Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Its Now Likely Mueller Thinks Trump Obstructed Justice
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532?lo=ap_a1&cmpid=sfIt’s Now Likely Mueller Thinks Trump Obstructed Justice
Thursday’s bombshell news points toward one conclusion: The special counsel has the goods on the president.
By RENATO MARIOTTI
January 26, 2018
{Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.}
Thursday’s explosive New York Times story that President Donald Trump ordered the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller last June renewed the public’s focus on the obstruction of justice investigation against Trump, which will soon culminate in Trump’s interview by Mueller. The case against Trump has grown stronger in recent months, and it now appears likely that Mueller will conclude that Trump obstructed justice.
That has not always been true. On June 8, 2017, soon after former FBI director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, I told the New York Times, “Based only on what we know now in public, a reasonable prosecutor might bring this case against an ordinary person, but a prudent prosecutor would want more facts before bringing this case against a president.”
I was cautious about whether Mueller could prove that Trump obstructed justice because the president clearly had the power to fire Comey if he chose to do so. Even assuming that a jury—or the United States Senate, which would serve as the jury in an impeachment proceeding—believed Comey’s testimony, they could nonetheless conclude that Trump did not act “corruptly” in asking Comey to drop the Flynn investigation or in firing Comey, as the law requires.
Impeding or influencing an FBI investigation is a crime only if it is done with “corrupt” intent—in other words, the intent to wrongfully impede the administration of justice. In my experience, proving a defendant’s intent without direct evidence—that is, without statements by the defendant that directly reveal his or her intent—is challenging.
One could argue that Trump provided direct evidence when he told NBC’s Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he did so. But Trump quickly followed up that comment by indicating that he thought the investigation was bogus, and his defense to obstruction could be that he genuinely believed the Russia investigation was meritless.
Before bringing a case, prosecutors anticipate defenses like that one and gather evidence to rebut potential defenses. We have since learned of very substantial additional evidence that would rebut that defense, or a defense that Trump didn’t understand the consequences of firing Comey. While that evidence is indirect, Mueller could argue that we can infer Trump’s intent from that evidence, which is how prosecutors typically prove a defendant’s intent.
snip//
Whether a Republican Congress would take action against Trump, regardless of Mueller’s conclusions, is anyone’s guess. But Thursday’s news made impeachment proceedings against Trump more likely. Ultimately the president’s performance in his upcoming interview with Mueller could prove decisive. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of discipline when questioned, and Mueller has a lot to work with. If Trump provides the special counsel with direct evidence of his intent when firing Comey, he could ensure that Mueller will conclude he obstructed justice, leaving his fate to Congress.
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
crimes and at most will make a referral to the house.
There's the fact that it is rather specifically and legally defined within the US Constitution.
I don't think that there's any way that Mueller files a treason charge, even if he files any charge against a sitting president, which itself would be rather unprecedented. If only we could be unpresidented some way.
I find myself too often breathless in these days. My sanity resides in Rachel Maddow's geeky hands.
I hope you are well.
I used treason as an example, but you got my drift. And there is this, which gives me hope.
Link to tweet
I agree about Rachel and breathless; it's hard to look away!
As always, my best to you.
