@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
I was honestly curious, so sue me I guess.
Now I am being
honestly curious:
What made you think of a hypothetical situation that is one of a great many possible outcomes and is just about the least likely to occur?
First of all there is the issue of whether or not a sitting president can be prosecuted.
Here is an opinion piece from someone who, I would suggest, is biased against Trump. It doesn't make the author's opinion automatically wrong but it should be kept in mind when reading the article. It's the first article that appeared when I googled the question and not only was I struck by how ridiculous it is, I figured why not present the opinion of someone few Dems or liberals would immediately dismiss out of hand because of partisanship. (A little irony perhaps)
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/can-the-president-be-indicted-while-in-office-heres-why-it-could-happen/
Why do I think the author is biased? Well beside the fact that I have seen her on TV where she is paid by Fox, among others, to provide a left-wing view of legal issues, I just visited her FB page and her bias is made completely clear there.
Let's put that aside though. In the linked article she cites a portion of the federal obstruction of justice statute:
Quote:“Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—”
She then proceeds to offer this translation of the statute in the context of Trump's interaction with Comey.
Quote:“When the President of the United States sends a letter that obviously influences, impedes and obstructs the FBI from continuing with a pending investigation,” that’s called “obstruction of justice.” And everybody knows it.
Frankly her both breezy and crude opinion piece doesn't offer evidence that a keen legal scholar was at work when writing it:
Apparently Nanos seized on the fact that the section of the statute she cited specifically references a "letter" as a means to convey a threat that either attempts to or succeeds in impeding , influencing, etc the administration of a law and then leaps to the fact that Trump sent a "letter" to Comey advising him of his termination to, seemingly, make the argument that this letter "obviously" prevented the FBI from continuing its investigation into the extent of Russian influence on the 2016 election and
you know... it was a "letter!" and the statute specifically references letters!
Of course she never actually explains what specific letter Trump is supposed to have sent with it's "obvious" intent being to obstruct justice. Nanos references the NYT story concerning the alleged Trump/Comey conversation about the FBI's investigation of General Flynn as the tipping point for legal scholars (such as herself presumably) to connect the dots and find "obvious" evidence of obstruction of justice. However, the Times' article never references any letter and to my knowledge Trump never sent Comey any "letter" in connection with the Flynn investigation, nor has Comey previously testified or even casually remarked on one. Even the NYT's account of the Comey memo (an excerpt of which was read to the reporter over the phone) does not include any reference to a letter.
So while there's no direct connection between it and Trump's alleged attempt to influence the Flynn investigation (Again the claimed lynchpin to a case against Trump for obstruction of justice) we have to assume she meant the termination letter Trump sent to Comey because it's the only "letter" involved.
Once you get past that tangled mess you need to then examine the substance of her assertion that the termination letter demonstrates "obvious" obstruction of justice.
As you can see it's difficult to understand exactly what is rattling around in the mind of Nanos and to get anything out of the piece assumptions have to be made. At this point I assume that she is arguing that by terminating Comey, Trump
"obviously influences, impedes and obstructs the FBI from continuing with a pending investigation" into Russian influence and/or Flynn.
Now I suppose one can argue that by firing Comey, it may have delayed the investigation for a couple of hours while the investigating agents gathered around the coffee maker and discussed the firing, but almost immediately after it was announced, the FBI's Deputy Director (and at that moment the Acting Director), Andy McCabe testified before congress that the not only would the firing of Comey
not impede or delay the investigation(s) that would continue in a business as usual environment, in response to a very clear and specific question about the investigation thus far answered:
Quote:"As you know, senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution."
In response to a question about whether he believed the investigation was properly resourced, he testified,
Quote:"If you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do, I believe we have the adequate resources to do it, and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately."
He also testified that he was unaware of any request Comey might have made to the White House for additional resourcing and believed that if such a request had been made he would have been aware of it. Not surprisingly, this testimony didn't cause the MSM to discontinue reporting that
an unnamed source familiar with the situation informed a reporter that Comey had asked for more funding just before he got fired. Apparently the MSM believed the unnamed source was more
familiar with the situation that the Deputy Director.
In summary, Nanos asserts that the as yet unsubstantiated allegations of an unnamed source citing a memo no one has yet seen, when viewed with one section of the federal statute on obstruction of justice and an unspecified letter from Trump make a clear case for an obstruction charge
and everyone knows it. This despite the fact that the Deputy Director of the FBI testified under oath, before the Senate, that
there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date and that the investigation was fully resourced and would proceed as planned regardless of the firing of the Director.
Having
proven Trump should be charged, Nanos then makes her case for how the widely held consensus among legal experts that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office, should pose no major problem to getting Trump thrown in jail. If she is correct that the specific issue was never decided by SCOTUS in US v Nixon, and I've no knowledge that she is not, just a mistrust of her scholarship, then she's correct that it's not a done deal and theoretically it could be attempted and who knows, the Supreme Court might see it as she does. I'm sure if Nanos filed an amicus brief all of the justices would immediately sit up and take notice.
However notwithstanding whether or not a sitting president can be criminally charged it is highly unlikely that any prosecutor would do so for any crime less that treason. The possibility of having such a case in the hands of an ambitious young prosecutor with partisan tendencies and high ambition is almost non-existent. Whomever did try to prosecute would know that he or she was in store for a long, slogging legal battle that would assuredly require a ruling from the Supreme Court. Assuming the prosecutor actually had the goods on Trump, Trump knew it and was willing to cut a deal that involved resignation but no criminal charges there would be tremendous political pressure placed on the prosecutor to accept it. Any likely criminality short of treason is not going to have the entire nation fired up and calling for Trump's scalp. While I've no doubt
all of the Opposition forces would be gleeful and some unconcerned about celebrating and gloating in public, cooler heads would recognize that a very large segment of Americans would not view the demise of an American president as something to celebrate and crow about. The primary achievement will have been secured and folks like Chuck Schumer would put on their grave faces and lament that
although justice had prevailed and the vitality of the system confirmed it was a sad time for America and no one should be happy that the American president was proven to be a criminal and forced to resign.
If it is very unlikely that an American president would be criminally charged, how likely is it that one would actually be tried in court? I would say not at all.
It is even less likely (if that's possible) that having reached the point where the American president is criminally charged, tried and convicted that the House of Representative, even if it was 100% GOP, would refuse or even resist putting the wheels of impeachment and removal from office in motion. The idea is so preposterous that it's impossible not to ask why you would even bother to wonder what the answer to your question might be.
