I’ve heard a few commentators mention that if the firing of Comey was motivated by a desire to slow down or stop the tRump-Russian collusion investigation, then it could be obstruction of justice. But this has been an aside.
It’s time to put this phrase on the front burner.
Lawfare had a great explanation of what the phrase means yesterday at www.lawfareblog.com/...
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a felony offense is committed by anyone who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation in being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”
An accompanying code section, 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b), defines “corruptly” as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information” (emphasis added). This is where obstruction of justice intersects with the false statements law. If you knowingly and willfully make a false statement of material fact in a federal government proceeding, you’ve potentially violated § 1001, and when you add an objective to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation, you’ve now possibly violated § 1505 as well. Perjury can intersect with obstruction of justice in the same way.
Under the statute, a “proceeding” can be an investigation. Section 1503 criminalizes the same conduct in judicial proceedings. So obstruction during an investigation might violate § 1505, while if that same investigation leads to a criminal prosecution, obstruction during the prosecution itself would violate § 1503. The individual also has to know that a proceeding is happening in order to violate the statute, and must have the intent to obstruct—that is, act with the purpose of obstructing, even if they don’t succeed.
I have added my own highlighting above to emphasize what I see as the main components:
1. An attempt to influence, obstruct or impede = throwing up roadblocks, abusing power over others.
2. A Congressional or judicial proceeding or investigation = House or Senate committee investigation, grand jury investigation, etc.
3. Relating to administration of law = looking into whether the law was broken.
4. Which attempt is purposeful = not accidental; on purpose.
What evidence of the above do we have?
Exhibit A: Trump’s Barrage of Firings. A good summary appears at www.vox.com/...
The stated reason was she refused to enforce the immigration ban. However, the order was found to be unconstitutional in court and the White House basically admitted it was by re-writing it. Therefore, the stated reason does not carry any water.
The true, main intent was to shut her up since she was vociferously and relentlessly warning the White House about Flynn. Her knowledge of their refusal to do anything (until press reports forced them to do otherwise) rendered her a key witness in pending investigations surrounding Flynn. Firing Yates was the most obvious way to silence a key witness.
- Trump fired Preet Bhahara:
Then in March, Trump’s administration asked for resignations from 46 US attorneys held over from the Obama years. These are the top DOJ law enforcement officials in states or districts, who have a tradition of operating mostly independently. Again, however, there’s precedent for a new president to replace all his predecessor’s appointees. Yet the firing of US Attorney Preet Bharara was strange, because Trump had several months earlier asked Bharara to stay on in his post. [per the Vox article linked above]
Bhahara was at the time overseeing investigations into Trump, Russian money-laundering and tRump's best buds running his mouthpiece news network aka Fox News. Firing Bhahara suddenly, throwing his unit into chaos, was the most obvious way to impede all of these investigations.
Ultimately the answer goes to the motives: Did the President or Attorney General intend for Comey’s firing to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the Russia investigation? Even if they had other reasons or goals—including perfectly lawful ones, such as concerns about the public’s perception of the FBI and the Director—if obstructing or impeding the Russia investigation was a goal, that would constitute obstruction of justice. Therefore, inquiries as to whether Trump’s conduct amount to obstruction will center on his motives. [per the Lawfare article linked above]
Reports over the last couple days are indicating that the White House lied when it said Rod Rosenstein (and Sessions) had initiated the firing of Comey. Instead, Rosenstein prepared his memo at Trump’s request. Trump and Sessions then used the memo as a pretext for the firing.
Sessions wasn’t even allowed to be involved in the determination in any event, and Trump and Sessions clearly knew this. They instructed Rosenstein — and messaged to the public — that the cause of the firing related to his treatment of the Clinton investigation, not the Russian one. If this were true, Sessions would arguably still not be permitted to be involved under the terms of his recusals, but at least it did not have obstruction of justice implications.
This narrative was false, according to numerous reports. Trump and Sessions fired Comey to prevent him from expanding the Russian investigation that he was leading.
tRump revealed his real purpose for firing Comey by referring to Comey having assured him that he is not the subject of the Russian investigation 3 times. Reports are now coming out that Comey provided no such reassurance. tRump purposefully included that statement in an attempt to throw the public off the scent.
Exhibit B: Devin Nunes.
- The White House manufactured the Nunes debacle to impede the House committee investigation. Nunes is now under investigation for his role.
- The White House pressured Nunes to cancel scheduled testimony before the House committee. Nunes complied.
- The House investigation was stalled for weeks after this fiasco.
Exhibit C: Reince Priebus.
Priebus told what is starting to look like a massive lie:
The briefing was intended to absolve Priebus by showing that he did not ask the FBI to intervene, but merely asked McCabe’s advice on how the White House should respond to the reports. [cited from dailycaller.com/...]
In other words, the White House asked McCabe to intervene with Comey, and then covered it up with the lie that all they were looking for was reassurance from McCabe, which they were supposedly given.
I’m looking for reports that McCabe denied this but couldn’t find any yet...my guess is his lips are sealed, but those at the FBI know the truth. This story always felt to good to be true from the tRump perspective, and I always suspected Preibus of highly selective hearing.
Now this is looking like an intentional effort to interfere with the FBI investigation by applying pressure to McCabe.
Exhibit D: Jason Chaffetz.
Chaffetz slow walked the Russian investigation in his committee: per www.theatlantic.com/...
One issue Chaffetz is in no hurry to tackle is Russia’s alleged interference with the 2016 election. Despite noisy calls from some constituents back home to open an investigation, Chaffetz said he didn’t believe it was his job. “It’s not breaking news that Russia has engaged in espionage against our government, our elections, or corporate America,” he told me. He said he would would play “a supporting role” for the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation—and then couldn’t resist adding, “How quickly the democrats forget that it was Mitt Romney that pointed out our biggest geopolitical foe was Russia.”
[In this same article, Chaffetz confirms “definitely maybe” that he wants to run for governor of Utah, by the way]
His interpretation of “breaking news” certainly had an odd ring to it at the time.
But now he has had a sudden change of heart and is calling for a full investigation into Comey’s firing per thehill.com/… among other sources.
Keep your eye out for sources saying that Chaffetz was instructed by the White House to impede his committee’s investigation. Chaffetz is clearly ready to throw the administration under the bus to protect his own political career back home in Utah.
This is all I have time for right now. I wanted to tie Pence into this but it will take a deeper dive. Please feel free to add your own Exhibits E-ZZZZ folks!
BOTTOM LINE: We only need to refresh ourselves on our Nixon history lessons. That history shows that growing evidence of obstruction of justice means growing evidence for IMPEACHMENT.