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

turbinetree

(24,695 posts)
Mon May 6, 2019, 06:19 PM May 2019

Two sentences perfectly explain why Trump deserves an obstruction charge

Turns out William Barr has not been especially candid with the American people.
Ian Millhiser
May 6, 2019, 3:18 pm

On Monday, a long list of former federal prosecutors released a letter arguing that “the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

The number of signatories to this letter appear to be growing by the hour. As of this writing, it includes 414 former officials.

The letter lays out multiple reasons why, in its signatories’ opinion, Trump’s behavior justifies indicting anyone other than a sitting president of the United States. One of its most damning claims comes close to the beginning of the letter.

"Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination."

These two sentences are significant because they speak to Trump’s state of mind when he allegedly sought to fire Mueller. The primary federal law governing obstruction of justice is drafted broadly: As one federal appeals court explains, it “reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed.” Yet there is an important limit on this statute. It would only apply to Trump’s actions if the government can show he acted “corruptly” when he tried to undercut Mueller.

https://thinkprogress.org/400-federal-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-d84e92e1bb2e/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Two sentences perfectly explain why Trump deserves an obstruction charge (Original Post) turbinetree May 2019 OP
K&R Nevilledog May 2019 #1
Planting a fake memo Kid Berwyn May 2019 #2
Bill Barr: ".. Trump said 'remove' Mueller and that's 100% different from 'fire' Mueller" (sic) uponit7771 May 2019 #3
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Two sentences perfectly e...