• Home
  • Mission of This Site
  • Contact

Impeachable Offenses?

~ Examining the Case for Removal of the 45th President of the United States

Impeachable Offenses?

Tag Archives: grand jury

A Meeting of Casual Agents

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

administration, Collusion, Conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the united states, dmitriev, emirates, erik, george, grand jury, Impeachment, kirill, kremlin, lebanon, Mueller, nader, prince, Putin, trump

George Nader, a Lebanese American businessman, is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation. Nader has ties to the Emiratis, and significantly, was at the ‘Seychelles Meeting’. Previous reports have shown that Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, had met with with Kirill Dmitriev, a man who runs an investment fund for Vladmir Putin. Prince has claimed that the meeting was pure coincidence and very casual. But Nader’s attendance casts the encounter in a new light.

Prince has close ties with the Trump Administration; ties which could be said to mirror those of Nader’s to the Emiratis and Dmitriev’s to the Kremlin. So what is one to make to make of such a meeting? The Washington Post claims that this development substantiates the idea that the meeting was intended to set up a “back-channel” between Trump and Russia. If that is so, the implications of the meeting for the emerging pattern of Trump-Russia connections are intriguing.

Image result for erik prince trump

Getty Images/AFP/Mark Wilson

 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Nunberg Considers Refusing Mueller’s Subpoena

06 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

advisor, bannon, bloomberg t.v., campaign, contempt, court, Emails, former, grand jury, Impeachment, investigation, memo, Mueller, nunberg, Obstruction of Justice, of, roger, sam, steve, stone, subpoena, trump

Sam Nunberg, former campaign adviser for President Trump, has said that he intends to refuse to comply with the subpoena that was issued to him by Mueller’s investigation. Nunberg seems not to take so much issue with the idea of testifying against Trump, whom he is “not a fan of,”  as he does spending time going over the emails that he exchanged with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. He is quoted as saying”I think it would be really really funny if they wanted to arrest me because I don’t want to spend 80 hours going over emails . . . .” Nunberg also said he is planning to appear on Bloomberg TV to tear up the subpoena.

The Mueller investigation issues grand jury subpoenas to obtain interviews and documents. Grand Jury Subpoenas are governed by Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 17(g) of the FRCP holds that a person refusing to comply  with a subpoena may be held in contempt of court. Section 402 of title 18 of the U.S. Code describes when contempt may be considered a crime:

Any person . . . . willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, . . . . if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted . . . . and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

So, what that says is that if in refusing to comply with a court order one commits an additional crime, they are subject to a fine and imprisonment. But has Nunberg committed a crime? He would if he were to actually follow through with his plan to tear up his subpoena on Bloomberg TV. Section 1519 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

So, this law makes destruction of documents related to a federal investigation a crime. Additionally, the mental state written in this statute is pretty broad: one need only intend to “impede, obstruct, or influence” an investigation. If Nunberg is using the destruction to demonstrate his contempt, it is arguable that in so doing that he intended to impede or influence Mueller’s investigation. So, if Nunberg were to refuse to comply with Mueller’s subpoena, and in so doing destroyed his subpoena, he could be charged with criminal contempt, as well as punished for the destruction of the document itself.

Luckily for Nunberg, however, he thought better of this course of action. He conceded late Monday that he would cooperate with Mueller. Considering the possible ramifications of his actions, that seems a wise choice.

05-sam-nunberg.w710.h473.jpgPhoto: MSNBC

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

No, the Grand Jury Can’t Proceed Without Mueller (or at least some federal prosecutor)

15 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bennett Gershman, David Yassky, grand jury, grand jury report, indictment, Robert Mueller, Special Counsel

By Frank Bowman

As regular readers of this site are well aware, I deeply disapprove of Mr. Trump, his shameless enablers, and all their works.  And I’m entirely in favor of employing the legitimate tools of both law and politics to oppose Mr. Trump and to expose his criminal or impeachable conduct, if any.

But, at least for me, that doesn’t mean anything goes. Indeed, because the fundamental sin of Trumpism,  from which all its other evils flow, is disregard of legal rules and norms, Trump critics have a special responsibility not to bend the law or misrepresent what it permits.  This being so, I have too regularly found myself in the role of starchy maiden aunt prudishly reproving fellow Trump critics when they trot out yet another implausible interpretation of the law or the mechanics of criminal practice.

Earlier this week, I got after Professor Larry Tribe and co-authors for suggesting that Congressman Devin Nunes committed obstruction of justice by releasing the infamous memo.  And sadly, I’m back at it today.

In the February 14 edition of Politico, law professors David Yassky and Bennett Gershman contended that, even if special counsel Robert Mueller and all his team were fired, somehow the grand jury empanelled to investigate the Trump-Russia connection could continue the investigation, and even produce an indictment. For a half-a-hundred reasons, some legal and some practical, this could not happen.  In my own piece on Politico today, linked here, I explain why.

I hope, in future, to spend more time on what Trump opponents can do, and less on what they can’t.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Mueller Convenes a Grand Jury

04 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

grand jury, investigation, Mueller

Click here to read some of the details surronding special counsel Mueller’s grand jury. (Warning: Impeach-o-Meter attached).

826020110.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg                      Chris Kleponis/Pool/Getty Images

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Wall Street Journal Considers Presidential Self-Pardons … with a little help from “Impeachable Offenses”

25 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

grand jury, Mueller, pardon, runaway grand jury, self-pardon

The following article examining the president’s power of self-pardon and other tactics Mr. Trump might employ to stymie the Mueller investigation appeared yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.  We are pleased to note that it quotes Professor Bowman at length and gives a shout-out to this blog.  The WSJ article can also be found at this link.

Presidential Self-Pardon Remains a Murky Issue: 
Constitutional scholars say matter is unresolved
Special counsel Robert Mueller departing after briefing members of the Senate last month on his investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Special counsel Robert Mueller departing after briefing members of the Senate last month on his investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. PHOTO: JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS

By

Jess Bravin

July 24, 2017 5:23 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—In 1974, some of President Richard Nixon’s lawyers advised the president that he could pardon himself. In 1992, the Iran-Contra special prosecutor reached the opposite conclusion regarding President George H.W. Bush.

Neither president took that step, and constitutional scholars say the question of the presidential self-pardon remains unresolved.

But the U.S. Constitution, unlike many state governments, centralizes prosecutorial authority under the president. That means he could forbid the Justice Department from investigating or pursuing criminal charges against anyone, including himself, so he may never reach the point of having to pardon himself.

The subject has come to the fore in recent days after reports emerged that President Donald Trump had asked his advisers about his ability to pardon various people, including himself.

Trump officials say the issue won’t come up because there was no wrongdoing.

“I’m not sure if he has the right to [pardon] himself or not,” White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Sunday on CNN. “But it doesn’t matter, anyway, because that is another one of those stupid hypotheticals. He’s not going to have to pardon himself, because he’s done absolutely nothing wrong.”

The president himself tweeted Saturday, “While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS.”

The Justice Department has taken the position that a president can’t be prosecuted. Past special prosecutors have disagreed.

“It is very likely that a president is subject to federal indictment. No one is above the law in this country,” says Ronald Rotunda, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., who worked both for the Senate Watergate Committee and later Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation of President Bill Clinton led to impeachment and acquittal.

Last week, the New York Times reported on a memo obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in which Mr. Rotunda advised Mr. Starr that the president was subject to indictment.

“I have thought about these issues for years, beginning with my work on the Watergate Committee,” Mr. Rotunda said. “Starr’s request for a legal opinion forced me to think about it more carefully and see what is most likely the law.”

But past special prosecutors such as Mr. Starr operated under broad statutory authority that since has expired. Under current law, special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, only has the authority to recommend to higher-ups that indictments be sought, says Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri who publishes the ImpeachableOffenses.net blog.

Even if Justice Department attorneys obtained an indictment before the president issued an order canceling the investigation—or defied such an order—Mr. Trump could replace hostile officials with those willing to follow his orders. And if a “runaway” federal grand jury voted for an indictment on its own, a prosecution couldn’t proceed without a signature from a Justice Department lawyer, Mr. Bowman says.

“The judge has no independent power to create a prosecutorial authority,” he says.

A president attempting to derail an investigation could wreak havoc with traditional concepts of law and order, legal experts say. Because he has the power to pardon anyone for a federal crime, with the possible exception of himself, a president could in theory pardon individuals for obstructing an investigation if the offense took place under federal jurisdiction—as is all of Washington, D.C.

But there’s a far easier course if Mr. Trump acts on his assertion that the investigation against him is an illegitimate “witch hunt”: He could fire Mr. Mueller.

“If Trump takes Mueller off the board, he can pretty much stop the whole thing,” Mr. Bowman says. At that point, the inquiry’s only avenue “probably rests on the midterm elections of 2018”—and whether the Democrats can seize a chamber of Congress, and with it the ability to pursue their own investigations.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Blog Owner

Frank O. Bowman, III


Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law
University of Missouri School of Law

Web Profile

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Professor Bowman on Impeachment »

Bibliographies

Explore bibliographies categorized by author and subject, and find other resources.

Posts by Topic

  • The Case for Impeachment
  • Defining Impeachable Conduct
  • Impeachment on Foreign Policy Grounds
  • Impeachment for Unfitness
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Abuse of Criminal Investigative Authority
  • Election Law Violations
  • Foreign Emoluments
  • Conspiracy to Defraud the   United States
  • Politics of Impeachment
  • Lying as an Impeachable Offense
  • Abuse of Pardon Power
  • Electoral College
  • House Impeachment Resolutions
  • The Logan Act
  • The Mueller Investigation
  • Impeachment of Missouri Governor Greitens
  • Historical Precedent for Impeachment
  • Messages from Professor Bowman

Student Contributors »

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Join 204 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: