monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Debra Law,

Demeaning and diminishing? By saying that I would hire you or Tribe to file a suit against blatham that contains the very same sort of language you both believe constitutes a statutory violation? I want that zeal and certitude on my side.

I'm not a lawyer and one of the ways I self-educate myself is to read the opinion of actual lawyers. In many cases they cite pertinent sections of a given statute and so there's no need to read the statute itself which is always subject to interpretation, no matter how skillfully crafted.

I do tend to consider a lawyer's pedigree in these matters. For instance if they have actually prosecuted or defended obstruction of justice cases, I'll hold their opinion in higher esteem than one who never has.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

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.)

One problem with pointing at other people and yelling "Look everyone! I think what the smart people think!" is that you can sometimes accidentally point at a dimwit.

There is a big difference between "asking a witness to stay silent" and "asking an investigator to exercise discretion on what cases to pursue".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

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

Yet another way the Democrats made sure that Bill Clinton didn't have to follow the same rules that the Democrats apply to the rest of us.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

There are actually several different ways that the accusations against Trump fail to meet the definition of obstruction.

Another way the accusations against Trump don't amount to obstruction is: obstruction refers only to specific types of acts (as one example, concealing evidence from an investigation). Nothing that Trump has been accused of is one of the types of acts that are prohibited as obstruction.

EDIT: Actually I guess you already know this. As soon as I hit post I recalled that you posted an article that made this very point about a week ago.

0 Replies

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/04/details-emerge-on-fbi-national-security-raid-in-dearborn-michigan/

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The words in question isn'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

Good luck getting liberals to focus on the parts of the law that make it clear that Trump committed no crime. They don't want to confront reality and so will steadfastly focus anywhere but the parts of the law that actually matter.

They'll keep on saying "but an attempt still counts as a violation" in response to all sorts of points that have noting to do with the subject of "attempts verses acts".

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

And there you go again, demeaning my existence and diminishing my contributions to the discussion.

What contributions? You don't even understand basic legal concepts.

Debra Law wrote:

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.

Asking an official to exercise their discretion is hardly obstruction.

Even if Trump had made it an order it wouldn't be obstruction.

Debra Law wrote:

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.

Since you are the one here who doesn't know what they are talking about, perhaps you should consider taking your own advice.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The words in question isn'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

By the way, I googled 18 USC 1512(c) and found multiple links to articles on Witness Tampering. Do you think Trump is guilty of that? Yes, 18 USC 1512(c) includes the word "influence" but only in conjunction with the testimony of a witness (Maybe you need to brush up on your own self-education)

There you go again, demeaning my existence. You're the one who hung your hat on an unsupported article written by a person whose thesis was "pressure isn't obstruction". The pressure itself (the attempt or endeavor) is indeed an obstruction offense.

I pointed you to a federal statute as an example of one federal statute that uses the word "attempt" (while other statutes use the broader term "endeavor"). Here is the relevant language in 18 USC 1512(c):

(c)Whoever corruptly—

(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Under the clear language of this statute an attempt to influence is just as unlawful as actual influence.

Your statement that the word in question is "influence" and not "attempt" is absurd in many ways, and in particular, it is absurd within the context of our conversation. Remember, you're the one who hung his hat on the thesis "pressure is not obstruction" based solely on the speaker's pedigree.

You refuse to admit that pressure can be an endeavor or an attempt to obstruct, which is unlawful under obstruction statutes. Thus, the speaker's thesis is erroneous.

Your meager attempt thus far at self-education is unavailing.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?

WTF is your point? Donald Trump is not a prosecutor. What does any of this have to do with a kingpin? Why are you still wandering in the land of the absurd?

4 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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.

I often use extreme examples to make a point so I can't necessarily find fault with yours, unless you are equating Trump's alleged comment to Comey with that of your hypothetical gunman.

If the comment so clearly constituted obstruction (Comey's a lawyer after all and if you're right he had no reason not to recognize it as such) why didn't the FBI Director report obvious obstruction to the DOJ or Congress? His self-serving answers to this question during his testimony are not convincing.

Either he didn't consider it obstruction, or he didn't want to risk his position by ratting on POTUS. He cleverly ducked a direct answer to all questions about the first possibility, and if somehow Mueller's investigation is able to determine the latter to be true, he's toast...at least as a witness against Trump.

The problem, for a lot of people, with these Special Investigations is that while the high-power targets usually get off with nothing more than perhaps a taint which can used by their political enemies, the folks on the sidelines who thrive on the DC Power World, frequently end up taking the rap.

I'm not suggesting that Comey is necessarily guilty of any crime, but despite his obvious desire to be constantly in the public limelight, he's not even close to being a big cheese, and is not immune from retribution for his own sins. If Mueller is truly the independent counsel we all hope he is, he's not going to say "Well Comey and I both led the FBI so I'm going to believe everything he says and if we find something sketchy we'll ignore it" Of course this probably too much to expect.

Mueller has the chance of being a true American hero here or creating even greater cynicism concerning the integrity of DC power players. He can do this by taking down Trump or exonerating him, but either result must be above reproach.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

r he didn't want to risk his position by ratting on POTUS.

That never happens even with war crimes, crimes against humanity, world class terrorism, does it, Finn?

And you ask why people who don't/won't speak up about such evil have to be considered evil.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I'm not prepared to state that Trump hasn't committed a crime.

I am prepared to state that there is no current evidence, of which we know, that confirms he has, and the folks that insist, or even suggest, the Comey testimony has all but made the case of obstruction against him are partisan hacks.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

By the way, I googled 18 USC 1512(c) and found multiple links to articles on Witness Tampering. Do you think Trump is guilty of that? Yes, 18 USC 1512(c) includes the word "influence" but only in conjunction with the testimony of a witness (Maybe you need to brush up on your own self-education)

Too quick on the draw for me I see.

I removed this section of my comment from my post because after rereading your's I realized it was off base.

I did originally write it, but I edited it very soon after posting so I don't believe any apology is due, but good on you for capturing it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Democrats prevented Bill Clinton from being removed from office

Duh...no ****, Sherlock...I already told you that impeachment is a political, not a legal, process. If obstruction of justice weren't a big crime, the charges would never have arisen in the first place. The Democrats, and five Republicans, correctly gauging the sentiment of the citizenry, decided that the offenses did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Whether the man would have been convicted in a true court of law is an entirely separate matter.

Your side may have the opportunity to exercise their prerogative in a similar manner and you'll no doubt extoll the wisdom of their decision.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If the comment so clearly constituted obstruction (Comey's a lawyer after all and if you're right he had no reason not to recognize it as such) why didn't the FBI Director report obvious obstruction to the DOJ or Congress? His self-serving answers to this question during his testimony are not convincing.

Either he didn't consider it obstruction, or he didn't want to risk his position by ratting on POTUS. He cleverly ducked a direct answer to all questions about the first possibility, and if somehow Mueller's investigation is able to determine the latter to be true, he's toast...at least as a witness against Trump.

I think Mr. Comey thought he was on the inside with Mr. Trump after what he'd done to help his campaign (with the whole email email omigawd email bs). I think he was shocked that he wasn't going to be treated as a special lad (you can read back at A2K and innumerable other sites to remember the joy and wonder about Mr. Comey and his Clinton email ánnouncements' by Trump supporters ) as a result. That he wasn't going to be able to run the FBI on his own, in his own way. When that didn't look like it was going to happen, he realized he had to cover his ass.

Maybe he learned something. Maybe not. I suspect a few others in DC have learned something.

As I've noted several times over the past couple of months, I hope there are tapes. I don't really care what's on them other than someone's lying and I think Americans deserve to know who it is.

2 Replies

http://mommyunderground.com/what-parents-can-teach-their-children-about-the-lefts-heinous-media-assaults/

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?

WTF is your point? Donald Trump is not a prosecutor. What does any of this have to do with a kingpin? Why are you still wandering in the land of the absurd?

You, not me, posted the contention that an endeavor to influence an investigation was evidence of obstruction.

I've cited an example of where an official might legitimately do this. Would he or she be guilty of obstruction? Yes or no? Words are important, particularly for lawyers. If this contention is untrue why should anyone have faith in the other ones you have advanced?

Your trying to present yourself as a legal authority here so you're not going to get the benefit of my doubt.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Demeaning and diminishing? By saying that I would hire you or Tribe to file a suit against blatham that contains the very same sort of language you both believe constitutes a statutory violation? I want that zeal and certitude on my side.

I'm not a lawyer and one of the ways I self-educate myself is to read the opinion of actual lawyers. In many cases they cite pertinent sections of a given statute and so there's no need to read the statute itself which is always subject to interpretation, no matter how skillfully crafted.

I do tend to consider a lawyer's pedigree in these matters. For instance if they have actually prosecuted or defended obstruction of justice cases, I'll hold their opinion in higher esteem than one who never has.

Yes, Finn dAbuzz. You repeatedly demean me and my contributions to the discussion. You can play coy and pretend something otherwise, but you're not fooling me with your tactics. But if it makes you happy to do so, carry on.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

(with the whole email email omigawd email bs).

turns out this was where Mr. McCain's line of questioning was going - why was Mr. Comey so sure/public re the emails and lacking the same ability re #45

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/john-mccain-statement-james-comey-hearing-1202458824/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB0dGamXcAAOpyf.jpg

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I think Mr. Comey thought he was on the inside with Mr. Trump after what he'd done to help his campaign (with the whole email email omigawd email bs). I think he was shocked that he wasn't going to be treated as a special lad (you can read back at A2K and innumerable other sites to remember the joy and wonder about Mr. Comey and his Clinton email ánnouncements' by Trump supporters ) as a result. That he wasn't going to be able to run the FBI on his own, in his own way. When that didn't look like it was going to happen, he realized he had to cover his ass.

Maybe he learned something. Maybe not. I suspect a few others in DC have learned something.

As I've noted several times over the past couple of months, I hope there are tapes. I don't really care what's on them other than someone's lying and I think Americans deserve to know who it is.

I hope there are tapes too.

You may very well be right about Comey, but if you are, it hardly places him the role of the symbol of integrity and nonsense about how we have to believe Comey over Trump, is just that.

They are all DC creatures and the ups and downs of Comey's recent public regard is a perfect example of how tribal that regard is.

I'm afraid I can't stomach the new flip on him that he is the savior of the Republic. The only reason he developed his reputation of honesty and integrity is that he threatened to quit during the Bush Administration, but now we find that while he is more than willing to imply that Trump obstructed justice, not only would he not threaten to quit, he wouldn't share his concern with anyone. He liked his job and he wanted to keep it. After he was fired he decided "Now the truth must be know!" I'm sorry but his motivations as well as his integrity are suspect.

2 Replies

Even if an obstruction can't be proven by a court of law, in the court of public opinion and common sense, it is clear (if folks are honest with themselves) Trump attempted to extract loyality from Comey. He tried to influence Comey to let the Flynn investigation go. The excuses the big wigs in the republican party pretty much tells it all when they say, he don't know any better or it was just a light weight thing. They know Trump did something improper and crossed a line he shouldn't have, but they don't care. They care too much about ripping off everybody but the richest in America and they know Trump will do it with his policies and his main base who voted for him and showed up at his rallies shouting out "lock her up" or "build a wall" are just too out there to know they have been conned. If the main republicans (the ones who would have rather hand Pence or another republican but went with Trump in the end out of no choice) cared about the country they live in, they would bring up a political solution for the political problem that is Trump. Impeachment. But they won't because they don't care. IMO

There is still a slither of hope Muhler (however you spell his name) will end up getting Trump, but otherwise, we are stuck with a lying bully despot of a president.

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know