1 Burst results for "Landy Fair"

"landy fair" Discussed on Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

12:45 min | 1 year ago

"landy fair" Discussed on Mueller, She Wrote

"So to be clear. Mr Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs with what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously with our position is. I'm not aware we're almost any of those. Activities are have been called a surrogate at a time material in that campaign and I didn't have I have communication with the Russians and what do I have to get involved with Putin for have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about her mother than he will. Respect me Russia. If you're listening. I hope you're you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that are missing so it is political your communist know Mr Green Green Communism is just a red herring like all members of the oldest profession Emma capitalist hello and welcome to Muller. She wrote I'm your host. Ag and with me today Jordan Coburn hello and Amanda Reader Hello and this is the final episode of our special coverage of the redacted Muller report. Wow yeah yeah wow nineteen weeks crazy. That's fucking a lot of time. It is a lot a lot of time and a lot of roads but well worth the coverage. I think this will definitely live on into eternity past. You know being able to keep my head alive so tastic. Ask Jab thank you. I'll save all the niceties for the end when it's officially over O. Onnell. Thank you to later but not now. We'll see how you do no. I'm kidding well. We'll be covering sections three and four in volume two as well as the back matter over that a little bit. That's pages one fifty nine to one eighty two plus. It's the appendices and this is perfect timing as we are wrapping up the mole report here at the end of September two thousand nineteen we are now moving into formal impeachment hearings announced by Nancy. NC policy the speaker of the House this week the more investigate yesterday. We had cocktail party. It was good we made a impeachment Rum Punch. It was delicious but the more investigation covered Russian election interference in two thousand sixteen and Trump's campaign campaigns role in that along with the obstruction of justice or the trump Russia and obstruction investigations. He actually obstructed the obstruction investigation but now these impeachment proceedings are focused on trump's interference in the two thousand twenty election had he only successfully got in court it Corey Lewandowski to get sessions to recuse himself to limit the scope of the Muller Investigation to future elections. We might be looking at this but it's it's all coming out at a very quick clip and so now we're looking at twenty twenty election interference with a whistleblower complaint found credible by the intelligence community inspector factor general that trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his leading political opponent in two thousand twenty Joe Biden who's still leading but not in every State no Elizabeth Warren is leading in a few states now yep and I think she's crushed at an Iowa which is an important one to crush it in but indeed we we were wrapping up twenty sixteen investigation and now we're looking forward to the twenty twenty timing right. It really is a beautifully seamless transition right. Now that's happening yeah. Our timing has been really really crazy. We had to live Largo show the day day. The Mullahs report came out. We're going to be in Boston in November. That's right two days address seven after stones trial begins and it's also the same day that we get to hear the Flynn hearing on we know with Sydney. Pal has new crazy lawyer. It's just Ri. Everything is time time so we couldn't have written it better. honestly. I mean we couldn't butter by like not electing trump but yet here we are so in the best silver linings so section three in volume two are the legal defenses to the application of obstruction of justice laws to the president of the United States is basically muller objecting to trump's lawyers assertions that a core obstruction action of justice statute which is eighteen. US Code Section Fifteen Twelve C two does not apply to trump's actions that is trump can't obstruct justice by closing an obstruction investigation or firing the FBI director because of his powers under the constitution so muller concluded this assertion is bullshit and he bases that conclusion on the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers under that Framework Muller explains here in section three that article to the Constitution does not immunize the president resident from liability for his conduct and going a step further muller asserts that the obstruction of justice laws prohibit the president's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail and or interfere with an investigation and Muller splits his defense of that conclusion into two sections the statutory defense and the constitutional defense so yeah he's variable defense very organized yeah hell yeah so section eight covers the statutory defences to Muller's application of obstruction of justice provisions to trump's conduct and that begins on page one sixty so first muller tells us what eighteen USC Section Fifteen C two states. It says whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs influences impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both about twenty years. I'll take twenty asking. That sounds good to me. and you could find but he doesn't have any money. You'd have to take it out of Prestwick airport. Turnberry so ah you know for future reference if you're listening in twenty-fifty trump has a deal with prestwick airport near turnberry where he's been allowing the air force to stay basically asleep benefiting him personally so this here the counters this whole thing about you know impeding official proceedings or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title title this counter is one of the Republicans main arguments and that's that you must have an underlying crime and that you have to successfully obstruct justice to be guilty of criminal obstruction of justice more. Moeller explains here in these pages that the Department of Justice has taken the position that section to here is broad. It's independent unqualified and courts meaning. It's not you know. WHOA it doesn't rely on other parts of itself and courts have so interpreted it that way particularly the word or in the sentence whoever ever correctly otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or three attempts to do so yeah. That's what he's saying. The verbiage the ruthless gives statute of broad umbrella covering all these obstructive acts right because it's or not and you don't have to do all these things more than addresses the word otherwise in whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs points out that this word otherwise untethered these behaviors from the behaviors in section one and the behaviors and section one fifteen twelve c one say whoever corruptly alters destroys mutilates conceals a record document or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the objects integrity equity or availability for use in official proceeding. I'm looking forward to them using that against William Barr with this whole Ukraine thing hopefully hats me as well and it's untethered to the other kinds of obstruction obstruction basically muller saying you don't have to destroy evidence and attempt to influence or impeded preceding it's just either or and all the language in these sections are standalone crimes under the statute and none relies on the other to be true for the president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. That's basically what Muller's laying out here and in subsection two on page one and sixty two molar talks about the judicial decision that supports his reading of the Law Muller sites about a dozen cases here that support his analysis of the obstruction of justice statutes so he's basically saying the obstruction of justice law is good and there's nothing wrong with it. There's not any holes in it. It's well established. Here's a Shitload of case law and It's very broad. It's been determined to be broad and on page one sixty four molar than sites the Legislative Asleep History of fifteen twelve c. two and how it does not narrow the scope of law either and on page sixty five says the general principles of Statutory Construction Instruction do not indicate the application of the law is incorrect and trump's case so he's he says the law is good and it applies here in this section muller sites case flaw asserting the requirement of fair warning due process and the rule of Leonardy and those do not justify narrowing the reach of the obstruction of Justice Flos so I the fair warning requirement involves the nexus part of the obstruction law you know those three criteria and as we know in order to be a criminal construction you have to have the obstructive act next to an official proceeding and intent and regarding the next piece the court has imposed a nexus test it requires the obstructive act to be connected sufficiently to an official proceeding to ensure culpability so the government must show as an objective matter that the obstructive act was likely likely to obstruct justice and not define it doesn't cover defendants who would use you know means that would unnaturally rim probably be successful so like if trump threw a shoe at muller's car. That's not that's. He's not expecting that to be able to impede an investigation especially if the windows those were up you know so objectively it has to make sense objectively has to make sense and then additionally the second part. Here's the government must show subjectively that the actor contemplated completed a particular foreseeable proceeding the fact that the government has to show those two things alleviates the fair warning concerns because showing both of those things ensures the conduct has a close enough connection to existing or future proceedings to implicate the dangerous targeted by obstruction laws so fair warning basically means a law must must define an offense with enough accuracy so a reasonable person would understand what conduct is prohibited that they're crying so muller is saying that because the government must prove approve nexus objectively and subjectively the statute is well defined yes essentially you wouldn't be being so defensive. If you knew what you were doing was an okay yeah. He's he's basically Lisa. There's enough words in this law for your dumb ass to understand that it's illegal what you're doing right so the fair warning is innate basically yeah it's it's alleviated by the simple existence of the verbiage of the law and then the due process concerns which also requires a lot to be definite enough that ordinary people oh can understand what conduct is criminal. That's offering someone due process and Muller asserts the language in the law that requires the defendant the defendant to act corruptly satisfies the concerns over over the vagueness of due process he then cites a bunch of case law that defines what it means to act corruptly so basically Miller saying we have a very well established definition of corrupt or corruptly as supported by this case law and since we have a definite meaning for corruptly we can assuage the concerns of due process vagueness so these these this Leonardy the law and due process and the first thing what was it the Mer Mer I just we just talked about it. Landy Fair warning so fair warning due process and Leonardy those are all things that could make the the law seem vague but he saying that well defined formulas law the way that we have to apply nexus to illegal proceeding make alleviates the fair warning part and the way that we understand that you know you you're due process concerns or allayed by the fact that corruptibility is very well defined in the law as well and so that alleviates that vagueness. I think it's interesting that he's like attaching in the alleviation of these vagueness concerns within the law to specific requirements in the obstruction statutes freight. Why would he put this in in in less his intentions were anything other than for Congress to take this and do something with it. It's that but it's also to say that because trump's lawyers were arguing that he's above this law right yeah also trying to use a little the quote unquote vagueness or the wording of the law to be slippery and Muller's Muller's like you can't. It's like you're going to try to do that but it's too obvious right you know and and that was born out in the fact that he didn't charge junior with campaign finance violations a regarding the June ninth trump tower Megan's Raya thing yeah because he didn't have wasn't willful and knowing enough to be corrupt and so had he charged him with that somebody might have been able to you know appeal this this on the whole due process.

Muller Mr Trump official Law Muller president Putin Prestwick airport Russia Ukraine Landy Fair Department of Justice O. Onnell Emma United States Justice Flos Nancy Joe Biden USC Section