Trump engaged in witness retaliation. That's a crime

[babylonsister]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/opinions/trump-vindman-criminal-witness-retaliation-cross-exam-honig/index.html


Trump engaged in witness retaliation. That's a crime
Opinion by Elie Honig
Updated 9:11 PM ET, Wed February 12, 2020


(CNN)In the aftermath of his recent acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, President Donald Trump is on the payback warpath. His actions range from the disgraceful use of the Justice Department (with an eager assist from Attorney General William Barr) as a blunt instrument to protect his political allies and to target his perceived opponents to the obvious witness retaliation against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a former top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, who served as a key impeachment witness, and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman (a National Security Council attorney who did not testify).

Yet there remains a dangerous tendency in some quarters to soft-pedal Trump's conduct. For example, in a Washington Post op-ed, "Paranoid or Presidential: Perhaps Both, but Trump Broke No Laws When He Ousted Vindman," Professor Jonathan Turley takes issue with my assertion (which has been echoed by other former federal prosecutors) that Trump committed criminal witness retaliation when he removed the Vindman brothers from their White House positions. (National security adviser Robert O'Brien denied that these firings were an act of retaliation.)

Turley is wrong. His view of unfettered, unaccountable presidential powers defies law and common sense, and smacks of the flimsy excuse-making that has propped up Trump's abuse of the Justice Department to do his political bidding. Turley first argues that Trump's "post-trial action is not obstruction or witness tampering, and those officials are not guaranteed to retain such positions indefinitely."

snip//

The argument Turley makes ultimately rests on the tired premise that the President is essentially above the law and can fire officials for any reason he pleases. But while a president certainly has a broad right to fire officials, he is not entitled to do so for criminal reasons. For example, assume hypothetically that an old high school nemesis of Vindman's walked into the West Wing, dropped $10,000 cash on the Resolute Desk and declared, "President Trump, I'd like you to remove Vindman. Nail his brother too, if you don't mind." If Trump took the cash and then removed the Vindmans, would he be guilty of accepting a bribe? Of course. Just as a president cannot legally fire an official in return for a bribe (a criminal act), he also cannot fire an official with an intent to retaliate against a witness (also a crime).

No, Trump will not be indicted while in office -- the Justice Department has a longstanding policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. But, as the policy itself acknowledges, a president can be charged once out of office. That decision will be up to some future attorney general. And there are bigger questions at play about Trump's accountability, and that of individuals who would try to excuse utterly inexcusable and dangerous conduct.

[riversedge]

1. Turley has lost all credibility. yes. he. has.

....The argument Turley makes ultimately rests on the tired premise that the President is essentially above the law and can fire officials for any reason he pleases. But while a president certainly has a broad right to fire officials, he is not entitled to do so for criminal reasons.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. Arrest and jail the sonofabitch and see if Barr bails him out.

[tavalon]

3. Two days. 48 hours.

That's all it took for the impeached President to commit another impeachable crime.

[2naSalit]

6. +1

[Rider3]

4. Turley

He's made a few comments recently that really raised my eyebrows. He IS wrong on his view of unfettered power. What we have is a Unlimited Government: "Unlimited government. A government in which no limits are imposed on the ruler's authority. The leaders don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else. An unlimited government is a government that has one dictator (or group) that makes up all the laws, and the citizens have no power over the dictator."

This is where we stand today.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. ...which, we've established, doesn't matter

Let's see someone draw a line and PREVENT him from crossing it.

We all know he's WRONG; I want him DEFEATED.

[James48]

7. Yes, it's a felony.

18 U.S. Code § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
U.S. Code


(a)
(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person with intent to retaliate against any person for—
(A) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or
(B) providing to a law enforcement officer any 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 (2).
(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112; and
(B) in the case of an attempt, imprisonment for not more than 30 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for—
(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or
(2) any 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 given by a person to a law enforcement officer;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under this section 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.
(d) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(f) 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.
(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether pending, about to be instituted, or completed) was intended to be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.

[Firestorm49]

8. So, is anything going to come of it?

Is there a sweat factor that could make what’s his name squirm for the next nine months? Can this information be hammered into the heads of the electorate from now to the election? Can a hundred page (sarcasm) list of the atrocities committed by what’s his name and his band of Gypsies be publicized regularly until the election?

We need to relentlessly pull out all of the stops to save America. That’s called patriotism.

[berksdem]

9. yet, nothing will ever come of it...