Jump to content

US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

The effects of repealing the ACA start to sink in with the Republican Base.  THIS is why Conservative lawmakers are in dire straits:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/these-americans-hated-the-health-law-until-the-idea-of-repeal-sank-in/ar-AAowH2W?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

Quote

It’s going to cost a fortune,” he

said in an interview at the time.

This week, as Republican efforts to repeal the law known as Obamacare appeared all but dead, Mr. Brahin, a 58-year-old lawyer and self-described fiscal hawk, said his feelings had evolved.

 

“As much as I was against it,” he said, “at this point I’m against the repeal.”

“Now that you’ve insured an additional 20 million people, you can’t just take the insurance away from these people,” he added. “It’s just not the right thing to do.”

As Mr. Brahin goes, so goes the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Say, the Republicans, KNOWING they can't do it alone, AND facing serious opposition from their base for the 'death-care' schemes so far...

 

 - suppose they cooperated with the Democrats just enough to fix the more critical issues with the ACA (and there are plenty of things that desperately need fixing), then took credit for putting forth a better health care package for the people while simultaneously blaming the democrats for the original mess.

This is something I would favor.  McConnell is obviously going to keep trying to jam through some sort of healthcare bill.  I think his pride requires it at this point.  It would be excellent if they just actually fixed the ACA.  I don't care if they slap "Trump" on it and call it Trumpcare.  

This is something I would think is wildly implausible, though.  They'd be 100 times more likely to introduce a version of single payer than work with anything connected with Obama.  They are simply too married to an anti-Obama agenda, probably more so than any other agenda they have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Of course he is. I like how he's added himself to the list of possible pardonee's.  

 

So if Trump did pardon himself, I don't know who has the standing to bring the issue to the Supreme Court, but DOJ issued an opinion in 1974 that the President cannot pardon himself https://www.justice.gov/file/20856/download. The President can invoke the 25th Amendment to declare himself temporarily unable to perform the duties of office, and the Vice President as Acting President could pardon the President. Although if Trump did do that, I'm not so sure Pence would either a) provide the pardon or b ) step aside so easily.

I've also seen it argued that people who receive a Presidential pardon lose the right to invoke the 5th amendment in testimony related to the pardon (unless they'd expose themselves to a different charge they hadn't already been pardoned for), because they can't self-incriminate on something they can't be charged for. If true, that would mean that if a court or Congress were feeling saucy they could compel any pardoned by Trump to testify and have them jailed under contempt until they did so. No chance Congress does that unless Democrats take back a chamber in 2018, but maybe a court would.

And of course pardons only apply to Federal crimes, not state crimes; so its all going to come down to if anything that happened at Trump Tower violated New York law. And as much as I disliked Cuomo, I certainly can't see him granting a state pardon to anything related to Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Isn't accepting a pardon an admission of guilt as well? I'm sure that'll go over well.

It is. If Trump finds a way to pardon himself, he is admitting that he committed impeachable offenses. Republicans likely still wouldn't impeach him, but I think that alone would be enough evidence for Democrats to impeach if they take the House in 2018 (of course, with the 2/3rds requirement for the Senate to convict, it still wouldn't have a practical effect until Republicans get on board).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I can already anticipate the conservative response to this.  "It's legal for him to accept a pardon.  That's part of his power as president.  Therefore, everything's ok now."  

 

It is an admission of guilt.  What is problematic is that impeachment is a political act.  I have to doubt that the House Republicans would be willing to file articles of impeachment and even if filed that Senate Republicans would be unwilling to convict.  This is Nixonian politics amped up to 1000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you all haven't read Masha Gessen's piece from the NYTimes and other of her works, you should (though it can also scare the shyte outta ya), as to why the current inhabitant, a political totalitarian of the incompetent at governance type (which, historically so many totalitarians are), is successful at his goals, despite what look like his failures:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/sunday/trumps-incompetence-wont-save-our-democracy.html

She's also written books on Putin and other related subjects.

She can be heard on one of the WNYC radio live broadcasts here:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/summer-friday-watergate-versus-trussia-masha-gessen-talks-putin-how-run-office-american-exceptionalism-and-divides/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is an admission of guilt.  What is problematic is that impeachment is a political act.  I have to doubt that the House Republicans would be willing to file articles of impeachment and even if filed that Senate Republicans would be unwilling to convict.  This is Nixonian politics amped up to 1000.

If Democrats had an amazing midterm, taking back the House, somehow hitting the royal flush to get to 51 seats in the Senate, taking a huge number of Governor's races and state legislatures, and congressional Republicans getting no major policy achievements before then; I could see a handful of Republicans deciding at that point that their Faustian bargain was a failure and going along with a Democratic impeachment process.

However, even then I don't see it being a full 15 Senate Republicans, so it still wouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It's kind of smelling like Manafort may be the first lynch pin that's going to be pulled here...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/07/20/nyt-rejects-manaforts-retraction-request-240782?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

Maddow has been hammering on a money laundering case involving Gazprom, a Russian oligarch and numerous Ukrainian politicians that apparently Manafort had a part in brokering. The 17 million he received from a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party has an extremely shady paper trail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Which came before, the criminal or the President? How can a criminal have the capability to pardon himself?

I hope Kennedy doesnt resign before the Supreme Court has a chance to address this existential quesion.

That's what some legal scholars say. How can the President be the judge in his own case which is essentially what pardoning himself would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That's what some legal scholars say. How can the President be the judge in his own case which is essentially what pardoning himself would do.

This is the weird part.  The power of Pardon derives not from Judicial tradition, but from monarchical.  It is literally a "Monarch's prerogative" enshrined in an elected official.  Hence, it is a very broad power.  It would be interesting to see a challenge upon a President's power to pardon themself.  However, I'm afraid it would be interpreted liberally as the only express limitation on that power is that it doesn't apply to "impeachment".  
 

Quote

 


If the President were to act to pardon themself the normal course would be for Congress to impeach for an admission of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Unfortunately, we don't live in "normal times".

 and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Hamilton from Federalist 74 on the power of Pardon:

He is also to be authorized to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT." Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.

The expediency of vesting the power of pardoning in the President has, if I mistake not, been only contested in relation to the crime of treason. This, it has been urged, ought to have depended upon the assent of one, or both, of the branches of the legislative body. I shall not deny that there are strong reasons to be assigned for requiring in this particular the concurrence of that body, or of a part of it. As treason is a crime levelled at the immediate being of the society, when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender, there seems a fitness in referring the expediency of an act of mercy towards him to the judgment of the legislature. And this ought the rather to be the case, as the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely excluded. But there are also strong objections to such a plan. It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever. It deserves particular attention, that treason will often be connected with seditions which embrace a large proportion of the community; as lately happened in Massachusetts. In every such case, we might expect to see the representation of the people tainted with the same spirit which had given birth to the offense. And when parties were pretty equally matched, the secret sympathy of the friends and favorers of the condemned person, availing itself of the good-nature and weakness of others, might frequently bestow impunity where the terror of an example was necessary. On the other hand, when the sedition had proceeded from causes which had inflamed the resentments of the major party, they might often be found obstinate and inexorable, when policy demanded a conduct of forbearance and clemency. But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall. The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal. If it should be observed, that a discretionary power, with a view to such contingencies, might be occasionally conferred upon the President, it may be answered in the first place, that it is questionable, whether, in a limited Constitution, that power could be delegated by law; and in the second place, that it would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is the weird part.  The power of Pardon derives not from Judicial tradition, but from monarchical.  It is literally a "Monarch's prerogative" enshrined in an elected official.  Hence, it is a very broad power.  It would be interesting to see a challenge upon a President's power to pardon themself.  However, I'm afraid it would be interpreted liberally as the only express limitation on that power is that it doesn't apply to "impeachment".  

 Two things.

1. "crimes against the United States" seems to suggest federal crimes. That means he can't pardon for State crimes so if the money-laundering aspects of the case become true, he's likely screwed on a State level, especially if by accepting a pardon, he is admitting guilt.

2. This was from the Justice Department in 1974. If he does try to pardon himself, it's going to end up in the SCOTUS and will be decided once and for all. 

Quote

Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.

If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon the President. Thereafter the President could either resign or resume the duties of his office. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 Two things.

1. "crimes against the United States" seems to suggest federal crimes. That means he can't pardon for State crimes so if the money-laundering aspects of the case become true, he's likely screwed on a State level, especially if by accepting a pardon, he is admitting guilt.

2. This was from the Justice Department in 1974. If he does try to pardon himself, it's going to end up in the SCOTUS and will be decided once and for all. 

 

Mexal,

It, in the abstract is fairly interesting.  In reality, it's disturbing that we have to have this conversation in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is Hamilton from Federalist 74 on the power of Pardon:
 

 

One deeply doubts that the one in question knows what the Federalist Papers are, nor has ever heard of the Federalist Papers, much less has read them.  (For that matter, this is equally true of most of us.)

These ideas are all part of the objective to dismantle everything about the US, and so far, only 6 months into it, he's done a GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT job.  The state dept. is shambles and without effect or capacity. EPA is dismantled. Etc., etc. etc. The totalitarian goals of the simple-minded.  The US as The Apprentice!  I can do it easier and faster and better.  It's simple!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...