Surprise, President-elect doesn't want criminal investigations of a sitting President
- Thread starter Eacaraxe
- Start date
Ok, if we are arguing different things, yeah, this is a moot point. I will indict him as a president when he does Presidential things. Yes, he could do everything you're saying. Just like a police officer can be a racist and might put me in the crosshairs.
But I will only treat that police officer as a racist if he is actually racist. Not a second before. Same with Biden. And in fact, same with Trump.
Trump just earned my spite.
My apologies for using you as an example here, but I think you’ve illustrated my point of why moralizing gets nowhere. To illustrate further, let’s go with a thought experiment.
Let’s say that a thorough investigation is carried out over a large enough sample size found to be representative of the general population of police to determine the rate at which police use their authority as officers to commit a heinous crime we’re already aware of many cases of cops utilizing their authority to commit, say, sexual assault. At what rate do you think people would accept that cops just are rapists and must be stopped, say, abolished even? Let us begin at a rate clearly above the general population. “Well, clearly the power granted to them is tempting, it is only due to the sinful nature of all men that they falter, we just have to pay more attention.” How about the majority, some half or greater? “It’s the culture of policing that’s the problem, not the ideal. If we get rid of the bad police...” 90 out of a hundred, 95, 99, “well, to condemn one innocent because of the acts of the rest...”
Meaningless. Pointless. A waste of effort. No, the problem of policing, of any system, is not found in the many sinful acts of those who work within it. It is that those “sinful” acts are an explicit, necessary, and intended element of the system. That some must suffer without recourse to maintain our way. The police may be racist class traitors by and large, but the purpose of policing is to maintain property and white supremacy at the expense of the rest, and this is a more valuable criticism than a hundred moral spectacles in the face of a humanity so prone to the hypocritical and the arbitrary.
Okay, I think you need a quick rundown on everything because sentence 1 of your response already showed some serious ignorance in how the Department of Justice (the DoJ, not plural) works.
First, the president appoints the Attorney General, US Attorneys, and certain specific supervisors. This may sound like they appointing the trial attorneys, but the reality is that they are effectively the top and branch management of the organization. The vast bulk of attorneys who work for the DoJ are Assistant US Attorneys, who actually do the day-to-day legal activities of the US government (often referred to as "line attorneys" as their jobs are mostly focused on the day to day legal workings similar to factory line workers), and they are subject to standard protections afforded to federal workers and are generally protected by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (which is a union-like organization, though not formally one).
While the AUSAs do report to the US attorney overseeing them and the US attorney for the district is often involved in certain larger and more complicated cases, the reality is that the US attorney's ability to override legal recommendations of the assistant attorneys is generally fraught, and in some cases can result in scandal if done for improper political motivations (as happened in the Bush II firing scandals). AUSAs can express non-support for a US Attorney's decision in a variety of ways depending on the nature of the disagreement, whether that's declining to signing onto government briefs, whistleblower complaints, or public resignation, depending on that AUSAs objections to the action are.
And the independence of US Attorneys generally is a major norm that has been routinely upheld up to and even through the Trump Administration. One of the earliest scandals of his presidency was the abrupt firing of Preet Bharara (and 45 other US attorneys) and the almost unheard-of personal interviews with potential replacement US attorneys by the President. Which kind of brings us to the other point:
Part II
There's a longstanding legal doctrine of non-intervention in prosecutions and litigation by the president in particular. Quite literally, if the president weighs in on a case, and a prosecution in particular, that is, in and of itself, a defense and can get a case thrown out regardless of merit. The case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's court marshal is probably the most recent and most public use of the defense, resulting in the entire conviction getting overturned and dismissed. The failure of the US's antitrust case against the Time-Warner and AT&T merger, while not formally invoking this doctrine in the decision, had the issue raised due to Trump's criticism of the merger and may have partially shaped the outcome of the litigation.
The point is that even if the president wanted to proceed on certain prosecution or decline others (though that is less of an issue due to the pardon power), speaking it publicly (and potentially even privately) in and of itself creates serious legal problems for potential investigations and prosecutions, if not provide a complete defense to conviction even if the evidence completely points to guilt. So the vast majority of presidents don't weigh in on those matters by necessity, while the US Attorneys do their job in relative independence, often never meeting the president directly (as discussed above). While the president and AG can shape focus of the Department of Justice, particularly with categorical prosecutorial guidance (i.e. "under these circumstances, the AG generally recommends this course of action"), specific guidance or direction on the prosecution of specific groups, entities, or individuals is avoided because of the legal ramifications of such acts if they came to light (as they often do).
Now the only reason I know most of this is because I have a law degree and the current and hopefully outgoing administration has given way more examples of this particular defense than have arisen in decades prior. But that's not an excuse for just ignoring the long-standing practices of the DoJ's independence, even if Trump and Barr did everything they could to eviscerate it.
It is a form of doublespeak, but not in the way you think it is.
There's a longstanding legal doctrine of non-intervention in prosecutions and litigation by the president in particular. Quite literally, if the president weighs in on a case, and a prosecution in particular, that is, in and of itself, a defense and can get a case thrown out regardless of merit. The case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's court marshal is probably the most recent and most public use of the defense, resulting in the entire conviction getting overturned and dismissed. The failure of the US's antitrust case against the Time-Warner and AT&T merger, while not formally invoking this doctrine in the decision, had the issue raised due to Trump's criticism of the merger and may have partially shaped the outcome of the litigation.
The point is that even if the president wanted to proceed on certain prosecution or decline others (though that is less of an issue due to the pardon power), speaking it publicly (and potentially even privately) in and of itself creates serious legal problems for potential investigations and prosecutions, if not provide a complete defense to conviction even if the evidence completely points to guilt. So the vast majority of presidents don't weigh in on those matters by necessity, while the US Attorneys do their job in relative independence, often never meeting the president directly (as discussed above). While the president and AG can shape focus of the Department of Justice, particularly with categorical prosecutorial guidance (i.e. "under these circumstances, the AG generally recommends this course of action"), specific guidance or direction on the prosecution of specific groups, entities, or individuals is avoided because of the legal ramifications of such acts if they came to light (as they often do).
Now the only reason I know most of this is because I have a law degree and the current and hopefully outgoing administration has given way more examples of this particular defense than have arisen in decades prior. But that's not an excuse for just ignoring the long-standing practices of the DoJ's independence, even if Trump and Barr did everything they could to eviscerate it.
I don't think it's unreasonable. It is absolutely reasonable to require the scum that rule over us to live up to their own propaganda, to relentlessly point out when they don't (which is basically always), and to condition cooperation on change. The expectation is not unreasonable, it's just not realistic, at least until such time as there is coordinated action to enforce the changes that would make it so.
So I'm going to go out of my way and play devils advocate as to why the Bush II war crimes should have been set aside (though I personally believe they should have had an independent prosecutor) while Trump's didn't: the war crimes at least committed under the reasonable perception they were acting in the US's authorization and interests (not legally a defense, but mitigating overall and why later administrations avoid prosecuting the previous ones generally), while most of Trump's all-but-legally-confirmed criminal activity was in service of himself or his associates, ranging from overcharging the secret service, steering US military planes to stop at an airport near his Scotland golf course that may have been closed had the flights not increased the runway use, and interfering in a decades-long government construction project to protect his hotel, just to name a few.
Now, there's still a few concerning things that can happen in the next 64 days, notably if Trump attempts to pardon himself or resign and have Pence pardon him while he has the power (the story involving Lindsey Graham is deeply disturbing even by the standards of GOP kowtowing to Trump and should be grounds for investigation all on its own), but Trump has so flagrantly defied the public norms around avoiding at least the reasonable appearance of corrupt behavior that many state AGs, notably the Attorney General for New York, are potentially considering some of the first criminal investigations and prosecutions of a former president ever as a result.
EDIT:
Lindsey Graham on the defensive over calls to state election officials
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on the defensive Tuesday over disclosures that he had contacted state election officials in states won by Joe Biden in an apparent effort to get them to disqualify some ballots.
Okay, I'm all ears. Let's see what you have to say about it.
Which is quite a lot, for someone who missed the point we're currently in Biden's transitional period, and Biden's statement is a broadcast that whomever he appoints is expected to torpedo investigation into Trump. Because as someone who is not yet President, Biden has yet to appoint anyone to those seats. And, that his statement was specifically worded to avoid potential liability for any of what you just said.
While simultaneously conceding the point that indeed, those members of the DoJ who are presidential appointees can and do have the power to do exactly that. Ironic, considering the one instance I mentioned earlier you neglected to address, was when Obama did exactly what you said presidents ought not and should not do (when he shut down investigation of the Bush administration's activities) and the DoJ, for as independent as you say it is, just so happened to fall in line without muss or fuss. Telling, for an administration not exactly known for treating whistleblowers with lenience, even when acting via official and protected means for which retaliatory behavior was prohibited.
An impressive feat, thanks to having brought a wealth of evidence that exactly what you just said can't happen does, and the administrations that did it suffered absolutely no negative consequences whatsoever other than having to throw some folks under the bus. Who promptly went on to bigger and better things for having been good soldiers. Remind me, for all the shit Alberto Gonzales pulled, was he even disbarred? Or did he manage to walk away clean as a whistle thanks to a laundry list of dropped and overturned indictments, work the mediation circuit for a while before landing in a cushy university job, and is currently grifting the talking head circuit as a token "never Trump Republican"?
And what provisions relevant to interim US Attorney appointments did the '05 PATRIOT Act reauthorization include, which got conveniently repealed as soon as the controversy blew over?
Last edited:
Potentially, but if he really wanted to rule it out, all he would have to do is say so, as any statement one way or another would kill said investigations. You're just reading in a conspiracy where you have no evidence other than your own fantasies.
In the same way that the president can order a nuclear strike at any time. Yes, they have the power, but you're acting as if having the power is a foregone conclusion. You see why that might be reaching?
Are you done? Do you even know what it takes to disbar someone? Do you even know the grounds for doing so?
I chimed in because there was a clear factual gap in what you were saying and the applicable practice of law as it relates to all these matters. It's really clear you didn't actually know what you're talking about, didn't read the article you initially posted, and, when confronted by a fairly mundane explanation that more reasonably tied these actions to the history of the departments and political and administrative norms, you're just doubling down on the same madness.
I don't think there's much fundamentally to discuss here. Biden restated a platitude that almost every president states, particularly when they're following scandal ridden presidencies, and you're treating it like he is threatening to nuke Cuba. Chill the fuck out and let it actually go forward.
If you'd ever like to know why people fear your ideas, read this part back to yourself, and each time you read it picture schools, hospitals, groceries... Picture everything that keeps people alive, everything that makes people happy, it's all systems. Imagine looking someone in the eye and telling them malpractice is an explicit, necessary, and intended element of healthcare.
And as you so eloquently explained, how and why an outright admission of such would not occur. Least of all without invoking severe blowback, before he's even taken the oath of office. You're simultaneously saying Biden "could" do so, but explaining why it's in his best interests to not, whilst simultaneously expecting us to just overlook the obvious implication of the statement.
Tell me, if a handful of street toughs walk into a bodega and say, "nice place you got here, shame if something happened to it", would you then say to yourself, "why these fellows must simply be perfectly legitimate insurance salesmen, you would do well to hear them out!"? Or, when a Republican politician speaks of states' rights, do you then seriously consider this a matter of ardent respect and advocacy for the Tenth Amendment?
It's not a reach if you can only respond to it in tautologies, adding rhetorical flair to try to make the tautology sound as if it is anything but.
Are you going to answer the question?
My complaint is the applicable practice of law, as you put it, does not matter here. The crux of the issue is whether or not presidents are above the law, and the self-interest of the president-elect is at odds with the rule of law -- and with zero presumptive checks or balances. Case in point,
God forbid we ask ourselves why "almost every president" might have to state this platitude in the first place, and what it says that "almost every president" would seek to shield their predecessors from criminal investigation and prosecution by whatever means necessary regardless of political party. It's odd to what you refer as "conspiracy", I simply consider "pattern recognition", a capability every human being nominally develops by age five regardless how many letters they may or may not have by their name.
Last edited:
If malpractice is common enough to be notable, perhaps it is an intended element or an accepted consequence of an intended element of the healthcare system as it is currently constituted.
Seems like an error to equate the concept of healthcare with the system that currently delivers it (to some people).
"The apparatus of the president's position over the DoJ presents a natural avenue for the president to shield their office from oversight and protect against any future investigation when those immunities run out, and thus presidents quietly engage in their own protection racket at the expense of public justice while simultaneously leading people on to gain power."
"This is good though."
"This is good though."
If you put a gun to my head I’d probably say Metal Gear Solid 3 was the best, but I don’t like choosing.
I’d also point out that you wouldn’t argue that they’re necessary/intentional because they occur, but actually try and see if such an argument can be made. In the case of police, the enforcement of racially biased laws is intentional and can be seen throughout US history, while structurally they are setup so as to be proficient at dealing with particular kinds of property crime and miserable at dealing with crimes against individuals.
Jim Crow, gang laws in California, three strikes penalties for non-violent offenses.
Edit: stop and frisk, drug laws, prostitution laws, immigration laws, California’s assault weapons ban...
Edit2: sundown laws, various real estate laws used to maintain redlining, HOAs, private prisons...
Edit3: slavery, human trafficking, labor regulations, environmental law, Tribal-Federal law...
Edit4: riot laws, renters laws, vagrancy laws, loitering laws...
Last edited:
I replied before all your edits
For example, white people in gangs, or who have three strikes, would, according to the letter of the law, get the same punishment as black or Hispanic people.
I'd say that Jim Crow laws would be your only valid example, but those are gone now.
What would you want, for gangs to be legal?
How are you defining "racially biased laws"? I wouldn't say that a law that disproportionately impacts one race over another isn't the fault of the law.
For example, white people in gangs, or who have three strikes, would, according to the letter of the law, get the same punishment as black or Hispanic people.
I'd say that Jim Crow laws would be your only valid example, but those are gone now.
What would you want, for gangs to be legal?
Last edited: