"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes." -- Donald Trump
He has "absolute presidential immunity." -- Trump attorney William Consovoy
The United States Supreme Court now is being asked to decide the issue of whether a president is immune from prosecution or investigation, either from a state seeking financial records or from a Congressional committee subpoena for similar tax records.
Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the cases is now the question, and that may not happen for months, until the general election campaign is in high gear.
Even so, the news accelerates the pace of the impeachment procedure as House committees continue to hear witnesses providing information on the president's actions and comments.
The New York probe deals with allegations of payments made to women to have them stay quiet about sexual affairs with the president. It is a civil issue at the state level, and the debate is whether federal laws and presidential "immunity" apply.
The state case demanded financial records from Trump's accounting firm, and not directly from the president. Nonetheless, the president's attorney argued that "presidential immunity" still applies. A federal court of appeals has already rejected that claim.
The House committee subpoenaed financial records for eight years before he was elected, and is investigating possible illegal conduct before or during Trump's time in office.
So the broader question is whether a president while in office is immune from prosecution of any kind. Or as opposing politicians have repeatedly put it, "No one is above the law."
The president said today that the congressional inquiry into potential impeachment "shouldn't be allowed."
Question: By whom?
The open impeachment hearings are under way, and Republicans called it the result of a "orchestrated smear campaign being perpetuated by the Trump-hating media."
That's the phrase on a GOP email posting, an echo of opening remarks by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), who called it part of a "carefully orchestrated media smear campaign."
As if American news media are cooperating with each other as well as with Democrats in creating and presenting negative stories about the current president. Except Fox News, of course, which as everyone knows is the only neutral presenter of straight news stories without a slant toward either liberal or conservative viewpoints.
As if every editor of every newspaper in the nation and the world, including the wire services and all the television news operations get together every day to coordinate their coverage of every news story they use.
Get real.
To begin with, they don't have time to do that. Secondly, they are competitive, always trying to be first with a breaking news story if they can't be exclusive.
Finally, and perhaps most important, calling it a "carefully orchestrated smear campaign" raises the question of who's leading the orchestration. The implication being that the Democratic Party is conducting the campaign.
Really? What happened to the First Amendment guarantee of a free and independent press, immune from interference by any person or group?
Constantly complaining of biased news reporting when any information negative to your cause is published only leads to sharper questions from reporters when the information is accurate and provably true.
Nobody likes being insulted, and reporters generally ignore such criticism. But when it happens every day for months and journalists know their reports are accurate, the result is more detailed reporting of what the insulter says and does.
News media have finally gotten around to translating the Latin phrase "quid pro quo" into English. It means "this for that." And it's no accident that "quid" in British slang means "money," so the term "quid pro quo" easily translates into American usage as "money for that."
In turn, this becomes the legal term "bribery," and since the Constitution establishes bribery as grounds for impeachment, it's time to stop the word games and get to the task at hand.
Lawyers can argue the difference between bribery and extortion, but to resident word maven Pug Mahoney, the difference is one of direction: Bribery is giving or offering money, and extortion is demanding money.
Either way, there's an offer of something of value in exchange for something else of value.
White House defense folk claim that since the threat of withholding military aid to Ukraine did not actually happen and the aid was later delivered, there wasn't really any quid pro quo.
But attempted bribery is also a crime.
Quid pro quo.
This for that.
Whether it worked or not, you actually tried.
You're fired.
We are watching portents meet pretense. -- Pug Mahoney
Observers spent the past few days speculating on what the Election Day results portend for the future of the nation. But with only a few statewide contests at the governor level, that's a very small sample to deal with. Nevertheless, a small sample is better than none, and sometimes a small sample can be quite accurate in forecasting or identifying a trend, just as a small bite can identify a good flavor. Or a bad taste.
In this week's sample, the election of a Democrat as governor of Kentucky and a Democratic takeover of the Virginia legislature may well signify the beginning of a major trend away from Republicanism and toward bigger Democratic Party victories next year, when all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the senators, as well as the president, will be on the ballot.
Assuming the sample be an accurate prediction, the GOP has cause to worry, especially when added to the accelerating move to impeach the president.
Whether that move succeeds, however, remains an open question, but the evidence is piling up as House committees proceed with their inquiry/probe/investigation/research/questioning (pick one, thus avoiding a semantic debate over which word is appropriate).
Meanwhile, GOP senators are becoming less defensive of the president, as some compare their role to that of a jury, which decides whether to convict or clear an accused person. Other senators hedge their remarks as they watch the growing amount of evidence of wrongdoing.
The GOP is testing the waters with an online poll asking people if they think Barack Obama was a better president, and "if given the choice, would American's (sic) want Obama back" for a third term?
The poll itself lists only two yes-or-no questions: "Yes - Barack Obama is a great president" or "No - He was a terrible president and I am happy he is no longer in office."
Left unsaid in the poll is the Constitutional reality that presidents are limited to two terms. So unless the Constitution is suspended, a third term is not possible.
But perhaps that's the plan, to suspend the Constitution and enable Donald Trump to remain as president for more than the eight-year limit.
For many months, he has been "joking" about his ten or twelve years in office, claiming that he does that only to drive journalists bonkers.
But the new, Republican-sponsored survey, while meaningless on its face, lays the groundwork for a bigger plan to keep Trump in office longer than the Constitutional limit.
Ironically, Republicans were largely responsible for the Constitutional amendment limiting presidential terms after Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected for a fourth time in 1944. Amendment XXII was passed by Congress March 21, 1947 and ratified February 27, 1951.
The Constitution now says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice," plus a maximum of two years of an unexpired term if succeeding someone who dies in office or resigns.
So unless that amendment is eliminated or the Constitution is suspended, Trump cannot serve more than two terms, or a total of eight years. Even if he is re-elected in November of next year, he must leave office on January 20, 2025.
Assuming he survives the current impeachment kerfuffle, remains in office and is re-elected.
Unless he somehow manages to suspend the Constitution.
So said the U.S. Department of State in its support for the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. That's a long way of calling for an end to "all threats, intimidation, and violence against journalists and other media professionals for their work," according to a public statement from the State Department.
The statement cited the jailing, torturing, killing and harassing of reporters around the world who expose "the abuses of corrupt regimes, undermine the work of terrorist and criminal organizations ... and counter disinformation."
Finally, the government statement said "the United States will call out those who seek to undermine this essential component of any healthy society."
A worthy goal. Perhaps President Trump should read it and follow the policy of his own Department of State.
