CDZ Donald Trump's statements to the press and in his tweets & 18 U.S. Code § 1001

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,186
    Thanks Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,235
    18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    By far the broadest federal statute criminalizing lying is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully . . . make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in the course of “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch” of the federal government. There’s no requirement that the statement be under oath.

    Section 1001 traces back to 1863, initially applying to servicemember claims against the government. It was amended in 1934 to apply more broadly to any person and covered “any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” In United States v. Bramblett, the Supreme Court held that “any department or agency” included the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives. (Congressman Bramblett lied to the House Disbursing Office in order to collect a salary for a nonexistent employee.)

    In 1996, Section 1001 was revised to explicitly apply to “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.”

    The statement must be “material” but materiality means only that the statement is “predictably capable of affecting . . . [an] official decision.” The Supreme Court has held that determining what is or is not material is a question of law, left to judges not juries.

    In its present form, Section 1001 sweeps in almost any material statement to an official of any branch of the federal government on any matter. That would be any misrepresentation on any federal form, remarks about one's interactions with others, remarks about pretty much anything wherein a member of the federal government can reasonably be construed as being among the audience and the remark/statement may somehow affect a decision the federal audience member may make.



    What does the above mean? It means that out of all the things Trump has paltered and prevaricated about, there are sure to be several that, by dint of Section 1001, constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor." It really just comes down to whether Republicans want to impeach Trump and then remove him from office, not whether there's a specific law he's violated that they can use as the basis for doing so. It also means as a practical matter is that if Democrats get hold of Congress, Trump's days as POTUS will almost certainly be quite short. Of course, if he's not in jail, he could run again....


    Note:
    • Click here to view a complete list of federal fraud and false statement statutes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Pogo
    Offline

    Pogo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Messages:
    79,938
    Thanks Received:
    12,612
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
    Ratings:
    +37,837
    Actually I believe he could still run from jail. And perhaps not even lose any votes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    43,026
    Thanks Received:
    9,325
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,903
    Correct.

    A misdemeanor is a bad act or bad conduct, separate and apart from violating the law.

    A president can be removed from office via the impeachment process absent alleged criminal wrongdoing.

    It was the Framers’ original understanding and intent that a president would be removed from office as a consequence of his misdemeanors (bad acts or conduct) and once out of office subject to criminal prosecution if warranted.

    The problem is the Framers didn’t anticipate a partisan Republican Congress refusing to execute its responsibility pursuant to Article II, Section 4.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. VictoryIsMine
    Offline

    VictoryIsMine BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +150

    LOL convicted felons can not hold federal office.
     
  5. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,186
    Thanks Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,235
    You're right. He could run from jail. I should have included a phrase such as "...course, as a practical matter, if he's not...." My bad.

    FYI, I ticked "funny" because of your second sentence. The possibility that may indeed be so made me laugh, but funny is not at all what it would be were his vote tally to remain substantively undiminished in the wake of his having been incarcerated.

    The only currently immutable requirements for holding elected federal office are the ones stipulated in the Constitution. Among them is not a proscription against convicted felons holding a seat as Representative, Senator or President.
    • Qualifications of Members of Congress

      Since a State does not have the authority to add qualifications for federal offices, the fact of conviction, even for a felony offense, could not be used to keep a candidate off of the ballot under State law either as a direct disqualification of convicted felons from holding or being a candidate for office, or as a disqualification of one who is no longer a “qualified elector” in the State. Once a person meets the three constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy in the State when elected, that person, if duly elected, is constitutionally “qualified” to serve in Congress, even if a convicted felon.
    • In 1798, Rep. Matthew Lyon ran for Congress from prison and won. He assumed his seat in Congress after serving four months in prison for "libeling" President John Adams. An effort was made to expel Lyon from the House, but it failed.


    Aside:
    And once again we have before us a clear illustration of a far too common behavior for a discussion venue like USMB: one's thinking something be so, making an unqualified declaration in accordance with that perception, and having made not so much as the most meager effort to determine whether what they think be so is so. That behavior clearly shows something, though it's not possible for me, a stranger to you all, to know for sure just what. IMO, the most likely options are (1) pride, (2) sloth, or (3) a lack of intellectual/discursive integrity. Whatever be the reason, it doesn't bode well for boosting one's reputation as a credible poster.

    The thing is that one need not impugn one's discursive legitimacy need not be risked. One need only include any of myriad simple qualifying terms or phrases. Pogo used one when in response to my OP s/he wrote, "Actually I believe he could still run from jail."

    Lastly, VictoryIsMine,. please don't construe the contents of this "aside" as my aspersing you on a personal level. I've merely used your remark for illustrative purposes. If you find me chiding some subsequent remarks you make and doing so on a basis similar to that described in the first paragraph of this "aside," you can, if you insist, take that as personal, or at least as personal as makes sense given that we are strangers.

    I assure you, however, the emotion I feel upon here seeing unfoundedly unequivocal declarations is dismay. Were I to encounter the same behavior in a personal setting, I might feel something different, but as I don't know anyone here, I don't feel that way at all. I don't have feelings toward or against individuals whom I've never met; of them, at most, I have only thoughts.​
     

Share This Page