Granting the supreme ruler immunity from public scrutiny is how tyrannies are made.

Targeted leaks by partisans in the intelligence community designed to influence domestic political outcomes by damaging political opponents are not a “privacy” issues.

They are felonies.

Just as I feared – and had mentioned a few days ago – take a peek at this new article from the NYT. Now that Trump is in control of the IC, do you still feel the same way about those folks trolling through raw intelligence flows looking for damaging information to leak about political opponents?

This is the door that is being opened.

It is terrifying as it IS how police states are made.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia.html

I’m not advocating assassination or any other kind of extra-judicial punishment. Of course Congress has the power to remove him and only the grand jury has the power to indict once he has left office one way or the other. I am talking about your misplaced whining about his “privacy” and how persecuted the poor President is to have to live in a fishbowl. The fishbowl comes with the job and anybody who doesn’t want that doesn’t have to take the job. I might sympathize with somebody else wanting to keep it a secret that he gets consensual blowjobs in the office, but not the President. And if you can’t understand why the person with supreme power is held to a different standard than other citizens, at least understand that it’s my position and is not going to change and stop rambling about all these things that are completely irrelevant to the point.

Fortunately for the rule of law, you are not on the Mueller Grand Jury where the investigation will be conducted based on evidence.

After the verdict, two O.J. Simpson jurors eventually went on the record saying that while they believed Simpson was guilty based on the evidence, they voted to not convict him because of their “outrage” over other matters that were not part of the Simpson case.

That’s not justice – it’s tribal morality – with all of the attendant perils.

“I would add that no responsible non-partisan Constitutional law expert has ever asserted that Trump has done so either.” Trump is overtly taking money from foreign governments, and has been since the first day of his administration. It does not require specialized expertise to see that he is a Russian agent, either.

“…no President in our history would even have thought of taking money from foreign governments and acting as their agent…”

I would add that no responsible non-partisan Constitutional law expert has ever asserted that Trump has done so either.

Plenty of media commentary, plenty of partisan hand wringing over what is laughably called “ethics” by politicians / government bureaucrats…no hard evidence…boatloads of hyperbole and wishful thinking.

“If you are referencing the Emoluments Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, it too was passed in the 1700’s (largely concerning issues of Royalty) and the enforcement mechanism is – Congress” No method for enforcement is specified, only the blanket prohibition, which has never had to be tested before because no President in our history would even have thought of taking money from foreign governments and acting as their agent.

“…specific clause in the Constitution…”

Picking the fly specks out of the pepper – via the encouragement of malicious prosecutions under arcane statutes / rules that were designed for a different time / context – is a long standing technique used by politically motivated seekers of “justice.”

If you are referencing the Logan Act, passed at the end of the 1700’s, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted solely based on that statute in the entire history of the US. In more than 200 years – two indictments, no convictions (not one.) But dozens and dozens of partisan accusations have been made – so much so that such activity is virtually a cottage industry across all parts of the political spectrum. Such allegations have been a fixture of all manner of partisan political bickering in the US for at least 100 years.

If you are referencing the Emoluments Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, it too was passed in the 1700’s (largely concerning issues of Royalty) and the enforcement mechanism is – Congress – not anonymous leakers in the intelligence community, and technically not even the courts. It has never been seriously litigated.

There has never been a successful prosecution under the Emoluments Clause in the entire history of the US. Some legal scholars (including at least one in the former Obama White House) have argued the statute does not even apply to the President. When previous malicious prosecution efforts were attempted to prevent President Obama from accepting his Nobel Prize award, they were rightfully dismissed as politically motivated nonsense.

Going back to such allegations against Trump, in today’s shrunken world, it would actually be more odd if a billionaire real estate businessman that had participated in global development projects for more than 50 years did NOT have “private business dealings with a foreign power,” including Russia, prior to becoming President.

Trump (IMO) should have disclosed his taxes and put all of his holdings into a blind trust. Not doing so created self-inflicted wounds. Similar selfish behavior in related areas has made him a target. I am not defending Trump or his policies.

My point is about the rule of law and the extreme danger of allowing anonymous partisan leakers in the IC to influence domestic political outcomes via targeted leaks.

Refocusing the thread onto the specific issue at its origin – anonymous leakers in intelligence community are NOT the “political police.”

Employees of those agencies are prohibited from using their access to raw intelligence flows to engage in domestic political activities. One only has to have the most cursory understanding of events in Washington over the last 80 years to see that – once again – that prohibition is being ignored in the pursuit of partisan political ends.

The Mueller Special Counsel office and the several investigations underway in Congress are the appropriate venues for getting to the bottom of controversies surrounding Trump. Allowing anonymous partisan actors (both former and current) from the intelligence community to be the loudest voices is such matters is incredibly dangerous and ill-advised.

Not sure what sort of law you studied / practiced but this is an area I have paid attention to for more than 40 years, dating back to deep interest during undergraduate studies – where I was routinely recruited by – you guessed it – professors that had prior backgrounds as intelligence officers.

There is, actually, a specific clause in the Constitution barring the President from having any private business dealings with foreign powers.

Is there a Constitutional, statutory or case law basis for your assertion that a President has “no right to privacy?”

Would the “no right to privacy” contention also apply to the actions / communications of all candidates for the Presidency while they were private individuals, prior to election?

Would the “no right to privacy” contention apply to all candidates for all federal offices to include the Senate or House, for all of their pre and post election digital communications?

Would the “no right to privacy” contention apply to all Administration appointees for all federal offices to include Cabinet level officials for all of their pre and post election digital communications?

Would the “no right to privacy” assertion also apply to a sitting Secretary of State that chose to use a private, rather than government hosted, email server for conducting State business while accumulating (with their spouse) hundreds of millions of dollars in “donations” and “speech fees” from foreign entities and governments?

Should it be legal for anonymous, partisan individuals in the intelligence community to use their access to the digitally stored surveillance records on virtually every single person in the industrialized world to selectively leak unsavory personal details about their political adversaries to their preferred media allies in order to influence domestic political events?

Should a newspaper (like the NYT) whose single largest shareholder is a billionaire citizen of a foreign country be the primary distributor of illegally and selectively leaked, confidential US counterintelligence information flows?

Should anonymous individuals in the intelligence community be the ultimate arbiters (or influencers) of domestic political outcomes based on their ability to access and leak carefully selected, sensitive information regarding individuals with whom the have political disagreements?

Should the United States simply abandon the Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, Special Counsel, Congressional and other Constitutional / rules based investigatory processes in favor of anonymous individuals in the intelligence community leaking selective information that undermines politicians with whom they have political disagreements?

Curious as to your thoughts.