#criminal acctions

[kj1966-blog]

When it comes to Trump-Russia investigation, many experts highlight that it is essential to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had a specific intent.

Of course, intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. It is also true that to prove the intent is not an easy task.

LegalFlip

Nevertheless, the scale of difficulty differs depending on the type of crime. Sometimes an attempt is a crime that requires an act, done with the specific intent to commit a crime that falls short of completing the actual crime.

Conspiracy is a crime that requires some type of agreement between at least two individuals with the specific intent to both enter into the agreement and to achieve a certain goal of the agreement. In other words, two or more individuals must agree to commit some crime and take some concrete step in carrying out the crime.

For example, if John and Ted agree to rob a bank, and John goes and buys masks for the robbery and Ted picks up John and drives him to the bank with the intent to rob the bank – they are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even before either of them enters the bank).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If we take a closer look at the entire chain of events, besides other facts, the firing of then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey are possibly the most remarkable events which display Trump’s intent.

  In January 2017, Sally Yates met with White House counsel McGahn to warn him the Justice Department has evidence, via the FBI surveillance, that Michael Flynn, then-national security advisor, was vulnerable to blackmail.

A few days after her meeting, Sally Yates was fired. The reason given by the White House is her decision to instruct Justice Department attorneys not to defend his immigration restrictions.

On 27th January, Donald Trump arranges a dinner with then-FBI Director James Comey, where, according to Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the president says: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

Comey said he felt like the dinner was an effort on the part of the president to have him ask for his job and “create some sort of patronage relationship.”

  The very next day, according to Comey, he visited the Oval Office for a meeting with Trump and advisers. Afterward, the president cleared the room of everyone except him and the FBI director. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Comey says Trump said.

      Trump and Putin, via family members

  Since James Comey worked for Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General had to recuse himself. And Sessions’ recusal drove Trump nuts.

In mid-March, Trump has a private meeting with Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Trump asks Coats to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to “back off its focus” on Flynn in regard to the Russia investigation, according to The Washington Post.

  On May 9, Trump fires Comey, saying in an interview two days later that the FBI director was a “showboat” and a “grandstander.”

This is significant: A person can commit obstruction without there having been an underlying crime to conceal. So even if, as Trump maintains, he and his aides did nothing wrong and did not conspire with the Russians who attacked the election, they still could be in trouble over the actions that culminated in Comey’s dismissal.

    Trump and Putin via Administration Officials

  “Attempted obstruction is obstruction,” constitutional lawyer and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe told Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, “even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him.”

If this is not enough to prove intent of Donald Trump to obstruct justice due to his alleged involvement in much heavier criminal activities, perhaps “criminal negligence” could be helpful.

Criminal negligence requires that the person exercised a “gross” or “aggravated” deviation from acceptable societal norms.  In other words, the conduct must have some element of an unjustifiable disregard of standards in order for it to be considered criminal.

To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinarily prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences.

As the “reasonable person” standard is an objective benchmark by which an individual is judged, only in cases involving mental and physical disabilities can there be room for reinterpretation.  If the individual, due to disability cannot foresee how his or her actions will lead to serious consequences and a breach of the standard of care, then that case may be open to reinterpretation.

It is not possible to imagine that Donald Trump or any member of his campaign couldn’t understand that their meetings and communications with the Russian officials could lead to certain negative consequences for the United States.

It seems that whichever angle we look at it, Donald Trump appears to have committed a crime or crimes.

WHICHEVER ANGLE WE LOOK AT IT, DONALD TRUMP SEEMS TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. When it comes to Trump-Russia investigation, many experts highlight that it is essential to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had a specific intent.