Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 114: Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wanglicious posted...

where'd you get that? i literally said that the issue of the presidential pardon should be posed to Kushner as that's a far more accurate take. i've made it pretty damn clear that's why i think Trump is asking. how is any of that "innocent?"

who can he pardon, what can he pardon, what limits are there to pardoning - each of these questions ultimately gets you back to the president pardoning himself as a limit. impeachment is generally considered something to do with presidents so even if you just say the specific words, the immediate followup will be asking if the president can pardon himself. that's part of why it's just a non-starter. it doesn't work as a story because that's just normal conversation about it.

I'm referring to you saying that him asking if he can pardon himself isn't alarming.

The only way it isn't is if you just assume he's doing so innocently like some child in a museum
---

Wang being wrong again, eh? What's new.
---

I sincerely doubt Donald Trump has ever intentionally sought out any bit of knowledge he did not intend to use primarily or solely to benefit himself.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Oh my god, clickbait for repeating words directly from the article !!

and then if you just look at the next two paragraphs you'll get exactly what i posted, where the only two comments are that he's trying to figure out what the power can do and that no, the conversation isn't about pardoning himself.

meaning that the full scope this has is that there isn't anything to really highlight, let alone use to say... bait people on twitter to clicking on the article.

"Oooh, what is this going to be about?"
"Oh, that this isn't actually what it's about."

but to get to those next two paragraphs you'd actually have to read the article.

hell, the headline is "Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller's Russia investigation" and that is the what it's mostly about. which is very different than the twitter clickbait.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm referring to you saying that him asking if he can pardon himself isn't alarming.

The only way it isn't is if you just assume he's doing so innocently like some child in a museum

no, it's because that's something that will always come up if you're trying to discuss limits of the power. it's one of the only limitations you've got.
---

I kind of get it, because the article is kind of jumping to conclusions by using the sentence "trump's lawyers seek to undercut Mueller's Russia investigation" Like him asking about pardons isn't explicit proof that that's what he's trying to accomplish, and I don't really see how that affects mueller at all.

However, at the same time, the timing of asking about pardons when so many of his staff/himself are in such deep doodoo that the conclusion is actually pretty easily reached.

Is his asking about pardons alarming? I think so because since when has trump tried to demonstrate a better understanding of the presidency? You think he's just had a change of heart and decided he needs to grasp it better? That is naive. But is that article's headline rather misleading? Also yes, even though I am inclined to believe that trump would totally obstruct mueller given the chance, like I mentioned earlier the mere act of asking about pardons isn't blocking mueller in any way.
---

I can't believe Wang is uncritically taking Trump's aide's PR spin at face value.

I mean, I can, that seems exactly like something he'd do, but uh... you know I'm not sure where I was going with this.
---

Are pardon's a blanket thing or do they have to specify what they are being pardoned for
---

FWIW, the president has 100% authority to pardon himself. The Supreme Court wouldn't even take that case.
---

Kenri posted...

I can't believe Wang is uncritically taking Trump's aide's PR spin at face value.

I mean, I can, that seems exactly like something he'd do, but uh... you know I'm not sure where I was going with this.

This, it really comes down to how much stock you put into anything the administration says. If anything, the aide saying "This isn't about pardoning himself" makes me even more suspicious. Just like Trump saying "Don't look at my finances" makes a lot of people think there's something to be found there.
---

Honestly I'm surprised Trump hasn't handed out pardons and fired Mueller already.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

FWIW, the president has 100% authority to pardon himself. The Supreme Court wouldn't even take that case.

No fucking way. If the president could pardon himself it would mean that rule of law, a bedrock principle of our democracy, doesn't apply to the president.

I'd expect the court to rule 9-0 against him.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

FWIW, the president has 100% authority to pardon himself. The Supreme Court wouldn't even take that case.

No fucking way. If the president could pardon himself it would mean that rule of law, a bedrock principle of our democracy, doesn't apply to the president.

I'd expect the court to rule 9-0 against him.

No. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. There is nothing in the Constitution giving them the authority to review a pardon.

"Our rule of law" rests in the hands of Congress, who could remove him from office.

I've been reading a bunch of articles about this today randomly, and this is virtually unanimously agreed upon.
---

Whether or not Donald was naively asking about pardoning himself, I don't trust his staff and advisors to be honest about Donald's intent of asking. Wang's quoted section is worth a mention but does not satisfy me.
---

If anyone was curious why Trump hired Scaramucci, here's the reason.

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/888477806895693824
---

Emeraldegg posted...

I kind of get it, because the article is kind of jumping to conclusions by using the sentence "trump's lawyers seek to undercut Mueller's Russia investigation" Like him asking about pardons isn't explicit proof that that's what he's trying to accomplish, and I don't really see how that affects mueller at all.

nono, you also haven't read it. here: http://archive.is/JIG8J

the first segment covers the headline.

segments 2-4, a total of five sentences, say what that tweet said and follow up with the only two comments basically being that he's trying to see the limits to his powers and that no, he's not trying to pardon himself.

and then segments 5 through 30 are about the headline, going in great detail. the headline on the article is accurate, it's that journo's twitter byline that's the clickbait. the article isn't about that at all and after all that when they return to pardons, they themselves explicitly state that everything they're talking about regarding pardons is theoretical. Washington Post is the one going from that and doing the full jump the idea of trump pardoning himself, which is completely off base. any questions regarding that power are realistically to save Kushner and Ivanka. then they awkwardly jump in between the issues for another 3-4 segments, end article.


over 80% of that article is based on that headline and it goes into a lot of depth. the bit about pardoning himself? yeah, that's just something that they themselves admit is just them running with a completely made up idea.
---

The only way I could see the Supreme Court taking that case is if Trump were actually prosecuted in a lower court. Otherwise it isn't a justiciable question. I don't think any sitting President has ever been charged with a crime via the normal routes - the precedent is to use impeachment.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

If anyone was curious why Trump hired Scaramucci, here's the reason.

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/888477806895693824

He literally got hired with no communications experience because Trump saw him on cable news defending him and "he speaks good."
---

dowolf posted...

I mean.

I honestly don't know how anyone can take the verbal harassment Trump gave Sessions and not say "You don't want me? Then fuck you I'm out."

what if

he's staying because as long as he's there it means that the investigation answers to Rosenstein.

if he left the investigation would answer to the new AG
---

Incidentally, while this is almost definitely a unjusticiable political question for Congress alone to decide, it's questionable to impeach someone for acts committed before they took office.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Incidentally, while this is almost definitely a unjusticiable political question for Congress alone to decide, it's questionable to impeach someone for acts committed before they took office.

1. Congress can impeach for whatever they want however they want.
2. If they cared about this, the obstruction would have taken place after.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

FWIW, the president has 100% authority to pardon himself. The Supreme Court wouldn't even take that case.

Even if he COULD, it has zero bearing on an impeachment, which undoubtably would happen before or after any criminal charges would be brought forth.
---

Wanglicious posted...

the bit about pardoning himself? yeah, that's just something that they themselves admit is just them running with a completely made up idea.

where do they admit this
---

red sox 777 posted...

Incidentally, while this is almost definitely a unjusticiable political question for Congress alone to decide, it's questionable to impeach someone for acts committed before they took office.

Not if those acts were

A) relating to the act of BECOMING President

and

B) Covered up or lied about as nauseum
---

A self-pardon, independent if that's actually legit or not (I'd have to hope it gets struck down on the basis of "god of course that's not allowed it's not explicitly written because are you serious," might be the one thing that could get Republicans/Congress to turn on Trump.

I could see them even trying to wave away even the investigation if it came back with the conclusion that it all happened. But a self-pardon? That just looks so incredibly bad.
---

My Immortal posted...

Are pardon's a blanket thing or do they have to specify what they are being pardoned for

for an in depth analysis here: https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

but your basic summary is...

as long as the pardon isn't to the president, vice president, or civil officer: full blanket.
as long as the pardon isn't regarding a case of impeachment for the above people: full blanket.


a bit more in depth...
the only explicit restriction is "in case of impeachment." there's also a criminal/civil split but that's not really relevant here. as long as we're talking about criminal law and it's not about somebody getting impeached: yes, it's a blanket thing. that's why Ford was able to pardon Nixon; now that he wasn't in power anymore there's no case of impeachment to be had, therefore he's free game.

though 99% of people immediately think "president" when they hear the word "impeachment," that isn't quite right. exact wording:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

so president, VP, and all civil officers, which would include judges. the criteria for that is also that they need to commit treason, bribery, other high crimes (e.g., felonies), or misdemeanors.


the last one matters a lot as a misdemeanor isn't a very difficult threshold to reach. if it's an infraction/violation, that should be fine (e.g., you aren't going to get impeached for having too many speeding tickets). so if you want to play with the idea of trump pardoning himself or quite frankly, anyone who's officially a civil officer, the answer is very murky since you could technically argue that if you commit any of those crimes, a case of impeachment could be had. but the second any of those people leave their position, they can be pardoned without issue.
---

Wang, you don't seem to get the disconnect, here. The disconnect isn't what the article says.

The disconnect is that people are reading between the lines and, rightfully so, wondering "Why is he asking about the extent of his pardoning powers" and saying it looks bad, given the timing.

While you're just sitting there refusing to read between the lines and going "Trump's aides say he's just curious and isn't thinking about pardoning himself, so he's just curious and not thinking about pardoning himself."

You're basically giving Trump the benefit of the doubt when he hasn't really done anything to deserve it. The rest of us aren't so willing to do that, and thus this just raises more questions to us.
---

Also, while this would require abolishing the filibuster, I wonder if Republicans would be willing to move forward with mass court packing- like, adding a few seats on the Supreme Court and a few hundred lower court judges. Obviously risky if they ever lose Congress and presidency at the same time in the future.
---

Scaramucci couldn't look any more like a corporate villain from a movie if he tried

Actually maybe he IS trying
---

Wanglicious posted...

segments 2-4, a total of five sentences, say what that tweet said and follow up with the only two comments basically being that he's trying to see the limits to his powers and that no, he's not trying to pardon himself.

Again, this boils down to if you put any stock into what they say at all. I personally think 0 of them can be counted on to speak the truth, and can definitely see how "understanding the limits of his powers" could turn shady really quickly. If you don't that's fine, to each their own. It's not like I think this way because I want trump to fail. But as non-politically savvy as I think trump is, I think even he can see that things are unravelling a bit here and that he is at least bright enough to think to himself "it'd be helpful to know if I can keep myself from going to jail because of all this" If this were done like, early on in his term, I'd be inclined to believe it. But for me, this is 100% about timing.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The disconnect is that people are reading between the lines and, rightfully so, wondering "Why is he asking about the extent of his pardoning powers" and saying it looks bad, given the timing.

...except i agree with that.
and have said so, repeatedly, that he's looking into it for Kushner and by extension, Ivanka.

StealThisSheen posted...

While you're just sitting there refusing to read between the lines and going "Trump's aides say he's just curious and isn't thinking about pardoning himself, so he's just curious and not thinking about pardoning himself."

no it's that the issue of the president issuing a pardon has very, very few limitations and the only explicit limits is about impeachment. it's a very small hop to go "wait so can the president pardon himself?" from that as just a throwaway question because everyone thinks "president" when they hear "impeachment." if you're seriously focused on this idea then congrats, you're falling for one of the stupidest ideas which has no basis of anything of why he's asking about pardons and not looking at the obvious answer of his son in law who's fucked in a big way right now.

the washington post states two people talked to them about this.
the same two people who leaked this info to the washington post are the ones who said that it isn't him talking about himself. why would they leak the info and lie? if it raises questions for you then raise the questions to the right people, by targeting trump himself it looks silly and dumb.
---

Trump wasn't asking about pardons before this. He started asking about them at the same time that he was saying "Mueller better not look into my finances."

You don't, at all, think the timing is funny?
---

I mean, you can argue the aides don't think he's thinking about it, and I wouldn't argue it.

But given the timing, you're not going to convince me the thought of pardoning himself isn't on Trump's mind, and that's atleast part of what caused him asking about it, even if he didn't admit it.
---

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

The disconnect is that people are reading between the lines and, rightfully so, wondering "Why is he asking about the extent of his pardoning powers" and saying it looks bad, given the timing.

...except i agree with that.
and have said so, repeatedly, that he's looking into it for Kushner and by extension, Ivanka.

StealThisSheen posted...

While you're just sitting there refusing to read between the lines and going "Trump's aides say he's just curious and isn't thinking about pardoning himself, so he's just curious and not thinking about pardoning himself."

no it's that the issue of the president issuing a pardon has very, very few limitations and the only explicit limits is about impeachment. it's a very small hop to go "wait so can the president pardon himself?" from that as just a throwaway question because everyone thinks "president" when they hear "impeachment." if you're seriously focused on this idea then congrats, you're falling for one of the stupidest ideas which has no basis of anything of why he's asking about pardons and not looking at the obvious answer of his son in law who's fucked in a big way right now.

the washington post states two people talked to them about this.
the same two people who leaked this info to the washington post are the ones who said that it isn't him talking about himself. why would they leak the info and lie? if it raises questions for you then raise the questions to the right people, by targeting trump himself it looks silly and dumb.

You want to believe the aides. Okay. But the aides said that trump is the one who expressed this sudden interest. So unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant, then wouldn't targeting trump make sense here? Since he's the one who initiated this in the first place?
---

I'm surprised Donald Trump hasn't just come out at this point and said "I pardon myself and my children for all and any crimes we may or may not have committed. Now let's get back to the business of the country and ignore the Fake News"

You know, like Ford did with Nixon. (Minus the Fake News bit)
---

Wanglicious posted...

the washington post states two people talked to them about this.
the same two people who leaked this info to the washington post are the ones who said that it isn't him talking about himself.

It's admittedly hard to tell because no names are used but I don't think this is true. I think it's two people gave them info, then WaPo reached out for comment and got responses from aides (not the legal team they asked first, though).

Also:
Kenri posted...

Wanglicious posted...

the bit about pardoning himself? yeah, that's just something that they themselves admit is just them running with a completely made up idea.

where do they admit this

---

Kenri posted...

It's admittedly hard to tell because no names are used but I don't think this is true. I think it's two people gave them info, then WaPo reached out for comment and got responses from aides (not the legal team they asked first, though).

Also, this. The way it's being reported doesn't suggest they initially got the info from the aides. It sounds like they got the info, then reached out to the aides for comment.
---

The Mana Sword posted...

If anyone was curious why Trump hired Scaramucci, here's the reason.

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/888477806895693824

how many more levitra commercials could he have possibly evoked in that clip
---

you really think he just started asking it yesterday, as opposed to sometime in the past week? just to remember how fast everything is going, it was 10 days ago Don Jr revealed he's the dumb one on twitter, 8 days since Kushner updated the list of 100+ Russians he evidently drank too much vodka with, and 7 days since Shep Smith revealed to Trump that this actually matters and that Kushner is fucked via Fox.

i'd assume he's been asking/thinking about asking ever since Fox can't defend him completely. which would make sense if this is an ongoing discussion where he gets an intro to pardoning powers.
---

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.

Yeah, the info didn't come from the adviser that said he's just trying to get an understanding. That's who commented when they reached out for more. Otherwise it wouldn't be presented like that.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, this. The way it's being reported doesn't suggest they initially got the info from the aides. It sounds like they got the info, then reached out to the aides for comment.

re-read it.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.
“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

(...)

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations.


way it's written it's really just the two advisers. the same two in the last one are the same two in the first bits, otherwise there'd be more said. they're the leakers and the ones privately saying what's going on. i'd imagine that them saying hey that's just a claim not grounded in anything is a good way to take it, yes. so of course when you're told "guys, it's purely theoretical," aka, that there's nothing there, what you do is double down on a base containing literally nothing. that makes sense.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, the info didn't come from the adviser that said he's just trying to get an understanding. That's who commented when they reached out for more. Otherwise it wouldn't be presented like that.

one of the advisers leaked it.
a second one then replied to them, affirming the leak.
and then both of them agree that there isn't anything there.
---

Eh.

This:

Wanglicious posted...

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself"

doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO.
---

Definitely disagree. Why would it make a point of saying "People" and "person" both above and below, but then "close adviser" in the middle? It's using "people" and "person" to be ambiguous on the person's identity/role, whereas "close adviser" is pretty specific.

The people leaked it.
The people say it's currently theoretical.
The close adviser says nothing is there.

Like, if it was the same people... Why would they feel the need to say it was all currently theoretical if "There's nothing there?"
---

Many people are saying Trump asked about pardoning himself
---

He has the best pardons. Nobody pardons like he does. There's gonna be so much pardoning you'll be sick of it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Many people are saying Trump asked about pardoning himself

---

xp1337 posted...

Eh.

This:

Wanglicious posted...

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself"

doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO.

It's worth pointing out that what Wang's arguing against here is simply "Trump asked about pardoning himself", not the strawman of "Trump can't wait to pardon himself!"
---

But isn't the quote I pointed out the crux of his argument?

i'm saying it doesn't mean anything
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, if it was the same people... Why would they feel the need to say it was all currently theoretical if "There's nothing there?"

because the main info is that he's talking about pardons. that's where the story should be. the idea that he's trying to pardon himself is pure fantasy even by the ones leaking but that doesn't really matter as talking about pardons period is the concern. a guy with that ego ain't gonna admit to wrongdoing of any kind, ever, and that's what a pardon basically would be in his own mind.

but he would use it to keep his son in law and favorite kid out of jail.
---

xp1337 posted...

doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO.

that's just too literal and wouldn't make much sense as a response. the phrase "can't wait to do __!" is another way of saying that you really want to do something. so it's not in the context of "I really want to do this," it's just stuff mentioned along the way.
---