The president is above the law

[Screw_Michigan]

This didn't work for Nixon, why do the Orange Pedo Bear's lawyers think it will for him?

Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted, Trump supporters. Hope you can feel that noose tightening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... ge%2Fstory

The brazen assertion Monday by one of President Trump’s lawyers that a president cannot be found guilty of obstruction of justice signaled a controversial defense strategy in the wide-ranging Russia probe, as Trump’s political advisers are increasingly concerned about the legal advice he is receiving.

Trump tweeted over the weekend that he knew then-national security adviser Michael Flynn lied to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador before firing him in February — and before FBI Director James B. Comey said Trump asked him to be lenient while investigating Flynn. Experts said the president’s admission increased his legal exposure to obstruction-of-justice charges, one of the core crimes under investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

But Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd sought to excuse the president’s tweet in part by telling Axios and NBC News on Monday that the “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.”

Dowd declined to elaborate on his theory or explain the emerging legal strategy to The Washington Post.

[smackaholic]

Nobody cares.

It is irrelevant as the only thing the dems have proven to date is that he instructed Flynn to do his fukking job......after the election. Why Flynn decided to be evasive with answers is beyond me. Prolly just watched too many Hillary interviews.

[Screw_Michigan]

Why Flynn decided to be evasive with answers is beyond me.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Screw_Michigan]

[smackaholic]

Why Flynn decided to be evasive with answers is beyond me.

Keep telling yourself that.

Until I see even a hint of evidence that there is more, I will.

Even if Flynn did talk to Russians in an attempt to dig something up on Hillary, it is not a crime.

If they could prove that something he did cause adverse relations with Russia, maybe there is something here.

This is a nothingburger. Hell, it is a vegan nothing burger.

Why don't you dems do something that actually works for you, like vetting yourself a nice speaking, clean colored boy to run. It is the only thing that has worked for you since slick Willie.

If Hildebeast had the sense to pick one as a running mate instead of bozo the clown, she'd be in the white house today.

[Softball Bat]

Trump tweeted

The 2017 version of Nero Fiddled.

[Screw_Michigan]

Even if Flynn did talk to Russians in an attempt to dig something up on Hillary, it is not a crime.

More like conspiring with a foreign adversary to tilt an election. Again...you keep telling yourself that.

[Mikey]

Logan Act.

Look it up. Deal with it.

[Mikey]

If he did nothing wrong, why did Michael Flynn lie?
Harry Litman
President Trump tweeted Saturday that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” adding, “it is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!”

Both halves of the tweet are jaw-dropping.

In the first half, Trump admits to knowing that Flynn, his onetime national security advisor, had already lied to the FBI at the time he pushed FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. (The overture to Comey came the day after Trump fired Flynn.) Pushing your Justice Department to stifle an investigation of a known felon sounds a lot like obstruction of justice.

The second half of the tweet — the assertion that it was perfectly fine for Flynn to make contact with Russian government actors before Trump was actually president — is equally disturbing.

Trump defenders have advanced a two-part argument to justify pre-inauguration conversations with Russia. Their first, a legal claim, concerns the Logan Act, which makes it a crime for unauthorized citizens to negotiate with foreign governments that have a dispute with the United States. Trump defenders note, accurately, that its broad sweep has left it in a legal no-man’s-land. The Logan Act has almost never been used. The special counsel in charge of the Russia probe, Robert Mueller, would find it difficult to dust it off for this situation.

Trump defenders’ second refrain is that it is routine for incoming administrations to reach out to other countries — as a way to lay the groundwork for their ascent to power.

If that’s the case, then why did Flynn lie? The apologists have not advanced any sensible response to that question.

I think Flynn lied because he understood, correctly, that he and his colleagues had done something very wrong and inimical to U.S. interests.

Flynn wasn’t a misguided private citizen (think Dennis Rodman in North Korea) flying off to consult with a foreign power. Such bumbling freelance diplomacy can be vexatious to the government, but no one could confuse it with a legitimate U.S. foreign policy initiative.

And Flynn wasn’t just reaching out to, say, introduce himself or receive basic information. He was intentionally undermining the Obama administration.

Mueller’s team has outlined that in late December 2016:

1. Flynn asked the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, not to escalate tensions in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. Kislyak agreed.

2. At the behest of a very senior official who is almost certainly Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Flynn contacted officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to see where each stood on a U.N. resolution against Israel for its settlement policy, which the United States had decided to let pass.

3. Flynn asked Kislyak to delay the U.N. vote or to defeat the resolution.

What this means, unavoidably, is that the Trump transition team was carrying on a rogue foreign policy effort, on issues of the highest sensitivity to U.S. interests, with neither State Department oversight nor expertise. Flynn and others sought concessions, made assurances and negotiated deals behind the back of the Obama administration — on matters they could not have fully understood.

The questions arising from this closet operation are many and alarming.

What sorts of risks to U.S. interests and even international stability were run by the Trump transition team’s decision to arrogate to itself, and secretly, the conduct of important foreign affairs?

What kind of diplomatic or even military calamity might they have bumbled into?

What sorts of nuanced considerations involving not just Israel but also Syria, Iran, China, and others were in play in the Obama administration’s decision to let the settlement resolution pass?

What if Israel had quietly acceded to the U.S. abstention in return for aid or other covert assistance?

How did it look later to the international community that the Trump team was able to work its will on the sanctions that the Obama administration had so painstakingly put in place?

Nuanced and multidimensional moves are the norm in foreign policy, and Team Trump was playing blind.

But if their conduct wasn’t routine, some might argue, it wasn’t exactly novel. It’s widely assumed, for example, that the incoming Reagan administration interfered in hostage-crisis negotiations with Iran.

That analogy, however, cuts in the other direction. Reagan officials staunchly denied the charges, with a vehemence that revealed their understanding of how outrageous such conduct would have been. Both houses of Congress held separate investigations into the matter, moreover, and concluded that the charges could not be substantiated.

We only have one president at a time, and for good reason. What the Trump team’s rogue foreign policy amounted to was an attack on the president as commander-in-chief and an exposure of U.S. citizens to gratuitous and incalculable risks. That’s arguably far more serious than a lie to the FBI or a personal or financial misdeed.

Only Congress can determine whether such behavior, assuming it was fully sanctioned by Trump, amounts to an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor. But the arguments in that direction are strong.

Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, teaches at UCLA Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon. @harrlitman

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

[Smackie Chan]

Logan Act.

Look it up. Deal with it.

OK, LoganFan.

[Mikey]

Somehow I knew that was coming, Loganberry.

[Left Seater]

Logan Act.

Look it up. Deal with it.

Boy you libs really are grasping at straws at this point.

Here is some info on the Logan Act:


The Logan Act was enacted in 1799. It makes it a felony for a private citizen to interfere in international disputes between the U.S. and foreign governments. But no one has ever been prosecuted under the act, principally because most lawyers, legal scholars and judges agree that it is likely unconstitutional.

Since no one has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act, no court has ever ruled on its constitutionality directly.

However, courts have commented on the Logan Act from time to time. In 1964, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72) stated that the act was likely unconstitutional because it is vague, overly broad and ambiguous.

Numerous scholarly publications have argued that the Logan Act also violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. So its legal efficacy is doubtful.

As for the Logan Act applying to Flynn, he was not acting as a private citizen, as the law defines it. He was serving in a wholly different capacity – as a government representative of a president about to assume office. Flynn was preparing the incoming administration for the foreign policy challenges that lay ahead and establishing the kind of vital contact that assists a new president in formulating effective relationships and policies. In other words, Flynn was doing his job. He did it in the same manner that other transition officials have in previous administrations. Professor W. David Clinton, chairman of the Political Science Department at Baylor University, who co-authored the seminal book “Presidential Transitions and American Foreign Policy” has thoughts on this issue. Clinton stated that it is quite normal and routine for incoming transition teams to have lengthy and detailed conversations with foreign government officials about forthcoming changes in policies. Indeed, Clinton said it would be abnormal if this did not happen. “It is common for representatives of other governments to get in touch with the incoming presidential administration to begin informal relationships and address relevant issues,” Clinton said. “It is not unusual. Transitions are fairly long. The incoming administration needs to inform itself of foreign policy. Getting to know people and foreign governments is widely done and beneficial to the U.S.”

[Rooster]

None of this matters in light of the new facts concerning the FBI agent and lawyer who were having an extramarital affair. They were deeply involved in the investigation of the Mills and Abedin and their immunity deal. They were involved in the production and fabrication of Russian collusion. And they were texting each other with pro-Hillary Clinton messages while supposedly investigating her emails, after which the finding changed the charge of grossly negligent to extremely careless.

Mueller has dismissed these two, but it hopelessly corrupts the investigation— just like everything else with which the Clintons are involved.

[Mikey]

as a government representative of a president about to assume office.

No such thing. That would be a private citizen representative. And, there's a (big) difference between "preparing the incoming administration for the foreign policy challenges that lay ahead and establishing the kind of vital contact that assists a new president in formulating effective relationships and policies," and conducting rogue foreign policy meant to undercut the existing policy of a President that's still in office.

[Derron]

Somehow I knew that was coming, Loganberry.

This makes the best fruit wine. My Dad and some old farmers used to make this shit back in the day and it was the first drink I got plastered on. It was pretty much free for the taking when I worked at the farms, and it contributed to more than one farm girl taking her clothes off. They knew how to make fortified wine a long time ago.

[Left Seater]

as a government representative of a president about to assume office.

No such thing. That would be a private citizen representative. And, there's a (big) difference between "preparing the incoming administration for the foreign policy challenges that lay ahead and establishing the kind of vital contact that assists a new president in formulating effective relationships and policies," and conducting rogue foreign policy meant to undercut the existing policy of a President that's still in office.

So says you. Legal scholars and lawyers disagree.

[Truman]

as a government representative of a president about to assume office.

No such thing. That would be a private citizen representative. And, there's a (big) difference between "preparing the incoming administration for the foreign policy challenges that lay ahead and establishing the kind of vital contact that assists a new president in formulating effective relationships and policies," and conducting rogue foreign policy meant to undercut the existing policy of a President that's still in office.

But Flynn didn't do that. The FBI said as far back as last January that they found nothing illicit in the discussions Flynn had with Kislyak. Sorry the facts fuck up your narrative.

[Dinsdale]

They knew how to make fortified wine a long time ago.

Why not just dump the alcohol into the fruit juice? High pectin berries can get pretty nasty when fermented (unless you add pectinase), unless you just press off the juice and ferment it (most of the pectin is in the skins). Raspberries have one of the lowest sugar contents of any fruit, so going to the trouble of fermenting them seems like a waste of time.

[Mikey]

Those are loganberries...

[Dinsdale]

Those are loganberries...

Which is a variety of raspberry/blackberry, dumbass.

[Moving Sale]

Those are loganberries...

Which is a variety of raspberry/blackberry, dumbass.

That is a taxonomic impossibility. Use your words next time dolt.

[Jay in Phoenix]

That is a taxonomic impossibility. Use your words next time dolt.

Not according to botanists and science. Use your brain next time.

Oh wait...

[Moving Sale]

Go fuck a cactus you moronic twit.

[Dinsdale]

They're the same fucking genus. So are salmonberries.

Quit while you're behind.

[Moving Sale]

Same genus different species, not same genus and species but different variety. Go back to something you know like fat hoars.