Summations Only

To: Legal TeamAlan Dershowitz is on Meet the Press saying that motive is not a factor in determining whether a crime has been committed. True?--Percy

I think it is true, but the application of such a rule requires much care."Intent" is an element of a crime, but intent and motive are legally distinct different things. But in everyday speech, those terms are so closely related, that I probably would not make Alan's statement without qualifying it.Also, if someone has a motive, the motive is a piece of evidence suggesting that the person committed the crime. But lack of motive and presence of motive alone are obviously not sufficient.What was the context of the statement?

Once a fact has been disclosed to a third party who does not owe a duty of privilege, that fact cannot be protected by privilege even if it was discussed with the lawyer. The situation under which one's lawyer would have to testify against you are very limited. Maybe Cohen is in that position, but probably not Giuliani. However, if there were documents written by Cohen and Giuliani that had that information on them, those documents would have to be turned over if requested or subpoenaed. That is absolutely correct. You cannot uncover new information this way. So not related matters.

Dershowitz was trying to express his answer generally, but the question was about the firing of Comey. Dershowitz was in essence arguing that it didn't matter whether the president's motive in firing Comey was his screwing up the Clinton email server investigation or to obstruct the Russia investigation. Firing Comey was within the president's prerogative, and motive was irrelevant. The concept of intent wasn't mentioned.--Percy

Interesting. If I can safely assume that Trump blabs about everything to all his buddies, then there's probably little he's said to his lawyers that could be protected by privilege. I wonder how many of Trump's buddies Mueller has asked in for a meeting.--Percy

In that case, I would suggest that Dershowitz is blurring the line between intent and motive.ABE:Let me give the classic example. In an at-will state, you can fire a person for no reason whatsoever, but it is illegal to fire someone for an illegal reason such as age discrimination or to get rid of a whistleblower. Now is that an issue of motive or intent?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We haven't discussed negotiations with North Korea here, but in my mind the overriding question all along was, "Why is Kim doing this now that he has nuclear weapons and delivery systems?" The obvious answers are a) He just wants a meeting with the preeminent leader of the free world; b) He wants to show he can yank Trump's chain; c) He's not going to do anything.So today comes the news that Kim may scuttle the meeting with Trump because of declarations by the Trump administration that North Korea must completely give up its nuclear arsenal and agree to fully open inspections to guarantee their nuclear effort is over, and only when that is in place will the United States lift sanctions that will free up firms around to world to make investments in North Korea that will make it the equal of the South (I'm mostly paraphrasing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton). Kim rejects this, here are excerpts from his statement (from North Korea: Full response to US remarks on Trump-Kim summit):

quote:

---

High-ranking officials of the White House and the Department of State including John Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of a so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment: "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation", "total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons" etc, while talking about a formula of "abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards".

​

This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue.

​

It is essentially a manifestation of an awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq, which had been brought down due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.

​

I cannot suppress indignation at such moves of the US, and harbour doubt about the US sincerity for improved DPRK-US relations through sound dialogue and negotiations.
...
We shed light on the quality of Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him.
...
But now, the US is miscalculating the magnanimity and broad-minded initiatives of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.

​

The US is trumpeting as if it would offer economic compensation and benefit in case we abandon nukes.

​

But we have never had any expectation of US support in carrying out our economic construction and will not at all make such a deal in future, too.
...
However, if the US is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the DPRK-US summit.

---

Given the unpredictable nature of the North Korean regime, and given the chaotic and impulsive nature of the Trump administration, there is no way to predict how bargaining about the upcoming Trump/Kim meeting will play out, but I continue to believe what I've believed all along since this fiasco began, that there will be no meeting and North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons.North Korea has never been trustworthy in negotiations, and now with Trump in charge the United States isn't either.Interesting image, Korean peninsula at night: --Percy

The US also has a very long tradition of not being trustworthy in negotiations, in fact a far longer history of not honoring treaties and laws than North Korea.

One could argue, however, that the US represents the interests of most civilized societies while N.Korea represents an uncertain threat.

One could assert any fool thing they want; but what does the evidence show?

I do not think it helped that Bolton is espousing a Libya style denuclearization of NK.Bolton says US considering 'Libya model' for North Korean denuclearization | CNNWhat a cockwomble.

The opinion has been expressed in some quarters that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but according to Neal Katyal, who drafted the 1999 special counsel regulations for the Justice Department, he can. If Mueller decides to indict Trump then he must request an exception from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who if he grants it must notify both parties in Congress. Details here: Can a Sitting President Be Indicted?--Percy

NOT! Trump has cancelled the summit with Kim. What a surprise.This might seem like a wasted opportunity, squandered by Trump officials who were unable to keep their big mouths shut (specifically, Pompeo, Bolton, Pence). Making complete North Korean nuclear disarmament with stringent verification a precondition was obviously a non-starter, and comparisons to Libya were highly ill-advised.But the reality is that there was never any opportunity. Like Lucy pulling away the football, we already knew what was going to happen. North Korea has a long, long, long history of doing what they just did, holding out the promise of reconciliation then pulling it away.Quoting myself from Message 2032: "There will be no meeting and North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons."God I'm good!But this isn't the end of the matter. Trump and Kim are peas in a pod when it comes to unpredictable impulsivity and lack of consistency. There'll be dueling tweets and back and forth bluster and talks and plans and cancelled plans and on and on, but North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons.Trump *is* better disposed than past presidents to deal with the North Korea problem. His ignorance makes him fearless on the world stage (no matter how many lives he puts at stake), and he will ramp up sanctions and put pressure on other countries to a degree past presidents would not dare. Mostly that means China, but also India, Pakistan, Russia and the Philippines.--Percy

I am of the opinion that those folks were charged with blowing up the summit.There was a perception internationally that Kim was playing our administration like a Stradivarius. I think Trump and his advisors wanted out of a meeting that they were ill prepared to handle and that Trump allowed his squad of idiots to mouth provoke Kim until there was an excuse to back out of the deal. Other than scuttling the deal noting diplomatically was accomplished by Pence, Bolton or Pompeo.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't think Bolton needed any direction - he didn't want the summit anyway. What he wants to blow up is North Korea.I think Pompeo may actually have believed North Korea would agree to the terms he laid out in public statements. He was drinking his own Kool-Aid.About Pence, I agree, he's just a Trump lackey. Given their handicap of idiocy, you have to give them credit for eventually recognizing they were headed for a diplomatic disaster.In my post I said that Trump was uniquely able to pressure countries to up the ante on North Korean sanctions, but an article in today's CNN casts doubt on this:

quote:

---

Russia, along with China, has in the past resisted US attempts to increase pressure on North Korea, and Moscow reacted quickly. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed "regret" about the cancellation.
...
The risk analysis firm Stratfor concluded that "if North Korea plays its cards carefully and refrains from conducting high-profile weapons tests or launches, China, Russia and South Korea will be more likely to sustain their diplomatic outreach," which includes economic incentives for continuing toward denuclearization.

---

The part about denuclearization is a pipe dream. I don't believe Kim has made a single move toward denuclearization, and I don't believe he will in the future. The test site that was blown up yesterday was no longer usable. If China, Russia and South Korea believe economic incentives will encourage North Korean moves toward denuclearization then they're as gullible as the Trump administration, and I don't think they are. If China, Russia and South Korea do provide diplomatic and economic incentives it will be because they want peace on the Korean peninsula for as long it can be sustained, and that means keeping Kim happy which in turn means letting him keep his nuclear weapons while hoping he never uses them.--Percy