General Discussion

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,212 posts) Sat Jun 10, 2017, 08:37 PM Jun 2017

Did one phone call by Trump expand the investigation?

That is what Noah Feldman of Bloomberg argues in Comey Opens Door to Investigate Trump Dossier, which has a subtitle of “It's not clear the special counsel had authority to investigate the president personally. He does now.”

For background on Feldman, his bio on that page notes that he
is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
Thus one may want to pay close attention to his legal analysis.

He begins by writing

Hiding in plain sight in former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee is a potentially major new avenue for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia-related crimes: the possibility that President Donald Trump committed a federal crime by lying to Comey about his connections to Russia and activities on his 2013 visit there.

The key on this is the phone call where Trump, unsolicited, calls Comey and says that he had nothing to do with hookers — remember the allegation in the Steel dossier.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/9/1670236/-Did-one-phone-call-by-Trump-expand-the-investigation?detail=emaildkre

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did one phone call by Trump expand the investigation? (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2017 OP

I mean DAMN!!!!! He is one dumb son of a bitch!!! DK504 Jun 2017 #1

yes....actually he is... bluecollar2 Jun 2017 #2

yes mercuryblues Jun 2017 #3

You nailed it. CentralMass Jun 2017 #4

Just one small quibble... Grammy23 Jun 2017 #7

I am sure he has been told no mercuryblues Jun 2017 #9

Poetic Justice thbobby Jun 2017 #5

So lying to Comey was a crime. Madam45for2923 Jun 2017 #6

yes mercuryblues Jun 2017 #8

Wait a minute... The FBI has been investigating the info in the dossier all along. hedda_foil Jun 2017 #10

DK504

(3,847 posts)

1. I mean DAMN!!!!! He is one dumb son of a bitch!!!

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 08:45 PM

Jun 2017

Is he really that damn dumb???

bluecollar2

(3,622 posts)

2. yes....actually he is...

Reply to DK504 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 09:02 PM

Jun 2017

But then you knew that didn't you?

mercuryblues

(14,539 posts)

3. yes

Reply to DK504 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 09:06 PM

Jun 2017

his whole life he has surrounded himself with people who never told him no. He carried that into the WH. This never challenged him mentally or gave him a desire to learn anything. Which is why he still acts like a 3 year old stomping his feet because he didn't get 2 scoops, when everyone else got 1 scoop.

He doesn't hate Obama just to hate him. He is so jealous of him that he hates him. Imagine a black man got something he didn't. He was willing to win at all costs, even by selling our democracy to the highest bidder.

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)

4. You nailed it.

Reply to mercuryblues (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 09:46 PM

Jun 2017

Grammy23

(5,813 posts)

7. Just one small quibble...

Reply to mercuryblues (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 11:39 PM

Jun 2017

I suspect tRump HAS been told no in his life. His parents probably tried but failed to instill discipline and that's how he ended up in military school during his teen years. It Is almost a certainty he heard NO there.

The thing with tRump is you can tell him NO until you're blue in the face. It just doesn't register with him. He believes he is filled with special powers that entitle him to do whatever he likes. Laws, rules, etiquette, social graces, custom and civility mean nothing to this buffoon. As he once famously said, " I can't help myself. I just grab them and start kissing. When you're a star, they let you. I grab 'em by the p***y! " Followed by juvenile laughter and snickering.

Someone with more knowledge about Narcissistic Personality Disorder could do us all a great service by explaning when and how things go off the rails for people like tRump. Was he born this way? Or did something happen to him that has created this awful man/child? I know there is little that can be done to help tRump which leads me to believe there is some flaw in the structure or chemistry of the brain. Meanwhile, we're stuck with him and no one on the Republican side seems in much of a hurry to give him the bum's rush out of the White House.

mercuryblues

(14,539 posts)

9. I am sure he has been told no

Reply to Grammy23 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 11, 2017, 10:21 AM

Jun 2017

But not like you and I as we were growing up. Or in the same manner we taught our kids.

Military school is another matter. If you follow the rules, (make your bed, shine your shoes etc.) no problems. With trump's family wealth he learned the art of failing up. Remember, by the age of 13 he was so hard to handle and had gotten kicked out of several schools his parents sent them there.

He even wrote in his book that as a kid, he like to create mischief. I noticed during the primary debate he would often drop a turd about what one candidate said to another. Stand back with that smug smile on his face while watching them fight it out. Chaos and mischief go hand in hand with him and it is all for his enjoyment.

thbobby

(1,474 posts)

5. Poetic Justice

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 10:28 PM

Jun 2017

The straw that broke the camels back:

Trump denies letting russian hookers piss on him.

Never let it said that America has no sense of humor.

The entire planet is laughing at us.

Madam45for2923

(7,178 posts)

6. So lying to Comey was a crime.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Sat Jun 10, 2017, 10:35 PM

Jun 2017

mercuryblues

(14,539 posts)

8. yes

Reply to Madam45for2923 (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 11, 2017, 09:44 AM

Jun 2017

Last edited Sun Jun 11, 2017, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Intentionally lying, even if not under oath violates the law. That is why when the RWNJs whined that Hillary's testimony to the FBI wasn't under oath, I laughed. It didn't need to be.

What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Ms. Stewart now stands convicted of intentionally misleading SEC and FBI officials who questioned her about insider trading. Mr. Al-Marri was one of several hundred immigrants who voluntarily submitted to FBI interviews in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was later charged with lying, during his interview, about the timing of a previous trip to the United States. Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors. Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable. -

See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html#sthash.dq3eCgHM.dpuf

In 1998 the Supreme Court reinforced the power of federal agents when it upheld the conviction of New York union official James Brogan. He was surprised at home one evening by two investigators who asked him if he had received any cash or gifts from a real estate company whose employees were represented by his union. He answered no-which, the investigators knew, was false-and received a prison sentence for his one-word answer. (The jury also convicted Brogan of unlawfully receiving $150 in gratuities from the company-a misdemeanor.)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in reviewing Brogan’s conviction, called attention to “the extraordinary authority Congress, perhaps unwittingly, has conferred on prosecutors to manufacture crimes.” Justice Ginsburg warned that the Supreme
Court’s decision will apply the federal law to encounters between federal agents and their targets “under extremely informal circumstances which do not sufficiently alert the person interviewed to the danger that false statements may lead to a felony conviction.” Ginsburg concluded that the broad interpretation of the law may result in “government generation of a crime when the underlying suspected wrongdoing is or has become nonpunishable.” In other words, you can be not guilty of a crime but guilty of lying about the same noncrime.

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2010/08/18/the-crime-of-lying-to-the-fbi/

hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)

10. Wait a minute... The FBI has been investigating the info in the dossier all along.

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Sun Jun 11, 2017, 10:38 AM

Jun 2017

And Comey said that Trump wasn't personally a target of his investigation, not that he would not be in the future. We've already learned that most of the dossier's claims are true and I remember that several months ago, they had already interviewed Steele (though I may be in error on that.

In other words, I'm pretty sure he already has the remit to investigate wherever and whomever the investigation leads, including the president.

Reply to this discussion