Ms. Jurecic writes on Trump's effort to fire Mueller, item E in the table above: Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
She also points to a similar analysis by another expert another legal expert, Richard Hoeg, which shows five instances of obstruction of justice.
Since impeachment is a political process and not a legal one, the standards of evidence that apply can be different. The House can decide that there was enough evidence of impeachable obstruction on more than five occasions, each of which constituting a separate impeachable offense. Given the evidence in Mueller's report, if the House decides to start impeachment proceedings on the grounds of obstruction, they would choose whatever evidence in the report they wish. The House could also decide there was an illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but the evidence for that may be less solid.
If these analyses are reasonably reliable, the evidence shows that Trump actually tried to obstruct justice more than once. Only the adults in the room, e.g., his counsel Don McGahn, kept him from stopping Mueller's investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment