The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bauer: "[T]here's little point left to [the Special Counsel] regulations, at least insofar as they purport to authorize investigations of presidents."
Good riddance to special counsel investigations of the President.
Earlier this week, I revisited the Mueller investigation in light of Trump v. United States. My conclusion: the entire basis of the investigation would have been void in light of the Court's decision. Virtually everything that triggered Mueller's appointment was a "core" presidential power. Moreover, nearly the entirety of the investigation probed Trump to determine whether he had "corrupt" motives--an inquiry that Chief Justice Roberts's decision foreclosed. In hindsight, this investigation should have never happened. I think we would have been all better off without that colossal waste of time.
Going forward, do the special counsel regulations have any vestigial role with regard to investigations of the President? I think the answer has to be no. And agreeing with me is Bob Bauer.
At Lawfare, Bauer explains that his thinking on this issue has changed since Trump v. United States--a decision he vigorously disagrees with on many levels:
Jack Goldsmith, my co-author of "After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency," and I have written about and proposed reforms to the special counsel regulations pursuant to which the department may conduct criminal investigations of the president. Goldsmith has since argued that the regulations have proved to be a failure, attempts at reform will fail, and the rules ought to be withdrawn. He made his case by appeal to experience. I did not agree. I have had second thoughts and now conclude that, after the Supreme Court immunity decision, there's little point left to these regulations, at least insofar as they purport to authorize investigations of presidents. Perhaps they could remain in place for cases involving other senior administration officials, but it is not obvious why, once on the chopping block, any piece of them survives.
The Archibald Coxes, the Leon Jaworskis, the Robert Muellers, the Jack Smiths: We may never see the likes of them again.
Bauer is nostalgic for Mueller and Smith. I say good riddance. The concept that prosecution can be divorced from politics was always a fantasy. Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison has gone unanswered for nearly three decades. He was right.
It is true that the special counsel regulations remain on the books for lower-ranking officials. And I agree with Zach Price that it will be very hard for the President to do much mischief without the help of subordinates who lack immunity. But we should not pretend that some "independent" prosecutor can perform any meaningful function.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Mueller investigation was a waste of more than time - Money, time again, and extensive damage to a sitting president's ability to conduct his job, besides the impact on the public and Republic both here and elsewhere. Despicable through and through.
Joe Biden and the Democratic extremists are a direct threat to our democracy.
Hey Eric, here’s two fun facts for you: the Mueller investigation happened while Biden was a private citizen and was initiated by Trump’s own Deputy Attorney General who was, unsurprisingly, a Republican.
True, the Mueller investigation, like a lot of the attacks on Trump, was an attempted fratricide. Part of the Republican establishment's desperate effort to deny their own voters their choice of President.
You have to give it to most modern conservatives. Even when they get a situation where a lifelong Republican appoints another lifelong Republican to investigate their Republican President they still make it out as if they've been horribly wronged.
Yeah, we don't ignore that our own party has been embroiled in a civil war for several decades now.
One that's finally drawing to a close, though, I think.
There's always going to be a Goldstein out there sabotaging the True Conservatives!
Let me get this straight.
All I have to do is produce someone with a (D) next to their name, and then all you leftists have to accept and agree with whatever that person says and does?
Observations over the last 30 years or more say this is true and that there does not seem to be a limit as to the insanity they will believe.
Bush Republicans despise you and always have!! The good news—Bush was fairly inconsequential if you weren’t in the military…other than $5 trillion in debt.
Every President after Bush accumulated more debt than that, of course.
Let’s just move beyond the fact that the Russian collusion nonsense was a meritless Hillary/democrat concocted fraud. What you fail to appreciate, not having principles yourself, is that conservatives would object to political considerations controlling the course of any supposedly objective investigations, regardless of the party of the investigators.
LOL! I sure don't think Republicans are that virtuous!
Probably. A few in the House and Senate prove that almost daily. But I was referring to conservatives.
No true conservative in any case!
Priestep was the FBI agent that initiated Crossfire Hurricane…he’s a graduate of Hillsdale College. He probably won’t be going to any reunions going forward. 😉
I love this constant acknowledgement that our Federal government is so corrupt and shitty that we can predict behaviors based upon partisan affiliation of bureaucrats.
If they do that at the DOJ, like the IRS, wait to you see what the Democrats are going to do to people at HHS when they ban us from having healthcare freedom.
Chuckie hates the federal government so much he thinks the head of it should be immune from prosecution!
Immunity for official acts, not private acts.
What's not to hate? The bigger it's gotten the worse most people's lives have become.
It's like they are doing it on purpose.
The thing to remember about the Mueller investigation is that it was, essentially, a continuation of the Crossfire Hurricane RussiaGate investigation, initiated by FBI Counterintelligence Division (CD) agent Peter Strzok, in coordination with his girlfriend, Lisa Page, attorney for DD McCade. Text messages between the two (June/July 2016) show Strzok promising Page that he would make sure that Trump was not elected President. He also, not surprisingly, ran the Midyear Exam (Clinton email investigation). Strzok and Page also apparently came up with Dir Comey’s excuse for not prosecuting Clinton for her hundreds of Espionage Act felonies. Sometime, probably in the August/September 2016 timeframe, became a CD branch chief.
FBI CD was also involved in several other operations against Trump, starting that summer. They were the ones, along with their sister DOJ organization (Counterintelligence and Export Control branch, now headed by Jay Bratt, also now Smith’s Deputy Special Counsel, who has run the ED FL case against Trump from the beginning), filed for four 3 month FISA warrants against Carter Page, starting in October, 2016, utilizing the Steele Dossier as its primary justification. Page turned out to be a CIA asset, which they failed to point out to the FISC in those FISA applications, even after it had been confirmed by the CIA. Carter Page was their second choice, which suggests that their FISA warrant was really to electronically surveillance Trump and his inner circle, even after he was POTUS.
The FBI CD knew as early as September of 2016 that the Steele Dossier was junk (much of it created over drinks at a bar in Georgetown), and funded, via Perkins Coei, by the Clinton Campaign and DNC. Steele, as a source, was terminated by the FBI in early fall of 2016 for disclosing the Dossier to the MSM, and esp Buzzfeed. Yet, it was brought back into those two organizations by Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, who met with Deputy AAG Bruce Orr, whose wife worked with Simpson at Fusion GPS. Orr then passed it back again to the FBI. The FBI found further corroboration for the Dossier in the MSM. Except, that it all came back to Simpson and Steele pushing the same documents from different directions. Remember, the FBI knew most of this by the time that the first FISA app was filed (10/16).
Strzok and the FBI CD had a problem, soon after Trump was inaugurated. They were being investigated by the DOJ and the Republican Congress. They were also sitting on electronic surveillance of Carter Page, and likely Trump himself, that they shouldn’t have had. That’s where the Mueller Special Counsel investigation came in. Again, Strzok and Page were involved in setting it up, and then transferred over to it. It was supposed to determine whether or not the Russians had collaborated with Trump to win the election. By then, the FBI knew, of course, that they hadn’t, and that much of the evidence of such collaboration came from the Clinton campaign. Never mind. It was all double checked through the first year.
The other key was the LawFare creation of 18 USC § 1001 Obstruction, through creative misinterpretation of the statute (by reading the Intent and Materiality elements out of the statute). They used this as a shield, declaring any attempt, by the DOJ IG or Congress, to see what they were doing away from them, by declaring such § 1001 Obstruction. They spent the bulk of their resources during the Mueller investigation on § 1001 perjury traps of Trump Administration people. What they were doing violated DOJ rules and regulations - they were required to abide by DOJ OLC legal interpretations, and weren’t. This came to an end when Bill Barr became AG, and took over oversight of the investigation from DAG Rosenstein. It was shut down quickly, when Barr discovered that they had known conclusively for better than a year that there had been no Trump/Russian collusion, and it was just being kept going to catch Trump’s people in those § 1001 LawFare perjury traps. With § 1001 no longer available as a shield for the data they had, it was transferred to the House, which had just flipped back to Dem control.
Conspiratorial nutjobbery.
Can you imagine if a Democratic Presidential candidate showed up with a well known stooge and *literal* foreign agent for a hostile power managing their campaign?
Yeah, if only Hillary hadn’t conspired with foreign nationals, through her law firm cut outs, to create the fraudulent Steele “dossier” to promote the Russian collusion fraud, we wouldn’t have to hear about such “conspiratorial nutjobbery.”
The Clinton Campaign admitted their guilt to the Federal Elections Commission.
By the way, would their falsification of records be considered a felony in New York?
Only for people named Donald J. Trump.
Probably not, but such decisions are political matters left to the democrat party.
That's (D)ifferent.
If you're a Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc you just get a slap on the wrist for actual FEC violations.
If you're Trump, you get prison for an FEC violation that's not even an FEC violation.
Telling definition of D.
Of everyone but Trump is a Democrat you might just be a cult of personality.
Clinton and Obama didn’t get slaps on the wrist for FEC violations? May I recommend you do some basic research on that using a non-Google search engine. Slap on the wrist may be too harsh a description of their treatment.
Strzok did not initiate Crossfire Hurricane.
Your screed doesn't get any more accurate.
Long unsourced stories that include inside info and have their main pin that Trump is super innocent or the 2020 election was stolen.
You got a gig writing for the Epoch times or something?
I see. Somehow President Trump is guilty (of something, we’ll find it later) and must prove his innocence, when he learns what that “crime” is. Of course, sometimes (see Bragg) that minor detail is never disclosed. Just so you know, there is a presumption of innocence in this country, maybe not in that communist hell of Sarcastr0land, but here, at least if a democrat is not elected this November.
Sorry, my mistake, I meant “Vice President Trump.”
Good summary of basic well-known and well-documented facts.
The Mueller Special Counsel investigation was a coverup and a defensive measure, as much as it was an offensive lawfare maneuver.
After all, the “Obama wiretapped me” claim was accurate.
In retrospect, the vindication of that claim was quite spectacular and remarkable, and its truth rather piercing and illuminating.
Other than the words "obama," "wiretapped," and "me," yes, it was accurate.
Priestep initiated Crossfire Hurricane. He’s a graduate of Hillsdale which means he’s a movement conservative.
Hayden's a master of the Gish Gallop. He just spews a million made up claims — mixed in with half-truths — and assumes nobody will take the time necessary to disprove each one. For example, everything he writes about 18 USC 1001 is fictional law. 1001 is not an obstruction statute; it's a lying statute. Materiality is virtually automatic — as every court that has interpreted it agrees, — because all it means is that the lie was about something the government was investigating. And there is no "intent" requirement, other than ordinary mens rea. His claim that the Steele dossier was "junk" is a lie; his claim that it was known to be a lie is even more of a lie. His claim that the FBI knew the Trump campaign hadn't colluded with the Russians is a lie. I mean, Paul Manafort. The Steele dossier was a minor minor part of the story, and he pretends that its non-debunking somehow disproved collusion. But in fact nobody ever disproved collusion. The Russians tried to help Trump win. Trump knew about it and welcomed it.
It was not. It was supposed to determine whether the Russians had interfered in the election.
Keep dreaming. § 1001 is maybe supposed to be a lying statute, but that is not what it was used for against Trump and his people. It specifically requires a proving of materiality. It’s one of the elements of the crime. If you were asked what color shirt you were wearing at some point in the past, you said white, and it was really blue, is immaterial in most situations. Another example - NSA LTG Flynn was asked by 2 FBI agents about his call with the Russian Ambassador. He replied that he couldn’t exactly recall, but they no doubt knew. Which they did, because they had the illegally unminimized transcript in front of them. Even if he had lied his ass off to them, it wouldn’t have been material, because they knew what had been said, so his memory or recitation of what he had said couldn’t be material. And, yes, the Mueller prosecutors used that § 1001 Perjury Trap a lot, catching their targets in inconsequential misstatements, and charging them with § 1001 lying.
But I was wrong about the Mueller prosecutors using § 1001 as a shield. Sorry. The “Obstruction” statute they used was § 1512(c), which we all know now was also misused by the DOJ in their J6 prosecutions. It was used somewhat differently in the two instances, but the the residual clause (§ 1512(c)(2)) in both was separated from its limiting clause (§ 1512(c)(1)), turning a fairly narrow document destruction statute into a very broad general Obstruction statute. That interpretation was rejected 6-3 by the Supreme Court last month.
I should add that part of the reason that Bill Barr was nominated to be AG was his memo to Trump in June of 2018 on interpreting § 1512(c). He offered a way out of the Mueller mess for Trump. Before his confirmation as AG, the Mueller investigation had been keeping their investigation ongoing by threatening § 1512(c)(2) prosecution for Obstruction whenever they were questioned about what they were doing (by then, mostly § 1001 perjury traps). The funny thing is that they were interfering with Congressional investigations by threatening § 1512(c)(2) prosecutions. In any case, the Immunity decision a week or two would likely have also doomed the Mueller investigation stonewalls of the Trump WH.
Again, the problem is that you are a dishonest or incompetent excuse for a lawyer. That is not what material means, as every single court to consider the issue has ruled. That your lies failed is not a defense to § 1001. A lie is material even if the government knows with 100% certainty that you are lying and what the truth is.
See United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App'x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that false statement about citizenship could not have been material because interviewing agent had already "ruled out the possibility of relying on the statement"); United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013) ("A statement can be material even if the agency already knew the answers given by the defendant and even if the receiving agent knows they are false."); United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995) "It is irrelevant what the agent who heard the statement knew at the time the statement was made. A false statement can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false." ("The fact that the FBI already knew that LeMaster received $6,000 in cash from Spurrier did not affect the materiality of his false statement to the FBI. A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false.");United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988)("A false statement 1231 can be material even if the agent to whom it is made knows that it is false."); United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 820 (9th Cir. 1976) ("Darrell Goldfine contends, however, that since the Compliance Investigators knew the answer and were not misled by the falsity, the statement was not materially false. . . . [T]he statement here was clearly material.") United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018) ("Indeed, a false statement can be material even if the decision maker actually knew or should have known that the statement was false.”)
See also Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 402 (1998)(rejecting the idea that a disbelieved falsehood is not a violation of § 1001; indeed, calling it "exceedingly strange" to think that being an unpersuasive liar would be a defense, and noting that the analogous crime of perjury doesn't work that way)
“ Again, the problem is that you are a dishonest or incompetent excuse for a lawyer. [T] That your lies failed is not a defense to § 1001. A lie is material even if the government knows with 100% certainty that you are lying and what the truth is.”
Anger management problems?
It's exasperating when someone asserts the same proven falsehood over and over again. The credulous are deceived, and everyone else's intelligence is insulted and their time wasted. Stop doing that and I predict you'll magically run into fewer people with what you think are anger management problems.
Ok. What are my falsehoods?
That a lie isn't material if the investigators knew what the truth was before they asked.
Seriously? You misstated what materiality means under 18 USC 1001. David corrected you. You did it again. He corrected you again. And now you’re playing dumb? Give me a break.
[ETA: I should have refreshed before posting, but there it is. He’s now corrected for a third time. Do you want to go for 4?]
He's made the false claim before, and I've called him on it, but this time I didn't want there to be any chance of it being dismissed as a disagreement or difference of opinion, so I gave a string cite in support. And, of course, he ignored it.
Haven’t dug through all of the references, but here is my first cut:
Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 402 (1998) – decided under a different version (1988) of § 1001 which didn’t require materiality for false statements to be crimes. Current version does require such materiality.
United States v. Mercedes, 401 F. App’x 619, 620 (2d Cir. 2010) – unpublished opinion, that states that it thus has no precedential value. 2d not 11th Circuit. Didn’t find any mention of § 1001 materiality.
United States v. Moore, 708 F.3d 639, 649 (5th Cir. 2013) – 5th, not 11th Circuit, no mention of § 1001.
United States v. LeMaster, 54 F.3d 1224, 1230–31 (6th Cir. 1995) – Same Exculpatory No issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Brogan. Version of § 1001 used by court appears to be the one used by Brogan, without the materiality requirement for false statements we have today.
United States v. Whitaker, 848 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 1988) – same problems as Brogan (§ 1001 didn’t require then that the false statement be material. Included the following:
“The requirement that the statement or representation be material as well as false is not set forth in the statute, however it is recognized as a judicially imposed “essential element” of a charge under section 1001. United States v. Voorhees, 593 F.2d 346, 349 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing United States v. Gilbertson, 588 F.2d 584, 589 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Jones, 464 F.2d 1118, 1121 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1111, 93 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973)).”
United States v. Henderson, 893 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018) – finally, a case from the controlling circuit utilizing a more modern version of § 1001. And it does address Materiality of a false statement. But the false statement there did require that it affect the litigation. Thus, the case doesn’t stand for the proposition that materiality of the false statement is irrelevant, but rather that it must be shown, but the bar isn’t very high.
What it looks like to me is that David isn’t the careful lawyer he claims to be, but rather one who utilizes digests instead of reading cases before citing them. Just my opinion here, of course.
Though it wasn't intended to, the Mueller investigation ran at a profit.
How do you figure that?
With arithmetic.
$32mm is smaller than $48mm.
Oh! That’s exactly what they said of the Starr invesigation of Clinton. I specifically recall a Clinton supporter lamenting $50 million had been spent on the investigation up to that point. What a waste!
For the record, investigating potential major problems with a president, money is no object. Just like money is no object defending Europe against the rolling tanks of dictators. (What shameful things pass through the minds of some who think otherwise. You do realise that’s distracting BS by those who want to allow those tanks, because that’ll cut red tape for Russian investments, right? Or some damned thing. You decide. $100 billion is barely a rounding error nowadays, and one of the last places we should cut, defending Europe.)
But that assumes serious issues deserving of investigation for harming the nation, not little things you attach your hat to, Clinton or Trump, to git your opponent because they are an opponent.
So, Clinton's blow job (and lying about it*) is exactly the same as Trump committing sexual assaults, hiding and lying about documents related to national security, and trying to overthrow the government so he could remain in power. Time was, a president who obstructed justice, as Mueller found Trump had, had to resign to be pardoned, and disappear into retirement.
* I never voted for Bill Clinton again after that. Pity Trump cultists have such low standards.
What exactly did Clinton run for after 1998?
Huh. I thought ex-presidents demanding third terms in violation of the 22nd amendment might be the usual thing, but it turns out that's only a Trump thing, like committing felonies as president and ex-president, and getting impeached twice, and only getting one term, and never winning the popular vote.
“For the record, investigating potential major problems with a president, money is no object.”
Isn’t that mainly the job of citizens and journalists?
The president is supposed to be in charge of the entire executive branch of the federal government. Investigating a president might sound good in theory, but when it comes to a sitting president, we can’t have these independent power centers in the federal bureaucracy. They are unelected and unaccountable, and its completely and totally unconstitutional for them to have any authority independent of the president. Investigation of a former president by a subsequent president is a different issue, however. Investigating a presidential candidate before they are president is also a different issue.
Trump’s own appointee appointed Mueller…that’s on Trump!
The Mueller investigation was (initially) about conduct *leading up to the election*, i.e., before Trump was President. Pretty bizarre for Josh to conclude that it's entire basis was undermined by a decision about Presidential immunity.
But the act that triggered it was Trump firing Comey, an exercise of core Presidential power. The point of Mueller’s appointment was to continue the investigation that Trump had ordered Comey to drop, (A core exercise.) and had fired him for the refusal to drop. (Also a core exercise.)
Now that it’s established that exercise is absolutely immune, ‘independent’ counsels have lost their last layer of independence. If a future Rosenstein tries to do this to Trump next year, he’ll just fire the supposedly independent counsel, along with neo-Rosenstein. And be utterly immune from any legal consequences for doing it.
"If a future Rosenstein tries to do this to Trump next year, he’ll just fire the supposedly independent counsel, along with neo-Rosenstein. And be utterly immune from any legal consequences for doing it."
You sound happy that we now have Monarchs instead of Presidents. I'm not surprised.
In order for democracy to be meaningful, power has to reside in hands we elect, not unaccountable bureaucrats. I don’t like all of Trump’s policies, but I really did not like the fact that the people who weren’t elected thought they were entitled to be running the show, and were entitled to conduct lawfare against him from inside his own administration in order to hobble him.
You want to reduce the power of the Executive branch? Great, I’m all for that. Let’s get started!
You want to redistribute that enormous power away from the one guy in it WE hire, to the people behind the scenes? Nope, not going to support that.
What was going on there was that the voters forced the GOP to have a nominee the party establishment hated. The establishment tried to make sure he lost the general election, and failed. So they set out to handicap him as much as possible, so that he couldn’t go ahead and do the things he’d been elected to do.
This was primarily an intra-party battle between the guy the voters had chosen, and the entrenched party establishment, with the Democrats as just side players the GOP establishment were willing to ally with for this fight. That’s why so much of the actual fighting was people nominally working for Trump attacking him, instead. Like Rosenstein.
" . . . power has to reside in hands we elect, not unaccountable bureaucrats."
You realize that in the entire Executive branch there's only one elected official (two if you want to include the VP), right?
And 100% of the Judicial branch personnel are unelected.
Yes, I realize that, and that's why that one elected official gets to make all the decisions. The very first words of Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "
It's not that he can't delegate, but if he does decide to directly order something, the people under him properly have only two choices: Obey, or resign.
Yes, the judicial branch aren't elected. They're also, theoretically, not making policy, only implementing it.
You initially said 'power' not 'policy' - but good to see you're consistent on moving goal posts.
Making policy IS power, dweeb. As is carrying it out. A President who can't issue orders and have them obeyed is just a powerless figurehead.
FBI Director is approved by the Senate and a thankless job tasked with preventing homeland terrorism. Why fire him when blame would go on everyone if a terrorist attack happened under Trump??
The executive power is vested in the President.
While the legislative and judicial powers are vested in the other two branches.
This has been your 4th grade civics lesson for the day, apedad.
In order for democracy to be meaningful, power has to reside in hands we elect, not unaccountable bureaucrats.
Of course democracy was not meaningful during the reign of the Charles I in Britain. But bureaucracy was not a notable problem, more the opposite. In the absence of a bureaucracy the king relied on an aristocracy to enforce arbitrary law, and a system of court-granted monopolies to raise revenue. King Trump can be counted on to work hard to align American government with that tradition, at least insofar as playing golf is compatible with work.
And what did I say? If you want to reduce the power of the Executive branch, I'm all in. I'm just opposed to redistributing that power away from the one guy in the branch we get to pick.
Describing the Saturday Night Massacre but this time it’s cool isn’t really a pro democracy perspective.
Brett has never understood the concept of internal controls.
Understanding and agreement are not the same thing.
I repeat, the only elected official in the Executive branch is the President, and that means he has to have the final call on everything if democracy is to mean anything.
That's utterly independent about whether you like the call he'd make.
The unitary executive theory flies in the face of founding era practice. It’s not in the text. It’s just something you want so you’ve BrettLawed your way into this is the only way the Constitution can be.
On a practical front, it is also a good way to diffuse power. It’s wild those who think themselves small government types have fastened onto the unitary executive as somehow anti authoritarian.
Think of why you like federalism. This is the opposite.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3062&context=articles
The executive power was not coterminous with as the Commender in Chief or other specific powers.
Back in the day Congress was thought to delegate and set the laws and thus the requirements on the executive power. It was not a core function.
Though that is in ought-land. But even in is-land the unitary executive has not been adopted by the Court.
As Homer would say "not been adopted yet".
Soon though.
The article is a joke, the Constitution did not vest the "royal prerogrative". Well, no s**t. We don't have a royal.
Neither did the Constitution enact Mr. Blackstone's Commentaries. It allocated powers differently.
No Sarcastr0, vesting executive authority in the President is not the opposite of federalism. It is an aspect of our federal constituional sytem. You don't know what federalism is, do you?
Your claim, you may recall, is that it was “not in the text.” But it is.
Maybe there are reasons that the text shouldn’t read to mean what it says. But note that your article doesn’t discuss them: it’s about what the vesting clause actually assigns to the president versus congress, not about other officials exercising executive power.
I see your point, but the text is ambiguous. On purpose because the constitution is a framework not a directive recipe.
The concept of the unitary executive - that the President has plenary control over administrative officers and agencies - is not in the text.
Nosictur — Also in the text? Plenty of restrictions on how the executive and judicial branches can be checked by the legislature. Those include both structural checks and policy checks. It is nonsensical to suppose single-branch supremacy—for any of the three branches—was a founder-intended result. They intended, and explicitly said, that separation of powers was purposed to constrain all the branches, not to especially empower any of them. The notion of a unitary executive, to the extent that is interpreted to mean an expansion of executive power, is anti-constitutional.
Bellmore, your notion is paradoxical that government accountability can be enhanced by narrowing the number of voting choices which affect political outcomes. If holding a president accountable through the politics of presidential elections is a feature, then holding the president accountable through presidential elections, and also by politically accountable checks resulting from congressional actions, is better. The second notion has the additional advantage of being the one intended at the time of the founding.
"Describing the Saturday Night Massacre but this time it’s cool isn’t really a pro democracy perspective."
Who says it's cool? Nixon got Cox fired, but was forced out of office shortly after. How's that not pro-democracy?
Yes.
The Supreme Court ruling could not rleieve the President of political consequences for wrongheaded exercises of his core constitutional powers.
Does Nixon go without the tapes? Are the tapes protected under immunity?
"Are the tapes protected under immunity?"
I would think so.
Also burning them. Which is what he should have done the day after Butterfield testified.
Spot on, as long as you forget the fact that we are governed under a constitution and the elected president's lawful exercise of his constitutional authority does not make the elected president a monarch. Of course, a president can abuse his authority by conducting politically motivated criminal proceedings against his main opponent, by censoring opposing views, by failing to execute the laws by opening our border, and just blatantly acting in contravention of the law by unilaterally forgiving student loan debt.
Immunity for his unlawful exercise of his "constitutional authority" would make him a monarch.
No, it would mean that official presidential conduct that is entitled to immunity is conduct that is beyond the power of the Congress to criminalize or the courts to judge under the federal constitution.
And we could also say that that idiot definition of a “monarch" exists only in your little TDS deranged mind. But that’s a matter best left to your therapist.
Point to the paragraph of the federal constitution that says that congress can't criminalize any conduct by the president that would be criminal if a non-president did it. Oh, that's right: you can't. Because it isn't in there.
But we know this dance: you're going to say "separation of powers": a phrase also not found in the constitution, and that in no way even implies immunity in any case.
Presidential immunity arises from the Executive Vesting Clause and the separation of powers. This understanding has been part of constitutional jurisprudence since Madison and has been respected in practice, until the gross abusive lawfare of the Biden Administration. Your ignorance of the law and history is not a counter argument. It’s just ignorance.
Again, you're just throwing random phrases around. The Executive Vesting Clause says nothing whatsover about immunity. (At most, it supports the OLC position that the current president can't be prosecuted.)
Where did Madison say anything at all about presidential immunity?
Once again, you use insults to deflect from the fact that there is no text, precedent, history, or tradition that supports the notion of presidential immunity. There are over 200 years of American history where nobody even suggested that presidents were immune from criminal prosecution. It was invented in 2024 out of whole cloth.
Bellmore, right now power resides in the hands of a president we elected. And if he ordered the Justice Department to investigate Trump every MAGA commenter on this blog would go apeshit.
The celebrations you see going on are not about getting rid of the special counsel. They are about a notion that the nation's corrupt Supreme Court has ordered an end to investigations of presidents, by anyone. I doubt a power to do that is a legitimate power of the Court. We shall see.
Not really clear why you're framing that as a conditional; they have gone apeshit. Indeed, they go apeshit when he appoints someone to act independently in deciding whether to prosecute, claiming that's illegal, but also go apeshit based on (false) claims that he directly ordered the prosecutions.
Nieporent, it was conditional. Grand juries, not Biden, charged Trump. Biden did not appoint the special counsel. Biden is not now, nor has he ever been Trump's prosecutor. Which is an apparent difference with both what Trump seems to be planning, and with what Trump's sycophants certainly want to see.
I know you're unbearably wordy, but don't you even read what you wrote? The topic wasn't "charging Trump." The topic was ordering DOJ to investigate Trump. I know, because I quoted it above:
"And if he ordered the Justice Department to investigate Trump every MAGA commenter on this blog would go apeshit."
(Emphasis added.)
And you sound sad that your flying monkeys throughout the swampy bureaucracy can't be released to harass those you oppose politically.
Oh well.
Remember, most modern conservatives don't have principles, they have goals. Brett carries on as an ostensible libertarian but if an unaccountable monarch gives him what he wants, he's fine with it.
Your projection is dizzying. And frankly, a little old. You guys need a new schtick.
How does a President being able to fire subordinates consitute a Monarchy?
But the act that triggered it was Trump firing Comey, an exercise of core Presidential power. The point of Mueller’s appointment was to continue the investigation that Trump had ordered Comey to drop, (A core exercise.) and had fired him for the refusal to drop. (Also a core exercise.)
Hold on. For seven years you guys have been denying that Trump fired Comey for refusing to drop the Flynn investigation, insisting that the real reason, hilariously, was Rosenstein’s complaint that Comey was mean to Hillary. Now that SCOTUS has immunized Trump’s attempt to stop Comey’s Flynn investigation, you’re going to tell us with a straight face, “yup, it was about Flynn all along?” Without so much as an “oops?”
Thats what he was accused of doing that triggered it. TBH, Comey should have been fired for any dozens of reasons. Who knows which combination truly motivated Trump? Indeed, a good reason for immunity is to avoid such speculation in criminal investigations and proceedings.
The concept that prosecution can be divorced from politics was always a fantasy.
Just because you're too through-and-through partisan to imagine a non-partisan prosecution, doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist.
Martin,
Given the nature of the US judiciary, whether elected or appointed, it is deeply political at its core.
I have advocate the idea of a professionally trained judiciary, such as one has in most (if not all) European countries. That would not completely eliminate politics from the judiciary, but it would go a long way. I have never gotten a single comment in supoort of that idea.
Because it is a fantasy.
Well of course, if one wants justice objectively enforced without any political concerns, Europe is the go to model. I mean, Jack Smith was at that Hague.
Another of your knee-jerk replies. Before posting why don't you take the time to learn something about the topic. Then type.
So who would select this "professionally trained judiciary"?
Hey Don, if you don’t want to be mocked you should probably stop making such blatantly stupid comments. Just some friendly advice.
The problem with divorcing prosecutions from politics isn't the judiciary, it's the DOJ.
Martinned2 — American constitutionalism relies on politics as the principal means to conduct public business. Whenever politics gets heedlessly maligned, American constitutionalism suffers.
One remedy—long past necessary—is for America’s legal system to stop joining in with the heedless attacks on politics. Knee-jerk partisanship in the legal system is a current major problem, but confine critiques to that problem. To fix it does not require rejection of the entire system by which America conducts its public affairs.
Instead, it would be far better to endorse politics, hold the conduct of politics to legally legitimate standards, and most of all, to be forthright in denying cynics the, “politics,” label they use to attack American constitutionalism. There are such occurrences as political crimes. Treason is a political crime. Insurrection is a political crime. Election fraud is a political crime. Bribery is a political crime. Partisan abuse practiced by justices of the Supreme Court ought to be a political crime.
Prosecutors heckled with charges of political prosecutions—when the prosecutors are investigating and charging political crimes—ought to reply, “Of course this is a political prosecution. The alternative is to let political crimes go undeterred, and invite the end of our system of governance. Our system makes responsible political prosecutions not only legitimate, but honorable. Political prosecutions are an indispensable bulwark of American constitutionalism.”
Jack Smith's disgraces are not that thing. Neither is Braggs or Fani's.
Just because you're through-and-through myopic to comprehend partisan prosecutions doesn't mean that such thing don't exist.
Prosecutors here in the US have a long and sordid history of being used just that way. Special Counsels and Independent Counsels before them are probably some of the most egregious examples of that.
Why would myopia have an effect on comprehension?
"non-partisan prosecution"
non-partisan does not mean non-political
”I think we would have been all better off without that colossal waste of time.”
Hey Josh,
The Mueller investigation revealed proof of Russian election interference, Trump’s willingness to allow it and benefit from it, 10 instances of Trump obstructing justice and several criminals held accountable for their behavior.
So how about a nice cup of shut the fuck up?
BS. The Mueller investigators and prosecutors tried to redeem themselves with their report, after AG Barr ordered the investigation shut down. It was sour grapes and half truths, that their true believers could use to continue the myth started by the Clinton campaign, after Trump had suggested that if the FBI wanted to see Clinton’s emails, they should just ask the Russians - who almost assuredly had them, having hacked her illegal email server. They were apparently, at one point reading her emails in real time, as her hacked server forwarded them to them.
The bottom line is that, regardless of the smoke blown by those Mueller prosecutors in their final report, no one was ever indicted for cooperating with the Russians.
In fact, hilariously, they did charge some Russians who were involved, and then backed down when the Russians volunteered to show up and have a trial.
Allegations so strong that they wilted as soon as the other side showed up and asked for discovery.
Typical Brett Bellmore disinformation. They charged some companies that they dropped the cases against. From the second link
So it does not sound like the defendants showed up. The threat was that Concord would use the case to
The US continued to pursue Prigozhin, who never showed up but asserted that he had interfered in US elections and would do so again.
It looks like the defendants were showing up and trial was only a few weeks away when the government decided to dismiss its own case.
It's remarkable that the government brought this case and then decided to drop it shortly before trial. Their explanation is not remotely convincing. They say prosecution "risks publicizing sensitive law enforcement information regarding measures used to investigate and protect against foreign influence over the political system."
Really, so it is a national security risk to prosecute supposedly committing horrific crimes against the US now? One would have thought that the government would be able to do so without disclosing such incredibly vital and sensitive highly classified and top secret national security information! And, if these are really criminal threats to national security, doesn't it risk national security to NOT prosecute them and just let them go free if you really had a case?
Then one would have thought wrong. Even foreigners get due process. The use of sensitive evidence at trial is a tradeoff because due process demands giving access to the accused, and sometimes the government decides that cost is too high.
I do though think it likely the government knew all this before filing charges, and were hoping the Russians wouldn't call their bluff.
Sure, but they still can, and do, prosecute people without disclosing top secret information or making public things that shouldn’t be made public. And giving access to the accused is one thing, but aren’t there situations where they can do that under seal?
Right, of course the Mueller team was bluffing as everyone with half a brain knows. As Andy McCarthy wrote at the time “The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictments-russians-politicized-pointless/
I did like how the entire Mueller team “forgot” their phone passwords and destroyed their phones.
I didn't say that the defendants showed up, if you go back and re-read what I wrote. I said that they volunteered to show up.
Now, did the government NOT know that the defendants lacked a presence in the US, or that an actual prosecution would have such risks? No, of course they knew.
They just didn't expect the Russians to call their bluff.
What would it mean for a Russian company to show up? If the Russian persons charged had actually agreed to show up, why wouldn't the government have waited until then to drop the case against the companies? Prigozhin continued to be wanted, although they might have intended to pursue a different case if they had gotten hold of him.
Trump worship has made you a friend of the worst kind of Russians, in very unsurprising news.
Way to prove you didn't bother following my links. Because the headline on the first one was, "Grand Jury Indicts Thirteen Russian Individuals and Three Russian Companies for Scheme to Interfere in the United States Political System".
Hm, what WOULD it mean for a Russian individual to show up? It's such a puzzler.
Maybe just teleport to the courtroom?
The Russian companies "showed up" in the sense of sending lawyers to demand discovery to get more United States secrets; with no assets in this country, what would have been achieved except to reveal "how the United States detects and prevents foreign election interference"? The Russian individuals? Apparently they did not show up, because the United States didn't drop the charges against them, and apparently they weren't willing to show up for a trial even to get those secrets (Prigozhin in particular never faced trial, although the US still sought him.)
Maybe Brett should read his own links.
You have to love the "almost assuredly" just a few sentences before stating "They were apparently, at one point reading her emails in real time, as her hacked server forwarded them to them."
These Bircher types are hilarious.
Clinton’s email server wasn’t illegal, per se - just the storing and transmitting of work related and/or classified documents on it. Work related emails for government workers are required to be stored on government email servers. And classified or potentially classified documents are required to be stored on email servers with at least their classification level or higher. Violation of the latter is a violation of the Espionage Act.
Are you contending that Clinton’s email server was not penetrated, or that it wasn’t the Russians who did it? The forensic fingerprints looked Russian, though the CIA is well known to have the capability to make such exploits look Russian.
Never, of course, happened.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. The server was not "illegal." And there's no evidence the Russians hacked it.
Apparently, Bruce Hayden molests children. (To be clear, I have no evidence of that, nor any actual good faith basis for thinking it, but that's consistent with Bruce Hayden's definition of the word "apparently.")
Paul Manafort was.
OMG we've got a Truther here.
Apart from the fact that the pertinent fact that the Russian collusion fraud was already known to be a fraud before the "investigation" even began.
Russian collusion was known to be true, after the investigation concluded.
Well yeah. Hillary's campaign fraud and collusion was clearly exposed by then.
There's that IKYABWAI? that is the only argument MAGA can ever muster.
No, that’s called the truth. The President (or is that Vice President? ask Joe) Trump Russian collusion charges are what we call a lie. Gaslight until you’re blue in the face Dave, if you enjoy degrading yourself. To each his own.
Russians "interfered" by buying a few hundred thousand dollars worht of Facebook ads.
No wonder people so easily believe elections are stolen.
Yes, if you ignore things like hacking the DNC, Russia didn't hack the DNC.
Why hack the DNC? They probably hacked Hillary's illegal, unsecure emails full of full of classified info.
So the thing we know they did, Riva ignores, in favor of something that there's not the slightest evidence they did, and then he invents fake claims to boot ("full of classified material.")
Keep in mind that this is the same clown who worships Trump despite the fact that he kept classified materials strewn around a country club.
As for Hillary, maybe you have a point. Why blame only the Russians? Every bad actor intelligence operation on the planet, and probably our allies, also likely hacked her illegal system.
And President Trump was in possession of documents pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, in a Secret Service protected secure area. Joe was illegally in possession of classified material he stole, unprotected by any law or privilege, that he kept in his garage and who knows where else. Maybe the ghost writer he illegally transmitted classified info to knows?
The Presidential Records Act doesn't have anything to do with NDI, and of course the Presidential Records Act says exactly the opposite of what you claim: that government documents belong to the government, not a former president, who has no right to possess them.
Also, Mar a Lago was not in fact a Secret Service protected area; they're bodyguards, not security guards.
Oh, and finally, Hillary's server was not "illegal."
It was consistent with the law for her private email server to contained information that was classified at a higher level than “top secret”? I guess then it was OK for Biden to steal all those classified docs and store them in his garage. My error.
It was not. It would also not be consistent with the law for me to write up notes about our classified battle plans to defend Taiwan from China, put them in an envelope, and mail them to you. But if I did, that would not make the receptacle outside your house an "illegal mailbox."
Her server was entirely legal. And it was legal for people to send ordinary work email to her at that address. People sending classified material to her there was not legal. But of course that was their crime, not hers.
So, highly classified info going back and forth in email conversations with her, through her private, non-government, not authorized by regulation or law (in other words, illegal) servers. Yeah, perfectly innocent. You’ve sure convinced me.
And, I have to point out that you kind of lack credibility here. Just a few comments ago, the existence of this highly classified info, was in your words, an invented, "fake" claim. Just more gaslighting BS from you.
And one additional thing should be noted in case anyone ever takes Dave’s gaslighting BS too seriously. Hillary Clinton's private email server contained information that was classified at a higher level than "top secret," the inspector general of the intelligence community told members of Congress in a letter obtained by CBS News.
Why hack the DNC? They probably hacked Hillary’s illegal, unsecure emails full of classified info.
You're still clinging to these conspiracy theories?
Everything I wrote is a confirmed fact. You are welcome to shove your lies back where they came from.
How did Trump -- a private citizen -- "allow" Russian election interference? To the extent it was "allowed", all roads lead to Obama and his administration. You can't heap his misdeeds on someone who wasn't even in the government at the time, lol.
it will be very hard for the President to do much mischief without the help of subordinates who lack immunity.
Aside from the little matter of, you know, the pardon power. Lots of murders in the cathedral...
The ridiculous thing is how many authoritarian clowns. from Blackman and up, seem to be so happy with presidential immunity. Haven't presidents done more than enough without thinking they're immune?
And these people actually refer to themselves as "libertarians" sometimes.
They tend to be what I call asymmetric libertarians. They're libertarian wrt their own lives, but not with the lives of others. Hypocrites, in other words.
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
This is unfair. None of these people refer to themselves as libertarians.
I don't know about Blackman, but doesn't Randy Barnett call himself a libertarian?
I think he does; I also think he has made about two posts a year (plus re-posting his "What the Declaration of Independence Said and Meant" annually) here for the last five or six years. He's a CINO (a [Volokh] Conspirator in Name Only).
BTW I wonder whether Blackman et al think the president is also immune from testifying in cases against other government officials. As he can't be prosecuted for official acts he can't assert 5A protection, nor can he argue he needs either preparation time or a lawyer. Yet I suspect that they would argue that it would be disruptive, etc. and so the president would be immune here as well.
And would perjury be an official act?
Bauer is sulking, and Blackman is gloating at the creation of a new monarchy.
In reality nothing Mueller-related has changed - as far as the DoJ was concerned the President was already immune from prosecution, and all their investigatory decisions were made under that policy. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court signing on will disturb that equilibrium.
It will be interesting though to see what happens with state prosecutions. Constitutional provisions read in the tea leaves have been enforced against the states in the past, but mostly ones that are rights-related. "Mostly" meaning, of course, "not entirely", with the Dormant Commerce Clause being a prime example of a non-textual constitutional provision that constrains the states.
A common mindset of criminals is that everybody’s a crook, and honesty is an impossible pipe dream of people who just don’t understand the way the world works.
It’s a very, very short step from saying you just can’t expect prosecutors to have anything other than purely political motives if they prosecute politicians, to saying you just can’t expect judges not to take bribes and decide cases based on what’s in it for them too. Once you start accepting that honesty is a pipe dream, crooked behavior becomes normative and anything goes.
If we start believing that people are basically crooks, our beliefs become who we are.
All too often, our beliefs and assumptions about other people reveal things about ourselves. After all, we don’t really know what other people are like. But we do have some inside knowledge about ourselves. And projection, mistaking truths about ourselves for truths about the world around us, is a very human thing to do.
We continue to read about the effects of a decision that allegedly deserves little reaction. This includes attacking the investigation of a career conservative, former FBI head, appointed by Republican presidents to various positions.
The special counsel was appointed to “ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” I suppose it is not a “core power” to run for election as a private citizen.
Various indictments, including of Russians, arose from the investigation. A significant result is the prosecution of Paul Manafort, who once chaired Trump’s presidential campaign. His crimes were financial and witness tampering. His involvement had a major financial incentive, a familiar criminal motive.
The Mueller Report did reference various presidential acts that were possible crimes. The wrongminded SCOTUS opinion very well probably blocks many if not all [others would have to parse them] such prosecutions after he left office. OTOH, Bill Barr mostly handled that himself by his corrupt analysis.
Still, overall, the investigation was not raised to address some “core presidential” function. Now, surely, a reasonable application of constitutional law would allow that too.
A federal judge who takes bribes to “help” them decide cases — such as how to vote in a major trademark dispute with financial implications for the person giving the bribe — is subject to criminal prosecution. Deciding cases is a ‘core’ judicial duty. Ruling for one side because of bribery should be open to criminal sanction.
If the Mueller Investigation involved the election of 2020, and Trump won, the fact that interference in a presidential election involved the acts of a sitting president should not make the investigation inappropriate.
Debates over the evidence here also is liable to confuse the issue. The concern here is the validity of the overall investigation as a concept.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-mueller
"His crimes were financial and witness tampering."
In other words, nothing to do with the election.
Some facebook ads are not "interference".
Stealing Clinton's Wisconsin atlas was dastardly I guess.
His financial crimes arose from political consulting work for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine.
The investigation involved Russian interference with the election.
The chair of Trump's political campaign is at issue here. He was involved with the campaign.
"Nothing" is being used here in a narrow sense. The prosecutions arose from the overall investigation. Other indictments had a more direct relation to the Russian interference campaign.
"political consulting work for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine"
Not illegal or even immoral. Did the pro-Russian party interfere in the US election?
[Though the government has made not filing a form illegal.]
"“Nothing” is being used here in a narrow sense."
I think you have a typo, you spelled "accurate" as "narrow ".
Not illegal or even immoral. Did the pro-Russian party interfere in the US election?
It was not alleged that merely supporting Russia was illegal or immoral.
There are rules in place regarding disclosure that have to be followed. These rules were broken in various instances by those involved in such lobbying. So, such details are relevant overall.
It is also relevant that the person who was the chair of Trump’s campaign was involved in lobbying for a pro-Russian party. His reckless spending and financial improprieties are a major risk. It is also “relevant” when investigating Russian interference.
My comment emphasized that I was not concerned as such about the results of the investigation as much as the overall legitimacy of having it. I’m not going to debate the evidentiary details though yes there is evidence he was involved with passing along information to a Russia agent. It not being beyond a reasonable doubt against the law, apparently, Mueller used other grounds.
It’s hard to tell whether the MAGA people who make arguments like this are stupid, dishonest, or both. Of course witness tampering has to do with the election. When you obstruct justice, that is not a ‘process crime.’ It’s a way to prevent prosecution for the actual crime.
E.g., I beat someone to death, and then I burn my bloody clothes to destroy evidence of the murder, and I bribe a witness to keep quiet, and I lie to the police about my motive. Prosecutors can’t charge me with murder because I successfully hampered the investigation, but they can charge me with obstruction. That doesn’t mean the obstruction charge “has nothing to do with” the underlying crime.
Ruling for one side because of bribery should be open to criminal sanction.
It is not, because of immunity.
The act of bribery itself is not subject to immunity, of course. Entering an order or judgment in exchange for a bribe is not a separate crime of its own.
There is no judicial criminal immunity. This has been noted repeatedly.
No one disputes a judge can be prosecuted for murder if there is substantial evidence he murdered his wife to continue an adulterous sexual affair with his underage teen lover.
Of course, since the Supreme Court held that private acts do not warrant immunity, by your reasoning, the President has no criminal immunity either.
“It is not, because of immunity.”
For the nth time, there is no judicial criminal immunity.
The lack of immunity is not just for unofficial acts such as a judge murdering their wife over an affair.
Of course, since the Supreme Court held that private acts do not warrant immunity, by your reasoning, the President has no criminal immunity either.
By your fantasy version of my reasoning, perhaps.
The lack of immunity is not just for unofficial acts such as a judge murdering their wife over an affair.
The only way- I repeat, the only way- I can think that an order or judgment a judge issues from the bench could possibly qualify as a crime is if it was criminal contempt of a superior appellate court. Such a prosecution for criminal contempt must of course be referred to a prosecutor by the appellate court in question. Prosecutors on their own do not decide if a judge is in contempt of a superior appellate court.
Absent that, there is no way some radical capital punishment abolitionist who happens to be a prosecutor can argue that a federal judge sentencing someone to death constitutes attempted murder and expect a result other than being laughed out of not just court, but the legal profession!
Again, judges are not immune from criminal prosecution for their official acts. Abuse of power, abuse of official acts, when illegal, can be prosecuted against the local dogcatcher as much as a state or federal judge. Judges are not only liable for private acts such as a wife killing her wife’s lover.
The appeal to possible horribles aside that are based on meritless charges, whatever the ideology of the prosecutor, whoever the indicted individual might be.
OTOH, if a federal judge illicitly sentenced someone to death because secretly the person had an affair with their spouse, and the judge knew they were innocent, the person might eventually have been executed wrongly.
Yes, it is possible to imagine a constitutional criminal statute that would allow such a judge to be liable to criminal charges.
Including if the judge is a federal judge.
BTW, I'll pretend you admitted you were wrong on the second part of what I allegedly said.
A judge orders a party to a case locked up — in the judge's words — "because he's black." That would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 — a criminal offense.
“In hindsight, this investigation should have never happened. I think we would have been all better off without that colossal waste of time.”
Well, it was a success for those that wanted it. The point of it was to hinder or prevent Trump from achieving the things that voters put him there to do, as they decided those things should not be permitted to happen regardless of what voters want. In other words, to subvert democracy.
Hey, full of shit: Trump got millions fewer votes than Hillary. That may have been legal, but it was not "democracy."
Good thing we live in a republic instead. Maybe civics class discussed that on the day you missed when they also covered separation of powers?
Once again, David Nieporent shows his IMpotent character.
He can never measure up to Jack Marshall!
We do not in fact "live in a republic instead." The "instead" is a nonsensical term, since there's no difference between a democracy and a republic; they both mean "rule by the people."
Also, the bot is malfunctioning again, since it spewed out this response despite it being unrelated to the prompt.
Your assignment Mr. Nieporent, should you decide to accept it, is to get over yourself and stop being a self important pompous ass.
There’s no difference between a democracy and a republic? Someone has been watching too much CNN. Given this and your past comments, I'm going to assume you never actually read the constitution. Give it a look. You'll find zero mention of "democracy." You will however find a document that provides safeguards to pure majoritarianism. Please stop commenting, it gives me a headache just to read such ignorance.
I suppose you think Eugene Volokh hasn’t read the Constitution either. You’re exactly who Eugene was referring to. Not just wrong. Not just ignorant. Militantly wrong and ignorant.
What did I say that was incorrect. Is the word “democracy” in the constitution? Does the constitution provide safeguards to pure majoritarianism? I’d say that’s a kinda what the bill of rights was for. So, to the extent you disagree with the above, yeah, you’re wrong. Not sure what "militantly wrong" means but if it means really really wrong, that would be you.
What did you say that was incorrect? You repeated the false choice between democracy and republic, a false choice Eugene Volokh refutes in the passage I quoted and the rest of his post. Refutations which you assiduously ignored. And then you had the nerve to call DN ignorant for not adopting your false choice. I call that militantly (or stubbornly if you prefer) ignorant, because the alternative would be that you’re dishonest, and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. Other than that, good point.
Try thinking for yourself and point out what exactly is incorrect in my comment. But you can’t. So instead you instead mindlessly refer to another authority and misrepresent my actual words. I can see you and Dave should be close buds. You could even be an alias of the imbecile, who knows or cares? Go play with him (or yourself?).
I’ll let you guess how many fucks I give that you think I can’t think for myself. I feel no need to reinvent the wheel when Eugene Volokh has provided a perfectly adequate refutation of your false choice, a refutation I happily concede I can’t improve upon.
So will you pretend you can’t read the quote, or just keep stonewalling, as if anyone wouldn’t notice you’re evading the demolition of your bullshit assertion?
That we "live in a republic instead [of a democracy]." We live in a republic, and a democracy, since they both mean the same thing.
There are indeed safeguards against pure majoritarianism in the constitution, but that does not in any way distinguish a republic from a democracy.
We do live in a republic. Do you vote for federal laws? Don’t recall any national referendums but maybe I missed them. Do you see the word democracy in the constitution? Do you also see ghosts? But the joke is, you said there was no difference between a republic and a democracy, so I don’t know why you’re objecting since you believe they’re the same thing although you never bothered to define the terms. But that would have required some intelligence but that's not your thing we’ll end this here.
"The U.S. Is Both a Democracy and a Republic"
- Eugene Volokh
"Don't just take it from me; take it from the Framers and other early American statesmen: "Democracy" has long included representative democracy as well as direct democracy, and "Republic" was used to refer to regimes that were not representative.
I often hear people argue (often quite militantly) that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that's a false dichotomy. A common definition of "republic" is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them"—we are that. A common definition of "democracy" is, "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives"—we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy."
As the kids say, read the whole thing. And get over yourself.
Yes. It is a silly word game.
I think it’s fair to define “democracy” as requiring a sizable majority of the population to have the right to vote and have a say in government.
I think people who say that in 1787 that we didn’t have a democracy since almost all women could not vote (maybe a few voted in NJ), few blacks could vote, and many without property could not vote is a reasonable statement.
We have become much more of a democracy since then.
Professor Blackman, do you believe Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski performed a "meaningful function?"
It's telling Blackman doesn't mention Hur. Nor did he ever raise an objection to Hur investigating Biden.