Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(171,419 posts)
14. I actually read through that entire thing
Mon May 22, 2017, 10:56 AM
May 2017

and it was a legal opinion based on what had happened with Nixon in 1973 and went on to include Clinton (which was different) - published 2000.

Where we are today is light years from 17 years ago (at publication) referencing incidents from 44 years ago (and including court cases from the '70s and '90s).

I think there is a bit of naivete in the opinion that assumed that -

1.) If the wagons were fast circling, the President would resign.
2.) If impeachment were to go forward, Congress would "do the right thing" - (i.e., the brief mentions that they were "accountable to their constituents", despite the fact that due to the hyper-partisan creation of Congressional Districts at the state level (not mentioned), that more and more in Congress have only pledged accountability to a part of their constituency - and in some cases state-wide, a minority party by registration, garners a majority of the Congressional Districts).
3.) The "high crimes and misdemeanors" would generally not rise to a level of criminality beyond "cover up".

I think we are in uncharted waters and I really don't think "the founders" believed that a President could do no wrong to the point of near dictatorship, without intervention beyond at least one other branch than Congress and the Chief Justice (when in the Senate for trial) - I.e., judicial branch in general, not just the SCOTUS. The brief even admitted that (paraphrase) - "Well yeah, there is a provision for the succession to the VP if...", while still insisting that if the President was under criminal investigation, the country would fall apart. There needs to be follow-through on a "what-if", when you have a President who refuses to resign and a Congress that refuses to impeach, and the country is imperiled with a potential rogue in office. Just the fact that "the founders" were well aware as to why the revolution occurred, so too would they have thought about such a scenario of what we see today.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

But would the Pubs be reckless and shameless enough rogerashton May 2017 #1
If I'm not mistaken BumRushDaShow May 2017 #2
More, the courts H2O Man May 2017 #5
And we of course saw that with Clinton. nt BumRushDaShow May 2017 #6
The weight of scholarship distinguishes the President from the VP with respect to immunity onenote May 2017 #10
I actually read through that entire thing BumRushDaShow May 2017 #14
the only thing the founders would have found surprising about benedict donald unblock May 2017 #28
I have always said (and posted) BumRushDaShow May 2017 #37
Obstruction of Justice ..... Trump fired Comey to stop an investigation between him and Russia Botany May 2017 #3
Do they need to wait a year or two before any indictments? Ligyron May 2017 #4
Can he be convicted in the Senate & THEN the indictment move to prosecution in the courts? Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #7
Yes...can be prosecuted after removal from office. tableturner May 2017 #31
While I agree with Prof. Tribe... jberryhill May 2017 #8
Anyone can make a mistake, as you yourself just proved pnwmom May 2017 #11
Tribe's view is one view. It does not make other views "wrong". onenote May 2017 #9
That's a memo that admits treestar May 2017 #13
It's a conclusion for which neither side can cite binding precedent, which is why one cannot say onenote May 2017 #16
This could be the time treestar May 2017 #17
Under what provision of the Consitution would the VP 'take the job for awhile"? onenote May 2017 #19
The president treestar May 2017 #20
and when the president disagrees onenote May 2017 #21
We need to figure out something treestar May 2017 #22
Sure, but figuring out something will requiring amending the Constitution. onenote May 2017 #23
I'm for trying. treestar May 2017 #38
Where do they get the idea he can't be indicted? treestar May 2017 #12
Do you think the president can be criminally prosecuted while in office? onenote May 2017 #15
I would argue yes if there is evidence to indict. He treestar May 2017 #18
Tribe isn't saying he can. He's saying he can be indicted by a Grand jury pnwmom May 2017 #25
Which would suggest that the "no one is above the law" argument doesn't apply onenote May 2017 #26
The President is already in a special position with regard to the law pnwmom May 2017 #30
Actually, a president can be sued in federal court on a civil claim onenote May 2017 #32
He can't be tried in a criminal court until after he's removed from office. pnwmom May 2017 #33
I said "Civil". onenote May 2017 #34
WHY DO WE HAVE TO WAIT SO LONG TO FIND OUT? bresue May 2017 #24
Maybe because there really isn't an indictment? onenote May 2017 #27
I AGREE... bresue May 2017 #29
Oh, for Heaven's sake! An impeachment IS an indictment! Aristus May 2017 #35
AND, it sounds like that has already happened. L. Coyote May 2017 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Laurence Tribe, Harvard C...»Reply #14