Let's Examine Some Real Crimes Committed By Presidents: It's Quite a List

Mises Institute ^ | 10/06/2023 | Connor O'Keeffe

[SeekAndFind]

Former president Donald Trump is facing ninety-one criminal charges as he seeks to win back the White House in 2024. The indictments are the latest battle in a roughly six-year crusade against Trump that first sought to remove him from power through the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, then with espionage charges and impeachments, and that now aims to block him from becoming president again. The mantra we hear from those in politics and media who support these efforts is that nobody is above the law.

But there’s an entire class of people above the law. Or who at least act like they’re above the law—the political class. The hypocrisies of their effort to convict Trump and block him from holding office again reveal that the motivations are purely political—not born of some commitment to a higher moral or legal principle.

Two broad schools of thought make up Western legal philosophy. They are natural law theory and legal positivism. Natural law theory says that law exists regardless of the dictates of states. That justice is derived from nature and common to all humans. Simply put, natural law theorists argue that a crime is a crime regardless of what the state says. That makes killing another human with malice aforethought murder, for example, even when it’s done with the blessings of government officials.

Many libertarians, such as Murray Rothbard, ground their moral opposition to state power in appeals to natural law. There is no special status that someone can attain that allows them to commit crimes.

The idea that nobody, not even the president, is above the law is right in line with this view. But, taken to its logical Rothbardian conclusion, equality under the law is a denial of political authority. So, it’s bizarre to hear the political class use this slogan as a rallying cry when all their wealth, power, and status is built on political privilege. And they can’t rightfully go after Trump for how he used his political authority because that’s not unique to Trump.

The political class prefers legal positivism, which separates law from morality. According to legal positivists, law is what the sovereign political authority says it is. There may be just laws and unjust laws. But they are all valid laws in this view. Legal positivism enshrines the political class’s privileged legal status above the rest of us.

Therefore, the way to get Trump is not to show he did anything immoral or wrong but to prove he technically broke some rule made up by members of an earlier political class. That way he can be driven out of public life without threatening the regime’s authority. But the problem hasn’t been finding crimes committed by Trump but finding crimes unique to Trump. Because all recent presidents have broken the law.

President George H. W. Bush launched a war on Iraq without congressional authorization. That is illegal according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, the set of rules Bush swore an oath to uphold. President Bill Clinton did the same, overseeing illegal military operations in Somalia, Serbia, and Iraq.

President George W. Bush conducted warrantless surveillance on American citizens, which is illegal according to the Fourth Amendment, and committed torture, which is prohibited by Section 2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code. His administration also launched undeclared, and therefore illegal, wars in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq.

President Barack Obama conducted more illegal wars in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Mali, and Yemen. In many of those wars, Obama expanded George W. Bush’s policy of giving support to al-Qaeda, which is treason according to Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. Obama also ordered the assassination of an American citizen in Yemen who had not been tried or even convicted of a crime. The Sixth Amendment makes that illegal.

Combined, these illegal wars have killed millions of people. They are appalling crimes of which Trump is also guilty. His administration continued the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen despite his running on a more isolationist foreign policy. Yet he’s not being charged for any of that. The crimes he’s facing charges for are far less serious, but they are more unique to Trump.

In New York, Trump is charged with mislabeling some business expenses during the 2016 election. In Georgia, he’s charged with conspiring to overturn an election prosecutors claim he knew he’d lost. Federally, he’s charged with claiming to have won an election he allegedly knew he’d lost, which prosecutors say incited the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He’s also charged with keeping classified documents after leaving office and conducting a “scheme to conceal” them from the federal government.

By refusing to bring charges against Trump that could also be brought against the presidents they like, the political class has shown that its aims are political. If they were committed to the rules that they swore an oath to uphold, they’d have to indict many of their own. And if they genuinely believed that nobody exists above the law, they’d have to give up a whole lot more.

[frank ballenger]

Rogues gallery.....

Each one did it all while constantly looking out for number one and setting aside the good of the American people.

[frank ballenger]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/204276727792

[Freest Republican]

We live in a nation with an insane amount of laws, rendering vast amounts of citizens as unwitting lawbreakers.i e is there one citizen that comprehends the entire tax code?

The system is immensely dependent upon discretion at all-levels.

A system where all are to be treated equally under the law yet is heavily reliant on discretion is a recipe for disaster.

[No name given]

Indeed.

[ifinnegan]

“ By refusing to bring charges against Trump…”

This article makes no sense.

[equaviator]

Mt. Rushless (as opposed to Rushmore).

[Smber]

I believe that it was Tacitus (check me on this) who stated something similar to “the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the nation”.

[muir_redwoods]

The two biggest criminals to ever hold the office were Wilson and FDR. they both worked tirelessly to destroy the backbone of this country and its culture.

[Keb]

To begin with, the author doesn’t know what a declaration of war is.

The Constitution reserves the United States’ sovereign power to start a war to the Congress. The President doesn’t get to start a war. He also doesn’t get to end a war, except by the annihilation of the enemy. Absent the annihilation of one side, wars are ended by treaties. Only the Senate can enroll the United States in a treaty, and they can only do it when the President presents one to them. To make a treaty, the President needs senatorial consent.

In between the beginning and the end of a war, there’s very little the President can’t do.

War is a state of affairs between two sovereign powers, begun by one of them (ignoring non-state actors, at the simplest level). When one nation declares war on another, or, without a declaration of war, commits an act of war against another, both are at war. The attacked nation doesn’t get a choice. It was long customary to declare war back at one’s attacker, and this could be important as an expression of the national will. But it doesn’t alter the legal relationship between the nations.

Before George H. W. Bush sent American forces into battle against Iraq, he went to Congress, and asked permission to do exactly that. Congress explicitly gave him permission. I don’t know whether that was technically correct, but, to claim that the President usurped a Congressional power, when Congress just said he could do that exact thing, doesn’t pass the laugh test. GHW Bush was clean on this one. (Knocking over the government of Panama is another matter.)

When al-Qaeda attacked the United States, again and again, throughout the nineties, operating from Afghanistan, those were, strictly speaking, acts of war by Afghanistan against the United States. Nations are responsible to each other for acts of war launched from their territories. President Clinton’s sending strike teams into Afghanistan (and denying them permission to fire), and launching a missile salvo to try to target al-Qaeda there, was feckless, but, strictly speaking, justified. After the second world trade center attack, when the United States had a real president, the United States demanded that Afghanistan hand over bin Laden, to answer for his attack. If Afghanistan had handed him over, and repudiated his action, Afghanistan’s technical responsibility would have been overlooked. That’s how it’s done. When Afghanistan declared bin Laden under Afghanistan’s protection, Afghanistan’s act of war against the Untied States became overt. At that point, President Bush had the legal right to destroy Afghanistan. Congress has no say, when the Untied States is attacked.

Presidents Clinton and Obama did, indeed, invade and topple nations without the necessary Congressional authorization.

For President Trump to continue extant wars was not only legal, it was required by his office. When the United States is at war, it is the duty of the President to manage that war. He has no right to wait for permission from Congress, or anyone else. It’s all on him.

Also, warrantless surveillance of American citizens, is permitted by the Constitution and the law, when it is done for intelligence purposes. It is forbidden for law enforcement purposes, but not in general.

Mr. O’Keeffe’s other claims that presidents have committed crimes, that I have enough information to evaluate, aren’t correct either. This was not well-written.

[Glad2bnuts]

What you say is true, “too many laws”. The subject though was laws Presidents actually broke. War is murder. You don’t go to war, force Americans to die or kill on a whim. Follow the law, declare war or stay home.

At this point in my life, the ONLY reason I would follow a law or government instruction is upon fear of death or imprisonment. They simply do not have my consent to govern any longer. I don’t even buy tabs for my car. Why should anyone else comply? IMO, they are stupid, but in the best case scenario they are just good citizens.

Why do we pay taxes? We are stupid. Claim maximum deductions and don’t file. Or claim exempt. People are afraid they will be alone, that is all. America is peopled by the weak.

At one point in time, we were the best. We were the GOAT, now we are a nation of sheep.

[TBP]

Judge Napolitano has written a good bit about this subject.

[Glad2bnuts]

Before George H. W. Bush sent American forces into battle against Iraq, he went to Congress, and asked permission to do exactly that. Congress explicitly gave him permission.

They didn’t vote on it. A louder mumble by the crowd is not what the law calls for. What you wrote in the first paragraph above is a lie. Show me the declaration of war, it must be printed somewhere.

[Freest Republican]

I agree that my post was not topical to the gravity of the article.

You make an excellent point about the dependence on compliance.

We’re obv not self-governed any longer. It seems the longer that goes on, compliance will most likely continue eroding.

You’re a trailblazer!

[Glad2bnuts]

Thanks for the reply, I will keep a cot warm in the local lockup for others... Please Lord, let them not choose me for an example.

[Wallace T.]

Afghanistan did not conduct the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The 19 men who did the attack were Saudi Arabian citizens, as was Bin Laden. Our attack on Afghanistan did not yield Bin Laden. It was not until 2011 that he was killed in a raid in Pakistan. Something like that would have been an appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks, rather than the nearly 20 year, multibillion dollar failed attempt at national building.

[Keb]

They didn’t declare war, but they did vote to authorize him to send US forces into battle against Iraq. I’m not sure that qualifies as following the forms, but Congress did authorize his action. What I wrote is the truth.

[Albion Wilde]

[Keb]

That the attackers were Saudi citizens is not relevant. They were operating out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. President Clinton had sent a strike team into Afghanistan to get him. Reportedly, they had him in their sights, but President Clinton would not give them authorization to fire, so that came to nothing. He did fire a missile salvo at bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan, but he warned the Pakistani government in advance, and he knew that government leaked like a sieve. Bin Laden was warned in advance, and cleared his men out before the missiles struck, so that effort didn’t mean much.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks. The Bush administration demanded they hand him over, but Afghanistan declared bin Laden to be under their protection. The 9-11 attacks were technically an act of war by Afghanistan against the United States, but, if Afghanistan had repudiated them, and handed bin Laden over as a criminal, their responsibility would have been considered null. When Afghanistan declared him under her protection, she also assumed responsibility for the attack on the United States. That was an assumption of a state of war. Once Afghanistan did that, President Bush had the legal right to do essentially anything he chose to do against Afghanistan.

Bin Laden fled to Pakistan later, after we went into Afghanistan.

[Paal Gulli]

You left out Abraham Lincoln's illegal war.

However, ...

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 says:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War,..."

Nowhere does it state "...Congress shall have the exclusive power to declare war...." Or that war may not be waged absent a declaration of war. Which means there is nothing unconstitutional OR illegal about the POTUS waging war unilaterally and/or undeclaredly.

And if there were such a clause, it by now would have had to be amended (or stricken) because when the document was written, all of the US's existential enemies would have had to take a weeks-long sea voyage in order to attack us. Now our enemies can strike at the very heart of the country without warning. It would be suicidally stupid not to grant POTUS the powers to defend and retaliate against these attacks without waiting on Congress to get off its lard asses and do their job.

But thanks for playing and don't forget to collect your consolation prize on your way out.