Before Lavar Ball, the ungrateful father of accused criminal, and UCLA basketball player, LiAngelo Ball, goes off on a public rant about how unappreciative he for President Trump’s help, when he interceded on behalf of his son and 2 other UCLA basketball players, who were caught shoplifting at a Louis Vuitton store in China, he may want to consider, that without the help of President Trump, his son could be sitting in a Chinese prison for the next 10 years.
Lavar Ball might also want to consider that President Trump was under no obligation to ask President Xi to get involved in the public relations nightmare that took place while our President was a guest in China, to help negotiate their release, and here’s why…
Days after President Donald Trump touted his role in the release of three UCLA basketball students who were arrested in China, LaVar Ball, the father of one of those players, suggested the President had little to do with the matter.
“Who?” Ball told ESPN when asked about Trump’s involvement in the situation. “What was he over there for? Don’t tell me nothing. Everybody wants to make it seem like he helped me out.”
‘They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.’ I’m from L.A. I’ve seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses.” – LaVar Ball, father of UCLA player with “sticky fingers”
Law Newz – Our Tweeter-in-Chief lashed out on Twitter Sunday after Ball, a businessman, and ex-basketball player, downplayed POTUS’ role in helping release son LiAngelo Ball from Chinese custody.
“I should have left them in jail,” Trump wrote. That’s a hell of thing to tweet, and it grabbed a lot of attention. Outlets like Mediaite, The NY Times, Fox News, and ESPN were all over it. But as with many things in this administration, it’s always helpful to review a president’s role in situations like this.
To recap, we have three Americans–UCLA basketball players LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill and Cody Riley–arrested by Chinese authorities for alleged shoplifting. Trump took credit for their return to the states, saying he asked the country’s president Xi Jinping for help. Now we have that same president saying he should’ve done nothing.
What does it mean if provable spite motivated a president’s decision to refrain from helping an American held in custody on foreign soil? Law&Crime reached out to Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman for his take on the matter and asked if such behavior, or something like it, could be impeachable.
“Not impeachable,” Feldman wrote in an email. “He was under no duty to help and no duty to be nice about it after the fact.”