Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[Andy Capp]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let the man sit down and give him a chance to set the record straight in front of the American people so that when he inevitably lies, there can be impeachment proceedings

I forgot about our wager, incidentally. Who won? Does another conviction/new witness count?

 

[waiguoren]

But you have no factual basis upon which to dispute the findings of the court.

On just the narrow question of whether paying hush money to a mistress qualifies as a "campaign contribution", we have the precedent of the Edwards case. We also have the standard presumption of innocence. The court would need to prove that the payment was made solely for the purpose of influencing the election outcome. That's a high bar.

By your standard, we should never trust any court verdict ever and we might as well just arbitrarily point fingers at who we want to be guilty.

I disagree. My standard is: faithful interpretation of the law as written, due process, presumption of innocence.

We don't know what evidence is held by the state. We don't know what evidence they didn't even have to use because he copped a plea.

This is an excellent point. We have to think probabilistically because we do not have access to all evidence available to Judge Wood. You appear to believe it's likely that Cohen presented unequivocal evidence that the payment to Stephanie Clifford was made solely for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. I believe it's unlikely. I think that's a fine disagreement to have.

 

[ChainFlow]

I gather from your comment that you do not like some aspects of the system of government we were given. In this sense, I consider you an ally. I am also glad to see that you and I agree that the president is not above the law. The Constitution specifies that a president may be impeached for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". Evidence for such offenses can come from a variety of sources inside and outside the executive branch.

President Nixon was not impeached for firing Cox. The House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment. The full text of those articles is available here. I presume that firing Cox was not listed because that firing was a constitutionally protected act. Nevertheless, that firing (and the associated Saturday Night Massacre) led to massive public outcry and therefore to a serious threat of impeachment on other grounds. Similarly, President Trump would be well within his authority to fire Robert Mueller. However, I believe that the political fallout from such a firing would be too great for the president to withstand.

So is your position that President’s action CAN constitute obstruction if done to interfere with an investigation into his wrongdoing? Because that is part of what Nixon was impeached for.

From Nixon’s impeachment articles:

“Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.” (particular emphasis on conceal the existence and scope.. very appropriate to Trump’s apparent plan)

*approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings; (Don Jr’s false statement on the Magnitsky Act meeting, anyone?)

** interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees; (obvious)

***approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities; (Paying off fired administration officials through 150K/year consulting gigs with the RNC)

**** making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or (Witch Hunt! 13 Angry Democrats!)

*****endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony. (Manafort pardon offer)

I should have reviewed this material a while ago! The parallels are striking.


Furthermore, the fact that Nixon was impeached for interfering with the investigation not just by Congressional Committees, but by various arms of the DoJ, shows that your President-as-unbridled-executive theory is not shared by Congress. He does not have absolute authority over the executive branch, at least in the case of using his authority to obstruct investigations.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I forgot about our wager, incidentally. Who won? Does another conviction/new witness count?

LOL

I was wondering the same. I can agree to take the L or we can reset for the next nothingburger.

 

[Andy Capp]

On just the narrow question of whether paying hush money to a mistress qualifies as a "campaign contribution", we have the precedent of the Edwards case. We also have the standard presumption of innocence. The court would need to prove that the payment was made solely for the purpose of influencing the election outcome. That's a high bar.



I disagree. My standard is: faithful interpretation of the law as written, due process, presumption of innocence.



This is an excellent point. We have to think probabilistically because we do not have access to all evidence available to Judge Wood. You appear to believe it's likely that Cohen presented unequivocal evidence that the payment to Stephanie Clifford was made solely for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election. I believe it's unlikely. I think that's a fine disagreement to have.

Cut the bullshit. I'm not in any way discussing what I believe. I'm saying it's the conclusion of the court. That you introduce belief into the conversation is evidence of your reliance upon truthiness. It's dishonest discussion and an annoying waste of time. Your basis for saying it's not a campaign contribution is that sometimes people (Cohen) lie when they have no reason to, despite any evidence of that.

 

[waiguoren]

Your interpretation of the matter is not in line with the thinking or behavior of Trump’s own lawyers, Mueller (judging by what is publicly known), or pretty much anyone whose who matters.

I disagree with the premise, and more importantly the opinion of people who in your opinion "matter" need not bear any relation to the truth. In other words, why not focus on the facts instead of turning to a character attack?

The President is not a king held only in check by Parliament.

I agree.

He took an oath to faithfully execute the Constition and laws of the US.

I agree.

He does not get to break the laws he is bound to execute.

I agree.

Including obstruction.

I agree.

He is not above the law.

I agree.

Your de nihilo claim that “only bribery” counts as a Presidential crime

That is not my claim. My claim is that only bribery restricts the president's ability to fire or hire executive branch personnel. Your promoting of the mere firing of an executive branch official as an instance of "obstruction of justice" represents a new theory of constitutional law with no historical basis and that certainly was not in existence in 1974 when President Nixon fired Archibald Cox.

High crimes and misdemeanors may be an inconvenient phrase to your “President-as-a-King” authoritarian theory

As I already explained, I favor constitutional amendments to further limit the power of the president. That's directly at odds with your characterization of me as favoring authoritarianism.

Jackson was impeached for violating the Tenure Act, a much less serious offense than obstruction of justice.

That was President Johnson. Yes, he was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. That was certainly an invalid reason for impeachment as the Tenure of Office Act was patently unconstitutional. Anyway, if we imagine that President Johnson had actually committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then impeachment would have been justified. However, we have no evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice.

 

[Andy Capp]

LOL

I was wondering the same. I can agree to take the L or we can reset for the next nothingburger.

I think that had the conviction resulted in some bombshell revelation it would count, but people who worked for Trump pleading guilty has practically become a normal event. You won. PM a quote or link to a post and I'll enter it into my sig.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Holy fuck is wai really trying to say POTUS is allowed to fire those investigating him? Jesus christ. That was Nixon's Saturday night massacre . That was the last straw for republicans to sign off on articles of impeachment including obstruction of justice which included firing members of DOJ who were yes investigating Nixon.

You're such a shitty troll @waiguoren

At least @bobgeese admits trolling

 

[Andy Capp]

However, we have no evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice.

According to whom? According to this guy,
Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski: I helped prosecute Watergate. Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.

"In prepared testimony released on the eve of his appearance Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey placed President Trump in the gunsights of a federal criminal investigation, laying out evidence sufficient for a case of obstruction of justice.

Comey proved what Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers carefully avoided admitting in their testimony on Wednesday — that the president had specifically attempted to shut off at least a major piece of what Trump calls the “Russia thing,” the investigation into the misleading statements by fired national security adviser Michael Flynn concerning his role in dealings with the Russians. This kind of presidential intervention in a pending criminal investigation has not been seen, to my knowledge, since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Comey’s statement meticulously detailed a series of interventions by Trump soliciting his assistance in getting the criminal probe dropped. These details are red meat for a prosecutor. Presumably, the team of experienced criminal prosecutors that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has assembled will be following up on this crucial testimony, which rests on contemporaneous memorandums that Comey was sufficiently alarmed to prepare immediately after receiving the president’s requests."

 

[ChainFlow]

I disagree with the premise, and more importantly the opinion of people who in your opinion "matter" need not bear any relation to the truth. In other words, why not focus on the facts instead of turning to a character attack?

I’m pointing out that your interpretation of the matter is novel despite your representations of it as the baseline opinion. The current consensus is that the President may not fire people to obstruct investigations into himself.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

Then why are you angling for this “golly gee, I don’t like that the President has supreme executive authority and can terminate any investigations into himself originating outside of Congress but that’s just the way it is and we’ll have to someday, when Trump isn’t President anymore, make an amendment to fix it” nonsense?

That is not my claim. My claim is that only bribery restricts the president's ability to fire or hire executive branch personnel. Your promoting of the mere firing of an executive branch official as an instance of "obstruction of justice" represents a new theory of constitutional law with no historical basis and that certainly was not in existence in 1974 when President Nixon fired Archibald Cox.

Please provide legal scholar arguments for this idea which flies in the face of current consensus. Why is Trump even worried about Mueller’s obstruction case when we are, according to you, living in a universe where the president cannot commit obstruction by firing people? Do you think that the rest of the world is crazy, but you’re the sane one?

As I already explained, I favor constitutional amendments to further limit the power of the president. That's directly at odds with your characterization of me as favoring authoritarianism.

Your current argument attempts to grant additional power to the president that by current consensus he does NOT have. The opinion of Congress over the years, current investigators, most people speaking on the matter who aren’t on Fox, all agree that the President is currently in jeopardy for having possibly committed obstruction by firing Comey (and may further his hazard by firing Sessions to get to Mueller). You are attempting to redefine the world to remove this hazard. The world, and your audience here, are under no obligation to cooperate.

However, we have no evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice.

There is evidence in plain public view that he may have committed obstruction. I get that you are trying to define Obstruction of Justice as “something non-Presidents do” and then arguing that “see, there’s no evidence he did that, because it makes as much sense as elephants flying so firing Comey couldn’t have been obstruction” but no one has to buy that.

 

[waiguoren]

So is your position that President’s action CAN constitute obstruction if done to interfere with an investigation into his wrongdoing

Only if an underlying crime was committed as part of the alleged plot to obstruct justice. Perjury is a typical example. In the case of Nixon, multiple crimes are listed within the nine parts of Article I. Just take the first part for example:

making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States

That is criminal behavior. He also ordered the paying of hush money, destroyed evidence, and instructed his underlings to lie. All of this was criminal behavior.


-----------------


Before we go further, I want to note that our present disagreement is veering into a long-standing debate over the nature of impeachment: did the founders intend for impeachment to be available only against officials guilty of criminal behavior, or were other acts also to be considered? Madison wanted to limit impeachment to cases of treason and bribery only. Mason insisted that "maladministration" be included, but Madison convinced him this was too loose. They settled on "high crimes and misdemeanors".

 

[waiguoren]

I'm not in any way discussing what I believe. I'm saying it's the conclusion of the court.

You seemed to be equating a judge's finding of a factual basis for a guilty plea with actual guilt in absolute sense of the term.

Your basis for saying it's not a campaign contribution is that sometimes people (Cohen) lie when they have no reason to, despite any evidence of that.

No. My argument is: it's unlikely that the evidence presented to Judge Wood constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the payment to Stephanie Clifford was made purely for the reason of influencing the 2016 election.

 

[andnowweknow]

I gather from your comment that you do not like some aspects of the system of government we were given. In this sense, I consider you an ally. I am also glad to see that you and I agree that the president is not above the law. The Constitution specifies that a president may be impeached for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors". Evidence for such offenses can come from a variety of sources inside and outside the executive branch.

President Nixon was not impeached for firing Cox. The House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment. The full text of those articles is available here. I presume that firing Cox was not listed because that firing was a constitutionally protected act. Nevertheless, that firing (and the associated Saturday Night Massacre) led to massive public outcry and therefore to a serious threat of impeachment on other grounds. Similarly, President Trump would be well within his authority to fire Robert Mueller. However, I believe that the political fallout from such a firing would be too great for the president to withstand.

Your brain is disintegrating.

 

[Andy Capp]

You seemed to be equating a judge's finding of a factual basis for a guilty plea with actual guilt in absolute sense of the term.



No. My argument is: it's unlikely that the evidence presented to Judge Wood constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the payment to Stephanie Clifford was made purely for the reason of influencing the 2016 election.

But how the hell do you know it's unlikely? You're basing this assessment upon belief. I'm basing my assessment on the fact that he is guilty. Which one of us has more of a hold on reality?

 

[waiguoren]

is wai really trying to say POTUS is allowed to fire those investigating him?

Unfortunately, the POTUS is allowed to fire any executive branch officials investigating him unless he is bribed to do so.

That was Nixon's Saturday night massacre . That was the last straw for republicans to sign off on articles of impeachment including obstruction of justice which included firing members of DOJ who were yes investigating Nixon

Nixon was not impeached for firing Cox. The articles of impeachment are readily available. The Saturday Night Massacre provided the political impetus for impeachment, as you noted. Nixon committed obstruction of justice as described in the first article; firing Cox was not a necessary part of Nixon's conspiracy to obstruct justice and is not even listed among the nine parts of the first article impeachment.

 

[ChainFlow]

Only if an underlying crime was committed as part of the alleged plot to obstruct justice. Perjury is a typical example. In the case of Nixon, multiple crimes are listed within the nine parts of Article I. Just take the first part for example:

making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States

That is criminal behavior. He also ordered the paying of hush money, destroyed evidence, and instructed his underlings to lie. All of this was criminal behavior.

And yet again, you ignore that the President is attempting to prevent anyone from finding out if he committed crimes. So you're arguing that the President is, again, above the law (as long as he plays whack-a-mole fast enough with investigations into himself).

Furthermore, the crime of obstruction DOES NOT require an underlying crime. It requires that a person with corrupt intent impedes an investigation. I'm nor sure if you're misinformed or lying but you keep repeating that and it just is not true.

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, Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

You will stop repeating this false claim now, I hope?

Before we go further, I want to note that our present disagreement is veering into a long-standing debate over the nature of impeachment: did the founders intend for impeachment to be available only against officials guilty of criminal behavior, or were other acts also to be considered? Madison wanted to limit impeachment to cases of treason and bribery only. Mason insisted that "maladministration" be included, but Madison convinced him this was too loose. They settled on "high crimes and misdemeanors".

High crimes and misdemeanors was a fine compromise. It also entails behavior like firing officials to prevent investigation into yourself. The phrase has a history and a specific meaning and it does not help your theory of the Presidency.

 

[waiguoren]

According to whom? According to this guy,
Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski: I helped prosecute Watergate. Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.

"In prepared testimony released on the eve of his appearance Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey placed President Trump in the gunsights of a federal criminal investigation, laying out evidence sufficient for a case of obstruction of justice.

Comey proved what Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers carefully avoided admitting in their testimony on Wednesday — that the president had specifically attempted to shut off at least a major piece of what Trump calls the “Russia thing,” the investigation into the misleading statements by fired national security adviser Michael Flynn concerning his role in dealings with the Russians. This kind of presidential intervention in a pending criminal investigation has not been seen, to my knowledge, since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Comey’s statement meticulously detailed a series of interventions by Trump soliciting his assistance in getting the criminal probe dropped. These details are red meat for a prosecutor. Presumably, the team of experienced criminal prosecutors that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has assembled will be following up on this crucial testimony, which rests on contemporaneous memorandums that Comey was sufficiently alarmed to prepare immediately after receiving the president’s requests."

Sure, there some some attorneys who believe in an expansive definition of obstruction of justice. I would never deny that.

 

[ChainFlow]

Unfortunately, the POTUS is allowed to fire any executive branch officials investigating him unless he is bribed to do so.

False. He may not fire someone with a corrupt intent to impede justice.

Nixon was not impeached for firing Cox. The articles of impeachment are readily available. The Saturday Night Massacre provided the political impetus for impeachment, as you noted. Nixon committed obstruction of justice as described in the first article; firing Cox was not a necessary part of Nixon's conspiracy to obstruct justice and is not even listed among the nine parts of the first article impeachment.

False.

"interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"

This is in reference to the firings.

 

[Gandhi]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let the man sit down and give him a chance to set the record straight in front of the American people so that when he inevitably lies, there can be impeachment proceedings

Well sure short term, the Dems needs to play as dirty as the Rs, otherwise it’s a bunch of angels vs the gerry mandering, swift boat, dog whistle team. But long term our democracy stays broken.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Well sure short term, the Dems needs to play as dirty as the Rs, otherwise it’s a bunch of angels vs the gerry mandering, swift boat, dog whistle team. But long term our democracy stays broken.

Agreed with the exception of that description. Our democracy (representative republic) is hardly broken. The tumult of the 1960's with a highly unpopular war dividing the country, that was a real doozy.