They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017
After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017
The Donald is very mad as evidenced by these tweets. Being under the microscope of investigation apparently, has done a number on him, he had to lash out on Twitter.
A little backstory
On the 9th of May, President Trump fired the FBI director, James Comey, who was conducting investigations into the possible collusion with Trump’s campaign team and Russia (Russia has been fingered by U.S Intelligence agencies for massive interference in the 2016 elections). In a letter to Comey, Trump explained he was acting on the recommendations of the Justice Department led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein.
In fact, Rod Rosenstein had written a memo to the White House recommending Comey’s dismissal.
“Over the past year, however, the F.B.l.’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. … I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives,” Rosenstein wrote.
In an exclusive interview with Lester Holt of NBC News, Trump admitted that he would have fired Comey regardless of the Justice Department’s recommendation. Trump’s action led to loud calls for a Special Prosecutor and talks about a cover up and “obstruction of justice”. A Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III was indeed appointed to continue investigations into Russia and after Comey was fired, he began investigations into whether Trump obstructed justice in any way.
This is what has the president up in arms.
Phoney or not
Trump is in perilous waters, the gravity of which, it appears has not sunk in yet.
According to Politifact, while Trump may have a point “in that none of the investigations have made public any hard proof that Trump colluded with Russia during the presidential election — if there is any hard proof, ” Trump cannot go ahead to tag the Russian issue as phoney.
The investigations encompass much more than collusion, Politifact explains: “They are looking at whether Trump campaign associates may have been unwitting agents on Russia’s behalf, as well as Russia’s actions absent any assistance from American political actors. They could also dig into criminal activity unrelated to Russia or the election that they uncover during the course of their investigative work, such as unlawful financial dealings. They can also explore accusations that someone, such as Trump, tried to inhibit these proceedings.”
Obstruction of Justice?
NPR reckons Comey laid out a good case for obstruction of Justice that Robert Mueller could build on. But for that to happen, certain things must be established.
Take a look at Cornell Law School‘s definition of obstruction of justice:
“Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that ‘whoever … corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).’ Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.
“A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
“§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.”
In Comey’s leaked memo about the meeting with Trump, he wrote:
“The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me. When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ ”
Comey also stated that Trump told him “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,” which Comey says he took as a direction to drop the investigation against Flynn.
It doesn’t exactly help Trump’s case that he told Russian ambassadors this:
“I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Trump told Lavrov and other Russian officials gathered in the Oval Office exactly one month ago, according to The New York Times. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. Now, that’s taken off.”
These communications above could signal intent to obstruct justice. Whether or not Robert Mueller reaches that decision eventually, it is too early to Trump to dismiss it as phony.
Matter of fact, he will do well to heed David French’s caution, else it might cost him the presidency.
Sources
Reformed social media monitoring spirit
Leave a reply