Header Ads

‘Defense of the presidency’: Blue-check Harvard professor dumps ice cold water on #Whistleblower hopefuls in fascinating thread

If you’re like us and are somewhat clueless about what the boys who’ve been crying wolf for the past three years about Trump think they have on him THIS time, look no further than this thread from Harvard professor, Jack Goldsmith.
Goldsmith doesn’t so much defend Trump as he does anyone who has been or will be the president.
Take a look.
1/ I unfortunately lack the time to weigh in properly on the whistleblower complaint which, says the NYT, “involves a commitment that Mr. Trump made in a communication with another world leader, according to a person familiar with the complaint.” So here are too-brief reactions.
89 people are talking about this
Don’t you love that? Their source is ‘a person familiar with the complaint.’
That’s called a leaker.
Interesting, yes?
3/ As Litt also notes, Obama in a related whistleblower context preserved the right to “not disclose privileged or otherwise confidential law enforcement information.” These are standard executive branch positions over many administrations and they should control here.
29 people are talking about this

Not just a Trump thing.
Huh, who knew?
4/ More generally, it cannot be constitutional for a statute to give an NSA employee monitoring intercepts (or whatever) the authority to disclose to Congress the classified communications of POTUS with a foreign leader.
40 people are talking about this
That stinkin’ Constitution being a barrier and stuff.
5/ The president’s power to act in confidence is at its absolute height when he has a classified conversation with a foreign leader.
28 people are talking about this
6/ This isn't a defense of Trump, it's a defense of the presidency. Imagine next POTUS is one you like. That POTUS cannot conduct foreign policy if his or her controversial secret foreign policy communications can be disclosed at the determination of an intelligence employee.
54 people are talking about this
Ding ding ding.
7/ Putting it brutally, Article II gives the president the authority to do, and say, and pledge, awful things in the secret conduct of U.S. foreign policy. That is a very dangerous discretion, to be sure, but has long been thought worth it on balance.
39 people are talking about this
For a long time.
And it’s the law.
8/ Trump has been challenging this principle, in various guises, for almost three years. He has shown time and time again the extent to which our constitutional system assumes and relies on a president with a modicum of national fidelity, and decent judgment, and reasonableness.
62 people are talking about this
9/ So what is to be done? Imagine that Trump engaged in an act of national treachery: he casually blew a source for no good reason (or a venal one), or he betrayed the nation in a Manchurian Candidate sort of way.
17 people are talking about this
10/ I don’t think there is a legal avenue to correct such a betrayal of national trust by the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. That is one of the accommodations the Constitution makes for the benefits of a vigorous presidency who can conduct foreign policy in secret.
34 people are talking about this
Democrats just want an excuse to impeach him because they’ve been promising their vapid base they will do it for years now.
11/ I think the remedies are political and personally risky. If the IG or the USG employee believes the president has engaged in an act of national treachery, they can leak the information, which is a crime, and suffer the consequences.
27 people are talking about this
12/ I don't recommend that course of action. But I do think that unless what Trump did rises to the level of objective betrayal that such an act of disobedience would be warranted and justifiable and forgivable, then whatever Trump did should remain within the executive branch.
19 people are talking about this
13/ These are super-hard problems, but I fear that the attacks on presidential secrecy here are (in Jackson’s words) “confusing the issue of a power's validity with the cause it is invoked to promote, of confounding the permanent executive office with its temporary occupant.” END
46 people are talking about this
In other words, this is likely another embarrassing miss by the Left and the media.
We know, you’re SHOCKED.

1 comment: