Adam Schiff nails it: Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president.

[FSogol]

Link to tweet

The President’s legal arguments would render whole sections of the Constitution moot, and allow a president to engage in any form of criminality and obstruct an investigation into his own wrongdoing. Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president. - Rep Adam Schiff

[woodsprite]

1. The law requires that someone enforce it.

It’s sounds good to say that nobody is above the law, but in order to support that statement and make it true, the law requires that someone enforce it. That’s where we have the problem.

[3Hotdogs]

3. Enforcement would require either Congress or a prosecutor. Congress is not going to.

That leaves prosecutors. So the question is if prosecutors have the legal authority to prosecute. If a prosecutor tries to serve him or arrest him, would Secret Service intervene? Are new laws needed? Is a new amendment needed?

[pangaia]

17. The enforcer is the courts and THEN LE officers.

The COPS !!

FEDERAL AGENTS !!

[ooky]

26. I'm all for putting it to the test.

Obviously the Republicans aren't going to do anything. Assuming Mueller can make/bring valid charges, which I would bet he can, he should promptly shut Trump's lawyers and Trump's mouths by charging him and sending the police to arrest him with valid arrest warrants, and then let's see how it plays out. What is there to lose by trying it?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

14. An enforcer still should be following the law.

The entire point of Watergate was that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

[olegramps]

28. The Republicans are in last stages of a major bloodless coup.

The intent of the Republicans Party has been to firstly discredit any political party that opposes it. This program began in earnest fifty years ago when they were able to gain control of radio medium and have expanded that by developing FOX News into one of the most powerful media voices. Their dominance has gone unchallenged and was so dominate that they were able to lie us into the Iraq war with the complacency of the majority of the major news agencies. This has been coupled with the claim of virtual unlimited authority of the presidency. The ground work for this was the Bush administration's so-called Unified Theory of the Presidency. That is the theory that the president as chief executive officer has absolute control of the entirety of government. Their program has regained resurgence under the Trump administration that is determined to makes this a reality. They have followed the fascist playbook attacking the free press, courts, and independent law enforcement, while appealing to the worst aspects of our society. This also especially includes ultra-nationalism that condemns any challenge by labeling descent as un-patriotic. Their appeal has been to misogynists, gun enthusiasts, religious extremists and anti immigration that they blame for most of our problems. Those in control of these polices regard them as useful idiots that they are willing to entertain in order to gain control of the congress and presidency.


Their vision is the creation of an authoritative government with support of the oligarchy in a symbiotic relationship in which the wealth is further concentrated and the workers are little more than pawns without any control of their lives. This is the blue print that lead to the Nazi government. We all are aware of how that ended. Many are deeply concerned that the citizens are being blindly lead down the path to destruction.

[oasis]

2. Stay on him Adam. You are kicking serious ass.

I'll just sit back and watch the crook squirm.

[DemocracyMouse]

4. "Rendering moot?"??? Try "trashing the Constitution."

I like Schiff, but he needs to crack a beer with some average Americans and learn to write... with a little more potency.

[GoCubsGo]

5. There is nothing wrong with his writing.

Why should he dumb himself down to try to make himself more understandable to the "crack a beer with me" crowd? It's not like they care what he has to, regardless of how he says it. And, he's already speaking in simple English. What do you want him to do? Talk in terms a toddler can understand? Because that's what you are asking him to do.

[pangaia]

19. "Talk in terms a toddler can understand?"

"Why should he dumb himself down to try to make himself more understandable to the "crack a beer with me" crowd? "

By now, yes.

because I fear that only when THEY realize what is about to happen to THEM, that THEY are being fucked, will this be stopped.

[OldHippieChick]

6. Just because Cheeto has the vocabulary of a 5-year old, we should not expect

others to speak on his level. One thing I always find interesting is how people think "legalese" is complicating the language. On the contrary, legalese is shorthand and has been court-tested for accuracy. Exactly how would you say "rendering moot" in your "simple-ese"?

[DemocracyMouse]

12. I'm talking about grabbing everyone's interest.

Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you're dividing the nation too – between the "dumb" and the "bright". People in the arts and philosophy have dispensed with that high/low culture balkinization decades ago. It's not dumbing down to use language well and "well" means effectively, flavorfully. If legalese us what you think is in order on Twitter I think you're kind of mistaken... Schiff is great at seeing through Trump's clutter, but there are many ways to construct a sentence and choosing "moot", etc. will not garner him many eyeballs outside the choir. Just sayin'.

[tavernier]

13. Fix your grabing

[OldHippieChick]

15. See post #8 below as well

as understanding that not all of us wish to be addressed as if we were children. If you think this is dividing the people into dumb and bright - so be it.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

32. The Grammar Nazi strikes again!

From someone who majored in journalism:

1. In American English, periods and commas always belong inside quotation marks, e.g., between the "dumb" and the "bright." (While it isn't firmly established whether a comma should follow e.g. and i.e., both the Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook say that both abbreviations are followed by a comma.)

2. A question mark or exclamation point goes inside the quotation marks if it refers to the quoted statement: He asked, "What's going on?" Place the punctuation outside the closing quotation marks if the punctuation applies to the whole sentence: Did Bob say,"I want to see 'The Avengers'"?

3. An ellipsis (...) is used to indicate omitted words. The em dash can be used in place of a colon when you want to emphasize the conclusion of your sentence. The only time you would put an em dash at the end of a sentence is to show someone’s words are being cut off for whatever reason. “’We can’t keep this up any—’ Kyle’s voice caught as he noticed his boss turn the corner.”

4. "grabing" is not a word, and gets picked up by the spell check.

5. Sometimes a word passes through the spell checker but is the wrong word, e.g., "us" for "is."

6. If it is used in a the middle of a sentence, etc. is set off by commas; if used at the end the word's period is sufficient.

source: Grammar Girl and Daily Writing Tips.

I doubt Trump followers even know who Rep. Schiff is, let alone care about his lexicon and use of grammar.

When you go to law school, as I did, the way you express yourself changes. You find yourself expanding your vocabulary, but not always for the better. For example, I never used "notwithstanding" before law school. My favorite story concerns an attorney husband arguing with his lawyer wife. "You don't have standing to bring that up!" said the husband.

I have a friend who is working on her doctorate. She said her instructors told her that at some point a PhD can't hold a conversation with a bowler.

For a discussion about why good grammar is important, see Daily Grammar's discussion of the topic.

Having said all that, I agree that Schiff could have expressed himself differently. Since the Tweet is already out there, however, the issue is moot.

[SWBTATTReg]

35. Thanks for the nice grammer tips! NT

[pangaia]

20. 'destroying'

No right winger has any idea what 'rendering moot' means.

And THEY are the ones who need to see that THEY are being fucked over.

I support Adam Schiff 100%. And I understand perhaps he NEEDS to speak in leagaleze-- or... maybe not....
But ALL Democratic Congress people need to do this and do it now..

Speak THEIR language...
They have no brains so talk to their animal insticnts.

[Pepsidog]

18. I agree. Dems gotta dumb down the language so dopes on the other side can understand

[pangaia]

21. YES

More of us have to say this....

[OldHippieChick]

24. Sorry. Can't agree w/ this approach. It is insulting to say we

can't speak to the other side unless we use two syllable words or less. Many may not be schooled in legalese, but they are smart enough to know when they are being patronized,

[Pepsidog]

34. It gives me no pleasure to say we must dumb down. Actually it's very sad

[BeyondGeography]

27. Yup

This level of communication was rendered moot sometime during the middle of last century.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. I agree. If I recall, when I read the constitution, and its amendments, as well as ...

the history of the constitution, I don't seem to recall anything of the like stating that I can stand out in the street and shoot someone, and no one would do anything (rump's words). As a matter of fact, most 'stand your ground' defenses usually means one's immediate home, perhaps yard? and in some jurisdictions (I don't know if they (gun rights) were successful in pushing these boundaries outwards from the immediate locality of the home/castle doctrine)).

If rump shot someone on Wall Street like he claims he could do, his ass would be hauled into court and jail so fast that what little of his intelligence remained, would drool out of his head. Rump is a beneficiary of one of the most corrupt elections in modern times being that the 2016 election was interfered with on a massive level. I recall Obama pondering what to do, and basically settled on telling turtle neck about the massive interference (who did nothing). Perhaps Obama should have done something, but then what? What could he do in reality? Command the news cycles and counteract all of the negative new cycles about HRC? Postpone the elections? If he would done so, then the repugs would have accused Obama of the same thing that the Russians are being accused of. A thoroughly independent governing body, subject to strictly nonpartisan rules in being elected, beyond and above the supreme court, would need to be impounded and have the ability to monitor and if need be, move w/ authority to hold off elections, impound election results, certify election results, and so forth.

This question needs to be answered, and established as a rule of law, w/ the advent of modern day computer networks and instant communications available across the world, all subject to immediate and massive interference by nefarious entities.

[erronis]

9. Good post with difficult questions. nt

[pangaia]

22. ".... one of the most corrupt elections in modern times .."

THE most corrupt, at least in American history.

[SWBTATTReg]

29. I agree...its sure is starting to look this way...

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Rick Perry is now accused of elaborate travel spending as well as Pruit, and I guarantee you (you already know this too) that there will be others just as bad or worst. Some public servants, eh? Really interested in serving government and not riding on the dime, eh? Hypocrites, especially coming from repugs, who have harped endlessly on government spending and here are these hypocrites (Pruitt, Perry, RUMP on his golf crap, etc.).

Service Svc. budget already blown, and I'm sure other budgets blown too for other areas, e.g., white house budget, other budgets etc.

Hypocrites.

My biggest concern now? Is that rump probably already has an enemies list, and is directing agencies to investigate/pursue/etc. (just like rump pushing and complaining about HRC investigations (wanting more than the multiple investigations she's already been through, and nothing ever found illegal, other than perhaps Comey's comment that she was 'sloppy in dealing w/ emails so forth'.)).

I think that whatever they used to describe HRC's actions, it was a very subjective adjective (to some people, it meant, huh, others, WOW!), and her actions weren't illegal by any stretch of the word, and I trust HRC 100% in that she would do the right thing, always.

Her integrity is above reproach. I don't have this trust by any means w/ rump, Pruitt, perry, Devos, etc., based upon their own actions right in front of us all.

[True Blue American]

8. I never have any trouble

Understanding what Adam Schiff says.

Adam is an Attorney. He knows the law. I do not need him talking to me as a 7 Year Old the way Trump does. Gibberish does not appeal to me.

[pangaia]

23. But he doesn;t need to talk to you, or me, or any other Americans with brains.

It is the deplorables to whom he needs to speak.

to whom ALL Democrats need to speak.


And to do that one must speak their 3rd grade language, To prove to them they are being fucked over.

[Honeycombe8]

10. That's the way it should be. So far, this President is above the law.

We'll see. It ain't over til it's over.

[wiggs]

11. A lot of people in charge at the moment think he is. Or they are willing to act like he

is.

Whatever path they've planned (this is gamed out of course) they will have to implement it soon, before the midterms. Unless they also know how the midterms will turn out.

[dalton99a]

16. .

[Freethinker65]

25. Does not matter if the (broken) laws are not enforced

And it appears the laws might not be enforced by the current congress nor Supreme Court

[Stuart G]

30. " Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president." Yes...

This is the essence of our democracy/republic. Trump is not above the law.... I believe that some, (I said some) republicans will be there when it comes time to get rid of Trump. What Schiff has written is beyond discussion. It is the roots of our entire system.

When the time comes, there will be some republicans who will be on the side of the "law" So why haven't we heard of them yet? It isn't time. When that crucial vote comes, some will be there. Some were there to vote against the destruction of Obamacare and some will be there for the downfall of Trump. The vote will be the vote.. We are not close to ..."the vote" When we get to "the vote" some will be there, because a few believe in the ..."rule of law"...When will the vote be?...I don't know..What will be the specific issue? I don't know..We will all see what happens when we get there.. Perhaps we will get there soon. Hopefully, we will all see the results as soon as it becomes obvious.

[duforsure]

31. Thank You Rep. Schiff,

But as long as your counterparts in the Republican Party do nothing to protect the rule of law, since they hold the majority, we are subject to their criminality, and their corruption. Organized crime running rampant out of this White House, and this administration. Will the Supreme Court Justices stand up for the rule of law, or have they been corrupted also?

[Gothmog]

33. No, Trump can't pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.

From Prof. Tribe and others https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a066d8b411f4

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

The Justice Department was right that guidance could be found in the enduring principles that no one can be both the judge and the defendant in the same matter, and that no one is above the law.

The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.

The pardon provision of the Constitution is there to enable the president to act essentially in the role of a judge of another person’s criminal case, and to intervene on behalf of the defendant when the president determines that would be equitable. For example, the president might believe the courts made the wrong decision about someone’s guilt or about sentencing; President Barack Obama felt this way about excessive sentences for low-level drug offenses. Or the president might be impressed by the defendant’s subsequent conduct and, using powers far exceeding those of a parole board, might issue a pardon or commutation of sentence.....

President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right — he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes — such as impeding or obstructing an investigation — can constitute a crime.

But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.