In Trying to Fire Mueller, Trump Digs His Own Legal Grave

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘“Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe [notes]. “In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.” As the Times report notes, Trump has “long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation.” He threw a fit when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, and he fired Comey after he failed to extract an oath of loyalty. The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

Opinion | In trying to fire Mueller, Trump digs his own legal grave

Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Curious, he didn't fire Mueller. Nor would it have been illegal for him to. Politically disastrous perhaps, but not illegal.

There's a big distinction between discussing the act of firing and ordering the firing. Geez, you frothing at the mouth liberals are so desperate now that you have to dig up almost 7 month old stories. Then you blatantly lie about them when you do.

It's bad enough when the ultra-righties do it... but I must say, you take the cake, Clayton...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "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..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

 

[monkrules]

The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

...Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

I disagree only with the bolded sentence above. I don't think trump is clueless about the law or his abuse of power. I believe trump feels he is above our laws.

That's what makes him truly dangerous, imo. That and his utter incompetence.

 

[DarkFury]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "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..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

 

[BULLDOG]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "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..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

No. He could probably fire him, but you can bet there would be a lot more questions than there are now.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The truth is that the Russian Collusion Investigation is part of the Democratic Party’s pattern of nefarious behavior and corruption.
There is no collusion.
The Democrats are not just wrong, they are malicious bad people.
They are a threat to our democracy.

 

[Thinker101]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "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..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

No. He could probably fire him, but you can bet there would be a lot more questions than there are now.

Huh? No, he could probably fire him? Doesn't that mean he can fire him? Without question doesn't mean there won't be questions it means he could fire him and not disclose the reason.

 

[Meathead]

‘“Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe [notes]. “In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.” As the Times report notes, Trump has “long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation.” He threw a fit when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, and he fired Comey after he failed to extract an oath of loyalty. The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

Opinion | In trying to fire Mueller, Trump digs his own legal grave

Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

How many graves does one have to dig for one's self? It seems he has done nothing but dig graves for the last few years, but filled them with others.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

‘“Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe [notes]. “In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.” As the Times report notes, Trump has “long demonstrated a preoccupation with those who have overseen the Russia investigation.” He threw a fit when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe, and he fired Comey after he failed to extract an oath of loyalty. The attempt to decapitate the probe again goes to Trump’s intent to stymie an independent investigation and his seeming cluelessness that these actions would be potentially illegal, an abuse of his power.'

Opinion | In trying to fire Mueller, Trump digs his own legal grave

Trump is indeed clueless, ignorant of the law, and blinded by his arrogance.

That "lawyer" needs to go back to law school.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

And YOU need to go back to law school.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Attempted obstruction of conspiracy to collude with Putin hacking Hillary's election.

You got him this time.

Fur shure

 

[dcbl]

this is funny

1st - Mueller is running an unethical investigation - everyone on his team is either a rabid leftist or an avowed enemy of Trump - it is beyond ridiculous

2nd - we are about to see obstruction charges; but they will not be against Trump

3rd - hit piece from WaPo? shocking

we really need a free and independent press in this country - sucks we do not have that anymore

Mueller deserves to be fired; his relationship with Comey going in gives the appearance of impropriety from the word go

and there is plenty more about the whole situation that looks bad

but we live in la la land with a media that carries water for one side politically

leftists and liberals are actually engaging in the activities that they scream that Trump MAY do

it's surreal

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

​

 

[asaratis]

Curious, he didn't fire Mueller. Nor would it have been illegal for him to. Politically disastrous perhaps, but not illegal.

There's a big distinction between discussing the act of firing and ordering the firing. Geez, you frothing at the mouth liberals are so desperate now that you have to dig up almost 7 month old stories. Then you blatantly lie about them when you do.

It's bad enough when the ultra-righties do it... but I must say, you take the cake, Clayton...

The libs have to have something to fill the void in the production of FAKE NEWS that has been left by the slowly dying issue of Trump/Russia collusion. All it takes for a fake news story to get started is speculation by a Trump hater on what could have happened (bit didn't) and the use of an anonymous source to 'leak' it to a Trump hating tabloid.

The more alarming the headline can be, the more the lie seems believable by the useful idiot readers that want it to be true. The story spreads by word of mouth and the FAKE NEWS media has done its job.

I see headlines like this everyday, including in some spam email broadcasts.

"YOU'LL BE ASTOUNDED THAT THIS MAN IS ACTUALLY GAY"

"TRASH AUTHOR MICHAEL WOLFE SUGGESTS NIKKI HALEY'S HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH TRUMP"

If the hook (headline) is alarming enough, the line and sinker (story) will be repeated by useful idiots.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

this is funny

1st - Mueller is running an unethical investigation - everyone on his team is either a rabid leftist or an avowed enemy of Trump - it is beyond ridiculous

2nd - we are about to see obstruction charges; but they will not be against Trump

3rd - hit piece from WaPo? shocking

we really need a free and independent press in this country - sucks we do not have that anymore

Mueller deserves to be fired; his relationship with Comey going in gives the appearance of impropriety from the word go

and there is plenty more about the whole situation that looks bad

but we live in la la land with a media that carries water for one side politically

leftists and liberals are actually engaging in the activities that they scream that Trump MAY do

it's surreal

It Sure Looks Like Obstruction of Justice
Jeffrey Toobin: “Mueller and his team surely have evidence on obstruction of justice that has not yet been made public. But even on the available evidence, Trump’s position looks perilous indeed. The portrait is of a President using every resource at his disposal to shut down an investigation—of Trump himself. And now it has become clear that Trump’s own White House counsel rebelled at the President’s rationale for his actions.”

“Abundant questions remain about Trump’s fate in the Mueller investigation. Can or will a sitting President be indicted? What, if anything, will the House of Representatives do with respect to its impeachment powers? In what forum and format will the public see the full range of the evidence against the President? But on perhaps the most important question of all—whether the President of the United States committed the crime of obstruction of justice—the answer now seems clear.”

 

[Aldo Raine]

Obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement.

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "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..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Endeavor means action. There was no action. And it's within his powers to fire him without question!

Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Charles P. Pierce: The Mueller Bombshell Proves Republicans Are Running Out of Time
How Will Republicans Respond to Donald Trump Reportedly Trying to Fire Robert Mueller?

The Mueller Bombshell Proves Republicans Are Running Out of Time

History will not be kind to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others who stand by idly.
They have not moved. They have given no indication that they will move. History will brand them as cowards and as traitors to the country’s best ideals. History’s not going to be kind to a lot of people who are living through these insane times.
By Charles P. Pierce
Jan 26, 2018
..................................
The major scoop in The New York Times that has shaken up the world can be read in a number of different ways that all lead to the same conclusion. Right from jump, the president* has been scared right down to his silk boxers of what Mueller would discover regarding his campaign’s connections to Russian ratfcking and regarding his business connections to freshly laundered Russian cash. This conclusion does not change even if you think that White House counsel Don McGahn leaked this story to make himself the hero or to cover his own ass. This conclusion does not change even if you think the ratlines off the listing hulk of this administration are thick with fleeing rodents. This whole thing remains a product of the president*’s guilty mind.

(And the story did shake up the world. The president* went before a gathering in Davos on Friday and began raving about “fake news” and the perfidy of the American media. He got booed.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kyle Griffin ✔ @kylegriffin1
Mueller’s team has obtained memos, notes and emails about how Don McGahn tried to carry out Trump’s decisions in legally appropriate ways — such as objecting to a first draft of Trump’s letter firing Comey that mentioned the Russia probe, NYT reports. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/trump-white-house-counsel-mcgahn.html …
11:35 PM - Jan 26, 2018



Counsel Quietly Trying to Corral Trump While Pushing G.O.P.’s Agenda

As a series of firings and resignations roiled the first year of the Trump administration, Donald F. McGahn II maintained a low profile, but he has recently been thrust squarely into the public eye.

nytimes.com

 

[dcbl]

Charles P. Pierce: The Mueller Bombshell Proves Republicans Are Running Out of Time
How Will Republicans Respond to Donald Trump Reportedly Trying to Fire Robert Mueller?

The Mueller Bombshell Proves Republicans Are Running Out of Time

History will not be kind to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and others who stand by idly.
They have not moved. They have given no indication that they will move. History will brand them as cowards and as traitors to the country’s best ideals. History’s not going to be kind to a lot of people who are living through these insane times.
By Charles P. Pierce
Jan 26, 2018
..................................
The major scoop in The New York Times that has shaken up the world can be read in a number of different ways that all lead to the same conclusion. Right from jump, the president* has been scared right down to his silk boxers of what Mueller would discover regarding his campaign’s connections to Russian ratfcking and regarding his business connections to freshly laundered Russian cash. This conclusion does not change even if you think that White House counsel Don McGahn leaked this story to make himself the hero or to cover his own ass. This conclusion does not change even if you think the ratlines off the listing hulk of this administration are thick with fleeing rodents. This whole thing remains a product of the president*’s guilty mind.

(And the story did shake up the world. The president* went before a gathering in Davos on Friday and began raving about “fake news” and the perfidy of the American media. He got booed.

these people are fools, or they think that the public will be stupid enough to believe their lies

apparently, many are - stupid enough to believe the lies; or at least rabid enough in their hatred that they do not care about justice

Mueller's team is not balanced & they are desperately trying to fabricate charges

still no evidence of wrongdoing by the Trump team