Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[Gandhi]

Agreed with the exception of that description. Our democracy (representative republic) is hardly broken. The tumult of the 1960's with a highly unpopular war dividing the country, that was a real doozy.

Broken is hyperbole, agree. Things I described above are def fucking it up though, one side is working pretty hard to break it.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Broken is hyperbole, agree. Things I described above are def fucking it up though, one side is working pretty hard to break it.

What bugs me is that the R's are testing the wind of public opinion before they do anything.
Their duty is to the Constitution not the president.

 

[Andy Capp]

Sure, there some some attorneys who believe in an expansive definition of obstruction of justice. I would never deny that.

What you denied is that there was any evidence whatsoever. This expert contradicts your claim. Your truthiness is showing.

 

[waiguoren]

I’m pointing out that your interpretation of the matter is novel despite your representations of it as the baseline opinion.

Never did I use the term "baseline opinion" or similar terminology. Consensus is irrelevant to truth, and appeals to consensus should usually be seen as a sign that the speaker is unable to argue the issue cogently on its merits.

The current consensus is that the President may not fire people to obstruct investigations into himself.

The "current consensus"? Did you perform a well-designed poll of the nation's law professors? Also, see my comments on "appeals to consensus" above.

Then why are you angling for this “golly gee, I don’t like that the President has supreme executive authority and can terminate any investigations into himself originating outside of Congress but that’s just the way it is and we’ll have to someday, when Trump isn’t President anymore, make an amendment to fix it” nonsense?

This isn't quite accurate. I would like to see multiple amendments ratified today to limit the power of the executive. I am among the most extreme advocates of limiting executive authority that I am aware of on these forums.

Please provide legal scholar arguments for this idea which flies in the face of current consensus.

See again my comments above about this unfortunate usage of "consensus". As for the arguments of legal scholars, sure:


Katy Harriger, professor at Wake Forest University, constitutional expert, author of The Special Prosecutor in American Politics

“In Article II [of the Constitution] it does say that he has to take care that the laws are faithfully executed – that’s the source of his enforcement power,” Harriger says. “The courts said a long time ago that officers who are executing that power on behalf of the president have to be removable by him.”

The way the rules are currently written, the special counsel reports directly to the person who appointed him, Harriger says — in Mueller’s case, that’s Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But again, Rosenstein’s power can, ultimately, be traced back up to the President. As a result, just as was the case with Richard Nixon’s infamous Saturday Night Massacre, a historical episode that has been oft-invoked in recent months, Trump could ask the people below him to fire the person he wants fired, and if the person in the middle objects, he or she can resign or be fired until someone in the chain of command obeys.

http://time.com/4837851/donald-trump-mueller-fire-power/

Professor Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School:

there are a number of hard questions about whether Trump could circumvent the regulations—either ignore them or abrogate them—and fire Mueller himself. The argument at bottom is that all executive power is vested in the President; law enforcement is at the core of Executive power; there is no contrary statutory directive, as in Morrison v. Olson; and the Special Counsel rule is just a regulation promulgated by the Executive Branch, not a law, and is thus ultimately subject to change or disregard by Executive order.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/if-trump-fires-mueller-or-orders-his-firing

Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation

It would be unconstitutional for Congress to prevent President Trump from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

I’m not saying that firing Mueller would be a wise move politically, nor am I urging the president to do so. That’s another issue.

But under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...onal-authority-to-fire-mueller-heres-why.html


Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School:

To be sure, as the head of the executive branch, it is within the president’s constitutional authority to fire the special counsel. He retains the authority to instruct the attorney general (or in this case the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters concerning the Russia investigation) to take such action.

If Rosenstein refused to do so or resigned, Trump could order that the procedures setting out the appointment of a special counsel be rescinded, and fire Mueller himself under his executive authority. But just because he may have the authority to do something doesn’t mean that it is right to do it. Most Republicans — including many Trump allies — have said that firing Mueller now would suggest that the president had something to hide and would be a political disaster.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ring-mueller-may-be-legal-but-it-would-not-be

 

[Andy Capp]

... should usually be seen as a sign that the speaker is unable to argue the issue cogently on its merits.

You're the best example ITT of showing signs of being unable to argue without resorting to dishonest discussion. I've been calling out your truthiness in post after post. So yeah, just stop.

 

[waiguoren]

Why is Trump even worried about Mueller’s obstruction case when we are, according to you, living in a universe where the president cannot commit obstruction by firing people?

Some other people have a different opinion than I do. Their idea is untested and, in my opinion, extremely dangerous.

Your current argument attempts to grant additional power to the president that by current consensus he does NOT have.

Again, this "consensus" cannot be demonstrated. Furthermore, appeals to "consensus" make you appear weak. Try to address the facts.

You are attempting to redefine the world to remove this hazard.

That's false. There is no precedent for defining obstruction of justice as you have. You are attempting to stretch the definition of a crime to fit a situation that the statue doesn't align with.

The world, and your audience here, are under no obligation to cooperate.

This we do agree on.

 

[waiguoren]

There is evidence in plain public view that he may have committed obstruction. I get that you are trying to define Obstruction of Justice as “something non-Presidents do” and then arguing that “see, there’s no evidence he did that, because it makes as much sense as elephants flying so firing Comey couldn’t have been obstruction” but no one has to buy that.

This appears to be a willful misunderstanding of my position. I believe you can do better!

 

[waiguoren]

Your brain is disintegrating.

I love you.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

 

[waiguoren]

You're basing this assessment upon belief. I'm basing my assessment on the fact that he is guilty.

Again, you are conflating two distinct uses of the term "guilty". A finding of guilt is not the same as guilt.

Under your current approach, this guy is guilty:

On a stifling afternoon in the summer of 1996, Rodney Roberts pleaded guilty to a kidnapping. He had never met the victim, let alone held her against her will. Yet this is what he told the judge in the cramped Essex County, New Jersey, courtroom. His court-appointed defender had convinced him his only other choice was life in prison.

https://www.rd.com/culture/why-the-innocent-plead-guilty/

 

[ChainFlow]

Never did I use the term "baseline" opinion or similar terminology. Consensus is irrelevant to truth, and appeals to consensus should usually be seen as a sign that the speaker is unable to argue the issue cogently on its merits.



The "current consensus"? Did you perform a well-designed poll of the nation's law professors? Also, see my comments on "appeals to consensus" above.

You are the one making arguments far outside the pale. Mentioning the worldview of congress, investigators, lawyers actually involved in the matter (or in nixon’s matter) is a simple reminder of reality. Characterizing it as “weak” does nothing to strengthen your outlandish positions.

This isn't quite accurate. I would like to see multiple amendments ratified today to limit the power of the executive. I am among the most extreme advocates of limiting executive authority that I am aware of on these forums.

false. You argue that we grant de facto additional powers to the president constantly in this thread.

See again my comments above about this unfortunate usage of "consensus". As for the arguments of legal scholars, sure:


Katy Harriger, professor at Wake Forest University, constitutional expert, author of The Special Prosecutor in American Politics

“In Article II [of the Constitution] it does say that he has to take care that the laws are faithfully executed – that’s the source of his enforcement power,” Harriger says. “The courts said a long time ago that officers who are executing that power on behalf of the president have to be removable by him.”

The way the rules are currently written, the special counsel reports directly to the person who appointed him, Harriger says — in Mueller’s case, that’s Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But again, Rosenstein’s power can, ultimately, be traced back up to the President. As a result, just as was the case with Richard Nixon’s infamous Saturday Night Massacre, a historical episode that has been oft-invoked in recent months, Trump could ask the people below him to fire the person he wants fired, and if the person in the middle objects, he or she can resign or be fired until someone in the chain of command obeys.

http://time.com/4837851/donald-trump-mueller-fire-power/

Professor Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School:

there are a number of hard questions about whether Trump could circumvent the regulations—either ignore them or abrogate them—and fire Mueller himself. The argument at bottom is that all executive power is vested in the President; law enforcement is at the core of Executive power; there is no contrary statutory directive, as in Morrison v. Olson; and the Special Counsel rule is just a regulation promulgated by the Executive Branch, not a law, and is thus ultimately subject to change or disregard by Executive order.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/if-trump-fires-mueller-or-orders-his-firing

Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation

It would be unconstitutional for Congress to prevent President Trump from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

I’m not saying that firing Mueller would be a wise move politically, nor am I urging the president to do so. That’s another issue.

But under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...onal-authority-to-fire-mueller-heres-why.html


Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School:

To be sure, as the head of the executive branch, it is within the president’s constitutional authority to fire the special counsel. He retains the authority to instruct the attorney general (or in this case the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters concerning the Russia investigation) to take such action.

If Rosenstein refused to do so or resigned, Trump could order that the procedures setting out the appointment of a special counsel be rescinded, and fire Mueller himself under his executive authority. But just because he may have the authority to do something doesn’t mean that it is right to do it. Most Republicans — including many Trump allies — have said that firing Mueller now would suggest that the president had something to hide and would be a political disaster.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ring-mueller-may-be-legal-but-it-would-not-be

This was a test to see if you could resist quoting Dersh given half a chance. You failed.

The arguments presented fail when held up against the Nixon standard. That case demonstrated conclusively that there are limits to the President’s ability to fire.

 

[ChainFlow]

That's false. There is no precedent for defining obstruction of justice as you have. You are attempting to stretch the definition of a crime to fit a situation that the statue doesn't align.

Nonsense. You invented a definition that conveniently makes the President immune to obstruction (given he plays whack a mole fast enough) but the crime had a plainly stated statute which I posted above. Here’s some further reading:

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html

Repetition of bizarre unfounded claims do not make them true.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Funny how murkans supposedly rebelled against autocrats when so many today seem to get aroused at the thought of being ruled by one.

 

[ChainFlow]

I am amused how many of my points waigu edited out of his replies.

 

[Andy Capp]

Again, you are conflating two distinct uses of the term "guilty". A finding of guilt is not the same as guilt.

Under your current approach, this guy is guilty:

On a stifling afternoon in the summer of 1996, Rodney Roberts pleaded guilty to a kidnapping. He had never met the victim, let alone held her against her will. Yet this is what he told the judge in the cramped Essex County, New Jersey, courtroom. His court-appointed defender had convinced him his only other choice was life in prison.

https://www.rd.com/culture/why-the-innocent-plead-guilty/

So every case is like this guy's. I guess we should fire all the prison guards and send all the convicts home. Ugh. You already tried this and I already showed how it is bullshit (http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/144268597/). You just moved on from truthiness to straw man.

What next? Are you going to trot out a youtube video? How many different kinds of bullshit do you plan to waste our time with before you realize no one is falling for it? Just let me know now and I'll come back to the thread when you're ready to leave the disingenuous malarky behind.

Edit:
Speaking of bullshit, I love how you pretend to agree here while stating something different than what you are supposedly agreeing to:

Sure, there some some attorneys who believe in an expansive definition of obstruction of justice. I would never deny that.

Get stuffed.

 

[Andy Capp]

I am amused how many of my points waigu edited out of his replies.

Edit: never mind. That's funny though.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No. If an information source is already unreliable, passing it through a few more people is more likely to make the information less accurate rather than more accurate. This reminds me of "telephone", the children's game.

I can see why you think of a child's game as your understanding of evidence is quite child like.

Going back to the childhood game, if your goal is to discern the truth, you NEVER take the account of one individual and certainly not the one who is known to be a pathological liar.

The only way to discern the truth is to question as many of them as possible in the telephone chain and look for the COMMUNALITIES in each account. If you have 5 or 10 people and the there are 2-3 same statements from each amongst 10 others that are scattered it is those 2-3 you rely on as the most accurate.

You would certainly end up being the dupe if you just went to the biggest liar (the source) and did not ask anyone else who may have participated or witnessed it and that seems to be what has happened to you on this topic.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Unfortunately, the POTUS is allowed to fire any executive branch officials investigating him unless he is bribed to do so.



Nixon was not impeached for firing Cox. The articles of impeachment are readily available. The Saturday Night Massacre provided the political impetus for impeachment, as you noted. Nixon committed obstruction of justice as described in the first article; firing Cox was not a necessary part of Nixon's conspiracy to obstruct justice and is not even listed among the nine parts of the first article impeachment.

False see @ChainFlow response

 

[andnowweknow]

I love you.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So every case is like this guy's. I guess we should fire all the prison guards and send all the convicts home. Ugh. You already tried this and I already showed how it is bullshit (http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/144268597/). You just moved on from truthiness to straw man.

What next? Are you going to trot out a youtube video? How many different kinds of bullshit do you plan to waste our time with before you realize no one is falling for it? Just let me know now and I'll come back to the thread when you're ready to leave the disingenuous malarky behind.

Edit:
Speaking of bullshit, I love how you pretend to agree here while stating something different than what you are supposedly agreeing to:

Get stuffed.

But you can see he has laid out the road map for his future case.

- Findings of guilt do not matter because some who are found guilty turn out to be innocent.
- admissions of guilt also do not matter (Cohen) because sometimes people admit to things they did not do
- the more people confirming something (Trump is guilty) the less he believes it (telephone) as its better to just get it from Trump himself
- consensus does not matter...

In the end nothing matters but what he wants to believe as he can always find a reason to dismiss any finding or fact or truth.