NYT: Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated

[MTAtech]

What if every state criminally investigated the next Democrat president at the same time? Obviously the President should be unencumbered to do the work of running the country without answering to a bunch of politically motivated investigations. Any state investigation of the president should only be done after he has left office.

They would be able to do that and it would not impair the president from governing one bit. All through the Watergate period, Nixon was conducting meetings over legislation at the same time he was being investigated.

The argument that it encumbers the president is grasping for straws.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

[h=1]Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated[/h]

---

Not only is this argument unprecedented, it's absurd. Presidents have been investigated before (i.e. Nixon, Clinton, Harding). The argument that presidents "have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations," is fatally flawed because there is no burden on the president when others are doing the investigating. Nixon was not only investigated as president but governed at the same time.

But what this argument suggests is that Trump and his lawyers are becoming desperate for anything to keep Trump's finances and taxes out of investigative hands.

He thinks he is above the law.

 

[HumblePi]

Did you see Rudy Giuliani on CNN tonight? Holy crap, the guy went nuts! They’re hiding something.

LOL! I asked the same thing in #10 post. But here's the thing with Giuliani, only a guilty man screams accusations at others. Giuliani's hands are dirty and he's going to be part of the whistleblower's alarm.

paraphrasing an article published in the Daily Beast: Trump Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Involved With Yet Another Foreign Government, This Time Bahrain’s

"Just last May, Rudy Giuliani's firm 'Giuliani Security and Safety', had officially secured a contract with the government of Bahrain to help train their police force. Talks between Giuliani’s “global security services” company and the government in Bahrain began in August or September 2018. They took place even as Giuliani was representing Trump as the Mueller investigation was ongoing, and while he was serving as one of Trump’s more regular advisers and confidants. Giuliani is still working as one of Trump's lawyers.

While the Bahraini government was enlisting Giuliani for help with its police force, it was also attempting to influence the Trump administration policy. Bahrain officially employs half a dozen lobbying and public-relations firms in the United States, according to the Justice Department’s database of registered foreign agents. They work on issues ranging from counter-terrorism efforts to trade and foreign investment promotion to more vaguely defined advocacy and public affairs initiatives. Specific goals in Washington, D.C., include stepping up military cooperation and an effort to win an exemption to Trump administration steel and aluminum tariffs."

Giuliani said that his firm’s official work with Bahrain “doesn’t involve any lobbying,” and doesn’t involve “giving policy advice” or legal work. “I never discussed Bahrain with anybody in the [Trump] administration including the president,” he said. “[Our] contract has clauses in it that say no lobbying, no foreign representation… I provide you a service. I don’t get involved in trying to solve your problems with the U.S. government.”[end]

When a snake like Rudy Giuliani begins several sentences with the words "I never" "I didn't" and "I don't", you can bet he does.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So he's getting the bush-league lawyers.

To be honest, asserting that Trump can't be criminally investigated is equal to monkeys throwing feces.
It doesn't take much juris doctor derring do (or doo doo) to fling feces, does it? :lamo

 

[Captain Adverse]

Because it has high standards and an excellent reputation for truth -- unlike the current president.

Maybe once upon a time, but not lately. :no:

IMO that ship has sailed some time ago. Now they are simply a gossip source competing with all the new social media outlets for views.

 

[Parrish]

He thinks he is above the law.

And yet he took the oath of office and has repeatedly violated that oath. This is in violation of the anti-injunction act. Anti-Injunction Act Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Maybe once upon a time, but not lately. :no:

IMO that ship has sailed some time ago. Now they are simply a gossip source competing with all the new social media outlets for views.

In comparison to Trump's lies, the NYT's is miles ahead in credibility.

 

[SLC]

They would be able to do that and it would not impair the president from governing one bit. All through the Watergate period, Nixon was conducting meetings over legislation at the same time he was being investigated.

The argument that it encumbers the president is grasping for straws.

Watergate was federal investigation.

 

[MTAtech]

Watergate was federal investigation.

So? Trump's lawyers are arguing that a sitting president cannot be investigated at all. They made no distinction between federal or state. Their argument is, "Presidents, they asserted, have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations, especially from {but not limited to} local prosecutors who may use the criminal process for political gain."

There is no language in the constitution that presidents cannot be indicted. There is only a a Justice Dept memo stating that sitting presidents can't be indicted. It's not in the constitution not in any statute. To expand that to sitting presidents can't even be investigated is both vast overreach and absurd. But I am sure you would be arguing the opposite if we were discussing President Hillary Clinton.

 

[MTAtech]

Maybe once upon a time, but not lately. :no:

IMO that ship has sailed some time ago. Now they are simply a gossip source competing with all the new social media outlets for views.

Then it is up to you to cite where and when the NYT has been inaccurate. Every paper occasionally makes inadvertent mistakes but if you are claiming that the NYT intentionally publishes false reports for political purposes, you need to prove it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Then it is up to you to cite where and when the NYT has been inaccurate. Every paper occasionally makes inadvertent mistakes but if you are claiming that the NYT intentionally publishes false reports for political purposes, you need to prove it.

You mean like the most recent example concerning Justice Kavanaugh?

Are your REALLY going to argue that was an "inadvertent mistake?" :roll:

 

[MTAtech]

You mean like the most recent example concerning Justice Kavanaugh?

Are your REALLY going to argue that was an "inadvertent mistake?" :roll:

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are trying to make a convincing case, you have to at least make a case.

Saying something vague just doesn’t cut it. But if you are saying that the Kav incident, which the Times corrected, is a pattern, show the pattern. One data point isn’t a pattern.

 

[Athanasius68]

They would be able to do that and it would not impair the president from governing one bit. All through the Watergate period, Nixon was conducting meetings over legislation at the same time he was being investigated.

The argument that it encumbers the president is grasping for straws.

Not necessarily. The thinking that Trump might have conspired with Russia had certainly encumbered the admin (and government in general) over the past couple years.

 

[Athanasius68]

:coffeepap

State Litigation during the Obama Administration

That's disputes over policy. Goes with the territory.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Wow, did anyone watch Chris Cuomo's interview with Rudy Giuliani?

No. But I hear it was da bomb.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

[h=1]Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated[/h]

---

Not only is this argument unprecedented, it's absurd. Presidents have been investigated before (i.e. Nixon, Clinton, Harding). The argument that presidents "have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations," is fatally flawed because there is no burden on the president when others are doing the investigating. Nixon was not only investigated as president but governed at the same time.

But what this argument suggests is that Trump and his lawyers are becoming desperate for anything to keep Trump's finances and taxes out of investigative hands.

So, in other words, Trump's lawyers are arguing that the president is indeed above the law and is therefore untouchable.

Next, they will argue that the president has the constitutional authority to grant himself a full and unconditional pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed. And the really scary part? Trump now has a USSC that would probably agree with Trump. And the Trump fan bois love it.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Seriously, if Trump thinks Rudy does him any favors any single time he goes on TV, that should be enough of a justification to impeach him. Rudy is bonkers.

But he was mayor during 911. Show some respect.
(or don't.)

 

[Pound4abrown]

What if every state criminally investigated the next Democrat president at the same time? Obviously the President should be unencumbered to do the work of running the country without answering to a bunch of politically motivated investigations. Any state investigation of the president should only be done after he has left office.

You know. There are a lot of precedents being set during this Admin. Some will benefit future Democratic POTUS' and some won't. All the things that folks on the right are poo-pooing now while Trump is in office, could come home to roost.
So I guess I will be willing to take the good with the bad.

 

[Helix]

No president is above the law. When America returns to sanity, codifying this needs to be a top priority.

 

[Pound4abrown]

So, in other words, Trump's lawyers are arguing that the president is indeed above the law and is therefore untouchable.

Next, they will argue that the president has the constitutional authority to grant himself a full and unconditional pardon for any and all crimes he may have committed. And the really scary part? Trump now has a USSC that would probably agree with Trump. And the Trump fan bois love it.

Nah, I think they'll stick with the Nixon idea that it isn't illegal if the POTUS does it.

 

[Pound4abrown]

No president is above the law. When America returns to sanity, codifying this needs to be a top priority.

I hope this remains a true statement, but it isn't looking too good these days.

 

[bluesmoke]

No president is above the law. When America returns to sanity, codifying this needs to be a top priority.

That's what you and many others say, but that's not what is for anything that might fall into a federal court. The DoJ has an unwritten but standard practice of not bringing charges against a sitting president. Perhaps a different administration might put something in writing otherwise.

 

[Helix]

That's what you and many others say, but that's not what is for anything that might fall into a federal court. The DoJ has an unwritten but standard practice of not bringing charges against a sitting president. Perhaps a different administration might put something in writing otherwise.

Like I said, it needs to be prioritized.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What if every state criminally investigated the next Democrat president at the same time? Obviously the President should be unencumbered to do the work of running the country without answering to a bunch of politically motivated investigations. Any state investigation of the president should only be done after he has left office.

Here's an idea, maybe we can pick a leader that doesn't do the kinds of evil things necessitating 50 different states to criminally investigate him?

Here's another idea, maybe we can pick a leader who understands his duty to uphold and defend the Rule of Law, and therefore his obligation to participate in criminal investigations, even if those investigations concern him in some way?

Here's yet another idea, why don't we all re-read the Constitution and remind ourselves of the system the Founding Fathers created, you know, the one where there is this idea that no one is above the law, not even the President. Do you know why they did that?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated

---

Not only is this argument unprecedented, it's absurd. Presidents have been investigated before (i.e. Nixon, Clinton, Harding). The argument that presidents "have such enormous responsibility and play a unique role in government that they cannot be subject to the burden of investigations," is fatally flawed because there is no burden on the president when others are doing the investigating. Nixon was not only investigated as president but governed at the same time.

But what this argument suggests is that Trump and his lawyers are becoming desperate for anything to keep Trump's finances and taxes out of investigative hands.

Of course Presidents have been investigated before but that was before the lawyers took a fresh, clear-eyed, honest, new look at the law and discovered that the Founding Fathers had had the Original Intent to set up a government wherein "The Divine Right of Presidents" took precedence over everything else. Since no one had previously discovered this fact, it has never been argued in court before and that means that none of the cases where "The Divine Right of Presidents" COULD have been raised as a defence, but WAS NOT raised as a defence because no "smart" lawyer had been told by a "smart" President that "The Divine Right of Presidents" SHOULD HAVE been raised as a defence are totally irrelevant.

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]