Obstruction Replaces Collusion As Key Description Regarding Investigation Of Donald Trump

Although Robert Muller’s investigation to date has concentrated on money laundering and obstruction of justice, some in the media such as Rachel Maddow try to make this sound like it is more about collusion which altered the 2016 election result despite lack of evidence of this. It was good to see that this week most of the news media concentrated on talking about obstruction rather than collusion as there is a far stronger case for obstruction of justice.

One example of the conventional wisdom in the political press comes from Politico Magazine which writes, It’s Now Likely Mueller Thinks Trump Obstructed Justice:

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…

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.

For example, last spring, Trump reportedly asked Sessions if the government could drop the criminal case against former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, whom Trump later pardoned. According to the Washington Post, Sessions told Trump that would be inappropriate, and Trump decided to let the case go to trial and pardon Arpaio if he was convicted. Mueller could argue that this suggests that Trump is serious about killing investigations of his friends. A pattern of behavior is always a stronger indicator of intent than a one-off action.

We also learned that, according to the New York Times, in March—two months before Trump fired Comey—he ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself. When McGahn was unsuccessful, Trump reportedly erupted in anger, saying he needed Sessions to “protect him” and “safeguard” him, as he believed other attorneys general had done for other presidents. These are very odd statements by Trump that Mueller could argue indicate that Trump wanted Sessions to impede or even end the Russia investigation to “protect him.”

…As we learned Thursday in the New York Times, there was indeed a need to protect Mueller back in June, when Trump ordered the firing of special counsel due to “conflicts of interest” that were not actually conflicts and appear to be thinly veiled excuses to get rid of Mueller. Trump also considered firing Rosenstein and replacing him with Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the No. 3 Justice Department official, so she could oversee Mueller. According to the Times, Trump has wavered for months about whether he wants to fire Mueller, which is an “omnipresent concern among his legal team and close aides.”

This is an important piece of evidence because it comes after Trump fired Comey and learned that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice. It should be easy for Mueller to prove that Trump read or viewed legal analysis discussing the possibility that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey. Trump’s desire to fire Mueller despite knowing that firing a law enforcement official overseeing the Russia investigation could raise obstruction concerns is strong evidence that Trump’s intent was to obstruct the investigation. The excuses offered by Trump also bolster Mueller’s case, because they indicate that the president realized that firing Mueller to impede the investigation would be perceived as wrongful.

While we don’t know all of the evidence, Thursday’s revelation suggests it is likely Mueller will conclude that Trump obstructed justice. Some conservative legal commentators have argued that Trump’s constitutional authority to fire personnel and end investigations is so vast that he cannot obstruct justice as a legal matter. Most legal scholars find that argument unpersuasive, but it is an academic point—not one that is decisive—because Mueller has pressed forward in investigating the firing of Comey as obstruction of justice and the power of Congress to impeach Trump goes beyond the text of any statute.

Even if Mueller concludes that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that Trump was guilty of obstructing justice, I believe he will ultimately present the matter to Congress for potential impeachment instead. After all, according to the New York Times, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr possessed a legal memo concluding that he had the power to indict former President Bill Clinton but did not do so, ultimately choosing to present the matter to Congress. I think Mueller would likely do the same thing, because it’s the more prudential approach given that it’s an open legal question whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Many other publications have similar reports, such as Jeffrey Toobin writing at The New Yorker that The Answer to Whether Trump Obstructed Justice Now Seems Clear.

It has been clear for months that Mueller has been concentrating on money laundering and obstruction of justice based upon his indictments to date and the types of attorneys he has hired. We do know that Donald Trump’s son and son-in-law attended a meeting with Russians after being enticed with promises of information about Hillary Clinton, with no information actually available. This diminishes any claim from Trump that he was above collusion (assuming he was aware of the meeting), but no evidence of any actual meaningful collusion has yet to be presented, while much of the evidence obtained argues against this. Despite MSNBC repeatedly billing the investigation as one into Russian tampering with the election for over a year, Mueller has only hired a single prosecutor who specializes in cyber crimes, and this was not even done until earlier this month.

It would make a major change in the case if it could be proven that the Russians not only hacked the DNC computer but did so with collaboration from the Trump campaign, but there is zero evidence of this to date. Meanwhile, the information obtained through the Congressional hearings has shown that claims about Russian tampering with the election have been highly exaggerated. Similarly multiple media reports of Russian hacking were subsequently retracted as false. We definitely should be talking about obstruction of justice, and money laundering, if interested in a fact-based discussion of Trump’s crimes and the Russia investigation, rather than using Russia as an excuse for Clinton losing the 2016 election.


  1. 1
    Joseph Auclair says:

    So far as I know, the only thing the Russians did to further the Trump campaign – or perhaps rather to hurt Hillary, whom Putin supposedly hates – that was actually illegal was hack the DNC to obtain their emails.

    If the Trumpists did not know of that before it happened, much less suggest it to or plan it with the Russians, and did not participate in the dissemination of the stolen emails, how are they implicated?

    If it is said that Trump or the campaign "went soft" on Russia regarding sanctions in return for help with the campaign, could they not reply they were planning to do this, anyway, and the Russians, aware that Trump would be far less adversarial toward them than Hillary, offered or at any rate provided aid to the campaign on that account?

    Much as it may be said that donors don't buy politicians but choose – quite understandably – to support those who share their own agendas, just like the rest of us?

    Especially given Trump's erratic and off-and-on espousal of the Pat Buchanan, paleocon positions regarding NATO, America's Cold War alliances, and nuclear proliferation, rather incredibly and hypocritically denounced as alarming and even treasonous betrayals by Rachel and other erstwhile "anti-imperialist" liberals who, to help Hillary, suddenly became cheerleaders for the World's Only Remaining Superpower, the Indispensable Nation.

    Is there anything worse than that out there, apart from crooked financial doings among Trump's underlings?

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is not even certain that the Russians did hack the DNC. Considering how the DNC refused to allow the FBI to inspect their servers, and there are arguments both ways, I fear we will never know for sure if it was a hack or a leak, and if a hack who is really responsible.

    I’ve seen many Clinton supporters claim that Trump knew about it and some claim they were working together, but of course there is no evidence of this. Obviously Trump deserves to be held responsible if he did work with the Russians on this, but again there is no evidence of it.

    Even if the Russians did hack the DNC, it is also worth keeping in mind that what happened is that factual information about the DNC and Clinton were exposed. This hardly removes the blame from Clinton for losing to Trump, or removes the blame from the DNC for rigging the nomination for Clinton.

    Following what is possible about attitudes in Russia, it does appear that they preferred Trump over Clinton due to her history of belligerency towards Russia and her having meddled in Russian elections, but they also appear to have had valid reservations about how erratic and unpredictable Trump is.

    There is not only crooked financial doings by Trump and his underlings. The money laundering and other crooked deals also appear to involve Trump and his family. The crooked deals were followed by hiding of information on required disclosure forms, and by obstruction of justice by Trump to cover this all up. There is a real scandal here–just not what Democrats started out spreading.

  3. 3
    djchefron says:

    The WaPo has a piece reporting (with details about John Kelly’s “collusion” with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is supposed to be recused) what I noted here: Trump wants the Devin Nunes memo to come out, even in spite of the warnings about how releasing it will damage national security.

    It rather absurdly claims that Mueller is “narrowing” his probe.


  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    You do realize, don’t you, that “collusion” is used here in a different way than in the title of the post. Then again, you probably do not. Collusion between Kelly and Sessions goes along with the type of obstruction of justice I (and many others) have been writing about.

    You also have your facts wrong in both understating the importance of obstruction, and in claiming people are talking about “narrowing” the probe to obstruction of justice. As I, and others who are writing about the case seriously (as opposed to spreading partisan goals) have been writing for months, the investigation appears centered around crimes such as money laundering and fraud, along with (not narrowed to) obstruction of justice.

    I guess if someone is not screaming “Russia, Russia, Russia” the details go right over your head.

Leave a comment