United States v. Nixon

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with that landmark decision:

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which resulted in a unanimous 8–0 ruling against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver presidential tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to the District Court. Issued on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

Here is the rest of the Wikipedia entry.


Like when Hillary and the DNC were ordered to turn over their private servers to the FBI.

"Sure, but oops we lost some" goes back further than that. Iran-Contra I know about. Probably many others in the last 200 years.

Or when Obama and Holder claimed "privilege" to cover up Fast and Furious.

It wasn't really anyone's business but theirs, you know. Congressional subpoenas? Meh.

But these things *really are* open questions. It's a Conftitutional Crifis on every corner. I don't think it's even logically possible to have a closed set of decision-criteria for all these situations and people in power are, y'know, in power so they get a say.

All of the cia project artichoke documents save two were apparently destroyed in a fire.

Ordered? Last I heard the usual SOP for law enforcement is that they can request you give them your personal property, or they can get a warrant. A request is, of course, optional. If you defy a warrant you are committing a crime. Surely if either Hillary or the DNC committed a crime you will be a good citizen and report that to law enforcement. And I'm sure a Department of Justice run by Sessions isn't going to balk at filing criminal charges on either the DNC or Hillary.

"Landmark decision" is code for "judicial con useful for advancing prog political objectives (public opinion be damned)". United States v. Nixon said the president had to honor a subpoena. This was advantageous to one side only in the short term.

Yes. The SCOTUS decision here was purely political not judicial.

Relying primarily on slogans, nonsequiturs, and sharp detours around standard judicial process... the Court proudly proclaimed the supremacy of the Federtal judiciary. Jefferson's fears were realized, once again. Nixon's departure was a good thing, but impossible to find its justification in the SCOTUS unanimous opinion.
The Constitutional structure of government was jeopardized by a Court "opinion" that says no more
than: "The President cannot assert that he is the law, because We are the law."

You really got your trolling pants on this week. Hey, it's your blog.

A significant percentage of the population decided on November 9th, 2016 that they would drum this guy out by whatever means necessary. Zero compunction, certitude about possessing moral high ground, yada yada.

If the subject is important precedents and their implications for the future, this is worth chewing on.

You guys literally debarred a sitting President from even having his judicial nominee considered. Don't whine now that all the power's yours.

You're an idiot. The republicans had the senate. When was the last time a president got his nominee through a candidate when his side did not control the senate? Answer: has not happened since you god damn side in 2001 decided that using the filibuster was fair game even if the candidate was "scholarly or erudite". Likely it will never happen again, unless your pals in the 4th estate gain even more power.

Your side is the the worst. You escalate, continually, and yet you have the gall to try and blame the other side.

Everybody, step back. Take a breath. Maybe you should get together for a beer. You might even share a common interest: like this website,

Partisans gotta partisan. Depressing, when will it end? It's been almost 25 years of this crap.

".. It’s been almost 25 years of this crap...."

I'd say it's been more like 35 years of this crap. And it will end, when a majority of American's decide to place a pox on both their houses or we have a big enough enemy to make common cause.

Tell me more about this pox thing.

Me guys? I voted for Hillary.

And if you have been paying attention, Trump is hemmed in on all sides, including half of his own party, so your twaddle about power is misplaced.

Gridlock for DC while the rest of the country gets on with its life. What's not to like.


Some tax reform, or regulation reform would be nice though.

Other, possibly related, historical events of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

Did something new just happen? Trump's reelection odds (30%) and odds of leaving in 2020 or later (50%) are exactly where they've been for months. Obviously those are much worse odds than you would expect given how good the economy is, but keep in mind Pence's odds are around 10%.

I say Trump limps along to finish his term but doesn't run for reelection, citing age, the press, the 'Swamp'/deep state, etc. If we haven't had a recession during the term, Pence wins a nail biter against whoever. If Trump does run again and/or we have a recession, then Democrats take the White House.

The two new sets of facts are Don Jr's emails, acknowledging Russian government assistance, and the WSJ article, claiming 2015 preparation by the Russians.

But that might not be as immediate an influence as Trump's decision to back Don Jr today, and implicitly acknowledge Russian collusion. So much for six months of calling just that "fake news."

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know how Mueller will read all this, but things have changed.

"but things have changed.'

No they havent. The media is still overhyping every bit of Trump news and enough people are lapping it up that it will never stop.

Even if you think it is over-hyped, you should admit that the facts in evidence have changed (in part because of dogged investigation).

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."

Question to you .. do you really not care that you were told 101 times that there was no contact, and that this was fake news?

Its not that i dont care, i just dont think it really changes anything. This is the problem with a media that has squandered it credibility, no one listens no matter what the message is.


And it does not occur to you that every day Trump has drummed "the press is the enemy," and "fake news," and "believe only me"

.. has been preparing you for this day?

*This* day? Come now, this is not the worst thing you are going to see from this administration.

Trump didnt make the press the enemy, they did that to themselves. He is just the beneficiary.

A little reminder:

"A bombshell New York Times report published Tuesday revealed that in a February conversation in the Oval Office, Trump asked Comey about jailing reporters who leaked classified information."

In retrospect that sure looks like a strong interest in bottling things up.

Are you reminding me that not two weeks ago the left was furiously shitting their pants about Comey or reminding me that Trump is continuing Obama/Bush's war against leakers unabated?

I mean, i get it, whatever Trump thing in the news this week is the most important thing EVAR!!/worse then watergate/worse then the holocaust/an extinction level event, but you have to understand how exhausting it all is. I mean it would be different if something were actually happening as a result of all this hype, but as far as i can tell, the only result is better ratings and more clicks for the media.

Agreed MOFO, but endless posts about how he personally uncovered the scoop that Trump is a douchebag is literally polar bear/anon/shrug's hobby. I used to wonder why he kept changing his handle for a guy who wants to make sure we all know how smart he is about Trump, but then I realized he thinks he's convincing us that 4-5 posters are all agreeing with him.

Everything Trump and his team are doing is almost exactly how I figured it would go, and that was obvious to anyone paying attention. Happily, the system is containing the dbaggery

To be honest I remembered my own surprise and concern at Trump's attacks on a free press and went looking for an example. This seems very different to me than any time in the last 50 years. A president who wanted to jail reporters seemed relevant.



Yes msgkings, we know you wish it could be you.

But you went with "this is fine."

LOL, sure go with that again anon.

For a moment of comedy


This is fine. Completely normal. The system will support a somewhat sub-optimal president, and the man on the street won't even notice. Only a zealot would say this was unusual.

Of course it's unusual, no zealotry needed to see that. So what?

Whaa Cute Bear is anon and Shrug? I didn't see it before, I bet you're right!

"On April 30, 2010, David Kernell was found guilty on two of four counts..."

"In November 2010 he was sentenced to one year and one day of prison, and three years of probation."

That was when someone hacked Sarah Palin's email account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack#Trial_verdict).

" The media is still overhyping every bit of Trump news and enough people are lapping it up that it will never stop."

Definition of conspiracy:
"Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement."

Trump Jr. is probably very close, if not already over the line, to meriting a conspiracy conviction. Remember, a kid messing around got a year in jail for Palin's Yahoo account. You ever have anyone hack your email account? Did they spend a year in jail for it?

"Trump Jr. is probably very close, if not already over the line, to meriting a conspiracy conviction"

Really? How close? Like as close as Trump Sr. came to getting impeached for firing Comey? Cause i was super sure that was going to happen.

" Remember, a kid messing around got a year in jail for Palin’s Yahoo account. You ever have anyone hack your email account? Did they spend a year in jail for it?"

God i hope so.

How close? A hell of a lot closer than Hillary Clinton ever was or ever will be to any criminal conviction.

"and implicitly acknowledge Russian collusion"

STFU. Make a real claim. But you won't, you are horrible.

Learn to read. The email says "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump" and Trump says "I think from a practical standpoint most people would have taken that meeting."

That is implicit acknowledgement.

Heck, it is possibly explicit.

The only thing that changed is that Donald Trump Jr probably broke a campaign finance law. You know, like Bernie accused Hillary of doing.

There's exactly zero evidence that Trump and Putin were having regular meetings to jointly plan a political campaign to stop Hillary Clinton's election, which is the narrative the media and the Democrats are advancing.

I agree that Democrats have gotten ahead of the facts, and even if the facts caught up in this instance, it may not always be true.

Baby bear,

You lost. Get over it.

You lost the POTUS, the House, the Senate, 1000 state legislature seats, 13 governerships, and now the SCOTUS.

You really should figure out what your message is, maybe therapy can help, I don't know. After find your true, inner self, you can try selling your message to the American people that don't live in NY or CA. Good luck
with that.

Or, you could just keep blunting your pick on that stone. I enjoy watching the show!

Don't forget your pink pussy hat - I think you got that thing really working for you! ;)

Buddy, if you this this is winning I worry about the rest of your life.

Who in the mainstream media (say, broadcast news, CNN, NYTimes, WaPo or WSJ) has claimed that "Trump and Putin were having regular meetings to jointly plan a political campaign"? That is a pretty extraordinary claim that I encounter far more frequently as a strawman to be knocked down by Trump supporters than as a sincere accusation being offered up by respectable, mainstream journalists.

Someone must be dialed in, these are the new goalposts.


I don't think that Trump partisans are well-served by being so defensive. If it is even possible that some members of his campaign colluded with Russia but with no evidence Trump personally signed of on the collusion (as seems to have been the case with the Watergate burglary), he should eagerly await the results of the ongoing investigations, throw the guilty parties under the bus and then get on with the business of running the executive branch. Sure, it's embarrassing but almost certainly less so than many other revelations that have come out over the course of his time in public life. His opponents already think he has poor judgment and associates with scumbags and incompetents so their minds won't be changed and his supporters who have come this far almost certainly won't be phased.

If Trump Jr was meeting with flaky Russians to get dirt on Hilary (and that dirt was supposedly that Hilary was taking Russian money or info), doesn't this prove the Russian collusion story is false?

If Trump Sr was in cahoots with Putin, surely Jr wouldn't be chasing info this way.

It's getting nuts. Bill can meet Lynch while Hilary is being investigated and the media yawns. Trump Jr wants info during a campaign and its impeachment.

The gang that couldn't shoot straight was still a gang, and shooting.

"It’s getting nuts. Bill can meet Lynch while Hilary is being investigated and the media yawns"

So what, he bumped into her at an airport. Clinton was Sec. of State while Lynch was AG. They worked together. If Clinton wanted to 'message' Lynch he could have easily done so without needing a face to face meeting in a public place.

Besides we ultimately have confirmed Hillary was totally clean. How do we know? Because Lynch wasn't investigating her, James Comey was as Lynch recused herself because she was essentially a co-worker with Hillary. As you recall Comey not only found nothing to prosecute but the current president actually fired him for being mean to Hillary! Why, o why would Trump fire someone for being too critical of Hillary unless the truth was there was nothing to prosecute and even his verbal criticisms of her was unjustified?

Remember Trumpsters, your new position is to eat shit for the rest of your life. All the crap you put out there before November has now come full circle on you. If you don't like it then I suggest you look at the man who put you in this position by squandering your integrity.

"Remember Trumpsters, your new position is to eat shit for the rest of your life"

Oh god, i had no idea it was that serious!!! The rest of my life? Like when im 80 and trying to get a hip replacement are they going to be like "sorry, we could do this procedure, but i see that you werent as critical of Trump as you should have been, so fuck you"? Are they going to carve it on to my tombstone? "here lies a man who was critical of Hillary Clinton and not as critical of Donald Trump" Will it follow my kids around too? Please, please tell me i can just click my heels together 3 times and it will all go away!

"Oh god, i had no idea it was that serious!!! The rest of my life? Like when im 80 and trying to get a hip replacement are they going to be like “sorry, we could do this procedure, but i see that you werent as critical of Trump as you should have been, so fuck you”? "

Perhaps if the health bill passes you could be in a reduced Medicaid nursing home where the nurse will skimp on your morphine.

It IS a polar bear. Man, I wish this board had ANSI art. Two steps forward, one step back.

If members of a campaign wanted to collude with a foreign government -- possibly breaking criminal laws in the process -- arranging in-person meetings with intermediaries is a very plausible way of moving forward.

Of course, we could settle political feuds the old fashioned way, in a duel. For those of you not familiar with that landmark decision, the VP shot and killed the former Treasury Secretary, the latter the nemesis of the sitting president as well as the rival of the VP. The VP, having done the deed, ran like a scared rabbit and hid at a southern slave plantation until the crisis receded. Later, the former VP would mount an insurrection against the government to which he had previously pledged his loyalty. Over 100 years later it must have pleased the Treasury Secretary that his rival, while hiding at a slave plantation, would look across the sound to the island to the south where leading bankers and the Senator from NY met in secret and hatched the plan for what became the modern Fed, the deceased having the last laugh while his former rival suffers the indignity of forever a traitor.

I can't wait to read the deleted tweets from the Tweeter-in-chief.

Do you think Don Jr. will hang for treason?

I don't know. Do you think HC will hang for treason for accepting millions from foreign governments?

Whataboutism is all Trumpistas have to work with. Sad!

You don't need any Whataboutism here.

The worst case scenario is that Donald Trump Jr. broke a Campaign Contribution law. But since he didn't actually receive any contribution, it's doubtful that what he did is criminal. It's certainly stupid. It's clear that the media is attempting to spin it into a story of Treason. It's also clear that this was neither treason nor collusion with the Russian government.

I did like the Time's cover, in a kind of over the top full on TDS manner: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/juniorcoverfinal.jpg

One almost never needs whataboutism but that doesn't stop Trumpistas from shouting "Hillary!", an unemployed grandma, every time Trump or his people do something stupid. Of course it's not treason, but just as obviously Trump is unfit to be president. This judgment has nothing to do with the fitness of the unemployed grandma.

" Of course it’s not treason, but just as obviously Trump is unfit to be president. "

This episode raises my opinion of Trump and his administration. Confronted with an awkward fact, Donald Trump Jr. voluntarily released the entire email chain to the public. Those aren't the actions of someone with something to hide. He didn't lawyer up, refuse to release anything without a subpoena and then destroy all his personal emails when confronted with the inevitable subpoena.

"But since he didn’t actually receive any contribution,"

thats what he said. i assume he's lying.

This incident isn't why Trump is unfit to be president, although it does add to the list. It's just another example of total disregard for norms that should be respected. And anyway, the man is president and that's that. He's terrible, but we've had those before.

JWatts, if you were born yesterday this timeline may be useful:


The younger Trump should have come clean much earlier, and it was certainly a norm to inform the FBI much earlier, given open knowledge of investigations. Instead these knuckleheads hid contacts.

As far as what we should do, with a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," there is nothing wrong with asking for better, every day.

The worst case scenario keeps getting worse.

Your certainty around what is clear and what is not is unfounded.

I don't follow the news closely at all, but could somebody explain to me what is the big deal. As far as I can tell the story goes: Russian lawyer lady somehow lets trump campaign peeps know she has dirt on Clinton. Trump probably tell don jr to go see what it's about. Turns out she doesn't have anything. Is that it?

Is it a big deal because she is Russian? Or just foreign? Or what? This seems utterly trivial to me, but I'm sure there must be more to it.

Josh, we have old news that Russians did everything from attack voting machines to generate Facebook memes for the last election. We have an intercept of Putin instructing his intelligence services to do these things for Trump. We have both public (from the podium) and now private (in these emails) acknowledgement of these efforts from the Trump campaign.

That's pretty bad, especially without any mea culpa that it might have gotten out of hand. Instead Trump still laughs with Putin about the enemy press, and still talks about giving back the compounds. That deserves a WTF?

But, McCain tells us to expect more shoes to drop, that "this is a centipede."

Of the things you said only voting machine tampering seems a big deal. Facebook memes? Seriously? Of course they wanted to trump to win, Clinton wanted to deny Assad air support in Syria even if it meant shooting down Russian planes. I'm sure lots of countries aided one side or the other.

The voting machine thing is serious. Why haven't i heard anything about that?

Can't you see how from trumps perspective this is a crazy with hunt? Russians can post whatever they like on Facebook.

The voting machines are important, and I think it is harder today for Trump to say "sure, but that has nothing to do with me."

On memes, do you believe in psy-ops?


If there really were organised psy-ops run out of Russia and against a US politician, why the neck should that get a free pass?

Voting machines:


"This episode raises my opinion of Trump and his administration."

Jared Kushner, the guy who has been entrusted with solving the Israel-Palestine conflict and the opioid crisis, among other things, forgot to list this meeting on his security clearance form. That's a big mistake, and pretty inexcusable from someone who has been handed such incredible responsibility and can afford legal representation from one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. All it took was, "Hey, I'm really busy and we are covered by client confidentiality, right? Here is my Gmail password and appointment book, please find all meetings that were with foreign nationals and list them on my clearance form and add the time you spend on this to my bill. Thanks!"

I don't know about free pass, but by your definition of psyop, there has never been an American election during the last century that didn't include foreign "influence" at least during the past century. In fact, there may not be an election anywhere in the world wherein the us does not conduct psy-ops. If you could somehow order all American presidential elections since 1900 from most to least effective foreign influence, is there any reason to think that this would even come out in the top half? Is there even any reason to think that Russia was the most unfluential foreign sovereign psy-op operator?

Not only that but, also by your definition, Goldman Sachs, the tides foundation, The NY Times, the CIA and eight zillion other organizations that only care about their own interest are engaged in psy-ops. Why should I be particularly outraged about one more corporation trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Americans may not agree on everything, but for many years the standard was that elections were fought between Americans.

BTW, bad news for the "this is normal" crowd:


Strange how Trumpistas talk as if they are still in their mom's basements furiously retweeting the memes their Russian friends hand them. If you think Hillary committed a crime then prosecute her. Last I saw Trump was still President and his Attorney General nominee was confirmed and took office.

Isn't the point that neither what the Democrats nor Republicans did was a campaign finance violation?

Do you know how you sound when you talk about "their Russian friends"? I always thought depictions of the red scare must be cartoon history, but then I see people talking to each other like this.

Well we do have a Constitution and it does state that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Hmmmmm...I'm thinking the answer is no. But don't listen to me, Carlos Slim's paper of record once explained it all: http://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/25/news/treason-against-the-united-states.html?pagewanted=all


"The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war"

Oh...so now the Trump haters argue that the Pentagon determines the law of the land. Twist a Democrat's ear, listen to a fascist squeel.

Ha! Squeal like a pig! The loony left is praying for "Deliverance"!

They will get it in the end...;)

Let's not forget:

The privilege doesn't exist for the period before he was President.

Yeah, but I think his Rich White Guy privilege was still operative, so...we'll see.

So much fake news, is this all about Trump jr meeting with that Russian lawyer. The one that Obama had given the special visa allowing her into the country? The one in photographs meeting with high level Democrats? The one that provided no useful information to Trump jr?

Maybe I'm missing something, can't stand to watch Rachel Maddow for 5 minutes again.

Yes, it was Obama's fault for letting loose the serpent which would tempt poor Junior to eat the apple.

Are those things true or not?

So why were high level democrats meeting with her? Right over your head huh. The Democrats couldn't possibly have been colluding with Russia...noob

Did Democrats meet with her after being told a Russian gov't lawyer was interested in meeting with them to supply oppo research? Right over your head huh. Context counts...noob.

And there was no information to be given. And Loretta Lynch extended the lawyers visa to get her into the country in the first place. The guy that set up the meetings was a dem operative, the lawyer was a dem supporter and posted this on her twitter. And then the meeting was used to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign in the middle of an election. Ahh but yeah none of that's important.

Loretta Lynch personally sat there ruling on visa extension application? That seems pretty mundane to me and something a Russian gov't lawyer could easily have done. If you're not causing any trouble I imagine visa extensions are no big deal.

"The guy that set up the meetings was a dem operative,..."

Really? Trump Jr.'s email said his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting. Goldstone never worked as a 'dem operative'. He was a British tabloid journalist for a short period before becoming a music publicist in the late 80's.

No doubt those 'high level democrats', whatever that is, had great concern about Russian adoption laws just like Don Jr.

Talking to a Russian lawyer... TREASON!

Accepting a $1.4 million payoff, plus a $500,000 check to your husband, as a bribe to sell one-fifth of the US uranium supply to the Russian government.... SHUT UP ALREADY YOU SEXIST!!!

Fake news bro hahahahaaaaaahaha.

Gee, not like there's a Republican President or Attorney General who could prosecute Hillary for accepting a bribe.

Nixon AND Bill Clinton should have ignored the Supreme Court- Nixon with the tapes and, even more so, Clinton with the claimed obligation to testify in a civil lawsuit.

The Supreme Court will always arrogate power to the Supreme Court. They are just as dangerous to our Democracy as any other branch-- perhaps even more so.

It's fascinating to see what the alt-right here really means about the claims that Hillary & others were corrupt. Normal initial reading "Hillary was really corrupt, we need someone who won't do these things". It turns out what was really meant was "We want to wallow in corruption, so anything anyone else ever did that seems remotely similar will be repeated over and over again to make corruption the new norm".

There are some real cynics out there, who say Trumpians will say "better foreign domination than Hillary!"

We will see.

How many are for giving back Russian compounds, reversing sanctions, today?

Just don't see the corruption only lies about corruption.

Yes of course. If all these facts applied to President Hillary Clinton you would be shrugging here asking where was the corruption?

Here is a good thread on that, what we are asked to believe today:


Not least, Kushner who was in that meeting then wanted a secret back channel, using Russian intelligence equipment, for totally normal reasons.

Oh my goodness the pantshitting going on in that Twitter thread. anon you have to get over there and chime in, those re your people!

I think there is a difference, I do have the self-control to stay current with the news, and not go beyond it.

Facts in evidenc:, the Don Jr meeting, and the Jared attempt to set up a back channel with Russian spy equipment.

Where that leads? Tbd.

So now I'm alt-right for having doubts whether sleazy politicking by a blowhard's son amounts to the treason that the deranged Left sees everywhere?

Are you being too careful, treating this is isolation, apart from other facts in evidence?

For those too young to know, with two exceptions (Inouye and Montoya) the Watergate Committee consisted of Republican and southern Senators, the southern senators more aligned with the policies of Nixon and the Republicans than the Democrats. Yet. Today's Republicans aren't yesterday's Republicans. Like the Reichstag, today's Republican Congress will follow their Leader.

Nixon didn't have many policy problems[1]. Nixon had the problem where he reminded people of the Shakespeare version of RIchard III.

[1] that anybody much knew about at the time... Operation Menu et al. was a latent, but not active, policy problem. The Vietnam War was popular right up until Cronkite told them it was lost.

Wow, incredibly stupid and godwinning at once. Good job, ray!

Not enough of a Straussian to get it the OP. I thought we determined there were no tapes.

Regarding Don Jr., receiving information from a foreign government was the apparent intent, it didn't exist, and nothing of value was exchanged. If the info did exist, it's unclear what the crime would be and why it wouldn't be protected by the first amendment (I can go on Wikileaks and download emails stolen by Russians; it's not a crime. There's nothing to distinguish this as any different.)

I don't associate alt-right, didn't vote at all in this election, but everybody talking about this in the press looks crazy. I would vote for Trump at this point just because he's made all the right enemies.

Comparing Nixon and Trump is ridiculous! Nixon was much more accomplished president, and a much deeper thinker policy-wise. He did mess up in Watergate. Had that never happened, I think Nixon would have a place close to Reagan in the GOP pantheon!

This is not far off. Nixon had many policy successes. His rep is solely because of the Watergate problem. I wish Trump were another Nixon.

Nixon was much more accomplished president,

Escalating inflation, wage and price controls and associated shortages, two recessions in < 6 years (but no recission in inflation until he'd left office...hmmm), OPEC and gas lines, vanity spending on the Presidential campaign while Republican congressmen went down to defeat, judicial selection process courtesy Harold Lloyd, Get Smart! plots courtesy Egil Krogh, Gordon Liddy, John Dean, and Charles Colson; and perk-madness which had the President's speechwriters awarded portal-to-portal limousine service.

One defense: whatever he sought, Congress sought something worse. (Pretty much the story of every Administration between 1969 and 1995).

New drinking game: Ctrl+f the MR comments thread for "Hillary". Good trolling Tyler.

Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information? Hey, there's actual case law on this.

I suspect conspiracy is where you'd get him. Hacking someone's email is a crime, proposing to go forward with a plan where one side will do something illegal is a conspiracy.

If the Russian agent was meeting with Trump Jr because she had a list of really witty one-liners written by Russia's best comedians for Trump Sr. to use on the campaign trail....you might have an argument that that wasn't really a 'campaign contribution' even though the campaign finance laws ban non-monetary donations to campaigns by foreign powers and even if it was the 1st amendment would overrule in this area. But receiving and using or even just agreeing to work with an entity that will/has stolen something would be illegal.

Consider the case of the stolen book and VHS tape of Bush rehearsing for the debate that was sent to a Gore campaign official. He immediately turned it over to the FBI and recused himself from coaching Gore on the debate. If he gleefully opted to just use the material and not do anything he could be an accessory after the fact...even if he had nothing to do with the theft. On the other hand if he meet with the woman who stole the material and said her offer to help 'sounds good' he could be hit with a conspiracy charge.

This is absurd as it implies that the media's collusion with leakers of classified information, should result in criminal charges against journalists.

If a journalist meet with someone and had a conversation like this:

"You like to be famous, even anonymously right?"
"OK if you were to hack the email of someone famous or important and give them to me, I would have a great story and you would have fame even though I wouldn't use your name...."
"Yea ok that sounds good"

You'd have an illegal conspiracy. On the other hand if the hacker simply gave the journalist emails it wouldn't be a conspiracy...but the hacker would still be liable for hacking.

Trump Jr's problem is that all of these would be crimes:

'Bargaining' with Russia to support dropping of sanctions if Trump Sr. wins the election.

Accepting material campaign aid. That would be either direct aid "give people working on the campaign useful info" or indirect aid "leak to a 3rd party like wikileaks useful info". That would break campaign finance laws.

Going along with an illegal act. "Break into someone's computers and see if there's damming emails" or after the fact "ohh you stole some emails, anything good you can give me?".

Trump Jr’s problem is that all of these would be crimes:

See Jonathan Turley's assessment: no indication of any crimes outside the imagination of partisan Democrats.

"‘Bargaining’ with Russia to support dropping of sanctions if Trump Sr. wins the election."

We have audio of one Barack Obama making an offer of improved Russian outcomes in diplomacy should Mr. Obama be reelected.

"Accepting material campaign aid. That would be either direct aid “give people working on the campaign useful info” or indirect aid “leak to a 3rd party like wikileaks useful info”. That would break campaign finance laws."

If that broke campaign finance laws, then it is time to indite every journalist at ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, and Huffpo.

"“ohh you stole some emails, anything good you can give me?”"

This is likely a direct quote from NYT journalists speaking with their friends who leak classified information to further the political agenda they share with the NYT.

I'll take the deal btw, we prosecute Trump for these things, as well as every leftist journalist in existence.

"We have audio of one Barack Obama making an offer of improved Russian outcomes in diplomacy should Mr. Obama be reelected. "

We do? An offer of Obama offering Russia 'improved outcomes in diplomacy' should they support his re-election? Or do you simply mean Obama asserting he will work to improve relations with Russia to US voters? Trump offered the same thing and that is not problematic.

"If that broke campaign finance laws, then it is time to indite every journalist at ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, and Huffpo. "

Feel free to do so if you can prove it. Let me remind you again that Trump's man runs the Justice department.

"This is likely a direct quote from NYT journalists speaking with their friends who leak classified information to further the political agenda they share with the NYT."

See above answer, if you find NYT journalists are arranging the theft of emails rather than simply receiving data from sources then you can request the Justice Department file charges against them for conspiracy.

People leak because there is an unstated expectation that it will be published and published in a way conducive to the goals of the leaker. The law isn't stupid; you don't need to verbalize with the pawn shop that the goods are stolen to make the case that the pawn shop is complicit in criminal activity by having a pattern of purchasing stolen items. As for prosecution, let's be clear, it is the Democrats who are stretching as far as humanly possible to create a crime out of a conversation with a possible informant. Like I said, I would agree to the prosecution you are proposing if you were willing to apply the law equally, but you apparently aren't, and we can say for certain that journalists/volunteer DNC spokespeople aren't.

I mean, seriously, NPR did an interview with Kamala Harris that was nothing more than a campaign commercial. Did they report this to the FEC? Will Kamala side with the CFPB on funding issues? Quid pro quo. Go get her and the hack journalist at NPR.

I see a clear distinction. It is one thing for a foreign source (government aligned or not) to provide foreign evidence. It is another thing completely for a foreign actor to offer aid within the US.

This whole thing only matters because is possibly connects to things like attempted intrusions into our voting machines!

Facts in evidence: the meeting, the claim of Russian government support, the attempts by Russian hackers to change voter themselves.

"It is one thing for a foreign source (government aligned or not) to provide foreign evidence. It is another thing completely for a foreign actor to offer aid within the US."

So if I am following you, had Trump Jr. conducted this meeting in Moscow, it would have been better? No one believes that you believe this. You are incredibly dishonest.

Please, please, please put some sexual scandal in the next criminal/treasonous accusation. This one is just soda crackers and water. People will pay a lot more attention to something with sex in it, and all these accusations are making me so tired. How about something along the lines of Trump paying prostitutes to pee on the bed the Obamas slept in? Now that had sizzle, and was, as you can see, memorable. But could we work around the Russians in the next accusation? That's getting overworked too. When you throw jello against a wall to see if anything will stick, you should change flavors every now and then.

Yawn. Nothing "landmark" about that obscure case. I bet if you did a LEXUS citation search you'd not find many cases that cite it. It's a badly worded compromise opinion that is limited to the holding of no broad based absolute executive privilege. But POTUS can easily get around this case law by simply saying national security is at stake. And Nixon got the last laugh when he erased certain portions in the tape.

BTW, doesn't Watergate feel tame now? With Iran-Contra and all the other shenanigans, including fake weapons of mass destruction reports, collaborating with US enemies (e.g., in Somalia, Libya --the USA paid for most of the damages for the PanAm 103 Lockerbie flight downed by Qaddafi-- and Russia), it does to me.

Agreed. Nixon did not coordinate with a foreign power or become subject to blackmail by it, not saying that Trump did without more evidence.

What are you supposed to do when your political opposition is being fed classified information via Susan Rice unmasking your communications?

If you want to have secure pre-administration talks with the Russians, which won't be illegally leaked to the NYT by the Obama administration, what do you do?

Obviously you hire a transnational private intelligence company to spy hack and bribe. They can use cutouts and get foreign and corporate info on your enemies. That's the right honorable way. Anything but ze Russians!

Prior, your quote exemplifies "pre-administration talks".

Didn't Nixon negotiate with the North Vietnamese in Paris before he was elected president? He ran on having a secret plan to end the war with honor. Also, you guys are missing out on the mileage to be had from the Checkers speech. That must have shortened Ike's life by a few years.

Didn’t Nixon negotiate with the North Vietnamese in Paris before he was elected president?

No, the contention (not proven IIRC) was that they told Nguyen Van Thieu to hang tough to avoid diplomatic breakthroughs for the outgoing Administration.

of course Nixon coordinated with a foreign power.

Comments for this post are closed