Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Let’s finish the job.

Second rate reporter says what?

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

You are here: Home / Politics / Trumpery / Russiagate / Tonight’s News Dump

Tonight’s News Dump

by | 194 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Trump’s legal team is looking for ways to discredit Mueller’s investigation. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post released stories with that theme. The WaPo story has more juicy detail:

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,” a close adviser said.

Just checking to make sure of all the legal ramifications in the same way Trump has been so careful throughout his career.

The lawyers are also looking for conflicts of interest. From Trump’s interview with the New York Times yesterday, I think he doesn’t understand what conflict of interest is. He seems to think that it means conflicts with HIS interests. Perhaps his lawyers understand the term.

Reader Interactions

194Comments

  3. 3.

    Garbo

    Looks like he can pardon himself for any crimes, even without a conviction, except the high crimes and misdemeanors covered by impeachment.

  4. 4.

    Cheryl Rofer

    Once again, the most interesting part of the story may be the sources. It looks like the Trump team got their story out to both newspapers, since the stories are so similar. The stuff about Trump thinking about pardons probably came from elsewhere, though, because as several of our jackals noted on the previous thread, those thoughts might not occur to someone who wasn’t worried about breaches of the law.

  7. 7.

    Roger Moore

    But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority

    He’s just curious, the same way a four year old is just curious about what happens if he flushes various things down the toilet. He’s in no way going to test this to see if his questions were answered correctly.

  8. 8.

    Gvg

    Oh. Yes I think you are right about what he thinks conflict of interest is. I couldn’t understand what he thought he was talking about, but that’s not new with him. I didn’t try very hard anymore.
    I hate the overload of stupid in the news now. It’s not just him. The voters found every babbling idiot and elected them all.

  11. 11.

    Villago Delenda Est

    Donald doesn’t realize that the law only goes so far to protect you when you shit on it constantly.

  12. 12.

    oldster

    Okay, tomorrow I am going to phone my Trump-loving congressman and ask him to publicly commit to impeachment if Trump uses his pardon in any connection with Mueller’s investigation.

    This shit is just getting out of hand, and we need to set some boundaries in stone before the general corruption makes last week’s outrage into this week’s ho hum.

    Never before has one man done so much to define deviancy down.

  15. 15.

    anon

    Trump hasn’t been curious about anything in the constitution … except somehow the pardon power. Right.

  16. 16.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Garbo: Federal crimes only. Presidential pardon power doesn’t extend to state level criminal activity.

  19. 19.

    Cheryl Rofer

    Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face. His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

    ???????

  20. 20.

    Turgidson

    Thanks to detestable ambulatory pile of bat guano Newt Gingrich, Hair Furor thinks “conflict of interest” means “might prefer to vote for Democrats”

  21. 21.

    Percysowner

    This was totally expected. Sadly, the Republicans in Congress will let him get away with it.

  22. 22.

    Turgidson

    @Cheryl Rofer: mueller is a pro, so the tax returns won’t leak, but I’m glad someone other than Trump and his goons will get to see them.

  23. 23.

    Gin & Tonic

    So I went to see my surgeon today, hoping for good news. Didn’t get it. Does the absence of good news constitute bad news? Dunno. But “not much happening there, come back in a month” when you can’t do much of anything active is certainly depressing. If anybody’s morbidly interested, here’s what it looks like. If you say to yourself “gee, I didn’t think an arm bone should have those random chunks with big spaces between them” you’d be clinically correct, although not in fancy surgeon language.

    This is turning out to be a fucking nightmare.

  25. 25.

    MomSense

    And even more breaking news. Investigation into Trump campaign taking a criminal turn according to Maddow.

  31. 31.

    Gravenstone

    @Cheryl Rofer: Man, those tax returns must be the fucking Rosetta Stone. Thinking it’s more animal cunning than native intelligence that keeps Trump so focused on protecting them.

  32. 32.

    Adam L Silverman

    @MomSense: Yep. NBC’s/MSNBC’s Ken Dilanian reported early this evening that Mueller has started to get his hands on the financials.

  33. 33.

    Viva BrisVegas

    So once Trump pardons someone, they lose their 5th Amendment rights?

    They can then be forced to testify. Can they then be charged with perjury when they inevitably lie?

    If so, does the perjury conviction require a separate pardon, or does one pardon excuse all sins.

    If so, could a pardoned person then commit any Federal crime and get away with it?

    I’ve got to say that our Constitutional Monarchy is looking better every day.

  34. 34.

    WaterGirl

    @Major Major Major Major: They must think we are beyond stupid. It’s TOTALLY in the context of I can’t wait to pardon myself.

    “This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,” a close adviser said.

  35. 35.

    ? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.

    Make it so, Number One

  36. 36.

    jc

    This is a big part of why a raving egomaniac like Trump is attracted to the power of the presidency — because he can abuse that power in so many tempting ways. Just run roughshod over the laws and norms, and then make up some bullshit justification to pardon those who were sufficiently loyal to him. His base voters really are as dumb as a box of rocks.

  38. 38.

    Patricia Kayden

    During the President Obama years, there was zero talk of pardoning members of his administration. Alas, we have fallen so far (and it’s only six months into this horror).

    I’m learning something new via Trump since I didn’t think it was possible for one to pardon oneself.

  42. 42.

    WaterGirl

    @Cheryl Rofer: Tax returns – that was my favorite part of the article, after the part where they say he’s totally not interested in the pardons so he can pardon himself.

  44. 44.

    Patricia Kayden

    @Cheryl Rofer: Must be frustrating to have gotten away with sleaziness for decades only to win the highest office and now have one’s dirt about to be exposed. Sad!

  45. 45.

    WaterGirl

    @Gin & Tonic: That’s shitty news. I assume you are doing all the things you can to help, eating a lot of protein, taking the thing that help bones knit together, etc?

  46. 46.

    Garbo

    So we have to hope the breadcrumb trail that Preet Bahrara laid down leads to a conviction once T is out of office?

  47. 47.

    NYCMT

    There are a bunch of federal obstruction of justice statutes, but the relevant ones are 18 USC 1505, 18 USC 1512, and 18 USC 371.

  49. 49.

    ? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?

    @Patricia Kayden:

    Alas, we have fallen so far (and it’s only six months into this horror).

    We haven’t fallen. These are the same people now as they were then. They were always this bad. They’re empowered now; That’s the difference

  50. 50.

    Cheryl Rofer

    @Viva BrisVegas:

    So once Trump pardons someone, they lose their 5th Amendment rights?

    They can then be forced to testify. Can they then be charged with perjury when they inevitably lie?

    IANAL, and perhaps some of our legal eagles can make this clearer. If a person is pardoned for a crime, they no longer can incrminate themselves with respect to that crime. It’s not the same as losing 5th A rights, just becomes irrelevant. Any time someone lies under oath, they can be charged with perjury. But that has to be proved.

    If so, does the perjury conviction require a separate pardon, or does one pardon excuse all sins.

    I think that each crime has to be pardoned, but that can be fairly broadly drawn, to include a related group of crimes committed together.

    If so, could a pardoned person then commit any Federal crime and get away with it?

    Pardons are retroactive only.

  51. 51.

    Jeffro

    @oldster:

    Never before has one man done so much to define deviancy down.

    He’s deteriorating faster than he can lower his own standards!

    (h/t Anne Lamott, who heard it in recovery)

  52. 52.

    Patricia Kayden

    @rikyrah: Maybe that will be the last straw for Trump because he sure as hell doesn’t want to let us see those precious tax returns.

  60. 60.

    Yarrow

    Last week I called Congressman Al Green’s office to thank him for being a co-sponsor to filing the first Article of Impeachment. The young woman who answered the phone was SO appreciative that I called. I told her I thought he’d done a brave thing, I supported it and wanted his office to know that. I am not a constituent, but she took down my zip code anyway. Maybe they’re keeping a log of calls. In May when he called for Trump’s impeachment he got death threats. I got the impression that they’d had to field a lot of very unpleasant calls and she was very appreciative to have a supportive person on the other end of the phone.

    The other co-sponsor was Congressman Brad Sherman. I’m sure his office would appreciate a supportive call as well. Maybe I’ll do that as a nice chaser after the unpleasantness of calling my Senators tomorrow.

  61. 61.

    Gin & Tonic

    @gbbalto: The body is mysterious. Especially to orthopedic surgeons. They’re good with their tools and hardware, not so good with biological processes. Seriously.

    The primary factor is the fact that this bone was in about a million pieces when I got there. Simple fractures heal well; complicated ones take time. It’s really all about blood supply to the bone. If it still looks this way in another two months they’ll get concerned.

    I think I’m going to schedule a second opinion at a fancy hospital in NYC.

  63. 63.

    Jeffro

    @Adam L Silverman: Who will most. definitely. squeal to save himself.

    Won’t some enterprising reporter ask the president* how he feels about the possibility of Mike Flynn and/or Paul Manafort actively working with the special counsel after cutting their own deals?

  64. 64.

    MattF

    There’s a well-known story about a Maryland politician– when accused of a conflict of interest, he protested that the matter in question didn’t conflict with any of his interests. Once upon a time, that was regarded as a joke.

  66. 66.

    Cheryl Rofer

    From the WaPo article:

    Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team is purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation, it would set off a legal and political firestorm, first around the question of whether a president can use the constitutional pardon power in that way.

    “This is a fiercely debated but unresolved legal question,” said Brian C. Kalt, a constitutional law expert at Michigan State University who has written extensively on the question.

    The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries.

    No president has sought to pardon himself, so no courts have reviewed it. Although Kalt says the weight of the law argues against a president pardoning himself, he says the question is open and predicts such an action would move through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court.

    “There is no predicting what would happen,” said Kalt, author of the book, “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.” It includes chapters on the ongoing debate over whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office and on whether a president can issue a pardon to himself.

    I’m sure Trump would be willing to try.

  67. 67.

    mike in dc

    I think the precise parameters of the clause “except in cases of impeachment” has never been put to the test:
    1. Can the President pardon someone who could or would otherwise implicate them in an impeachable offense?
    2. Does the use of the pardon power in such instances constitute obstruction?
    3. Can post-pardon charges be brought against defendants who perjure themselves or refuse to cooperate?

    .

  70. 70.

    BBA

    Andrew Johnson infamously pardoned every single Southern traitor with a single order. There’s apparently no limit to the power.

  72. 72.

    Yarrow

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    The power to pardon is granted to the president in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” That means pardon authority extends to federal criminal prosecution but not to state level or impeachment inquiries.

    As I said in my comment above, Al Green and Brad Sherman have introduced an article of impeachment. I wonder if that is enough to stop him from pardoning himself in this case? Or does the person in question actually have to be impeached?

  73. 73.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Cheryl Rofer: I’m sure he’d be willing to make the argument that “the United States” doesn’t just mean the Federal government, but the actual states as well so that he can’t be prosecuted by Schneiderman in NY.

  74. 74.

    MomSense

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Unfortunately I have a good idea of what you are going through. I had a long, orthopedic ordeal. Had to learn to walk again. It was a nightmare. Go to the best orthopedic surgeon you can, preferably a fancy, teaching hospital. That’s how I finally got the right treatment.

  78. 78.

    MattF

    Broadly speaking, the pardoning power belongs to the head of state. So, in the US system, where the President is a combination of chief executive and head of state, that power belongs to the President. It’s like a Royal Prerogative, and it’s hard to see where the limits would be.

  80. 80.

    Yarrow

    And more on the presidential self-pardon, this time about Nixon:

    Going thru OLC ops of pardon power, came across this one from 1974: Can the President pardon himself (OLC's A: No) https://t.co/u6EyRbQpow— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) July 11, 2017

    Is dated four days before he resigned. Never knew he asked. But there you go.— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) July 11, 2017

  81. 81.

    PVDMichael

    I watch Rasmussen polls (a conservative-friendlier pollster) just to get outside my liberal bubble.

    They publish an Approval index (those who strongly approve Trump – those who strongly disapprove). And it has hits its all time low at negative 23.

  82. 82.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Did Lawrence O’Donnell just say that the president’s pardon power only applies to federal law? Is that true? Does NY AG Schneiderman have Robert Mueller’s phone number?

  83. 83.

    jl

    ‘ Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

    “This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,” a close adviser said. ‘

    Trump surely wore his tie extra long that day, so people wouldn’t see the panic pee stain seeping through.

  84. 84.

    Jeffro

    No president has ever decided to pardon himself, including Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who all faced special prosecutors investigating their conduct. Self-pardoning would have been seen as a clear-cut admission of guilt, not to mention an outrage against the constitutional order. Further, if the pardons were challenged and invalidated, presidents would have the worst of both worlds — they would be open to prosecution, and their guilt would be widely believed.

    I’m starting to believe he really IS going to “die in prison”…

  85. 85.

    kindness

    If Trump were to just write pardons for everyone before they get charged with anything I bet the current GOP would act like it was no big and try to carry on with even more authoritarian rule. That isn’t such a stretch to consider.

    But what about liberals & Democrats? What would they do? What would we do?

  86. 86.

    lamh36

    @EricHolder 3m3 minutes ago
    More
    There is NO basis to question the integrity of Mueller or those serving with him in the special counsel’s office. And no conflicts either

    @EricHolder 2m2 minutes ago
    More
    Trump cannot define or constrain Mueller investigation. If he tries to do so this creates issues of constitutional and criminal dimension.

  87. 87.

    Mike in DC

    I still think that SCOTUS would look askance at a pardon issued to prevent a defendant from testifying against him regarding impeachable conduct. I think the Founders would have seen that as a perversion of the pardon power.

  88. 88.

    Yarrow

    @Gin & Tonic: Sorry your healing isn’t going as fast as hoped. Would one of those oxygen chambers help with the blood supply? I have a relative who had cancer and they had her go once a week to sit in one to help her recover faster. I don’t know if that might apply to orthopedic issues, but maybe something to look into?

  89. 89.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Yarrow: OLC’s opinions essentially have force of law for the executive branch. Which is why there’s a push on to have them issue a directory. Because right now you have all these OLC rulings that have the force of law/are de facto law and they are largely secret.

  91. 91.

    Mnemosyne

    @Yarrow:

    Brad Sherman is my current House rep. Why, yes, I am in the very darkest blue part of California — how did you guess?

    This area is so blue that even old white guys hate Trump’s guts and aren’t shy about saying it in public.

  94. 94.

    WTF

    Trump is toast.
    The innocent rarely need to rely on pardons.
    His first mistake, which will prove fatal

    He forgot the old adage “Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”

  95. 95.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Viva BrisVegas: Newt Gingrich has specifically proposed that the President could issue military orders to commit war crimes in tandem with a preemptive pardon for the crimes, to make sure they get done. He proposes this not as a cautionary tale but because he thinks it’s a great idea.

  96. 96.

    Jeffro

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I’m sure [Trump] would be willing to make the argument that “the United States” doesn’t just mean the Federal government, but the actual states as well so that he can’t be prosecuted by Schneiderman in NY.

    When, over the past year, I noted that Trumpov would be leaving “claw marks on the Oval Office doorframe” (and similar remarks)…I actually meant that literally as opposed to metaphorically.

    But now I mean it metaphorically too. (Yeah, that’s the ticket! /Joe Isuzu) He really is going to run down every possible way to not going down in Hindenburg-level flaming disaster, regardless of the damage to his family, businesses, party, and of course the country.

    It’s almost like someone ought to tell him at this point his best option is to liquidate what he can, and catch a plane to Moscow. That is just about his best outcome at this point…

  97. 97.

    Wayne

    @Gin & Tonic: Maybe you already know about this, but perhaps of interest — shock wave treatments similar to those used for kidney stones seem to be useful for bone non-unions. You could search PubMed for “ESWT” and “nonunion” for more info. I do research on ultrasound and kidney stones, but have seen this use of shock waves presented at conferences. There seems to be some real effect attributable to shocks.

  98. 98.

    WaterGirl

    @lamh36: Warning shot over the bow from the former Attorney General of the United States

    I like it!

    And he’s speaking the only language Trump understands. Doing this would be a very bad idea and will come back and bite you in the ass. His lawyers will certainly take note. Will Trump listen?

  100. 100.

    Yarrow

    @Mnemosyne: Al Green’s district may be blue, but he’s in a red state and got plenty of death threats and other hate speech directed at him (he’s an African American man, so nooses and so forth). I wanted to offer my support because I think he did the right thing and it was a brave move. It was nice to hear them so appreciative. If someone wants to make an intern’s day, calling Al Green’s office to thank him might do it.

  104. 104.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Cheryl Rofer:
    https://www.justsecurity.org/43253/office-legal-counsel-secret-law/

    In theory, it’s the province of the judiciary to say what the law is, but in practice this task often falls to the Office of Legal Counsel. This is because many important questions relating to the scope of executive power never come before the courts. It’s the executive branch that has the last word, and within the executive branch, it’s the OLC. When questions arise about what the government has the power to do, it’s often the OLC that answers them. When agencies have disagreements about the law, it’s the OLC that resolves them.

    Because they have the force of law within the executive branch, and because they often address topics of real consequence, the OLC’s opinions are frequently the subject of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Usually this litigation arises under the provisions of FOIA that require federal agencies to respond to requests for records. Someone learns of the existence of an OLC opinion, requests it, and then sues to enforce the request when the OLC fails to respond, or when it claims the opinion is privileged. Occasionally this kind of litigation results in important disclosures, but there’s something disturbingly backwards, and even undemocratic, about a system that allows the government to conceal and withhold opinions that have the force of law unless and until someone requests them.

    Much more at the link.

  110. 110.

    Brachiator

    @Adam L Silverman:

    He’s nothing if not consistent

    Yes. Trump loves to counter punch, he hates backing down, and especially detests having his personal, corporate and family finances exposed in any way.

    And anyone with half a brain should have seen that Trump believes that he can use the office of the president as his personal fiefdom. “The government, c’est moi.”

    If a constitutional crisis is coming, it’s all on Trump, and on the idiots in the GOP who believed that Trump could ever be controlled.

  114. 114.

    ??‍? Martin

    A pardon requires an admission of guilt. Should he do this, it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not, Congress is then compelled to impeach – becuase he’s admitting he did this. They don’t even need to investigate – just vote.

    Further, if there’s any financial wrongdoing, then he’s still fucked because NYAG Schneiderman will tear him apart for violating NY financial laws.

  121. 121.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Brachiator: Coming? It was implicit the day he took the oath and refused to properly divest and was in violation of the emoluments clause. It became explicit the day he told Lester Holt on video without prompting that he fired Director Comey to stop the CI and criminal investigations examining Russian interference in the 2016 election.

  122. 122.

    ? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Because they have the force of law within the executive branch, and because they often address topics of real consequence, the OLC’s opinions are frequently the subject of litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Usually this litigation arises under the provisions of FOIA that require federal agencies to respond to requests for records. Someone learns of the existence of an OLC opinion, requests it, and then sues to enforce the request when the OLC fails to respond, or when it claims the opinion is privileged. Occasionally this kind of litigation results in important disclosures, but there’s something disturbingly backwards, and even undemocratic, about a system that allows the government to conceal and withhold opinions that have the force of law unless and until someone requests them.

    On Tuesday morning in Washington DC, a federal district court will hear argument in a case that presents the question whether the OLC has an obligation to publish an index of its final written opinions, and to consider those opinions individually for possible release, even in the absence of any FOIA request.

    Thanks for this. I think the OLC should be forced to publish their rulings.

  125. 125.

    hovercraft

    Yeesh, a person can’t even go out for a nice Indian dinner without coming home to the Tangerine Turd trying to pardon himself and his evil spawn!
    WTF?

    I haven’t read the thread yet, but is he delusional enough to think that he could pardon everyone and just carry on?

  127. 127.

    mai naem mobile

    Maybe Dolt 46 was talking to Vlad about seeking asylum in Russia . Maybe that’s why he didn’t want the American translator.

  128. 128.

    danielx

    @Jeffro:

    Self-pardoning would have been seen as a clear-cut admission of guilt, not to mention an outrage against the constitutional order.

    Welllll…he’s already in violation of the emoluments clause and nobody seems particularly interested*. Outrages against the constitutional order are not a real concept to Trump – he views the federal government as an acquisition by the Trump Organization and federal employees as his employees, in which case they are supposed to be loyal to him**, as opposed to an oath to some piece of parchment. The outrage, to him, is that they aren’t loyal to him personally.

    *Compare and contrast Republican reaction if President Clinton had done – hell, anything – that Trump has done in violation of political and constitutional norms. Apoplectic ain’t in it.

    **Applying most particularly to law enforcement agencies, especially federal ones.

  129. 129.

    Percysowner

    @Jeffro: Except, since he’s still President, he’d take our nuclear codes with him AND I’m not sure he can legally be kept from getting new ones. I do suspect that if that happened, the military would come up with SOMETHING to stop him, but it would be dicey. Putin probably never aimed so high as to get our entire nuclear defense system under his control, but he might get it as a bonus.

  132. 132.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Matt McIrvin: Newt Gingrich is as much responsible for our degraded comity as anyone alive. His death needs to be prolonged and painful.

  133. 133.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @WaterGirl:

    Will Trump listen?

    Donald tried to hire some expensive legal talent in New York and got no thanks from them. Why? Because he doesn’t listen, and he doesn’t pay.

  136. 136.

    Busybody

    @Gin & Tonic:
    Many years ago,I had a friend who broke her leg and the bone would not heal. Finally,she started resistance training with it and it healed in a matter of months. Bones respond to resistance not to weight training but pushing against them. Just a suggestion.

  137. 137.

    ? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?

    @WTF:
    He thought he could stifle the media by making it easier to sue them into submission

  139. 139.

    Brachiator

    @Adam L Silverman:

    . .Coming? It was implicit the day he took the oath and refused to properly divest and was in violation of the emoluments clause.

    Understatement on my part. In previous posts, I have suggested that Trump may irreparably damage American democracy. The Republicans have backed Trump as he violated the norms of prior traditions (not revealing his tax returns) and stretching law to the breaking point. Worse, his supporters not only don’t care, they applaud him for doing it. Currently, many of his supporters truly believe that the Russian related investigations are nothing more than an attempt to bring Trump down. In a Guardian article, one Trump supporter even said that Russian involvement was acceptable because it kept Hillary Clinton out of the presidency.

  141. 141.

    Adam L Silverman

    Ugh!

    ETA:

    Trump’s plans to appoint Scaramucci came as a surprise to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who found out after the plans had already been made.

  143. 143.

    mai naem mobile

    @Adam L Silverman: that is hilarious. I think I would do that if I was seated next to him. ‘Non Parlez Anglais’ ‘Nicht sprechen English’ ‘No habla ingles’!!!

  146. 146.

    BBA

    @??‍? Martin: “Compelled” to impeach? This Congress wouldn’t impeach Trump if he admitted to giving Putin the entire nuclear arsenal plus oil rights to Alaska in exchange for destroying the pee tape. (Which Putin wouldn’t do, of course.)

  147. 147.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Brachiator:

    I have suggested that Trump may irreparably damage American democracy.

    Nothing is irreparable as long as the Republic continues to exist and the Constitution still applies. When we see martial law established and elections canceled without revolt, then we can talk about irreparable damage.

  152. 152.

    ? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?

    @BBA:
    Hint: that’s the point when you violently overthrow the (GOP) Congress and Trump

  153. 153.

    opiejeanne

    @Jeffro: Your text block mentions George H. W. Bush facing a special prosecutor. I don’t remember this at all.

  156. 156.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Omnes Omnibus: Nobody is going to cancel elections–Putin has elections. They just have to be arranged so that the winner is always a foregone conclusion, and, eventually, so that no serious opposition contender even dares to run. That can be a gradual process.

  159. 159.

    opiejeanne

    @Jeffro: I thought of that but I don’t remember a special prosecutor for W either. My memory is crap, though, so that may be the problem here.

  161. 161.

    randy khan

    @Percysowner:

    So the nuclear codes thing. Adam or somebody else may know more (and correct me), but my understanding is that it’s not that the President *has* the codes, but that the President has access to the person who has the codes and can order them to be used. In the scenario in which a President high tails it to Moscow (and I can’t believe I’m writing about this), it’s hard to believe that a lot of different things that would prevent the President from using the codes wouldn’t happen, starting with the VP invoking the 25th Amendment, but also including a very fast impeachment and conviction. (Yes, even with the current Congress.) Also, I would guess that the Pentagon would decide that perhaps new codes are required and with no good way to get them to the President, that would make the old codes obsolete. (My working assumption, actually, is that there are backup codes ready to go at all times, and that they’re changed regularly in any event, just as basic security measures.)

  162. 162.

    Florida Frog

    @Gin & Tonic: I am so sorry G&T. Can your surgeon offer anything you can do to stimulate new bone growth. I’ll hold you in the light in hopes of better news.

  164. 164.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Matt McIrvin: Okay. Where are we now? I’ve worked in election admin. I doubt like fuck that votes were changed. I do think that voter suppression took place. I doubt the machines were messed with, but I think the voting population was.

  165. 165.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Trentrunner: That’s two down in one night! Here you go:

  166. 166.

    BBA

    @randy khan: also, wasn’t the code itself “00000000” for a number of decades, because Curtis LeMay didn’t think a lost code should stand in our way when we decide to nuke the commies? I read something like that a while ago.

  167. 167.

    lollipopguild

    @randy khan: I think you are 100% correct and the second it became obvious that trump was fleeing the country a lot of things that he had control of would stop working.

  169. 169.

    randy khan

    @Trentrunner:

    I’ve seen the reports that the spokesperson for Kasowitz is out. I wonder if this is some mangling of that story. If not, it’s a big deal – Kasowitz has been Trump’s lawyer forever.

  171. 171.

    Jay Noble

    “In a controversial executive action, President Gerald Ford pardons his disgraced predecessor Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed or participated in while in office.” from This Day in History site

    So we have precedent for the last six-months of shenanigans of the Trump Gang, to be pardoned before they are charged with anything. Not to much of a stretch to back date even that. :-(

    The trick will be just how many crimes they cover in one pardon.

  172. 172.

    frosty

    @MattF: Baltimore, to be precise. One of my all time favorite quotes.

    “Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest? How does this conflict with my interest?” That remark, made in the early ’70s by Baltimore tavern owner and state Senator Joseph J. Staszak when questioned about a bill he was pushing to benefit tavern owners, is now legendary in the State House hallways.

  175. 175.

    Brachiator

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    .Nothing is irreparable as long as the Republic continues to exist and the Constitution still applies.

    The Constitution is just an old piece of paper if neither elected politicians nor the people believe in it, respect it, and apply it.

    I’ve heard people say that it is understandable that Trump is ignorant of law and policy because he spent his life becoming a successful businessman, and that the Democrats and the media should get out of his way and leave him alone and let him make America great again. Trump eats this stuff and encourages it. The only question is how much further will the Republicans allow Trump to push the limits of power.

  180. 180.

    hovercraft

    @Jay Noble:
    I was listening with half an ear, but someone said earlier on msnbc that For carried a copy of a Supreme Court decision on his person for the rest of his life after the WH, stating that by accepting a pardon, you are admitting guilt, and Ford was therefore pissed that he never got credit for getting Nixon to admit his guilt.

  181. 181.

    Cheryl Rofer

    @Adam L Silverman: Nice graphic.

    Alex Wellerstein, a historian of science with special interests in the history of nuclear weapons, did a deep dive into the question of whether the Secretary of Defense is an essential part of the decision chain. His finding, which agrees with Bruce Blair’s claim and that graphic, is that the President alone can launch the missiles. I would say that the first step in the graphic, conferring with the top brass, is optional. Wellerstein explains here, with links to two previous posts in which he considers the evidence.

    Wellerstein, and I think Blair as well (Blair has been one of the missileers who would be part of the chain), believes that nobody in the chain would disobey the order. But I’ll cite Vasily Arkhipov, second-in-command of a Soviet submarine equipped with nuclear torpedoes during the Cuban Missile Crisis, who voted against using those torpedoes.

    It’s a different time now, and I tend to be an optimist. So I think/hope that people in the command chain have been considering the mental state of this president and what they would do. I would, but I’ve always been the kind of person who is not suited to the military command structure.

  187. 187.

    MisterForkbeard

    This thread seems mostly dead, but there’s a good blog post up by Josh Marshall at TPM. Not sure if the link would block this comment from posting, but it’s currently his top ed-blog item.

    Short version: Trump’s position here is that the law does not and cannot apply to him. Mueller may only investigate Trump so far as Trump allows, and failing that Trump will pardon himself and anyone in his immediate circle. The end result is twofold:

    1. Trump is hiding major, major wrongdoing. Probably something that could be snuffed out at least partially in his tax returns if Mueller started following the crumbs, since that’s apparently the thing Trump is most appalled about.

    2. If this goes the way Trump wants it to and the Republicans don’t impeach him, we’re effectively looking at the end of America as a democracy. Elites won’t just have major advantages with the law, they’ll be actively immune – especially at the presidential level a candidate will break any law he likes so long as it isn’t discovered until after the election.

  188. 188.

    Mike in DC

    If Trump goes worst case scenario–pardon everyone, fire Mueller, lift sanctions unilaterally — and the GOP led Congress does nothing, it leads to a rather stark choice. We can have a Republican party, or a republic, but not both.

  193. 193.

    GHayduke

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Yup. Something not right there.

    As an aside, after running 1200 miles this year (goal of 2017 miles) 2 50k races, and a marathon, I am sidelined by iliopsoas tendonitis, a labral tear of my left hip, and associated arthritis. Learning to rock climb now! Woot!

Comments are closed.