monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The following is a headline to a Jet Heer column at New Republic

I post it because it is the most clear and obvious truth of this political moment.

Quote:

Trump Doesn’t Care About the Country—Just Himself

And the header photograph is a good choice.

https://images.newrepublic.com/a6005b5658369c5430ad4cf15e5bd558ea8918dc.jpeg?w=1000&q=65&dpi=1&fm=pjpg&fit=crop&crop=faces&h=667

0 Replies

More on "hoping"

Quote:

Senator James Risch (R-ID) made the most amusing attempt to exculpate Trump. According to Risch, Trump couldn’t be charged with a crime for telling Comey that he “hoped” the FBI director would “let Flynn go,” rather than prosecute the ex-national security adviser.

“Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, or for that matter any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?” demanded Risch. Unable to name a case offhand, Comey patiently explained, “I took it as a direction. This is the President of the United States with me alone saying, ‘I hope this’. I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that but that’s the way I took it.”

But in fact, defendants who expressed that kind of “hope,” under such highly suspicious circumstances, have not only been charged with obstructing justice but convicted of that same crime.

Just last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction of a Dallas police officer on four federal obstruction counts. He was found guilty of trying to suppress evidence that he had exchanged law enforcement intelligence with a prostitute for sexual favors. When the FBI was closing in, the crooked cop had told the young lady in a recorded conversation: “I’m just hoping you haven’t told anyone anything.” The appeals court opinion said that such circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that the cop had “acted with the intent to impede that investigation.” (As an attorney, Risch should have been able to look up this and similar cases before posing his silly question.)

National Memo ht Digby

2 Replies

When it was recently revealed that a college chum of Paul Ryan had violently slapped a three month old baby, Ryan explained that "He was new to this. He was new to parenting. And so he probably wasn't steeped into the long going rules and expectations that established the relationships between a father and his children".

1 Reply

@blatham,

Just like George Castanza was unclear that screwing the office cleaning staff was cause for termination.

4 Replies

First graph in theNYT editorial following the Comey testimony

Quote:

Weeks after being described by Donald Trump as a “nut job,” James Comey on Thursday deftly recast his confrontation with the president as a clash between the legal principles at the foundation of American democracy, and a venal, self-interested politician who does not recognize, let alone uphold, them .

This could not, I think, be better stated.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Just last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction of a Dallas police officer on four federal obstruction counts. (As an attorney, Risch should have been able to look up this and similar cases before posing his silly question.

Nice try, cheese-eater. Risch may well have looked up this case. Unfortunately for you and your commie-ass homeys, it, and "similar" cases, are inapplicable to Trump (even assuming he did something wrong)..

As I have pointed out, the Supreme Court has held that any obstruction must occur in an "official proceeding," and that an FBI investigation, standing alone, is NOT such an official proceeding. The case cited here DID involve an official proceeding (a grand jury proceeding).

One would think that YOU would know better than to rely on reporters for left-wing rags for an understanding of the law, eh? Wait. Strike that. "Silly question." No, you wouldn't know any better, dumbass.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"Was that wrong?"

Edit: Thinking about this more, farmerman, your analogy is really quite perfect. I suspect that if NASA turned one of its camera lenses designed to avoid the visible light spectrum and pick up other wavelengths instead in the direction of Trump, we might well find the fellow a composite of George Kostanza, Jesse Ventura and Satan. Perhaps we can crowd-fund the experiment.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

So Debra Law, it's not incorrect that all that's required for obstruction to be charged is proving an attempt to influence or obstruct?

Some statutes use the word "endeavor" and another statute uses the word "attempt". An "endeavor" is broader in meaning and is not mired with the legal technicalities that an "attempt" may require.

Using an example from the hearing: A robber points a gun at you and says, "I hope you give me your money." Even though the robber might not get your money, the unsuccessful attempt is still a crime. The same goes for obstruction.

1 Reply

It will be difficult, looking at these screen shots of Fox News chirons following the Comey testimony to keep oneself from shooting your monitor, but even given this danger, do look at them. I'll post just one.

https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2017/06/09/740readytomoveon.jpg

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If it was no big deal for Bill Clinton to do it, then it is no big deal for Trump to do it.

No big deal? He was impeached, wasn't he? For only the second time in our country's ignoble history.

The Democrats prevented Bill Clinton from being removed from office. They ensured that he was above the law.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

You don't remember?

Mr. Clinton was quite popular at the time and impeachment, which is a political not a legal process, was seen as sufficient. The Senate could not muster the 67 votes needed for conviction.

In other words, the Democrats placed him above the law and ensured that he was not removed from office.

hightor wrote:

I hope, failing some truly earthshaking discovery, that impeachment charges aren't brought against Mr. Trump. I'd settle for "censure" (is that possible?) or something on that order. The guy's inexperienced and temperamentally challenged, with little understanding of the law. A stern admonition from Congress (unlikely) resulting in an expression of contrition on his part (even more unlikely) would suit me. Followed by a mass expulsion of Freedom Kooks in the next election.

Trump has done nothing worthy of censure.

The Democratic Party though is abusing the law to conduct witch hunts against people who disagree with them. If anyone needs to be harshly censured it is the Democratic Party.

Although at this point I think the solution has to be the complete outlawing of the Democratic Party.

0 Replies

I think Ezra is making a very astute point here.

Quote:

By accusing Comey of perjury — an explosive accusation, particularly given that Trump proffers no evidence — Trump is trying (and, if this morning’s headlines are any evidence, succeeding) in wresting the story back from Comey’s testimony. A liar tries to replace the truth — which is hard. A bullshitter tries to crowd out the truth — and that’s a lot easier. Trump is a bullshitter.

Vox (read the whole thing, it's illuminating).

There are a couple of things going on here to think about. First, the common technique of filling up the media space with desired stories/narratives so as to overwhelm other stories and narratives. The second aspect relates to content and that's what Ezra is pointing to.

If your content is merely a series of contesting or contrary narratives (he said/she said), that's one thing. It's a fairly rational framing. It presumes and suggests that there are facts which can be sorted out and which need to be sorted out. "Let's get to the bottom of this".

But what Trump does (and what he has demanded of and trained his spokespersons to do) is to throw out a blizzard of bullshit. Here, there isn't that same framing of getting to the bottom of anything, of sorting anything out. The goal is to yell such an avalanche of blatant lies, obfuscations, misdirections, and incoherencies that people give up on even trying to sort out the truth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Lets become North Korea and do that.

Outlawing a political party for committing horrible abuses would hardly be comparable to the acts of North Korea.

If anything, what resembles North Korea is the way the Democrats abuse the law to persecute the innocent.

farmerman wrote:

What good is the US Constitution? its just a rag

So long as the Democratic Party is abolished specifically because they are abusing the law to conduct witch hunts against innocent people, I think it would pass muster with the courts.

If the courts strike down the law, then they strike down the law. But it is at least worth a try.

If we succeed in getting rid of all the liberals, people will once again be able to express political views without being falsely accused of crimes. That's a worthwhile goal.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

.

It's politics, man.

Exactly. The politics of the deep state operatives.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Exactly. The politics of the deep state operatives

.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/TMtLlh60FXPz2/giphy.gif

0 Replies

@blatham,

Tribe: Not much of a legal opinion. He mainly states his opinion that Comey is more believable than Trump. Of course a case for obstruction got stronger after Comey testified, prior to his testimony it was based on an alleged memo leaked by a unidentified source.

Quote:

Furthermore, Comey’s suggestion, under oath, that Mueller is now investigating Trump on charges of obstruction of justice is a bombshell that I’ve not seen sufficiently emphasized in the twitterverse or the blogosphere as of this moment.

This statement in particular is pure politics. What is the value of being under oath when the witness declines to comment on what may be the subject of an ongoing investigation or that it's not his place to comment on it? Tribe inferred that it meant Comey knew Mueller was investigating obstruction. If at a latter date it turns out he never did, is Comey subject to a charge of perjury for a comment that Tribe's inference wasn't correct? Now I agree with Tribe to this extent, Comey wanted to imply Mueller was investigating obstruction, but he's far too clever to have opened the door to questions like "Are you suggesting Mueller is investigating obstruction, and if so how do you know?" Tribe's beef is that the left didn't pick up the baton from Comey and run fast enough with it.

Mariotti: Agree completely

Wine-Banks: She has taken a leap similar to Debra Law's in believing that Comey's testimony sews up an obstruction case against Trump. I, could be wrong, but I very much doubt that simply because Comey says he interpreted Trump's words as an "order," obstruction is confirmed. If so, than Comey should have immediately gone to the DOJ or Congress and reported it.

Price Foley; Again agreed and particularly with this point:

Quote:

There is zero evidence that Trump’s casual, one-time statement to Comey—about Flynn being a “good guy” and that he hoped the FBI would let the investigation go—constituted an obstruction of justice. If it did, every criminal defense attorney in the country would be guilty of obstruction.

I'll get to the others in good time.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Just one point on "hope".

Finn is a nice man. He lives in Texas. I plan in a while to be down in Texas myself. I hope nothing happens to Finn's car.

Well, if my car is vandalized anytime in the near future, I'll be sure to ask Debra Law to come out of retirement to file suit against you on my behalf. Or may Lawrence Tribe.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

The words in question aren't endeavor or attempt (I'm fully aware that the applicable statue considers an attempt that meets the other requirements is a violation), they are influence and investigation

Do you deny that prosecutors will very often seek to influence criminal investigations? If the authorities are spending too much time trailing flunkies and not tailing a kingpin they will attempt to influence (if not direct) them to spend more time on the kingpin. Are they then all guilty of obstruction?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

Just one point on "hope".

Finn is a nice man. He lives in Texas. I plan in a while to be down in Texas myself. I hope nothing happens to Finn's car.

Well, if my car is vandalized anytime in the near future, I'll be sure to ask Debra Law to come out of retirement to file suit against you on my behalf. Or may Lawrence Tribe.

And there you go again, demeaning my existence and diminishing my contributions to the discussion. But you hang your hat on a lemon drop, i.e., "pressure isn't obstruction". You justify your reliance on this unsupported statement based on the speaker's pedigree all the while ignoring that pressure is an endeavor/attempt to obstruct, which is still unlawful under obstruction statutes. You should read the statutes yourself. You should read the ample case law on the subject matter. You should educate yourself. That would be the proper thing to do.

2 Replies

http://americanlookout.com/wow-two-democrat-judges-removed-from-office-for-case-fixing-schemes/

Quote:

In what should be national news, two Democrat judges were removed from office for “case-fixing schemes.”
One unethically intervened in cases, according to the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline. The other was “guilty of seven violations of judicial ethics rules, including bringing the court into disrepute,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Read more: http://americanlookout.com/wow-two-democrat-judges-removed-from-office-for-case-fixing-schemes/#ixzz4jcCF9qFs

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know