The number of cases in which Trump has used Twitter to influence the administration of justice in a corrupt manner is so great that it is barely worth mentioning Trump's tweet storm. It seems like he's committing another crime each time his little fingers fly over the keys of his iPhone. This week was an obstacle to justice and witness manipulation, as Trump simultaneously tweeted an attack on his former lawyer Michael Cohen and praised former election adviser Roger Stone for saying he "never testified against Trump" (19659002) Trump tweets may have passed a legal limit according to many legal commentators, including Norman Eisen, a senior executive at the Brookings Institution, who was quoted in the Washington Post.
"The legal definition of the manipulation of witnesses is very close," Eisen said. "It is a reflection of the first tweet, only he praises a witness that he has not worked with the reward. We are so used to President Trump's having exceeded norms in his public statements, but he may have crossed the legal line.
The commentariat has been obsessed for two days with whether Trump broke the law with his tweets or not Monday. Op Ed pages and cable news desks have echoed Trump's comments on whether Mohammad bin Salman ordered the assassination of Jamal Kashoggi: maybe he did, and maybe not!
Obstruction of the judiciary is difficult to prove. Is a tweet enough? Two? Six? Do you understand what I mean? Put as much as a single toe into this rabbit hole and you'll be pulled in fast. How about repeatedly calling the investigations by Special Representative Robert Mueller a "witch hunt"? Did it count when Trump called for the end of the Russia investigation? How about Trump treating Sessions, repeatedly criticizing him for throwing himself back and then dismissing him? Was it an obstacle when Trump asked Comey to do something good for Michael Flynn? Do you remember when Comey asked Comey one night at the White House about "loyalty" to steaks? Only the two sit there in a small private dining room in the west wing. , , Comey leaned back and Trump fired a few days later.
Former prosecutors and attorneys-at-law such as former Attorney General Neal Katyal pointed to Trump's tweets as part of a Trump pattern designed to disrupt law enforcement to serve his personal end, according to the Post. And there is the problem. The "pattern" has been going on for almost two years. The question is, when is enough?
For congressmen, the answer is never. It was one indignation after another, and they sat on Capitol Hill all the time, shaking all the time. Now that the Democrats are to take over the House of Representatives in January and the votes have accused Trump, the question has shifted to the Senate, where he would be put on trial.
So far, no one has suggested that Senate Republicans have the political will or inclination to plead Trump with guilt, even if they stand in front of the mountain of evidence that has accumulated in the White House. Trump's popularity in the Republican Party remains somewhere somewhere north of 90 percent. It seems the chatter continues on Capitol Hill.
With Special Representative Mueller, the question arises as to what will happen to the reports he publishes after he has indicted all the people in Trump's orbit. Will Deputy Attorney General Matthew Whitaker or William Barr or whoever decides to take a nomination order to lift him? If Muller manages to bring his report to Capitol Hill, he will face the same fate as all the evidence of Trump's misdeeds so far: even if the House accuses Trump, the Senate Republicans will never have the courage to find him guilty , [1
I know, I know. The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice has two views that a president can not be charged, and it is said that Robert Muller has always "followed the rules". But that's it. The "rule" against indictment of a sitting president is a rule, not a law. If Muller filed an indictment against Trump, Trump's lawyers would certainly examine it in court. Opinions are uneven as to what would happen if and when the case reached the Supreme Court.
I think the case would depend on which crime Mueller is seeking an indictment for. There is much evidence that Trump has hindered justice. More evidence has emerged recently that the Trump campaign was thrown together with Russians in the manipulation of Democratic Party e-mails to win the 2016 election.
E-mails published last week indicated that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi have been involved in clashes between Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the emails from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta over the last few months However, so far no evidence has been found that Trump himself was involved in the conspiracy with Russians to steal the election. Not even the notorious meeting with the Russians at the Trump Tower was irrevocably tied to Trump.
Two convicted memos released on Friday evening linked Trump with even more crimes. The conviction note from Paul Manafort claims he repeatedly lied when he told prosecutors that he had no contact with high-ranking officials of the Trump administration. The prosecution quoted texts, electronic documents and testimonies from a colleague of Manafort, as well as other considerations that prove that Manafort had contact with the Trump government.
The only possible reason for such contacts would have been to coordinate their stories about what happened during the Trump campaign, which would be a hindrance to the judiciary. In the case of ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the conviction verdict states: "Cohen has admitted that he has acted in accordance with and on the instructions of Individual-1 on both payments."
"Individual-1 is, of course, Donald J. Trump, and the payments in question were made by Cohen to keep Trump's affairs secret with two women, in fact invoking Cohen Trump's conviction record as a culprit in which he uses his Lawyer has plotted to violate Cohen's convicted financial campaigning laws.
But I do not think Müller should stop conspiring with others with these crimes he committed, rather, he should charge Trump for a crime, that only Trump, as President of the United States, can commit, accusing Trump of violating the United States Constitution's "Fidelity Extermination Clause", which states in Article II, Section 3, "He must ensure that that the laws are faithfully executed. "19659009] Printz vs. United States In 1997 in a challenge to the B Rady Handgun's Violence Protection Act, left little doubt as to who has the authority and responsibility for implementing the laws of the United States: "The Constitution leaves no speculation as to who should apply the enacted laws Congress; the president, it is said, "makes sure that the laws are faithfully executed." II, §3, in person and by officers appointed by him (except for junior officers authorized by Congress, appointment by the Courts of Law or Heads of Departments appointed with other Presidential Presidents), Art. II, § second
In Humphrey's Executor against the United States, the Supreme Court returned to Marbury against Madison when he stated that the "care clause" required the President to obey the law. In this case, the court found that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not arbitrarily recall a member of the Federal Trade Commission without the consent of the Congress and purely for political reasons.
Suffice to say that the bill is amply secured The notion that the Constitution forces the President not only to "execute" the laws, but to obey them. By Trump's actions to violate the law, whether through manipulation of witnesses, apparent obstruction of the judiciary or conspiracy of a foreign power to steal the election of 2016, Trump has demonstrably not "ensured that It is a crime that only Trump, as President of the United States, can commit because it involves a legal requirement on the President, not in the US codes, but in the constitution itself is fixed.
If Muller trumped Trump for violating this constitutional clause, he would not only force the question of whether one president is above the law, as everyone else foresees in the US Code, but also whether the president is subject to it the law of the country, as laid down in the constitution itself. It would be an indictment if a law was violated that applies specifically to the president and no one else.
Such a bill of indictment from Müller would immediately throw the whole matter into the lap of the Supreme Court. It would be an unavoidable constitutional issue because it is a unique constitutional crime. It forces the question of whether or not the laws are applicable to the president by making the law in question a constitution itself.
Some have said that the founders have always known that this country is one day threatened with the danger of a demagogue, which is putting the country on subversion by subjugating its democracy. Well, they provided not one, but two ways to deal with the situation. Such a demagogue can not only be charged, he can also be prosecuted because he did not "lawfully" implement the laws.
It's almost as if the founders have an out-of-control authoritarian monster like Donald Trump himself, right?
Lucian K. Truscott IV.
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has a 50-year career as a journalist, writer and screenwriter. He has reported on stories such as Watergate, the disturbances in Stonewall and wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestsellers and several unsuccessful films. He has three children, lives at the eastern end of Long Island, and spends his time worrying about the state of our nation and scrawling in such a fruitless attempt to make things better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.
Lucian K. Truscott IV
Totally AD FREE,
for the next hour
Read now, pay later – no prior registration
Registration for one-hour access
Access for 7 days and monthly
Subscriptions also available
No collection of personal data
next to name and e-mail address