Trump 'likely obstructed justice' in Comey firing, could be impeached, Brookings Institution says

[cigaretteman]

President Donald Trump "likely obstructed justice" when he fired FBI Director James Comey and could face impeachment, according to an analysis from the Brookings Institution.

The liberal-leaning think tank released a 108-page report on the issue Tuesday.

In the analysis, Brookings concludes that even though Trump had the authority to fire Comey, he could not do so if the intention was to get in the way of an ongoing investigation.

"Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual's help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions," Brookings analysts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen wrote.

The analysis concludes that if special counsel Robert Mueller comes to the same conclusion, legitimate articles of impeachment could be drawn up.

Mueller is investigating whether the Trump presidential campaign may have colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Brookings paper does not contain an outright recommendation for impeachment but says that will be a viable option should Mueller conclude that Trump obstructed justice.

Public statements have indicated that while Trump never specifically instructed Comey to drop the Russia investigation, he did express "hope" that it would end. Trump fired Comey in early May.

The authors say that while the president has the authority to fire the FBI chief, the reasons behind doing so are important.

"The fact that the president has lawful authority to take a particular course of action does not immunize him if he takes that action with the unlawful intent of obstructing a proceeding for an improper purpose," they wrote. "There is already evidence that his acts may have been done with an improper intent to prevent the investigation from uncovering damaging information about Trump, his campaign, his family, or his top aides."

Should Mueller find that Trump did indeed obstruct justice, he either could refer the issue to Congress, as was done with the Nixon-Watergate scandal, or pursue an indictment against Trump and prosecute, according to the report.

Articles of impeachment against former presidents Richard Nixon, who ultimately resigned to avoid impeachment, and Bill Clinton, who was impeached but not convicted, "show that obstruction, conspiracy, and conviction of a federal crime have previously been considered by Congress to be valid reasons to remove a duly elected president from office."

Correction: An earlier version misstated the day Brookings issued the report. It was released Tuesday. Also, the proper name is the Brookings Institution.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/10/tru...ld-be-impeached-brookings-institute-says.html

 

[Funky Bunch]

 

[LifelongHawk]

Disagree with Brookings. Executive privilege, i.e., serving at the pleasure of the President, is a thing even if the President is an ignorant racist buffoon.

Much different than erasing 17 minutes of subpoenaed tape and suborning perjury.

 

[Huey Grey]

Disagree with Brookings. Executive privilege, i.e., serving at the pleasure of the President, is a thing even if the President is an ignorant racist buffoon.

Much different than erasing 17 minutes of subpoenaed tape and suborning perjury.

The study already addresses this point.

 

[FSULongM]

The report seemed pretty thorough. However, could be impeached is far from will be impeached. His own party will not impeach him for this. Even if they all grow to detest him, they will wait out the next 3 years and try again.

I'm all for Presidential deference. The President really needs to do something heinous to get impeached by his own party. I just don't see that yet. There are still plenty of opportunities, if he is dead set on testing the limits, but I just don't see it. Yet.

 

[hawkbleeder]

The Left won't rest until they impeach Trump somehow. But that doesn't mean he has to leave office. Just tying to manage the wingnut expectations with the Trump-o-phobia.

 

[LifelongHawk]

The study already addresses this point.

Addressing it doesn't make them right. They say

Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual's help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions," Brookings analysts Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman Eisen wrote.

What they call common forms of obstruction (and I'm not even sure I agree with that, common forms are suborning perjury, destroying evidence and lying, would like to see a cite to a conviction for demanding loyalty or requesting help or firing an employee) are not committed by individuals cloaked with executive privilege.

 

[Hawk8595]

The Left won't rest until they impeach Trump somehow. But that doesn't mean he has to leave office. Just tying to manage the wingnut expectations with the Trump-o-phobia.

It will be the sane in the GOP that make it possible.

 

[dekhawk]

He gone

 

[Joes Place]

Mueller certainly has much more info as to what went on behind the scenes regarding Comey's firing and links to the Russia investigation at the time.

If, indeed, he "has the goods" to recommend impeachment JUST on that basis, then this thing would already be over.

The reason things are ongoing, is he's probably/apparently got MUCH MORE than that; perhaps implicating many well beyond Trump within the GOP and maybe even other representatives across the board who have ties to money laundering and Russia.

One thing is very likely: the people working on this aren't "going after" one party or the other - they are career investigators who's careers have been built upon Rule of Law. IF we have "elites" who engage in money laundering and other things "living outside the law", this is the best opp to expose that and start issuing indictments on all of them, regardless of party affiliation.

That is why we should ensure these investigations get handled without any meddling from ANY elected officials.

 

[cigaretteman]

In what amounts to an amicus brief for use by special counsel Robert S. Muller III and his team, Norman Eisen, Barry Berke and Noah Bookbinder have released a 108-page article on the topic of President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice. While noting that criminal misconduct is not the only basis for impeachment, they argue that the special counsel’s finding of such conduct certainly should inform Congress’s decision.

They write:

There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI Director James Comey. There is also a question as to whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice with senior members of his administration although the public facts regarding conspiracy are less well developed.

Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the extent conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges.

Noteworthy is their conclusion that Trump’s actions before and after he fired Comey as well as the firing itself may cumulatively amount to obstruction. (“We also note that potentially misleading conduct and possible cover-up attempts could serve as further evidence of obstruction,” they write. “Here, such actions may include fabricating an initial justification for firing Comey, directing Donald Trump Jr.’s inaccurate statements about the purpose of his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the president’s campaign, tweeting [about nonexistent tapes of] Comey … and repeatedly denouncing the validity of the investigations.”)

Federal Insider newsletter


With the term whirling around Washington, a former federal prosecutor explains what to know about the criminal charge of obstruction of justice. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Several points in their analysis stand out.

First, even when considered in isolation, Trump’s firing of Comey could have been illegal if it was done with a corrupt intent. (“Even if some of President Trump’s conduct would have been legal but for his corrupt intent, that does not insulate his actions from the obstruction statutes’ reach. Arguments that President Trump did not obstruct justice because he had the authority to fire an FBI director or stop an investigation, either by direct order or by pardoning its target, are not persuasive under the law. Otherwise legal conduct is just that — otherwise legal. Just as an employer can lawfully fire an employee but not based on her sex, race, or religion, the President’s right to fire an FBI director does not mean he can do so if it is done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.”)

Second, the requisite intent for obstruction amounts to carrying out the alleged conduct with “improper intent.” Here, the finding of “improper intent” surely does not fall outside the realm of possibility. (“Although fact-finding is ongoing, it appears that President Trump acted with an improper purpose because his actions were undertaken to influence the Russia or Flynn investigations to benefit or protect himself, his family, or his top aides.”) In some cases — for example, drafting an inaccurate explanation of his son’s Trump Tower meeting — the president was plainly trying to cover for his son. In other cases, corrupt intent can be inferred from Trump’s “multiple, shifting rationales for Comey’s firing. … Shifting explanations are classic indicia of guilty intent.”

Third, the multiplicity of actions upon which an obstruction charge may rest is truly staggering:

Creating a cover story for the Comey firing – the created-in-one-day [Rod J.] Rosenstein memo, which did not contain a formal recommendation that Comey be terminated and which was written after President Trump had already written another termination letter to Comey (that was never sent);

Repeatedly clearing the room before making his requests related to the Russia and Flynn investigations, which is suggestive of knowledge of an improper purpose;

Making repeated demands for loyalty from Comey; Telling Comey that he “hopes” Comey can “let go” of the Flynn investigation because Flynn is a “good guy”;

Asking [Director of National Intelligence Daniel] Coats on March 22 to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to back off the investigation into Flynn;

Making phone calls in March to DNI Coats and NSA Director [Mike] Rogers asking them to deny the existence of evidence of collusion during the election;

Telling [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov and [Russian ambassador Sergey] Kislyak: “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off”;

Telling New York Times reporters that if Mueller were to look at his finances and his family’s finances, it would be ‘a violation’ and would cross a red line;

Making statements decrying Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, including that he would not have appointed Sessions had he known that he was going to do so; [and]

Helping prepare Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statement describing why he and other members of the Trump campaign met with a lawyer linked to the Kremlin in June of 2016.

The authors don’t even mention Trump’s constant lying about his financial connections to Russia; his false suggestion that President Barack Obama wiretapped his office; his repeated labeling of the Russia investigation as a hoax; his refusal to acknowledge Russia’s interference in the election (a fact that each intelligence service and virtually all members of Congress agree is incontrovertible); and his refusal to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin. The purpose of these actions was to try to protect himself from investigators’ prying eyes or to avoid being “outed” by the Russians.

In sum, it is hardly a stretch to conclude that evidence will be found to support an obstruction charge. Frankly, there’s an argument that we already have a great deal of it. The insistence that Trump is in no legal peril and may be cleared by the special counsel (different from concluding that he cannot be constitutionally prosecuted) increasingly appears to be a matter of self-delusion and bad lawyering on Trump’s behalf. The obstruction “brief” should scare the daylights out of those Trump supporters, family members and aides who are smart enough to appreciate the voluminous evidence that may be marshaled against the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-card-f:homepage/story&utm_term=.f178cd194c3a