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

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

I’d appreciate a legal analysis. If what Comey says is true, is it obstruction of justice?

I checked 18 U.S. Code § 1503:

And 18 U.S. Code § 1505:

I’m going to come right out and say it: Those are some horribly constructed sentences.

But if I follow it, it says it’s illegal to influence the administration of the law by a threat. So what constitutes “administration”? And what constitutes a “threat”? If the President tells a government official who he has authority over that he “hopes” an investigation will end, is that an implied threat?

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 action taken by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings; it is not enough that there be an intent to influence some ancillary proceeding, such as an investigation independent of the court’s or grand jury’s authority.

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

…has three essential elements. First, there must be a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States . . . Second, the defendant must be aware of the pending proceeding. . . Third, the defendant must have intentionally endeavored corruptly or by threat to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.

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.

[BigT]

@Bricker

“Don’t talk about the facts! I don’t want to hear them! Facts are bad!”

Is that the cry of a good Democrat?

When you, as you just did, use it to attack liberals? Yes.

Put aside your shitty bickering and help us fight Trump.

Fighting ignorance is a great goal and all, but it’s not more important than getting rid of Trump.

Help us fight him, instead of trying to hurt us.

[Bricker]

@BigT

Fighting ignorance is a great goal and all, but it’s not more important than getting rid of Trump.

Yes, it is.

Trump is a disaster that has a shelf life.

Ignorance unchecked lasts forever.

And if ignorance is fought, we inoculate ourselves against Trump-type repeats.

[Merneith]

@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.”

For the purposes of impeaching Donald Trump, it doesn’t matter if Trump’s behavior rise to the level of criminality. The standard for impeachment - as I’m sure you’re aware - is the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Not only is it unnecessary to determine if Trump has committed illegal acts before we impeach, that is not standard under which previous impeachments have proceeded.

As Laurence Tribe points out, both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were impeached on the charge of “obstruction of justice”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why/2017/05/13/82ce2ea4-374d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html

@Laurence Tribe

… Publicly saying he saw nothing wrong with demanding such loyalty, the president turned to Twitter with a none-too-subtle threat that Comey would regret any decision to disseminate his version of his conversations with Trump — something that Comey has every right, and indeed a civic duty, to do.

To say that this does not in itself rise to the level of “obstruction of justice” is to empty that concept of all meaning. Obstruction of justice was the first count in the articles of impeachment against Nixon and, years later, a count against Bill Clinton. In Clinton’s case, the ostensible obstruction consisted solely in lying under oath about a sordid sexual affair that may have sullied the Oval Office but involved no abuse of presidential power as such.

But in Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump would do decades later — making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power.

It will require serious commitment to constitutional principle, and courageous willingness to put devotion to the national interest above self-interest and party loyalty, for a Congress of the president’s own party to initiate an impeachment inquiry. It would be a terrible shame if only the mounting prospect of being voted out of office in November 2018 would sufficiently concentrate the minds of representatives and senators today.

In that last paragraph - he’s talking to you, Bricker. To all of us, of course, and explicitly to the people in Congress and other officers of the court. But he’s talking to all Americans who care about constitutional principle.

Donald Trump is doing the things that Nixon did in interfering with FBI and congressional investigations. He’s admitted as much on tv when he told Lester Holt that when he “just decided to do it” - he was thinking about the Russia story. He’s gone further in threatening Comey in front of the whole world to see on Twitter.

It’s time for you, Bricker, to demonstrate your commitment to constitutional principles by abandoning your attempt to provide cover for Trump by reframing the discussion in irrelevant legalese. As Dan Rather put it recently - it’s gut check time.
ETA: Tribe’s article was published on Sunday, before the latest developments with Comey’s memo, in which he says that Trump straight up asked him to scuttle the investigation into Michael Flynn. At the rate this is going, we’ll have our “Did you order the Code Red” moment by tea time.

[bobot]

How long until the bombs start falling? I mean, Trump has got to create a distraction now, right?

[JKellyMap]

Based on what I’ve read in this thread and others, I’m worried that the congressional Republicans might realize their best course of action WOULD be to initiate impeachment proceeding soon, knowing there isn’t quite enough there (yet) for a Senate conviction. By ending up with the same result as Bill Clinton, the wind will be knocked out of the sails among anti-Trumpists – no one would want to go through such a “national trauma” twice – AND some Republican lawmakers (in purplish districts) would benefit by distancing themselves from Trump, AND others (in deep red districts) would benefit among die-hard Trumpists by having helped prevent conviction…AND Trump would be in power for the next almost-four years.

Is this something to worry about (among anti-Trumpists like me)?

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Yes, it is.

Trump is a disaster that has a shelf life.

Ignorance unchecked lasts forever.

And if ignorance is fought, we inoculate ourselves against Trump-type repeats.

There is ignorance on both sides, but you somehow think that you have to dedicate the majority of your time, effort and enthusiasm into fighting for the side you supposedly oppose.

[Bricker]

@Merneith

For the purposes of impeaching Donald Trump, it doesn’t matter if Trump’s behavior rise to the level of criminality. The standard for impeachment - as I’m sure you’re aware - is the undefined “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Correct.

Not only is it unnecessary to determine if Trump has committed illegal acts before we impeach, that is not standard under which previous impeachments have proceeded.

Incorrect.

As Laurence Tribe points out, both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were impeached on the charge of “obstruction of justice”.

Correct.

Donald Trump is doing the things that Nixon did in interfering with FBI and congressional investigations. He’s admitted as much on tv when he told Lester Holt that when he “just decided to do it” - he was thinking about the Russia story. He’s gone further in threatening Comey in front of the whole world to see on Twitter.

Incorrect.

It’s time for you, Bricker, to demonstrate your commitment to constitutional principles by abandoning your attempt to provide cover for Trump by reframing the discussion in irrelevant legalese. As Dan Rather put it recently - it’s gut check time.

I decline your kind invitation.

While you’re absolutely right that Congress’ decision is unreviewable, and thus Congress can impeach for anything they wish, I argue that as a matter of political reality, articles of impeachment will have to rest on allegations of a criminal act.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment included obstruction of justice because Clinton’s conduct involved deceit to a grand jury, which was violative of the obstruction of justice law at 18 U.S.C. § 1503. With Trump, there is no grand jury, and with no grand jury, 1503 is inapplicable.

Assuming that the full House would have voted approval for all of the articles of impeachment in Nixon’s case, each of them alleged a violation of law:

[ul]
[li]Art 1: making false statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001[/li][li]Art 2: Using the IRS, FBI, and Secret Service to harass, investigate, and intimidate in derogation of civil rights of individuals in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242[/li][li]Art 3: Failed to produce papers etc. as directed by subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives in violation of 2 U.S.C § 192[/li][/ul]

Trump’s actions (as reported this far) don’t fit into any of those categories.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Czarcasm

There is ignorance on both sides, but you somehow think that you have to dedicate the majority of your time, effort and enthusiasm into fighting for the side you supposedly oppose.

Can’t you see? He’s stiggin’ it! Even betting the filthy, stupid Libs!

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

There is ignorance on both sides, but you somehow think that you have to dedicate the majority of your time, effort and enthusiasm into fighting for the side you supposedly oppose.

Yes, there is – but ignorance that favors Trump (on this board) is quickly exposed without any real effort by me.

Am I wrong? Give me an example of some Trump-positive pernicious triumph of ignorance on this board that has not been thoroughly trounced already.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Can’t you see? He’s stiggin’ it! Even betting the filthy, stupid Libs!

And notice that you’re helpless to actually address anything factual I’m saying. Why do you suppose that the only arrows in your quiver look like this, instead of facts?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Stiggin’ it!

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Yes, there is – but ignorance that favors Trump (on this board) is quickly exposed without any real effort by me.

Am I wrong? Give me an example of some Trump-positive pernicious triumph of ignorance on this board that has not been thoroughly trounced already.

Was any of it done by you, with even half the enthusiasm you put into defending him? Instead of spending all your time telling us that what we are doing won’t work, why don’t you spend a little time telling us how to rid ourselves of this idiot you claim to oppose.

[Little_Nemo]

@Merneith

Not only is it unnecessary to determine if Trump has committed illegal acts before we impeach, that is not standard under which previous impeachments have proceeded.

@Bricker

Incorrect.

How is it incorrect? If I recall correctly, Clinton was accused of obstruction of justice but not convicted of the crime. That appears to be the same state that Trump is in now.

[Acsenray]

@ganthet

It used to be a debate about ideas, principals, and the different roads that are available to achieve the big ticket goals.

The conservative movement has never been sincere about ideas, not since 1964 anyway.

It’s always been about “The government is helping people we hate, so let’s come up with anything we can to stop them.”

That’s what “law and order,” “tax-and-spend liberals,” “small government,” “state’s rights,” “federalism,” “balanced budgets and deficits,” “term limits,” “tax reform,” “voter fraud,” “a republic not a democracy,” and half the other so-called ideals have been about.

Otherwise it has been a strategy of demonizing the left, playing upon their constituents’ fears and prejudices, using government to make rich people richer, and stopping anyone else from using government or the law to interfere with that (example: “tort reform”).

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ThelmaLou

:o

Oddly, I didn’t read all of Superdude’s post, only the part about Clothy not being able to read it. Didn’t even see the M-F word. Sorry.

You passed on information without reading it, just to be popular? You coulda been president!

[madmonk28]

@Czarcasm

Was any of it done by you, with even half the enthusiasm you put into defending him? Instead of spending all your time telling us that what we are doing won’t work, why don’t you spend a little time telling us how to rid ourselves of this idiot you claim to oppose.

Bingo. It’s his shtick.

[steronz]

@Bricker

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.

As I see it, Trump’s “I hope you can drop this” comment was indeed along the lines of “nice job you got here; shame if you were to lose it.” Trump suggested that it would be nice if Comey dropped the investigation. Apparently there were multiple communications that we know about, although only one (so far) detailed in one of these memos. And then a few months later, Comey, having not dropped the investigation, got the ax. So the fact that he ultimately fired Comey bolsters the idea that his earlier comments were a threat that he would fire Comey.

If this is all the evidence that turns up, I don’t think it would stick in court, but if I were Comey I would have taken it as a threat.

[Bricker]

Not only is it unnecessary to determine if Trump has committed illegal acts before we impeach, that is not standard under which previous impeachments have proceeded.

@Bricker

Incorrect.

@Little_Nemo

How is it incorrect? If I recall correctly, Clinton was accused of obstruction of justice but not convicted of the crime. That appears to be the same state that Trump is in now.

The articles of impeachment against Clinton described the violation of a criminal statute.

As to Trump, there is thus far no allegation of acts that are criminal.

So what’s incorrect is the claim that “that is not standard under which previous impeachments have proceeded.” In contrast, previous impeachments have alleged an actual violation of criminal law.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Stiggin’ it!

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

My point exactly. You are helpless to rebut any factual arguments. You’re left with this.

I have to admit to being curious about your thought process, though. When you make a post like this, do you find yourself hoping that no one notices your inability, or is this more like a proud-to-be-ignorant sort of thing?