TPM - Marshall - "The Constitution Looks Like Trumps Only Hope"

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-constitution-looks-like-trumps-only-hope#more-1065471

By JOSH MARSHALL Published JUNE 18, 2017 9:36 PM

Today we are apparently having a discussion about whether the President is in fact under investigation. Or perhaps it’s better to say, Trump’s lawyers (or his TV lawyer, legal activist Jay Sekulow) are having this discussion since no one else seems to have any question that he is. What makes this discussion so weird is that not only does the President appear to be the subject of an investigation but as a factual matter there’s almost no question that he’s guilty. As far as I can see, the real question isn’t factual but rather constitutional.

big snip - important last paragraphs - read it all at the link

The real question is constitutional. The President is sui generis in our system. The President isn’t above the law but the law operates with a sitting President in unique ways. He has the statutory right to fire the FBI Director at his discretion, something no one else has the authority to it. He doesn’t need a reason. Can the President be guilty of obstruction for exercising an authority he is entitled to exercise? I would say the answer is yes, for a number of reasons. There are plenty of analogues to situations in which a person does not require a reason to act but in which certain reasons for acting are nevertheless prohibited. But my point here isn’t to litigate that question. It is only to point out that this is a question and further that it seems to me that this constitutional question and the unique role of the President is really President Trump’s only hope.

If the question is, did President Trump act to impede or end a legitimate investigation for the purposes of protecting himself or his friends I think his goose is probably close to cooked.

Luckily for him, the constitutional question is real. Indeed, there’s a very real additional question whether a sitting President can be indicted at all or whether impeachment and removal from office (perhaps followed by criminal prosecution) is the sole remedy to presidential crimes.

[snot]

1. Can Dems impeach him without Republican help?

Surely someone's keeping count.

[longship]

3. Uhhh! No!

We need the 2018 midterms to accomplish that. No doubt Drumpf will provide further justification by the time congress convenes in 2019.

[regnaD kciN]

6. To impeach, we'd need a majority in the House...

...to convict (which is all that really matters), we would also need either a two-thirds majority in the Senate (i.e. 67 votes), or convincing enough Republicans to join us to make 67.

[longship]

11. That's right.

That's why it won't happen until and unless we get a majority in the House and make gains in the Senate. The latter is looking grim.

[Demsrule86]

17. We only need a handful in the Senate...if the GOP passes the putrid health bill...it is very doable.

[Cosmocat]

18. right

I hate what is going on as much as anyone else, but at this moment the country is boxed in by its tendency to relentlessly indulge republican fuck wittery for decades prior to November 8th.

This is just the next evolution of it, in your face, could give a fuck, because they never suffer the consequences.

All the cards on the table now - 2018 is the last stand. This country either WTF up and there is a major turnover in congress or they will go 100 percent off the rails because they will know they will never be held responsible.

[gordianot]

5. Trump appears to be the worst case Constitutional scenario.

Massive fraud, criminal activity, aligned with a foreign enemy, treaty violator, liar and mentally volatile. The greatest threat ever to the Republic. I doubt anyone 5 years ago could have conceived of the threat we face now even though our history has examples of what can go wrong with the executive branch. I do not expect a good outcome.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. He's like the worst case carbon based lifeform scenario

[nolabels]

16. I will vote for that one!

One should always know truth when then they see it

[Mister Ed]

13. He's what the founders intended the Electoral College to prevent.

The Electoral College was meant to be a firewall against the possibility that the voters might become infatuated with a traitorous criminal. Now we've seen that the Electoral College will not perform its function and overrule the voters when that happens (and probably just as well it didn't, even in this extreme case). This tells us for certain that it's time to amend the constitution to do away with the EC.

[Cosmocat]

19. The two flaws exposed so horrible

is that the checks and balances get thrown out the window when congress is as compromised as the executive branch is.

But, the root here is the people. We, collectively, knowing full well what we were buying (not just on November 8th, either, for YEARS prior) put these craven scumbags into power in DC and KEEP sending them back.

It is OUR fault, the people, for blowing it up.

[gordianot]

21. Yes, there is not room to complain about the Constitution.

The scum keeps being elected even though rating Congress as a whole as ineffective they are re-elected.

[longship]

2. DURec and kick for Josh Marshall.

He cuts to the core principles here. It is why the Watergate Saturday Night Massacre plunged this country into a constitutional crisis.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. The GOP established definitively that a sitting POTUS can obstruct justice--- in 1998

While I'm sure they'd like to forget that precedent, it's there.

[regnaD kciN]

7. Well, they established that obstruction of justice was grounds for impeachment...

...but that's a big difference from the key question here, which is "can a sitting president be put on trial for criminal activities?" Since the 1999 G.O.P. didn't attempt to have President Clinton indicted after their impeachment effort failed to net a Senate conviction, I'd say that particular question hasn't been answered yet.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. They certainly established a precedence for impeachment over it.

So clearly it's a line a sitting president can cross in that sense.

It is also worth noting that they did get him disbarred for it, too, IIRC

[Persisted]

14. More than that......

Ken star put the president in front of a Federal grand jury and attempted to pursue charges.

He was seeking a true bill for perjury. When the grand jury in DC refused to give him a true bill over a blowjob, then impeachment commenced.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Funny how things work out, eh?

Now ol' Newt Gingrich has to get up there and try and argue with a straight face "A President cannot obstruct justice"

THE FLAG IS FALLING, NEWT! CATCH THE FALLING FLAG!

...asshole.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/gingrich-defends-trump-again/index.html

[KelleyKramer]

8. Josh has been doing great work lately, I highly rec TPM

[nikibatts]

12. The answer is that our Constitution needs to be updated to handle Presidential criminality.

[Cosmocat]

20. That does not get to the root

the root problem is this country is stupid as fuck collectively.

There is no way to game out the stupid.

There were two VERY clear choices for POTUS, the most crooked and disgusting person imagineable and a decent, competent, proven choice.

Every Rep is on the ballot every two years, every senator is on the ballot every six years, and this country keeps sending back deranged lunatics like Steve King and Mitch McConnell.