HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Wednesday, October 16, 2019

 
Trump threatens whistleblowers and witnesses, isn't that a crime? #AskPreet Bharara

By Spocko
"He should not have to worry that the leader of the free world, the commander in chief goes on television and suggests maybe execution is the right consequence for his playing by the rules and doing the right thing as an exercise of conscience. It's extraordinary and it's an abomination really." - Preet Bharara 



Back in September I asked Former US Attorney, SDNY Preet Bharara this question here on Hullabaloo, How will the WH mob avoid prosecution for witness tampering?

He and Anne talked about it in the October 1 Cafe Insider episode. Preet, calling Trump's threat to the whistle blower "an abomination." Anne was disgusted by it, saying, that is what dictators do. ( Here's a longer audio link on whistle blower from the show, 2 minutes 23 seconds.)

But what I really want to know, from former US Attorneys who know politics is, "Will Trump be charged for threatening the whistle blower and witnesses?"

I want someone to answer questions like:
Does the witness tampering statue apply to whistleblowers?  What about the others in government who gave the whistle blower information?

I sent Preet this letter below and I even left a voicemail message asking the question. I'm not looking for just a legal response.  I see how Trump works. Threatening people is what he does. And I think he'll get away with it using all his tricks and legal dodges.

I want someone to look at Trump's methods as a whole and say, "Yes, this is a crime. Here is what it will take to prosecute him on this crime, in a world where Bill Barr is in charge of the Department of Justice. Here is what it would take politically to charge him. Here is what it would take to educate the public that even though the threatening of the witnesses happens publicly on TV and Twitter, it is still a crime."

Below I point out HOW Trump will try to do it, how he will try to normalize what he does and ask what we can do about it.

I'm very much interested in how powerful people intimidate others and what it takes to withstand them. I want to know methods the less powerful can use to fight the effectively. Then I want to see examples of the people making those threats suffering negative consequences for using them.

Anne Milgram  @AnneMilgram and Preet Bharara @PreetBharara 
NOW the detailed questions. Because you are lawyers I threw some links to the statute, but since you talk about politics I have some questions about the realities of making charges. I've heard former US Attorney Barbara McQuade @BarbMcQuade answer some of these on Rachael Maddow, but I want to hear your thoughts.

I've seen the right wing media spin the President's threats as no big deal, just "tough talk" I have a few questions:
  • Are threats to witnesses from elected officials protected under the 1st Amendment?
  • If the threat is public and didn't work, because the person testified, does that mean that the treat was legal?
  • Can the person who did the threatening be charged with breaking the law?
  • Can the person who was threatened sue the person(s) who threatened them in a civil case for damages?
(It looks like witnesses can sue for being harassed. Would this apply to the President after he was out of office? Does it apply to Senators and Congress people? (1737. 18 U.S.C.1514, (CIVIL ACTION TO ENJOIN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ) Link to Justice Dept.)
  • If a witness or whistle blower WANTED to charge Trump and others for witness tampering, which department would they take it to? Specifically, where would the whistleblowers' lawyer,@AndrewBakaj report threats to?
  • Who decides to prosecute?
  • What kind of evidence do prosecutors need to make the charges stick?
I looked at the Justice Department statues on tampering with witnesses and informants and it seems to cover a number of proceedings.
1729. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROCESSES -- TAMPERING WITH VICTIMS, WITNESSES, OR INFORMANTS -- 18 U.S.C. 1512  (Link to Justice Dept statue.)
It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings.
I  also looked at who it applies to:
Section 1512 protects potential as well as actual witnesses. With the addition of the words "any person," it is clear that a witness is "one who knew or was expected to know material facts and was expected to testify to them before pending judicial proceedings."
I've seen that lawyers try to dismiss or invalidate charges of threatening witnesses.Based on what we know about Trump and his defenses, I count at least eight ways he will avoid the charge and run out the clock. Here's my list, are there others? How do prosecutors get around these?
  1. He did not "knowingly" and "intentionally" mean to intimidate any person with his tweets and comment. They will say he was just commenting on history and how we dealt with spies in the old days.
  2. He was joking. He has a history of making hyperbolic threats. 
  3. He has no obligation to be honest to the public or the press (The Corey Lewandowski defense)  
  4. He did not make this statement while under oath.
  5. He was actually fulfilling his oath of office, "defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" because he believes the whistle blower and certain witnesses are enemies of the United States of which he is the duly elected leader
  6. His "general state of mind, commonly referred to as "general intent" was not corrupt.
  7. His comments did not rise to the level of a "true threat"  Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. (2015).
  8. People in business use comments like this to others as part of normal "deal making" and "negotiations" the whistler blower and witnesses are over reacting.
 BTW I like this comment from an analysis of the case: "The more imaginative types of witness tampering as well as forms of tampering defying enumeration were still prohibited by the omnibus provision of ยง 1503. United States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984)."
I would like you and Anne to discuss the legal tricks, word choices and questions about intent that will be used by Trump to avoid being charged with witness tampering. Avoiding being charged with crimes is one way the President wins politically. Delaying testimony by threatening witnesses is another.

Trump has gotten away with threatening people his entire life, with Bill Barr, his Attorney General on his side, will he get away with it this time too? 

Live Long And Prosper

Spocko

Cross Posted to Spocko's Brain