The President just committed another crime this morning

[Cardinal]

I know the President's criminality is downright boring at this point, but it's probably worth it to put this here anyway since by lunch there will be more news that buries this.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!”
-Donald Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069619316319035392

George Conway, lawyer, responds:
"File under “18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512”
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

Neal Katyal, (Supreme Court lawyer; law professor, former acting Solicitor General of United States) responds to Conway:
"George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circumstances."
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1069626379484975106

The criminal code that addresses Trump's crime appears to be 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b) and 5013, which deal with witness tampering, precisely as George Conway says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

Norm Eisen (Senior Fellow at Brooking and Former White House Ethics Czar), confirms 1512)b:
"This is witness tampering under 18 USC 1512(b), which makes it illegal to “cause or induce any person to withhold testimony.”
https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1069634040934785025

More "process crimes," I guess.

 

[Cardinal]

By the way, for any of you wondering why the Mueller investigation is taking longer than you'd like, it's probably because Trump and his associates keep committing new crimes.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Smells like witness tampering to me.

 

[Cardinal]

Smells like witness tampering to me.

It doesn't "smell like" witness tampering. It is witness tampering.

 

[SDET]

By the way, for any of you wondering why the Mueller investigation is taking longer than you'd like, it's probably because Trump and his associates keep committing new crimes.

That smells like a fishing expedition. Independent prosecutors should be investigating a single crime or incident.

 

[Cardinal]

That smells like a fishing expedition. Independent prosecutors should be investigating a single crime or incident.

Unfortunately Trump and his associates are complicating that goal by committing more than a single crime (see OP).

 

[Conaeolos]

:roll: hate is a hell of a drug....

 

[Mach]

Trump has been pardon dangling and witness tampering for a while now.

Trying to figure out his play.

- witness tampering, obstruction, and perjury he feels he can beat in the Senate if he's not fingered on anything else
- if these guys testify to his being part of a conspiracy, he figures he can't beat it in the Senate.

Or he's just clueless.
Or he's competing with Nixon and wants to show him how real Republicans do it.

Trump refused to answer questions for a long, long time, which contributed to the slow down. Now that Trump finally submitted his answers, look at how fast the dominoes are falling.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don’t know if a President complimenting a witness for not testifying crosses the legal line but I can’t imagine any of his lawyers thought that tweet was a good idea. It at least skirts the line.

 

[Cardinal]

I don’t know if a President complimenting a witness for not testifying crosses the legal line but I can’t imagine any of his lawyers thought that tweet was a good idea. It at least skirts the line.

You don't know if the President, who has pardoning powers, encouraging a witness to not cooperate with law enforcement crosses a legal line?

At least three legal professionals are not so uncertain.

 

[Mr Person]

:roll: hate is a hell of a drug....

Is that why you actually take pride in ignoring the absolute corruption of someone you consider to be on your "side"?


I mean, who cares if the President is an open criminal, just as long as flippantly brushing it off might annoy a liberal, right?

 

[Saladin4]

:roll: hate is a hell of a drug....

Your hero Roger Stone is in the cross hairs of Mueller...His tough talk won't save him...Will you cry when he is indicted?

 

[SDET]

Trump has been pardon dangling and witness tampering for a while now.

Trying to figure out his play.

- witness tampering, obstruction, and perjury he feels he can beat in the Senate if he's not fingered on anything else
- if these guys testify to his being part of a conspiracy, he figures he can't beat it in the Senate.

Or he's just clueless.
Or he's competing with Nixon and wants to show him how real Republicans do it.

Trump refused to answer questions for a long, long time, which contributed to the slow down. Now that Trump finally submitted his answers, look at how fast the dominoes are falling.

I would go with the notion of Trump being clueless. I hope the GOP powers that be keep track of Trump's re-electability and pressure him not to run if it gets too bad.

 

[Cardinal]

I would go with the notion of Trump being clueless. I hope the GOP powers that be keep track of Trump's re-electability and pressure him not to run if it gets too bad.

Cluelessness would have been a (mildly at best) forgivable rationale one week into his Presidency. Two years and countless hours of legal advice later, that argument no longer works.

For myself, I think that when someone commits numerous criminal acts and outright fraud throughout his life, maybe he's just a criminal at heart and needs to be in prison.

 

[SDET]

Is that why you actually take pride in ignoring the absolute corruption of someone you consider to be on your "side"?


I mean, who cares if the President is an open criminal, just as long as flippantly brushing it off might annoy a liberal, right?

Be careful what you wish for, impeachment proceedings take on a life of their own. Time to impeach Trump is running out. What if there is a Republican politically stronger than Trump on the ballot in 2020?

 

[Mr Person]

I don’t know if a President complimenting a witness for not testifying crosses the legal line but I can’t imagine any of his lawyers thought that tweet was a good idea. It at least skirts the line.

Seeing as three people who know what they're talking about based on training and experience, I really don't see any reason to suppose that they are wrong and this merely skirts a line. I'd say that what they say stands unless someone here can dig up a controlling appellate decision that lines up on all four corners with this situation saying otherwise..

 

[Praxas]

:roll: hate is a hell of a drug....

So is corruption which Trump and Co are high on right now.

 

[Praxas]

Be careful what you wish for, impeachment proceedings take on a life of their own. Time to impeach Trump is running out. What if there is a Republican politically stronger than Trump on the ballot in 2020?

I've said before, I'd rather have Pence as president right now than Trump. As much as I disagree with just about anything Pence has to offer, he is at least a professional unlike the Orange King Oompa Loompa who has disgraced America with his Twitter Tantrums, lack of professionalism, lack of presidentiality and flat out corruption.

 

[Cardinal]

Seeing as three people who know what they're talking about based on training and experience, I really don't see any reason to suppose that they are wrong and this merely skirts a line. I'd say that what they say stands unless someone here can dig up a controlling appellate decision that lines up on all four corners with this situation saying otherwise..

Please translate this into non-lawyer.

 

[Cardinal]

 

[Skeptic Bob]

You don't know if the President, who has pardoning powers, encouraging a witness to not cooperate with law enforcement crosses a legal line?

At least three legal professionals are not so uncertain.

I think a case can be made, but is there any precedent for charging a person for publicly complimenting a witness for not cooperating? It may not be direct enough. Do I personally think Trump is trying to sway a witness? Absolutely. But that is a long way away from being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But give it time, Trump may do something to make it easier.

 

[Mach]

I think a case can be made, but is there any precedent for charging a person for publicly complimenting a witness for not cooperating? It may not be direct enough. Do I personally think Trump is trying to sway a witness? Absolutely. But that is a long way away from being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But give it time, Trump may do something to make it easier.

I agree with your elaboration on this. It's obviously witness tampering/pardon dangling. It is not obvious if the sly way they are doing it would be something they can prosecute.

I'm curious from legal types regarding these "stacked up crimes".
If one were to say - do 8 "almost illegal" things make something illegal as a whole? The answer seems to be no way.
But does doing 8 illegal, but hard to individually prove things, result in a combined picture that is more easy to prove some or all of the individual crimes? I don't know, I'd like to think so.

 

[justabubba]

You don't know if the President, who has pardoning powers, encouraging a witness to not cooperate with law enforcement crosses a legal line?

At least three legal professionals are not so uncertain.

semantic point. i saw no "encouraging" a witness to not cooperate
instead, by tRump's tweet, i saw "celebrating" the witness' refusal to cooperate
the decision not to cooperate was already articulated by the prospective witness


that the president uniquely holds the power of pardon would make this an even more challenging case to make
why would someone with that capacity attempt to undermine the testimony of the prospective witness when he holds the ability to pardon him for any outcome resulting from the testimony or refusal to testify


and if you are seeking precedent to establishment tampering then make sure that precedent setting party also holds the power of the pardon, otherwise such comparison is apples and oatmeal

 

[Conaeolos]

I want to take these claims as seriously as they are framed, but the foundations get more far fetched by the day.

Is that why you actually take pride in ignoring the absolute corruption of someone you consider to be on your "side"?


I mean, who cares if the President is an open criminal, just as long as flippantly brushing it off might annoy a liberal, right?

I do not use the word criminal as flipply as you. I require solid evidence countered by the strongest defence…under those conditions. Not some legal technically but real crimes with real evidence that have not been adquently explained by the persons defence….


Which crime exactly do you think meets this threshold?

Your hero Roger Stone is in the cross hairs of Mueller...His tough talk won't save him...Will you cry when he is indicted?

Not if he is guilty of a real crime. I don't mean plea deal either I mean convinced in a court of law on established grounds with a proper defence or the equivalent there of…

So far the claim is he has ties to wikileaks, with very weak evidence.

I doubt that. I also see no evidence wikileaks is a Russian front. And even if I was wrong on both - the connection does not collusion or any other serious crime make….

Mueller better have one hell of a report because at this point he is killing his reputation with bad plea deals absent the context of the real changes…

Sounds like Manafort was a good catch yet it takes all of two second to see at least 98 people in DC right now who have done worse based on public evidence and are not even under investigation - so no I HATE selective prosecution for political purposes worse than putting criminals away. It's an affront to justice.

Giving jail time for what is usually fine without a difference of severity or intent is sicking.

Plea deals are very un-telling - people do crazy things in legal matters. As the truth is not the truth but what you can prove in court.

So is corruption which Trump and Co are high on right now.

I am curious which administration used FISA courts and NSA terrorist Inquiries for opposition research during a campaign….

Which administration authorized sales of uranium to Russia who had active ties to the Iranian nuclear program especially well having had large payments/donations to an officially connected entity from Russian linked sources….

Which administration, abused power to target certain political organizations…

As I have said a million times, to date Trump can be shown to possibly have conflict of interest related issues. If we had Hillary Clinton in office - we would have been more sensitive to charges of serious corruption…

To date it has not been shown Trump in any way is involved in serious corruption. I await the evidence otherwise…believe what you will but saying the evidence is clear is a blatant lie!

As to witness tampering - that law exist for entirely different purposes and certainly does not apply when no actual charge/crime is involved.

 

[Superfly]

Unfortunately Trump and his associates are complicating that goal by committing more than a single crime (see OP).

These people can't grasp the concept of uncovering more crimes while initial crimes are being investigated. I mean, if you were investigating money laundering, and found a dead body in the basement while looking through old files, are you going to ignore that dead body, simply because you weren't looking for it initially?

No. That's not how it works. :roll: