Mueller Investigation pt 6

[The Great Zaganza]

Weird hypothetical....

Let's suppose one day, FDR and Churchill drunkenly murdered a hobo for fun. FBI start investigating. Fearing that an investigation and subsequent coverage of a trial would jeopardize relations and the war effort, FDR orders it to stop.

Is that obstruction of Justice?

Of course.
It might be justifiable obstruction, but obstruction nonetheless.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Weird hypothetical....

Let's suppose one day, FDR and Churchill drunkenly murdered a hobo for fun. FBI start investigating. Fearing that an investigation and subsequent coverage of a trial would jeopardize relations and the war effort, FDR orders it to stop.

Is that obstruction of Justice?

FDR was a Democrat, so yes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Of course.
It might be justifiable obstruction, but obstruction nonetheless.

Why isn't it prosecutorial discretion? The executive power is vested in a president. He is the sole authority to coordinate these interests of Justice versus the war effort.

 

[Meadmaker]

Weird hypothetical....

Let's suppose one day, FDR and Churchill drunkenly murdered a hobo for fun. FBI start investigating. Fearing that an investigation and subsequent coverage of a trial would jeopardize relations and the war effort, FDR orders it to stop.

Is that obstruction of Justice?

Yes. That is obstruction of justice. There is a real, underlying, crime, and the president ordered the investigation halted in order to prevent exposure of that crime.

It doesn't matter if his motives were pure in doing so, or if he had some secondary, higher, motive for not wanting the crime exposed. However, that's where "prosecutorial discretion" comes in. Prosecutors do not have to prosecute. In the case of the POTUS, the House doesn't have to impeach, and after he leaves office, a prosecuting attorney doesn't have to indict, even if they know that crimes were committed. If they decide it's in the best interests of the country to look the other way, then it's all good.

ETA: If, on the other hand, the President calls up the investigators and says, "For the good of the country, I think you should back off this one." that might not be obstruction of justice. That's different from ordering the investigation to stop. Prosecutors and juries would have to decide if he was offering sincere advice on policy and acting for the good of the country, or issuing some sort of implied threat. Prosecutors would have to try and figure out his motives. Ultimately, a jury would have to decide.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes. That is obstruction of justice. There is a real, underlying, crime, and the president ordered the investigation halted in order to prevent exposure of that crime.

It doesn't matter if his motives were pure in doing so, or if he had some secondary, higher, motive for not wanting the crime exposed. However, that's where "prosecutorial discretion" comes in. Prosecutors do not have to prosecute. In the case of the POTUS, the House doesn't have to impeach, and after he leaves office, a prosecuting attorney doesn't have to indict, even if they know that crimes were committed. If they decide it's in the best interests of the country to look the other way, then it's all good.

ETA: If, on the other hand, the President calls up the investigators and says, "For the good of the country, I think you should back off this one." that might not be obstruction of justice. That's different from ordering the investigation to stop. Prosecutors and juries would have to decide if he was offering sincere advice on policy and acting for the good of the country, or issuing some sort of implied threat. Prosecutors would have to try and figure out his motives. Ultimately, a jury would have to decide.

All the power of the prosecutor are derived from the president. Article II "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

What is the difference between a sincere request and sincere order? They serve at his pleasure.

 

[Meadmaker]

All the power of the prosecutor are derived from the president. Article II "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

What is the difference between a sincere request and sincere order? They serve at his pleasure.

The President's power is limited by statute. All executive power is vested in the President, but that power is not unlimited. If he is going beyond his power, that's not exercising legitimate executive authority. Moreover, even if he is exercising legitimate authority, if he is doing so with criminal intent, it's still a crime.

Richard Nixon was exercising his authority an awful lot back in 1972 and 1973, but he was doing so in order to prevent prosecution of an actual crime. That's illegal.

As for the difference between a request and an order, the difference is that a request does not actually involve use of power. It's just a request. In the hypothetical, it's saying, "I know some things that you don't. You should trust me and back off this investigation." That might still be a crime, because a jury might find that there was an implied threat or a false pretense and therefore a misuse of power for a corrupt end, but it's not an open and shut, obvious, case.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The President's power is limited by statute. All executive power is vested in the President, but that power is not unlimited. If he is going beyond his power, that's not exercising legitimate executive authority. Moreover, even if he is exercising legitimate authority, if he is doing so with criminal intent, it's still a crime.

Richard Nixon was exercising his authority an awful lot back in 1972 and 1973, but he was doing so in order to prevent prosecution of an actual crime. That's illegal.

As for the difference between a request and an order, the difference is that a request does not actually involve use of power. It's just a request. In the hypothetical, it's saying, "I know some things that you don't. You should trust me and back off this investigation." That might still be a crime, because a jury might find that there was an implied threat or a false pretense and therefore a misuse of power for a corrupt end, but it's not an open and shut, obvious, case.

The scenario being discussed lacks criminal intent.

And where not limited by the Constitution, the executive power is unlimited.

 

[Meadmaker]

The scenario being discussed lacks criminal intent.

And where not limited by the Constitution, the executive power is unlimited.

Neither statement above is correct, but I doubt that further discussion would be fruitful. I stepped back in because I thought I could offer a relevant discussion of a legitimate question, but I think that part is finished now.

 

[The Shrike]

The scenario being discussed lacks criminal intent.

Is not the intent to avoid prosecution for the crime of murder?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Neither statement above is correct, but I doubt that further discussion would be fruitful. I stepped back in because I thought I could offer a relevant discussion of a legitimate question, but I think that part is finished now.

I created the scenario and also created the intent of the actors involved. If say he does not have criminal intent, then it is true.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Is not the intent to avoid prosecution for the crime of murder?

No. He really would prefer to be prosecuted for murder. But he also has to weigh his responsibilities as the manager of foreign relations during a war.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Neither statement above is correct, but I doubt that further discussion would be fruitful. I stepped back in because I thought I could offer a relevant discussion of a legitimate question, but I think that part is finished now.

This is what the Constitution says when it want to limit a set of powers

"All legislative Powers herein granted"

This is what it says when it isn't limited

"The executive Power shall be vested"

Notice the executive power is not "herein granted".

 

[Meadmaker]

Is not the intent to avoid prosecution for the crime of murder?

I will offer what I took the scenario to be, and why I gave the answer that I did. Bob can comment if I misinterpreted the scenario.

In my interpretation, the pseudo-FDR had multiple motives. His first and primary motive was to further the war effort. However, the means to that end involved covering up a murder. (In the hypothetical, he was also actually the murderer, but the question only involved obstruction of justice, so the fact that he, personally, was the murderer is not all that relevant.) So, in furtherance of the cause of victory, he decided to quash the murder investigation.

Quashing the murder investigation, though, was still part of the crime of obstruction of justice. The question for the prosecutors and the jury would be whether his overall motive, helping win the war, justified the actions. Regardless, deliberately covering up the crime constitutes a "corrupt intent". At least, I think it does. I'm not going to go back and read the statute and cases for the exact wording to see if the "corrupt intent" is cancelled if it is the means to a non-corrupt end. I think that the statute's wording was such that deliberately covering up a crime is automatically considered corrupt, for the purposes of that law. If anyone who is willing to look up the actual statutes and court precedents were to present them, I would read the quotes and analysis.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I will offer what I took the scenario to be, and why I gave the answer that I did. Bob can comment if I misinterpreted the scenario.

In my interpretation, the pseudo-FDR had multiple motives. His first and primary motive was to further the war effort. However, the means to that end involved covering up a murder. (In the hypothetical, he was also actually the murderer, but the question only involved obstruction of justice, so the fact that he, personally, was the murderer is not all that relevant.) So, in furtherance of the cause of victory, he decided to quash the murder investigation.

Quashing the murder investigation, though, was still part of the crime of obstruction of justice. The question for the prosecutors and the jury would be whether his overall motive, helping win the war, justified the actions. Regardless, deliberately covering up the crime constitutes a "corrupt intent". At least, I think it does. I'm not going to go back and read the statute and cases for the exact wording to see if the "corrupt intent" is cancelled if it is the means to a non-corrupt end. I think that the statute's wording was such that deliberately covering up a crime is automatically considered corrupt, for the purposes of that law. If anyone who is willing to look up the actual statutes and court precedents were to present them, I would read the quotes and analysis.

Let's assume he tells the prosecutor everything they want to know, and doesn't cover up a single detail from investigators. Just orders them to not bring charges.

 

[autumn1971]

Let's assume he tells the prosecutor everything they want to know, and doesn't cover up a single detail from investigators. Just orders them to not bring charges.

It’s a crime.
If the President is allowed to excuse himself because it was a crime he orders not to be prosecuted then it’s time to use the 2nd Amendment.
Or the 25th. (bloodlust clouded the latter option.)

 

[Minoosh]

The thing is, Trump's interference in the Russia investigation was trying to shut down the probe of a crime - illegal interference by Russian state actors. I'm not sure what statute they were charged under but I do trust Mueller that the indictments were legit.

I think almost everything Trump does is of corrupt intent, but he probably doesn't see it that way. He's just doing what he's always done, looking out for Number One. He sees that as a perfectly legitimate policy goal. Of course he would use his office to enrich himself - wouldn't anybody? Isn't that what power is for? In Trump's world, it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let's assume he tells the prosecutor everything they want to know, and doesn't cover up a single detail from investigators. Just orders them to not bring charges.

If he is the President, then they can't bring charges against him anyway. If he is not the President, he can't give the order.


However, suppose he orders them not to charge Churchill. (Or.....anyone else, just in case there's a diplomatic immunity issue. The point is that he knows a crime has been committed, and he orders the prosecutor not to prosecute.) It sounds like obstruction of justice to me, but that gets beyond my knowledge of the intricacies of the law. I think it would be up to Congress to decide if his intent was corrupt.

ETA: On further review, I think that last part is the answer. He has whatever powers he has to fire prosecutors or investigators, and to order them not to prosecute (I really don't know exactly what powers he has in those cases, but they're pretty broad) but every time he exercises that power Congress can be looking over his shoulder and they can impeach him if they think he acted corruptly. In the case of non-prosecution, Congress (or a prosecutor after he leaves office) would have to determine intent, and whether it was corrupt. This hypothetical is slightly different than the original in that he isn't concealing information about a crime. There's no cover up. He isn't impeding the investigation. He's simply dictating what course of action to take. That's beyond my knowledge to say exactly when that becomes a crime.

 

[tanabear]

So you're going with entrapment?

So you're going with Joseph Mifsud being a Russian agent?

tanabear, you haven't answered the question yet:

was Trump framed, or is he a criminal, but nothing Mueller found can be used due to "the Fruit of the poisonous Tree" ?

Members of the Trump campaign were setup by western intelligence assets.

Sounds about right, given how Trump managed to make himself look guilty as heck of that, both before and after the elections. Well, more specifically, of Russia using him, whether as an asset or as a useful idiot. Again, the Mueller report makes it pretty overwhelmingly clear that having strong concerns about Trump's relationship with Russia was an absolutely correct position to hold.

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me. He was aware that it was a coup attempt against his Presidency.

How, exactly, do you think that the social media manipulation campaigns actually worked? Your questions seem to give away that you have no idea, but feel free to demonstrate me wrong.

Okay, but you cannot name one false belief that Americans had due to this Russian disinformation campaign. The only "Russian disinformation" campaign that was widely believed by the American people was Trump-Russia collusion.

That's quite recent news, but sure. He's apparently been moving around fairly frequently, either way..

The biggest way that you're wrong here is that we have no reason to believe that he infiltrated the western intelligence apparatus at all, let alone deeply.

So is Joseph Mifsud a Russian agent or not? He taught a Link Campus where western intelligence agents are trained and the CIA has held symposiums there. He had a working relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. He is friends with Gianni Pittella, an Italian socialist, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton. There is a picture of him being chummy with Boris Johnson. As the Guardian noted,

"The foreign secretary is facing accusations of a potential security breach following the emergence of the photo of him with Mifsud, whose identity emerged as part of investigations into alleged links between Donald Trump’s election campaign and Russia."

So I wonder why the Mueller team just let Mifsud go if he really was a Russian agent?

I mean. It's absolutely clear that the Russians attempted to influence the elections, not just online, but through contacts within the Trump admin.

As for intelligence agencies, if it were just one, sure. But it's all of them, and they have evidence to back up their claims. What's your basis for dismissing them, other than them giving you a conclusion you disagree with?

What's your basis for any of your claims other than rank ignorance?

The belief that the Russians attempted to influence the election through the Trump campaign is contingent upon Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, being a Russian agent. So do you think he is a Russian agent too?

The Independent: "US and Russia closer to open conflict than any time since Cold War". But the adversarial relationship between the US and Russia here, as it really deserves its own thread.

You didn't answer my previous question: "*if* Russia is a threat to the US, would this change your opinion about the wisdom of countering a foreign adversary's surreptitious efforts to influence one of our elections?".

If it was something akin to the Zimmermann Telegram then, yes

Who do you think can be trusted?

Lindy

 

[Paul2]

If it was something akin to the Zimmermann Telegram then, yes

Thank you, at least there is something. However, one might imagine there are all sorts of ways another country could ******* with the US and chip away at US interests, short of proposing a military alliance to annex US territory, all of which would qualify that country as an adversary.

ETA: and which therefore would kick in efforts to counter that country's efforts to ******* with our elections, including penetrating election computer systems, which is Very Bad.

 

[Aridas]

Members of the Trump campaign were setup by western intelligence assets.

So you claim.

Trump always looked and sounded completely innocent to me.

It's quite telling that you think that Trump looked innocent, despite his long history and the massive pile of documented evidence that attests to his distinct lack of trustworthiness.

He was aware that it was a coup attempt against his Presidency.

You still have no idea what coup means, eh?

Okay,

End of story. Thank you for admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, to the extent that you're unable to form meaningful questions or address the issue in a relevant fashion, likely because of the disinformation and propaganda that you've been fed. Disinformation that likely arose in fair part from Russia and has been echoed and amplified in the right-wing echo chamber by both right-wingers and Russians.

So I wonder why the Mueller team just let Mifsud go if he really was a Russian agent?

You say that while ignoring the actually relevant concerns at hand. Like, for example, what Mifsud actually did that can be demonstrated to a court.

The belief that the Russians attempted to influence the election through the Trump campaign is contingent upon Joseph Mifsud,

No, it's not. Not even remotely. Here, you've presented yet another example of disinformation at work. Papadopoulos, in general, and thus Mifsud, makes for one of the least influential reasons to think so, for that matter. Page, Stone, and Manafort are all examples that greatly surpass Papadopoulos in importance there, before getting to Trump and his family themselves.