Tag Archives: obstruction of justice

legal news

No collusion? OK, but let’s look a bit closer at obstruction

I get that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign did not collude — in the eyes of the special counsel — with Russians who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

The president is right to proclaim “complete exoneration” — on that point! I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.

Is it too much to ask, nonetheless, for a more thorough look at the issue of whether Trump or his team obstructed justice? I think it’s a fair request.

Congressional Democrats are clamoring for more information on the obstruction matter. Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s findings takes note that Mueller did not “exonerate” the president on the obstruction of justice issue, even though Trump said he did. Well, Trump is known to, um, bend the truth a bit . . . you know?

Mueller reportedly found evidence on both sides of the fence. He learned there was evidence that the president did obstruct justice, but that it didn’t rise to the level of criminality. OK, let’s see what he found.

The attorney general hasn’t yet made that call. It is believed he’ll take his time deciding whether to release that portion of Mueller’s findings to Congress and to the public.

I am one of millions of Americans who wants to know what Mueller learned and on what basis he determined that he could not prosecute Donald Trump for obstructing the search for the truth regarding the Russian attack on our electoral system.

national news

Support Mueller’s work, however . . . let’s see more of it

I feel the need to reiterate with emphasis: I accept special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings regarding the president of the United States, that he didn’t “collude” with Russians who hacked our electoral system in 2016.

I trust Mueller as a man of high integrity.

However, all the work and the public expense that went into Mueller’s findings compel the attorney general to release the bulk of that effort to the public.

AG William Barr’s four-page summary of what Mueller has concluded reportedly has created an ebullient mood in the White House. At one level, I, too, am glad to know that Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes related to collusion with Russian government goons.

Mueller, though, has concluded that the president is not “exonerated” from questions about obstruction of justice. So, let’s see the whole thing, shall we?

I have no intention of impugning Mueller’s integrity. I have sought to defend this good man, former FBI director, a combat veteran of the Vietnam War against attacks by those on the right — starting with the president of the United States. I do not believe there is anything in the details of what he uncovered that will change my view of Mueller and the effort he put forth in making his determination.

Americans just have the right to see his findings in as much detail as possible for themselves.

national news

We need to see more of what Mueller found

A four-page summary authored by the U.S. attorney general isn’t enough.

Americans need to see — to the furthest extent possible — more of what special counsel Robert Mueller III found that led him to clear Donald Trump of colluding with Russians or of obstructing justice.

Don’t misconstrue my point. I accept Mueller’s findings. He worked tirelessly along with his team of prosecutors to get to the truth behind the allegations that Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government operatives. He has determined that there is insufficient evidence to accuse the president or his campaign of collusion. Nor does he have enough evidence to accuse him of obstructing justice.

AG William Barr, though, did say that the lack of a formal criminal complaint on obstruction of justice does not “exonerate” the president.

So, let’s look at the supporting documents that Mueller used to make his determination. Congressional Democrats want the public to see them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls it an “urgent” matter.

There appears to be some “evidence” of obstruction, just not enough to file formal charges, Mueller concluded. I get that.

I also want to see the rest of it. Or at least as much of the rest of it that won’t tar individuals who aren’t charged with wrongdoing. We don’t need to see national security-sensitive information, either.

Many Americans have been waiting for a couple of years to know what the special counsel has concluded. We have heard the executive summary as delivered by the attorney general.

There’s more to learn.

national news

‘No collusion, no obstruction’

I said I would accept whatever conclusion that special counsel Robert Mueller III reached regarding whether Donald Trump “colluded” with Russians who attacked our election in2016.

He has delivered his verdict: There is no evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice.

I accept his findings. I do so not because I am happy about what the special counsel has determined. I accept it because I believe implicitly in Mueller’s thoroughness, his integrity, his professionalism.

Do I believe this is the end of the line for those who still question the president’s motivation? Does this mean there’s nothing to questions about whether Trump is profiting from dealings with foreign leaders and governments? Uh, no on both counts.

But . . . Mueller’s findings, which he delivered to Attorney General William Barr this past Friday, have cleared the president of criminal behavior as it regards collusion or obstruction of justice.

On that score, I welcome the news that the president of the United States did not work in tandem with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

However, my acceptance of Mueller’s findings notwithstanding, I want to challenge the assertion that Trump made that the authorities need to look at “the other side.” He means Democrats and their 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. President, they have looked carefully at Clinton, at Democrats and others on their side of the aisle. The FBI drew the same type of conclusion that Mueller has just delivered: no criminality.

There’s more investigating to be done, by Congress and by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

Mueller’s work is done. Good. He’s earned some time off.

I’ll just add that although he says there was “no collusion” or “no obstruction,” Mueller has not — contrary to what the president has said via Twitter — provided “total exoneration.”

More to come.

national news

Wait for Congress to get Mueller’s findings; then we’ll know

This is just a hunch. I want to share it anyway.

My hunch is that when U.S. Attorney General William Barr releases Robert Mueller’s findings to members of Congress, the lid is going to fly off the report and we’re going to know all there is to know — immediately!

Mueller turned his report over to Barr. It was locked up tighter than a hermetically sealed drum. No one knows its contents.

Barr is going to look it over. He said in a letter to Congress that he might let lawmakers know as soon as this weekend.

That would be great!

I am tired of waiting on these results. I happen to believe that House members and senators who represent us out here in Flyover Country want to do what we demand of them. Put another way, they know they’d better do what we demand . . . or else!

So, if Barr delivers the findings to Congress by the weekend, I expect we all will know what Mueller has concluded about collusion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, you name it.

Don’t wait too long, Mr. Attorney General.

national news

Preparing for the worst, hoping for something . . . better

I know you’ve said it: It’s good to expect the best but prepare for the worst.

So it is with this ongoing investigation being led by the Justice Department’s special counsel, Robert Mueller III. He appears to be wrapping up his lengthy probe into Donald Trump’s conduct as a presidential candidate and as president of the United States.

Mueller’s probe has focused on allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives who attacked our electoral system. It’s also examining possible conspiracy and obstruction of justice matters, too. There might be a violation or two of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting gifts from foreign kings, potentates and assorted heads of state.

The media are now reporting that the FBI has looked into whether the president acted as a foreign agent for Russia, our nation’s pre-eminent hostile power. This is frightening stuff.

I won’t call it the “best” outcome, but a better outcome would be if Mueller has uncovered the truth into what many of us have suspected all along, that Trump is inherently corrupt. I suspect Mueller will produce a thorough finding of fact and will deliver it to Congress’s doorstep for full public review, absent the redacted material that deals with national security matters.

The worst outcome will be that he has nothing, that Trump has been right all along, that there is “no collusion.” Why is that the worst? Because none of us is going to hear the end of it from the president. He will be in our faces for as long as he holds office and likely beyond that time. He will launch a torrent of Twitter messages that expound on the “witch hunt” allegation he has been leveling at Mueller.

To be candid, it appears that the likelihood that Mueller comes up empty is diminishing. It looks for all the world that he has something, although what precisely it is remains known only to Mueller and his team of legal eagles.

However, if he does reveal that he has nothing, well . . . we all should be ready. Those of us who are critical of the president have praised Mueller’s professionalism in his pursuit of the truth. If that pursuit produces nothing, then we are dutybound to accept those findings.

I don’t believe that will happen. But if it does . . .

national news

Or … what if Mueller comes up empty?

1 Comment

My previous blog post wondered what Donald J. Trump’s reaction would be if Robert Mueller delivers the goods on collusion, obstruction of justice and anything else he might find wrong with the president and his 2016 campaign.

My conclusion: Trump will go bonkers, nuts, ’round the bend.

In fairness, what might the president do and/or say if the special counsel comes up empty?

My thoughts? I believe Trump is fully capable of climbing onto the White House roof, bullhorn in hand and bellowing “I told you so!” until his voice no longer functions.

OK, I’m kidding.

Sort of …

Trump is incapable, in my humble view, of accepting victory like a gentleman. He doesn’t have the gene that allows him to congratulate Mueller for a job well done, and thank him sincerely for the service he has performed for the country.

No sir. He won’t do that.

If Mueller ends up with nothing, Trump will find a way to make something out of it. Why, he might never shut his mouth for as long as serves in the highest office in the land.

As we’ve learned already, 18 or so months into his presidency, Donald Trump cannot stop boasting about the Electoral College victory he scored over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Imagine, now, how the president well might react if Mueller and his team come up empty on The Russia Thing.

legal news, national news, political news

Yes, presidents can be investigated and indicted

Having offered admittedly muted praise for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I now want to challenge an assertion he has made about whether presidents can be indicted.

He has changed his mind on that one. Kavanaugh once worked for Kenneth Starr while Starr was investigating President Clinton, who eventually got impeached for lying to a grand jury and for — that’s right — obstruction of justice.

Kavanaugh was up to his armpits in assisting the counsel’s task of finding criminality in a president’s behavior.

Then he switched gears. Kavanaugh has since written that presidents have too much to do, too much on their plate to be distracted by potentially criminal investigations. Let me think. Is he providing cover for, oh, the guy who nominated him to the Supreme Court?

Here’s my point.

Of course presidents can be investigated. They aren’t above the law. They must be held to the same standard as their constituents, which is the entire country.

President Clinton was able to perform his presidential duties while he was under investigation and, indeed, while he was being impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate.

The same is true for President Nixon, who was under investigation for myriad offenses relating to Watergate. The House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment and then the president resigned. Was he able to do his job while all of this was occurring? Of course he was!

My strong hunch is that the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination will ask him directly and pointedly about what he thought while working for Kenneth Starr and what he thinks these days now that Donald Trump wants him to serve on the highest court in the land.

I hope someone on the panel asks him: What made you change your mind, Judge?

legal news

Yes, POTUS can ‘obstruct justice’

I am not a lawyer, but you know that already.

However, I know enough about history to understand this basic truth: Presidents of the United States can “obstruct justice.” Indeed, two of them — Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon — were accused of obstructing justice. One of them got impeached partly on that accusation; the other came within a whisker of being impeached before he resigned the presidency.

Thus, I am baffled in the extreme by lawyers serving the current president who says he cannot obstruct justice because, well, he’s the president. They are saying in effect that Donald J. Trump is above the law.

I beg to differ. I offer a strenuous objection to the notion that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, cannot determine that Trump obstructed justice in the hunt for the truth behind “the Russia thing.”

I don’t quite understand the logic being offered by Trump’s legal team that suggests Mueller cannot accuse the president of obstructing justice. Trump himself has acknowledged on network television that he fired FBI Director James Comey because of “the Russia thing”; then he told Russian visitors to the Oval Office that his dismissal of Comey had relieved him of pressure from the Russia probe and whether the Russian government meddled in our 2016 presidential election.

To my way of thinking, that constitutes at the very least circumstantial evidence of obstruction, but I know that Mueller’s team doesn’t operate on circumstance; it needs hard evidence. Whether it comes up with anything actionable remains to be seen.

As the nation watches this investigation lurch toward some conclusion, many of us are conflicted about the argument being offered that the president can do anything he wants — because he is the president.

Richard Nixon famously told David Frost that very thing, that the president cannot break the law simply by virtue of his office. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee eventually saw it quite differently when it approved articles of impeachment against the president.

I am pretty sure the law hasn’t changed since the 1970s. The current president took the same oath to follow the law that all of his predecessors took. The law in my view allows for presidents to be accused of obstructing justice.

national news

What became of America’s Mayor?

Rudolph Giuliani used to be a revered public figure. He stood tall amid the rubble of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan and rallied a stricken city in the wake of the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Center.

Time magazine named him Person of the Year in 2001. It was richly deserved. Giuliani became America’s Mayor.

Then something happened to him. He decided to get involved in national politics. He dressed in drag to spoof something or someone. He ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008.

Rudy Giuliani has gotten a bit strange. If you saw his shtick at the 2016 Republican National Convention, then you understand my point. If you haven’t seen it, take a look:

His latest gig is as Donald J. Trump’s lawyer, representing the president as he does battle against what he calls the “witch hunt” being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Giuliani has managed to step all over Trump’s denial about hush money being paid to a porn star; he argues now that the president cannot be subpoenaed or indicted by the special counsel, even if Mueller produces evidence that Trump broke the law.

Giuliani has become a shill. He has behaved in a seriously unattractive manner as he defends the president against Mueller’s investigation in whether Trump obstructed justice or “colluded” with Russians who interfered in our 2016 presidential election.

Honestly, I much prefer the former Rudy Giuliani, the man who faced down terrorists while standing in the rubble.

The “new Rudy” is acting like a clown.