Wednesday evening saw the news cycle around the Mueller probe peak with a number of headlines about how the special counsel was now targeting President Donald Trump himself for an interview.
That interview would likely cover Trump’s firing of former FBI director James Comey, his claimed request to Comey to let now-indicted former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn go, and his influence on various officials ranging from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe with regard to the Trump-Russia collusion probe.
According to the Washington Post, Mueller wants to interview President Trump in particular about the firings of Flynn and Comey. Sessions and Comey have both met with the special counsel investigators. One source told the Post that Mueller “has also expressed interest in Trump’s efforts to remove Sessions as attorney general or pressure him into quitting…The person said the special counsel was seeking to determine whether there was a ‘pattern’ of behavior by the president.”
So, here’s the “pattern” of behavior that apparently bothers Mueller.
According to Comey, Trump asked Comey for his “loyalty” during a private dinner at the White House in January. Then, in February, Trump fired Flynn; immediately thereafter, Comey says Trump asked him to let Flynn go. In May, Trump asked McCabe how he voted in the last election cycle. Throughout this period, Trump harassed Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Twitter, presumably for recusing himself from the Russia investigation.
Likely, Mueller is seeking to pin Trump down on possible obstruction charges – the notion that the president was venturing to manipulate his own law enforcement bureaus to cover for Flynn or himself. That’s why he wants to interview Trump: to set a perjury trap for the president or to get Trump to admit to something that would indict him.
Democrats have been insinuating that this is Mueller’s final angle here for months. Back in December, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated on Meet The Press:
I think what we’re beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice. I think we see this in the indictments — the four indictments and pleas that have just taken place — in some of the comments that are being made. I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets, and I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of [former FBI] Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of Justice.
Trump didn’t help his case when he tweeted in December that he fired Flynn because “he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” strongly implying that he knew Flynn was guilty of something when he asked Comey to let him go.
No matter how you look at it, this didn’t help a thing.
Now, is there a legal case for obstruction of justice even if all of this is true? Not really. Here’s what I wrote about it in June 2017:
There are three separate federal laws, as The New York Times points out, that could deal with this situation. None clearly does.
1. 18 USC 1503: This “omnibus” clause covers “corruptly or… by any threatening letter or communication influenc[ing], or imped[ing] or endeavor[ing[ to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” But the clause also requires a pending judicial proceeding – and as far as we are all aware, there is none. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is quite exacting on the application of this law – a prosecutor would need to prove that Trump’s conduct materially impeded the investigation, which even Comey has said didn’t happen.
2. 18 USC 1512(c): This provision of law covers anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” It is not clear that an FBI investigation is an “official proceeding,” and proving intent is difficult in any case. And it’s not enough to show intent to violate the subsection – you have to take a “substantial step toward the accomplishment of that goal.”
3. 18 USC 1519: This provision covers destroying evidence related to a federal investigation. There are no accusations that Trump destroyed evidence. Unless Trump had tapes and destroyed them, the statue simply doesn’t apply.
So what is Special Counsel Mueller doing?
Mueller is laying the foundation for what could become a very dangerous political fight, something never seen before: an impeachment move started by Democrats over supposed non-illegal “obstruction” of an investigation that found no underlying crime other than lying to the FBI.
Trump will be motivated to pardon those who lied to the FBI; The GOP will surely defend Trump. Meanwhile, the mainstream media will have a field day suggesting that Trump is a criminal and that the Republicans are covering for his manipulation of the FBI and Department of Justice.
Don’t you just love what politics has become? All because candidate Clinton lost.
Russian collusion will not be a factor in any of this, so why?
So a probe that began with promises that then-candidate Trump worked with Russian President Vladimir Putin to undermine an American election will seethe down to Mike Flynn lying to the FBI about talking with the Russians about foreign policy during the transition.
George Papadopoulos lying to the FBI about meeting with a rumored Russian source and then being stymied by the upper levels of the Trump campaign, and Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for issues unrelated to the campaign – and then Trump firing Comey and Flynn and saying stuff to Comey and McCabe and Sessions.
This is nothing, and it is ridiculously weak. However, it could make for the most controversy, given that concrete evidence of Russian collusion would unite Americans against Trump.
Free speech is under attack. Share this article on Social Media by clicking the share button, do your part to keep independent journalism going.