Trump demands information.

[hollodero]

Can he ask the Justice Department to hand over information about the investigation he is a "subject" of? Can he ask the identity of an informant (if such a person ever existed)?
Can he investigate the investigation investigating him? If so, is he above the law?


I feel that's pretty important. If something like that went down in my country, I'd be deeply troubled.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 10:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: Can he ask the Justice Department to hand over information about the investigation he is a "subject" of? Can he ask the identity of an informant (if such a person ever existed)?
Can he investigate the investigation investigating him? If so, is he above the law?


I feel that's pretty important. If something like that went down in my country, I'd be deeply troubled.

The answer to all of your questions (except the last one) is yes. What he is doing he has the Constitutional authority to do. The independence of the DoJ has been a norm in Washington, but it is a department of the executive branch which the POTUS is the head of. POTUS is not above the law, however, as there is a method for holding the position accountable: impeachment. That is the simple, and legal, answer.

One of the things that this administration has brought to light for many people is just how many things in government we have taken for granted as laws were actually just unofficial norms. What is going on is troubling to me and many others, but this is our current legal administrative framework in this country and holding the POTUS accountable is a political act, not a legal one.

Now, I will say that this is just more bluster that is either him trying to rally his base or is him not understanding how these things work. The whole reason an informant was used was to not politicize what happened. The FBI caught wind of contacts members of the campaign made with foreign agents. Instead of pulling people in for interviews, which would be SOP, they used an informant to more subtly gain more information. This was done because of the timing in the election cycle. The DoJ/FBI was aware of what it would look like if they pulled campaign staffers in. This was not a spy embedded in the campaign, and this was not an attempt to tip the scales against Trump. The DoJ and FBI actually aided Trump in his election win, which is why I always find it ridiculous when this type of thing gets hyped.

[jj22]

I don't think his supporters understand what an informant actually is for one.

For two, they really think Obama did all this and didn't even leak Trump was under FBI investigation? It makes no sense outside of Fox News. Comey and co helped Trump win by hiding all of this from voters while the "OBAMA/HILLARY SUPPORTING FBI" as they like to call them, leaked everything about Hillary being under investigation. I mean the lack of common sense from Trump supporters is one of the most amazing things to come out of this era. But there's a reason he loves the poorly educated. Most con artists do.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 10:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The answer to all of your questions (except the last one) is yes. What he is doing he has the Constitutional authority to do. The independence of the DoJ has been a norm in Washington, but it is a department of the executive branch which the POTUS is the head of. POTUS is not above the law, however, as there is a method for holding the position accountable: impeachment. That is the simple, and legal, answer.

One of the things that this administration has brought to light for many people is just how many things in government we have taken for granted as laws were actually just unofficial norms. What is going on is troubling to me and many others, but this is our current legal administrative framework in this country and holding the POTUS accountable is a political act, not a legal one.

Now, I will say that this is just more bluster that is either him trying to rally his base or is him not understanding how these things work. The whole reason an informant was used was to not politicize what happened. The FBI caught wind of contacts members of the campaign made with foreign agents. Instead of pulling people in for interviews, which would be SOP, they used an informant to more subtly gain more information. This was done because of the timing in the election cycle. The DoJ/FBI was aware of what it would look like if they pulled campaign staffers in. This was not a spy embedded in the campaign, and this was not an attempt to tip the scales against Trump. The DoJ and FBI actually aided Trump in his election win, which is why I always find it ridiculous when this type of thing gets hyped.

 much appreciated, as always. Thanks.

I find nothing to add on to, except I guess I still challenge the "above the law" part. I heard he maybe can not get indicted, he might not have to comply with a subpoena, yeah some say he can of course pardon himself. This looks like being above the law stuff to me. 
Now I get it, the answer is impeachment. But if Congress doesn't move on that, and seeing how there's a neuter... [10.000 page rant about the obsequious GOP], they let anything pass. Would he ever get impeached by those folks in congress? Ever?

It's not necessarily true for any president, but in this constellation, it looks like a factual truth to me that he is above the law. For now at least.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 10:59 AM)hollodero Wrote:  much appreciated, as always. Thanks.

I find nothing to add on to, except I guess I still challenge the "above the law" part. I heard he maybe can not get indicted, he might not have to comply with a subpoena, yeah some say he can of course pardon himself. This looks like being above the law stuff to me. 
Now I get it, the answer is impeachment. But if Congress doesn't move on that, and seeing how there's a neuter... [10.000 page rant about the obsequious GOP], they let anything pass. Would he ever get impeached by those folks in congress? Ever?

It's not necessarily true for any president, but in this constellation, it looks like a factual truth to me that he is above the law. For now at least.

I would not say it is factual that he is above the law, but as it stands right now that is the truth. There is a difference. The current Congress isn't going to impeach him based upon what he is doing right now. It would take something exceedingly egregious. But this is only the truth of the situation as it stands.

Another thing that should be noted about the indictment scenario is that this is a DoJ interpretation that they have made policy. It is not law and it is not something that has been tested in the courts. So whether or not a sitting POTUS can be indicted is highly debatable.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 11:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would not say it is factual that he is above the law, but as it stands right now that is the truth.

Yeah I wouldn't say that either. That word doesn't quite translate like I wished it would :) - Got it though.

(05-22-2018, 11:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Another thing that should be noted about the indictment scenario is that this is a DoJ interpretation that they have made policy. It is not law and it is not something that has been tested in the courts. So whether or not a sitting POTUS can be indicted is highly debatable.

So, it's more of a norm, and norms don't mean much these days. But I do feel he'd get away with not accepting an indictment. Right now, I know you have some midterm elections coming up, making some things less "factual". Vote democrat :)

So I have a question, is Trump's conduct impeachable by now in principle, should a blue congress go for it (or at which point)? And I have another question. What would happen if Trump turned against the judiciary, say doesn't accept a supreme court ruling on matters like these?

[Goalpost]

I have no problem with an investigation that law enforcement is operating properly. This story was not initiated by Fox. I think the NY Times and Washington Post were 1st on the informant story. Anyone remember Schumer saying you don't mess with the FBI or else? So far the inspector general is saying otherwise in the case of McCabe, and more reports are coming.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2018, 11:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I wouldn't say that either. That word doesn't quite translate like I wished it would :) - Got it though.


So, it's more of a norm, and norms don't mean much these days. But I do feel he'd get away with not accepting an indictment. Right now, I know you have some midterm elections coming up, making some things less "factual". Vote democrat :)

So I have a question, is Trump's conduct impeachable by now in principle, should a blue congress go for it (or at which point)? And I have another question. What would happen if Trump turned against the judiciary, say doesn't accept a supreme court ruling on matters like these?

This is what many of us said before the election when Trump supporters said he would "change" if he won.  

He is what he is.  And giving a 70+ year old egomaniac with anger issues total control is not going to make him a better person.

The "norms" we have accepted go right out the window with a wannabe despot.

He isn't "above the law" but he does have enough constitutional power to think he is and to act that way.

It's up to Congress to hold him in check and the party in power has shown zero impetus to do that. 

Meanwhile when citizens complain they are "whiners" who "can't get over losing the election".  It's a sad time right now.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 11:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: So, it's more of a norm, and norms don't mean much these days. But I do feel he'd get away with not accepting an indictment. Right now, I know you have some midterm elections coming up, making some things less "factual". Vote democrat :)

Well, I am going to a Memorial Day lunch this Sunday for the local Democratic Party where I will be meeting with the candidates in the Democratic primary for our House of Representatives seat. So that should tell you my leanings.

(05-22-2018, 11:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: So I have a question, is Trump's conduct impeachable by now in principle, should a blue congress go for it (or at which point)? And I have another question. What would happen if Trump turned against the judiciary, say doesn't accept a supreme court ruling on matters like these?

Trump's conduct, insofar as I am aware, is not impeachable at this point. I think that were this a split government and we had a Democratic Congress that they would not be out of line to censure him, but impeachment based on the current information is not warranted. Impeachment requires, or at least it should require, strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing or an objectively egregious violation of the oath of office. Right now we don't have strong evidence of either on the part of Trump himself. This is why Mueller's job is an important one and something that needs to be accepted once completed. If Mueller says the evidence isn't there, then the Democrats need to accept that. If he says it is there, then the Republicans need to accept that.

If there is a failure to act by the legislature or the judiciary if the evidence is compelling, depending upon what happens, then it could very well be a constitutional crisis. If Trump refuses to accept determinations by either, it could be a constitutional crisis. I don't think it will get to that point. I have faith in our institutions in ways many people don't. That being said, I think that the next administration and/or Congress needs to look at this period in time and strengthen those institutions. They have been weakened and their vulnerabilities laid bare. That needs to be resolved.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 11:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, I am going to a Memorial Day lunch this Sunday for the local Democratic Party where I will be meeting with the candidates in the Democratic primary for our House of Representatives seat. So that should tell you my leanings.

Oh I know who you are. You're the guy not running even when your country would need people like you to show up :)

(05-22-2018, 11:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump's conduct, insofar as I am aware, is not impeachable at this point.

Yeah, I figured. I had some instances where I thought impeachment possible. The Nordstrom tweet, when he admitted he fired the FBI director because of Trump and Russia, and the Qataris being extorted to buy a failing Kushner skyscraper. Honorable mention would be calling the media the enemy of the people and the diplomats in the Trump hotels + doubling the maralago fees, but I get that's not enough. Possibly none of those.

(05-22-2018, 11:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If Mueller says the evidence isn't there, then the Democrats need to accept that. If he says it is there, then the Republicans need to accept that.

I have some severe difficulties seeing the Democrats accept that. But maybe.
I find it completely unlikely the Republicans would accept that. They did Trump's bidding through everything as of now, even if it included slamming the FBI (secret societes and whatnot) or the courts or the media or whatever. They'd call it political, a hit job, they would do whatever in not accepting that. And they will be backed by their constituents. 75% of Republicans say it's a witch hunt and 61% believe Trump is being framed by the FBI.
Says a poll on this site, and I wanted to ask you yet one more question since you have expertise on that matter: Are these poll numbers legit?

(05-22-2018, 11:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If there is a failure to act by the legislature or the judiciary if the evidence is compelling, depending upon what happens, then it could very well be a constitutional crisis. If Trump refuses to accept determinations by either, it could be a constitutional crisis. I don't think it will get to that point. I have faith in our institutions in ways many people don't. That being said, I think that the next administration and/or Congress needs to look at this period in time and strengthen those institutions. They have been weakened and their vulnerabilities laid bare. That needs to be resolved.

 Sounds about right. Good luck.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 12:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have some severe difficulties seeing the Democrats accept that. But maybe.
I find it completely unlikely the Republicans would accept that. They did Trump's bidding through everything as of now, even if it included slamming the FBI (secret societes and whatnot) or the courts or the media or whatever. They'd call it political, a hit job, they would do whatever in not accepting that. And they will be backed by their constituents. 75% of Republicans say it's a witch hunt and 61% believe Trump is being framed by the FBI.
Says a poll on this site, and I wanted to ask you yet one more question since you have expertise on that matter: Are these poll numbers legit?

I have my own doubts about how this will play politically, as well. I say they need to, because they do need to in order for our country to move on as it has. To act in the way you state, and the way that will likely happen, further weakens our institutions.

For the poll, YouGov/Economist polls aren't top tier, but their results can be fairly reliable depending on what you are using them for. With an N of 1500, a little over 1200 registered voters, and an MoE of +/- 3%, it's not bad, but they have some questionable methodology in their processes, specifically with their use of online polling.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-22-2018, 12:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh I know who you are. You're the guy not running even when your country would need people like you to show up :)



Yeah, I figured. I had some instances where I thought impeachment possible. The Nordstrom tweet, when he admitted he fired the FBI director because of Trump and Russia, and the Qataris being extorted to buy a failing Kushner skyscraper. Honorable mention would be calling the media the enemy of the people and the diplomats in the Trump hotels + doubling the maralago fees, but I get that's not enough. Possibly none of those.



I have some severe difficulties seeing the Democrats accept that. But maybe.
I find it completely unlikely the Republicans would accept that. They did Trump's bidding through everything as of now, even if it included slamming the FBI (secret societes and whatnot) or the courts or the media or whatever. They'd call it political, a hit job, they would do whatever in not accepting that. And they will be backed by their constituents. 75% of Republicans say it's a witch hunt and 61% believe Trump is being framed by the FBI.
Says a poll on this site, and I wanted to ask you yet one more question since you have expertise on that matter: Are these poll numbers legit?



 Sounds about right. Good luck.

Impeachment is a little easier than removing him from office.  It's not impossible, but it is highly improbable as you need 3/4 of senators agreeing.  

And while we have our ideas of what would amount to offenses that we believe are impeachable, if enough congresspeople agree, they can impeach and remove you for any reason as their is no appeal. 

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have my own doubts about how this will play politically, as well. I say they need to, because they do need to in order for our country to move on as it has. To act in the way you state, and the way that will likely happen, further weakens our institutions.

They need to, doesn't mean they will. I don't really trust most of these guys on that and they rally gave me no reason to.

(05-22-2018, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the poll, YouGov/Economist polls aren't top tier, but their results can be fairly reliable depending on what you are using them for. With an N of 1500, a little over 1200 registered voters, and an MoE of +/- 3%, it's not bad, but they have some questionable methodology in their processes, specifically with their use of online polling.

You don't accidentally happen to have a link similar to mine at hand, with some actual top tier polls in it? I want to lose some more sleep...
72% of Republicans believe Trump is a good role model for children... while 66% think Trump is "honest and trustworthy". Oh my.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 12:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: You don't accidentally happen to have a link similar to mine at hand, with some actual top tier polls in it? I want to lose some more sleep...
72% of Republicans believe Trump is a good role model for children... while 66% think Trump is "honest and trustworthy". Oh my.

Some people will sneer at this, and I understand why. However, it is the most comprehensive and thorough examination of pollsters available: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

You can sort by grade (clicking the column header does the sorting). It's based on the 2016 election cycle, but their ranking for other polls would be similar. You can find these pollsters online and look at what they have recently published. I don't have any good links to anything that would directly compare with the link you have, though.

Looking at things like this and reading academic journals is what I do in my free time.

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2018, 11:29 AM)Goalpost Wrote: I have no problem with an investigation that law enforcement is operating properly. 

Using an informant is standard procedure.  Don't know how that alone could be improper.

Trump claims it was for "political purposes" but there is nothing to that because the FBI did not release any information about this investigation until after the election.

Most of my job as a criminal defense attorney is making sure law enforcement is operating properly, and I have no problem with investigating allegations of improper conduct.  But I don't really see any problem here.

Just Trump throwing more shit in the air to try and confuse the issues.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 01:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Some people will sneer at this, and I understand why. However, it is the most comprehensive and thorough examination of pollsters available: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

You can sort by grade (clicking the column header does the sorting). It's based on the 2016 election cycle, but their ranking for other polls would be similar. You can find these pollsters online and look at what they have recently published. I don't have any good links to anything that would directly compare with the link you have, though.

Thanks.

(05-22-2018, 01:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Looking at things like this and reading academic journals is what I do in my free time.

Yeah, I don't judge :)

[jj22]

Every prisoner in America is now calling their lawyer complaining about the next door neighbor informant that ratted them out. Calling them a spy......



We'll see how that works out for them...... Something tells me they'll remain in jail.