TRUMP 2016

[Timbuk2]

Couldn't say it better myself. It perfectly explains the Lewks of the world: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/o...ing-right.html

Anti-anti-Trumpism, because idiots have nowhere else to hide.

[Steely Glint]

White House staff like to slip news stories onto Trumps desk, in order to affect policy or gain advantage in White House office politics

So that's good.

[Steely Glint]

Loves a good treason does our Donald

[Flixy]

At least he is efficient - why put classified info on a private mail server that may get hacked when you can just leak the info directly?

[Lewkowski]

At least he is efficient - why put classified info on a private mail server that may get hacked when you can just leak the info directly?

Clearly he's doing a Tyrion and leaking false information... :0

[RandBlade]

Can Five Eyes survive a President who openly leaks everything to Russia?

Twitter Link

[Flixy]

I feel bad for his staff. Every time they come up with a reasonable explanation (Comey wasn't fired over the Russia investigation, Trump did not leak Intel to the Russians, etc. ) and then Trump blurts out that he did give information, Comey's firing was planned and related to the Russia investigation..

[RandBlade]

Apparently this can't be treason as the President is the final arbiter on what is and isn't classified. So if the President wants to give out classified information he can do whatever he pleases and since he's determined it acceptable to share it must be by definition. If anyone other than Trump had done this it might have been treason but it can't be for him.

I'd be curious if an American who knows their law better can confirm or deny that.

[Flixy]

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean you don't get in trouble for it.

[wiggin]

Apparently this can't be treason as the President is the final arbiter on what is and isn't classified. So if the President wants to give out classified information he can do whatever he pleases and since he's determined it acceptable to share it must be by definition. If anyone other than Trump had done this it might have been treason but it can't be for him.

I'd be curious if an American who knows their law better can confirm or deny that.

AIUI there are two distinct issues here: disclosure of classified information and 'treason'. With very few (if any?) exceptions, the President is immune to rules about disclosure of classified information because given his power over the executive he can declassify information at will. So an action that might get one charged with a crime if one was not POTUS is entirely fair game if one is POTUS. To an extent, this makes sense - if the President need to share ostensibly classified information as part of, say, his prosecution of foreign policy, he should be allowed to (I'm thinking about disclosing something like the readiness of our forces to carry out an attack or counterattack in the hopes of ensuring deterrence; technically the information is classified, but the President selectively declassifies information to achieve a specific policy goal).

Even someone who is not POTUS who discloses classified information, though, may not have committed a treasonous act (BTW the charge of 'treason' is very rarely applied in US law so it's a little fuzzy in the definition). They certainly can be prosecuted for unlawful disclosure of classified information, but if their disclosure was some combination of accidental, unknowing (of, say, the classified nature of the material), due to negligence, or done deliberately with an aim to advance US interests, they have not performed a treasonous act.

Similarly, the President can indeed be tried for treason (through the impeachment process) for disclosing classified information; not because the information was classified, but because the information provided clear aid to the enemies of the US (the Constitution has an explicit definition and makes it an impeachable offense). Say the US President disclosed the exact location of all of our submarine fleet at sea to the Russian military, or gave detailed schematics for the F-22 to the Chinese; even though he has not broken a law on classification, he has certainly performed a treasonous act (well, it would be hard to argue he hasn't). He can and should be impeached in such a circumstance.

That being said, while it seems like the specific disclosures here were unwise, may pose dangers to the future acquisition and sharing of critical intelligence, and continue to make Trump look like a fool, they are highly unlikely to meet the high bar of treason. Stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

[Loki]

Wig, impeachment is an entirely political act. A president gets impeached when Congress wants to impeach him. The rationale is incidental. What is important is whether the public and a good portion of the president's party is willing to go along with the impeachment (yes under Nixon, no under Clinton). And that depends on the president's favorability and the willingness of his party to throw him under the bus. Once you satisfy those conditions, anything and everything can be painted as "high crimes and misdemeanors."

[wiggin]

Yes, but AIUI treason is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment (as well as bribery and the aforementioned 'high crimes and misdemeanors') - see Article II Section 4. My point is that treason is a separate category from the disclosure of classified information (which would be prosecuted under espionage laws); it may overlap, but it is a distinct category that indeed can be grounds for impeachment.

edit: BTW Article III Section 3 gives the constitutional definition of treason, but I don't know how that has fallen out in the (limited) case law on the subject.

[Loki]

There's an immediate problem you run into with treason: we're not at war with Russia.

[LittleFuzzy]

There's an immediate problem you run into with treason: we're not at war with Russia.

I'm pretty sure that Wiggin said THIS wasn't treason. The further mention of Russia was as a hypothetical. In which scenario we could easily have been at war with Russia (or otherwise had it declared an enemy)

[Loki]

I'm pretty sure that Wiggin said THIS wasn't treason. The further mention of Russia was as a hypothetical. In which scenario we could easily have been at war with Russia (or otherwise had it declared an enemy)

Considering that Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, it's not a fertile path to pursue regardless.

[wiggin]

Considering that Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, it's not a fertile path to pursue regardless.

I agree that the US definition of treason is restrictive; my understanding is that the framers of the constitution were troubled by the excessive use of treason laws against political opponents in English law and thus chose a restrictive definition. Regardless, I am not wholly convinced that the language in either the constitution or the related law in federal code requires the US to be in a declared state of war in order to be in effect. For example, some treason charges were brought against members of the Confederacy even though IIRC we never declared war on the CSA for legalistic reasons. I am not, however, a lawyer or constitutional scholar (nor is there much case law to work with), so I will defer to those who are.

I am fully in agreement, however, that Trump's current actions would be extremely hard to construe as treason under US definitions. It might still rise to the level of an impeachable offense, of course (the vaguer 'high crimes and misdemeanors'), though this would not be directly tied to his violation of classification laws. IMO absent a much more damaging offense, though, it would get little traction in Congress which is, on the balance, appropriate. The damage to Trump's rhetoric about Clinton, leaks, and his relationship with the IC in general is obvious to everyone, of course, but I question whether this additional bit of hypocrisy is in any way representative of an inflection point in any of these areas.

My only real point to RB was to point out that just because Trump is allowed to declassify information from a legal perspective doesn't mean he is free to blab anything at all to our adversaries without consequence. It's just that the bar is set quite high for what would constitute an impeachable offense.

[RandBlade]

Which makes sense, it isn't the fact that it is classified that is so much the issue for him but the reason why it was.

In other news what could possibly go wrong?

Twitter Link
"I love Islam and the prophet, in fact if he was around today. we'd go for some beers and grab us some pussy"

[Loki]

I agree that the US definition of treason is restrictive; my understanding is that the framers of the constitution were troubled by the excessive use of treason laws against political opponents in English law and thus chose a restrictive definition. Regardless, I am not wholly convinced that the language in either the constitution or the related law in federal code requires the US to be in a declared state of war in order to be in effect. For example, some treason charges were brought against members of the Confederacy even though IIRC we never declared war on the CSA for legalistic reasons. I am not, however, a lawyer or constitutional scholar (nor is there much case law to work with), so I will defer to those who are.

I am fully in agreement, however, that Trump's current actions would be extremely hard to construe as treason under US definitions. It might still rise to the level of an impeachable offense, of course (the vaguer 'high crimes and misdemeanors'), though this would not be directly tied to his violation of classification laws. IMO absent a much more damaging offense, though, it would get little traction in Congress which is, on the balance, appropriate. The damage to Trump's rhetoric about Clinton, leaks, and his relationship with the IC in general is obvious to everyone, of course, but I question whether this additional bit of hypocrisy is in any way representative of an inflection point in any of these areas.

My only real point to RB was to point out that just because Trump is allowed to declassify information from a legal perspective doesn't mean he is free to blab anything at all to our adversaries without consequence. It's just that the bar is set quite high for what would constitute an impeachable offense.

My bigger point is that the scale of the "offense" is irrelevant. What's relevant is the willingness of a substantial number of GOP senators to convict after impeachment. And that means having a substantial portion of the GOP voters support that impeachment (it's pretty obvious that the GOP isn't going to act in the interest of the country). So the question becomes, what kind of act would make at least of a third of GOP voters (enough to provide political cover to the GOP senators who might want to vote to convict) back a Trump impeachment? I doubt that illegality, even on a huge scale, would bring that outcome about.

[Steely Glint]

What it's going to take is clear cut, unequivocal evidence of him doing something illegal or treasonous. Like, a straight up photo of him personally handing Putin a big brown envelop with "AMERICAN STATE SECRETS IN EXCHANGE FOR YOU, PRESIDENT PUTIN NOT RELEASING THE COMPROMISING MATERIAL YOU HAVE ON ME, DONALD TRUMP" written on the side in clearly visible text, and Putin handing Trump a massive bag with a big $ on it.

No amount of inference or strong suggestion is going to cut it (it's been pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look that he has some kind of underhand relationship with Russia for a while now, and you can basically take your pick of more mundane scandals and corrupts), it's perfectly clear at this point that the country is willing to bend over backwards to make excuses for the man and give him the benefit of even the tiniest amount of doubt.

Compare and contrast the treatment Hillary and Obama received and draw your own conclusions if you like.

[Aimless]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/1....facebook.com/

Super surprised.

[Being]

Funniest thing about this thread is that every time I access it on my phone I come face to face with boot hat man.

There is only one obvious choice in this cluster-fuck campaign.

[wiggin]

My bigger point is that the scale of the "offense" is irrelevant. What's relevant is the willingness of a substantial number of GOP senators to convict after impeachment. And that means having a substantial portion of the GOP voters support that impeachment (it's pretty obvious that the GOP isn't going to act in the interest of the country). So the question becomes, what kind of act would make at least of a third of GOP voters (enough to provide political cover to the GOP senators who might want to vote to convict) back a Trump impeachment? I doubt that illegality, even on a huge scale, would bring that outcome about.

While I agree with you, I have to wonder why. The utter disarray in the White House (with lots of positions in the executive still unfilled, clearly little in the way of coordination on policy, and continued distractions from their agenda) is really hurting GOP efforts to capitalize on controlling 2.5 branches of government. It seems like most of this mess is because of Trump. One might think they would relish the opportunity to rid themselves of Trump over a reasonable excuse and install a more boring and controllable Pence in his place.

It doesn't seem like they are doing that yet, though. It might be because the optics would be quite bad, or because they would face voter anger. Maybe they're just biding their time. But as crisis after crisis hits the White House, you have to wonder when their patience will be exhausted.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's highly unlikely Trump will be impeached, at least not until midterms (if Dems make big gains). But I can at least see the logic for it.

[LittleFuzzy]

While I agree with you, I have to wonder why. The utter disarray in the White House (with lots of positions in the executive still unfilled, clearly little in the way of coordination on policy, and continued distractions from their agenda) is really hurting GOP efforts to capitalize on controlling 2.5 branches of government. It seems like most of this mess is because of Trump. One might think they would relish the opportunity to rid themselves of Trump over a reasonable excuse and install a more boring and controllable Pence in his place.

It doesn't seem like they are doing that yet, though. It might be because the optics would be quite bad, or because they would face voter anger. Maybe they're just biding their time. But as crisis after crisis hits the White House, you have to wonder when their patience will be exhausted.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's highly unlikely Trump will be impeached, at least not until midterms (if Dems make big gains). But I can at least see the logic for it.

It would take something truly horrendous to make them act before the mid-term elections. They would have to calculate that Trump would do so much damage in the year and a half preceding the mid-terms that the public would still remember and be punishing the GOP ten years from now (the maximum length of a possible Pence presidency). They'll be willing to gamble on his holding onto the White House via incumbency advantage four years from now so long as they can keep him clear of active involvement in Trump's visible lunacies

[Loki]

The midterm elections will be the big test. Not only does waiting give them the possibility of 10 years of Pence, but they'll know just how much the electorate cares about Trump's transgressions.

[wiggin]

It would take something truly horrendous to make them act before the mid-term elections. They would have to calculate that Trump would do so much damage in the year and a half preceding the mid-terms that the public would still remember and be punishing the GOP ten years from now (the maximum length of a possible Pence presidency). They'll be willing to gamble on his holding onto the White House via incumbency advantage four years from now so long as they can keep him clear of active involvement in Trump's visible lunacies

The midterm elections will be the big test. Not only does waiting give them the possibility of 10 years of Pence, but they'll know just how much the electorate cares about Trump's transgressions.

I agree with you both, but the GOP faces the real danger of not getting anything done in the first two years, getting trounced in the midterms, and then being unable to get anything done in the next two years. It's a recipe for political disaster that will only be somewhat alleviated by the Senate election map (relatively GOP friendly in 2018) and the proliferation of safe House seats. With a big swing like we've seen in recent polling, though, it's certainly possible the GOP could lose the House and might (just might) lose their thin edge in the Senate. So they'd have two years of chaos and unfulfilled campaign promises followed by two years of deadlock. Dumping Trump as early as politically possible might instead give them a solid year to fast track a bunch of legislation so they'd have something to show for themselves come midterms - e.g. 'see, we got rid of the guy you all hate AND delivered on what we promised, look how good we are at governing!'.

That being said, it's more likely that this tactic could backfire, with a disastrously riven GOP, a long and acrimonious set of impeachment hearings that run into the midterms, and nothing to show for it come January 2019.

I would be inclined to feel sympathy for the GOP, but they've only got themselves to blame for letting this bozo get the nomination.

[RandBlade]

Ultimately Trump was chosen by their voters and elected by America who knew his foibles.

Impeachment would require a smoking gun that could not have been known prior to November in order to not be spitting on the electorate.

[Steely Glint]

I guess it comes down to whether the GOP is more afraid of losing the voters who held their nose and voted for Trump deciding they want rid of him - this Comey/Russia story is just going to drag on and on and on - or those who enthusiastically voted for him and will support him no matter what.

[Ominous Gamer]

those who enthusiastically voted for him and will support him no matter what.

These are the same people who spent all of yesterday foaming at the mouth that they finally had evidence that Clinton murdered a staffer who was leaking DNC info to wikileaks.

That evidence turned out to be a remark from a Fox News reporter.

No way is a GOP politician going to turn their back on such a rabid group of easily confused morons.

[Steely Glint]

These are the same people who spent all of yesterday foaming at the mouth that they finally had evidence that Clinton murdered a staffer who was leaking DNC info to wikileaks.

That evidence turned out to be a remark from a Fox News reporter.

No way is a GOP politician going to turn their back on such a rabid group of easily confused morons.

The problem with that strategy is that reluctant Trump voters + Dem voters > Trump crazies.

[Ominous Gamer]

I agree, but the possibility of the GOP being able to ride the crazy train into a 10 year Pence presidency is to much for them turn away from.