Can a POTUS be impeached for things he did before he was POTUS?

[KingOrfeo]

Donald Trump's Financial Ties To Russian Oligarchs and Mobsters Detailed In Explosive New Documentary from The Netherlands

Donald Trump's business partners have included Russian oligarchs and convicted mobsters, which could make the president guilty of criminal racketeering charges.

That's only one of the eyebrow-raising takeaways from a 45-minute Dutch documentary that first aired last week, "The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump, Part 1: The Russians." Produced by Zembla, the first installment in its investigative reporting series did what no American TV network has yet dared to do--take a deep look at the organized crime links and corrupt international business strategies used by Trump and his partners in his properties.

And more:

There are also several federal and state grand jury investigations underway, it was revealed Wednesday, first reported by two bloggers—Claude Taylor with ties to the Democratic Party and Louise Mensch with ties to right-wing sites. What these panels are specifically looking at is not known, although foreign surveillance search warrants reportedly have been issued. The presumption is they are tracing the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia to win the presidency.

<snip>

As the details around all these developments swirl—including claims by Republicans there is nothing to all of this—a tantalizing observation is emerging from investigative reporters who have been following Trump’s organized crime ties for months. What if the FBI investigation was heading into Trump’s mobster-connected business empire, including his partnerships with Russian oligarchs, where the president has broken racketeering, money-laundering and organized crime laws? This is the FBI’s expertise, not the murkier and harder-to-prove charge of Russian campaign collusion.

“There’s one camp that says there’s nothing to this. Which I think is garbage. There’s another camp that Trump was a mole, is a puppet, it’s all about collusion with respect to last year’s election. And I say the jury is out on that,” said James Henry, a corporate lawyer-turned-financial investigative reporter for DCReport.org, where his investigations have linked Trump and his team to Russian mobsters. “Let’s see the FBI investigation. Until we know what it is, the inside details on the FISA warrants or whatever they have, we won’t know.”

Then there is a third camp, Henry said, which holds that the FBI was probing Trump’s business ties with Russian organized crime.

“There’s a third camp, which is stuff I have been working on, is the organized crime," he said. "This guy’s a mobster. He has all these dodgy business partners. He knew or should have known that they were involved in organized crime, money-laundering, racketeering. That’s pretty hard to deny. We see the people he’s been in business with. We see the deals over and over again. It’s in plain sight. That’s the theory I’ve been working on… You could make a case on good old-fashioned criminal law if you had a prosecutor.”

If you had a prosecutor—stop right there. What if what Trump's trying to hide is more about protecting his fortune than seeking Russian help to win the presidency? Firing Comey, the nation’s top cop, and having the Senate Republican leader say there would be no independent investigator dampens the prospect. It is true that Comey will testify in the Senate next week and its Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed documents from Michael Flynn, Trump’s ex-national security adviser (who was fired for lying about talking to Russian diplomats about U.S. sanctions before Trump was inaugurated). But congressional investigations don’t end up in court like FBI investigations do.

But Trump is in court, where his fortune is on the line—and not just for stiffing contractors. His business partners have been sued by a private attorney, Fred Oberlander, on behalf of the public for tax evasion tied to a New York City high-rise in SoHo, where Trump’s co-owners include a Russian mobster and known oligarchs. The New York attorney general did not join this suit, but has empaneled a grand jury, whose focus is secret but is likely to involve the state’s financial laws.

There’s some evidence to suggest that Comey was pointed in this direction—toward Trump’s criminal activities—as the Russia campaign collusion investigation widened. When Comey testified in Congress in recent weeks, the best Democrats could do was ask if the FBI was investigating specific figures in Trump’s campaign and business deals. They were giving him dots to connect. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-CA, asked Comey if he knew of Russian mobster Felix Sater's relationships to Trump. A higher-profile mention was Rudy Giuliani, who had one foot in Trump’s campaign and another in his Russian-connected deals.

This raises an interesting constitutional question: Can a president be impeached for things he did before he was president?

Presumably he can, or what was the point of the Whitewater investigation?

 

[adrina]

His supporters won't and don't care.

He was correct when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and his supporters would still vote for him.

 

[james_1957]

Can a president be prosecuted based upon allegations of past misconduct?

The United States Constitution provides only for impeachment and is silent on the issue of whether federal officials can be criminally prosecuted while holding office. As a result, analysists are forced to comb through fragments of debates held during the constitutional conventions to discern the Framers’ intent with regard to this issue. In 1973 and 2000, lawyers in the Attorney General’s Office determined because of the singularly unique duties and demands of the position, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of government – in this case the judicial branch – in the same manner as all other individuals. They concluded as a matter of policy that a President cannot both serve as the nation’s chief executive and defend criminal charges.

For sure, the President is not above the law. He is accountable for any misconduct that occurs before, during, and after service to the country. When in service, however, he occupies a unique position within our constitutional order. According to the memorandum written by the Office of Legal Counsel in 1973, a criminal trial empowering a jury of twelve individuals to, in effect, overturn a national mandate as expressed through the election of a President through a guilty verdict is unacceptable. Instead, as written in that memorandum, the decision to terminate the service of a President “is more fittingly handled by the Congress than by a jury, and such congressional power is founded in the Constitution” through the impeachment process.

The impeachment process allows the House of Representatives to file formal charges against a federal official. Once filed, the Senate conducts a trial. If the official is convicted of the impeachment charges, he or she is automatically removed from office. What is unclear is whether the impeachment process can be used to address misconduct alleged to have occurred before the official took office. No law definitively speaks to the founding father’s intent in this regard and historical use of the process is somewhat conflicting on this point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/inside...-allegations-of-past-misconduct/#11808d8e491b

 

[Rightguide]

Donald Trump's Financial Ties To Russian Oligarchs and Mobsters Detailed In Explosive New Documentary from The Netherlands



And more:



This raises an interesting constitutional question: Can a president be impeached for things he did before he was president?

Presumably he can, or what was the point of the Whitewater investigation?

If that were true Bill Clinton would have been impeached, removed from office, tried for treason and hung for his foreign anti-American activities during the Vietnam War.

 

[FGB]

"Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "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." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings."

and yes they can be.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If that were true Bill Clinton would have been impeached, removed from office, tried for treason and hung for his foreign anti-American activities during the Vietnam War.

Not illegal -- nor in any way discreditable, for that matter, nor even anything less than admirable -- therefore irrelevant. Bear in mind that John Kerry, like Ron Kovic, was a true American hero twice -- first in Vietnam, then in America.

 

[KingOrfeo]

His supporters won't and don't care.

He was correct when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and his supporters would still vote for him.

But they don't get to vote on his impeachment.

 

[adrina]

But they don't get to vote on his impeachment.

No. They vote for the representatives who do. See gerrymandering and blind party allegiance.

 

[Beco]

His supporters won't and don't care.

He was correct when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and his supporters would still vote for him.

I'm fairly certain he has already done that.....

 

[KingOrfeo]

No. They vote for the representatives who do. See gerrymandering and blind party allegiance.

But if Trump is impeached, which won't happen unless the Pub majority in Congress decides to do it, what can his voters do about it? Vote against Pub incumbents in 2018? That would be cutting off their noses, wouldn't it? They have already exhausted the potential of primarying "moderate" Pubs from the right; the Freedom Caucus is not growing any bigger and never will. They'll have to vote for Dems or stay home. Either works for me.

 

[adrina]

But if Trump is impeached, which won't happen unless the Pub majority in Congress decides to do it, what can his voters do about it? Vote against Pub incumbents in 2018? That would be cutting off their noses, wouldn't it? They have already exhausted the potential of primarying "moderate" Pubs from the right; the Freedom Caucus is not growing any bigger and never will. They'll have to vote for Dems or stay home. Either works for me.

Again, there is no political will or political reward for them to do so.

They have to have a reason to separate from Trump. Until he tanks their numbers or their constituents go full on revolt, they will continue to suck Trump's exaggerated member.

 

[Beco]

But if Trump is impeached, which won't happen unless the Pub majority in Congress decides to do it, what can his voters do about it? Vote against Pub incumbents in 2018? That would be cutting off their noses, wouldn't it? They have already exhausted the potential of primarying "moderate" Pubs from the right; the Freedom Caucus is not growing any bigger and never will. They'll have to vote for Dems or stay home. Either works for me.

Uh, well yeah! Didn't a lot of Obama voters the previous election vote for Trump in 2016? Which is one reason Trump won?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Uh, well yeah! Didn't a lot of Obama voters the previous election vote for Trump in 2016? Which is one reason Trump won?

Some. What difference does that make? Not every voter is consistently partisan -- but no one who is not will still be backing Trump in 2018.

 

[Beco]

Some. What difference does that make? Not every voter is consistently partisan -- but no one who is not will still be backing Trump in 2018.

While I will never vote for a Democratic President, ever, I am going to be awfully disappointed if Trump doesn't at least deliver on the economy.,.. You can have all the other stuff.....

 

[water505]

Gee, Oreo...can Trump be impeached for bad things his grandfather thought about doing but never did?

Jesus, dude.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a horrible thing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

While I will never vote for a Democratic President, ever, I am going to be awfully disappointed if Trump doesn't at least deliver on the economy.,.. You can have all the other stuff.....

How are any of his policies going to do the economy any good?! All it amounts to is trickle-down combined with protectionism. Supply-side economics doesn't work, it only makes the rich richer, we've learned that over and over. Protectionism does help in some periods of history, but we're not living in one of those -- offshoring is only a minor part of the industrial-employment problem, the main root is automation, which will not be reversed. And deregulation is not going to do any good; some RWs seem to think government regulation is what's holding the economy back, but there's no good reason to believe it.

 

[Beco]

How are any of his policies going to do the economy any good?! All it amounts to is trickle-down combined with protectionism. Supply-side economics doesn't work, it only makes the rich richer, we've learned that over and over. Protectionism does help in some periods of history, but we're not living in one of those -- offshoring is only a minor part of the industrial-employment problem, the main root is automation, which will not be reversed. And deregulation is not going to do any good; some RWs seem to think government regulation is what's holding the economy back, but there's no good reason to believe it.

okay, so what does work? What creates something more than 1% GDP?

 

[KingOrfeo]

okay, so what does work? What creates something more than 1% GDP?

Copy what is known to work. Robert Reich (who knows a great deal about this subject; see his 1991 book The Work of Nations) writes:

California is now the capital of liberal America. Along with its neighbors Oregon and Washington, it will be a nation within the nation starting in January when the federal government goes dark.

In sharp contrast to much of the rest of the nation, Californians preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. They also voted to extend a state tax surcharge on the wealthy, and adopt local housing and transportation measures along with a slew of local tax increases and bond proposals.

In other words, California is the opposite of Trumpland.

The differences go even deeper. For years, conservatives have been saying that a healthy economy depends on low taxes, few regulations, and low wages.

Are conservatives right? At the one end of the scale are Kansas and Texas, with among the nation’s lowest taxes, least regulations, and lowest wages.

At the other end is California, with among the nation’s highest taxes, especially on the wealthy; toughest regulations, particularly when it comes to the environment; most ambitious healthcare system, that insures more than 12 million poor Californians, in partnership with Medicaid; and high wages.

So according to conservative doctrine, Kansas and Texas ought to be booming, and California ought to be in the pits.

Actually, it’s just the opposite.

For several years, Kansas’s rate of economic growth has been the worst in the nation. Last year its economy actually shrank.

Texas hasn’t been doing all that much better. Its rate of job growth has been below the national average. Retail sales are way down. The value of Texas exports has been dropping.

But what about so-called over-taxed, over-regulated, high-wage California?

California leads the nation in the rate of economic growth — more than twice the national average. If it were a separate nation it would now be the sixth largest economy in the world. Its population has surged to 39 million (up 5 percent since 2010).

California is home to the nation’s fastest-growing and most innovative industries – entertainment and high tech. It incubates more startups than anywhere else in the world.

In other words, conservatives have it exactly backwards.

Why are Kansas and Texas doing so badly, and California so well?

For one thing, taxes enable states to invest their people. The University of California is the best system of public higher education in America. Add in the state’s network of community colleges, state colleges, research institutions, and you have an unparalleled source of research, and powerful engine of upward mobility.

Kansas and Texas haven’t been investing nearly to the same extent.

California also provides services to a diverse population, including a large percentage of immigrants. Donald Trump to the contrary, such diversity is a huge plus. Both Hollywood and Silicon Valley have thrived on the ideas and energies of new immigrants.

Meanwhile, California’s regulations protect the public health and the state’s natural beauty, which also draws people to the state – including talented people who could settle anywhere.

Wages are high in California because the economy is growing so fast employers have to pay more for workers. That’s not a bad thing. After all, the goal isn’t just growth. It’s a high standard of living.

In fairness, Texas’s problems are also linked to the oil bust. But that’s really no excuse because Texas has failed to diversify its economy. Here again, it hasn’t made adequate investments.

California is far from perfect. A housing shortage has driven rents and home prices into the stratosphere. Roads are clogged. Its public schools used to be the best in the nation but are now among the worst – largely because of a proposition approved by voters in 1978 that’s strangled local school financing. Much more needs to be done.

But overall, the contrast is clear. Economic success depends on tax revenues that go into public investments, and regulations that protect the environment and public health. And true economic success results in high wages.

I’m not sure how Trumpland and California will coexist in coming years. I’m already hearing murmurs of secession by Golden Staters, and of federal intrusions by the incipient Trump administration.

But so far, California gives lie to the conservative dictum that low taxes, few regulations, and low wages are the keys economic success. Trumpland should take note.

 

[adrina]

^^^ Laboratories of democracy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

^^^ Laboratories of democracy.

Where blasphemous and hubristic mad science is done.

 

[Wrong Element]

Ken Starr was the "Whitewater Special Prosecutor."

Remind me again what Whitewater was and when it took place? (Rhetorical question.)

 

[HisArpy]

Copy what is known to work. Robert Reich (who knows a great deal about this subject; see his 1991 book The Work of Nations) writes:

I addressed this in another thread. Without C&P, what I wrote was that California's economy is in the tank. And sinking deeper into the sludge in the bottom.

You CANNOT invigorate an economy by taking income from the citizenry at high tax rates. It doesn't matter what or how many programs the government offers, if the people have no money, goods and services are not purchased. Without that, you have no economy.

This isn't that difficult to understand. Yet, for some reason, socialists can't figure this out. Instead, they keep taking more and more income away from the people. Meanwhile dams fail, aqueducts have no water, trains to nowhere have billions of dollars in cost overruns and STILL don't get built, infrastructure like roads and bridges collapse, and millions of illegal immigrants get free drivers' licenses.

And then they raise taxes because there's no money to pay for anything. (Except there's a 3 BILLION dollar slush fund sitting there untapped...)

California is losing workers and jobs and has been doing so for a long time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/22/business/fi-caljobs22
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-migration-20150101-story.html
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article136478098.html

Yeah, according to Reich (and Orfeo) socialism works and is good for the economy. Reality says not so much.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I addressed this in another thread. Without C&P, what I wrote was that California's economy is in the tank. And sinking deeper into the sludge in the bottom.

Bloomberg, PolitiFact and The LA Times call that a lie.

 

[adrina]

Where blasphemous and hubristic mad science is done.

Definitely hubristic. That was the whole conservative spiel about Kansas, Louisiana etc when they enacted all of those conservative wet dream policies. Let the states be laboratories of democracies -- ha, in gerrymandered states. But that's its own little irony and hubris.

Something tells me they will not acknowledge the successes of a more humanistic and less corporate approach as it has worked in other states.

 

[HisArpy]

Bloomberg, PolitiFact and The LA Times call that a lie.

Lol.

Bloomberg suck balls. It's a propagandist rag and everyone knows it.
Politifact is quoting Jerry Brown who cannot admit that his governorship of California is a huge failure without admitting HE is also a failure.
The La Times saying that California is leading the nation is job creation and GDP while not admitting up front that the State is STILL in a net loss for workers and jobs.

Good try though.