Times Trump has used Twitter to corrupt the impact of legal certainty is so great, it's hardly worth telling about this week's Trump tweetstorm. It seems that every time his little fingers fly over the keys on his iPhone, he commits another crime. This week, there was an obstruction of justice and testimony when Trump simultaneously tweeted an attack against his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, praising his former campaign adviser Roger Stone for "never testifying against Trump".  Trumps tweets may have exceeded a legal line according to many legal comments, including Norman Eisen, a leading colleague at Brookings Institution, citing the Washington Post."It comes very close to the statutory definition of witness manipulation," told the Eisen of the post. "It's a mirror image of the first tweet, but he promises a witness not to cooperate with the implication of reward. We are so used to President Trump who violates the norms of his public statements, but he may have crossed the team."The commentary has been obsessed over the past two days by whether Trump broke the law with their tweets or not Monday. Op-Ed pages and cable news disks have echoed Trump's comments on whether Mohammad bin Salman ordered the murder of Jamal Kashoggi: Maybe he did, and maybe he did not!It is difficult to prove barriers to justice. Is a tweet enough? Two? Six? See what I mean? Put as much as a single toe in the rabbit hole, and you are quickly absorbed. What happens to…
Times Trump has used Twitter to corrupt the impact of legal certainty is so great, it’s hardly worth telling about this week’s Trump tweetstorm. It seems that every time his little fingers fly over the keys on his iPhone, he commits another crime. This week, there was an obstruction of justice and testimony when Trump simultaneously tweeted an attack against his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, praising his former campaign adviser Roger Stone for “never testifying against Trump”.  Trumps tweets may have exceeded a legal line according to many legal comments, including Norman Eisen, a leading colleague at Brookings Institution, citing the Washington Post.
“It comes very close to the statutory definition of witness manipulation,” told the Eisen of the post. “It’s a mirror image of the first tweet, but he promises a witness not to cooperate with the implication of reward. We are so used to President Trump who violates the norms of his public statements, but he may have crossed the team.”
The commentary has been obsessed over the past two days by whether Trump broke the law with their tweets or not Monday. Op-Ed pages and cable news disks have echoed Trump’s comments on whether Mohammad bin Salman ordered the murder of Jamal Kashoggi: Maybe he did, and maybe he did not!
It is difficult to prove barriers to justice. Is a tweet enough? Two? Six? See what I mean? Put as much as a single toe in the rabbit hole, and you are quickly absorbed. What happens to repeatedly calling out the inquiry of special council Robert Mueller as a “witch hunt”? Was it counted when Trump demanded the end of Russia’s investigation? How about how Trump treated sessions, criticizes him over and over again to reuse and then shoot him? Was there an obstruction when Trump asked Comey to go straight to Michael Flynn? Remember when he asked Comey for “loyalty” over steaks one night in the White House? Just the two who sit there in a small private dining room in the western wing. . . Comey demurred and Trump fired a few days later.
Former prosecutors and justice department officials as former executive attorney general secretary Neal Katyal pointed to Trumps tweets as part of “a Trump pattern to disturb law enforcement to earn their personal end,” according to the post. And that’s the problem. The pattern has been going on for nearly two years now. The question is when is enough?
For republicans in congress, the answer is never. There has been a scandal after another, and they have sat there on Capitol Hill and twiddling and diddling all the time. Now, the Democrats will take over the House of Representatives in January, and the votes are supposed to be there to judge Trump, the matter has been moved to the Senate, where he should be tried.
So far no-one has suggested that Republicans in the Senate have the political will or desire to find Trump guilty, although they face mountain mountains that have stacked up around the White House. Trump’s popularity in the Republican party remains somewhere north of 90 percent. The twiddling and diddling on Capitol Hill seems to continue.
With Mueller’s Special Council, the issue has become what will happen with any report he exposes after he has stopped prosecuting people in Trump’s court? Will actor general Matthew Whitaker, or William Barr, or who he decides to nominate moves to break it? If Mueller succeeds in getting his report to Capitol Hill, it will face the same fate that all evidence of Trump’s iniquities has been faced so far: although the Chamber is disturbed by Trump, Senate Republicans will never find it hard to find him guilty. [1
9659011] But Mueller has another option. He can bring an accusation against Trump.
I know I know. There are two opinions from the Justice Department in the Justice Department that a president can not be prosecuted, and it is said that Robert Muller has always been one to “comply with the rules.” But that’s just it. The rule against accusing a seated president is a rule, not a law. If Mueller would bring an action against Trump, it would really be tested by Trumps lawyers. Opinions are mixed up on what would happen if and when the case came to the Supreme Court.
I think it would depend on what crime Mueller is seeking prosecution for. There is plenty of evidence that Trump has hindered justice. And more evidence was recently revealed that the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russians in the manipulation of the Democratic Party’s e-mails to win the 2016 election.
Emails released last week suggested that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi were involved as cut outs between Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the release of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta e-mails during the last days of the election campaign in 2016. But so far, no evidence has been shown that Trump himself was involved in collaborating with the Russians to steal the election. Not even the infamous meeting of the Russians in the Trump Tower has become irreversibly bound to Trump.
Two convictions were released on Friday evening, Trump, to even more crimes. The conviction of Paul Manafort claims that he repeatedly lied when he told prosecutors that he had not had contact with senior officials at the Trump administration. Prosecutors cited texts, electronic documents and testimony of a Manafort colleague and other interrogations that showed that Manafort had contacts with the Trump administration.
The only possible reason for such contacts would have been to coordinate their stories of what happened during the Trump campaign, which would impede justice. As for former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the court announcement stated that “Cohen himself has now acknowledged, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and towards individual 1.”
“Individual-1 is, of course, Donald J. Trump, and the payments in question were made by Cohen to keep Trump’s business with the secret of two women. In fact, Cohen called the Trump conviction, an error, by collaborating with his lawyer to breaking the campaign funding laws alleged by Cohen.
But I do not think Mueller should disturb the crimes he committed in conspiracy with others. Rather, he should accuse Trump of committing a crime just Trump, like the US president, can commit. He should accuse Trump of violating the “faithful exercise clause” of the United States Constitution, as in Section II, Section Three, states that “he will take care that the laws are faithfully enforced.”
Printz against The United States, decided in 1997 in a challenge to the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, left some doubt as to who has the authority and responsibility to execute US laws: “The Constitution does not leave speculation is about who will manage the laws adopted by Congress; The president says it “shall take care that the laws are faithful executed”, Art. II, §3, personally and by officials whom he appoints (except for such poor officers as the Congress allows to be appointed by the “Courts” or the “Heads of Division” as with other presidential candidates), Art. II, § 2. “
In the Humphreys Executor against the United States, the Supreme Court went back to Marbury to Madison to find that Care Care Clause requires the president to follow the sound. In that case, the court found that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not could arbitrarily remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission without the consent of Congress and for purely political reasons.
It is sufficient to say that there is ample law to back up the conception that the Constitution requires the President not only to “implement” the laws but also to follow them. By taking many actions to break the law, whether manipulating with witnesses or openly hindering justice, or collecting a foreign power to steal the 2016 election, Trump has apparently not “taken care that the laws are faithful executed “.  It’s just a crime like Trump, as the US president can commit, because it implies a legal claim on the president’s unless stated in US codes, but in the constitution itself.
If Mueller would accuse Trump of violating this clause in the constitution, he would not only force the question of whether a president is over the law, as written to all others in the US Code, but if the president is subject to the law of the country specified in the Constitution self. It would be a prosecution to violate a law that is specifically written to apply for the president and no one else.
Such an accusation by Mueller would promptly throw the entire case in the supreme court. It would be an inevitable constitutional issue, as it is a unique constitutional crime. It forces the question of whether the laws apply to the president by making the law in question the constitution itself.
Some have said that the founders always knew that today the country would suffer from the threat of a demagogue that set itself to invert the country by inverting its democracy. Well, they did not give one, but two ways to deal with the situation. Not only can such demagogues be violated, he can be prosecuted for not “faithfully enforcing” the laws.
It’s almost as if the founders were aware that it was an independent monster like Donald Trump himself, right?
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a West Point graduate, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and scriptwriter. He has covered stories like Watergate, Stonewall Riot and War in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five best-selling novels and several failed films. He has three children, lives on the East End on Long Island and spends his time worrying about our nation and crazy writers in such a fruitful attempt to make things better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Canine Hole and Twitter @ LucianKTruscott.
Lucian K. Truscott IV