Do our laws no longer apply? Israel hacked ISIS, Trump told Russians

[orangecrush]

Last edited Mon Jun 12, 2017, 01:49 PM - Edit history (3)

"Israeli intelligence was able to discover that ISIS bombmakers were capable of creating explosives that looked like batteries in laptops, which would fool X-ray machines, according to the New York Times. President Donald Trump is accused of sharing the information with Russian's foreign minister, Sergey Kislyak -- a move that reportedly infuriated Israeli officials."



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/israel-hacked-isis-then-trump-shared-findings-with-russians/

***************

"The disclosure—if the result of carelessness or neglect—may also have breached the president’s oath of office, according to LawFare. The oath requires the president to “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

“There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the president’s oath as a standalone basis for impeachment—a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself,” LawFare argues.

“This is particularly plausible in a case like this, where the oath violation involves giving sensitive information to an adversary foreign power. That’s getting relatively close to the ‘treason’ language in the impeachment clauses; it’s pretty easy to imagine a hybrid impeachment article alleging a violation of the oath in service of a hostile foreign power. So legally speaking, the matter could be very grave for Trump even though there is no criminal exposure.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_trumps_disclosures_to_russia_break_the_law_was_it_a_high_crime_and_misd/


Aiding and abetting two enemies at once.

It boggles the mind.


(Edited op as I quoted incorrect legal info. Thanks Lee-Lee.)

[nikibatts]

1. LAWS? what laws?

[orangecrush]

2. Our laws

Apparently not his laws.

[Voltaire2]

3. "Without proper authority" is where your argument

collapses. Trump as president has the proper authority to disclose anything to anyone.

[onenote]

5. also, Russia isn't an "enemy" of the US under current law

and where is the evidence that the Russians communicated this information back to ISIS (not saying they didn't, but where is the evidence that would be needed to bring charges).

[orangecrush]

8. Russian press was at the meeting

Where 45 disclosed the information.

Which seems to me for all practical purposes he publically announced extremely sensitive information that is helpful to ISIS, a designated terror group/enemy.

[ehrnst]

9. However, the system assumes that POTUS will act in the interest of national security

and rely on advisors and precedent.

Yes, it was within his authority, but it was against the interest of national security and for the purpose of bolstering his own positions to them.

[Voltaire2]

15. "System assumes" and "violated the law" are

Disjoint issues. Certainly impeachment would be warranted if the situation we are in was normal. Note that even the Democratic leadership has dropped this as an issue, indicating just how far from normal we are.

[ehrnst]

16. I didn't that they were the same issue or even similar. The OP did.

I was bringing in another point, separate from any legal issue.

Is that clearer?

[Voltaire2]

18. yup and I agree.

Impeachment has to be the first stop to putting this idiot in jail.

[LOL Lib]

4. Laws are only for poor people, democrats, and POC.

Republicans and rich fucks need not bother with such trivial matters.

[CanonRay]

6. I dunno, how much money do you have?

[DDySiegs]

7. Orange Crush: Your Query is Completely on the Money

Thanks for posting this. For Trump to have revealed such top secret stuff ought by itself to constitute (impeachable) Abuse of Power.

[gibraltar72]

10. Trumps administration

has a treason waiver.

[Justice]

11. I have to agree that POTUS probably not subject to criminal liability here but

The president of the United States blew up a major intelligence operation by an allied government (Israel) to an adversary foreign power (Russia).

That seems like a MAJOR problem to me.

Sharing intelligence with allies is based on trust. Trump violated trust of Israel. What if they don't share with us again?

Now if we can show reason POTUS shared with Russia was because being blackmailed/compromised than would be part of impeachment.

[Lee-Lee]

12. That law is part of the UCMJ and only applies to military on active duty

And a few other examples like retired military receiving retired pay.

The UCMJ does not apply to civilians, including civilian leadership of the military up to and including the President.

[orangecrush]

13. Thanks for pointing that out

Last edited Mon Jun 12, 2017, 07:59 PM - Edit history (2)

I am sure there are similar laws applying to civilians as well.

[orangecrush]

14. ...

The disclosure—if the result of carelessness or neglect—may also have breached the president’s oath of office, according to LawFare. The oath requires the president to “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

“There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the president’s oath as a standalone basis for impeachment—a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself,” LawFare argues.

“This is particularly plausible in a case like this, where the oath violation involves giving sensitive information to an adversary foreign power. That’s getting relatively close to the ‘treason’ language in the impeachment clauses; it’s pretty easy to imagine a hybrid impeachment article alleging a violation of the oath in service of a hostile foreign power. So legally speaking, the matter could be very grave for Trump even though there is no criminal exposure.”

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_trumps_disclosures_to_russia_break_the_law_was_it_a_high_crime_and_misd/

[Solly Mack]

17. Laws are obsolete and quaint. Well, some laws and how they are applied, that is.

[orangecrush]

19. +1