No. The question I asked was the question I asked, not the question you wanted to answer.
Evidence for obstruction of justice? Oh, you mean like that time he admitted on national TV that he’d obstructed justice? Yeah, I’ve been on board with impeachment since that moment, but clearly that’s not enough for most Americans and certainly not for GOP Senators.
Is this a legal use of the term “obstruction of justice?” Or a more general, just-talking-on-a-message-board use?
Well, one problem with these discussions is that Trump has only a passing acquaintance with the English language, so it’s hard to unambiguously extract any particular meaning to his pronouncements.
But as I’m sure you know, I’m thinking of the time he was interviewed and said that he had fired Comey because of “the Russia thing”. If we make what seems to me to be the entirely reasonable assumption that the “thing” in question was the investigation into his campaign’s possible criminal activities…well, IANAL, but that sure sounds like obstruction of justice to me. Am I wrong?
Well, we’re in NATO, and NATO is in an uneasy relationship with Russia. Some would consider capitulation to Russia in the name of peace a kind of treason.
Of politicians in this country? No, that really wouldn’t apply to many at all. Corporations and private citizens are unlikely to be able to subvert the state itself, and so can’t do that much harm by having their hearts in Ireland or India. And almost no politician can do as much damage as a President or maybe his Chief of Staff.
As someone who does consider pedophilia & ephebophilia psychologically distinct albeit related, I guess I do have to get used to the common conflation of the two. It makes sense, but it just seems wrong and overly prejudicial to me for some reason.
So in that case, I’d probably say, “Great argument! But it’s still sexual abuse of a minor and a student, and you still lost your job!”
_
I am more hesitant than some to jump on the bandwagon and call Trump a traitor. I can’t say he’s not a traitor. I don’t feel certain that I have enough information to make that call.
But let’s say he isn’t a traitor, technically. Fine. I’ll go with menace.
You could also make a case for foe at this point.
OK, I’m persuaded. Treason it is. If he really is refusing to honor the sanctions, after just giving the Kremlin classified information in private meetings. yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment. Well, then.
Yes.
There are a number of federal statutes relating to obstruction of justice. Each has different elements. In general, they may be grouped as:
[ul]
[li]Witness tampering - by intimidation, threats, violence, or destruction of evidence you attempt to stop a specific witness from testifying in an existing investigation, or retaliating against a witness following his testimony[/li][li]Bribery[/li][li]Perjury or false statements to federal investigators[/li][li]Interfering with jurors or judicial officials[/li][li]Violence and threats against federal officials on account of the performance of their duties[/li][li]The “omnibus” provision[/li][/ul]
I’ll discuss the last one in detail here. I’d be happy to lay out the elements of any other specific obstruction statute upon request.
On its surface, the omnibus provision (18 USC §1503) statutory language looks promising. It criminalizes the conduct of anyone who influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the “due administration of justice.”
The problem, though, with that kind of vague, catch-all language is that it runs counter to the Due Process Clause guarantees of the constitution. Due process requires that criminal statutes to define clearly and explicitly the conduct that is prohibited. So the courts’ construction of that statute requires that: (1) that there was a pending judicial proceeding, (2) that the accused knew this proceeding was pending, and (3) that the accused corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.
In order to avoid vagueness, courts have construed “judicial proceeding” to refer specifically to the influence of petit trial or grand jury proceedings. An FBI investigation is not covered by this section.
I’m unsure why you’d come down on me about this. Not like I’m defending Trump or anything. Folks in this thread seem to think that it’s reasonable to just ignore our legal system because they are seeing some smoke, so MUST be some fire. But, as yet, I haven’t seen any hard evidence presented. I have no idea what might or might not be in Mueller’s files, and folks claiming that they know is a bunch of horseshit…no one knows, yet, because the investigation is ongoing. Perhaps it will turn up hard evidence and Trump will go down. Yay! Would be wonderful. But assuming it will play out that way because you want it too is wishful thinking and folks doing so are setting themselves up for disappointment.
When I see some evidence of fire I’ll be on board with Trump being a ‘traitor to his country’. When I see some evidence of his tampering with the election, I’ll be fully on board with popcorn for the impeachment. Until then, I’m simply watching with interest and hoping that there IS some hard evidence that can be used against him and his administration. I don’t pretend to be a lawyer, but I know enough to know that thus far nothing actionable has been presented.
So in other words his actions would clearly be obstruction of justice other than the fact he’s slipped through a loophole that is a distinction but not a difference. He obstructed the investigation, but the specific investigation that he obstructed can be construed as not being protected by law at all.
I’m vaguely reminded of a 1987 novel by Michael M. Thomas called The Ropespinner Conspiracy. In it, an investment banker spends his entire career coming up with new (and increasingly tenuous) financial ventures and accounting methods that gradually disconnect the banking system from anything resembling good asset management. Along the way, the banker’s longtime mentor and guide reveals that he’s been a Soviet agent for decades and has been influencing the banker into deliberately undermining the American economy, priming it for an unprecedented crash. The banker is momentary shocked, but then laughs because he realizes that if he’d known all along that he was being used to destroy the system instead of just maximizing personal profit from it, he couldn’t think of anything he’d’ve done differently.
The novel makes a few disparaging swipes at the Reagan administration (without actually naming it). I couldn’t even speculate what author Thomas thinks of Trump. His last novel, Fixers is set in 2008 and is about a Wall Street cabal trying to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton, perceiving that she’d be bad for business, preferring instead an unnamed young senator from Illinois.
Yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree on anything substantive here. Didn’t mean to sound like I was “coming down on you”.
Darn you and your fancy facts.
I don’t suppose “threats to a federal official” could be construed to include threats of being fired?
I just saw this in the Chicago Trib. Kinda took the air out of my balloon.
“Under the current circumstances, a charge of treason could not lead to prosecution of this president. The charge has only been applied to betrayal of the United States during a time of war.”
“Thus to be valid, charges of treason against President Trump would have to overcome a very high legal bar — with evidence involving aid and comfort to a battlefield enemy — a very unlikely outcome.”
I don’t know what “threat” means, but might firing someone or threatening to fire someone specifically to obstruct an investigation count? That Trump was legally able to fire Comey is not at issue, the purpose of the firing is.
Promises of pardons to potential witnesses, especially those cooperating with an investigation, might be considered witness tampering, might they not? When Nixon offered to pardon Erlichman, Erlichman thought so, though it never happened and so there is no firm conclusion.
I suspect that there is not a lot of case law about presidents obstructing investigation of their actions, so we’d have to see.
At the very least, Trump is a raving narcissist and does most of what he does for his own selfish ends. He’s wanted to do deals in Russia for many years, so he’s desperate to gain Putin’s favor. And according to a news article (maybe WaPo) it sounds like they talk on the phone either occasionally or regularly with Putin egging him on about people being against him and buttering him up. So I can see him wanting to continue to be buddies with Putin if it weren’t for those pesky aides and other folks. At the very least, this makes him deny or reluctant to deny any adverse things Putin and Russia are doing, plus he’s afraid the interference will make it look like he’s not legit. It’s also possible he wants to normalize relations with Russia so he can do very profitable deals with them (his deals that profit him personally that is) He’s starting to act the same way towards North Korea. Once Kim met with him, buttered him up and the press gave it a lot of attention, he’s been turning a blind eye to negative things NK is doing or the lack of tangibles from the summit and continuing to praise Kim as North Korea has continued to butter him up, and it seems he would really like to do real estate deals in NK.
So it’s possible he’s just a raving, selfish, self-centered asshole who’s so blinded by his own idiocy, selfishness and greed that he can’t see he’s being played by Putin (and now Kim). So maybe not an intentional traitor, but certainly a “useful idiot”. Or he’s just incredibly amoral, where he doesn’t care if what he does is wrong, plus he’s an idiot. That would explain his dealings with Russia and North Korea (once he had a summit with Kim) and his past and present corruption
I think it’s fair to say yes to this. I’m not sure I agree it’s a loophole, but reasonable minds may differ. But the bulk of what you say is correct: in construing 18 USC §1503, courts have found that a necessary element is a judicial proceeding, and an FBI investigation doesn’t meet that criteria.
Sure it is a fair statement but do not forget Trump also called them a “foe”.
Remember that Obama and Bush also asked NATO to spend more on their military but when they came home neither had incurred the distrust of our allies as Trump has.
“We can no longer completely rely on the White House. To maintain our partnership with the USA we must readjust it. The first clear consequence can only be that we need to align ourselves even more closely in Europe.” ~German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
Gosh, IANAL, but the part of your statement I bolded doesn’t seem to be settled law by any means.
Lawfare Blog, Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under Obstruction of Justice Statutes?
And anyway, isn’t Trump subject to impeachment proceedings? Haven’t you more than once asserted that a sitting president can’t be indicted, and wouldn’t your argument apply only to regular criminal proceedings?
No.
18 U.S.C. 1505, one of the threats statutes, does not cover an FBI investigation. It reaches agency investigations and other non-judicicial agency proceedings. In US v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118 (DC Cir. 1994), the court said:
Which sounds promising, but then they go to say:
The other threat statute is very broad. But both that one (§ 115) and § 1505 is that a “threat” is defined: whoever assaults, kidnaps, murders, or attempts to assault, kidnap, or murder, or conspires to assault, kidnap, or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder violates that statute. There really is no federal law that I’m aware of where either firing a federal employee, or threatening to fire a federal employee, is the proximate act for an obstruction of justice charge.