The Trump Presidency

[grmcdorman]

The term is 'plutocracy' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy). US is indeed close to that system now, in effect, if not already there. 'Meritocracy' would be a system based on merit.

[Obviousman]

Someone has already mentioned this in a regard however...... regardless of the result of the current US elections, when Trump is no longer President, he is going to be liable to a massive number of law suites (saying this caused this person to believe that; tweet incited people to riot, etc).

My understanding is that - short of impeachment - he cannot be held liable for an criminal acts whilst he is the President however once he has left office, he can be held liable. Is that correct? Can he be held liable for acts he committed whilst President? Again, my layman understanding is that he can but I would like to hear comments from people who are smarter and wiser than me.

[Kiwi]

My local newspaper of Palmerston North, New Zealand, today ran the following piece from The New York Times.

Manawatu Standard, Monday 19 October 2020, page 10
Views from around the world. These opinions are not necessarily shared by Stuff newspapers.
The New York Times – The case against Donald Trump

   Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II. He has abused the power of his office and denied the legitimacy of his political opponents, shattering the norms that have bound the nation together for generations. He has subsumed the public interest to the profitability of his business and political interests. He has shown a breathtaking disregard for the lives and liberties of Americans. He is a man unworthy of the office he holds.
   The editorial board does not lightly indict a duly elected president. But even as Americans wait to vote in lines that stretch for blocks through their towns and cities, Mr Trump is engaged in a full-throated assault on the integrity of that essential democratic process. The enormity and variety of Mr Trump’s misdeeds can feel overwhelming. Repetition has dulled the sense of outrage. This is the moment Americans must recover that sense of outrage.
   Mr Trump is a man of no integrity. He has repeatedly violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Now, in this moment of peril, it falls to the American people – even those who would prefer a Republican president – to preserve, protect and defend the United States by voting.

[Zakalwe]

Someone has already mentioned this in a regard however...... regardless of the result of the current US elections, when Trump is no longer President, he is going to be liable to a massive number of law suites (saying this caused this person to believe that; tweet incited people to riot, etc).

My understanding is that - short of impeachment - he cannot be held liable for an criminal acts whilst he is the President however once he has left office, he can be held liable. Is that correct? Can he be held liable for acts he committed whilst President? Again, my layman understanding is that he can but I would like to hear comments from people who are smarter and wiser than me.

I believe so. Nixon was pardoned in 1974 by President Ford for crimes committed whilst in office. Its worth remembering that the acceptance of a presidential pardon carries a confession of guilt.

[Peter B]

Someone has already mentioned this in a regard however...... regardless of the result of the current US elections, when Trump is no longer President, he is going to be liable to a massive number of law suites (saying this caused this person to believe that; tweet incited people to riot, etc).

My understanding is that - short of impeachment - he cannot be held liable for an criminal acts whilst he is the President however once he has left office, he can be held liable. Is that correct? Can he be held liable for acts he committed whilst President? Again, my layman understanding is that he can but I would like to hear comments from people who are smarter and wiser than me.

I believe so. Nixon was pardoned in 1974 by President Ford for crimes committed whilst in office. Its worth remembering that the acceptance of a presidential pardon carries a confession of guilt.

This is why I keep recalling the Julius Caesar scenario. He'd made a number of political enemies, and they wanted to prosecute him. But while he held the office of consul he couldn't be prosecuted. Then after being consul he was granted a province in northern Italy to govern as a proconsul (which was the basis of his conquest of Gaul), during which time he still couldn't be prosecuted. At the end of his governorship he was ordered to give up his command and return to Rome, and as he'd finally be a private citizen he'd be open to prosecution. Instead, he marched on Rome and triggered the first of a series of civil wars which lasted on and off for twenty years and which saw the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire.

[JayUtah]

An ex-President can certainly be tried for crimes committed while in office.  However, the scope of what constitutes a crime doesn't reach as far as one would think.  Exercising poor judgment or dereliction of duty, for example, even to the extent that hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly is not something the judiciary can touch.  Courts can decide only whether an executive has acted lawfully, not whether he has acted wisely.  The latter is the purview of the electorate.  Naturally, ordinary crimes he may have committed are fair game, and that would include such things as corruption and influence peddling.  And I'm sure a U.S. attorney could find plenty of cases in which Donald Trump exercised the office of President unlawfully, not just ineptly or evilly.

There is a scenario in which Biden wins the election, whereupon Donald Trump immediately resigns the Presidency while still in power and the new President Pence grants him a full and complete pardon.  Contrary to some misinterpretations of Burdick v. United States, accepting a pardon is not a confession to judgment or evidence of guilt.  And Pence would be able to pardon Trump only for crimes as defined in federal law -- the United States Code and its subsidiary regulations.  Trump could still be liable under state criminal prosecutions, and the same set of facts can be tried under any jurisdiction that criminalizes them.

This unfolding dilemma may be what prompted the President to say that if he lost the election, he might leave the country.  He probably would have to do so in order to avoid spending the rest of his life defending against criminal charges.

[gillianren]

I genuinely believe he should be guilty of manslaughter on a massive scale, to the extent of crimes against humanity.  This wasn't just mismanagement; this was deliberate mismanagement in a crucial time that was for personal profit.  However, I'm also quite sure no one's going to prosecute that.  I can also definitely find examples of unlawful actions--can we say "emoluments clause," boys and girls?--that could be prosecuted.  And the State of New York has a list they're hoping to get him on any minute.

As to leaving the country, well, he'd have to find somewhere that would take him.

[Zakalwe]

As to leaving the country, well, he'd have to find somewhere that would take him.

Or, more likely, somewhere that doesn't have an extradition agreement with the US.....
I'm sure that Putin would have him over for a nice cup of polonium tea.

[LunarOrbit]

As to leaving the country, well, he'd have to find somewhere that would take him.

Or, more likely, somewhere that doesn't have an extradition agreement with the US.....
I'm sure that Putin would have him over for a nice cup of polonium tea.

I don't think moving to Russia would end well for Trump. He owes someone a lot of money, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is Putin.

[jfb]

Trump could still be liable under state criminal prosecutions, and the same set of facts can be tried under any jurisdiction that criminalizes them.

As an aside, the US has long had a "dual sovereignty" doctrine such that charging someone for the same crime at the federal and state levels doesn't count as double jeopardy - it's not considered "the same offense" in the 5th amendment sense.  So even if Pence pardons Trump for, just for example, money laundering, the State of New York could still charge and try Trump for that same exact offense if it occurred within NY jurisdiction¹. 

Even though SCOTUS recently reaffirmed that doctrine, do not be surprised if there's a challenge to it if such a scenario comes to pass.  I personally doubt such a scenario would happen (Trump manages to somehow surround himself with people ready, nay eager, to take the fall for him, and frankly I'd rather his enablers burn than Trump himself).  Trump has no filter, and he just says whatever pops into his head at that moment.  I'd take his statement of leaving the country at less than face value. 

The question of exactly what crimes he could be charged with is interesting, though.  We know there are all kinds of financial shenanigans at play, and I'm sure there's honest-to-God money laundering going through the White House itself.  But beyond that, I don't know.  Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV.     

^{1.  And convict.  To quote from a Watergate-era Doonesbury strip, "It would be a disservice ... to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude he's guilty!  That's guilty!  Guilty guilty GUILTY!!!"}

[JayUtah]

As an aside, the US has long had a "dual sovereignty" doctrine such that charging someone for the same crime at the federal and state levels doesn't count as double jeopardy...

Even though SCOTUS recently reaffirmed that doctrine, do not be surprised if there's a challenge to it if such a scenario comes to pass.

Separate sovereignty is a longstanding principle, bolstered by a number of prior cases.  A number of factors mean we're thinking of it again.  Obviously first is that President Trump wants to pardon people and have that extinguish all liability in all jurisdictions.  We're also seeing more parallel prosecutions.  It used to be that if one jurisdiction was prosecuting, other jurisdictions wouldn't waste time and money doing the same thing.  And there are far more federal criminal laws now than there used to be.  Historically, state law defined most criminal activity.  There was no problem with double jeopardy when the actions didn't qualify as a crime under federal law.

Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV.

Well, I live with one so I can't escape it.

[gillianren]

And convict.  To quote from a Watergate-era Doonesbury strip, "It would be a disservice ... to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude he's guilty!  That's guilty!  Guilty guilty GUILTY!!!"

As I recall, that's the line that got the strip moved to the Opinions page in a lot of newspapers.  His son designs crossword puzzles, and this Sunday's puzzle had the clue "But ______ e-mails."

[LunarOrbit]

Donald Trump has proven once again that he is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

Trump ‘Nobody Gets Hacked’ Video Goes Viral

Nobody gets hacked. To get hacked, you need somebody with 197 IQ and he needs about 15% of your password.

[gillianren]

But I thought he understood the cyber!

[LunarOrbit]

I'm sure hackers around the world took that as a challenge to hack him. If he believes people can't be hacked then it probably means he doesn't take security seriously.

Also, if "people don't get hacked" then why was it such a big deal for Hillary Clinton to have her own email server?