Politics Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
126,493
Likes
146,957
Points
115
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

 
How many actually want to play the fool?

For that matter how many congressman want to actually vote for impeachment, like a fool?

Probably none but for the fools.
 
"We are former federal prosecutors."

"Federal" is code for "deep state" and "corporatist." They see a good man trying to drain the swamp, with everything set against him, and they're trying to create a narrative to sink him. He's their greatest nightmare.
 
Bullshit!

lol, bullshit? It's right there in black and white marzy. Guess that Mueller report didn't exonerate Donnie after all and it appears Barr was misleading (aka lying to) the American people. Seems to be the norm these days for this administration.
 
SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS (AKA LIARS) WORKING IN GOVERNMENT.
 
The only reason Donald wants to be re-elected. Once he becomes civillian Trump his ass is grass
 
What do you expect Deep State lawyers to say, we're traitors? :dunno:

Here's a good analogy from a comrade of theirs...

67194059.jpg
 
What do you expect Deep State lawyers to say, we're traitors? :dunno:

It's former prosecutors, so they had nothing to do with this investigation. You'll need a different talking point. You can't just go around calling everyone traitors--the term will lose all meaning. Don't you want it to mean "people who investigated Trump for all his many crimes?" and be clear and undiluted?
 
This shit is hilarious. People who all had the power to drop cases and make deals with people don't understand how the legal system works?

This is like saying it should be ok for a cashier to take 100 bucks from the store he works at because the owner does it whenever he wants.

Trump is the owner of the store and he gets to decide this.

If Congress doesn't like it I think everyone knows the remedy.

Are there any laws leftists won't ignore because they are sore losers? Keep the DNC from stealing the next primary, that should be their focus.
 
Last edited:
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.


As of yesterday, the number exceeded 700.
 
This shit is hilarious. People who all had the power to drop cases and make deals with people don't understand how the legal system works?

This is like saying it should be ok for a cashier to take 100 bucks from the store he works at because the owner does it whenever he wants.

Trump is the owner of the store and he gets to decide this.

If Congress doesn't like it I think everyone knows the remedy.

Are there any laws leftists won't ignore because they are sore losers? Keep the DNC from stealing the next primary, that should be their focus.
What laws are 'Leftists' ignoring?
The prosecutors are saying that if the President could be prosecuted then a case for obstruction would be a slam dunk. The question about the Constitution allowing a conviction of a sitting President is not settled law. It's only that the Justice Department has issued a memo saying that they should not prosecuted a sitting President. So, what happens when the President is voted out such as November of 2020 or on the extremely slim chance that he is reelected and serves until 2024?
The remedy is a difficult one because either the Democrats impeach the President and he is most assuredly not convicted along a largely party line vote in the Senate or they don't impeach him and get accused of failing to exercise their Constitutional duty.
Pelosi has said let's turn our attention away from impeachment and toward differences on issues.
 
What laws are 'Leftists' ignoring?
The prosecutors are saying that if the President could be prosecuted then a case for obstruction would be a slam dunk. The question about the Constitution allowing a conviction of a sitting President is not settled law. It's only that the Justice Department has issued a memo saying that they should not prosecuted a sitting President. So, what happens when the President is voted out such as November of 2020 or on the extremely slim chance that he is reelected and serves until 2024?
The remedy is a difficult one because either the Democrats impeach the President and he is most assuredly not convicted along a largely party line vote in the Senate or they don't impeach him and get accused of failing to exercise their Constitutional duty.
Pelosi has said let's turn our attention away from impeachment and toward differences on issues.
What laws? The special counsel laws they passed because they were mad about Clinton.

You can see what Jerrold Nadler said then vs now if you'd like.

There's not a chance in hell Trump gets convicted of obstruction in court.

Maybe the lefties should take Pelosi's advice and give it up already.

Impeach or don't, that's the choice.
 
Where did you get your law degree? Same place I got mine?

You don't need a law degree to know anyone who is, or was, a part of the federal government is a crook. Except Trump.
 
You don't need a law degree to know anyone who is, or was, a part of the federal government is a crook. Except Trump.

And except the people he's hired. Until they get fired, at which point the exception no longer applies.

barfo
 
What laws? The special counsel laws they passed because they were mad about Clinton.

You can see what Jerrold Nadler said then vs now if you'd like.

There's not a chance in hell Trump gets convicted of obstruction in court.

Maybe the lefties should take Pelosi's advice and give it up already.

Impeach or don't, that's the choice.
Of course they can't convict him of obstruction while he's President. The Justice Department has already decided that.
Well, they could wait and convict after Trump gets kicked out of office.
Note to Trump, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Now, back to Nadler, okay link me up to what he said and let's see if it's applicable or if it's apples and oranges.
By the way, what were they angry at Bill Clinton about? Was it the fact that he lied about having some sort of sex with a person other than his wife? OMG, you must be insane with rage about Trump.
 
The question about the Constitution allowing a conviction of a sitting President is not settled law

God what a jackass post!
I often suspect the left thinks the Constitution is unsettled law but you rarely hear one say it out right.
 
God what a jackass post!
I often suspect the left thinks the Constitution is unsettled law but you rarely hear one say it out right.

There is no provision in the consitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. Any argument for such holds no foundation and is rooted in fanciful reading/interpretation. The Fifth Ammendent lists the only exceptions and the President is not one of them.
 
fanciful reading/interpretation

Fanciful?

Well, I guess you reflect exactly what I said. Not all that many years ago, you hear none of this noise as most people had be taught and excepted the idea that the Constitution called for impeachment rather than indictment and trial of the President. I guess it is not taught these days or the inference process has been rerouted.

Going to the original intent, I infer that the indictment/trial process is replaced by the impeachment process to hold electable people responsible for these actions to reduce frivolous political usage. And as Mr Hamilton argued, the Senate is the only place a President could possible be accorded a jury of his peers.

You might find a reading about this thinking of interest.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president
Then try Federist papers 65 ,66, 79, and 81.

It all makes sense to me.
 
Fanciful?

Well, I guess you reflect exactly what I said. Not all that many years ago, you hear none of this noise as most people had be taught and excepted the idea that the Constitution called for impeachment rather than indictment and trial of the President. I guess it is not taught these days or the inference process has been rerouted.

Going to the original intent, I infer that the indictment/trial process is replaced by the impeachment process to hold electable people responsible for these actions to reduce frivolous political usage. And as Mr Hamilton argued, the Senate is the only place a President could possible be accorded a jury of his peers.

You might find a reading about this thinking of interest.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president
Then try Federist papers 65 ,66, 79, and 81.

It all makes sense to me.
You don't know original intent. It's heresay. Its an incongruous inference . No one alive to day was there when the founders wrote the constitution. Any guess at intent is merely fanciful assumption.
 
You don't know original intent. It's heresay. Its an incongruous inference . No one alive to day was there when the founders wrote the constitution. Any guess at intent is merely fanciful assumption.

Actually I think you maybe partially correct. Since no one person actually did get exactly what they would have preferred, the Constitution represents a composite group consensus. It often does not document well, the group consensus since it is also hampered with being the result of the group wording acceptable to obtain the votes. Not necessarily the best wording at conveying explicit directions, let alone intent. However, we do have a plethora of documentation that does let us have a fair look at the mind set of the participants , perhaps even their intent in this serious matter. I don't think it takes a shaman to understand.

In the case of impeachment vs indictment and trial, it seems to me, it is very odd that anyone would come to the conclusion that leaving the President open to trial by a majority opposition is the intent, where so much is written as to why we have impeachment in the Constitution with not a word about a trial except for by the Senate.
 
You don't know original intent. It's heresay. Its an incongruous inference . No one alive to day was there when the founders wrote the constitution. Any guess at intent is merely fanciful assumption.

Actually I think you maybe partially correct. Since no one person actually did get exactly what they would have preferred, the Constitution represents a composite group consensus. It often does not document well, the group consensus since it is also hampered with being the result of the group wording acceptable to obtain the votes. Not necessarily the best wording at conveying explicit directions, let alone intent. However, we do have a plethora of documentation that does let us have a fair look at the mind set of the participants , perhaps even their intent in this serious matter. I don't think it takes a shaman to understand.

In the case of impeachment vs indictment and trial, it seems to me, it is very odd that anyone would come to the conclusion that leaving the President open to trial by a majority opposition is the intent, where so much is written as to why we have impeachment in the Constitution with not a word about a trial except for by the Senate.

Then on the other hand. I will let you in on another little clue. Most of the group did not have any intent. So follow those that did. The heavy hitters that had intent in shaping the Nation were the INTPs and an ENTP. The two heavy INTPs were Jefferson and Madison with Madison taking the bulk of the load after being a protege of Jefferson. Guess who the ENTP was?

Madison and Franklin were followers of Naturally Law in which Franklin being a very heavy hitter backed up Madison in this area. So Madison as the primary author of the Constitution had the support and philosophy of Jefferson on one hand, and on the other Franklin and Natural law. This is helpful in understanding intent. Who was that other influential heavy hitter? The ENTP?

He nodoubt would have been one of the early Presidents but for a catastrophic event.
 
Back
Top