Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

[Lord Jim]

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ

Gee, you can find just about anything on the interwebs...

[RayThom]

Proof positive that insanity is contagious. Even low level contact with Lord Dampnut can turn a highly regarded professional into a babbling idiot.

Sekulow showed up on PBS NewsHour again tonight. And once again, he failed miserably.

[Burning Petard]

Regents University IS a very tough and intellectually demanding graduate school. You just have to take into account what the name means. The mission of this school is to train individuals to work as 'regent' for the real King of Kings, Lord of Lords, until he gets here (any day now) to re-assert sovereignty over this corner of the universe. That is why the focus is on producing lawyers and politicians with a solid bias for fundamentalist theology. You would not expect a Jesuit school to produce enthusiastic supporters for creation science.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

Bill Of Impeachment: Article II, Witness Intimidation

Trump’s bluff is called, revealing another self-inflicted legal wound

It’s not clear whether President Trump, on the day the Senate health-care bill was released, fessed up that he has no tapes of conversations of then-FBI Director James B. Comey (“I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings”) because he wanted to avoid intense media coverage of his embarrassing bluff or because the health-care bill is so bad that any distraction is welcome. Either way, no communications strategy can hide a bad health-care bill and another legal misstep that special prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III can use to ensnare him.

The Post reports:

On May 12, a day after details of a one-on-one dinner he had with Comey were reported by the New York Times, Trump issued an apparent threat to the former FBI director, whom he had recently fired. “James B. Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump tweeted.

To make matters worse, his confidant and media attention hog Newt Gingrich conceded, “I think he was, in his way, instinctively trying to rattle Comey. He’s not a professional politician. He doesn’t come back and think about Nixon and Watergate. His instinct is: ‘I’ll outbluff you.’ ”

Aside from the fact that he is now president (how long will his supporters trot out the incompetence excuse?),[that's a damn good question] being a professional politician has nothing to do with it.

Knowingly making a false statement to affect the testimony under oath of a witness can be a crime. The federal criminal code states that a person who “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding” has committed a federal offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison. (Constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe also points me to the federal statute that prohibits sending a “threatening letter or communication” that “endeavors to influence … the due administration of justice.”)

“The original tweet was in my view an important piece of evidence in the pattern of Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and witness intimidation,” says ethics guru Norman Eisen. “The fact that Trump has now admitted it was misleading adds to that evidence.” He explains, “Remember, obstruction is a crime of corrupt intent. Dishonesty of this kind further documents that intent. Moreover, today’s admission eliminates more benign explanations, such as that Trump really believed Comey was lying and had evidence to prove it. By process of elimination, what is left is the intent to impede the investigation by harassing the main witness against Trump.”

He concludes: “Bottom line: Another tweet has landed in Mueller’s exhibit file, which is already bulging with them.”

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... ca55afbdc9

[Bicycle Bill]

Reading between the lines.....

“I did not make,
(not all by myself, anyway)
and do not have,
(because the person who made them for me still has them)
any such recordings”

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

[ex-khobar Andy]

Jay Sekulow is now working for Trump in the Russia/obstruction thing??? Sekulow, whose legal career consists of trying to re-institute (Christian) prayer in schools and anti-gay litigation? Sekulow, who is one of the scammiest scammers fleecing the rubes of the religious right? Oh, now it makes sense.

Cohen, Kasowitz and now Sekulow. These guys are virtually a cartoon of lawyering. Seriously, this is the Worst Legal Team Ever. Is this Trump's idea of stellar, or even competent, representation? He's in even worse trouble than he thinks.

ETA:

Now I'm wondering whether Trump is actually paying him and he's taking a leave of absence from his "ACLJ," or whether he's just siphoning more off one of his "charities." Given this crew's M.O., I'm betting the latter. There will probably a good fraud investigation to be had there.

An interesting piece about Sekulow and his 'charities' in The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -donations

[Sue U]

For anyone who follows First Amendment church-and-state cases, Sekulow has been well-known as a sleazebag gadfly for decades.

[Lord Jim]

His son-in-law has a much better sense of quality legal talent...(understandably; he doesn't want to do a stretch in the pen like his Old Man did...)

Kushner Adds Prominent Lawyer Abbe Lowell to Defense Team

WASHINGTON — Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, has added to his legal team one of the nation’s most prominent trial lawyers, Abbe D. Lowell, his lawyers said on Monday.

Mr. Kushner was already represented by Jamie S. Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general who is known for steering clients — often behind the scenes — through complicated Washington investigations.

Mr. Lowell is a trial lawyer who has represented figures from both parties in high-profile cases. His clients have included the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards [another narcissistic socio-path] and the disgraced former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He is currently defending Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, against federal corruption charges.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/p ... owell.html

Of course it's a lot easier for Kushner to hire this caliber of legal talent then it would be for Trump...

Jared Kushner is pretty much the Anti-Trump...Nobody knows how to keep their mouth shut better than Kushner...

When his lawyer says, "Jared, don't say anything", that's pretty much Jared's go-to position...He's a regular Silent Sam...

This is not good news for Trump...

This means that if Jared is facing serious legal problems, his legal team will advise him to flip...

Living the life of a divorced man in a penthouse in Manhattan is infinitely preferable to being a married man spending 15 years in Allenwood...

Just sayin'...

[BoSoxGal]

I'd be surprised if push come to shove, Ivanka chose her dear old dad over Jared. They appear to be actually in love, they have young children, and they are Orthodox Jews. Not to mention dad's got one foot on the banana peel.

[Scooter]

You know you're in trouble when the lawyer you hired because you're under investigation, is himself under investigation.

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, when your lawyers need lawyers, this is not A Good Thing...

I gotta hand it to Trump...

He may not be doing squat to bring back manufacturing jobs, but he certainly has a very robust No Lawyer Left Behind program...

The ABA should give him some kind award...

[Big RR]

I'd be surprised if push come to shove, Ivanka chose her dear old dad over Jared. They appear to be actually in love, they have young children, and they are Orthodox Jews. Not to mention dad's got one foot on the banana peel.

True, but Dad's got a lot of money and the thought of being disinherited has broken up many the relationship, no matter how much in love they were. Face it, this is not just a few million bucks--this is dynastic level wealth (unless he squanders it, always a possibility, but hard to do with this much); it's why rich men are always right and the Daddy-Dearest books aren't published until after they die.

[Sue U]

Also too:



Nevar forgit.

[Lord Jim]

The latest polls show the public's support for Trump's Impeachment at 47% in favor, 43% against...

But while he has committed clearly Impeachable offenses, (fer crissakes, he confessed to obstructing justice on national television) I understand that Impeachment is a political and not a legal process, and that no President will ever be Impeached with a 47-43 percent split in popular opinion...

It's going to take more than that...

One of the really weird things I now find myself rooting for, (after having voted for Hillary Clinton, and contemplating rooting for a Democratic take over of Congress; how much weirder can it get... )

is an economic downturn...

I have come reluctantly to the conclusion, that the only way that 47% is going to turn into 67%, is when the Trumpanzee Faithful get hit personally, right in the wallet...

As a general rule, when it comes to favoring economic suffering, you can mark me down as opposed...

But I think it may very well take a significant economic down turn to create the political conditions required to do what needs to be done for the preservation of our Republic; the Impeachment and Removal of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President Of The United States...

That's pretty much the definition of "the greater good"...

[BoSoxGal]

I just heard a report on the news that a new poll just released shows more than 50% of Americans now believe that Congress should be led by the Democrats. That's progress! Let's hope the GOP keeps its collective head up Trump's ass long enough to see that sentiment carry over to November 2018.

[Lord Jim]

(I moved this from the Mucovite thread and re-posted it here, since this is clearly an obstruction issue)

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.

The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.

But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”

The claims were later shown to be misleading.

Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the news media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an email promising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.

The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

“This was . . . unnecessary,” said one of the president’s advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. “Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”[Ya think?]

Trump has already come under criticism for steps he has taken to challenge and undercut the Russia investigation.

More:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d5352c0559

No doubt about it..

Il Boobce is making Bob Mueller the busiest man in Washington...

[Big RR]

Much as I'd like to, I don't buy that he dictated anything; any such statement would have to be formulated by someone with the capacity to understand what's legal or illegal, and I honestly don't think Trump has that mental capacity; nor do I think the level of his writing (look at his tweets, e.g.) can be anywhere near as nuanced. Much more likely he hired someone else to do it for him (like he does everything else). Not that this exonerates him, he still was trying to evade and deceive investigation, just that he didn't write it himself (and the fact that it is being leaked that he did is probably just him trying to show how smart he is--he just doesn't get it).

[Lord Jim]

Trump admits coaching son’s answers on Russia inquiry

The White House confirmed Tuesday that President Trump “weighed in” to help craft his son’s response to reports of a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer — a move that could fuel an expansion of investigations into Trump campaign figures’ dealings with Moscow.

Legal analysts said drafting a misleading memo is not necessarily a crime, but it could give the ongoing special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller room to interview additional White House officials.

“Assuming all this is true, the first thing that stands out is the number of people who have been exposed to the scope of the special counsel,” said Bradley Moss, an attorney who handles national security cases. “At a minimum, it’s a political issue for the president. It looks horrible.”

The Washington Post reported Monday that Mr. Trump intervened as his advisers discussed how to respond to a New York Times inquiry about Donald Trump Jr.’s 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The Post said the president dictated a statement to be used by his son indicating the meeting was about Russian adoptions and not the campaign or other related issues.

The president’s son later released email correspondence that showed he was promised a Russian lawyer would provide information on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer last month had denied the president’s involvement in crafting the response.[Unfortunately, lying to your own lawyers isn't a crime...]

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disputed details of the Post report Tuesday but confirmed the president did offer his thoughts.

“He certainly didn’t dictate. He weighed in, offered suggestions like any father would do,” [Excellent point. What father hasn't coached their son to lie to the press? Anyone can identify with that.] Mrs. Sanders said.

She also bristled at the notion Mr. Trump’s explanation gave the wrong impression about the meeting.

“Everybody wants to try to make this some story about ‘misleading.’ The only thing I’ve seen that’s misleading is a year’s worth of stories that have been fueling a false narrative about this Russia collusion, and based on a phony scandal based on anonymous sources,” she said.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said drafting a misleading statement isn’t illegal. “Otherwise half of Washington would be in jail,” he quipped to C-SPAN on Tuesday.

But the president’s involvement could put him in legal jeopardy when it comes to the special counsel’s investigation, he said.

“There were allegations the president had already put pressure on Cabinet officials to terminate the independent investigation, and in that context, he then took it upon himself to personally direct how to respond to perhaps the most damaging piece of information that has come out regarding the Russia investigation. That is truly breathtaking,” Mr. Turley said. “There can be a legitimate allegation that there was an attempt to mislead, and the special counsel can say ‘I want to know why.’”

They could also subject Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications, to further scrutiny by the special counsel. The Post report states Ms. Hicks acted as a go-between for the president and his son as the initial statement was crafted.

“She at least is going to be asked questions about the scope of her involvement,” Mr. Moss said of the likelihood investigators will seek to learn more about the interactions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of both the Senate Judiciary and intelligence committees, which are each conducting probes of the 2016 election, said Congress will also take a look.

“This will be a factor when it comes before the full committee,” the California Democrat told CNN. “If it’s true, I think it is of serious concern.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -on-russi/

[Big RR]

He "weighed in"--that I can buy (I guess they think it's soooo much better?); you just can't make these things up.