Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation

[wufan]

Mueller was appointed a little over six months ago. They've been moving incredibly fast. The idea that they have little to show for a year of work is definitely wrong.

I will say I don't COMPLETELY buy the idea that they had mountains of evidence against Flynn and he just pleaded to lying to the FBI. It's definitely tempting to believe, but after talking to a few folks who know a lot more than I do, that's just not that common of a strategy. If you're at all interested in a more moderate take on all things Mueller, I'm a huge fan of the "Stay Tuned with Preet" podcast. He's a Democrat, but he's a former US prosecutor and his latest episode actually said the same thing. It's just not that common to drop a ton of charges to flip the witness.

Your point about Russia is interesting to me, though. Collusion is a mostly meaningless word. There's not a specific crime called collusion. The investigation certainly relates to Russia, but from day one it included, for example, discussions about Trump's financial dealings.

If Mueller finds no evidence of "collusion," but he authors a report that recommends charges be brought on the grounds of obstruction of justice, would you support impeachment? If not, why not?

I would not be in favor of impeachment based on charges. Yes on conviction.

[jdshock]

I would not be in favor of impeachment based on charges. Yes on conviction.

I'm not sure that's exactly how the process is going to work. Presidents don't really go through the same judicial system we do.

Mueller would likely make a recommendation of some kind against Trump. The House would do with it as they please. They'd then impeach or not. The Senate would then convict or not.

I'm saying, if Mueller says "it is my belief that Trump obstructed justice by doing X thing. Here is the evidence." Would you support impeachment?"

If not, why not?

[wufan]

You used the term “charges” which I took to mean “charged with a crime in a court of law”.

If Mueller recommended impeachment based on some known substantial evidence, I would support that. If he however claimed that it wasn’t fair that Trump had mor Russians bots than Hillary; therefore obstruction, I would be against.

[Kung Wu]

At what point does making a false claim against someone with the hopes that the FBI will find something else, become frameup/entrapment? Especially when that "something else" wouldn't have occurred if the original false claim didn't happen?

The American people were sold 100% on the idea that Trump needed to be investigating for colluding with the Russians in order to affect the outcome of the election. That's been the entire narrative for the past year. If Mueller cannot prove that Trump contacted the Russian government for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election, then this investigation needs to end and that's that. A recommendation of obstruction of justice might be tantamount to entrapment and possibly a frameup, and would require investigation as such.

[jdshock]

At what point does making a false claim against someone with the hopes that the FBI will find something else, become frameup/entrapment? Especially when that "something else" wouldn't have occurred if the original false claim didn't happen?

The American people were sold 100% on the idea that Trump needed to be investigating for colluding with the Russians in order to affect the outcome of the election. That's been the entire narrative for the past year. If Mueller cannot prove that Trump contacted the Russian government for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election, then this investigation needs to end and that's that. A recommendation of obstruction of justice might be tantamount to entrapment and possibly a frameup, and would require investigation as such.

If we're not talking about the president (because that adds lots of weird rules that no one can really be certain about since it hasn't been litigated before), if the police discover something else unlawful in the course of a lawful investigation, even if it was not the purpose of the initial investigation, I'm still going down for that unlawful thing. If someone says I have a ton of drugs in my house, and they show up and find a dead body instead, I'm still in trouble. Ultimately, it's just a question of whether they had a lawful right to be at the house. If they can prove they reasonably relied on the tip related to the drugs, they're probably good to go. It's my opinion, we should treat investigations of the president similarly.

I'd be interested to hear why you would treat the president differently than the rest of us get treated on these matters.

[jdshock]

You used the term “charges” which I took to mean “charged with a crime in a court of law”.

If Mueller recommended impeachment based on some known substantial evidence, I would support that. If he however claimed that it wasn’t fair that Trump had mor Russians bots than Hillary; therefore obstruction, I would be against.

The theory everyone in the (liberal?) media is totally sold on goes as follows:

Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI.
Trump then told the FBI to lay off Flynn.
When the FBI refused, he fired James Comey.

That is probably good enough to say there was obstruction of justice. Assuming each of those three parts is true and Mueller has evidence to show each of those parts is true, would you say impeach on that alone?

[wufan]

The theory everyone in the (liberal?) media is totally sold on goes as follows:

Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI.
Trump then told the FBI to lay off Flynn.
When the FBI refused, he fired James Comey.

That is probably good enough to say there was obstruction of justice. Assuming each of those three parts is true and Mueller has evidence to show each of those parts is true, would you say impeach on that alone?

It gives me pause, but probably not. Flynn lied about something that wasn’t illeagal, and he was fired for it. Asking Comey to lay off and subsequently firing him is just poor etiquette, not grounds for impeachment.

OTOH, if Flynn was doing something illeagal on behalf of the POTUS, then my belief would be different.

[ShockCrazy]

Hang on, what he did WAS illegal. Not typically enforced in these scenarios, but absolutely illegal. It definitely by definition violated the Logan Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

[jdshock]

It gives me pause, but probably not. Flynn lied about something that wasn’t illeagal, and he was fired for it. Asking Comey to lay off and subsequently firing him is just poor etiquette, not grounds for impeachment.

OTOH, if Flynn was doing something illeagal on behalf of the POTUS, then my belief would be different.

I hear where you're coming from, and I think it's a reasonable thought. And to be fair, while the Logan Act is definitely a law, I don't think anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted under it.

That said, I'm not sure "they're not guilty" is a valid defense to obstruction of justice. If it were, I could lie and impede investigations so long as I were confident the person being investigated was innocent on that particular matter.

[Kung Wu]

If we're not talking about the president (because that adds lots of weird rules that no one can really be certain about since it hasn't been litigated before), if the police discover something else unlawful in the course of a lawful investigation, even if it was not the purpose of the initial investigation, I'm still going down for that unlawful thing. If someone says I have a ton of drugs in my house, and they show up and find a dead body instead, I'm still in trouble. Ultimately, it's just a question of whether they had a lawful right to be at the house. If they can prove they reasonably relied on the tip related to the drugs, they're probably good to go. It's my opinion, we should treat investigations of the president similarly.

I'd be interested to hear why you would treat the president differently than the rest of us get treated on these matters.

I agree with all this. But in this case the "charge" is obstruction of justice -- an alleged crime that would NOT have occurred if there was no false charge and investigation to begin with. There's a very large difference in discovering a different crime committed before a investigation, and charging someone with a crime BECAUSE of the investigation -- especially if that investigation was started under a false pretense. That's tantamount to entrapment.

[Kung Wu]

The theory everyone in the (liberal?) media is totally sold on goes as follows:

Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI.
Trump then told the FBI to lay off Flynn.
When the FBI refused, he fired James Comey.

That is probably good enough to say there was obstruction of justice. Assuming each of those three parts is true and Mueller has evidence to show each of those parts is true, would you say impeach on that alone?

Nope. Firing Comey is the President's prerogative. No obstruction of justice. Heck he could have and still can pardon Flynn at any time he wants, and that STILL wouldn't be obstruction of justice.

[ShockCrazy]

Nope. Firing Comey is the President's prerogative. No obstruction of justice. Heck he could have and still can pardon Flynn at any time he wants, and that STILL wouldn't be obstruction of justice.

Since you used some Hillary references earlier in the thread here's a question then. Suppose Barack had fired Comey sometime in early 2016 before finishing the investigation, what would your reaction to that be? Let me hazard a guess, it wouldn't be it's fine because his perogative.

[SB Shock]

Logan act is to stop private citizens in interfering in international discussion with countries. I would hardly call the President Elect and anybody on his transition team to be a private citizen. If somebody ever was prosecuted for it - it would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

The Obama state department in January 2017 said this:

State Department spokesman Mark Toner (pictured) said, “this building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials.”

[ShockCrazy]

Logan act is to stop private citizens in interfering in international discussion with countries. I would hardly call the President Elect and anybody on his transition team to be a private citizen. If somebody ever was prosecuted for it - it would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional.

The Obama state department in January 2017 said this:

Indeed. I don't think anything would have been done. But why lie about it then? My belief is he lied because Flynn didn't want them looking into his connections with Russia. Now do they have anything to do with Trump? Who knows, maybe yes, maybe no? But Flynn absolutely has some skeletons in his closet with regards to Russia.

[SB Shock]

idk. Flynn as a general in national security affairs had a reputation of being competent and respected in his trade craft. I don't know how he lost his way. But then again look at General Petreaus......another head scratcher.

The stories about Turkey if true is what really bother me about Flynn.

[SB Shock]

Since you used some Hillary references earlier in the thread here's a question then. Suppose Barack had fired Comey sometime in early 2016 before finishing the investigation, what would your reaction to that be? Let me hazard a guess, it wouldn't be it's fine because his perogative.

It would have been in his right. Likewise, an equivalent "Mueller" would have likely been appointed to investigate. But unlike Trump, they were not that stupid.

[CBB_Fan]

I'm going to assume everyone in this thread (including me) aren't lawyers. Perhaps we should actually take a look at the law?

Obstruction of Justice is covered under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The relevant sections for Trump would include (but not be limited to) the following:

• § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
• § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
• § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
• § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

§ 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

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

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.

Has Trump attempted to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance with a civil investigation? Trump attempted to end the investigation by pressing Republican Senators and James Comey to end the case.

Has Trump attempted to willfully withhold, misrepresent, remove from any place, conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, alter, or falsify documentary material, answers to written interrogations, or oral testimony (or solicit another to do so)? Trump destroyed emails against court orders, and Trump team members Carter Page and Kushner have withheld or failed to disclose documents.

Has Trump attempted to influence, obstruct, impede, the due and proper administration of the law? As per the above, he sought to influence Comey, head of an agency of the United States with a pending proceeding. He threatened CNN and NBC financially in response to negative cover. His personal counsel threatened violence against a random emailer.

That's section 1. I'll just post the text for the rest with bold text and hyperlinks for emphasis, rather than turning a novella into a history book.

§ 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
(a) 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.
(b)

(1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies—

(A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
(B) any other person named in that subpoena;

about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(3) As used in this subsection—

(A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
(B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—

(i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
(ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.

(c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.
(d)

(1) Whoever—

(A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
(B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,
with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.

(e) Whoever, having been notified of the applicable disclosure prohibitions or confidentiality requirements of section 2709(c)(1) of this title, section 626(d)(1) or 627(c)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)(1) or 1681v(c)(1)), section 1114(a)(3)(A) or 1114(a)(5)(D)(i) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act [1] (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)(A) or 3414(a)(5)(D)(i)), or section 802(b)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)(1)),[2] knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both.

§ 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(a)

(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B) cause or induce any person to—

(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;

(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or

(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B) in the case of—

(i) an attempt to murder; or
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;

imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and

(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,,1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f) For the purposes of this section—

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—

(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.

(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800.)

If you honestly think Trump hasn't done any of the above (and these are only 4 of the 21 codes on obstructing justice), then you've been watching a different President than I have. And yes, some of what I posted what in regards to other investigations. Trump has a record of unpunishing lawbreaking, bribing prosecutors, etc., and his associates have committed or conspired to commits acts to cover up his wrongdoings, and those are all valid concerns that deserve their own light independent of Russian collusion.