I realize that there are multiple views of the entire question of presidential obstruction of justice. I have some questions. We now know there was no underlying crime. Assume it in fact is possible for the president to obstruct justice without bribing someone or acting in some other way not within his constitutional powers. How likely is it that Trump obstructed justice?
Here’s the second question. If there was no underlying crime, is it even possible for the president to obstruct justice without bribing someone or acting in some other way not within his constitutional powers?
Those aren’t rhetorical questions. I really want to know.
Manafort was indicted for money laundering among other crimes. That doesn’t count?
Steve
I don’t think I’m following you, steve. Are you saying that Manafort’s money laundering constitutes a prima facie case for obstruction of justice against Trump? Or that Manafort’s money laundering constitutes a prima facie case for other crimes on Trump’s part?
I think what he’s saying is the obstruction of justice isn’t limited to the collusion allegation and could apply to anything the investigation was pursuing. I think that’s a valid point. Regardless, it’s all speculation at this point.
Andy has it. There were real crimes, not just process crimes. If Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into Manafort, then that would seem to fit your earlier definition.
OTOH, if you think it can only be obstruction of justice if it is definitely related to the initial cause of the investigation, then clearly Clinton should never have been impeached, but he was.
Steve
No, I think that obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. I guess we’ll need to wait until the full report is released before we know if obstruction of justice unrelated to the original subject was uncovered since nothing in AG Barr’s letter referred to that.
My intuition is that those who are pressing the obstruction of justice angle will not be satisfied if Mueller’s entire report is released and it says nothing about obstruction of justice unrelated to Russia collusion.
There definitely is a lot of motivated reasoning going on on both sides.
I’m still hoping for coherent answers to my questions.
“I’m still hoping for coherent answers to my questions.”
Well:
“Assume it in fact is possible for the president to obstruct justice without bribing someone or acting in some other way not within his constitutional powers. How likely is it that Trump obstructed justice.”
I guess I don’t get the thrust. Its all speculation, but one assumes not likely at all. One would assume that a) Mueller would have had some sort of take on it, or b) the rather high powered legal minds who have addressed the usual candidates for obstruction – firing Comey and the witch hunt claims – were wrong in their assessments. I’ve only seen those who were making all sorts of wild claims attempt to make the obstruction case.
But I ask, to what end is the query? How likely is it that Dave Schuler is an ax murderer? How likely is it that an asteroid will hit my house tonight? Its easy to make the assertion. But its not likely.
“If there was no underlying crime, is it even possible for the president to obstruct justice without bribing someone or acting in some other way not within his constitutional power?”
I haven’t seen that one debated by that high powered legal acumen I referenced. Just partisans. Calling all lawyers…….
““I’m still hoping for coherent answers to my questions.—
” We now know there was no underlying crime. ”
We have established that there was real crime.
“How likely is it that Trump obstructed justice?”
Not very high, or at least not provable. Trump has made a lot of his money by suing people and by winning lawsuits. He is legal savvy. If he did anything it will be well covered and hard to prove. The Clintons were also good at this behavior.
“Here’s the second question. If there was no underlying crime, is it even possible for the president to obstruct justice without bribing someone or acting in some other way not within his constitutional powers?”
We have already established that there was real crime. If it could be established that Trump fired someone of helped make sure someone was fired because they were on the path to finding out details of a crime he or members of his team committed, that would qualify, I think.
Steve
I would also add that if Trump communicated with someone being investigated that a pardon was in their future, that could be seen as obstruction of justice.
Steve
How about if Trump says to FBI director as an aside, “Michael Flynn’s a patriot and a pretty good guy, I hope you take it easy on him.”?
Command influence is a serious matter in the military but not in the civilian sector.
I’m skeptical that the POTUS can be guilty of a crime of obstructing justice, at least without some other underlying offense in which he participates. To give a hypothetical, Obama (presumably through his A.G.) directed federal prosecutors not to indict certain drug offenses. This isn’t a great example, because there was enough wiggle-room in the orders (particularly as revised) that it was probably more a strong suggestion not to prosecute. But basically, the executive has the duty to enforce the laws and the discretion not to do so, which are at odds. The POTUS also has the power to dismiss subordinates without cause. I have a problem with the policy, but wouldn’t consider it to be obstruction of justice if Obama had fired prosecutors that didn’t follow his order.
What that means to me is that cannot be criminal for a President to perform actions the Constitution entrusts him with discretion to perform as he sees fit. But if there is something else, for example, Obama received money in exchange for non-prosecution. Still, we probably wouldn’t be calling it obstruction, but bribery.
Thank you, PD. I’m looking forward to more of that sort of commentary from the punditry but, honestly, so far we haven’t had a great deal of it.
One angle I haven’t seen yet is the Democrats claiming that the only possible reason why Mueller couldn’t find any evidence of conspiracy, collusion, or other high crimes and misdemeanors was that Trump & Co kept him from finding it. Therefore, obstruction. That is why Mueller stated his conclusions the way he did, to keep the impeachment door open. You can’t prove a negative.