17 Burst results for "Usc Section"
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Telegram wire. That was a good dad. Newsies force I like that. Hey I'm going to tell me that was like a like an Icelandic accident. Bjork the the newsy anyway. Don't see eye to eye on accents. What it is and then eighteen. Usc Section six sixty six so fantastic is a statute that makes it a crime to obtain by fraud the property of federally funded program or entity and so the key legal question before the Supreme Court was is diverting traffic headed for the GW bridge a scheme or artifice to obtain money or property and the third circuit really said Look this is property in in two separate ways on the one hand it. It's it's physical property right like it. Is You clogged up the lanes to a thing the George Washington Bridge which is public property right between New York and New Jersey and preventing people from getting on the GW bridge is an an improper use of Public Property And then the second rationale was that you also had property in the sense of the time of public servants. Right we pay the bill. Baroni was the New Jersey Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Right like it's his job. It was his job to serve the public to make the GW bridge runs smoothly and he was paid a six figure. Salaries paid very very well for this cushy job and instead of doing his job he did he did the literal opposite of his Joan Right. He made it harder for commuters to get into New York. If it's a crime to not do your job we're going to have a lot to our show. Probably Right now. They should be working and they're listening to our show but listen did that's right. Okay we're ahead show with but remember that you you have to show not just that the right. So what I'm saying is the third circuit said that the time of government employees is a form of property. Right that's not all you have to show right. You then have to show a scheme to defraud the government out of that that time timer property so like again. The seems to make total sense to me if I Conspired with a government bureaucrat and I said Okay Twenty hours a week I want you to know research cases for opening arguments and instead of doing your job send me you know all of this stuff so that I can get a leg up on the show and we get this insider information like that. That seems like it. It should fit the criminal statute right if I am intentionally defrauding the American public out of the time and services of government employees that is paid for by their tax dollars. Anyway now apparently I can do that. Because because the Supreme Court said that A government's right to its employees. Time and labor is a property interest but the prosecution must show that that is the quote object of the fraud. And so here began the unanimous opinion written by Elena Kagan a the Port Authority employee's that is Kelly in Baroni. Were just the implementation costs of the scheme to reallocate the bridge lanes. They were an incidental even four seam byproduct of the regulatory object so in other words because the goal was not to get air time write the goal was to snarl the GW bridge. And so. Yeah you know you can't you can't screw up an entire bridge and kill people in the city of Fort Lee without breaking a few eggs and you know. I've mixed metaphors there but great so that answered the employees time argument is property but the goal wasn't to get that property so it doesn't count on the physical lanes that this was astonishing to both of these. Were kind of astonishing to me The the the physical lanes the Supreme Court held was that Realigning the lanes was just an exercise of regulatory power. A reallocation of the lanes and not a a seizure of property. And and I will tell you that this is analogous to takings clause jurisprudence and again is one hundred percent backwards of of the current trend in Supreme Court Regulatory Takings Clayson cases. Right so for the past hundred years the position at the Supreme Court and and most inferior courts has been we know you have a Fifth Amendment right. That government can't take your your property without just compensation and the way in which that's been implemented is that if the Supreme Court if suppose these are real cases if the government says we WANNA put a telephone pole on the corner of your lot and it's going to take one percent of your lot we have to pay you for that one percent we pay you the fair market value of that percent of your property that we have physically taken to stick a telephone pole which makes sense but suppose the government passes regulation that decreases the value of your property by fifty percent. Then I have to do anything right and it happens all the time right. You Pass a new law that makes the road outside You were house one way instead of two ways or expanded from a one lane road to a four lane superhighway and the market value of your home drops by fifty percent. You have no takings clause right. The government doesn't have to do anything it's just too bad we get to regulate property and I get and look like again. It's mostly liberals who were sort of on the side of. Yeah you know. You don't have a property right to the fair market value of your property. It's been mostly conservatives who have argued the other side right which is and this is where these concepts kind of merged together to form the the concept of regulatory taking a look. Okay maybe not at fifty percent but there is a point at which when you deprive a landowner of all or substantially all of the use of his or her property and that is the formal language then that becomes in effect a take right and now apply that back to the to the bridge gate situation. They shut down physical AIDS. They deprived drivers of all of the use of that late. And again it was just for a day but but but the case was super clear. Like if the government sticks telephone pole on your property for a day. They've got to pay you for the use of that property right and so I thought that at least at the Supreme Court given the regulatory takings direction that the the right wing was likely to go that one or both of these theories were likely to survive And I was just dead right. Supreme Court said nope. This is clearly a bad. It's clearly fraud. It was clearly a retaliation But you know As you put it in our last. Qna there. There aren't laws to cover the kind of that. This is really all. So that's my broad question is who is actually getting in trouble for this thing. No I know Chris. Christie is not sitting in a jail cell right now so nobody just no no trump. No one no wasn't all find. This is this is all fine. This follows right this they are. It's an interpretation of the unrelated bribery statute. But we've talked about the significance of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bob McDonald case. Right this is the direction that the Supreme Court decided to go to say. Broadly speaking we are not going to interpret the Anti Corruption. Statutes broadly expansively. And what that means is that means. The next presidential administration is probably going to have a mandate to do something about corruption. And it's going to be very very important That that Democratic Administration and Democratic Congress that that a we get that and be that that we on our legislators to say hey look Our Anti Corruption Statutes need to be revised and we need to craft laws with teeth. Because this is not you know this is not a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court is not saying. Hey you can't punish people for doing this sort of thing. The Supreme Court is saying we do not read the existing laws as being sufficient to punish people for the sort of thing. So if you think people should be punished for doing this sort of thing if you think we should not incentivize public officials to retaliate against their political opponents Then you know keep that in mind in November of twenty twenty okay so we should be on you know. Lawmakers should be On the floor making speeches saying I can't believe I have to say this. But how about a law? That says you can't shut down a freeway for political revenge or whatever. Shut DOWN A BRIDGE WHATEVER. It was Can't believe I don't even know what I'm saying this but let's pass that long. I guess yeah and and look I we again assuming that there is if if there is a pushback against Donald trump which I believe there will be right that that will that elections have consequences and that will vest the next president with the authority to go out and demand New anti-corruption laws and this is proof that we need them. So yeah there's a push back. We've got our best tab blackbox It's time to get to our main segment. Yes opening arguments is brought to you by policy genius as an insurance marketplace palsy genius talks a lot about how unpredictable the future is and that's why insurance exists in the first place right now life is unpredictable. End feels like it's been that with the unpredictability meter has been on full on high. Whatever the the top number would be For four years now. Roughly being Anyway here's policy genius. Top three unpredictable Positive things from April Here we go. Maybe this'll help. Thousands of dogs and cats cross America found new homes. That's nice. Everyone is a baker now and fresh bread is the best smell ever true. Cool people across the world are acting with kindness compassionate heroism. I would qualify that. Some people are but but yes always get There's no graceful segue but policy genius is an insurance marketplace..
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"The fence it is super sure enough to demonstrate this In in really two key ways so the first is that the the major. You're misconception of the background legal argument that's being made in the trump brief the principle. They hope you don't understand is the fact that the impeachment articles are more broad than applicable. Federal Statutes doesn't mean that they don't also include those statutes it's okay And let's be specific about that. We talked about how I would have drafted these impeachment. Statutes the these impeachment articles a little differently instead of calling them Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I would have called them bribery and obstruction of justice and I would have tied them to the specific language of the specific laws that Donald Trump has violated these articles. Go beyond that okay. And we'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA talk about it. But they include each and every element of those two specific crimes and again we've done on this to death on the show but it is worth repeating article one abusive power includes the crime of bribery and that is eighteen. USC SEE TWO A one. B Two we will give you the link in the show notes. Bribery is whoever being public official. That's Donald Trump directly directly or indirectly corruptly demands seeks receives accepts or agrees to receiver accept anything of value. Personally in return for either a being influenced in the performance of any official act or see being induced to do or omit to do any act in in violation of the official duty of such official. A person is guilty of bribery. Each and every one of those elements is present and alleged in article. One Article One accuses the president of committing a crime similarly article two is called obstruction of Congress and it to accuses the president of committing a crime that crime is obstruction of justice eighteen. USC Section fifty five and it says whoever corruptly influences obstruction impedes or endeavors to influence obstruct impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry quarrier investigation is being had by either house or any committee of either house or any joint committee of the Congress is guilty of obstruction of justice. So Oh and then article lays out each and every aspect of the elements of that particular fence. Now it is also true true that these articles.
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"That authority is directed to conform. Right and again. Think about how that applies to the gun control situation in the one on the one hand you have a technical argument of we pass the gun. Control Law we say we're GONNA ban the AK47 at any substantially similar weapons and the Secretary of alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms has the right to determine which weapons are added to that list in a sense you you can say the Secretary of alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms is the person. Banning the AK forty eight right. That's not that's not a preposterous argument. Humid on face. But it's an argument that the Supreme Court has rejected for a hundred years. That said. Yeah but it's really congress passing the general principle and it's the secretary of the executive branch of ATF. Here implementing that in a way that makes it feasible in a modern industrial society. Mix Up right like I could see see that going too far like if they said that that power allowed them to ban. I don't know like a knife or something that was named so it'd be like okay. Well clearly that's a little outside side of where you should have been delegated as long as it's within that power that the statute specified. I don't see why it'd be an issue. Yeah that's that's exactly right. And so now we come to a case a twenty nineteen case right from the past term just decided this past spring that was on our white board to cover ever called gundy versus United States and Gundy was about a nineteen ninety-four law called sorta right and swords was a a sex offenders registration cat and again you see kind of the pattern here with right wing judicial activism which is you know? Laws laws that ban on the books for forever all of a sudden now you know we are challenging them now that we think we have a more favourable environment. Soreness did a couple uplift things. It was thirty four. USC Section two nine one. Three I I should say still does. It's valid law was held constitutional It sets up a bunch shove sex offender registry requirements at the federal level. And and I want to be really clear here I am not. I have not done enough research to know whether it's a good idea. Our friends who run the registry matters. podcast weigh in on these sorts of issues all the time so i. I'm not saying that that SORTA is a good idea. My question Guinea's weather if you think it's a good idea is it constitutional for Congress to have passed this law and it seems plainly obvious that the answer is yes and in fact act. I'M GONNA I'm GonNa read from that opinion So sore no set forth all these registry requirements and the last provision Subsection D. She said Oh And by the way right. It's nineteen ninety. Eight nineteen ninety-four The law applies prospectively vividly To as conditions of parole and everything else but for individuals convicted of an offence before its enactment the attorney general quote shall have the Authority to specify the applicability of soreness registration requirements and to prescribe rules for their registration. The station right so in other words. The congressional delegation was super clear. It was hey we want to register all sex offenders going forward word. We're going to promulgate these particular this particular procedure and it's going to apply to everybody who is arrested after this law goes into effect and and convicted after Africa's effect perfect but for people who were sex offenders before this went into effect We're going to let the attorney. General figure out the best way to get them on the registry as well under that delegated authority the Attorney General issued a rule than specifying saying that the registration requirements applied quote in full to all pre act offenders. And that's what was challenged and the argument being raised I By the Petitioner Gandhi he was a pre-act defender and he says no that Subsection d quote empowers the attorney attorney general to do whatever he wants to preempt defenders including exempting them from registration forever and quote and that is too much like making laws ause and therefore the non delegation doctrine applies. This is something that Congress could not delegate to the executive branch and therefore that provision of Seora applying to preempt defenders is unconstitutional. The four justice majority put a pin in that one said no Look like this is this is a law and that interpretation is stupid and that's pretty much they said let's turn to page twenty one twenty nine of the opinion now that we have determined what two Oh nine one three D. means that's the section I just summarized for you. We can consider whether it violates the Constitution the question becomes did Congress make an impermissible delegation when it instructed the Attorney General to apply soreness registration requirements preempt defenders as soon as feasible under this court's long-established long established law. That question is easy. It's answer is no. And they read the law that I quoted you from the beginning which is basically Congress gets to you passed the general principles and then they can absolutely delegate the implementation of that to the executive agency Z.. And again the the criterion going back almost a decade is is there an intelligible principle. And I'm quoting from the decision to guide the della Giza exercise of authority. Against this. I told you it was a four justice. Majority against this is a a three justice. Descent Roberts Thomas and gorsuch which says no no no no no. We are going to greatly expand the non delegation doctrine We are going to prevent Congress from delegating to the executive of agency quote the Authority both to decide the major policy question and to regulate and enforce it and of quote so in other words a court would then get to say. Hey look. Is this not the question is no longer right. The is there an intelligible principle. The question is is there an intelligible principle and is the decision making over the major public policy issue still left with Congress so what that opinion did was shift. The inquiry from is there an intelligible principle guiding the executive the agency. That's what the law is right now and has been for the past eighty four years to is there. An intelligible principle and does is that principle not delegate to the agency the right to make decisions over quote major policy questions and quote quote. WHO GETS to decide? What a major policy question is? You guessed it. The unelected members judiciary yeah right. So what this does does is this gives over. And I'M GONNA say over pretty much every single law right this. The the the position articulated articulated by the three justice. Majority in two thousand nineteen would give the judiciary the right to review the constitutionality of every single law and it's again with with some exceptions but but by and large this is this L. Ause get done and if they decided that nope hope they delegated a major question then they could say sorry. We're going to strike out that part of the law and you know if Congress wants to fix it Congress can get together and fix it Knowing and this goes goes back to the the general principle. A or ticketed at the beginning of the show knowing that it's very very hard to pass laws in this era of divided government. And and not passing a law. Not Fixing it reinforces the core message of conservatism. That governments broken never minding the fact that they're the ones who broke it. You may have noticed that I keep saying four justice majority and three justice minority. And I think we need to take an ad break but I'll I'll I'll fill in the rest arrest of that mystery after the pro. I'm learning from you Thomas. I'm doing my best opening. Argument is brought to you by paint your life are. I've told you so many times about the painting we've had done That I had done for Lydia. It was a great gift it was a hit. It was Lydia and phoebe on the beach in Hawaii. Well little little update for you. Because as I said last episode we just had our holiday photo. Shoot and I'm thinking once we get those photos ready to go there might be one. We don't I use that I can instead turned into a beautiful painting from paint your life Because I think Arlo is due for one. It's only fair we have painting. phoebe gotta get a painting of Arlo. So so that's what I'm GONNA do coming up in a few weeks here. I love paint your life again. The experience of having that beautiful phoebe and Lydia photo. Oh turned into a painting. It absolutely blew away my expectations. I really was just in awe when I saw it and I wanNA tell you. Of course. It's the holidays as a million of these ads. But this is a fantastic gift. This is a gift that really will make an impact Because it is beautiful. Can you hang it up. And it's something that will be in your family or whoever you give it to. It can be in their house for a long period of time. This isn't just a throwaway thing and you know there's a really special gift that will stand the test of time so if.
"usc section" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"So on Ukraine. What do you think the articles should be? And how many that's a good question. I think they're definitely gonNA include bribery because it's all they're talking about right and I still by the way doesn't like bribery me. I like extortion data. I feel yeah this award. Extortion is not in the constitution again. It doesn't need to be and it seems like a good talking point for folks to be able to say because it keeps people on TV saying this because the word briberies and the constitution. Well people just make the same point again that bribery I think that was contemplated by the founders was the kind of bribery in which the president is being offered a bribe and and sales his office for official action. The original definition of bribery. It does come closer solicits something of value also and so. I think it's fine for them to charge bribery. Although I'm with you well if you and I were charging that s a criminal case I think we both charge extortion. But I'm okay with bribery. And the other thing people need to remember worth keeping in mind is when people try to say what does bribery mean. There were. Bribery appears in the constitution. Long long long before the curtain bribery. Statute team exactly and when you think about the meaning of bribery. It's that more general. All Pre federal statute definition also in terms of Ukraine. I definitely think you and I both had a chance to look back at the Nixon. And the Clinton articles of impeachment and both of them include include a charge of abuse of power abusing the office of the presidency. And so I think you know there's no question you know for Clinton article for was that Clinton and had misused and abused his office by engaging in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office. Impairing the due and Proper Administration of Justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries contravening careening the authority of the legislative branch and willfully making perjury false and misleading sworn statements. And so on. And there's there's a similar article that attached for Nixon. The question I have a little bit is so. I think that that's right. I think you could think about bribery. Count and abuse of power count. I also was thinking a lot about the conspiracy to defraud the US. which is what Mahler charged against all the rush agents and has been charged in a number of instances during the investigation? And that's conspiracy eighteen. USC Section three seventy seventy one. Lets you do you know conspiracy to commit a crime conspiracy to defraud the US and so that's something you know. I am interested in because I think it also gets at the heart of this and it's a really a question of you've you wanNA bring a general article of impeachment that's just. The president violated his fiduciary duty to the United States of America. Or do you WanNa bring something. That is more akin to what we think about as an existing crime to defraud the United States. I think that's probably considering and thinking about it. Seems different from what's happened before and to the extent that they're going to try to make arguments that this is in line with what prior impeachments have been about in the nature prior impeachment charges all the different behavior it's more outlandish conduct and a lot of ways so I don't oh no I think they might. They might be more conservative about that. But I think it's worth considering and then the obstruction peas. It feels to me like you've got absolutely obstruction related to Ukraine. I mean you've got the moving moving of the Memorandum of the July Twenty Fifth Call into the secured server was an administrative error. But let them defend that right. That's fine come in and say that Eh. Then you've also got the obstruction of Congress and I think the obstruction of Congress is really important. But I want to ask you a question about that count because I think it's critically important that they charge that because people have not come in and I guess the question I have for you is if the house. Judiciary Committee does not subpoena all these documents. And all these witnesses you and I in a normal trial we we wouldn't show at trial day one and say we want these documents and these witnesses or we want a charge to be brought for the failure to supply those documents and those witnesses unless we he'd made every lawful effort to get them it's a weakness it's a weakness in the argument and it's a good point you make people have been talking about it shifts and others political clock so they say we're being obstructed acted and we're not going to go down the rabbit hole of delaying all this for months and months. Maybe even till after the election to get what we want because you're willfully defying us. Those people will say a with some amount of credibility not fully. Because I think there's some gamesmanship going on. Oh we had illegitimate privileges that we wanted to have an argument about and you chose does not to let it chose not to litigated. Like you know. We just wanted to go to court in the good old fashioned American way to protect our rights and protect the privileges of the office of the Presidency Agency which is not a small thing. It's important not just this president but to all future presidents till the end of time. And that's a that's a crime. Now that's a high crime or misdemeanor so look that's a reasonable argument that they can make that argument. It makes sense to me. You've got three branches of government co equal if the Congress and the president and the executive are in dispute. It's the course that decide and so you know again. I understand the timing. I'm in question but I think it will be significant liability so this might be a good point to jump to the potential trial and I think I would most people. That impeachment is a foregone conclusion. It'll be enough votes trial likely to be in the Senate in January. I think all the details have not been worked out. There might be additional rules that the Senate decides speaking to some people in the Senate. It hasn't been worked out. WHO's GonNa take take the lead? Who the point folks are going to be but we know something from from past experience and one of the things? That's interesting. Is that the judicial official that presides at the Senate trial in the case of impeachment of a president is the chief justice of the Supreme Court in this case John Roberts another detail we know. Is that the trial will commence at like twelve or one every day. We can't figure out what the document says one. PM and other pizzas Numidian. That reading carefully enough. But there's some things that are right you have a Bagel and then we'll go on trial while and the chief justice is able to make decisions about who can be called and what is relevant what happens can be admitted into the trial and so some people have been speculating that even though we having Gotten Bolton and other folks now in the preliminary impeachment inquiry that when it comes to the trial you could have an application made to the chief justice who's presiding over the Senate trial we need the testimony of hypothetically John Bolton and he could rule right then and there that testimony is relevant admissible. You know I feel like we're about to ruin people's Thanksgiving excuses. Were about to cancel Christmas by by Sort of unveiling the truth of how this is GonNa work. But I think it's really important that people understand this but the problem with that is as as you and I were discussing before we came on. This is very complicated to understand and I understand. I've written a couple of columns for the insiders in recent weeks and it's our pension to to compare this to a criminal trial and it has some of the parallels you might imagine. There's surcharges the impeachment. There's a trial it's like a criminal trial you have a jury the jury happens to be the Senate. It is totally weird because if you look at the rules the chief justice can decide whether something can be admitted or not admitted to Cetera and then the question is what is the appeal is the chief justice of the United States supreme. It's not going to go back to some lower court that's true it seems but it appears from the rules that have been adopted by the Senate when it says the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence Indi- etcetera etcetera heels. which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate unless unless some members of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken there on in which case it? She'll be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate which essentially means that any particular decision made by John. Roberts can be overruled by a majority. Eminence Samachar vote in the Senate. So how different is that from a regular trial what it would be. It would be as if you had an ordinary jury of twelve Americans who doesn't like a particular regular evidentiary ruling by the judge and they can by a vote of seven to five overturn the judge's ruling trial so it is not like a regular trial in any way shape or form that we're familiar with except you know in a rudimentary way. Yeah and you know the Washington Post did a good job reporting on this and talking about the fact that if you look even the Clinton impeachment that who the witnesses were going to be and what evidence was going to be admitted was worked out by the senators. Not by the chief justice and that was she journalist uh-huh the jurors occupy a position of not just bias. Because some of them all of them have are on as I've said before all of them are on record heard being four against the president's election reelection and if you're running to replace him and in a real trial they would all be struck for 'cause they would all be shot for one of the reasons why this matters a lot and the fact that the chief justice is really going to be not engage in the kind of activity that a normal judge would be engaged in it matters because when you and I think about is bolting going to be forced to testify. Are the text messages and emails. Going to be compelled to be put forward. The answer is no right. And let's just just sort of close that loop there because the Senate I think I sort of thought was it really gonna be able. Are they really going to be able to keep it to two weeks. As as we've sort of heard you know that the the Republicans in the Senate or speculating. The short answer is if they get to decide what evidence comes in and what. Witnesses testified. The answer's Yes. I also think that the fact that the Democrats are are not litigating subpoenas about witness and documents basically can absolutely be something that they use to say that the Senate Republicans used to say you know what you didn't raise it. You're not I can get it and so I think just for everybody to be sort of prepared for what we see. I think that Roberts isn't `institutionalised. Think Roberts is not going to want to go out of his comfort. I don't remember he's also never been a trial judge so he's never tried a single case in his life..
"usc section" 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.
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"It's good to know who is inspector. Gadget here that that I thought that was a great question. Let me go down that. It's not even really a rabbit trail. It's just an avenue so there are multiple inspectors general in the federal governors gadget inspectors proper plural ization. The intelligence halogens community inspector general is created by fifty. USC Section thirty thirty three right and that is the Inspector General Act of nineteen seventy eight it created a whole bunch of different inspectors general for various federal agencies and again remember that the primary purpose of these is to this is the late nineteen eighteen seventies right like the idea was to oversee and detect waste fraud and abuse so the person who is presently in office is a guy named Michael K Atkinson he was assumed that office on May Seventeenth Nineteenth Twenty eighteen. He is one hundred percent a trump appointee early. One Who like you know thought better later cookies assuming office twenty eighteen you said right okay yes correct venue now look yeah and this and he is everything. I can tell now right. He's a he's a yeah. I mean these guys use to hit my they're. They're safe radar but like you know then I got burned on bill bar so you know I don't know but but but look here was somebody who graduated from law school ninety one right so he's in his fifties he was a partner Winston and Straw and that's a Covington and burling erling type firm he then worked at the DOJ for fifteen years. He was a trial attorney in the fraud division he was an assistant. US Attorney worked in fraud and public corruption then he went to the DJ's National Security Division as the acting deputy assistant attorney general for National Asset Protection Shen and as senior counsel to the Assistant Attorney General so again career Guy rooting out fraud and corruption which is is by and large what this is supposed to do so Atkinson so the complaint and here's where we get into the details that we do know Atkinson gets this complaint on August Twelfth Nineteen. We know that from a public gladder released by Adam Schiff. We're going to go into those letters under the statute. He has fourteen days to then say I'm I am reviewing this complaint. I'm going to do an independent review and determine whether this is a matter of urgent concern. Atkinson said Yup nope. This is definitely a matter of urgent concern now again. Remember this is still because this is an icy. WPA complaint it's confidential the only people that have seen this are the it are the person who filed it the Inspector General of the intelligence community and end the person to whom he transmitted it which is the acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire time for another another little SIDEBAR B. Because because I've seen a conspiracy theory on this and it it's super duper tempting but I don't I don't think it's true acting director McGuire and I keep thinking of Toby Maguire who was Spiderman Crossover uh-huh firemen university factor yeah exactly the reason trump keeps operating with acting directors because he doesn't have to put you know crazy people up before the the Senate for advice and consent and we we know that the entire federal a bureaucracy that that pretty much all of the executive branch agencies are staffed by you know whoever's left standing now. The outgoing director of National Intelligence was Dan Coats. Dan Coats is in Indiana Senator Republican not someone with whom we we are likely to agree on a whole lot of things but but somebody who at did longstanding old guard anti-trump Republican I'm not anti trump is the wrong way of saying he was never he was not anti trump in the way that a handful of people who now no longer exist were vocally anti-trump but like he was not. He's not a pro-trump or right. He's not a jeff sessions coats. Everything I can tell is a long standing. Well respected. Well liked guy across the aisle right. coats was was fired on August fifteen and replaced with Toby Maguire Joseph Maguire and so a lot of people are like ooh did that right is that it was he fired after the complaint came in not true I I look back trump. I tweeted out because of course he did because our our president runs the White House twitter twitter but he I tweeted out that Dan Coats would resign on July twenty eighth of twenty nine thousand nine so two weeks before this complaint was made so I've seen some people saying this complaint was so scary that that's why trump fired coats and replaced him. No you know knew. Oh that that that's not that is not true and again. I don't know anything about McGuire. I don't think anybody knows anything about McGuire. He's he's. He's a vice admiral. I can't say that he's not qualified to be acting director of national intelligence allegiance right. I mean he he you know he's a vice admiral. He had like hundreds of people reporting to him. He's made a career out of intelligence but it's all been within the military right at it. He is a total cypher outside the military we just don't know right right. He was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center he he was a national security fellow at Harvard right like so I mean in this game of Jared's friends like this career guy but we don't know right but we don't we literally don't know anything about him at all other other than he has received this complaint passed up the line from the I g from Inspector Gadget and and he sat on it now. We have four pieces of correspondence here. Can I ask a PAS was now. I know there are some time limit ah the fourteen days for inspector gadget. Is there anything that applies to him. Do we know does he have a time limit. When you say sat on where you supposed to do something Oh excellent question indeed he does or I should say indeed he did that? That time. Limit is fifty. USC Section three. Oh three three K. Five A and that says upon receipt of transmittal ends middle from the Inspector General. The director shall right and again shallow the legal word meaning. You have to do it. You don't get to do it whether you decide or not. Within scene seven calendar days of such receipt forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees together with any comments the director considers appropriate and of quote quote he has not done that he has plainly violated the law and that's something that people again because we're in the age of trump and now I just don't get this right like I understand that. Donald Trump doesn't care when he violates the law and his view is well. You know what are the consequences gonna be but like our media reporting should care members of Congress should care air. He's violated the law now. There is a question about what the penalty is right if there is any appropriate remedy and part of that is because again this particular provision the WPA is around like you know it doesn't it was never meant to cover this sort of circumstance the only thing that can but you know it was meant to cover confidential reports of hundred dollar Hammers Mars and not the president going to Ukraine or allegedly or whatever to get more political dirt on his opponents by the way as a sidebar like I. I don't think you need to go to Ukraine to get dirt on right. Yeah seriously just show up at the community platform him for a debate right but anyway so did this is without a doubt a violation of a mandatory statute shoot that says shall didn't do that and that by the way is what the September ten letter from Adam Schiff Jeff to toby maguire says right. It says you have a complaint. It was forwarded you by the Inspector General. You had seven days to turn it over to us. seven days was a long time ago dude and you haven't done that so trade law yea essentially exact exchange at happen you retrain the law and then the guy didn't in care and then now we have to write him a sternly worded trap or to to Mega City one. Oh man our too many movies referenced Yeah Listener. You're missing out on all check it out. No such law yeah all right look. This is in fact right. The September ten letter is is a sternly worded letter from Adam Schiff pits sterner than in most stern Lena's right it says it ends with the statutorily protected right of the intelligence community employees to make disclosures to Congress is sacrosanct and must remain insulated insulated from politicization. The committee will take all steps necessary to ensure. This right is upheld. I look forward to receiving the complaint in full immediately along with any comments met you consider appropriate so he's trying to give them the like. Well you know. Do you do the thing and then we don't have to try to figure out how the law is supposed Spanish. You Yep now we have. This just came out this morning. We have because we yet 'cause 'cause yesterday. When we recorded we had shifts letters. We did not have the response from the acting director of National Intelligence. we now have those or I should say. We have it from his lawyer. Jason Clyde Nick who is General Counsel for the Office of Director of National Intelligence. That should tell you something right off the bat. When you have your lawyer write the letter back instead of you writing the letter back that indicates exactly what you would think it would indicate right that yeah you've accused me of breaking the law and here's my lawyer to say what what our view of the law is so here's what their view of the law this is the September thirteenth three days later they write back and say the director of National Intelligence believe strongly in the role of the Inspector General and in the statutory provisions that encourage Federal Employees and government contractors to report report truthful allegations of wrongdoing the DNA also takes seriously his obligation to protect lawful whistleblowers from retaliation under the the intelligence community whistleblowers predict Congress nectar framework to report matters of urgent concern within the Intelligence Community Congress that protects Congress's legitimate oversight responsibilities as as well as the constitutional authority of the president to determine how when and under what circumstances classified or privileged information may be the report to Congress and then there's a citation to an office of Legal Counsel Memorandum. We've seen this trick before. Remember Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda are written and by and at the bequest of the President they are not law they are the views of the president's handpicked office office of Legal Counsel as to what they think the law is so so you're saying would love to help you would love to do what the law says I'm supposed to do but we don't want to release classified information so we're even to Congress by the way this is not to the public right Ziva. Just Caracas is only to Congress in a committee committee like behind. Could he be absolutely one hundred percent seal yep so this is the level of BS is this. This is a high level of I'm I'm going to I'm going to share something with you. In this instance inspector general transmit complaint that he viewed as an urgent concern and we review that report immediately upon receipt because there were serious questions about whether the complaint met the statutory definition of an urgent concern we consulted with the Department of Justice by the way not part of the process at all in any way that's Bill Bar concerning the appropriate way to handle the complaint. That's not hard to read between the lines. We also included the inspector general in those consultations to make sure he had the opportunity to provide those views so then it is look we decided that this complaint did not rise to the level of an urgent concern yeah because urgent concern learn this is why I gave you all that background on the funding stuff involves the reporting of the serious allegation involving classified information relating to quote the Funding Administration or Operation Asian of intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNA director of national intelligence this complaint however and this is the closest. We're going to get to them. Describing the complaints what's important when read this word for word and slowdown this complaint however concern conduct by someone outside the intelligence community lie largely believed to be the president right and did not relate to quote any intelligence activity ability within the responsibility and authority of the deny and of quote..
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"But at the time, the the Democrats who had appointed him did not want Walsh to Walsh's appointment to be challenged in court did not want the ethics act to be ruled unconstitutional. So they also gave a concurrent appointment under the exact same statutory provisions. Twenty-eight USC section five fifteen that Rosenstein used here in his appointment of Muller. Right. So it is directly on point. It's the same law and the DC circuit court of appeals concluded that Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in Iran. Contra quote is not thereby. Transformed into the superior and permanent official, but remains an inferior official whom the attorney general as the head of department may appoint under the express terms of the appointment clause. And the reasons are principally the reasons you just gave right? He's only there for a limited time for a limited purpose subject to and at the pleasure of the attorney general and the crucial thing with so. All right. That would seem to resolve the issue pretty obvious can get rid of somebody at the drop of a hat than you're probably their superior. Yes. That's exactly right. So I will mention we do not have time. Maybe we'll do a patron only special and and get into it. There are two other arguments raised by by Miller says if Robert Muller is inferior officer he is. Nevertheless, not validly appointed. There's really really fun stuff to talk about on that. And we just don't have the time to talk about on this because those arguments are terrible at the end of the day. They're not going anywhere. And they have no further implications in this case. But but maybe we will we will do a deep dive because there's some fun stuff on that. But but, but here's here's the significant part in reading that bit from the in Racine case opinion in talking about Lawrence Walsh. I omitted the internal citations for the justifications for those legal provisions, but the principal case that that case relied on was US feet. And you may remember that last week we talked about US Veton that is the eighteen ninety eight case that allowed for the temporary appointment of the embassador to Thailand. Without advice and consent of the Senate. And so so here's where this all comes together. Right. Number one. This is pending before the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. I'm going to predict although Andrew was wrong. I'm going to predict that the court of appeals for the DC circuit is going to affirm the lower court's ruling, right? They're going to rule against Andrew Miller, and he's going to appeal to the supreme court and your about to ask me the question. You always ask me when I say he's about to appeal to the supreme court. Go ahead and ask it. Yeah. As doesn't that mean, the Republicans will Republican, right? And here's why I my eyes are going to be on this ruling, which I expect in a couple of days, and I'm going to tell you why in a minute. In order for the supreme court to rule that Muller's appointment is invalid, right? They would have to jettison eat they would have to say notwithstanding the temporary nature, we looked to some sort of sex test and Muller is a principal officer under the constitution because of this, and we don't care about this nineteenth century case. They can do that. But if they do. Miss him. Then no one will be able to dismiss him. Absolutely Whitaker will not be the attorney general right that there is no way. It is a double bind..
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Core of what's been made public that connects Russia's efforts to hack the 2016 US presidential election and the Trump campaign, and so for example, and put a pin in this one in the indictment that charged twelve Russian military intelligence officials with conspiring interfere with the elections that indictment identified as person a somebody the Russian hackers were operating via Gucci for two point. Oh, a known Kremlin intelligence operative and the indictment said that that that? That person was quote in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign and of quote, and that has been identified by rod Rosenstein in subsequent court proceeding as Roger stone. So Roger stone almost certainly going to be indicted when we knew he tweeted, you know, like oh watch out for. Yeah. Been doing some clues. You let me report the right? Fruits of my collusion labor. Here you go. Right. Right. And so in connection with that the Muller investigation back in February issued a subpoena to Indra Miller and said, look, we'd kinda like to talk to you. Because we think you have information relevant to this investigation. And and then Miller went through this process. And I I wanna take a tiny sidebar. This also answers a question I answered it on Twitter, but we'll do it here on the show raised by somebody going under the name secret, White House employees on Twitter and oh gosh. I hope that that is not just an a humorous name. But secret White House employees asked couldn't congress just subpoena Trump to testify right could Muller subpoena Trump to testify, right? And the answer to all of that is what Andrew Miller has done only with a slightly different outcome. Right. So Miller subpoenaed required to testify before the Muller investigation. And he said, no, I'm not gonna do that. He said, I don't think that Robert Mueller has been validly appointed. I don't think he has. The thority to issue these subpoenas. So I'm going to do it when you act in that process, you are known as what's called a recalcitrant witness. And there's a law governing recalcitrant witnesses. It is twenty eight USC section eighteen twenty six and what that allows the prosecutor to do is to go to court and get a contempt order that says you either have to comply with the subpoena or you're going to jail, and that's exactly what Muller did with respect to Andrew Miller. They went to the US district court for the district of Columbia. And they litigated this out on August tenth. They got a contempt order. They said, Yep. That was a an incredibly comprehensive ninety two page opinion in which the district court thoroughly explained that Muller's appointment was legal and that he had the authority issued the subpoena and said. Mr Miller, you have to testify that order, however, allowed Miller as somebody with no prior criminal history to stay out of jail, pending his appeal to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, which he then did. Now. Before we get to the DC circuit. And that's why we're talking about this today, by the way because there were supplemented filings filed in the DC circuit yesterday that are supremely interesting. I I do wanna take a little bit of a sidebar. And I wanna talk about Indra Miller. Hey listeners. Can you believe it is already time to start trying to find gifts for everybody? I can't believe it. But it's here. And for whatever reason it is so hard to find gifts for dudes. I don't know. I don't know. Why that is it just seems impossible..
"usc section" Discussed on WSB-AM
"Point sixteen c make it a crime to wash official faucet. If it's not a fish, washing faucet. In a national forest. Do you know that? These are all felonies. The the department of Justice back in the eighties attempted to count the total number of federal crimes, and they came. Yeah. Yeah. Or for instance, did you know, it's a felony eighteen USC section eighteen sixty five subsections seven point nine six b three make it a federal crime to harass a golfer at any national park in Washington DC. Yeah. How about that? Here's what about this say that you want to go on vacation, how many people love one on vacation. And if you have a dog, you take your dog with you on vacation. What am I one of the things? I would love to do is go to our national parks. But I want to take my whole my my whole family. So and dogs included. Well, I would have to be careful that I didn't violate any federal laws. I would have to make sure that I didn't commit a felony with my pet. You want to know how so eighteen USC eighteen sixty five subsection two point fifteen a four make it a federal crime to let your your pet making noise. That scares the wildlife in a national park. Uh-huh. How about this say that you are say that you visit you're going to White House tour. How amazing right you get to go on a White House tour you go. You know, maybe you toward the capitol grounds you get to go. And you're you're going around taking pictures and this happens all the time. You inadvertently turn in a weird way. And you end up bumping to table and lamp falls off the table. And you you scratch the lamp where you break the lamp something. Well. You just violated a federal law. Forty USC section eighty one of three b four it's a federal crime to injure a government owned lamp. Yeah. You see what I'm talking about? Why the hell are these in existence? So there's definitely a place to start. This is just one example. And then I could sit here and tell you about how in California, I've read stories on this program about how there have been pedophile that have gotten lesser treatments are lesser penalties than people who have a couple of pot on them. And I'm not a I'm not like the big marijuana pot pusher person. I just want the government to leave me alone and be consistent in your application of law. I would just think that maybe being a pedophile is a little you know, what I'm saying. Yeah. This was like five years ago. But I remember reading the story on air. So yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We have more to come second hour on the way as well..
"usc section" Discussed on WINT 1330 AM
"Sixty one point sixteen c make it a crime to wash official faucet. If it's not a fish, washing faucet. In a national forest. Geno that. Uh-huh. These are all felonies. The the department of Justice back in the eighties attempted to count the total number of federal crimes, and they came. Yeah. Yeah. Or for instance, did you know, it's a felony eighteen USC section eighteen sixty five subsections seven point nine six b three make it a federal crime to harass a golfer at any national park in Washington DC. Yeah. How about that? Here's what about this say that you want to go on vacation, how many people love one on vacation. And if you have a dog, you take your dog with you on vacation, what am I one of the things? I would love to do is go to our national parks. But I want to take my whole my my whole family. So and dogs included. Well, I would have to be careful that I didn't violate any federal laws. I would have to make sure that I didn't commit a felony with my pet. You want to know how so eighteen eighteen sixty five subsection two point fifteen a four make it a federal crime to let your your pet. Make a noise that scares the wildlife in a national park. How about this say that you are saying that you visit you gonna White House tour? How amazing right you get to go into White House tour you go. You know, maybe you tour the capitol ground you, and you're you're going around taking pictures, and this happens all the time. You inadvertently turnaround in a weird way. And you end up bumping a table and a landfalls off the table. And you you scratch the lamp where you break the lamp something. Well. You just violated a federal law. Forty USC section eighty one zero three b four it's a federal crime to injure a government owned lamp. Yeah. You see what I'm talking about? Why the hell are these in existence? So there's definitely a place to start. This is just one example. And then I could sit here and tell you about how in California, I've read stories on this program about how there have been pedophile that have gotten lesser treatments are lesser penalties than people who have a couple of answers a pot on them. And I'm not a I'm not like the big marijuana pot pusher person. I just want the government to leave me alone and be consistent in your application of law. I would just think that maybe being a pedophile is a little you know, what I'm saying. Yeah. This was like five years ago. But I remember reading the story on air. So yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We have more to come second hour on.
"usc section" Discussed on WINT 1330 AM
"To wash official faucet. If it's not a fish, washing faucet. International forest. Do you know that? These are all felonies. The department of Justice back in the eighties attempted to count the total number of federal crimes, and they came. Yeah. Yeah. Or for instance, did you know, it's a felony eighteen USC section eighteen sixty five subsection seven point nine six b three make it a federal crime to harass a golfer at any national park in Washington DC. Yeah. How about that? Here's what about this say that you want to go on vacation, how many people love one vacation. And if you have a dog, you take your dog with you on vacation, what am I one of the things? I would love to do is go to our national parks. But I want to take my whole my my whole family. So and dogs included. Well, I would have to be careful that I didn't violate any federal laws. I would have to make sure that I didn't commit a felony with my pet. You want to know how so eighteen USC eighteen sixty five subsection two point fifteen a four make it a federal crime to let your your pet. Make a noise that scares the wildlife in a national park. How about this say that you are state you? Visit you go into White House tour. How amazing right you get to go on White House tour you go. You know, maybe you toward the capitol grounds you get to go. And you're you're going around taking pictures and this happens all the time. You inadvertently turnaround around in a weird way. And you end up bumping a table and a landfalls off the table. And you you scratch the lamp where you break the lamp something. Well. You just violated a federal law. Forty USC section eighty one zero three b four it's a federal crime to injure a government owned lamp. Yeah. You see what I'm talking about? Why the hell.
"usc section" Discussed on WWL
"I don't want to be a police officer i certainly don't have to be a police officer and almost in some respects on a historical perspective then almost minimizes the maintenance for those other laws and those other protecting groups and then you know there's some potential in some very for law enforcement but why why would it have to be why why can't it be i i'm of the mindset in just so you'll know i spent forty years in law enforcement in ten years as a sheriff i don't understand why cannot be a win win because the reality is is that laws that are passed or just a way that we collectively state our value system and they are and you know it it just doesn't make sense to me when we say that this is going to minimize the protected classes that that that are protected by hate crime legislation when the fact is under title eighteen which is where a lot of these statutes reside there are all kinds of protections for real property real estate there's a protection for access to abortion clinics there's protection for federal employees who vote are going to file an application for federal employment a juror a participant in any program receiving federal financial assistance and the list goes on and on and on i didn't hear you and cry when when they pass eighteen usc section to forty five which outlines a whole bunch of different activities and and individuals that are engaged in activties at a not constitutionally protected well you got a point there however we don't you know we every year there's all holding steady laws and chemo and we we want to feel good about him and this is what is one of these spielman laws where it feels like this is great and again but i find it a little disingenuous like when he aclu the antidefamation league and others i mean it's not like they never participated in some of this feel good legislation that it's it's duplicitous it superfluous.
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Wiggle room but but in in in virtually all cases that any alien convicted of an aggravated felony will be deported and an aggravated felony is then in turn defined in eighteen usc section sixteen as a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year and crime of violence is defined as including quote any other offense that is a felony and that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the personal property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense and of towns familiar yeah it sounds really really familiar and the four justice liberal majority says this seems to be the exact same case as johnson and that indeed is atlanta kagins opinion it says yeah this johnson and johnson johnson around ditch right it's obviously if we held that that language way sir if we held at that language was unconstitutionally vague in twenty fifteen it's only twenty eighteen come on it's still unconstitutionally vague today it's interesting that by changing by keeping the language intact but changing the the perpetrator from us citizen with felony possession of a firearm to alien they've lost the vote of chief justice roberts not sure exactly how that goes but they picked up the vote of of neil gorsuch why did they pick up gore such as on the one hand you might think wow this is this is great gorsuch recognizes the starry decisive precedential of johnson and and that's why he wanted to he's all know gorsuch in fact wrote a rather lengthy concurring opinion and this concurring opinion is one hundred percent what we warned you about when we took to the air on opening argue.
"usc section" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"And state and local law enforcement the fbi took investigative steps to include database reviews and interviews coordinated action was taken with the state police to revoke mr ryan kings firearm owners identification card and the tazewell county sheriff's office to then remove buyer arms from his possession so that's that's bizarre this whole and that was the that was the press conference just discussing the waffle house murderer there the fbi was they apparently they i mean an obvious news they were aware they were aware for people who like pictures they were aware again and here i'm having to talk again about a person who was again known again to law enforcement again and was able to go out again and do something murderous again but yet somehow all the people who don't know this individual are the ones who are culpable but like crazy like the family who knew this dude and apparently knew that he was dangerous because he'd been arrested he thought taylor swift was stalking him for crying out loud dude was not but even bigger he had his firearms confiscated here displayed card that's that's your your gun card in illinois he had taken from him i mean forever one hooves calling for stricter laws y'all realize that this is eighteen usc section nine twenty two subsection d correct that's her memory by the way should know this code forwards and backwards it's it's this is already to give someone guns that can't have them it's already illegal.
"usc section" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Okay well that that that's a that's a plausible surface level analysis the state court said no the arbitration clause in this case is invalid and inoperative in does not cover this present dispute we could get into it but that's not particularly important for for the segment so then the jeeter marlins than tried to remove in fact they filed a successful notice of removal that transfers the case from state court to federal court and the basis for transferring that case to federal court was a provision in the federal arbitration act it's nine usc to a one at sec which is the convention on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards which coincidentally happens to be a matter that i have previously litigated had so basically what this means is there's a provision right we've already we've we've talked about the federal arbitration act that's nine usc section one that provides the standards and generally encourages arbitration of disputes right and so it provides the the basis for enforcing arbitration awards it provides that when an arbitrator issues award the standards for whether you can confirm or modify that award and we've talked previously about how arbitration awards are not subject to review for serious substantive errors including errors of fact and the law no right yeah this convention on foreign arbitral awards seems a little weird in this place so here's their here's the reasons and here's the argument so section to a one on the convention is designed to do for international arbitration agreements what the faa nine usc one does for domestic arbitration agreements and it basically says we want to try and ensure international cooperation so we're going to give force to foreign arbitral awards if they fall under this convention right if they are countries with whom we have a signatory so they recognize arbitration awards we want to recognize their arbitrating awards it's totally standard kind of practice and we've talked about this in our past couple of episodes when we're talking about the cloud act.
"usc section" Discussed on WLOB
"This system we have with independent counsel or special counsel's i mean look it's fine to talk about robert muller in the abstract that you know the risks i liked him as a person alan let me finish look at the record of what he's compiled cases for making false statements cases for conspiracy to defraud the united states under eighteen usc section thirteen three seventy one these are routine cases routine statutes prosecutors and that's right and be let me finish justice department official could have done that you don't need a special counsel to go after lowhanging you're you're saying rod rosenstein who were you were suggesting could have supervised this rod rosenstein was the person who said i can't supervise this i need to appoint an outsider rod rosenstein who is a professional prosecutor career person he understood that even though sessions was allegedly recused although he seems awfully involved in these cases for someone who's recused but he understood that for the integrity of the justice system for the perception of fairness there had to be special counsel and our i got that was right gotta jump in and this i'm sorry it's it's like a masterclass or harvey you don't even need to pay harvard school educate salary a tuition for harvard you can just jeffrey still gets an a plus sixty exchange and i wanna break it down with you.
"usc section" Discussed on KTLK 1130 AM
"Public official a person who has been selected global war two a influence unofficial official act the tax bill totally count says to influence sorts elected official a person who's been selected to eight and committing i mean it's pretty clear well you hang eurafrance saying 18 usc section two or one b one and i yeah i mean if you when you read the when you read the that code it seems pretty clear that there is a violation now however however the jury instructions that usually go along with it um set a relatively high bar requiring requiring proof of what's known as corrupt intent now i am an attorney i'm not an attorney that certainly worked on these types of issues certainly not the federal level but um you know the first of all i would be up to a jury went corrupt tent is but i think some people are automatically assuming that this was a joke and i'm sure she would she would deal if pressed by authorities she would say oh ha ha ha i'm rosie o'donnell yuck yuck wocka wocka i was just telling a joke um but you know to try to find her guilty you'd have to prove that beyond or beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not joking or trolling but actually intending to influence senators but what i think is is interesting and why i don't dispute dismiss this possibly as quickly as some other people do is that do i believe now i don't know what her personal um you know warchest is but you're assuming that she has yo saved for money for back when she was relevant than funny are very a better job of investing manure we are she got into bitcoin too tumble on the way up on the way up as opposed to now but but you know assuming that this is some money that she actually had to give to i believe that she would spend two million dollars to uh to embarrass president trump i absolutely believe it and why and what i think.