one, but I don't understand this reference or analogy.  Israel is the Native Americans? And Israel would screw us over if they had the firepower?  I'm confused.

[Ed W]

It does present an interesting legal argument - nothing in the Constitution nor case law limits the pardon power.  There are clarifications on what it means (admission of guilt, etc.) and if one has to actually be charged with a crime before a pardon can be exercised, but I'm not aware of anything else....

There's an NYT piece today saying that Reagan used the pardon preemptively to end the Iran-Contra fiasco and Jerry Ford used it to pardon Nixon of any crimes after impeachment and before any charges could be brought against him. So it would be within Trump's power to do so for his minions, at least so far as federal charges are concerned.

But Trump pardoning himself has no precedent. I'd expect the Supremes would have to decide it but given Trump's arrogance, could he be capable of simply ignoring the court? There's precedent for that too.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We can stop, but can't undo.

And some people here (not you) insist on being sypathectic to Hamas, when Israel is literally the Native American's in our story if they had the firepower to really screw us over in modern day and make us regret doing so in the first place.

Backwards.  Both Palestinians and Israeli's were fighting the common colonial power.  Like we did with Britain, when we got the help of the Cherokee and Chickasaw to win that fight.   Then, after the US won and consolidated our power, showed up at the doors of those Natives and forced them out of their houses and property at gunpoint.  Many whites getting the houses stolen from the Natives.  Just like Israel showed up at the door of Palestinians, forcing them out of their houses at gunpoint.  Many of them Christian Palestinians.  They took the play from out of playbook!  

Which just shows the hypocrisy and distortions that Israel tells about how Christians are being forced out of Muslim countries - they learned it from Israel.

Again, goes to the lack of knowledge and/or sense of history.

[swake]

We can stop, but can't undo.

And some people here (not you) insist on being sypathectic to Hamas, when Israel is literally the Native American's in our story if they had the firepower to really screw us over in modern day and make us regret doing so in the first place.

I am in no way a supporter of Hamas, you are ridiculous. Having sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people does not make someone a Hamas supporter. And your comparison of Israelis to Native Americans is nonsense.

After WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire, France and the UK divided up the former Ottoman territories in the middle east. If you've ever seen Lawrence of Arabia, this is what the movie is about. Palestine was carved out of the Ottoman province of Syria under British rule. This state, the so called Mandatory Palestine was created in 1922 and was 90% Arab Muslim. The British with the support of the League of Nations started a policy of a Jewish Homeland in the Mandate Area. This was not a kindness to the Jewish people, it was because of the rise of Jewish hate around the world. The same hate that Hitler had, he just had an even more evil solution. The Europeans (and the US) didn't want the Jews in their countries, so they were "encouraged" to move. Then Germany started the slaughter of Jews. Some Jewish people were allowed to come to the US, but we turned away many ourselves.

The result was that over the course of the mandate the Jewish population exploded, especially in the lead up to WWII.  By 1947 Palestine was 1/3 Jewish. This created clashes for years between the incoming Jewish people and the resident Arabs. As the Mandate was due to come to an in 1948 real war broke out. During the war of 1947-1948 and with the creation of the state of Israel 700,000 Arab Muslims either ran from their homes or were forcibly removed. The wealthier refugees were able to immigrate to other countries like Jordan or Egypt. The poorer ones were left in refugee camps in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The people you today call terrorists are the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren of those refugees that are STILL 70 years later in those same camps.

Both sides in this conflict have a right to exist, both sides have had horrible things happen to them. The solution is not and cannot be the permanent bottling up Arab refugees and it cannot be the destruction of Israel. A middle ground has to be found, and the current radical leadership in Gaza and the current leadership in Israel are not doing anything to resolve the problems. In fact, Israel is actively making the situation worse with disproportionally bloody responses to Hamas protests and with building more and more settlements deeper and deeper into the West Bank leaving no current possibility of a Palestinian state. We used to try to be the broker, that could talk to both sides, but Trump ruined that. We used be the ones that encouraged moderation by the Palestinian leadership like when the leadership in the West Bank recognized Israel's right to exist and with Israel's formerly stopping new settlements in the West Bank and agreeing in principal to a two state solution. But BiBi is a radical that has zero sympathy for the Palestinians and doesn't want two states and Trump stupidly is backing him totally.

This isn't good for the Palestinians and it isn't good for Israel. Israel will never be safe while the Palestinian people are left in their current situation and status. It is a pressure cooker and will blow up eventually if not resolved. If Israel is to be truly safe, a fair and reasonable resolution needs to be found for the Palestinian people. Instead of being a broker for that Trump tossed in some selfish red meat to his base in this country by moving the embassy.