Error message

Deprecated function: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in include_once() (line 20 of /home/caucusni/public_html/includes/file.phar.inc).

Trump Slapped With A Criminal Ethics Complaint

Submitted by Battle of Blair... on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 3:26pm

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/09/25/trump-just-slapped-criminal-ethics...

The Democratic Coalition has filed a criminal ethics complaint against President Trump over his inflammatory comments to an Alabama audience, and official statements on Twitter, seeking to influence NFL owners to fire players who protest the national anthem before games. (full complaint below)

Federal law makes it a crime for the President to wrongfully influence a private entity’s employment decisions, such as calling for a reporter to be fired for speaking out for partisan political reasons. In fact, the President is expressly included in the ethics law Congress set forth to prevent Presidents from using the “bully pulpit” in a fascist manner to direct the efforts of private businesses.

The law is clear and expressly forbids the president from doing what he did, carrying a 15 year sentence.

The Law18 U.S. Code § 227 – Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Now a complaint has been filed. What we need to demand is that charges be filed. There's no need for an investigation, he was caught red handed. He is now officially a criminal. A superpredator if you will, being he's in a position of great power.

If he were a black man, the cops would have shot him already.

Tags:

#Trumpisacriminal

Vote

Comments

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 4:55pm

black man

(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Now a complaint has been filed. What we need to demand is that charges be filed. There's no need for an investigation, he was caught red handed. He is now officially a criminal. A superpredator if you will, being he's in a position of great power.

If he were a black man, the cops would have shot him already.

You're saying that if Barack Obama would have pulled the same shit that Chump did, he would have been shot?

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Centaurea on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 11:06pm

Not sure they're going to succeed with this

Full disclosure, I've been pro-Kaepernick for a while now, long before Trump opened his big mouth about it.

While I think Trump's remarks were disgusting and disrespectful of the office he holds, it's not clear to me that his remarks violated this law. That article from Occupy Democrats does not accurately describe the law.

As with all criminal laws, there are specific elements that have to be present for a crime to have been committed. Each and every word used in the law has a precise legal meaning. In order for a person to be guilty of a particular crime, their actions have to meet all of the required elements for that crime.

For 18 U.S. Code § 227, the elements are:

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity

This goes to the element of intent. It requires that the government person had to have taken the action with the specific intent to influence a private employer's decision.

Most importantly, the person's reason for influencing had to be solely on the basis of "partisan political affiliation". Those words have a very specific meaning. They refer to political organization affiliation (in other words, political party membership).

If Trump had said, "Unless that SOB joins the Republican Party, the NFL team must fire him!" perhaps his remarks would satisfy this element of this crime. But blustering about disrespecting the flag and the national anthem has nothing to do with "partisan political affiliation".

1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

In the remarks that have been publicized, Trump didn't bribe or threaten private NFL team owners with taking or withholding an official act as POTUS if the owners didn't fire the protesting players.

2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

Neither did Trump threaten to sic a government agency on the NFL owner if they didn't fire the players. ("Official act" refers to an act by a government official.) "If you don't fire these SOB protesters, I'm going to have Jeff Sessions investigate you!"

Trump acted like a jackass, but unfortunately that's not something that's prosecutable under this law.

As a reminder, here's what Trump said:

Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired!' You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s gonna say, ‘That guy disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it. They don’t know it. They’re friends of mine, many of them. They don’t know it. They’ll be the most popular person, for a week. They’ll be the most popular person in the country.”

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 5:32am

Excellent analysis, Centaurea

@Centaurea If only such careful attention to the law were a more generalized undertaking, this country would be in far better shape than now. Banksters scam Billions of dollars and none of them go to jail or even fined. Some poor person, homeless or hopeless tokes a joint--life in prison in you live in certain states. We can call it proportional justice. The rich have 25 million more chances of no adverse action, while the down-and-out have almost none. Who said Justice is Blind? The question should be: "how much justice can you afford?"

Full disclosure, I've been pro-Kaepernick for a while now, long before Trump opened his big mouth about it.

While I think Trump's remarks were disgusting and disrespectful of the office he holds, it's not clear to me that his remarks violated this law. That article from Occupy Democrats does not accurately describe the law.

As with all criminal laws, there are specific elements that have to be present for a crime to have been committed. Each and every word used in the law has a precise legal meaning. In order for a person to be guilty of a particular crime, their actions have to meet all of the required elements for that crime.

For 18 U.S. Code § 227, the elements are:

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity

This goes to the element of intent. It requires that the government person had to have taken the action with the specific intent to influence a private employer's decision.

Most importantly, the person's reason for influencing had to be solely on the basis of "partisan political affiliation". Those words have a very specific meaning. They refer to political organization affiliation (in other words, political party membership).

If Trump had said, "Unless that SOB joins the Republican Party, the NFL team must fire him!" perhaps his remarks would satisfy this element of this crime. But blustering about disrespecting the flag and the national anthem has nothing to do with "partisan political affiliation".

1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

In the remarks that have been publicized, Trump didn't bribe or threaten private NFL team owners with taking or withholding an official act as POTUS if the owners didn't fire the protesting players.

2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

Neither did Trump threaten to sic a government agency on the NFL owner if they didn't fire the players. ("Official act" refers to an act by a government official.) "If you don't fire these SOB protesters, I'm going to have Jeff Sessions investigate you!"

Trump acted like a jackass, but unfortunately that's not something that's prosecutable under this law.

As a reminder, here's what Trump said:

Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out. He's fired. He's fired!' You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s gonna say, ‘That guy disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it. They don’t know it. They’re friends of mine, many of them. They don’t know it. They’ll be the most popular person, for a week. They’ll be the most popular person in the country.”

Submitted by dkmich on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 7:19pm

culture wars

Trump is a master at this.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 10:57pm

@dkmich

@dkmich

Which is true, yet seems very odd as he has no culture, so to speak - unless perhaps in the bacterial sense...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Wed, 09/27/2017 - 11:06pm

Misleading.

Trump wasn't 'slapped' with anything, let alone a criminal ethics complaint.

The Democratic Coalition Against Trump (made up of some old Obama campaign hands) wrote a letter to the US Office of Government Ethics requesting an investigation into Trunp's statements and citing a criminal statute that, as Centaurea points out, is not applicable to this fact pattern.

Should the agency decide to investigate, it might end up recommending charges to the AG, who might then decide to prosecute, but all of that seems about as likely as Colin Kaepernick donning white robes and lighting up a cross in Jerry Jones' front yard.

He is now officially a criminal.

Trump may be a criminal, but not because of this episode and certainly not 'officially'.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Ellen North on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 12:52am

@Not Henry Kissinger

@Not Henry Kissinger

Trump was a criminal when he got there, so he fits right in with others in Washington also having extensive experience in ripping off workers and small businesses.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Centaurea on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:20am

Yep, consider the source.

@Not Henry Kissinger The Democratic Coalition's preferred modus operandi seems to be filing "nuisance complaints" like this one. They have a history of doing so.

Taking a gander at their website, they seem to be firmly a part of the McResistance.

By the way, to note, the Democratic Coalition is a SuperPAC, originally known as the Keep America Great PAC when it was founded in early 2016.

Its principals are also associated with a political fundraising outfit called Bulldog Finance Group.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone