If you are carrying water for Donald Trump, even now - especially now - kindly go fuck yourself

[Bricker]

@Fiveyearlurker

The press is also reporting that Trump cleared the room prior to talking to Comey. He asked Pence and Sessions to leave, leaving him alone. Legally, does this demonstrate that Trump knew that what he was doing was questionable?

No. It’s something that suggests it, but it doesn’t demonstrate it.

Again, though, specific facts would help flesh out that determination. If that was the only thing he said during the cleared room, it it’s much stronger evidence than if he had an otherwise unremarkable agenda for which this was simply one item.

[drm]

@Shodan

Unfortunately, it’s not even the dumbest thing in this thread.Regards,
Shodan

It is a message board and they are prone to that, I suppose yes. I’ve been trying to stay out of American politics and specifically Republican/Democrats as I know smart and not so smart examples from both sides.

But this false equivalence is just stupid. Don’t like Hillary all you like, but they are not the same.

[drm]

@SenorBeef

I thought it was actually nice that it was such a dumb statement that no one actually addressed it, we just treated it like a fart in the room that we all wish never happened and let it blow away.

Sorry about that. You’re right. You have to understand that in my real life I dealt with this exact sentiment non stop during the election and it was frustrating to say the least. Straw that broke the camels back, I guess.

I’ll let the lawyers take over with respect to the legalities of the most recent issue.

I do enjoy the late night tv joke that in order to defeat Trump all you need to do is tell him he can’t do something.

[Psychopants]

@Bricker

If he did, it’s still exactly the sort of unprovable not-quite-threat that you yourself concede would not survive as proof in court.

From twitter 12 May - this sure sounds somewhat threatening to me:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Psychopants

From twitter 12 May - this sure sounds somewhat threatening to me:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

An empty threat perhaps, since Trump probably does not know how to get his hands on any tapes that exist.

WAIT! He can ask his friend Vladimir. He would be happy to supply transcripts of conversations in the Oval Office.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Apparently according to some, we need a proper criminal offence from Trump before he can be removed from office. So Trump could order a first strike on Pyongyang because Little Kim insulted his hair, resulting in the deaths of 10’s of millions of people, and that would be acceptable to some, because “hey! no crime!”

Maybe, like Al Capone, we can get Trump on income tax evasion. That might just work…

[k9bfriender]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Apparently according to some, we need a proper criminal offence from Trump before he can be removed from office. So Trump could order a first strike on Pyongyang because Little Kim insulted his hair, resulting in the deaths of 10’s of millions of people, and that would be acceptable to some, because “hey! no crime!”

Maybe, like Al Capone, we can get Trump on income tax evasion. That might just work…

If trump sold our nuclear arsenal to the highest international bidder, that wouldn’t actually be a crime either.

[Skywatcher]

Breaking news: the first official call for impeachment has been made.

[John_Mace]

@Skywatcher

Breaking news: the first official call for impeachment has been made.

From your cite:

“No president has ever been impeached although two have gone to the Senate for a vote.”

Thanks for helping [del]fight[/del] spread ignorance, MichiganLive!

[JKellyMap]

@John_Mace

From your cite:

“No president has ever been impeached although two have gone to the Senate for a vote.”

Thanks for helping [del]fight[/del] spread ignorance, MichiganLive!

Well, Michigan is one of the three dumbshit states most responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place (sadly, I live in one of the other two).

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@k9bfriender

If trump sold our nuclear arsenal to the highest international bidder, that wouldn’t actually be a crime either.

So it’s all good then!

[Kobal2]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Maybe, like Al Capone, we can get Trump on income tax evasion. That might just work…

Speaking of which, about them there tax records…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@John_Mace

From your cite:

“No president has ever been impeached although two have gone to the Senate for a vote.”

Thanks for helping [del]fight[/del] spread ignorance, MichiganLive!

…written by interns who flunked civics?

[k9bfriender]

@John_Mace

From your cite:

“No president has ever been impeached although two have gone to the Senate for a vote.”

Thanks for helping [del]fight[/del] spread ignorance, MichiganLive!

If you are complaining about ignorance in Michigan, blame DeVos.

[eulalia]

@Bricker

I sense that you don’t actually want a legal analysis unless it ends with “Yes, it’s legally the crime of obstruction of justice.”

Well, you sense wrong then. If it’s actually in some way not obstruction of justice, i’d really like to know what the argument is. Why do you assume that I would not want that?

[Slash1972]

@eulalia

Well, you sense wrong then. If it’s actually in some way not obstruction of justice, i’d really like to know what the argument is. Why do you assume that I would not want that?

Perhaps it’s because you start with the conclusion of “it’s obstruction of justice” and then invite others to prove why it’s NOT that. Why don’t you show how it’s obstruction of justice first, preferably with some actual analysis other than just saying “Of course it’s obstruction of justice!” and then invite others to approve or disprove your theory?

[Punoqllads]

@k9bfriender

It’s not illegal if the president does it.

@Bricker

What specifically do you mean?

That’s a Nixon quote.

[eulalia]

@Slash1972

Perhaps it’s because you start with the conclusion of “it’s obstruction of justice” and then invite others to prove why it’s NOT that. Why don’t you show how it’s obstruction of justice first, preferably with some actual analysis other than just saying “Of course it’s obstruction of justice!” and then invite others to approve or disprove your theory?

IANAL. I was asking a question because I didn’t know the answer, but that’s what it looked like. Why do you think a question is a conclusion?

[Slash1972]

n/m

[eulalia]

@Bricker

Great questions.

As to 18 USC § 1503, the general rule there is that it must involve an existing judicial proceeding: a grand jury (or current trial in front of a petit jury or judge) must be involved. As we learn from US v Aguilar:

The § 1505 provision was discussed in a number of cases. As we learn from US v Price, the crime of obstruction of justice under 1505

There’s little doubt that there was a “proceeding.” The courts are generally inclined to hold that agency investigative activities are “proceedings” within the meaning of § 1505. US v. Browning, Inc.

And I don’t think there’s much doubt Trump was aware there was a proceeding.

So as you suggest, the key element relates to “threat.”

A threat is an expression of intention to illegally inflict evil, injury, or damage; a purpose or intention to work injury to the person, property, or rights of another without right of law. US v. Poindexter found that the word “corruptly” was too ill-defined to be constitutionally applied against Admiral Pointdexter for his role in the Iran-Contra affair, and “threat” must be a statement that shows an intention to illegally injure a person, property, or rights.

With that in mind, context is everything. A literal parsing of words cannot transform a threat into nullity; the “nice place you got here; shame if anything happened to it,” is a threat even though the words taken literally are not. But “If you don’t tell us what happened, I’ll arrest you for murder,” may or not be a threat. If the speaker has the legal right to arrest and probable cause to do so, the intention is not to illegally impair the target’s rights. But if the speaker is contemplating a false arrest, then it’s an illegal threat.

I haven’t heard anything in the discussion of Trump’s words that rise to this level. What’s been reported thus far is merely Trump saying (in February) that he hoped Comey would conclude the investigation. I’m open to education on this point, but there does not seem to be any allegation that Trump said anything that would constitute a threat.

Thanks for actually answering my question, eventually, even though it was in response to someone who already knew more than I did. Please, in the future, don’t assume that I don’t want an answer when I ask a question.