monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

people who know far more about the law than you do disagree with you

people who know far more about the law than you do disagree with you

I have been trying to look up what exactly high crimes and misdemeanors means in terms of impeachment proceedings. All I found so far is on Wiki. I got other things to do today but, from what I read, it doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an illegality in the sense of how most ordinary people (not professionals) would understand the term. Am I right?

High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68

Law Dictionary: What is HIGH CRIMES? definition of HIGH CRIMES (Black's Law Dictionary)

Pressure intensifies for GOP to step up oversight of Trump administration

Congressional Republicans are increasing pressure on the Trump administration to produce documents related to the latest string of controversies involving President Trump, amid flagging confidence in the White House and a growing sense that scandal is overtaking the presidency.

A key House committee asked the FBI for records of communications
between Trump and the agency’s former director James B. Comey on Tuesday night following reports that the president sought to shut down a federal investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, requested the documents be delivered by May 24 and said he would subpoena the information if necessary.

In an interview, Chaffetz said he wasn’t prejudging the case. “I simply want to see the documentation,” he told The Post. “We will let the evidence take us where it does.”

His request came in response to media reports disclosing the existence of a memo written by Comey, whom Trump fired last week, alleging that Trump asked him to end the Flynn investigation during a meeting at the White House in February.

Quote:

Pressure intensifies for GOP to step up oversight of Trump administration

Congressional Republicans are increasing pressure on the Trump administration to produce documents related to the latest string of controversies involving President Trump, amid flagging confidence in the White House and a growing sense that scandal is overtaking the presidency.

A key House committee asked the FBI for records of communications
between Trump and the agency’s former director James B. Comey on Tuesday night following reports that the president sought to shut down a federal investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, requested the documents be delivered by May 24 and said he would subpoena the information if necessary.

In an interview, Chaffetz said he wasn’t prejudging the case. “I simply want to see the documentation,” he told The Post. “We will let the evidence take us where it does.”

His request came in response to media reports disclosing the existence of a memo written by Comey, whom Trump fired last week, alleging that Trump asked him to end the Flynn investigation during a meeting at the White House in February.

WP

Would Trump request to end Flynn probe have broken law?

WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

Simply put, it's preventing authorities — such as police or prosecutors — from doing the work of investigating and applying the law.

IS SUCH A REQUEST OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

Criminally speaking, obstructing justice applies to a variety of scenarios — like threatening a juror, retaliating against a witness, or impeding a grand jury proceeding — and Trump's alleged request would not fit neatly into any of them, legal experts said

To bring an obstruction charge, a prosecutor would have to show the president was trying to "corruptly" influence the investigation, and proving an improper intent can be hard.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Trump would have some lines of defense. "The president can claim he was raising an issue of concern for a longtime associate," Turley said.

As a police officer you learn that words matter in the legal process. For instance, on a traffic stop there is a difference between me saying, " I'd like to look in your trunk, could you open it please?" and "I'm going to look in your trunk, open it now." Can you tell which search is illegal? (As Mr. Rogers says, "I know you can!)

He was about as illogical and ignorant as some here appear to be. I just told him to get the **** off of my front porch and slammed the door in his face.

“It depends on what he said and how he said it,” said Edward B. MacMahon Jr., another criminal defense lawyer. “I call all the time and ask prosecutors to stop investigations. It just depends on how it’s done.”

The laws governing obstruction of justice require prosecutors to show a person “corruptly” tried to influence a probe — meaning investigators have to find some evidence of what a person was thinking when taking a particular action.

That is important, analysts said, because if the president were merely asserting that “he personally knows the target of the investigation and he’s just trying to provide his two cents,” that might not present him any legal problems, Cohen said.

“The question is, if the president committed the crime or attempted to commit the crime of obstruction, and you serve the Constitution and not the president, why didn’t you say something about this before you were fired?” Cohen said.

Noah Feldman is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University. In this column, he explains how difficult it would be to bring criminal charges in this situation..."With the evidence now available, it’s extremely unlikely that an ordinary prosecutor could convict Trump.”

====

The Lawfare blog has become a reliable, centrist source of quick but thorough reactions and analysis for the news out of the White House. "Obstruction convictions are difficult to obtain. Despite broad statutory language, to obtain a criminal conviction, the government must demonstrate an attempt to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the administration of the law in a pending proceeding. "

Look at the way I have been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can't let them get you down, you can't let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams.

The real danger, which got far less attention, was that Trump might use the draconian 100-year-old Espionage Act to target reporters with prosecution for publishing classified information. Less than six months into his presidency, we now have reason to believe this is a distinct possibility.

The Espionage Act is blatantly unconstitutional, which is part of the reason why every justice department in modern history has avoided reaching the point of prosecution against a newspaper. But it has long been a specter hanging over journalists: if you read just the text of the law, it is being violated almost daily by reporters at every major paper in the country. (And it’s not just journalists: the law is so wildly broad that just by reading the New York Times, you are arguably guilty.)