Section 595 of Chapter 18 of the US Code

[Tommy Carcetti]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/595

18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

It’s a misdemeanor, meaning it’s punishable for up to less than a year in prison. And for someone without a prior conviction or criminal record, usually it could be pled out without any actual time at all.

The thing is, the Former Office Occupant is almost certainly guilty of this. I think Rosen’s testimony would make the evidence a slam dunk.

But could it be combined with any felony charges to increase the likelihood that he wouldn’t end up with just a slap on the wrist?

And would any federal prosecutor have the guts to go after a former President in what would undoubtedly be the biggest misdemeanor criminal case in US History, and then resist the urge to plea it out?

[multigraincracker]

1. My favorite law that is never enforced.

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

18 U.S. Code & 242


Color of Law Violations

Law enforcement officers and other officials like judges and prosecutors have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include, but are not limited to, the following acts:

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”

Sexual assault: Sexual assault by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and obstruction of justice: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Maybe one day, maybe something might happen to the former ex-president of this Country...

I had thought that charges were waiting the southern district of NY, but nothing yet. I had thought that entities were awaiting tax returns for what seems like eons, finally the Courts ruled that tax returns must be turned over, but rump is still fighting efforts. It's funny that so many looked to the Southern District of NY for action on the former president for tax fraud, etc., but after Barr took over as AG, it seemed like all charges literally disappeared.

Courts have ruled on this multiple times (tax returns), he's had his chances in Court, failed to convince anyone of his arguments that his tax returns (above all other tax returns provided by former US presidents in the past) were not subject to the law like all other tax returns in provided in prior years by past presidents (go figure).

Numerous efforts were expended by this former president (rump) in trying to subvert the will of the people, some legal, many illegal.

Why no negative consequences? Why the hands off policies? The law is the law, enforce it when it's broken so blatantly. Are they so afraid of what his idiot followers would do if summoned? We should not be afraid, we already know after Jan. 6, 21 what will happen, rump and his cohorts will excite his idiot followers with any lame excuse (valid or not) to riot, cause mayhem, or worse. And it's still possible.

It's time to face the music, face these thugs face to face and have it out with them. After all, isn't fighting for a democratically elected government (besides paying taxes w/o representation) worth it, isn't that what we rebelled against Britain for?

[gab13by13]

3. Wouldn't indicting and convicting

MF45 of this "misdemeanor" be devastating to him? I mean he is a Narcissist. I say do it.

[msfiddlestix]

4. Good question. In context of the severity to our democracy, I wonder when this statute was written.

Seems like it should be updated.

Also, this explains why the several charges classified as misdemeanors. And the ones actually prosecuted given only a year with time served off.

[Effete Snob]

8. The note at the bottom of the linked page is the revision history

That’s what this part means:

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, § 204(d)(6), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

It was last revised in 1994.

[msfiddlestix]

11. Thank You!

kind of have to dig deep into why the revisions were made... presumably the context of each revision would in some way reflect events and attitudes of lawmakers linked to those events. making new rules as cover or remedy in other words.

right?

So, yeah... I do believe updating is imperative. To reflect on the ground reality of the traitors and other actors involved in the conspiracy to overturn a duly elected President, and other office holders.

This just cannot stand as a "misdemeanor" to serve no more than one year incarceration.

It just cannot be so any longer.

[Sneederbunk]

5. TFG will die unconvicted of anything.

[brush]

6. We shall see.

[StarfishSaver]

7. I don't think this applies to a president.

[Effete Snob]

9. The DoJ guide is informative.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

[StarfishSaver]

10. It is. Thanks

This guide notes that Section 595 was enacted as part of the 1939 Hatch Act. Since presidents and vice presidents are explicitly exempted from the Hatch Act, it follows that this provision also would not apply to presidents.

[msfiddlestix]

12. This is informative

I had carefully read a number of segments, and skimmed through others... so I have not read this entirely.

Need to read it through later.

One of a number of things tell me the DOJ does not intervene when election fraud is underway. (paraphrasing greatly)

They only make that determination after the deed is done, and then launch an investigation and if there is evidence criminal wrong doing, they will determine if it is necessary to bring charges.

That's a problem, a very serious problem imo.

Also a problem, the underlying principle of the DOJ policy guidelines on criminal vs negligence, the outcome of either is remedied by the next election. Not worded in this way. Just how I interpreted.

And the underscoring of the fact that Federal Elections are appropriately governed by the state.

I understand this is how it is considered, regarded and codified within the clauses in our Constitutional.

But it is not in my view an appropriate jurisdiction. It should be Federally controlled, a consistent process from the ground up.. registration rules and balloting procedures/processes and tabulation.

State and local elections should be managed by local and state authorities, but the Feds have an interest in these jurisdictions as well and therefore should have authority to intervene when fraud is being committed in public.

Essentially, the elections criminal investigations guidelines are just that. Investigations after the fact.

The DOJ, for reasons unclear to me, do not intervene when Fraud is being perpetrated in the open public. They will investigate after the fact, but again, their view of the remedy is to be resolved in the next election.