ICYMI. Somewhere this week, Robert Mueller is showing up early, sitting in his office, working late, and just doing his job.
— David Jolly (@DavidJollyFL) January 5, 2018
Robert Mueller has raised the likelihood with Trump’s legal team that his office will seek an interview with the president, WaPo reports, possibly within the next several weeks.
“This is moving faster than anyone really realizes.” https://t.co/kuM98N6nF8
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 8, 2018
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has told President Trump’s legal team that his office is likely to seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks.
Mueller raised the issue of interviewing Trump during a late-December meeting with the president’s lawyers John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended…
… Trump is comfortable participating in an interview and believes it would put to rest questions about whether his campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election, the person added.
However, the president’s attorneys are reluctant to let him sit for open-ended, face-to-face questioning without clear parameters, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Since the December meeting, they have discussed whether the president could provide written answers to some of the questions from Mueller’s investigators, as President Ronald Reagan did during the Iran-contra investigation. They have also discussed the obligation of Mueller’s team to demonstrate that it could not obtain the information it seeks without interviewing the president…
By the time those Iran-Contra investigations were under way, it was an open less-than-secret that President Ronnie was sinking into Alzheimers. Are Trump’s lawyers gonna admit that their client’s short-term memory has declined to the point where he can’t recognize old friends, much less what he may or may not have explicity “authorized” back in 2016?
NBC had the scoop first:
Anticipating that special counsel Robert Mueller will ask to interview President Donald Trump, the president’s legal team is discussing a range of potential options for the format, including written responses to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, according to three people familiar with the matter.
A source familiar with a late December meeting between Trump’s legal team and representatives from the special counsel’s office said the timing of a possible interview or written response has not been set but could come in a matter of weeks…Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration. But the president’s team is also seeking potential compromises that could avoid an interview altogether, two of those interviewed told NBC News.
With the possibility now looming that the president himself could be subject to an interview by the FBI or Mueller’s investigators, Trump’s legal team has been debating whether it would be possible to simply avoid it. One individual familiar with the strategy said those internal discussions within Trump’s legal team began shortly after the president’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was indicted in late October for money laundering in connection with his business dealings with Ukraine…
In addition to the possibility of suggesting the president submit written responses in place of an interview, a second person familiar with the president’s legal strategy said another possibility being contemplated was an affidavit signed by the president affirming he was innocent of any wrongdoing and denying any collusion. It was not clear what such an affidavit might state regarding the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey in May 2017 at a time when Comey was leading the Russia probe.
Justice Department veterans cast doubt on the possibility that Mueller, who served as FBI director for 12 years, would forgo the chance to interview the president directly…
I hope Mueller schedules two or three 8-10 hour sessions with Trump. Trump would crack like an egg under that kind of pressure.
— Mark spots the X (@markspotsthex) January 8, 2018
Maybe Trump should insist he can only be interviewed in tandem with Dick Cheney. pic.twitter.com/LNDrq9EJUu
— Schooley (@Rschooley) January 8, 2018
How do you think Trump’s Attorneys will like the reputation of representing a guy who couldn’t who couldn’t adequately participate in his own defense and doing nothing about it https://t.co/JDZfyMpvES
— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) January 9, 2018
Q: So, you are saying we should expect additional indictments soon?
BLUMENTHAL: Almost certainly in my view there will be additional convictions.
Q: Convictions?
BLUMENTHAL: Guilty pleas as well as indictments. https://t.co/84pynAoVHq— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 8, 2018
Patricia Kayden
Go Mueller!!
dmsilev
Hasn’t he already Tweeted that, multiple times? Surely by now we’ve established that Trump’s Tweets are legally-binding statements.
Betty Cracker
“Alexa, order ALL the popcorn.”
Another Scott
Trump has lots of experience with depositions in civil suits, e.g., part 1 (52 min) from June 16, 2016. He knows how to be evasive in answering questions.
I assume Mueller’s team is reviewing such things, and is not assuming anything about his mental state. They should be crossing every t and dotting every i in all of their interactions with Donnie’s people…
Cheers,
Scott.
Jeffro
@Patricia Kayden: Who will Trumpov give up to save his own skin ? Inquiring minds want to know!!
Major Major Major Major
Hell, just give him only one scoop and he’ll tell you anything you want to hear.
Patricia Kayden
@Jeffro: Everyone except Ivanka.
hellslittlestangel
That’s fucking hilarious.
dmsilev
@Betty Cracker: Your house, soon.
Wag
if they demand written answers then they are admitting that he has dementia.
B.B.A.
I’m not getting my hopes up on consequences. Trump could admit that he murdered Ronald Reagan in cold blood, and Congress and the 27% would just shrug and say “at least he’s not that c*nt Hillary.”
But I do want to know the truth, how much of 2016 was Russian interference and how much was the simple moral bankruptcy of the white American soul – and I assume it’s mostly the latter, but I still want to know. And hopefully, someday soon, we will. Until then, and afterwards, let’s flip every seat we can.
Alternative Fax, a hip hop artist from Idaho
@hellslittlestangel: Dangerously hilarious. And the odds of it actually happening are infinitessimally more than zero.
Major Major Major Major
@Another Scott: that was a year and a half ago—a very long eighteen months at that. He’s deteriorated quickly.
Gin & Tonic
I am not and never have been a lawyer, so forgive the stupid question, but is it optimal strategy to signal publicly that your client isn’t competent to submit to questioning and you’re scared to let him be alone with the prosecutor?
dmsilev
@Major Major Major Major: Do those 8 or 10 hours include time off for ‘Executive Time’?
hellslittlestangel
@dmsilev: Maybe Mueller should interview The Orange Better One during a nice friendly game of golf, no pressure.
Mary G
I don’t know what they expect to accomplish with this. Trump will alternate between I don’t remember to the size of his inauguration crowds and the failing media. No substantial answers or denials will emerge from the word salad.
jl
Why would Mueller conduct the interview himself? Trump might try to fire him on the spot. Maybe it would be better to send some of the team who would come off as the most bland, anodyne, boring drones possible. Maybe send someone who can play ‘servile loser beta male’ very effectively. Lull Trump into complacency, if at all possible.
For maximum electoral train wreck, I was hoping the the GOP Congress will throw itself into the mix. So far, they are helping out just great. They are issuing transparently insane criminal referrals, and I heard a big chunk of a Ryan Sunday talky interview, transporting himself into abject bliss babbling away about how he is going to attack social insurance next year. Thnx, GOP Congress and rank con-person Ryan. Though, what will happen if GOP backs Trump when he goes completely lawless worries me.
Fun times, eh?
Emerald
It won’t happen, but oh gawd I want it done live on teevee. Can’t stand to watch the bastard, but I wanna see this!
Hope there will be video at least, so (probably) years from now we can enjoy the deliciousness of what Mueller’s gonna do to him.
sdhays
@dmsilev: Ha! You and I had the exact same thought!
jl
@sdhays: Might take 8 or 10 hours to get a healthy one hour interview.
?BillinGlendaleCA
Just remember folks, Hillary has no stamina.
Another Scott
@Major Major Major Major: Agreed.
But Mueller’s people can’t assume anything about his mental condition. They have to go in there expecting to get misleading answers, to be prepared to follow up, to press him about everything as if he were some hotshot 30 year old lawyer just back from a MENSA tournament; and also to be prepared for him to claim that he doesn’t remember anything and is Shocked, Shocked that he would be questioned about anything nefarious.
I expect that he can still do depositions on autopilot – to some extent. They have to be prepared.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@jl: Mueller probably has done few of the interviews himself. He is directing the investigation.
B.B.A.
@Gin & Tonic: Worked for Harry Helmsley.
jl
@Another Scott: Why press for a show down or meltdown? Let Trump lie his ass off, schedule a follow-up if convenient. Why not lull the guy into thinking the investigation really is winding down. Talk up how they need to get that rat Manfort and Truimp can help!
But, maybe I just watched too many Columbo episodes.
sdhays
@jl: Maybe Mueller could sit in on Fox and Fiends and just use Donny John’s Twitter vomits as his responses to questions. That would actually make me consider watching Fox “News”.
Major Major Major Major
@Another Scott: I’m sure they will be, think about who we’re talking about here.
Barbara
@Mary G: Because whatever he says is under oath and he cannot easily make things up thereafter. If he doesn’t remember something he cannot offer a detailed recollection when related matters become a problem, let’s say, for one of his children.
jl
@sdhays: That is genius. Mueller team conducts the interview by twitter. Does Mueller’s team have a suggestion box?
Ceci n est pas mon nym
@B.B.A.: We won’t have those hearings unless we get a Democratic majority in Congress in the 2018 elections.
And we will certainly have more Russian interference before then. Hell it’s evident now with the Russian bots popping up on blogs. Also massive vote suppression coordinated at the federal level.
I for one do not believe the voting that made just the right difference in just the right swing states was entirely due to actual votes cast. But we’re not even investigating that question. And for all I know, the relevant records have already been wiped.
I have heard that we aren’t doing much yet to ensure vote integrity in 2018.
Omnes Omnibus
@jl: No, you are right. Mueller’s people aren’t looking for a Perry Mason moment; they are meticulously gathering statements and documents. Then they are analyzing them. And comparing. And contrasting. And then asking more questions. It isn’t glamorous.
Adam L Silverman
@dmsilev: That is not going to play. At all.
jl
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks, but now I’ve decided I want a public interview by twitter, somehow or other running live through Fox and Friends.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@jl: Got a better one, bring in Hillary to do the interview.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I was wondering about this, I was out to dinner and didn’t tune in
politicians historically don’t do well with the crowds at sporting events
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: Only if your client is Vincent “The Chin” Gigante.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Gin & Tonic: The proposal for written submissions was to avoid letting him say something stupid as he’s prone to do, and fail to understand its (incriminating,e.g.) significance. They know he’ll lie, no matter what the process, but a written submission (for which there ain’t a chance in hell,IMO) could protect him from the, ah, reactions in the moment to the questions.
Bobby Thomson
@Gin & Tonic:
What a lot of people don’t understand is that this is not a criminal case. Trump is immune from prosecution unless and until he is impeached and removed. The purpose of leaking these negotiations to the press is to set up an argument that Trump tried to be reasonable. Trump will never sit for questioning under oath, and likely will never sit even for questioning by federal law enforcement, because as Martha Stewart learned, lying to the feds is a crime regardless of whether you are under oath. At some point, Trump is going to have Mueller fired, and this is all about posturing before that happens.
Major Major Major Major
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: lol, I love the notion that those well-known nasty liberal partisans at ESPN would add in fake booing, you know to play to their liberal audience of… sports fans
sdhays
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Based on what’s been reported in “Fire and Fury”, having a woman do the interviewing seems like a good choice, but Hillary’s not a Federal prosecutor.
debbie
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Jesus. “Decided to add in fake booing”???
Bobby Thomson
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): written submissions would be written by lawyers, not Trump. He would sign them, supposedly after reviewing them for accuracy.
Adam L Silverman
@Ceci n est pas mon nym:
Da, tovarisch!
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: And they’re not asking questions unless they already know the answers.
different-church-lady
TRUMP’S LAWYERS: “We need clearly defined parameters.”
MUELLER: “Get his ass in here.”
TRUMP’S LAWYERS: “We accept that definition.”
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: One thing that really stuck out in Fire and Fury is how monumentally stupid this whole gang is. Bannon seems to probably be the smartest of the bunch, but I’m not sure that’s saying much. Anybody who had an ounce of intelligence either stayed far away or left quickly.
stinger
@Mary G: The people asking the questions won’t be journalists. They’ll be prosecuting attorneys.
Bobby Thomson
@Adam L Silverman: Gigante ran with the con for years before giving up. Trump doesn’t have the patience or the stamina. He’s just a dumb guy who’s getting dumber every day as dementia sets in.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@sdhays: She can be hired as one and she did work on the Nixon impeachment hearings.
mvr
@Gin & Tonic: Any competent lawyer would be worried about a client who was also a suspect being alone with a prosecutor.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Bobby Thomson: Indeed they would, hence the protection. They can’t coach him in an interview. Also why I believe that won’t fly. Even an idiot prosecutor wouldn’t do it, and Mueller is a pro.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: One can take an occasional flyer.
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby Thomson:
Actually this is both a criminal investigation and counterintelligence investigation. Moreover, there is no actual controlling foundational or statutory law that states a sitting president cannot be indicted and tried. There is a lot of debate over it. The Watergate prosecutor decided not to press the issue and create a precedent as he didn’t need to do so. Mueller hired an attorney for the investigation whose specialty includes this legal/legal-academic issue.
James E. Powell
We need to get everyone on twitter saying “Hillary was able to testify for over 10 hours to a hostile congressional committee. Trump is afraid to testify in public. Weak.”
sdhays
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I think Trump’s literally stupid enough to think he could submit to being interviewed by Mueller’s team and “win”, even despite his diminishing mental capacity. I believe the reports that say, “Trump is comfortable participating in an interview and believes it would put to rest questions about whether his campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election”. His lawyers know that his estimation of his own capabilities is…exaggerated, and are trying to protect him.
different-church-lady
@Betty Cracker: “Ordering Rip Torn films.”
Bobby Thomson
@Ceci n est pas mon nym: all of this. The next phase of removing Donnie Moscow from office is Democrats getting subpoena power. Then they either uncover publicly so much that Republicans are shamed into removal, or we stuff him in the 2020 elections. Or he strokes out from the strain.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: President Grant was arrested for speeding, on his horse.
Adam L Silverman
@sdhays: Mueller has brought in a number of top female Federal investigators/lawyers on to his staff. He has Jeanie Rhee, Zainab Ahmad, Kyle Freeny, and Elizabeth Prenogar.
randy khan
What’s interesting about this to me is that Trump’s lawyers either don’t seem to realize that written answers to questions or an affidavit aren’t that likely to protect him from jeopardy – indeed, could make it worse for him, not better – or believe that the risk of having him answer questions in real time is so great that it’s better to avoid it at any cost.
Based on the excerpts from his depositions that I’ve seen, it may be the second option. The penalty for messing up a deposition is that you lose the suit; the penalty for messing up an interview with the FBI or federal prosecutors is much worse, particularly in this case. Trump’s usual MO of lying in ways he think the other side can’t prove won’t work here – Mueller’s team won’t interview him until they think they have everything they need. (And, of course, there’s the question of whether he even could execute that strategy as well as he did in the past.)
I’d add that what might really kill Trump is a well-documented analysis of anything he said in an interview showing that he lied again and again and again. Sure, there would be attacks on the credibility of Mueller’s team and the other witnesses. But if the basis for showing Trump lied is documents and/or financial records, that could be brutal.
Bobby Thomson
@Adam L Silverman: the arguments in support of the ability to indict a sitting president are not persuasive, and Mensch is a fabulist.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bobby Thomson: Toll the statute of limitations while he is in office.
jl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: And got a ticket for speeding in his carriage. IIRC when the cops realized who he was, they wanted to forget about the whole thing, but Grant insisted he take his punishment. Grant was an old school Republican.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Yep. I’m only a chapter in as I’ve been working on a project, but that’s my take so far.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bobby Thomson: and he’s never owned a bathrobe goddammit!
@different-church-lady: I think the only Rip Torn movies I’ve actually seen are Defending Your Life (one of my favorites) and Face in the Crowd. And the video of his arrest for BandEundertheI. Long may he wave.
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby Thomson: I know, but was going for an accurate answer.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: True.
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Bobby Thomson:
Why are you always so relentlessly negative on these threads? Should we all just kill ourselves now because Trump might start a nuclear war and all the back and forth between him and Kim is just posturing?
sdhays
@Bobby Thomson: I seem to recall a report saying that Mueller would refer any indictments for the President himself (should any arise) to the House of Representatives for their consideration for Impeachment. But obviously we won’t know for sure until it happens, and if Mueller finds lots of dirt on people like Paul and Mitch, then he may decide he needs to try to bring the case in Federal court first, regardless of the chances for success, in order to get a fair(er) hearing.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: That scofflaw. Just because his initials were US didn’t mean he could just do whatever he wanted.
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby Thomson: I’m not referring to anything from Mensch. I don’t read her. She’s nuts. Got one, sort of, accurate scoop.
Mueller is going to do what he’s going to do. But that doesn’t change the reality that this is both a criminal and a counterintelligence investigation.
sdhays
@Adam L Silverman: Yep. While Hillary interviewing Trump would make for great television, and I’m sure she could do it, I’d prefer to leave it up to the professionals already on Mueller’s team.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: Every party needs a poopper.
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Bobby Thomson:
And the argument that the president is above the law is? I understand you’re not making this argument but the president cannot and should not be above the law. It’s that black and white.
The moment the president is allowed to willy nilly break the law (without consequences) just because their party controls Congress and refuses to hold them accountable is the moment we become a dictatorship. That is unacceptable.
Cheryl Rofer
@Gin & Tonic: From the comments I have seen from lawyers, this is pretty standard jousting. The prosecutors ask for an unlimited face-to-face session, and the lawyers for the interviewee suggest a discreet exchange of emails over a period of several months and negotiate from there.
Bobby Thomson
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: it is literally my job to tell people things they don’t want to hear. Wish fulfillment leaves you unprepared.
Omnes Omnibus
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: No president has been been indicted. The fact that a sitting president could be subject to a civil suit was an issue during the Clinton admin. It was decided that he could be. Hence the Whitewater shit.
There are valid arguments that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And there are valid legal arguments that a sitting president can.
jl
And I am here to say what everyone wants to hear and knows in their heart would be for the best: do the interview over twitter while Fox and Friends is on.
Bobby Thomson
@Adam L Silverman: it is, in the sense that there are potentially dozens or more of other targets who do not enjoy immunity under the Constitution.
sdhays
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: If Bill Clinton could be personally sued and forced to being interviewed while President, then I really don’t see how that’s not precedent suggesting that the President can be charged under criminal statutes while he’s squatting in the Oval Office. Of course, IANAL, so my estimation of precedent isn’t worth much. It’s all kind of absurd anyway since the Founders envisioned a functioning (and not complicit) Congress to handle the policing of the Chief Executive, but that appears to have been one of their many faulty assumptions…
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Bobby Thomson:
Oh it’s your job is it? To be a doom and gloomer?
joel hanes
@Bobby Thomson:
either … Republicans are shamed
something else will happen, because the Rs have been demonstrably incapable of shame since the Brooks Brothers riot.
different-church-lady
@Bobby Thomson: You work in HR?
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Omnes Omnibus:
There’s always a first time for everything.
I’m not a lawyer, but what possible valid legal argument could there be that justifies not indicting a President under the current circumstances?
The president is not above the law. In theory, no one is. Trump has to be made an example. One way or another.
Dmbeaster
@Gin & Tonic: If you can avoid your client being questioned, then its always good (except for the political implications of dodging the interview). Plus there are few set rules for this situation, so its a negotiation to demand what you want.
Omnes Omnibus
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: Have you considered law school?
Bobby Thomson
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?:
That’s the system we have, because “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate thinks it does.
We can still bounce back if people make institutional changes after this, such as requiring presidential candidates to make financial disclosures and submit to medical examinations with the results made public, and requiring presidents to divest their financial holdings into a blind trust. I am aware that this might be substituting one set of unenforceable norms for another, as the statutes potentially could be struck down on the grounds that Congress (as opposed to the States) cannot establish presidential requirements beyond what is in Article II. But they might be more “sticky.”
But let’s be real. Trump is the symptom, not the cause. We are in this position because a majority of the Congress is insane and lacks any sense of civic responsibility, and because a substantial enough minority of voters back their play. Real, significant change can’t happen until those factors are gone.
In other words, don’t rely on Mueller to save the Republic. He can prod Trump into self ownage and he can set the table for electoral gains, but he doesn’t have a magic wand.
clay
FUCK! Aw, Dawgs…
Felanius Kootea
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Three times!
Cckids
@clay: Agreed. Dammit.
randy khan
@Dmbeaster:
If Trump could avoid an interview or any kind of questioning (even written) entirely, that obviously would be his best choice. After all, it’s not like he can agree to an interview than invoke the 5th Amendment if the questions get dicey. (I mean, he could, but that would be a really bad look, possibly even sufficient to shake some Republicans out of their stupor.)
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby Thomson: You keep hitting that drum. I will admit that I don’t expect Mueller to try to push the issue, but the Constitution does not state, anywhere, that the President enjoys immunity by simply being president. Hell it doesn’t even actually define the political violations high crimes and misdemeanors. If you want to argue that by establishing the impeachment process that it implicitly prohibits the criminal prosecution of a president, then that’s a plausible argument. But there is no explicit grant of immunity to a sitting president in the Constitution.
As for it being both a criminal and counterintelligence investigation, it is because Mueller is going to use the criminal code to bring charges for the counterintelligence issues so as not to burn sources and methods.
Bobby Thomson
@different-church-lady: worse.
different-church-lady
@Adam L Silverman: Doesn’t this set up the interesting possibility that a president could go to prison and still be the president?
afanasia
@Bobby Thomson: Shamed? No. That can’t be done.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Bobby Thomson: Impeachment(and conviction) only speaks to removal from office, it says nothing about what the Judiciary can and cannot do. One is political, the other criminal and civil.
afanasia
@Adam L Silverman: Ms. Ahmad, please.
Mary G
Sorry, Raven. It was close.
Bobby Thomson
@Adam L Silverman: Yes, it’s implied very strongly in the Constitutional language, at least as strongly as Congress’ implied power to create a National Bank.
“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.” “[T]he Party convicted” is subject to indictment, not the party accused.
Don’t take my word for it. A. Ham said the same thing in Federalist 69: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” And unlike Scalia, I both believe in legislative intent and am honest about it.
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Omnes Omnibus:
Nope. Too much time and money. I’m not disparaging you as a lawyer or anything. Just curious.
Bobby Thomson
@afanasia: I agree. I put the shaming odds at less than 1% (but still nonzero).
Adam L Silverman
@different-church-lady: Correct, that’s part of the credible argument for why the Constitution only provides impeachment as the process to remove a sitting president.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@different-church-lady: Then he’d have lots of time for “Executive Time”.
Omnes Omnibus
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: Cool. Then don’t make legal calls.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Burn, motherfuckers, burn
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: Technically, there’s also Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, but that’s actually a higher bar than impeachment.
different-church-lady
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I’m sure the fact that they do not control the universe itself came as quite a shock to them.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Bobby Thomson: Yes, but they also put in the Electoral College to prevent unfit candidates from becoming President. That worked well.
Adam L Silverman
@Bobby Thomson: I’m not arguing that you’re not functionally correct on this point. I’ve taught both the Constitution and the Federalist enough in my previous career to understand your argument. But things are implicit until either made explicit or deemed to actually not only not be explicit, but not even be implicit. As I’ve indicated several times, I don’t expect Mueller to get over his skis on this. But he’s brought a specialist in on the legal and legal-academic arguments on the matter. And that indicates he’s covering all his bases and doing his homework. Which is what I would expect.
Bobby Thomson
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?:
You’re not wrong, especially these days. For a shrinking number of people, it’s a path to upward mobility, but a lot of kids just wind up with more undischargeable debt they will never be able to pay off.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@different-church-lady: As I noted above from my reading of Fire and Fury, the whole bunch is monumentally stupid.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Yep.
Mike J
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTEmBIzVAAAWmYL.jpg
? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?
@Adam L Silverman:
But what about when that process is broken? How does that change the argument?
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: And that’s probably an insult to monuments.
Omnes Omnibus
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: Start your revolution.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: Point taken. I liked Death Valley back when I visited with I was a youngster, it was a National Monument back then.
Timurid
@different-church-lady:
Or…
MUELLER: Get his ass in here.
TRUMP LAWYERS: This is a witch hunt. Our client will not comply.
MUELLER: (Pulls out copy of subpoena) Then he’s in contempt.
LAWYERS: But only Congress can enforce that. Good luck…
Lyrebird
@afanasia:
Oh yeah!!! (links to an interview about her counterterrorism work, with a Very Serious Picture…)
I am sure any of the team would be an excellent choice, but yeah.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Timurid: But what if it’s a civil subpoena? Jones v. Clinton?
T S
I think Trump or Pence will be President until 2020…and the only reason it wouldn’t be Trump is because of dementia.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@T S:
And who’d make him resign, his Cabinet?
randy khan
@different-church-lady:
For what it’s worth, the last successful impeachment was of a federal judge, who was impeached only after he had been convicted of perjury. His name was Walter Nixon, which means that it is, in fact, correct to say that Nixon was impeached and convicted, something those of us who grew up in the 70s wish we’d been able to say at the time.
Adam L Silverman
@? ?? Goku (aka The Hope of the Universe) ? ?: This is a problem. Despite what the originalists would like us all to believe, the Constitution and the published, professional, and/or personal writings of the Founders and Framers is often ambiguous or silent. They don’t get this because as Judge Posner observed in his review of Justice Scalia’s book, the originalists with Scalia as the Ur example, are terrible historians. Things are implicit or not mentioned at all. Other things are clearly trapped in the understanding of politics and society at the time they were written (this includes the Constitution and what the Founders and Framers wrote about it). In other cases language has changed so much that the original plain meaning no longer applies. For instance, in the late 18th Century the terms private and privacy* meant very different things than they do today, which is why the Framers used persons and effects and didn’t explicitly write right to privacy into the Constitution. It is possible that Mueller might seek an indictment of the President, but defer prosecution because of the implicit immunity @Bobby Thomson: is referring to, or work with AG Schneiderman for instance to do it, as a way of trying to force Congress’s hand to do something. It is also possible he will simply lay out his evidence for Congress, explain that all of this is prosecutable, and that would be expected to force Congress’s hand.
* In the late 18th Century privacy referred to when one was alone and in a state of undress. Often in regard to specific bodily functions. So when something was private it was referred to when one was in this state. Hence the popular term privvy.
Amir Khalid
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
In theory, yes; but as I understand it Mueller wants to keep the investigation free of any pro-Hillary bias. I have been told that Hillary has a strong pro-Hillary bias, and that this is evident when you consider who she campaigned for in 2016.
randy khan
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Just for argument sake, if he reached the point where he was unable to feed himself, with equivalent deficits in everything else, I imagine that there’s a good chance they’d invoke the 25th Amendment. Pence and co. are bad people in too many ways to count, but they also understand that there’s a minimum level of function that someone can have and still be allowed to sit in the Oval Office.
Amir Khalid
@randy khan:
Where is this minimal level of function defined?
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Amir Khalid: I think you are correct that Hillary has a pro-Hillary bias and that it would not a positive for Mueller’s investigation.
danielx
Clearly plumbing the depths for that minimum level.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@randy khan: After reading Fire and Fury, I might grant you that. As I noted above, ALL of them are really stupid.
Adam L Silverman
@Lyrebird: She’s fierce.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Amir Khalid: I guess it’d be a criteria defined by the Cabinet(and Congress since they have to uphold the Cabinet’s decision for Section 4 of the 25th).
Amaranthine RBG
@B.B.A.:
I’d submit that Trump has already done for worse than that in reality so far.
The 25-30% of the population that approves of him was the same 27% that voted for him and thiat is enough in Ameica to win an election, with a little help from the vagaries of the electoral college.
Cacti
Since it’s an open thread…
How awesome was it that Dotard forgot the words to the National Anthem at the college national championship football game?
Even the BBC was poking fun at it.
jl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Wolff has said in several interviews that he would tell them he was writing a book and that seemed to render him invisible and in an odd way, not really there. He said it was as if those most of them have never actually read a book, and had a difficult time wrapping their heads around what such a mysterious thing was and how it worked.
efgoldman
@Adam L Silverman:
The hair to be split is: Can he be criminally indicted (and perhaps tried) in court – but he can only be removed from office by the impeachment process outlined in the constitution – or by the 25th amendment, which isn’t going to happen even if he crawls around barking and drooling on the WH lawn.
OTOH, even if he’s impeached and removed, congress has no power to impose further sentence.
Bobby Thomson
@?BillinGlendaleCA: there’s a reason he settled the Trump U case.
danielx
Since I’m being kept awake by it anyway…participating in a real-time experiment on how pain management and treatment is changing in response to opioid crisis. Evidently have a pinched nerve in my lower, which sounds minor but is agonizing to the point of breaking into a sweat and measured breathing. Developed Friday, took all manner of self medication measures, most of which did diddlyshit for the pain – which was something serious, let me tell you.
Got into the doctor today and was prescribed medrol (steroid) for nerve inflammation and gabapentin (pain med for damaged nerves, antiseizure med). Five years ago it would have been physical therapy and opioids for pain. PT is fine for certain things, but he said at this point the thinking is to get lnflammation down and then think about therapy. He said these days their protocol is more to think about any alternatives to opioids prior to prescribing them, which formerly was almost a knee jerk reaction. Pity they weren’t thinking about it early, but his regime seems to be working, praise FSM. Amazing how chronic pain shapes your existence.
afanasia
Jane Chong, another lawyer, on the interplay between law and politics in any question of impeachment. She seems…thorough.I think the last paragraph is great.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachment-proof-presidents-unconstitutional-abuse-his-constitutional-powers
Adam L Silverman
@danielx: Accupuncture. Did wonders for me the last time I trapped a nerve.
seaboogie
@Another Scott: @Trump has a long track record of being obvious and incompetent. I’m sure Mueller has that handled.
Shalimar
@sdhays: My mother is narcissistic and has Alzheimer’s that is bad but not as noticeable as Trumps. The doctor has her on medication, which she believes is to prevent her from getting it. She loves the medicine, claims it is working great and that her memory of long-forgotten events has gotten much stronger. There is no evidence she notices her cognitive decline. To her, she is the same as she ever was.
T S
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Well, I mean dementia is necessary condition, but not sufficient. IF he has resigned, it will be due to dementia, not crime.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@afanasia: Pretty good piece.
ETA: One thing she didn’t mention that would, I think, bolster her argument is the furor over the Marc Rich pardon by Bill Clinton.
Redshift
@randy khan:
Strom Thurmond. Just saying. Honestly, if Trump got to the point where no one could understand what he was saying except a few aides/family members who “interpreted” for him, most of the White House would be a lot happier.
Elie
Am I right to think that by the time Moeller is interviewing Trump that he already has a ton of shit and just seeing how some loose ends can be tied up? Trumps basic personality and mental state make it highly likely that he will incriminate himself coming and going. Wow! The W H must be sweating themselves into pools of slime.
Groucho48
@Bobby Thomson:
Not a lawyer, but, that seems to be saying that Congress can’t go beyond removal from office in the impeachment process. It doesn’t really address limitations on the justice system to charge, try, and convict a sitting President. If the impeachment attempt fails, it strongly implies that the impeached person is not guilty of the charges and shouldn’t face any more prosecution. Does the Constitution say, anywhere, that the President is not subject to the criminal justice system? If it doesn’t say so explicitly, then, the matter is open for argument
Ruckus
@danielx:
Fun isn’t it?
I’d say welcome to the club but I can’t. Because this is a club that no one wants to belong to. The eligibility rules are all wrong.
Ruckus
@Shalimar:
Sorry about your mom. Alzheimer’s is a horrible way to get old.
mike in dc
I’m not a lawyer but…oh, wait. I am a lawyer, albeit not a very successful one. But I went to a good law school and took a few con law classes and wrote a paper about all the different processes for investigating high level executive branch wrongdoing. As I interpret the constitution, the president has qualified immunity for official acts of office. Corrupt acts, of course, cannot be official acts. That said, let’s stipulate that Trump probably can’t be indicted while in office. However, the statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes is generally 5 years. If Trump leaves office after one term, he can be indicted for any crimes he committed during the election campaign in 2016, and for obstruction in 2017 et seq. I don’t see anything explicit or implicit in the constitution that says a president who is out of office cannot be indicted for crimes, once he leaves office. More to the point, anything he did before 1/20/17 would not be as president, obviously he could be indicted for any crimes committed before he was president, so long as they fell within the statute of limitations.
As to the viability of refusing to testify, I think that would play terribly outside of Trump’s base, and guarantee both a massive wave election and his inevitable impeachment, sometime in mid-2019. Look, they can dress it up however they like, but refusing to testify under oath reads pretty clearly as “I am guilty as hell and won’t risk everyone finding me out”. But tha public and press reaction won’t happen automatically. It’s going to need some really hard pushing, particularly with regard to the media gatekeepers and the “respected” GOP media darlings like Graham, Corker, Flake, Sasse, etc. They have to be pushed hard whenever they rear their perfumed princely heads.
Quinerly
@mike in dc: Great comment. Thanks. Hope others read it. Although the thread does appear to be dead.
Central Planning
@Central Planning: FYWP won’t let me add a link to my last post, so also check out this link for back pain relief. It’s some stretching exercises. It’s helped me and other friends, I’m sure depending on what is causing the pain: back pain video
Central Planning
@danielx: See my #153 for a link to a video for my back pain.
My wife had back pain and it took doctors a month to get an MRI. Turns out she had a herniated disc. Twice the pain because two nerves came out of that space where normally one comes out. Surgery solved the pain issue – she walked out of the hospital the next day. Highly recommended if that’s the problem.
J R in WV
@Adam L Silverman:
Oh, my! How about Zainab Ahmad, both female AND muslim, and asking the hard questions:
“How much money have you personally OR your businesses borrowed from Russian sources via Deutsch Bank?”
“Have you or businesses controlled by you borrowed monies from Russian Sources via any other financial conduit?”
“How much money have Trump Enterprises been paid by Russians for purchasing real estate investments such as condos or apartments on an annualized basis?”
Whooweee!
J R in WV
@Lyrebird:
That interview, where she is answering questions about terrorism cases, how to handle the evidence, how to construct the narrative presented to a jury, was very impressive.
This person has her career ahead of her, and it will be famous before she is done.
To be on the other side of her mind, with her asking questions, under oath, rather than her taking questions from an interviewer, that would be very different, and potentially painful.
She is obviously capable of keeping a great deal of complex information right in her head, on the tip of her tongue for instant use in questioning.
J R in WV
Lots of times these late night threads wake up when people start looking at them the next morning. Like me.
But I’m a little famous for talking to myself in dead threads… sometimes you just want to put your thoughts on record alongside the conversation already documented.
randy khan
@Redshift:
The difference between a Senator and the President is that there are certain things that only can be done by the President, like signing bills and executive orders, or ordering nuclear strikes, some of which have to be done in public and some of which the people who have to act on the President’s orders will do only if they are convinced the President actually is the one doing the ordering. (Pence or Kelly couldn’t call NORAD and say it’s time to launch against North Korea.) Reagan was still functional enough to pass that test. If Trump (or anyone) got to the stage of being unable to do those things, no amount of interpretation by courtiers would be sufficient, and I think it’s at least somewhat likely that Pence and company would step in. They’d probably say he’d had a stroke or make up some other story that would placate the base to explain why it was necessary.
Also, I have a Strom Thurmond story: He went to Walter Reed for his medical treatment. At some point in his later years, he came into the emergency room with significant digestive distress. It turned out that he had drunk an entire bottle of hot sauce before his keepers could stop him. No real harm, but apparently his stomach really didn’t like it. (I heard this from the wife of one of the doctors who treated him.)
SFAW
@J R in WV:
You’n’me both.
Bobby Thomson
@Groucho48: there is a legal principle, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which translates as “to say one thing is to exclude the alternative.” If a sitting president already were subject to indictment and prosecution, there would be no need to say that a convicted president also was subject to indictment and prosecution.
Annie
Even if his lawyers set conditions, Dolt45 will ignore them. Remember, this is the client who doesn’t listen. This is the guy whose lawyers used to meet with him in pairs so one of them could take notes and there would be a witness when Dolt tried to lie about what he’d told them in their meetings.