It will be an irony for the ages that Trump's own mouth will probably sink him, courtesy of Lester Holt and FAKE NEWS NBC.
In my opinion they already have Trump dead to rights on obstruction of justice. He admitted on national television that he fired the director of the FBI for investigating his campaign/administration's ties to Russia.
I'm having trouble finding the quote where Trump explicitly stated that the Russia investigation into his campaign was the reason he fired Comey.In my opinion they already have Trump dead to rights on obstruction of justice. He admitted on national television that he fired the director of the FBI for investigating his campaign/administration's ties to Russia.
They have gotten away with the shady shit for so long they feel untouchable. They never realized it was because they had never really been truly investigated by someone who didn’t see them as potential political donor.
The arrogance of people who think they'll never end up in trouble they can't evade or buy themselves out of is always amazing to witness when the ride ends.
So much this, one need only look as far as Martin Shkreli's fucking face to see to what level people can delude themselves into thinking they're above it all.It's amazing how power can blind your thinking and rationality. Remember for many of these people they're used to getting their way, legality be damned.
I've seen it at my own organization and I'm sure many others have seen it as well. I'm just a mid-manager sorts but my job is pretty important/I have a lot of useful skills. We had a crisis a couple weeks ago that would have been a good application of said skills. I volunteered to help and was flat out told no by higher ups who then cherry picked folks to help. The people they put in charge then royally messed things up the first 48 hours because they lacked the exact skills I had and when I tried to point out the errors being made I was shunned/shouted down.
And what's happened since then? Those people were praised for the great job they did.
Now imagine that times 10000000 for those in Trump's orbit. They don't think there will ever be consequences for their actions even when illegal/unethical.
In my opinion they already have Trump dead to rights on obstruction of justice. He admitted on national television that he fired the director of the FBI for investigating his campaign/administration's ties to Russia.
You only judge people on what they explicitly say, eh?I'm having trouble finding the quote where Trump explicitly stated that the Russia investigation into his campaign was the reason he fired Comey.
I'm having trouble finding the quote where Trump explicitly stated that the Russia investigation into his campaign was the reason he fired Comey.
You only judge people on what they explicitly say, eh?
You must have a lot of friends.
I'm having trouble finding the quote where Trump explicitly stated that the Russia investigation into his campaign was the reason he fired Comey.
“I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. He made a recommendation. He’s highly respected. Very good guy, very smart guy, the Democrats like him, the Republicans like him, he made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.”
When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia, is a made up story, it’s an excuse for the Democrats to have lost an election that they should have won.
In a court of law he wins. "This Russia thing" was contextually framed as a hoax by the Democrats in the interview. Why should Trump tolerate the head of the FBI siding with the Dems attacking him with a farce?
In a court Trump doesn't have to prove he meant what he said, but the prosecution must present an overwhelming fact based argument that Trump didn't mean what his defense claims.
In a court of law he wins. "This Russia thing" was contextually framed as a hoax by the Democrats in the interview. Why should Trump tolerate the head of the FBI siding with the Dems attacking him with a farce?
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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 administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
In a court Trump doesn't have to prove he meant what he said, but the prosecution must present an overwhelming fact based argument that Trump didn't mean what his defense claims.
To my knowledge that's not how an obstruction charge would be laid out against him. It would depend on showing a pattern of obstructive behavior, a charge which the answers he gave in the NBC interview would appear to support.
Also remains to be seen what he told other people in his orbit or what they themselves saw. Since apparently big mouth told the Russians that Comey being gone relieved pressure on him re:Russia then christ only knows what he told others.
And this is why Mueller hasn't brought obstruction charges.
"Why did you fire Comey"
"Because he was part of the hoax".
As a prosecutor you cannot win against that. "But that was about Russia which we know isn't a hoax"
"That's what you say. I believe the Dems were sore losers and are making this all up".
Mueller may indeed get Trump on obstruction but Trumps interviews and tweets will not withstand an average legal defense.
As you say it's a basis for the investigation, but not good evidence.
And this is why Mueller hasn't brought obstruction charges.
"Why did you fire Comey"
"Because he was part of the hoax".
As a prosecutor you cannot win against that. "But that was about Russia which we know isn't a hoax"
"That's what you say. I believe the Dems were sore losers and are making this all up".
Mueller may indeed get Trump on obstruction but Trumps interviews and tweets will not withstand an average legal defense.
As you say it's a basis for the investigation, but not good evidence.
It was not framed as a hoax by the Democrats in the interview. (there wasn't anyone present but him and Lester Holt) Trump himself framed it as a hoax while talking about it, but that doesn't matter. As to what Trump should or shouldn't tolerate that's irrelevant to obstruction of justice which is defined as this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503
Trump certainly impeded Comey in the discharge of his official duty of pursuing the due administration of justice by firing him. The only question is if he did so 'corruptly', which means for an improper purpose. Shielding his administration from investigation or embarrassment would certainly qualify to me so that's kind of the end of it.
Here's a good Brookings piece on it.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-final.pdf
I'd preface that with a "yet". He'd be the very last person charged in any event.
Should they turn up testimony from people present or hard evidence his statements will surely be used to reinforce the case.
He hasn't brought obstruction charges because he likely can't bring them against the president. Also, anything he does say about the president will be the very, very last thing he does in his investigation. That he hasn't brought them yet doesn't mean anything.
Trump believing that the Russia investigation was a hoax would not protect him from obstruction of justice charges in any way. If Trump acted to stop Comey's investigation in order to protect himself, even if he thought the charges were trumped up (har) or wrong he's still guilty.
Obstruction hinges on intent, or corrupt purpose. Remember in the interview there were statements on "the Russia thing" being a hoax. From the position of the defense termination of someone believed to be participating in a conspiracy against Trump would not be obstructing an investigation.
Bull? Sure, but it's not me you have to convince. You have to demonstrate with more than definitions that effectively Trump MUST have not decided based on beliefs regarding the credibility or purpose of the investigation. So he decided to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation? Well why wouldn't he? Whatever Comey may have done he was a political hack working to create a fraud against Trump.
Again, that's not my perspective but a possible defense.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that could not have been the case. If that could be done then Mueller would already have brought an indictment. Since it hasn't one may deduce that more is needed for a successful prosecution.
Obstruction hinges on intent, or corrupt purpose. Remember in the interview there were statements on "the Russia thing" being a hoax. From the position of the defense termination of someone believed to be participating in a conspiracy against Trump would not be obstructing an investigation.
Bull? Sure, but it's not me you have to convince. You have to demonstrate with more than definitions that effectively Trump MUST have not decided based on beliefs regarding the credibility or purpose of the investigation. So he decided to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation? Well why wouldn't he? Whatever Comey may have done he was a political hack working to create a fraud against Trump.
Again, that's not my perspective but a possible defense.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that could not have been the case. If that could be done then Mueller would already have brought an indictment. Since it hasn't one may deduce that more is needed for a successful prosecution.
The Special Counsel mandate is rather broad. Any russian coordination with the Trump campaign. Anything that is found in the course of the investigation (really open ended). Anything pursuant to 28 CFR 600.4 (perjury, obstruction, etc.).
The middle one is the kicker. Any lead they turn up in the course of investigating anyone for the first is allowable. Kiddie porn on Bannon's email ... fair game.
Obstruction hinges on intent, or corrupt purpose. Remember in the interview there were statements on "the Russia thing" being a hoax. From the position of the defense termination of someone believed to be participating in a conspiracy against Trump would not be obstructing an investigation.
Bull? Sure, but it's not me you have to convince. You have to demonstrate with more than definitions that effectively Trump MUST have not decided based on beliefs regarding the credibility or purpose of the investigation. So he decided to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation? Well why wouldn't he? Whatever Comey may have done he was a political hack working to create a fraud against Trump.
Again, that's not my perspective but a possible defense.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that could not have been the case. If that could be done then Mueller would already have brought an indictment. Since it hasn't one may deduce that more is needed for a successful prosecution.
I agree. I took the hoax reference to be referring to the dossier...which he adamantly believes is indeed a hoax. I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax, he said it was an excuse used by Democrat. Note that he specifically stated that he wanted the investigation "absolutely done properly". For anyone to frame this as "dead to rights on obstruction of justice" is delusional imo.And this is why Mueller hasn't brought obstruction charges.
"Why did you fire Comey"
"Because he was part of the hoax".
As a prosecutor you cannot win against that. "But that was about Russia which we know isn't a hoax"
"That's what you say. I believe the Dems were sore losers and are making this all up".
Mueller may indeed get Trump on obstruction but Trumps interviews and tweets will not withstand an average legal defense.
As you say it's a basis for the investigation, but not good evidence.
I agree. I took the hoax reference to be referring to the dossier...which he adamantly believes is indeed a hoax. I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax, he said it was an excuse used by Democrat. Note that he specifically stated that he wanted the investigation "absolutely done properly". For anyone to frame this as "dead to rights on obstruction of justice" is delusional imo.
I agree. I took the hoax reference to be referring to the dossier...which he adamantly believes is indeed a hoax. I don't believe he wasn't saying Russian influence in the election was a hoax, he said it was an excuse used by Democrat. Note that he specifically stated that he wanted the investigation "absolutely done properly". For anyone to frame this as "dead to rights on obstruction of justice" is delusional imo.