Hello! You must login or signup first!

Page 382: "Under [the Office of Legal Counsel's] analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Separation of Powers


Uploaded by BrentD15 May 03, 2019 at 12:21PM EDT

Share Pin Download More

Origin Entry: Mueller Report

File type: jpg

Resolution: (828px x 498px)

File size: 77.2 KB


NBC News NEWS @NBCNews JUST IN: House Judiciary Cmte Chairman Nadler on Mueller statement "Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump-and we will do so." Washington, D.C. -Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement in response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's press conference on the conclusion of his investigation into President Trump and his associates "We would like to thank Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his service to our nation over the past two years. In his statement this morning, Special Counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report, which found substantial evidence that Russia attacked our political system and that the President sought to obstruct Mueller's investigation over and over again. He also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the President of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the President accountable Although Department of Justice policy prevented the Special Counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President, the Special Counsel has clearly demonstrated that President Trump is lying about the Special Counsel's findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the Special Counsel's report, and is lying in saying that the Special Counsel found no obstruction and no collusion. Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump - and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law." 11:41 AM - 29 May 2019
The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing: I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS.. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history. 609 The dictated message went on to state that Sessions would meet with the Special Counsel to limit his jurisdiction to future election interference Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections.10
As things stand, obstruction laws do not criminalize just any act that can influence a "proceeding." Rather they are concerned with acts intended to have a particular kind of impact. A "proceeding" is a formalized process for finding the truth. In general, obstruction laws are meant to protect proceedings from actions designed subvert the integrity of their truth-finding function through compromising the honesty of decision-makers (e.g., judge, jury) or impairing the integrity or availability of evidence- testimonial, documentary, or physical. Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of "bad acts" such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying, altering, or falsifying evidence -all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive "bad act" of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suboms perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed, the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such "bad acts" involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President's plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion - such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts.
View All 47 Images


More:


+ Add a Comment

Comments (0)

There are no comments currently available.

Display Comments

Add a Comment


+ Add an Image

Image Details

34 views (20 from today)

Uploaded May 03, 2019 at 12:21PM EDT

Origin Entry

Mueller Report

Tags

mueller report, donald trump, united states congress, perjury, witness intimidation, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, russiagate

Claim Authorship Edit History
Textile Embed