Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow the President Obstructed Justice
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/did_president_trump_obstruct_justice_in_firing_james_comey.htmlHow the President Obstructed Justice
Why legal scholar Laurence Tribe believes Trump committed impeachable offenses in his firing of James Comey.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Since the news broke on Tuesday that Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, Harvard Law Schools Laurence Tribe has been arguing that the presidents conduct, in and of itself, is illegal and amounts to impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
Tribe has been acting as citizen attorney general in the shadow Cabinet formed by progressive leaders in response to the Trump Administration and tweeting from the @ShadowingTrump handle. Tribes tweets (from @tribelaw) have become their own form of must-see TV for the resistance. I reached him via email this morning, with a clutch of lingering questions we at Slate have had about the past week.
Dahlia Lithwick: Talk a bit about the recusal rules and the attorney general. Ive been trying to figure out all week what the consequences are if Jeff Sessions promises to recuse on the Russia investigation, then fires the person leading the investigation. These rules have no real enforcement mechanism if they are violated, right?
Laurence Tribe: Because Sessions has already lied under oath to Congress, this little song and dance of recusal/nonrecusal seems to me part of a pattern of obstruction of justice in its own right. Nobody can bring a civil or criminal action against Sessions for trying to have it both ways, but he needs to be held accountable to the people and the law in some way. And the only way I can see, whatever its political prospects, would appear to be impeachment.
In addition, President Trumps sneaky decision to rope Sessions into the charade by which he initially offered a transparently phony explanation both to the FBI director and to the American people of why he was canning Comey seems to me part of Trumps own pattern of obstruction, which Ive argued is an impeachable offense by the president.
In addition, President Trumps sneaky decision to rope Sessions into the charade by which he initially offered a transparently phony explanation both to the FBI director and to the American people of why he was canning Comey seems to me part of Trumps own pattern of obstruction, which Ive argued is an impeachable offense by the president.
Youre started using the term obstruction of justice with regard to the president, and thats got a very precise legal meaning. At what point does Trumps conduct last week rise to the level of illegal obstruction?
In my view, we have clearly passed that point, both as a technical matter under 18 USC 1505, 1512, and 1513, and, much more importantly, as a matter of what might be called the common law of presidential impeachment, as established principally by the House impeachment and Senate trial of Bill Clinton and by the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon.
What is the legal/ethical significance of Donald Trumps Friday tweet threatening Jim Comey about taping his calls? Clearly, it was bad optics. But was it also more?
Thats a clear instance of witness intimidation under 18 USC 1512-13 and obstruction of pending congressional proceedings under 18 USC 1505, given the obvious likelihood that Comeys testimony about who convened the infamous White House dinner involving himself and the president and who said what to whom at that dinner will be needed and sought by the pertinent congressional committees. It also helps form part of the damning pattern of obstruction of justice of which President Trump has all but convicted himself.
You are now making the case that even absent any clear connection of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to throw the election, Trump is complicit in a cover-up, which is itself illegal? Is this a standalone crime from your perspective?
more...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/did_president_trump_obstruct_justice_in_firing_james_comey.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 1363 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post