Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Mueller Has Obtained Letter Trump Drafted To Fire Comey

AGBF

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,183
Robert Mueller has obtained the draft of a letter Trump wrote while planning to fire James Comey. "The New York Times" reported this but has not seen the letter itself. News media appear to believe it is significant and may lend credence to the obstruction of justice charge against Trump. White House counsel Don McGahn would not allow President trump to send the letter. Instead Rod Rosenstein was tasked with writing up a new letter of dismissal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
TrumpAbeHandshake1.pngWe have Nazis marching in the streets and TrumpTrudeauHandshake.jpg North Koreans launching long range missiles
ButHerEmails.jpg over Japan, BUT HER EMAILS!
 
This news is excellent, and also big. I am excited.
 
AGBF said:
Mike Pence knew about this letter and may be involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Even if he is not found guilty of that, he may have committed other impeachable offenses. Richard Nixon's misrepresenting facts to the public was not a crime, but was considered an impeachable offense.
Link...https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/la...mike-pence-in-legal-jeopardy-for-impeachment/
Click to expand...
My blood pressure is rising. But not at you, Deb! But because I expect law professors & lawyers in general -- no matter what their political stripe -- to do better by the general public. I agree that impeachment does not require the commission of a criminal offense. But Prof. Shugarman's bald statement that Pence is now "implicat[ed] in a combination of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and also a relatively less known felony called misprision of a felony" is misleading.

As I said when I "called out" Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News talking head and former practicing lawyer (in the field of civil litigation), when he was accusing Comey of misprision, keeping silent does not make you guilty of misprision, as defined by 18 USC § 4:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
MollyMalone said:
* * * On its face, the statute makes plain that concealment is an essential element of misprision. So although you wouldn't know this from reading Jarrett's shoddy piece, there is a line of Federal court decisions holding that the mere failure to report a felony does not constitute a violation of 18 USC § 4. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1997), where the Federal appellate court in Texas vacated Johnson's plea of guilty to misprision because the only evidence ... was that he had not gone to authorities to report conversations which, the government alleged, constituted violations of what was then the Neutrality Act (now the Arms Export Control Act).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14806734468103617188
Click to expand...
Significantly, contrary to the impression conveyed by Shugarman (and countless others), there actually is not a crime called "obstruction of justice." In this post, I explained why I'm not convinced that even a President who expressly threatens a FBI Director with termination -- if the Director does not shut down a pre-Grand Jury investigation into the President's dealings -- is properly subject to indictment under the current federal statutes:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ector-james-comey.231070/page-11#post-4173754
 
Last edited:
MollyMalone said:
My blood pressure is rising. But not at you, Deb! But because I expect law professors & lawyers in general -- no matter what their political stripe -- to do better by the general public. I agree that impeachment does not require the commission of a criminal offense. But Prof. Shugarman's bald statement that Pence is now "implicat[ed] in a combination of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and also a relatively less known felony called misprision of a felony" is misleading.

As I said when I "called out" Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News talking head and former practicing lawyer (in the field of civil litigation), when he was accusing Comey of misprision, keeping silent does not make you guilty of misprision, as defined by 18 USC § 4:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

Significantly, contrary to the impression conveyed by Shugarman (and countless others), there actually is not a crime called "obstruction of justice." In this post, I explained why I'm not convinced that even a President who expressly threatens a FBI Director with termination -- if the Director does not shut down a pre-Grand Jury investigation into the President's dealings -- is properly subject to indictment under the current federal statutes:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ector-james-comey.231070/page-11#post-4173754
Click to expand...

Aren't impeachment and indictment two different things? Do "impeachable offenses" have to be acts that would lead to a criminal indictment? And can a sitting president commit indictable acts, yet not be impeachable (I'm not talking about whether the House will do so -- I know impeachment is purely political -- but whether a neutral observer could say, "yeah, he's a criminal, but you can't impeach him")?

There is all this focus on obstruction of justice but isn't abuse of power more relevant?
 
@t-c - Do '"impeachable offenses" have to be acts that would lead to a criminal indictment?
Nope, that's why I said in my first paragraph above, I agree that impeachment does not require the commission of a criminal offense.

But by his
a combination of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and also a relatively less known felony called misprision of a felony
Shugerman would have you believe that the criminal felonies of "obstruction of justice" and aiding and abetting that, plus misprision, are in play for Pence. That's what I was pushing back against in my previous post.

Re the bigger picture: I have no appetite for the initiation of impeachment proceedings against any federal official at this juncture. I'd much rather see my taxpayer dollars, and Congressional time and attention, spent on other matters; my views on that haven't changed since May:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...secret-channel-to-moscow.231352/#post-4168857
 
MollyMalone said:
@t-c - Do '"impeachable offenses" have to be acts that would lead to a criminal indictment?
Nope, that's why I said in my first paragraph above, I agree that impeachment does not require the commission of a criminal offense.

But by his
a combination of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and also a relatively less known felony called misprision of a felony
Shugerman would have you believe that the criminal felonies of "obstruction of justice" and aiding and abetting that, plus misprision, are in play for Pence. That's what I was pushing back against in my previous post.

Re the bigger picture: I have no appetite for the initiation of impeachment proceedings against any federal official at this juncture. I'd much rather see my taxpayer dollars, and Congressional time and attention, spent on other matters; my views on that haven't changed since May:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...secret-channel-to-moscow.231352/#post-4168857
Click to expand...

I think outside of posturing and wishful thinking, no one is supporting a start of impeachment proceedings now. Everyone is waiting for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation or Trump doing something that is unambiguously a "high crime and misdemeanor" -- maybe not even then if his supporters have any say.

That last part is why there is so much wishful thinking, at least for me, because I know -- from what I've seen -- that no matter what conclusion comes out of the Mueller investigation, no matter the evidence shown, no matter Trump's conduct or action, a good chunk of the US will refuse to believe it, will claim that someone somewhere has done worse, and justify everything that is Trump.
 
Imagine this all had it been Clinton.. sigh.
 
t-c said:
Aren't impeachment and indictment two different things? Do "impeachable offenses" have to be acts that would lead to a criminal indictment? And can a sitting president commit indictable acts, yet not be impeachable
There is all this focus on obstruction of justice but isn't abuse of power more relevant?
Click to expand...
Yes, If your name is B. Clinton...;))
 
soxfan said:
Clinton Clinton Clinton!!!!!
Click to expand...
So am I wrong?...:P2 how soon we forgot about B. Clinton lying to Congress. I have nothing against Clinton as Prez. IMO, his affairs is none of our business.
 
Anyone who fires someone without having a lawyer review the termination papers is an idiot and the lawyer always makes changes.
I have been involved over a dozen times when someone is fired for computer resources or data abuse and it always goes like this: I write a statement of fact detailing what I found. My statement and the draft are sent to a lawyer. The lawyer talks to me about 90% of the time to make sure they have a clear handle on the situation.
The final termination letter after the lawyer is done little has very little content in common with the draft.
 
Karl_K said:
Anyone who fires someone without having a lawyer review the termination papers is an idiot and the lawyer always makes changes.
I have been involved over a dozen times when someone is fired for computer resources or data abuse and it always goes like this: I write a statement of fact detailing what I found. My statement and the draft are sent to a lawyer. The lawyer talks to me about 90% of the time to make sure they have a clear handle on the situation.
The final termination letter after the lawyer is done little has very little content in common with the draft.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that termination letters cannot be edited. The significance is that Trump's first draft shows the original reason/intent in terminating Comey (whatever that may be). If, for some stupid reason, Trump and Miller actually wrote that they wanted to get rid of Comey is because he didn't want to drop investigations on Russian interference and the Trump campaign, then he's toast -- no matter how many drafts they went through. Sort of like if your first draft says you're terminating someone because the employee is an Arab Muslim woman -- even if your lawyer took that out, once your employee's lawyer gets a hold of your first draft, you're toast too.
 
t-c said:
No one is arguing that termination letters cannot be edited. The significance is that Trump's first draft shows the original reason/intent in terminating Comey (whatever that may be). If, for some stupid reason, Trump and Miller actually wrote that they wanted to get rid of Comey is because he didn't want to drop investigations on Russian interference and the Trump campaign, then he's toast -- no matter how many drafts they went through. Sort of like if your first draft says you're terminating someone because the employee is an Arab Muslim woman -- even if your lawyer took that out, once your employee's lawyer gets a hold of your first draft, you're toast too.
Click to expand...

This reasoning is similar to the reasoning applied to Trump's attempts at immigration "reform", although he has been given a huge amount of latitude in that area since he is president and the US Constitution gives the president power in this area. Since he wanted a "Muslim ban", the courts have looked at his reasoning when he banned people from countries where primarily Muslim people lived. I am only sorry that he has had as much power over immigration as he has had. The framers of the Constitution didn't plan for a Trump.
 
t-c said:
No one is arguing that termination letters cannot be edited. The significance is that Trump's first draft shows the original reason/intent in terminating Comey (whatever that may be). If, for some stupid reason, Trump and Miller actually wrote that they wanted to get rid of Comey is because he didn't want to drop investigations on Russian interference and the Trump campaign, then he's toast -- no matter how many drafts they went through. Sort of like if your first draft says you're terminating someone because the employee is an Arab Muslim woman -- even if your lawyer took that out, once your employee's lawyer gets a hold of your first draft, you're toast too.
Click to expand...
That was my point that a draft is not unexpected and there is 0 evidence that it will show anything bad but the media is treating it like a bomb shell with 0 evidence.
 
Karl_K said:
That was my point that a draft is not unexpected and there is 0 evidence that it will show anything bad but the media is treating it like a bomb shell with 0 evidence.
Click to expand...

The media is conveying information it has on the ongoing investigation (that interests a lot of people) that isn't revealing much. We are talking about it. There is no bombshell -- and people (here) aren't treating it as such as evidenced by the low traffic on this thread. What exactly do you want the media to do, not report?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top