Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

Up to now, I have personally not felt that Trump had yet committed an act which could be sustained politically as an Impeachable Offense. And this element, more than just criminality or Unconstitutionally is essential for any serious Impeachment effort, because of course Impeachment, while it looks procedurally like a legal process, is actually a political one.

The talk about violating the emoluments clause never struck me as something that could ever really get anywhere because it was too arcane and complex for the average person to easily understand. But Obstruction Of Justice in a situation like this is very easy to follow.

First, here's an excerpt from an article that talks about the criminal standards for obstruction of justice:
The statutory language is broad: it covers any attempt, even unsuccessful, to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the administration of the law in a pending proceeding. As the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys’ Manual explains, the crime is found on proof of three elements: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.”

As applied to the President and his staff, the first two elements appear to be a slam dunk. First, courts have given “proceeding” a broad definition. As the DOJ Manual notes, “the Sixth Circuit held that the term ‘proceeding’ is ‘of broad scope, encompassing both the investigative and adjudicative functions of a department or agency.’” The Russia investigation pretty clearly counts. Second, Comey himself had recently confirmed that the investigation was ongoing—in extremely public and publicized congressional hearings. So no relevant actor could claim he did not know or “have a reasonably founded belief” that the investigation was ongoing.

The questions here surround the third element. One must not merely “influence, obstruct, or impede” but also do so corruptly. Under § 1515(b), a corrupt state of mind requires intent: “acting with an improper purpose.” While the President routinely influences federal law enforcement at a high level—including prioritizing certain categories of crimes or appointing officials based on certain expertise that is bound to influence the Bureau’s work—those contacts would not be considered obstruction because in those scenarios, the President is acting with a proper purpose, his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Ultimately the answer goes to the motives: Did the President or Attorney General intend for Comey’s firing to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the Russia investigation? Even if they had other reasons or goals—including perfectly lawful ones, such as concerns about the public’s perception of the FBI and the Director—if obstructing or impeding the Russia investigation was a goal, that would constitute obstruction of justice. Therefore, inquiries as to whether Trump’s conduct amount to obstruction will center on his motives.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing- ... on-justice

By late afternoon yesterday, the lie that the White House had been spinning all day, that the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had been the one recommending Comey's firing and that Trump had merely accepted his recommendation had completely fell apart, after Rosenstein threatened to resign if that cover story wasn't withdrawn.
At a packed White House briefing Wednesday afternoon White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered some new explanations and some more detailed ones for how Trump reached his decision. The new narrative helps explain the president’s decision better, but also raises new and troubling questions.

Sanders, filling in for Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who is fulfilling Navy Reserve duties, said that Trump had in fact lost confidence in Comey over a period of time, a gradual erosion. She denied a New York Times report that Trump had asked the Justice Department to concoct a rationale for firing Comey, and said he had not requested that Rosenstein write his memo.

“No, the president had lost … confidence in Director Comey and frankly he’d been considering letting Director Comey go since the day he was elected,” Sanders said.

Yet moments later Sanders suggested that Trump had in fact asked for the memo. Rosenstein and Sessions were at the White House on Monday discussing an unrelated matter, she said, when Rosenstein asked to speak with Trump about Comey. He then laid out his concerns, and the president asked him to put them in writing. After receiving the memo the following day, on Tuesday, Trump decided to fire Comey.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ey/526173/

Here's an excerpt from a much longer WaPo article that helps clear some of this up:
Every time FBI Director James B. Comey appeared in public, an ever-watchful President Trump grew increasingly agitated that the topic was the one that he was most desperate to avoid: Russia.

Trump had long questioned Comey’s loyalty and judgment, and was infuriated by what he viewed as the director’s lack of action in recent weeks on leaks from within the federal government. By last weekend, he had made up his mind: Comey had to go.

At his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was “strange,” and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.

Back at work Monday morning in Washington, Trump told Vice President Pence and several senior aides — Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon and Donald McGahn, among others — that he was ready to move on Comey. First, though, he wanted to talk with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his trusted confidant, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey reported directly. Trump summoned the two of them to the White House for a meeting, according to a person close to the White House.

The president already had decided to fire Comey, according to this person. But in the meeting, several White House officials said Trump gave Sessions and Rosenstein a directive: to explain in writing the case against Comey.

The pair quickly fulfilled the boss’s orders, and the next day Trump fired Comey — a breathtaking move that thrust a White House already accustomed to chaos into a new level of tumult, one that has legal as well as political consequences.

Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Justice Department officials declined to comment.

The stated rationale for Comey’s firing delivered Wednesday by principal deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was that he had committed “atrocities” in overseeing the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, hurting morale in the bureau and compromising public trust.

“He wasn’t doing a good job,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Very simple. He wasn’t doing a good job.”

But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey.

Trump was angry that Comey would not support his baseless claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped. Trump was frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And he fumed that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not enough to investigating leaks to journalists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 06dafec296

Here's another critically important piece to drop into the timeline of the Comey firing:
Days Before He Was Fired, Comey Asked for Money for Russia Investigation

WASHINGTON — Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three congressional officials who were briefed on his request.

Mr. Comey asked for the resources last week from Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who also wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.

Mr. Comey then briefed members of Congress on the meeting in recent days, telling them about his meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, who is the most senior law enforcement official supervising the Russia investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself because of his close ties to the Trump campaign and his undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador.

The timing of Mr. Comey’s request is not clear-cut evidence that his firing was related to the Russia investigation. But it is certain to fuel bipartisan criticism that President Trump appeared to be meddling in an investigation that had the potential to damage his presidency.

The F.B.I. declined to comment. But Sarah Isgur Flores, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said “the idea that he asked for more funding” for the Russia investigation was “totally false.” She did not elaborate.[So, given the track record here, which more likely? That a Trump spokes shill at the DOJ is lying, or that Comey lied when he briefed Congress?]

In his briefing with members of Congress, Mr. Comey said he had been frustrated with the amount of resources being dedicated to the Russia investigation, according to two of the officials. Until two weeks ago, when Mr. Rosenstein took over as deputy attorney general, the investigation was being overseen by Dana Boente, who was acting as the deputy and is now the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBAZ6m1

So here's what we have:

Trump has been pissed off with Comey for his focus on the Russiagate investigation for a long time. Then Comey goes to his superior at the DOJ and asks for more resources to further expand and ramp up the investigation.

Then Trump decides to fire Comey and summons the Deputy AG and the Attorney General, (who shouldn't even have been involved in the process since he had supposedly recused himself because of his own lying about communications with Russian officials) to the White House to instruct them to write up a rationale for his dismissal. Then Trump fires Comey. (And then of course Trump sends all his minions out to lie about how this process unfolded.)

The $64,000 question here, is whether or not Trump was aware of the fact that Comey was seeking to ramp up and expand the investigation into his ties (and the ties of others close to him) to Russia prior to deciding to fire him. If so, given the timeline and Trump's record of already being furious about the investigation, any rational, objective person would have to conclude that Comey's intent to expand the investigation was the immediate proximate cause for his dismissal, and that would be a clear cut case of Obstruction of Justice...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Thu May 11, 2017 2:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

Congratulations Mr. Trump, you have now opened up a whole new avenue of investigation into your wrong doing; "The Russiagate Cover-up"....

A very robust cover-up has clearly been going on for months, (though exactly what is being covered up remains to be determined)

Every diversion or distraction tweet Trump has made has been an element of this coverup...

Every public lie told by Trump or one of his minions about anything related to this has been an element of the cover-up...

Every effort Trump has made to derail and discredit the investigations that have been looking into Russiagate (Like that weird Kabuki dance he orchestrated with the now recused House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes) has been an element of the cover-up...

The refusal to turn over requested documents to the investigative committees have all been elements of the cover up...

The systematic attempt to discredit investigative journalism into Russiagate is an element of the cover-up...

The abandoned attempt to exert "Executive Privilege" to prevent Sally Yates from testifying was an element of the cover-up...

The obsession with trying to find and punish those who have been revealing to the press the President's misconduct regarding all of this is an element of the cover-up....

The question now, in the wake of the Comey firing, is have the cover-up efforts crossed over the line to criminality, or a politically understandable Impeachable Offense...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri May 12, 2017 2:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11265
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Crackpot »

I would say once Yertle folds.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Sue U »

Crackpot wrote:I would say once Yertle folds.
Yeah, I really don't understand why McConnell is so anxious to defend Trump from a congressional investigation. I mean, other than his wife is Secretary of Transportation, and Trump will let McConnell do whatever he wants in the Senate ...

But seriously, he has nothing to gain politically by allying himself with Trump on this nonsense, and potentially a lot to lose.

As for impeachment, a Republican House is never going to draft a bill of impeachment against Trump as long as the stink is solely on him and his cronies, and is not impeding their agenda (if they ever figure out what that actually is).
GAH!

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Dear Lord,

I rarely come to you to ask for anything on a regular basis, but I come to you now in supplication — not for myself, but for the well-being of America; a country brought forth some two hundred and forty years ago; a country where even the founding documents attempted to create a bright hope for the people of the world; a country that even invoked your holy name not just once, not even twice, but FOUR TIMES in asking for guidance and protection; and even today proclaims itself to be "one nation under God." ¹

It is also told in the Bible of the numerous times you interceded on behalf of your chosen people, the people of Israel.  You are remembered, honored, and rightly praised for these mighty works — delivering Jericho unto Joshua; the casting of Pharaoh's armies into the sea; bringing the Israelites back from their exile in Egypt; even giving your own son as a sin offering to rededicate us to yourself — even unto this day.

So I ask you, Lord, if you could again intercede on our behalf and remove this vexation that you have seen fit to visit upon us, specifically, Mr. Donald Trump.  It wouldn't take much — just one measly little lightning bolt the next time he's out golfing....
————————
¹for the record, I do not interpret this phrase from the National Anthem to mean that America is a "Christian" nation or a nation obligated to follow any single religion and its tenets; but rather I view it to mean that America is a single nation — not Balkanized or otherwise divided amongst itself — and under the purview and observance of the Deity regardless of how you choose to view or name him.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Econoline »

Trae Crowder with the 'Liberal Redneck' version of...well, pretty much everything Jim just said:

People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by dales »

As I mentioned earlier: July 4th 2017.

Independence from this lying and shameless embarrassment.

:(

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Now on CNN - Deputy Press Secretary saying that Trump fired Comey in order to speed the investigation.

I cannot believe that there is any clearer confession that he is attempting to influence an investigation. Case fucking closed.
From the CNN story: "We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity," said deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders, referring to the FBI's probe into Moscow's interference in last year's election. "And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen."

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by BoSoxGal »

All I know is that I now like Comey 10x more than I did before the firing, and I'm guessing that martyr effect is going to manifest with many Americans.

I think the Donald done messed up!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Guinevere »

Sue U wrote:
Crackpot wrote:I would say once Yertle folds.
Yeah, I really don't understand why McConnell is so anxious to defend Trump from a congressional investigation. I mean, other than his wife is Secretary of Transportation, and Trump will let McConnell do whatever he wants in the Senate ...

But seriously, he has nothing to gain politically by allying himself with Trump on this nonsense, and potentially a lot to lose.

As for impeachment, a Republican House is never going to draft a bill of impeachment against Trump as long as the stink is solely on him and his cronies, and is not impeding their agenda (if they ever figure out what that actually is).
Yep, just another reason why we need to sweep them out of office in 2018. So I think a bill of impeachment will be drafted on, oh, let's say January 21, 2019.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

Yep, just another reason why we need to sweep them out of office in 2018. So I think a bill of impeachment will be drafted on, oh, let's say January 21, 2019.
If it's not done before then, it certainly will be at that point...

The President Of The United States basically confessed to engaging in Obstruction Of Justice in his interview with Lester Holt today...
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by rubato »

McConnell, Ryan, and the entire GOP delegation have been obsequiously bowing, scraping and kow-towing to Trump since the election. How is this suddenly a surprise?

Mc Cain occasionally looks like he is about to go back to his old days in GWBs first administration and express an original opinion and of course Rand Paul has his Libertarian ideals to keep him warm, but that's it.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Guinevere »

Article II - Witness Tampering/Intimidation

Exhibit A:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/ ... ey-threat/
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

The Senate Intelligence Committee should immediately subpoena any tape recordings the White House may have of any discussions between Trump and Comey, and any tape recordings in Trump's possession of discussions he has had with any government official discussing the Russia investigation.

Then if they exist and he destroys them, or refuses to turn them over, Defiance of Congressional Subpoenas can be added as Article III....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Guinevere »

House and Senate committees, *and* the FBI.

ETA: This is how you build a case, one brick at a time. Patience, grasshoppers.....
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

Image
ImageImageImage

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18298
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by BoSoxGal »

Cool pic!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Econoline »

Trump strikes me as the sort who will bluff, bully, bluster, and blunder his way through the entire impeachment process (and then become the first POTUS ever to be removed from office that way) rather than resign in shame when the GOP Senate leaders privately warn him that he's going down.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even Trump is stupid enough to be taping White House conversations, (though given the staggering dimensions of his ignorance, it can't be ruled out that he may not know about the Nixon experience with this. Afterall, why would he have paid any attention to news stories about Watergate? His name wasn't in them.) I suspect it's more likely that this is just a bluff designed primarily to try to change media focus off of Comey's firing...

If part of the intent is also to bully and intimidate Comey, that would seem crazy (so in other words, in Trump's case perfectly possible) since Comey was present, and presumably knows better than anyone that Trump's account is pure bullshit, and any tape that existed would prove that. (I saw in the news that someone close to Comey said "if there is a tape, there's nothing he is worried about" that could be on it. )

But all of that being said, just in case there are tapes, it is essential that subpoenaes for them be issued.

I also find Trump's account of this dinner he had with Comey absolutely hilarious...

According to Trump, Comey invites himself over for dinner at the White House, (yeah, people invite themselves to dinner at the White House all the time) for the purpose of begging to be able to keep his job, (a job that came with a 10 year appointment, and that he had no reason to believe he wouldn't keep.)

"Oh please Mr. President, please, please let me keep my job...pretty please"

Yeah, that really sounds like Jim Comey doesn't it? :lol:


On the other hand, the alternative explanation that's been out in the public:

Trump invites Comey to the White House for dinner, (an invitation which Comey reluctantly accepts because he's not really thrilled with the idea of spending that kind of informal time with Trump in light of the Russia investigation) where Trump then proceeds to try to pry as much information as possible about the Russiagate investigation out of Comey and then tries to pressure him into making some sort of completely inappropriate personal loyalty pledge...

That sounds exactly like Trump...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

ImageImageImage

Post Reply