It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

page: 46
53
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

An Investigation is a Proceeding or "Government Process"
And 1505 is not limited to civil.




U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 1500-1999 » Criminal Resource Manual 1701-1799

1727. Protection Of Government Processes -- Omnibus Clause -- 18 U.S.C. 1505

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 parallels its counterpart in 18 U.S.C. § 1503 in language and purpose, and most of the law construing the latter is applicable to the former.

Generally, a defendant may be found guilty under section 1505 if the government establishes that:
(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States;
(2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and
(3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.


www.justice.gov...

The above is not some excerpt from some university website that you spin.

The above is the CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL for the US Department of Justice.





Sorry to butt in, but I can't tell if it is or isn't. This is from the link you posted:



Investigations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) constitute a section 1505 proceeding. See United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.) (ploy to frustrate IRS effort to collect delinquent taxes), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086 (1981); United States v. Vixie, 532 F.2d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (submission of false document in response to IRS subpoena); United States v. Persico, 520 F. Supp. 96, 101-02 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) (endeavor to bribe IRS agent to influence IRS's criminal investigation of individual's tax liability). Similarly viewed are investigations by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. at 164, and the United States Customs Service, United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d at 423. However, investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings. United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56 (W.D. Ky. 1981); see also United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22 (W.D. Pa. 1956) (FBI investigation is not a 18 U.S.C. § 1503 "proceeding"). But cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 and 1512(b)(3), (c)(2).


I don't know if an independent special counsel investigation would be treated like an FBI investigation...or not, it's not clear either way.

Eh, just thought I would throw that out there.




posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Mueller's investigation is not a proceeding.

It is a criminal investigation.

This why I keep saying people need to actually read and understand the info they post before forming an argument based on info they do not understand.

1505 does NOT apply.

What he keeps trying to pass of as "law" is nothing more than guidance for federal prosecutors. The resource manual provides court rulings that effect the US codes in question and how they are applied given differing circumstances.

Like an FBI investigation not being a proceeding under 1505.
edit on 12-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Mueller is not a proceeding or government process.

He is a special counsel engaged in a criminal investigation.



Mueller wasn't even Special Counsel when Trump fired Comey???

The Criminal Investigation is in fact a process and it was being headed by the FBI in which James Comey led when Trump fired him after asking him to cease the investigation into Flynn.

And yes, an FBI Investigation is a government process.

You seem wildly confused.



What you are trying to do is pass off guidance for DOJ prosecutors as law. What I linked you to is the actual law itself


I linked to the CORRECT Code in the DOJ US Criminal Manual.

You linked to the INCORRECT Code on a university website.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Mueller's investigation is not a proceeding.

It is a criminal investigation.



????

The Obstruction of Justice jeopardy for Trump centers on the FBI investigation into Flynn and James Comey's firing.

Not Mueller's investigation???

And yes BTW Mueller's investigation is a government process.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus
and your link says 1505 and a FBI investigation are not proceedings under the section in question.

As has been said before, read your own sources completely and understand it before making a claim its doesnt support.

No an FBI investigation is not a government process for 1505.


Investigations by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) constitute a section 1505 proceeding. See United States v. Lewis, 657 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir.) (ploy to frustrate IRS effort to collect delinquent taxes), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1086 (1981); United States v. Vixie, 532 F.2d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (submission of false document in response to IRS subpoena); United States v. Persico, 520 F. Supp. 96, 101-02 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) (endeavor to bribe IRS agent to influence IRS's criminal investigation of individual's tax liability). Similarly viewed are investigations by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. at 164, and the United States Customs Service, United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d at 423. However, investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings. United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455-56 (W.D. Ky. 1981); see also United States v. Scoratow, 137 F. Supp. 620, 621-22 (W.D. Pa. 1956) (FBI investigation is not a 18 U.S.C. § 1503 "proceeding"). But cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 and 1512(b)(3), (c)(2).


No you linked to the DOJ website and found an omnibus clause that applies to the obstruction sections for prosecutorial guidance.

The laws - on the DOJ website and the one I linked from Cornell Law are exactly the same.

Still waiting for you to lay out how TRump obstructed using the laws provided. You made the claim now support it or quit repeating it.
edit on 12-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Derp...yes, obviously before Mueller was appointed.




posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

No really its not a proceeding. Your own source even says it. Just because you were wrong, andd your source is also saying you are wrong, does not mean you have to keep digging a whole. Quit while you can.

2 posts above.



edit on 12-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And I messed up your graphic, too.

😐



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xcathdra

And I messed up your graphic, too.

😐


lol no worries..



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Very good question!

If short, it is a muddy terrain of code and you spotted something relevant. Good catch.

An argument can be made that FBI investigations are exempt from Obstruction of Justice Charges, and not doubt Xca will seize of the parts he likes and discount the uncertainty and legal debate surrounding the issue, but good catch!

At the end of the day it is a Moot Point as the Obstruction of Justice Charge would center on the clear government Proceeding of the Grand Jury that was examining Flynn.



even if [the] narrower view [of § 1505] were to prevail, Trump arguably endeavored to influence two other investigations that, as others observe, are more clearly covered by the statute: the pending grand jury investigation of Michael Flynn, and the pending congressional investigations of Russia’s role in the election. The former, in particular, seems potentially significant, given that Trump expressly mentioned Flynn during the Valentine’s Day tête-à-tête, telling Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” So, there is at least some evidence that Trump made efforts to influence one or more potentially qualifying investigations, which could constitute one or more actus rei, although there are certainly arguments the other way.


You will like the whole article:
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look
www.lawfareblog.com...

I have to ask MME, did you spot that on your own?


edit on 12-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

All these semantics aside, I want to ask you a few simple questions:

1] Is there anyone, in any office or capacity, who has the ability to fire an FBI Director?

2) If so, who?

3) If not, does that not place the FBI Director above the law?

4] Is there anyone, in any office or capacity, who has the ability to fire a Special Investigator?

5) If so, who?

6) If not, does that not place the Special Investigator above the law?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
And yes BTW Mueller's investigation is a government process.


No it is not.

Mueller does not have arrest authority. He has about 25 FBI agents assisting him, including investigations. The special counsel is nothing more than a fancy prosecutor.

What MUeller is doing is not a proceedings. It is a criminal investigation. A crime that is nonexistent.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

All these semantics aside, I want to ask you a few simple questions:

1] Is there anyone, in any office or capacity, who has the ability to fire an FBI Director?

2) If so, who?

3) If not, does that not place the FBI Director above the law?

4] Is there anyone, in any office or capacity, who has the ability to fire a Special Investigator?

5) If so, who?

6) If not, does that not place the Special Investigator above the law?

TheRedneck


1) Yes
2) President
3) No - Firing someone is a separate issue from the Reason you fire someone.
There is no law that forbids a CEO from firing a secretary for not performing oral sex.
There is a law that forbids the CEO from demanding oral sex from his secretary.
The firing of that secretary after the demand and refusal is evidence of the illegal action, but not illegal in itself.

Ditto for your next round of Qs.

Let me know if you are still confused or intend to cling to that straw man.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

See above post.

Grand Jury's and Congressional Investigations are both proceedings.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Xcathdra

See above post.

Grand Jury's and Congressional Investigations are both proceedings.



Mueller is not a grand jury.
Mueller is not a congressional investigator.

1505 does not apply.

Still waiting on you to provide us the elements Trump violated to obstruct justice.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Xcathdra

See above post.

Grand Jury's and Congressional Investigations are both proceedings.



Mueller is not a grand jury.
Mueller is not a congressional investigator.

1505 does not apply.



Why again do you keep saying Mueller?

It was Trump asking COMEY to end the Flynn investigation that is being investigated on the Obstruction of Justice Charge.

seriously...are you confused?

And as I posted above, the Grand Jury that was examining Flynn is legally valid under 1505.



1730. Protection Of Government Processes -- "Official Proceeding" Requirement -- 18 U.S.C. 1512

Congress limits the coverage of § 1512 to official proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1) defines "official proceeding" as:
A.a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Claims Court, or a Federal grand jury;

www.justice.gov...

edit on 12-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

and as Chief Law Enforcement officer of the US TRump can do that.
He can also fire Comey without cause.

Neither of which are obstruction.

Terminating Comey had no bearing on any case involving Flynn or anyone else.

McCabe said this as well.

What part of this is confusing you.

and again tell us what elements Trump violated to be charged with obstruction. Give the number of times you have dodged this question tells me you have no clue and cant support the claim. The fact Comey was terminated and Flynn was still charged says their was no obstruction. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said he did not mislead / lie to anyone. McCabe, who got fired, altered the 302's regarding Flynn.

You can keep citing that info but it has no application to this what so ever. A grand jury cant do anything unless empaneled by the prosecutor. The investigation itself is handled by the FBI, where you misapplied info has no bearing.
edit on 12-4-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

and as Chief Law Enforcement officer of the US TRump can do that.
He can also fire Comey without cause.



Correct




Neither of which are obstruction.



Incorrect



Terminating Comey had no bearing on any case involving Flynn or anyone else.


Success or failure is irrelevant to the charge of Obstructing Justice.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You should answer my question.

Why do you keep saying Mueller instead of Comey whilst referring to Trump's attempt to get Comey to drop the Flynn Investigation?



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then, again, tel us what actions Trump took that meet obstruction.




top topics



 
53
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join