Uhhh, okay.
Of that, what has a whit of relevance to an investigation for alleged "collusion" or obstruction of Justice?
Remember these reports about Obama before the election in 2012?? That he was supposedly despondent, isolated, uninterested in the campaign, watched ESPN all day?
Yeah, those reports are exactly the same as the drivel this article offers. "Trump ready to go to war, seething."
Over what? Comey's statement from two weeks ago that Trump told Comey, "I hope you can let this go. He's a nice guy"?
Wait, what? That is not remotely close - not in the same ******* ballpark - as obstruction of justice:
Here are the well-defined actions that constitute obstruction of justice, under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73:
§ 1502 - Resistance to extradition agent
§ 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
§ 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
§ 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
§ 1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
§ 1507 - Picketing or parading
§ 1508 - Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
§ 1509 - Obstruction of court orders
§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
§ 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
§ 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
§ 1514A - Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
§ 1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
§ 1516 - Obstruction of Federal audit
§ 1517 - Obstructing examination of financial institution
§ 1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
§ 1520 - Destruction of corporate audit records
§ 1521 - Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title
Oh, what about § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, you ask? That statute provides:
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Nope. Does not apply.
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.
Nope. The quoted statement, "I hope you can let this go. He really is a nice guy," is vastly, woefully short of the conduct deemed to "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."
In United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995), the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 for obstructing a judicial proceeding. The indictment alleged that Aguilar had intentionally given false information to federal investigators who were potentially going to be called to testify before a grand jury. The Supreme Court held that lying to an investigating agent who “might or might not testify before a grand jury” did not constitute obstruction of a judicial proceeding. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 600. The Court held that in order to be indictable for obstruction of a judicial proceeding, the defendant's actions must have a “natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.” Id. at 601 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Ryan, 455 F.2d 728, 734 (9th Cir.1972) (“The acts complained of must bear a reasonable relationship to the subject of the grand jury inquiry.”); United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 956-57 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that the act must have a relationship in time, causation or logic with the judicial proceedings)."
U.S. v. Hopper (9th Cir. 1999) 177 F.3d 824, 830
The significant, patent, undeniable problem with charging that Trump's statement, "Can you see your way to letting it go, he's a nice guy" clearly did not have the effect of interfering with the investigation in any respect and nobody claims otherwise.
In short, no possible obstruction. Zero.
See, this is why we attend these classes in big buildings where they teach us something called "law," and why we take this very difficult test called a "bar exam" before we can practice law.
Because amateur lawyers are wrong, wrong, more wrong, suck ***, misquote the law, don't understand the law, and don't know a single ******* thing about the actual law.
Last edited:
