Monday, December 04, 2017

IM(not so)HP[residential]O

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States:

“I feel badly for General Flynn. I feel very badly,” Trump told reporters. “He’s led a very strong life and I feel very badly, John. I will say this, Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI and nothing happened to her. General Flynn lied and they destroyed his life. Hillary Clinton, on the Forth of July weekend, went to the FBI, not under oath, it was the most incredible thing anyone has ever seen. She lied many times. Nothing happened to her. Flynn lied and it’s like, they ruined his life. It’s very unfair.”

There was no proof of Clinton lying to the FBI and the comments from Trump are only his personal opinion on the matter.

And that's it; it's just Trump expressing an opinion, right John Dowd?

“President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” Dowd argued.

So, you know, Trump is just sayin'.  It's not like his opinion has more potential to turn into government action than any regular Joe's opinion, is it?  I mean, if we went around holding the President responsible for what he said, what kind of world would this be?

Journalists, on the other hand.....


  1. I think digby was right when she noted a 71-year-old man with his junk food habits who isn't the size of Chris Christie must be on diet pills or something. I really do think the symptoms of drug use obvious during the debates are from him taking drugs.

    That he was installed by the electoral college and has remained there under Republican control of the Congress is the Constitutional Crisis the media has perpetually wrung its hands over. It's not the first one during our lifetimes, it is probably the worst one yet. And I don't see any sign that it's going to get any better unless the Republicans are decisively defeated next year. If that doesn't happen, American democracy is dead and won't come back under this defective Constitution.

  2. "Constitutional crisis" has become one of those empty terms tossed about by the media as if it were talismanic; but it is as empty as a shibboleth.

    For two days now the media has taken as some kind of excuse that John Dowd wrote the tweet Trump published that basically admitted obstruction of justice. Some reports openly stated the charge was "less incendiary" if Dowd wrote it rather than Trump. That's sheer moonshine.

    If you put your name to something, it's yours. If you publish pseudonymously, we understand the responsibility is with the pseudonym (the finest example is Kierkegaard). But the words are those of the named author, not the ghost writer. More to the point, if a lawyer makes representations in court on your behalf (or even in negotiations), what the lawyer says holds for you. You may argue they acted in bad faith, without authority, etc.; but that's an uphill fight, not something proven because it is asserted.

    If Dowd wrote that tweet, Trump accepted those words as his own just as a client accepts a lawyer's negotiations or arguments in court. The client may not like the outcome, but it's not fundamentally different if the lawyer says it for you than if you say it yourself.

    That this even has to be explained is pitiful. But it has to be explained to the same people who think "constitutional crisis" is a constitutionally defined situation.

    These things that pass for knowledge I don't understand.

  3. I wonder why, if he wrote it, such an incompetent boob as John Dowd would have to be isn't disbarred or even just fired by Trump. That he has kept him even this long as his lawyer certainly means he gets to own it.