“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473
This is obstruction of justice and witness tampering. He’s going to be impeached for this right? Even if nothing happens and he did nothing with russia, he still threaten Comey if he testified. I think this is blatant obstruction of justice and he needs to be locked up.
I think Trump is a buffoon and a bully, but I can’t possibly see either obstruction of justice or witness tampering when talking about “leaking to the press.”
This is somewhere in the same territory as Bob Dole telling George H.W. Bush, “stop lying about my record” during the 1988 campaign.
This guy bragged about sexual assault and got away with it, so I’m sure he will skate. A half-threat doesn’t really count.
No consequence was given. He didn’t say “If you do X I will do Y”. What Trump said might legally be a threat, but I’m sure Trump can say it wasn’t.
Do you mean actual crimes, under the criminal law, or do you mean in your opinion, Trump obstructed justice, and in your opinion Trump tampered with a witness?
In other words, are you making a claim about the law, or opining while using words that also have criminal law meanings?
We’ll likely lift the rock, see what’s under there. If what I suspect is there proves out, then this veiled threat to Comey will seem like charging Jeffrey Dahmer with health code violations.
I believe he violated both these laws with that tweet. Maybe I should of been a lawyer so my opinion would actually make a fuck?
Hush, child. Evil gods may be listening.
It would have helped you understand how to look at criminal laws, identify the elements that comprise them, and match the conduct you see to those elements.
Your first link is to an entire chapter of criminal law, for example, not a specific crime. I’m assuming you don’t think Trump assaulted a process server in violation of 18 USC § 1501 or that he picketed or paraded in or near a building housing a court of the United States with intent to influence a judge, juror, witness, or court officer in violation of 18 USC § 1507. Both of these are found in chapter 73, “Obstruction of Justice,” to which your first link goes.
Your second link does indeed identify a specific crime: 18 USC § 1512, Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
But unfortunately, the tweet “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” is very unlikely to violate that statute.
There are several sections of § 1512. § 1512(a) deals with killing someone to prevent testimony; I assume we can agree that Trump’s tweet did not do that.
18 USC § 1512(b) through (d) discuss things like one who “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to . . . influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding . . .”
Is that what you mean?
The problem with that is that the law has been interpreted by the courts to clearly lay out what kinds of conduct are prohibited by that language. In construing that language in United States v. Aguilar, 515 US 593 (1995), the Court said:
So the question is: what is it that you think about the words, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” will have the effect of bringing false testimony before an official proceeding?
Discussions with the press are obviously not official proceedings. And even if you might reason that perhaps Comey will also at some point talk to a grand jury, that sort of speculative future event was disposed of in Aguilar:
So in my opinion, based on the case law construing § 1512, there is very little likelihood that a tweet like Trump’s could be possibly found to violate that law.
Perhaps you should have been a lawyer, but your opinion stands or falls on its own. Right now, you’ve given no evidence to back up your claim and simply made an assertion. Do you think our legal system works that way? All you have to do is state something, and that’s the end? At any rate, I think Bricker addressed the issue fully. Can you see your error now?
Typical Trump bluster. The only “negotiating” he knows how to do is to threaten people and hope they give him what he wants before anyone realizes that he can’t possibly make good on his threats.
Unfortunately for Loser Donald, running a democracy isn’t the same as running the real estate market in Queens.
Unfortunate for him? Shit, what about us?
Or tweeting.
Whatever. The grounds for impeachment don’t need to line up precisely with a section of the criminal code. When Trump fired Comey, and afterwards when he made this threat (an absurd threat, but still clearly intended as a threat), was he trying to hinder the investigation into potential crimes by his buddies, and hinder an investigation that he felt reflected badly on himself? Well, duuuuuuuuuuh.
Certainly in the common, everyday, colloquial meaning of words, he was trying to obstruct justice. So even though there isn’t a prayer of its happening in the next 20 months, the Dems should be talking impeachment, and should be shaming their GOP colleagues over their reluctance to even investigate Trump.
Also, if (as I fully expect) Trump’s nominee for FBI director turns out to be someone whose independence from Trump is questionable, it would IMHO cross a critical line on the road to an authoritarian, “l’état, c’est moi” state. If that happens and there is no attempt to impeach Trump, it would be legislative malpractice on the part of the GOP majority.
Common everyday meaning does not make it the same as a crime.
As much as I’d like to see Trump to go down for anything, I don’t get the outrage over this. It seems obvious to me that Trump was implying that Comey better hope there are no tapes because then it could be “proven” that Comey told Trump he wasn’t under investigation.
Rember a time, say, 6 months ago, when the office of the President had a certain dignity.
Not a crime, I don’t think. Childish on a junior high level, which is par for the course for the idiot holding the formerly dignified position.
So? Impeachment isn’t the same as charging someone with a crime. The article of impeachment in Nixon’s case that got the most votes from the House Judiciary Committee was the ‘abuse of power’ charge, which did not allege that Nixon had violated any statute.
Once a President is impeached and removed from office, any criminal charges would have to involve violation of specific statutes, and proof of guilt would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, because that’s our standard for depriving persons of life, liberty, or property.
But the holding of the office of the Presidency is not a matter of life or liberty, nor is it a property interest.
Legally, true. But from a perspective of being able to accurately model the future, no, I disagree.
Don’t you already believe that the GOP majority is guilty of legislative malpractice?
I am trying to guess what the threat actually is. I can’t imagine Comey indicting himself in a taped conversation with Trump.
So once again Trumpo the Magnificent escapes the desperate toils of his easily excited enemies.
Tune in for a new installment next week.
*“I’ll get you next time, Gadget … next time !”
*