“My common sense told me what’s going on here is that he’s looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job”
—James Comey, Former FBI Director
There’s now more than enough evidence to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice. Successful prosecution may not be guaranteed, but there’s more than enough for a prima facie case, and if verdict depended on believing a witness, James Comey would win hands down.
Title 18 U.S. Code § 1510 – Obstruction of criminal investigations mainly discusses financial crimes, and evidently, there is some debate about whether the statute applies to the Comey situation. Writers at Lawfare, for example, have raised questions about the statute’s applicablity. Ryan Goodman, former special counsel to the Department of Defense and co-founder of the Just Security seems to think the statute applies.He quotes this part of Comey’s testimony as “devastating” evidence that Trump obstructed justice:
Our — our absolute primary concern was, we can’t infect the investigative team. We don’t want the agents and analysts working on this to know the president of the United States has — has asked — and when it comes from the president, I took it as a direction — to get rid of this investigation, because we’re not going to follow that — that request.
This certainly looks like Trump was interfering with the progress of an investigation. The legal questions have to do with whether an FBI investigation fits the wording of the statute.
When the bribery part of the statute is taken into account, however, Trump looks even more guilty:
Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Bribery occurs when someone “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official” in order “to influence any official act. In Trump’s case, he indirectly promised that Comey would keep his job if he dropped the Russia investigation into Flynn. That’s the quid pro quo. Aside from bribery in the obstruction of justice, bribery itself is a crime and might be a another statute under which Trump might be charged, 18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses.
In Newsweek, Phillip Bobbitt writes,
“by offering an inducement to act—offering, for example, to re-appoint Comey or suggesting that his future appointment might hinge on his shutting down an investigation of the president–comes perilously close to offering Comey a bribe.
Perilously, indeed. If criminal charges are in order, Article 2 of the Constitution also provides a political remedy:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I’m not sure Paul Ryan did Trump much good in trying to defend him. Ryan said that Trump is new to this and may not understand these rules. Well, doesn’t that just show what a bad choice he was for President? IMO it is a self-evident truth that a POTUS should by definition not be new to government. In fact, for the first time ever, I find myself thinking we should constitutionally require some sort of cursus honorum.
Ryan is the disease infecting the Republican Party. Trump is just metastatic result.
There is also this fetish about having experience as a small business owner or corporate CEO somehow gives one a better resume to run for political office. We see it with Republicans and Democrats alike. I’ve seen many Democrats brag about their business experience and of course, it’s what Charlie Baker promoted as well.
It’s subtle thing, but something that we, as Democrats need to remind voters, especially after Trump, that experience with running a business makes one very capable or running a business, but has little worth in running a government.
Agreed. It goes along with the idea that government should run like a business. It can’t, and it shouldn’t.
I would be willing to make an exception to that. I a candidate was part of a business that was a co-operative or an employee owned company, I’d put that as a positive and would consider that valuable experience that would translate well into running a government.
The problem with business in the USA (and our government of late) is that it is “winner take all”. Trump ran his company for the benefit of Trump and only Trump, same with Romney and his years at Bain. It’s also part of the Republican mindset, one that I recalled when Mitch McConnell said, they “won” and we “lost” so they get what benefits them and them alone.
There have been business leaders who have gone into politics in other systems-but they almost always serve in government first. Even Hoover had government experience. Trump was the least experienced nominee since Wendell Wilkie. And at least Wilkie was a globalist who supported civil rights.
I envy the Europeans with swift and decisive elections and experienced politicians. Even Macron served in cabinet before and went to the public policy school every modern French president has attended. Similarly, Corbyn and May have nearly a half century of parliamentary experience between them. Every modern PM has served in cabinet and while elections are still nasty and brutish they are also mercifully short. As are transitions.
Corbyn benefited extensively from equal time laws that finally gave him neutral media coverage after getting battered by the partisan newspapers-an innovation I know you’d appreciate.
On the other hand, there was Sylvio Berlusconi.
As to the OP-I do not doubt this. Is there sufficient public outrage within Republican districts and states to force their members to do something about this? Graham, Collins, and McCain most bizarrely of all were hardly profiles in courage yesterday. I think this doesn’t change until we change Congress.
The party’s literally mean their namesake at this point. One wins the popular vote for President and house and somehow still loses due to small r republican holdovers like the electoral college and state based district allocation. The other is actively trying to prevent more democratic governance to stay in power and protected the property class.
Time will tell if there will be sufficient public outrage within Republican districts and states. Polling is showing erosion in strong support of Trump, i.e. his base.
I’m still predicting a point in time when the tide turns and the GOP deserts the sinking ship. We’re not even six months into Trump’s tenure.
I agree with you on parliamentary electoral systems. The American electoral and governmental systems were attempts to solve 18th century problems. European democracies developed later and from a different tradition. They also had to reinvent their societies after WW II. We badly need some updating, but the Founders made that difficult as well.
Amending should be substantially easier. And they’d be ashamed at how little we have amended, I don’t see how one can actually read the Federalist papers and come away with a dead constitution that can never change.
Count me as one of those who likes our constitutional stability, our federal system, and checks and balances. Can you imagine Trump as PM who could get his way with almost no resistance?
Trump may not have been able to form a government.
Question: How many presidents would have owned the government like a PM?
Why couldn’t Trump form a government? His party has one of the strongest majorities ever.
Not in the election. And if we had multiple parties like European countries do.
Sure, but I thought we were comparing ourselves to the UK, which like us has single member districts and two major parties. Don’t forget, Adolf Hitler did not take over Germany by coup. He became Chancellor by leading the party who got the plurality of votes like anyone else would have.
Sorry, just realized we weren’t on the thread about Labour’s surge in the UK, but it’s still the parliamentary system I think about first. I strongly value geographic representation and federalism in a country our size.
I don’t have a problem with some geographic representation, but the senate really overcompensates.
Senate is for the states as entities, a notion that got lost when we switched to popular election.