| | | 14... the number of tweets it took this former R congressman to prove obstruction:
Allow me this Mueller Report exercise:
David Jolly
an hour ago, 14 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Between the GOP framing of 'exoneration' and the House suggesting the need for more investigation, it's worthwhile to demonstrate how a sufficient case can already be made for indictment & impeachment in the mere length of a Twitter thread.
First, as a predicate, Mueller asserts that "given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice", he is bound by the OLC opinion that indictment of a sitting President would be in "violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.'" (V2 P1)
Mueller further concedes, generously to the President, that it would be unfair to even offer a "prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed" but then not charge Trump, because Trump would have no opportunity to "clear his name" "before an impartial adjudicator." (V2 P2)
To which end, Mueller famously wrote, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (V2 P2)
With that said, Mueller then dissects multiple incidents of obstructive behavior by the President, examining whether each meets the three generally accepted elements of criminal obstruction:
1. an obstructive act;
2. nexus to an official proceeding;
3. corrupt intent. (V2 P9)
On the President's behavior as it relates to his pressuring of White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove or have fired the Special Counsel, Mueller finds "substantial evidence" exists to satisfy each element of the crime of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump (V2 P88-89):
On 6/17/2017, Trump called McGahn and "directed him to call the Acting AG and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed." McGahn refused. (V2 P4, P85)
When Trump called McGahn a second time, "the President was more direct", telling McGahn "'Mueller has to go. Call me back when you do it.'" (V2 P86)
McGahn sought counsel from his personal attorney, refused again the President's order, and instead decided to resign. (V2 P86-87).
As to the 1st element of the crime (an obstructive act), Mueller found "substantial evidence ... supports the conclusion that the President ... in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed." (V2 P88)
To the 2nd element of the crime (nexus to an official proceeding), Mueller found "substantial evidence indicates that by 6/17/17, knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury." (V2 P89)
And to the 3rd element of the crime (corrupt intent), Mueller found "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." (V2 P89)
And moreover to the third, Mueller found "evidence that the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn" (V2 P90), that Trump told AG Sessions, "you were supposed to protect me" (V2 P89), and that Trump conceded "this is the end of my presidency." (V2 P89)
In a further and related count of obstructive behavior, Mueller found Trump directed multiple staff members to tell McGahn to lie and "write a letter 'for our records'" denying Trump's directives to him re firing the Special Counsel. McGahn refused to write the letter. (V2 P119)
While this thread is lengthy, the point of the exercise is to show that in a mere 14 tweets the case can already be made for the impeachment of President Trump.
The opportunity for decisive action is sitting right in front of the Congress, right now.
Respectfully submitted. |
|
