What would obstruction look like to you? What would count as Trump obstructing and/or impeding the investigations into himself?

:brow:

You claim that nothing has been done. What would have to be?

The omnibus clause is the factor. If that’s proven one is guilty of obstruction of justice. — NOS4A2

From the United States Department of Justice...

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence...

Trumps only agenda is to influence both the Mueller investigation and the current impeachment proceedings...

He is guilty of exactly that, and the evidence of that is overwhelming.

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence...

The omnibus clause is in bold.

No.

You don't get to just make up your own facts here. The United States Department of Justice created the omnibus clause. Here it is in it's entirety...

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).

That is the omnibus clause...

True, I meant the relevant clause is in bold. It must be done “corruptly”.

The scope of the omnibus clause has been a subject of dispute among the United States Courts of Appeals. Some courts have taken the position that the clause should be read broadly to include any conduct interfering with the fair administration of justice if that conduct was undertaken with a corrupt motive. United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, sub. nom. Phillips v. United States, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982); United States v. Ogle, 613 F.2d 233 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 825 (1980); United States v. Baker, 611 F.2d 964 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1333-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834 (1978); United States v. Walasek, 527 F.2d 676 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Cioffi, 493 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 417 (1974). Others have construed the clause more narrowly, holding that the omnibus clause proscribes only conduct identical or similar to the types of conduct described in the earlier two clauses of section 1503. United States v. Ryan, 455 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Essex, 407 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1969); Haili v. United States, 260 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1958).

The United States Supreme Court appears to favor a broad reading of the omnibus clause. In United States v. Aguilar, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2357 (1995), the defendant was charged with and convicted of endeavoring to obstruct and impede a grand jury investigation in violation of section 1503 by lying to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of a conviction under the omnibus clause, its decision did not turn on a narrow reading of the clause. Instead the Supreme Court focused on the government's failure to show that the defendant knew his actions were likely to affect a judicial proceeding. The Court observed that making false statements to an investigating agent who might or might not testify before a grand jury was not sufficient to make out a violation of the omnibus provision of section 1503 since such conduct could not be said to have the "natural and probable effect" of interfering with the due administration of justice. In other words, there was not a sufficient nexus between the defendant's conduct, i.e., lying to the investigating agents, and the grand jury proceeding. Id. See also United States v. Tham, 960 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991).

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1724-protection-government-processes-omnibus-clause-18-usc-1503

No...

The term "or" provides the segue for different ways to be guilty... "corruptly" is just one 'way'... endeavoring to is another...

That one is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump admits of it.

Yes, as the Justice Dept. iterates, “The United States Supreme Court appears to favor a broad reading of the omnibus clause.”. That’s the highest court in the land.

Trump is guilty of obstruction.

When in doubt, simply repeat it. At what point does this become a mantra?

The evidence for Trump endeavoring to influence at least three different investigations is overwhelming. The proof is on video many times over.

But it's bigger than that!

He swore to uphold the Constitution, which includes upholding the processes outlined therein. His blatant negative and disparaging remarks about Constitutionally outlined processes and those in charge of executing them is undeniable and it serves as prima facie evidence of his gross dereliction of duty as well as obstruction.

Convictions under the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 have been based on the following conduct:

Endeavoring to suborn perjury.
Endeavoring to influence a witness not to testify or to make himself/herself unavailable to testify.
Giving false denials of knowledge and memory, or evasive answers. False testimony may be a basis for conviction, ; however, false testimony, standing alone, is not an obstruction of justice.
Falsifying a report likely to be submitted to a grand jury.
Destroying, altering, or concealing subpoenaed documents.
Endeavoring to sell grand jury transcripts.
Offering to sell a guarantee of a jury acquittal to a defense counsel.
Endeavoring to influence, through a third party, a judge.
Deliberately concealing one's identity thereby preventing a court from gathering information necessary to exercise its discretion in imposing a sentence.
Obtaining secret grand jury testimony.
Submitting false or misleading information to the grand jury. .
Refusing to testify before the grand jury.

Now there is something that causes me pause...

Obstruction of justice requires acts designed to thwart some aspect of the government's judicial function. Investigations conducted by the FBI, Internal Revenue Service or some other governmental agency do not constitute judicial proceedings...

So...

I'm not sure how this applies to impeachment proceedings, if at all???

Now there is something that causes me pause...

Obstruction of justice requires acts designed to thwart some aspect of the government's judicial function. Investigations conducted by the FBI, Internal Revenue Service or some other governmental agency do not constitute judicial proceedings...

So...

I'm not sure how this applies to impeachment proceedings, if at all??? — creativesoul

18 U.S.C. § 1505

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress

Although as has been mentioned, impeachable offenses need not be specific crimes. The above notwithstanding, Congress can determine that obstructing Congress counts as a "high crime and misdemeanor."

Perfect. I stopped short. Thanks for that much needed clarification.

I want to change the subject... sort of...

There are many Trump supporters and non supporters alike who buy into the witch hunt explanation. They believe that there are some government officials who are doing everything in their power to remove Trump, and these people will do whatever it takes to get the job done.

That language applies equally to Devon Nunez's behaviour(coordinating with the accused and sharing the details of the investigation with the accused and/or their representatives) regarding the initial oversight committee.

I'm not sure how this applies to impeachment proceedings, if at all???

I think the relevant code here is U.S.C. 192. I suspect the defense will be the separation of powers, and that congress has no such authority over the executive branch.

The separation of powers is balanced against the principle of checks and balances. The President isn’t free to do anything without oversight.

The relevant code has been put forth already. To deny their relevance is to neglect their importance. The Constitution was deliberately written in protest to the power of the monarchy. I grant the founders enough common sense to include the ability to effectively remove a president who has has proven themselves unfit for the office.

The relevant code is the one Michael offered, and it is the guarantee that the people can remove a president who does not satisfy the sworn promise to the people that they will uphold the Constitution and it's processes, including but not limited to congressional oversight... impeachment proceedings.

True, but he evoked executive privilege, something many presidents have done. It is a check on the power of congress.

I want to change the subject... sort of...

There are many Trump supporters and non supporters alike who buy into the witch hunt explanation. They believe that there are some government officials who are doing everything in their power to remove Trump, and these people will do whatever it takes to get the job done.

I, for one, believe the witch hunt analogy. Also, the “boy who cried wolf” is an accurate portrayal of the Dems and a large faction of the media, hence their credibility wanes.

Do not be misled by such talk... it's nothing more than hyperbole and rhetorical drivel...

There is no proof for being a witch.

There is more than enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of obstruction. That obstruction is more than adequate ground for further concluding Trump's guilt of gross dereliction of duty. Trump has breached his contract with America to faithfully uphold the Constitution(and it's processes) and executing the powers granted to the office. He is obstructing Constitutional processes by virtue of endeavoring to influence them in at least the following way...

Endeavoring to influence a witness not to testify or to make himself/herself unavailable to testify.

There are key witnesses in the White House who can verify/falsify this charge. It has been charged that Trump has ordered them to not testify. Those charges need to be argued for. Part of that argument includes hearing from those who purportedly received such orders.

I’m your huckleberry. — NOS4A2

All right, let's go Huck. I could be on your side if you could be on my side.

I was hoping for a serious discussion about the facts relevant to Trump's actions. I thought this might help me more objectively view these facts, perhaps learn of some additional facts, or possibly just hear a different perspective. Obviously that's not going to happen since you just dismiss the facts en masse as "propaganda". OK, I give up - no meaningful discussion seems possible.

I'll close this out by giving my perspective on the situation. As I said, I am convinced the evidence shows it likely that Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate Biden for political reasons. I acknowledge this is based only on the limited facts that we have, but Trump's stonewalling is to blame for that. He can get away with this because of the devotion of his base - they won't even consider the bare possibility that Trump did something wrong. For that reason, they dismiss the evidence without even considering it. Trump provides the rationalizations (it's a witch hunt, or propaganda) and diversion (what about Hillary/Biden/Steele/Mueller? - tangents that have no bearing on evaluating Trump's actions) I remain convinced that the facts point to Trump being guilty of doing something he shouldn't have, and I also believe anyone who actually examined the facts would draw the same conclusion - not to "beyond a reasonable doubt", but at least to raising sufficient doubt about his innocence that they would support efforts to overcome the stonewalling.

I do not think Trump deserved to be impeached for his action with Zelensky. Rather, Congress should have censured him. Unfortunately this option wasn't available because Republicans in Congress are afraid to say Trump did anything wrong - he demanded they treat his actions as "perfect". This works because his base accepts what he says, and his base are their voters. I have concluded that impeachment was necessary because his base made it necessary. He will not be removed from office, but at least he'll go down in history as one of the few Presidents to have been impeached. It is hyper-partisan because Republicans are hiding from reality. -

You dismissed what I said as sounding like it came from Hannity or Levin, and that I’m “emulating congressional Republicans”, then cry foul when I punch back a bit. Pretty typical.

But I respect your perspective for being a bit more nuanced than the breathless fear-mongering. For what it is worth I will offer my own perspective. Anti-trumpists have cheapened impeachment, blatantly lied and mischaracterized Trump’s call, whether for their own political gain or because they are hysterical. They dangled crimes in front of their open-mouthed goslings only to pull back when the focus groups told them to. So it’s no wonder their base think he is guilty before he is given a fair trial.

All they want is that is that Scarlett letter of impeachment, a purely symbolic gesture, so they can further enable the hysteria of their followers.

Anti-trumpists have cheapened impeachment... — NOS4A2

What "cheapened" impeachment, if anything, was Clinton's impeachment. That ship has already sailed NOS4A2, the precedent has been set, the cheapening has already occurred, and your claim is false.

But clearly the constitution allows for the president to be impeached for "misdemeanors", so perhaps it was even the intent of the founders to make impeachment cheap. It may just be the case that the intent was to make sure that the president remains a person of the highest moral integrity and therefore petty crimes are impeachable offences. In this case, impeachment was meant to be cheap, from the beginning.

I was hoping for a serious discussion about the facts relevant to Trump's actions. — Relativist

Then you ought be all for the Senate proceedings including hearing the testimony of those purportedly ordered by Trump to not testify.

Absolutely. And if they don't, I hope the House challenges Trump's stonewalling in court so that we get the full set of facts. This could exonerate him...or it could remove all doubt of his guilt.

Anti-trumpists have cheapened impeachment, blatantly lied and mischaracterized Trump’s call, whether for their own political gain or because they are hysterical. — NOS4A2

The Democrats have deployed the impeachment proceedings in exactly the manner, and for exactly the reasons, that the articles were written into the Constitution.

You have a rogue inhabitant of the white house expressing contempt for the rule of law and the powers of congress - but say anything against it and you're 'hysterical'.

“Impeachment,” wrote British historian and ambassador Viscount James Bryce, “is the heaviest piece of artillery in the congressional arsenal, but because it is so heavy it is unfit for ordinary use. It is like a hundred-ton gun which needs complex machinery to bring it into position, an enormous charge of powder to fire it, and a large mark to aim at.”

The House has rolled out the hundred-ton gun. An extraordinary measure, befitting extraordinary circumstances. President Donald Trump has long shown manifest unfitness for office, but the Ukraine scandal stands apart. Last week we learned of Trump’s Mafioso-like conditioning of foreign military aid on help criminally investigating a political rival.

Laurence H. Tribe, 30th Sept 2019.

And here you are sharing the words of an anti-Trump conspiracy theorist, Lawrence Tribe.

Laurence Tribe, the renowned Harvard scholar of constitutional law, has been an especially active booster for the site [The Palmer Report] routinely tweeting links to highly questionable, unverified news stories about Trump.

How The Left Lost It’s Mind

"Bizarrely," wrote Mr. Nyhan last weekend, Mr. Tribe "has become an important vector of misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter."

He was referring on his colleague’s tendency to amplify unreliable news sources. Mr. Tribe had retweeted a Twitter user who had claimed that Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, was being investigated for physically threatening White House staffers.

"You can’t make this sh*t up," Mr. Tribe wrote in a tweet that he later deleted.

2 professors Walk into a Dumpster Fire

But rather than resort to the genetic fallacy, and rather than point out his consistent conspiracy theorizing and susceptibility to fake news, his political affiliations, all we need do is point out that he believes Trump is guilty before it has been proven in any matter of a fair trial. So much for the constitution.

From the Atlantic article you link to (published July 2017):

Over the past two decades, an immense amount of journalistic energy was spent exploring the right-wing media ecosystem—from talk radio, to Fox News, to Breitbart and beyond—and documenting its growing influence on mainstream GOP politics. This turned out to be a worthy and prescient pursuit, and if any doubt remains about that, I’d present “President Donald Trump” as Exhibit A. While serious Republicans in the political class spent years scoffing at the “entertainers” and “provocateurs” on the supposedly powerless fringe, the denizens of the fever swamp were busy taking over the party.

(Hey, he's talking about you.) Anyway, it then goes on to wonder, could the same kind of nonsense infect 'the left'?

I have no doubt there are 'rabid leftists' who are just as prone to nonsense as their mirror-image counterpart. But things have changed a bit since it was written. And The Chronicle article is all innuendo and hearsay, it's completely trivial in the circumstances.

all we need do is point out that he believes Trump is guilty before it has been proven in any matter of a fair trial. — NOS4A2

The article in question was a comment on the impeachment process. But Trump, as I pointed out before, could plausibly be impeached on many grounds apart from the Ukraine matter, where the facts are clear and established beyond reasonable doubt. All Trump has done in response is spew lies and schoolyard insults, and all the GOP is doing is capitulating to his bullying.

Let it drag out the whole of 2020, rather than rubber-stamping his acquittal and handing him imperial powers.

Just curious. Simple question.

What is your stance on whether or not the Senate should subpoena witnesses(if necessary) when it begins the next step of the impeachment process, including but not necessarily limited to those people who Trump purportedly ordered to not appear/testify?