I'm betting as long as the Republicans are in power, no one.

I think law enforcement has to charge him and let the legal system handle it from there.

I doubt he will but hope he does.

filed only or not.

But if that complaint has merit and evidence, they have sworn to uphold the law. I think they flirt with dereliction of duty or negligence with something like "Yeah, the guy murdered your friend but we're not in the mood to charge him. Try us again next week when we're not so hungover." I don't think that's going to fly.

If there are grounds for arriving that their decision not to act like a lack of sufficient evidence, then of course, they cannot proceed. There are times when that might be debatable.

But here, we have a fairly clear cut violation of the law. It's much harder for them to turn their back on it. So they can do their duty and lay the charge and let a judge figure it out.

The law requires that the covered government official interfere or attempt to interfere with a private employment decision "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation" by taking/withholding or threatening to take/withhold an "official act." Trump's statement was not "solely" on the basis of partisan political affiliation (indeed, it doesn't appear to even be partially based on the reporter's partisan political affiliation) and the demand he be fired wasn't expressly or even implicitly tied to a threat to take or withhold an "official act" impacting the Post.

Back in 2007, then Senator Obama publicly urged the firing of DJ Dom Imus. Some folks suggested that he had violated the law by doing so. They were wrong. And those suggesting Trump's tweet violates the law are just as wrong.

The "official act" part isn't there IMO.

There's no question he has influence with his tweets. When he issues a hateful bombast, the right-wing troupes go into action and make thousands of phone calls (many threatening), send emails, etc. Just as with a boycott, it can have influence.

He's made hurried comments about crime cases before that could influence potential jurors, law enforcement officials or prosecutors, so that question will be interesting to observe in court.

"If you don't hire/fire that Republican/Democrat you won't (get the government contract) (the permit you need) or will (be audited by the IRS) (cited for an OSHSA violation) or whatever."

that's how I read it. If shit gibbon threatened to damage Wapo in some way if they didn't fire the reporter, that would be a violation. Simply saying they should really isn't. Any kind of implied threat would be very hard to prove, in my opinion.

If the reporter is a registered Republican or an Independent, what then? In addition the stated reason for the threat is something he said on line. I think this is a "there ought to be a law" feel good, means nothing, provision.

lord and master of the gop can do no wrong. He has broken many laws, and the gop sees nothing wrong, since he has (R) behind his name. Wait until we get a SANE democratic president, and watch them enforce every law in the book, plus new ones they will make up.

"When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory".

"In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller".

"In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them".

"Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank, an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network".

"It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law".

Read More:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/the-mueller-investigation-is-in-mortal-danger.html
.

Not that I'm making light of this because we're on the path to something worse, but until our press takes a harder line, few know or care. Just another outrage, move on. I expect the justice department to start going after journalists, even up to arrests, and the others will report.... You decide. Isn't that the motto since the invention of fox?

If Trump does it, it's not illegal

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

If 45 explicitly threatened to damage or harass Wapo in some way if they didn't fire the reporter, that would be a violation. Simply saying that they should could be argued as an implied threat, depending on the wording, but would be very hard to prove.

Or that the president can say that because he is the "chief law enforcement officer" or maybe be honest and just say "congress ain't gonna do shit so you can suck ALL our dicks".... Because that is basically what is going on.

Trump's stupid tweet is no more a violation of this law than when then Senator Obama suggested Don Imus should be fired.

Presidents don’t demand personal apologies from individual reporters and call for their jobs. Authoritarians do.

Link to tweet

Nobody that can do anything gives a shit. Trump can do almost anything he wants because most of the authorities allow him.

Hard to keep up on this stuff. Hope someone is keep a list.

They key phrase here is “solely upon the basis of partisan political affiliation”z

That means someone says “this person is a democrat, terminate them because they are a democrat” with no other reason.

That would violate this law.

Trumps call, stupid as it was, wasn’t solely on the basis of partisan affiliation but predicated by certain acts of the reporter. It was based on an erroneous report even the reporter admitted was wrong.

As such if doesn’t even come close to violating this law.

There is more than enough real crap Trump has done to focus on that we have, we don’t need to be spreading crap like this that obviously isn’t accurate and just makes us look like we can’t even read a statute written in plain English.