Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 20, 2020

Stephen Collinson: President Donald Trump's legal team will go into his Senate trial on Tuesday arguing that he should never have been impeached because his conduct over Ukraine does not amount to a criminal offense.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Knowing that he's not going to get convicted and removed from office, Trump is making a bold play to justify his abuse power in the future. If he prevails with this line of defense, kiss American style democracy good bye.

#1 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2020-01-20 06:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Fat Nixon's defense is that just about every GOP senator will violate their oath to be a fair and impartial juror.

#MoscowMitch and #LeningradLindsay have already publicly admitted it.

This is a banana republic worthy show trial.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-20 07:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The constitution says otherwise. Maybe Dotards legal team should read it for once.

#3 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-01-20 07:40 AM | Reply

"The constitution says otherwise. Maybe Dotards legal team should read it for once.

#3 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON "

Is "dotard" cutesy speak for Obama? He (a Constitutional scholar) got slapped down by the USSC 13 times -- more than any other president. Trump, none. Did your panties get in a wad then about "reading the Constitution"?

Yeah, I didn't think so. So spare us your faux outrage.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-20 08:02 AM | Reply

Might as well be his campaign slogan.

#4 | Posted by goatman

Instead of deflecting, howbout telling us your perspective on the topic of the thread - is abuse of power impeachable? Should a president who abuses his power remain in office?

#5 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-01-20 11:05 AM | Reply

#4,
Goatshart, if you dont know the definition of 'Dotard', have a look in the mirror.

It's right there.

#6 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-01-20 11:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

At the end of the day here is the problem that impeachment has: No investigation or announcement of investigation into the Bidens ever occurred. The military aid was released. Zelensky has been steadfast that there was no quid pro quo.

For the record, I'm not naive. I know what Trump was trying to do and I feel it's impeachable. The problem is House Democrats handled this more horribly than I ever imagined and have made it very easy for Senate Republicans (and likely at least a couple of Senate Democrats) to strike down these 2 articles of impeachment - with obstruction of congress being an absolute joke.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 11:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#7 ... No investigation or announcement of investigation into the Bidens ever occurred. The military aid was released. Zelensky has been steadfast that there was no quid pro quo. ...

If someone attempts to rob a bank but, at the end of the day, fails, it is still a crime.


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If someone attempts to rob a bank but, at the end of the day, fails, it is still a crime.

#8 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The second paragraph of #7 provides you an answer.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 11:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...he should never have been impeached because his conduct over Ukraine does not amount to a criminal offense."

I truly don't understand why anyone at least at a 6th grade reading level would publicly say the above, never mind the best legal minds in America (at least those who willingly work for Porky).

NOWHERE does it say that an offense must be criminal in order for it to be impeachable.

This is the "legal" equivalent of "Look! Something shiny!"

#10 | Posted by contrecoup at 2020-01-20 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

ummm his actions were crimes

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-20 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bribery
Misallocation of funds
conspiracy
Soliciting election aid from a foreign government

all crimes

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-20 11:27 AM | Reply

Yep, but irrelevant for purposes of impeachment.

#13 | Posted by contrecoup at 2020-01-20 11:30 AM | Reply

#7 is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-20 11:36 AM | Reply

#7 is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

#14 | POSTED BY JPW

No, I'm not. House Democrats made it very easy for the Senate to acquit. That is political reality.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 11:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Senate Republicans made it impossible for the House to come up with any impeachment scenario that they would convict. That is political reality.
#15 | Posted by JeffJ

FTFY

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-20 11:41 AM | Reply

House Democrats made it very easy for the Senate to acquit. That is political reality.
#15
They presented the facts. The Republicans don't even dispute the facts. They just say 'yeah he did that. it's fine. and we have the votes in the senate so we don't give a f.'
So it's that easy.

#17 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-20 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Schiffer,

They left SO much on the table. There is so much they could have brought, but didn't.

Obstruction of Congress? That is fricking absurd.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 11:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

if it is o'bummer should have been Impeached 7 times

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-01-20 11:47 AM | Reply

@#9 ... The second paragraph of #7 provides you an answer. ...

No, it doesn't.

It provides the answer to another question, but not the one I raised, i.e., "the problem that impeachment has..." that you cite.


#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 11:51 AM | Reply

@#19 ... if it is o'bummer should have been Impeached 7 times ...

Please provide specific instances, events. Also, provide the testimony of witnesses before Congress to support your assertion.

thx.

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 11:53 AM | Reply

Senate Republicans made it impossible for the House to come up with any impeachment scenario that they would convict. That is political reality.
~ TruthHurt

Well when you can't enumerate a crime in the indictment... seems reasonable.

If someone attempts to rob a bank but, at the end of the day, fails, it is still a crime.

We can site law which makes it a crime....

Define the articles of impeachment down to its legal definition ...... can you actually prove something.

What does "abuse of power" mean? What does "obstruction" mean?

Are you saying someone within their legal rights can be removed from office? If so then you really have no rule of law, what you have is fascism and tyranny.


Bribery
Misallocation of funds
conspiracy
Soliciting election aid from a foreign government
all crimes
#12 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Then enumerate the crimes, and law violations in the Articles of Impeachment..... its not difficult is it?

If in the end you can't define it in a legal/scientific way, then against you really have no rule of law, what you have is fascism and tyranny.

I know what Trump was trying to do and I feel it's impeachable. ~ Jeffj

Then prove it, again words have meaning, prove what he was doing. If anything Biden set this up with his outrageous claim that he was going withhold $1Billion dollars unless the investigator that was investigating his sons company, was fired.

Seems perfectly reasonable to investigate it, or at least ask questions. No? Are we saying the TopCop in the US can't ask questions of political opponents about breaking the law?

What if Ukraine came back with a Dossier of provable allegations against Biden?

Here's my guess the swamp of D&R's does this Biden crap, all the time, they are knee deep in it. If the articles of impeachment contained actual crimes and witnesses were called the stain on all the D&R's would be palpable.

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-20 11:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Article 1 of the impeachment lays out the crimes that I described.

If you read them, and had a sliver of intelligence and ethics, you would understand that.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-20 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

- prove what he was doing

Easily done when he allows his minions to testify... already done with those who have already testified.

But Trump could shoot Stormy Daniels dead on 5th Ave, and mAndrea would call it self-defense.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Then enumerate the crimes, and law violations in the Articles of Impeachment..... its not difficult is it?

If in the end you can't define it in a legal/scientific way, then against you really have no rule of law, what you have is fascism and tyranny."

No, Foo, what you have is the Constitution.

#25 | Posted by contrecoup at 2020-01-20 12:12 PM | Reply

@#22 ... We can site law which makes it a crime.... ... Are you saying someone within their legal rights can be removed from office? ...

I am saying, and have been saying all along, that the impeachment and conviction process is not a strictly legal process, but a political one.

Suddenly, the Republicans are trying to cast it as a strictly legal process because the evidence presented has become overwhelming.

But that was merely a failed deflection attempt on your part. It was so weak, I won't even award you with a nice try on that one.

I'll go back to the concept I stated, just because the quid pro quo failed does not mean it was not attempted, nor does it mean the person(s) who participated are innocent of attempting to do it. I'm surprised you even brought up that talking point, as it had been mostly abandoned by Republicans a couple three weeks ago.

I guess desperation is starting to show.



#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 12:20 PM | Reply

Please provide specific instances, events. Also, provide the testimony of witnesses before Congress to support your assertion.

thx.

#21 | Posted by LampLighterthe list is bigger than I thought

The list is longer than I thought

archive.org

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-01-20 01:06 PM | Reply

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Notice the word Conviction Impeachment for, and Conviction of,

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-01-20 01:14 PM | Reply

with obstruction of congress being an absolute joke.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

Saying they DIDNT obstruct congress is the absolute joke.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-01-20 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At the end of the day here is the problem that impeachment has: No investigation or announcement of investigation into the Bidens ever occurred. The military aid was released. Zelensky has been steadfast that there was no quid pro quo

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

Zelensky's word is meaningless because hes still under trump's thumb.

We have proof of quid pro quo.

Attempted crime is still crime.

The aid was released when the plot was discovered.

Next?

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-01-20 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#27 ... The list is longer than I thought ...

That list is a campaign-oriented list, not an impeachment list.

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 01:24 PM | Reply

At the end of the day here is the problem that impeachment has: No investigation or announcement of investigation into the Bidens ever occurred. The military aid was released. Zelensky has been steadfast that there was no quid pro quo.
For the record, I'm not naive. I know what Trump was trying to do and I feel it's impeachable. The problem is House Democrats handled this more horribly than I ever imagined and have made it very easy for Senate Republicans (and likely at least a couple of Senate Democrats) to strike down these 2 articles of impeachment - with obstruction of congress being an absolute joke.

#7 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

1. "No investigation or announcement of investigation into the Bidens ever occurred."

And? The aid was still withheld in an attempt to force the announcement of an investigation. That is a violation of multiple laws. What you just said means if I attempt to bribe a judge and the judge says no, I haven't committed a crime.

2. "Zelensky has been steadfast that there was no quid pro quo."

Members of his government had made clear they understood it as a quid pro quo. Members of Trump's team have been clear it was a quid pro quo. Guiliani has made clear there was a quid pro quo. Parnas' documents made clear there was a quid pro quo.

3. "The problem is House Democrats handled this more horribly than I ever imagined and have made it very easy for Senate Republicans"

How so? They produced numerous witnesses and have the phone call all showing a quid pro quo. Tell me how they could have done it differently that would have changed the facts.

4. "with obstruction of congress being an absolute joke."

Why is obstruction a joke? He blocked numerous witnesses from testifying and refused to turn over evidence. That's literally the definition of obstruction.

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-20 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#30 ... Zelensky's word is meaningless because hes still under trump's thumb. ...

Additionally, the offense was committed against the People of the United States, i.e., Pres Trump was illegally using US Taxpayer money for his personal benefit.

So it really doesn't matter if Pres Zelenski was aware of, or even wants to acknowledge, the quid pro quo.

#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | Posted by JeffJ

I agree with you. The House dropped the ball. They should have taken more time investigating. They let the GOP and far Left pressure them into moving prematurely. I personally think the evidence is there to convict - especially if NEW evidence is allowed as well as witnesses. They have never been in the past though - history SHOULD have taught a lesson on that.

#34 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-01-20 01:57 PM | Reply

Yeah Jeffy, they should have turned their Constitutional duties regarding impeachment over to the Courts.

Right.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 02:03 PM | Reply

@#34 ... They should have taken more time investigating. ...

If you ask me today, I'd say I agree with that.

At the time, however, they did not want to wait for court cases to progress to resolution. That could be months.

However, 20/20 hindsight has shown that more evidence is appearing by the day, even while the court cases have not yet come to a resolution.

Continuing the 20/20 hindsight, I would have liked to see Mr Parnas testify under oath for the House investigation hearings, as his evidence does appear to corroborate and mesh with a lot of the evidence that was presented in those hearings.


#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-20 02:05 PM | Reply

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Drank the kool-aid and its stronger than the "criminal like" flavor that even Dershowitz is willing to serve.

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2020-01-20 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are you saying someone within their legal rights can be removed from office?

#22 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

That is correct. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is taken from English law. It encompasses both defined crimes and undefined actions so that it can used against officials who use their unique powers in violation of the public trust. Combating "abuse of power" is one of the primary reasons for the English Parliament to adopt such a provision and had been used for such propose so the US founders knew of this purpose when they included it in the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton described impeachment in the Federalist papers as being intended to address "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"

#38 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2020-01-20 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why is obstruction a joke? He blocked numerous witnesses from testifying and refused to turn over evidence. That's literally the definition of obstruction.

#32 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Which is no different than any other president, in my lifetime, who invoked 'Executive Privilege' when under investigation by congress. The proper course of action over a disputed claim of executive privilege is to get a court order, not try and undo the result of an election.

Abuse of power is a legit article of impeachment IMO but obstruction of congress is flat-out stupid.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 02:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- Which is no different than any other president, in my lifetime

Yes it is different, and by far. Bubba at least testified himself, and be never put a blanket refusal on any and all aides to testify.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The proper course of action over a disputed claim of executive privilege is to get a court order

Is that in regards to a subpoena? I ask because I thought the when House did subpoena certain people it was then the White House's move. Either comply, or take it to court. As Judge Nap said on Fox, the White House basically threw the subpoena in the drawer....doing neither requirement.

I'm honestly not sure how that works...............

#41 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-20 03:47 PM | Reply

I suppose somewhere along the line Trump simply refused a subpoena and didn't even bother executive privilege in the Mueller case?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-andrew-napolitano-ignoring-a-subpoena-is-obstruction-and-an-
impeachable-offense

#42 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-20 04:06 PM | Reply

Seems perfectly reasonable to investigate it, or at least ask questions. No? Are we saying the TopCop in the US can't ask questions of political opponents about breaking the law?

Sure, but do it the old fashion way. Have your AG look into it. Or, if you want it strictly for political purposes versus Biden, have your campaign look into it (you know, oppo research).

But to create an underground network led by Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, and stupidly integrate it w/ the State Department, all the while withholding Congressional approved aid.......don't you see that's flat out wrong?? I mean...really wrong and abusive.

#43 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-20 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"If he prevails with this line of defense, kiss American style democracy good bye."

Meanwhile, the people hoping and praying Trump prevails are the ones who think:
1. America is not a democracy in the first place, and
2. The Deep State is secretly in control anyway, and only Trump can save us from that.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 04:32 AM | Reply

Extortion bribery and treason are all crimes committed by a trump.

Well maybe not treason. Though it is treason to try to drag America into a war to distract from your impeachment. Maybe not treason but it was surely something just like it!

Anyway. Definitely bribery and extortion and even blackmail. And other crimes and misdemeanors.

Good luck not looking like lying fools Teapublicans.

Next up. Impeaching attorney general Barr.

Or heck. Just impeach Trumpy again! He could be the first President to be impeached twice!

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Notice the word Conviction Impeachment for, and Conviction of,

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER

And teapublicans will show their true colors. They will show us they are willing to support a criminal to protect themselves. To hell with their country and their oaths.

But your Dear Leader Humpy is Impeached. Now and forever. Even if the cowardly lying republicans don't convict him and remove him.

Donald J Trump.

Is Impeached. Forever.

Now wake up and throw the bum out.

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-21 11:23 AM | Reply

Yes it is different, and by far. Bubba at least testified himself, and be never put a blanket refusal on any and all aides to testify.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The call was so perfect that everyone on it was ordered not to testify and all the evidence was refused to be handed over.

#47 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-21 11:48 AM | Reply

If somebody takes a shot at Trump and misses.. the republicans obviously would have to claim no crime occured?
If not, why is it different from attempting to bribe and extort a friendly government and failing?

#48 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-01-21 01:14 PM | Reply

Why is obstruction a joke? He blocked numerous witnesses from testifying and refused to turn over evidence. That's literally the definition of obstruction.
#32 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Which is no different than any other president, in my lifetime, who invoked 'Executive Privilege' when under investigation by congress. The proper course of action over a disputed claim of executive privilege is to get a court order, not try and undo the result of an election.
Abuse of power is a legit article of impeachment IMO but obstruction of congress is flat-out stupid.
#39 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You say that...

But can you give me examples where they blocked essentially everyone from testifying at all? And while under an impeachment investigation?

The last time you said this, you trotted out the "Fast & Furious" Congressional hearings...where Holder testified at least 7 times.

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 02:08 PM | Reply

But can you give me examples where they blocked essentially everyone from testifying at all? And while under an impeachment investigation?

They declared Executive Privilege. If memory serves Clinton did it 10 times and in each case the House sought a court order and ultimately got what they wanted. The Dem House couldn't be bothered with that. Why?

Surely you know that '--- for tat' reins supreme within our government. House Dems could have sought a court order to compel testimony, as was done in the past, but they didn't.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 02:17 PM | Reply

They squashed lawful subpeonas and refused to surrender documents.they ordered people to not testify. Congress has legal oversight of the executive branch.this is classic obstruction. If a Dem did one tenth of this ---- mattress would be howling for blood.

#51 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-01-21 04:34 PM | Reply

"Then enumerate the crimes, and law violations in the Articles of Impeachment..... its not difficult is it?"

The crimes are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Both are crimes.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-22 11:51 AM | Reply

The crimes are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Both are crimes.
#52 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Then site the sections/code of the law that were violated...

Its not difficult is it?

For instance when Clinton was impeached there were eleven felony violations.

From this we can ascertain during the trial by looking at evidence whether he committed crimes/abuses and whether it was worthy of removal of office.

What does "abuse of power" mean? Literally/legally? How would one know what an "abuse of power" is, if you don't use legal violations?

Certainly you aren't claiming a person going to court to define their rights as obstruction?, or the legislatures failure to actually try to enforce subpoenas as "obstruction of congress"?

If the courts enforced the subpeonas and Trump didn't comply I would agree with the obstruction. Obama fought this as well, its not an abuse of power to get your rights defined. But the legislative branch doesn't have the right to meddle in the internal workings of the executive branch upon request.

They squashed lawful subpeonas and refused to surrender documents.

They didn't "squash" anything ... Trump is working within the framework of our legal system to arbitrate the executive branches rights. In most cases Schiff didn't enforce his subpoena, they were just "requests". He has a duty to enforce it with a court order, but he didn't because he knew he would lose.

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-22 12:07 PM | Reply

Then site the sections/code of the law that were violated...
Its not difficult is it?
SNIP
#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris

www.citizensforethics.org

Trump's Five Crimes Connected to Ukraine:
I. Bribery (18 U.S.C. 201)
II. Soliciting foreign campaign contribution (52 U.S.C. 30109, 30121)
III. Coercion of political activity (18 U.S.C. 610)
IV. Misappropriation of federal funds (18 U.S.C. 641)
V. Obstruction of Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505, 1512)

There you go

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 12:11 PM | Reply

The federal bribery statute provides in relevant part that:
(b) Whoever" [...] (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: A. being influenced in the performance of any official act;

The Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or donations, 52 U.S.C. 30121, provides:
a. It shall be unlawful for" 1. a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make" A. a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; B. a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or C. an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

The Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7322 prohibits most federal employees from engaging in certain types of partisan political activity and from using their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." 7323. To prevent others from coercing federal employees from engaging in prohibited activity, federal law provides that:
It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

#55 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 12:14 PM | Reply

The misappropriation of federal funds statute, 18 U.S.C. 641, provides:
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof[.]

It is a crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment to "corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influence[], obstruct[], or impede[] or endeavor[] to influence, obstruct, or impede . . . 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." 18 U.S.C. 1505. It is a separate crime, punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment for an individual to knowingly intimidate or threaten or corruptly persuade a congressional witness with intent to influence, delay, or prevent their testimony or to cause or induce a witness to withhold testimony or evidence or to be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process. 18 U.S.C. 1512(b). See also 18 U.S.C. 1515(a) (defining "official proceeding" to include "a proceeding before the Congress"). Finally, it is a crime, punishable by three years imprisonment to intentionally harass another person and thereby hinder, delay, prevent, or dissuade any person from attending or
14
testifying in a Congressional proceeding. 18 U.S.C.A. 1512(d); See also 18 U.S.C. 1515(a

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 12:15 PM | Reply

So, we can put that lie to bed.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-01-22 12:15 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort