"Defending the Indefensible"

[childeye 2]

Thank you for posting this. The fact Mueller was not removed showed no obstruction.

Obstructive act. Obstruction-of-justice law “reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1503). An “effort to influence” a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct justice even if the effort was “subtle or circuitous” and “however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose” it was made. United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir. 2006). The verbs “obstruct or impede’ are broad” and “can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult, or hinders.” Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1106 (2018) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

Attempts and endeavors. Section 1512(c)(2) covers both substantive obstruction offenses and attempts to obstruct justice. Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-107 (2007). “[T]he act [must be] substantial, in that it was strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal purpose.” United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2003). While “mere abstract talk” does not suffice, any “concrete and specific” acts that corroborate the defendant’s intent can constitute a “substantial step.” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1198–1205 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, “soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime” may qualify as a substantial step. Model Penal Code § 5.01(2)(g); see United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 781 (8th Cir. 2007).

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits an “endeavor” to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512’s attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). “It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded.” United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The nexus showing has subjective and objective components. As an objective matter, a defendant must act in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice,” such that the statute “excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful.” Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 601-602 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he endeavor must have the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.” Id. at 599 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As a subjective matter, the actor must have “contemplated a particular, foreseeable proceeding.” Petruk, 781 F.3d at 445-446. A defendant need not directly impede the proceeding. Rather, a nexus exists if “discretionary actions of a third person would be required to obstruct the judicial proceeding if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the third party would act on the [defendant’s] communication in such a way as to obstruct the judicial proceeding.” United States v. Martinez, 862 F.3d 223, 238 (2d Cir. 2017) (brackets, ellipses, and internal quotation marks om

Corruptly. The word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.” United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 508 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124, 1151 (10th Cir. 2013) (to act corruptly means to “act[] with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding) (some quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b) (“As used in section 1505, the term ‘corruptly’ means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another.”); see also Arthur Andersen, 544 U.S. at 705-706 (interpreting “corruptly” to mean “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” and holding that acting “knowingly ... corruptly” in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) requires “consciousness of wrongdoing”). The requisite showing is made when a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.” BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY 276 (3d ed. 1969); see United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 616 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (characterizing this definition as the “longstanding and well-accepted meaning” of “corruptly”).

 

[NightHawkeye]

Obstructive act. Obstruction-of-justice law “reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1503). An “effort to influence” a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct justice even if the effort was “subtle or circuitous” and “however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose” it was made. United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); see also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir. 2006). The verbs “obstruct or impede’ are broad” and “can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult, or hinders.” Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1106 (2018) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

Attempts and endeavors. Section 1512(c)(2) covers both substantive obstruction offenses and attempts to obstruct justice. Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal. See United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 106-107 (2007). “[T]he act [must be] substantial, in that it was strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal purpose.” United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2003). While “mere abstract talk” does not suffice, any “concrete and specific” acts that corroborate the defendant’s intent can constitute a “substantial step.” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1198–1205 (10th Cir. 2011). Thus, “soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime” may qualify as a substantial step. Model Penal Code § 5.01(2)(g); see United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 781 (8th Cir. 2007).

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits an “endeavor” to obstruct justice, which sweeps more broadly than Section 1512’s attempt provision. See United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 302 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Leisure, 844 F.2d 1347, 1366-1367 (8th Cir. 1988) (collecting cases). “It is well established that a[n] [obstruction-of-justice] offense is complete when one corruptly endeavors to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice; the prosecution need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded.” United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The nexus showing has subjective and objective components. As an objective matter, a defendant must act in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice,” such that the statute “excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful.” Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 601-602 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he endeavor must have the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.” Id. at 599 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As a subjective matter, the actor must have “contemplated a particular, foreseeable proceeding.” Petruk, 781 F.3d at 445-446. A defendant need not directly impede the proceeding. Rather, a nexus exists if “discretionary actions of a third person would be required to obstruct the judicial proceeding if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the third party would act on the [defendant’s] communication in such a way as to obstruct the judicial proceeding.” United States v. Martinez, 862 F.3d 223, 238 (2d Cir. 2017) (brackets, ellipses, and internal quotation marks om

Corruptly. The word “corruptly” provides the intent element for obstruction of justice and means acting “knowingly and dishonestly” or “with an improper motive.” United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 508 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 1124, 1151 (10th Cir. 2013) (to act corruptly means to “act[] with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding) (some quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b) (“As used in section 1505, the term ‘corruptly’ means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another.”); see also Arthur Andersen, 544 U.S. at 705-706 (interpreting “corruptly” to mean “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil” and holding that acting “knowingly ... corruptly” in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) requires “consciousness of wrongdoing”). The requisite showing is made when a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.” BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY 276 (3d ed. 1969); see United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 616 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (characterizing this definition as the “longstanding and well-accepted meaning” of “corruptly”).

You have shown that there is no clearly demonstrable obstructive act or acts. If there had been Mueller would have reached that determination.

In all honesty, what conclusion do you think an impartial jury would reach? Change the name here to Obama. With that name attached what conclusion do you think an impartial jury would reach?

 

[carlv_52]

You have shown that there is no clearly demonstrable obstructive act or acts. If there had been Mueller would have reached that determination.

Logic flaw: Mueller definitively stated that if they had been able to clearly exonerate the President they would have. And he repeatedly noted that he would not be able to bring charges for two reasons: 1. it was thought that the Justice department's position was that a sitting president could not be indicted and 2. he felt that if he had made charges of some sort Trump would have no means to rebut them.

As such, in no way shape or form did Mueller FAIL to find possible obstruction events.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Logic flaw: Mueller definitively stated that if they had been able to clearly exonerate the President they would have.

He also could not state a single precedent where "exoneration" had been the standard. It has been pointed out to you and others that the standard is evidence of guilt.

No compelling evidence of guilt ... no charge. That's the standard. It's not complicated. That's the ONLY reason Mueller didn't cite charges.

 

[carlv_52]

No compelling evidence of guilt ... no charge.

So Mueller could charge the president? Even though his organization, the Justice Department says the President cannot be indicted? Interesting.

So his standard was something he could not do?

How does that work again?

 

[childeye 2]

You have shown that there is no clearly demonstrable obstructive act or acts. If there had been Mueller would have reached that determination.

In all honesty, what conclusion do you think an impartial jury would reach? Change the name here to Obama. With that name attached what conclusion do you think an impartial jury would reach?

In post #203 I provided Mueller's evidence, and analysis of that evidence, supporting a conclusion that the President did commit an act of obstruction, when trying to get McGahn to remove the special counsel. Moreover Trump tried to get McGahn to say that no such request was ever made. The report cites several witnesses that show it was Trump's intent to get rid of the special counsel. And this is only one of a number of acts in the report that show demonstrable acts of obstruction.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thank you for posting this. The fact Mueller was not removed showed no obstruction.

No, it doesn't. The facts presented show obstruction and attempted obstruction.

So did the legal team ... who were eager to charge him with perjury ... if there were any chance of doing so.

They weren't "eager to charge" Donald as they weren't going to charge a sitting president - as has been stated by the legal team's head.

Incorrect. They were perfectly free to charge him with any crimes they had evidence for.

No, they were not free to charge a sitting president with anything.

What they would have been unable to do is indict him, which is to say, bring charges against him to a grand jury.

A sentence ago, you stated, "They were perfectly free to charge him...". I guess I don't understand what you mean by "charge him" if not to bring charges against him.

Nothing prevented them from making charges against the president ... except lack of evidence. Those charges would then have been presented to the Congress which would decide whether to impeach (equivalent to being indicted). Then it would be up to the Senate to decide whether or not to convict.

They were not presenting anything to Congress; they were not allowed by the mandate to present anything to Congress; they were presenting only to A. G. Barr. Period.

Several weeks later, Barr presented Congress with a redacted version of the report. Congress has yet to see the underlying evidence.

Saying that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime is nonsense. Presidents have been.

By the DOJ? When?

 

[DaisyDay]

In post #203 I provided Mueller's evidence, and analysis of that evidence, supporting a conclusion that the President did commit an act of obstruction, when trying to get McGahn to remove the special counsel. Moreover Trump tried to get McGahn to say that no such request was ever made. The report cites several witnesses that show it was Trump's intent to get rid of the special counsel. And this is only one of a number of acts in the report that show demonstrable acts of obstruction.

I would be surprised if they actually read post #203. It's easier to deny what it says if you don't read it.

 

[redleghunter]

No, it doesn't. The facts presented show obstruction and attempted obstruction.

Then articles of impeachment should be real easy for the House.

 

[Arcangl86]

Then articles of impeachment should be real easy for the House.

They are. But Speaker Pelosi isn't going to advance them if she feels that the Senate won't convict regardless of what the evidence is.

 

[redleghunter]

They are. But Speaker Pelosi isn't going to advance them if she feels that the Senate won't convict regardless of what the evidence is.

That’s a cop out on her part. Should she not go forward with what she thinks is the right thing to do? The GOP House impeached President Clinton knowing the Senate bar was high. As it should be.

 

[Arcangl86]

That’s a cop out on her part. Should she not go forward with what she thinks is the right thing to do? The GOP House impeached President Clinton knowing the Senate bar was high. As it should be.

In this case focusing on passing legislation instead of wasting time in an impeachment process that has no chance of success is probably the right thing to do.

 

[redleghunter]

In this case focusing on passing legislation instead of wasting time in an impeachment process that has no chance of success is probably the right thing to do.

With regards to the Senate, neither has a chance for success.

 

[childeye 2]

I would be surprised if they actually read post #203. It's easier to deny what it says if you don't read it.

Well I was asked to produce an excerpt of the proof of evidence Mueller had presented. There are more acts that corroborate Trump's intent to impose himself into the investigation because it was making him look bad. He fired Comey, because Comey wouldn't say what Trump wanted him to say, and he tried to get Rosenstein to say it was Rosenstein's idea. Trump threatened to fire Sessions if he didn't unrecuse himself and take over the investigation for the purpose of protecting Trump's image.

The report has testimony saying that Trump wanted Sessions to change the parameters of the investigation, to only be about preventing any future interference. All the while he was saying/tweeting publicly that we don't know it's Russia, the DNC hacked it's self and it was a plot by "The Democrats" to undermine his Presidency, that it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election, Obama is responsible for doing nothing and letting it happen, and yet Flynn was telegraphing to Russia that Trump was for lifting the sanctions against Russia which Obama had imposed for interfering in the first place.

Now I can understand why Trump would feel it's unfair that his Presidency happened to become collateral damage because of Russia's interference. What bothers me is that Trump attacks the media and the Democrats and the FBI and all in America who have suffered because of the same circumstance; By spinning the investigation so as to turn innocent people, who are simply doing their jobs to protect America, into partisan hacks and traitors to our country. He turns America's people against one another through the most disgraceful tactics in politics. All for his image.

 

[redleghunter]

I would be surprised if they actually read post #203. It's easier to deny what it says if you don't read it.

“They?”

 

[childeye 2]

That’s a cop out on her part. Should she not go forward with what she thinks is the right thing to do? The GOP House impeached President Clinton knowing the Senate bar was high. As it should be.

I agree with your sentiment on this. Pelosi should do what is the right thing to do. But I am willing to consider that Pelosi wants to get all the evidence she can through more investigation, so as to present the most compelling case possible. Meanwhile the President is stonewalling and this thing is probably going to drag on and on.

 

[redleghunter]

Well I was asked to produce an excerpt of the proof of evidence Mueller had presented. There are more acts that corroborate Trump's intent to impose himself into the investigation because it was making him look bad. He fired Comey, because Comey wouldn't say what Trump wanted him to say, and he tried to get Rosenstein to say it was Rosenstein's idea. Trump threatened to fire Sessions if he didn't unrecuse himself and take over the investigation for the purpose of protecting Trump's image.

The report has testimony saying that Trump wanted Sessions to change the parameters of the investigation, to only be about preventing any future interference. All the while he was saying/tweeting publicly that we don't know it's Russia, the DNC hacked it's self and it was a plot by "The Democrats" to undermine his Presidency, that it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election, Obama is responsible for doing nothing and letting it happen, and yet Flynn was telegraphing to Russia that Trump was for lifting the sanctions against Russia which Obama had imposed for interfering in the first place.

Now I can understand why Trump would feel it's unfair that his Presidency happened to become collateral damage because of Russia's interference. What bothers me is that Trump attacks the media and the Democrats and the FBI and all in America who have suffered because of the same circumstance; By spinning the investigation so as to turn innocent people, who are simply doing their jobs to protect America, into partisan hacks and traitors to our country. He turns America's people against one another through the most disgraceful tactics in politics. All for his image.

This kind of reminds me of when the FBI and DoJ had solid evidence of at least two federal statutes violated with Hillary in 2016 with regards to handling classified materials illegally. Yet it was called a “matter” and the DoJ decided not to prosecute. There was actual physical evidence there and the grand justice system of our federal government did not move.

 

[redleghunter]

I agree with your sentiment on this. Pelosi should do what is the right thing to do. But I am willing to consider that Pelosi wants to get all the evidence she can through more investigation, so as to present the most compelling case possible. Meanwhile the President is stonewalling and this thing is probably going to drag on and on.

More investigation? The Mueller report was not thorough enough?

 

[childeye 2]

More investigation? The Mueller report was not thorough enough?

I believe Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff would like to examine if there are financial ties between Russia and Trump. Mueller didn't really delve deeply into that as far as I know.

 

[childeye 2]

This kind of reminds me of when the FBI and DoJ had solid evidence of at least two federal statutes violated with Hillary in 2016 with regards to handling classified materials illegally. Yet it was called a “matter” and the DoJ decided not to prosecute. There was actual physical evidence there and the grand justice system of our federal government did not move.

If you don't mind my asking, where do you get your news?