Sunday, March 5, 2017

- This Sounds Down Right Complicit

The New York Times headline on Trump Towergate, sound so far off the mark, that it reminds me of a kid getting caught in the cookie jar: Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

I wonder how much 'evidence' they expected to see in 127 characters or less.

It isn't even that they're lying, they lie to us every day. This is so bad it quite literally sounds like they may be complicit in something. And just imagine what the headline would have been if the situation had been reversed. I know that's a cliche, but jeez. The problem here is really that Trump didn't have enough evidence in his tweet?

Meanwhile the grownups have been discussing things, and it looks like there might be several quite serious crimes involved in this whole mess. And guess who could very well end up on the hook for it:

Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.

What crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

Suddenly the scenario I was talking about just the other day seems a little less unlikely. I don't imagine team Trump would lay back on this crap. If it is ever tied to him (an admittedly monstrous if) then it's very easy for me to imagine them charging him. There won't be a perp walk with the handcuffs and everything. But how ironic would it be if after all the alt-rights mainstream muzzling about "The Color of Crime" and racial differences in criminal behavior, our first black President ended up being our first former President convicted of a crime.


MikeCLT said...

Well, on the upside, if he were convicted of a crime, I imagine Obama would finally feel that he was black enough.

TimH said...

I have no trouble believing the White House had nothing provable to do with it. As with Lois Lerner the greater probability is that some lower-level flunky in the FBI didn't need much encouragement to carry Obama's water for him. *Drain the swamp!*