POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

That's why criminal statutes have elements.

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 . . . .


Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Trump's America.

Paraphrasing a bit of the story: This guy Russell came to light because his roommate, Devon Arthurs, who was a neo nazi along with Russell and their other two roommates, naturally decided to convert to Islam at some point. (??) But much to his surprise and dismay, his 3 nazi roommates were being disrespectful towards his new found faith. So Arthurs killed two of them...

Yep... typical Monday in Florida.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.

So a judge has the power to sentence you, but if he tries to work a deal where he'll give you a tougher sentence if you don't rub one out then he's in trouble.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

We're actually not entirely sure that the President can't call the head of the FBI into his office and direct him to stop an investigation. Interestingly, it was Comey's take in his testimony that the President could, in fact, do exactly that if he so chooses.

The only reason this is still an "unanswered" question is because the talking heads on TV have to be somewhat balanced between trump supporters and people who actually understand how the law works and what actually constitutes obstruction. If, in fact, trump did what Comey says he did, he committed obstruction. Your false equivalency seeking ilk may want to see this differently but it just ain't true. Sort of like how I wish the scoreboard at the United Center was somehow wrong when it said Denver 6 Notre Dame 1, but that just isn't what it said, it's what actually happened. trump committed obstruction, plain and simple. Now, much like the congress needs no REAL reason to impeach or convict a president, a president breaking the law or the rules does not necessarily means he will be impeached as long as there are more people with little "r"s next to their names than little "d"s.

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

* Edit: Holy cats, it IS in some places. I had no idea.

What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it!

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it!

That's funny.

It is probably seen as strictly theoretical there. Who in their right mind would want to roll in the hay with a 'sotan, man or woman, unless they were obligated to?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

That's why criminal statutes have elements.

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 . . . .


Under this particular obstruction statute (U.S.C. section 1505), Trump may have the power, but if he exercises that power "corruptly," then it appears his actions may still fall within the statute. I'm sure there is case law clarifying that to some extent.

Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Aqua Buddha is on CNN right now polishing Trump's knob and pushing the "total vindication" BS. Jesus.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it!

Maryland statute imposes a 10 dollar penalty for adultery. That's making a statement about the sanctity of marriage right there. It's worth half the price of an ironic t-shirt.

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

How is that?

Dumb! Appreciate the game you're playing although mookie always did it with a little better humor and you can't even approach the level of insanity that Flaggy brings, but your premise is absurd. If Trump is sending a message to law enforcement that their jobs rely on not investigating his hires for any reason, he's obstructing justice. He doesn't need to know what specific crimes they're up to. That would give a blank check to anybody working for Trump to pretty much do whatever they wanted. Sorta how the Mafia used to work, isn't it?

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Sorta how the Mafia used to work, isn't it?

Nice legs you got there. I hope nothing happens to them.

What, what? I'm just talking about my hopes -- those can't be litigated!

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Maryland statute imposes a 10 dollar penalty for adultery. That's making a statement about the sanctity of marriage right there. It's worth half the price of an ironic t-shirt.

When was that law written? It'd be interesting to index it for inflation, as inaccurate as it would likely be from an era that long ago.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Right, corruptly would be the key. It seems to me that would come into play if they get something on a Trump minion and then can show that Trump knew or strongly suspected something was up. Otherwise, where is it going?

As it stands, Trump was told he wasn't under investigation. In reference to another matter, Comey pointed out that if they had something on a Trump minion, the immediate question would arise as to what Trump knew and when. So we might conclude that as of Comey's tenure, they had nothing on any Trump minion, because if they did, Trump would automatically come under investigation to answer that question.

How is that?

Corruptly is not the only key, any or all of the items, each separated by the commas, are key. It doesn't even matter if trump wasn't under investigation. Most people who are guilty of obstruction are not the ones who committed the physical crime. Since trump is stupid enough to believe his own hype, he believed that firing the head of the FBI would end any investigation, or at the very least put a chilling effect on whoever was doing the actual legwork. That's why he fired Comey. He can't help himself. And that's obstruction. Quit trying to find ways to defend the indefensible.

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

Corruptly is not the only key, any or all of the items, each separated by the commas, are key. It doesn't even matter if trump wasn't under investigation. Most people who are guilty of obstruction are not the ones who committed the physical crime. Since trump is stupid enough to believe his own hype, he believed that firing the head of the FBI would end any investigation, or at the very least put a chilling effect on whoever was doing the actual legwork. That's why he fired Comey. He can't help himself. And that's obstruction. Quit trying to find ways to defend the indefensible.

Don't say that. It's interesting to see how various parties will play out this scenario, or even how the two chambers might view it differently. (Voting for the impeachment process vs. finding guilt or innocence might set politicians to differing mindsets.)

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.11: Attack! Repeat. Atrack!!!

What I think is really funny about Minnesota's version of the law, aside from the fact that the statute is silent regarding instances where the husband is married and a woman sleeps with him, is the fact that in 2013 they amended the law. This statute isn't just a relic of the "women as property" days. They're still tweaking it!

The tweak was to make the law more PC:

Subd. 2. Limitations. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section except on complaint of the husband or the wife, except when such husband or wife is insane lacks the mental capacity, nor after one year from the commission of the offense.

edit: looks like the formatting didn't make it. "is insane" was changed to "lacks the mental capacity".

While amusing, it was probably just caught up in a general PCification of existing statutes.