My report on the Mueller Report
Direct text from the Muller report are in quotes except for [occasional] inserts by me.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
No decision is in fact a decision
“[I]f we had confidence after a through review investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” [in this report] Section 2, Page 8
What are the legal characteristics that indicate obstruction of justice has occurred?
Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes:
- Obstructive act: Corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed
- A connection to an official proceeding
- A corrupt intent means acting knowingly and dishonestly to obstruct justice
Section II pages 9 through 11
Lying in order to deflect the course of an investigation by law enforcement agents is obstruction. Asking or directing others to lie or make misleading statements to law enforcement agents is obstruction. Withholding materials in any format from law enforcement agents is obstruction.
Instances of obstruction
Origins and investigations
It started before the election. Press reports of statements from members of the Trump family were that that Russian financial sources were the source of loans that enabled Trump companies to continue business in the 2000s. This was after Wall Street banks refused to loan Trump Inc. money after several bankruptcies, including a casino in Atlantic City.
“On June 16, 2015, Donald J. Trump declared his intent to seek nomination as the
Republican candidate for President. By early 2016, he distinguished himself among Republican
candidates by speaking of closer ties with Russia, saying he would get along well with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, “questioning whether the NATO alliance was obsolete,’ and praising
Putin as a “strong leader.” The press reported that Russian political analysts and commentators
perceived Trump as favorable to Russia.
Beginning in February 2016 and continuing through the summer, the media reported that
several Trump campaign advisers appeared to have ties to Russia. For example, the press reported
that campaign adviser Michael Flynn was seated next to Vladimir Putin at an RT gala in Moscow
in December 2015 and that Flynn had appeared regularly on RT as an analyst. The press also
reported that foreign policy adviser Carter Page had ties to a Russian state-run gas company, and
that campaign chairman Paul Manafort had done work for the “Russian-backed former Ukrainian
president Viktor Yanukovych.” In addition, the press raised questions during the Republican National Convention about the Trump Campaign’s involvement in changing the Republican platform’s stance on giving “weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces.”
It is clear that to keep the money flowing and the “debt collectors” at bay, House Trump was ready to do what ever Russia, AKA V. Putin, wanted.
This is the definition of a compromised individual and in this case a mob of shady characters and was THE REASON that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies launched investigations into what was going on and who the bad actors were (are).
What were the lies and cover-up about?
Candidate Trump signed a Letter of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian government press secretary Dmitry Peskov.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud … who had connections to Russia … Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. [T]he first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton.
On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
[O]n June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents. [The cybersecurity firm had produced those document for Republican candidates as op=ed research and sought to sell the information to the DNC once Trump became the RNC’s candidate.]
In July 2016, Campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page traveled in his personal capacity to Moscow and gave the keynote address at the New Economic School. … After returning to the United States, Page became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of whom was later charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia.
On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that US. intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. [Thus we have a “smoking gun”]
[O]n August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with … Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine… They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.
October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement “that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” Those “thefts” and the “disclosures” of the hacked materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued, “are intended to interfere with the US election process.”
Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive officer of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, …. In early December, a business associate steered Dmitriev to Erik Prince, …. [who] later met face—to—face in January 2017 in the Seychelles and discussed U.S.—Russia relations. During the same period, another business associate introduced Dmitriev to a friend of Jared Kushner who had not served on the Campaign or the Transition Team. Dmitrlev and Kushner’s friend collaborated on a short written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration, and Kushner later gave copies to Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
On December 29, 2016, …President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia ….. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President—Elect Trump tweeted, “Great move on delay (by V. Putin).” The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result of Flynn’s request. [It is critical to note that Flynn was not, at that time, an employee of the U.S. government. It is illegal, under U.S. Federal law for individual, non-governmental persons to negotiate with foreign governments on such matters.]
On March 20, 2017, in open-session testimony before HPSCI, Comey stated:
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. . . . As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
The investigation continued under then-Director Comey for the next seven weeks until May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired Comey as FBI Director
And so the cover up, obstruction and lies begin
Trump understands that the best place to hide something us in plain sight. He used and uses this technique of calling for or declaring something that is blatantly illegal in public and claim that he was just joking and not seriously calling for the action ot occur. Using subordinates or sycophants to effect some action so that he can claim innocence does not in fact grant immunity.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? …. is an utterance attributed to Henry II of England, which led to the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While it was not expressed as an order, it caused four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket.
The phrase is now used to express the idea that a ruler's wish can be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates. “ Wikipedia.
In a press conference the next day, July 27, 2016, Trump characterized “this whole thing with Russia” as “a total deflection” and stated that it was “Farfetched” and “ridiculous.” Trump said that the assertion that Russia had hacked the emails was unproven, but stated that it would give him “no pause” if Russia had Clinton’s emails. Trump added, “Russia, if you’re listening, l hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”(36) [bold font – me] Trump also said that “there’s nothing that I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now,” and in response to a question about whether he would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and consider lifting sanctions, Trump replied, “We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.”
During the press conference, Trump repeated “I have nothing to do with Russia” five times.
(36)Donald Trump News Conference, Dara], Florida, C-SPAN (July 27, 2016). Within five hours of Trump’s remark, a Russian intelligence service began targeting email accounts associated with Hillary Clinton for possible hacks. See Volume 1, Section III, supra. In written answers submitted in this investigation, the President stated that he made the “Russia, if you’re listening” statement “in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer.” Written Responses of Donald J. Trump (Nov. 20, 2018), at 13 (Response to Question II, Part (d)).
The Trump Organization, however, had been pursuing a building project in Moscow, the Trump Tower Moscow project— from approximately September 2015 through June 2016, and the candidate was regularly updated on developments, including possible trips by Michael Cohen to Moscow to promote the deal and by Trump himself to finalize it.
On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released the first set of emails stolen by a Russian intelligence agency from Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta. The same day, the federal government announced that “the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” The government statement directly linked Russian backing to the releases on WikiLeaks, with the goal of interfering with the presidential election, and concluded “that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities” based on their “scope and sensitivity.”
Muller report Section II, P 18-21
The Trump Gang follows Trump’s lead to try to deflect or hinder the investigation.
“On October 11, 2016, Podesta stated publicly that the FBI was investigating Russia’s hacking and said that candidate Trump might have known in advance that the hacked emails were going to be released. Vice Presidential Candidate Mike Pence [underline - me] was asked whether the Trump Campaign was “in cahoots” with WikiLeaks in releasing damaging Clinton-related information and responded, “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected President. Two days later, Russian officials told the press that the Russian government had maintained contacts with Trump’s “immediate entourage” during the campaign. In response, Hope Hicks, [underline - me] who had been the Trump Campaign spokesperson, said, “We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr. Trump spoke with many world leaders.” Hicks gave an additional statement denying any contacts between the Campaign and Russia: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”
[on Dec 11th, 2016]… President-Elect Trump stated, “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse.” He continued that no one really knew who was responsible for the hacking, suggesting that the intelligence community had “no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place.” The President-Elect also said that Democrats were “putting fl out” the story of Russian interference “because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics. ”On December 18, 2016, Podesta’ told the press that the election was “distorted by the Russian intervention” and questioned whether Trump Campaign officials had been “in touch with the Russians.”61 The same day, incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus [underline - me] appeared on Fox News Sunday and declined to say whether the President-Elect accepted the intelligence community’s determination that Russia intervened in the election. When asked about any contact or coordination between the Campaign and Russia, Priebus said, “Even this question is insane. Of course we didn’t interface with the Russians
Running tally of liars and their lies to the FBI” Mike Pence, Hope Hicks, Rice Priebus
A Russian Mole in the as the National Security Adviser: The 3-letter agencies’ worst nightmare come true
For more than a decade, U.S. Navy submarines had the advantage of silence, until a mole in the Navy sold the secretes to the Russians. New Russian subs are now very quiet and harder to find.
The FBI and probably in conjunction with the CIA had been paying attention to General Michael Flynn. He had brought this scrutiny because of his direct involvement with members of the Russian oligarchy in various deals.
“Flynn's military career included a key role in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy and dismantling insurgent networks in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was given numerous combat arms, conventional, and special operations senior intelligence assignments. He served as the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 until his forced retirement from the military in August 2014. After leaving the military, he established Flynn Intel Group, which provided intelligence services for businesses and governments, including ones in Turkey.” Wikipedia
When this individual, with his background and specialized knowledge begin to play footsie with ex KGB officers, red flags shot to the top of several flag poles and yardarms.
“Shortly after the election, President-Elect Trump announced he would appoint Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor. For the next two months, Flynn played an active role on the Presidential Transition Team (PTT) coordinating policy positions and communicating with foreign government officials, including Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak.
During the presidential transition, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had two phone calls with the Russian Ambassador to the United States about the Russian response to US. sanctions imposed because of Russia’s election interference.
After the press reported on Flynn’s contacts with the Russian Ambassador, Flynn lied to incoming Administration officials by saying he had not discussed sanctions on the calls. The officials publicly repeated those lies in press interviews.
“The FBI, which previously was investigating Flynn for other matters, interviewed him about the calls in the first week after the inauguration, and Flynn told similar lies to the FBI. On January 26, 2017, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials notified the White House that Flynn and the Russian Ambassador had discussed sanctions and that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI. The next night, the President had a private dinner with FBI Director James Comey in which he asked for Comey’s loyalty. On February 13, 2017, the President asked Flynn to resign. The following day, the President had a one-on-one conversation with Comey in which he said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Section II P24 – 26.
Just to keep our eyes on the ball: “Obstructive act: Corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed
Count #1 Trump asks Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go”
The Sessions problem
By his actions, Jeff Sessions demonstrated that he didn’t want former Attorney General Mitchell, who was found guilty of multiple crimes associated with the Watergate break in and cover up.
“In early March 2017, the President learned that Sessions was considering recusing from the Russia investigation and tried to prevent the recusal. After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed» anger at Sessions for the decision and then privately asked Sessions to “unrecuse.” On March 20, 2017, Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the FBI’S Russia investigation. In the days that followed, the President contacted Comey and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort in order to “lift the cloud” of the ongoing investigation.”
On March 2nd, 2017 Trump “called McGahn [his personal lawyer] and urged him to contact Sessions to tell him not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. … McGahn reached out to Sessions and reported that the President was not happy about the possibility of recusal. Sessions replied that he intended to follow the rules on recusal. That afternoon, Sessions announced his decision to recuse “from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Sessions believed the decision to recuse was not a close call, given the applicable language in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On March 3rd, “Sessions and McGahn flew to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the President?01 Sessions recalled that the President pulled him aside to speak to him alone and suggested that Sessions should “unrecuse” from the Russia investigation.”
“In analyzing the President’s reaction to Sessions’s recusal and the requests he made to Coats, Pompeo, Rogers, and Comey, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
Obstructive act:
The evidence shows that, after Comey’s March 20, 2017 testimony, the President repeatedly reached out to intelligence agency leaders to discuss the FBI’s investigation. …. The President asked Rogers if he could do anything to refute the stories linking the President to Russia, and the President asked Comey to make a public statement that would “lift the cloud” of the ongoing investigation by making clear that the President was not personally under investigation.”
Timing of the act: (nexius)
“The outreaches, however, came after and were in response to Comey’s March 20, 2017 announcement that the FBI, as a part of its counterintelligence mission, was conducting an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Comey testified that the investigation included any links or coordination with Trump campaign officials and would “include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed."
…
[T] he President’s intent in trying to prevent Sessions’s recusal, and in reaching out to Coats, Pompeo, Rogers, and Corney following Comey’s public announcement of the FBl’s Russia investigation, is nevertheless relevant to understanding what motivated the President’s other actions towards the investigation.”
“Evidence indicates that the President was angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Comey’s representations. The President complained to advisors that if people thought Russia helped him with the election, it would detract from what he had accomplished.”
Section II Pages 60-61
Count #2 attempted interference with the FBI’s investigation.
Comey is fired.
Trump’s actions indicate that he believed that if he effected a coup d’état of the FBI, and the one after that, and so on, eventually the FBI will give up and do his bidding. It’s that deep state thing where employees of the FBI think their job is to investigate lawbreakers rather than act as the TSI – Trump’s Special Investigators. SAD.
“Comey was scheduled to testify before Congress on May 3, 2017. Leading up to that testimony, the President continued to tell advisors that he wanted Comey to make public that the President was not under investigation. At the hearing, Comey declined to answer questions about the scope or subjects of the Russia investigation and did not state publicly that the President was not under investigation. Two days later, on May 5, 2017, the President told close aides he was going to fire Comey, and on May 9, he did so. …. [T]he President acknowledged that he intended to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ recommendation and was thinking of the Russia investigation when he made the decision. The President also told the Russian Foreign Minister, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off [the table] …. I’m not under investigation.””
In Trumps realty, if he eliminates the head of a company, he decapitates the company.
On May 3rd, 2017 “following Comey’s testimony, the President met with McGahn, Sessions, and Sessions’s Chief of Staff Jody Hunt. At that meeting, the President asked McGahn how Comey had done in his testimony and McGahn relayed that Comey had declined to answer questions about whether the President was under investigation. The President became very upset and directed his anger at Sessions. According to notes written by Hunt, the President said, “This is terrible Jeff. It’s all because you recused. AG is supposed to be most important appointment. Kennedy appointed his brother. Obama appointed Holder. [appointed you and you recused yourself. You left me on an island. I can’t do anything.”
Obstructive act. The act of firing Comey removed the individual overseeing the FBI’s Russia investigation. The President knew that Comey was personally involved in the investigation based on Comey’s briefing of the Gang of Eight, Comey’s March 20, 2017 public testimony about the investigation, and the President’s one-on-one conversations with Comey.
[T]he President followed the termination with public statements that were highly critical of the investigation; for example, three days alter firing Comey, the President referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt” and asked, “when does it end?” Those actions had the potential to affect a successor director’s conduct of the investigation.
Nexus to a proceeding. The nexus element would be satisfied by evidence showing that a grand jury proceeding or criminal prosecution arising from an FBI investigation was objectively foreseeable and contemplated by the President when he terminated Comey.
In addition, at the time the President fired Comey, evidence indicates the President knew that Flynn was still under criminal investigation and could potentially be prosecuted, despite the President’s February 14, 2017 request that Comey “let Flynn go”.
Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement.
Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts.
Count #3 The act of firing Comey removed the individual overseeing the FBI’s Russia investigation.
Firing the Director of the FBI in order to impede the progress of the investigation into the connections between Trump various Russians on real estate deals.
Attempts to remove the special council, Robert Muller
Attacking the head of the FBI worked so well that Trump decided to go after Robert Muller. This became a one-sided grudge match: Trump had/has a grudge against anyone or anything who gets in his way. Muller, on the other hand is a strictly by-the-book (even if its wrong) law man who apparently believes that the rule law and justice will prevail. We are now waiting to see if in fact we have a republic with three equal branches have that apply checks and balances.
“The Acting Attorney General appointed a Special Counsel on May 17, 20l7, prompting the President to state that it was the end of his presidency and that Attorney General Sessions had failed to protect him and should resign.
The President told senior advisers that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest, but they responded that those claims were “ridiculous” and posed no obstacle to the Special Counsel’s service. Department of Justice ethics officials similarly cleared the Special Counsel’s service.
On June 14, 2017, the press reported that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and the President responded with a series of tweets.
As is standard practice with nay mob boss, Trump had his henchmen do the dirty work.
“According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, “How could you let this happen, Jeff?” The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had “let [him] down,” contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy?“ Sessions recalled that the President said to him, “you were supposed to protect me,”
When Priebus and Bannon learned that the President was holding onto Sessions’s resignation letter, they became concerned that it could be used to influence the Department of Justice. Priebus told Sessions it was not good for the President to have the letter because it would function as a kind of “shock collar” that the President could use any time he wanted; Priebus said the President had “DOJ by the throat.”
May 18, Sessions finalized a resignation letter that stated, “Pursuant to our conversation of yesterday, and at your request, I hereby offer my resignation.”
That weekend, [May 20/21, 2017] the President called McGahn [his lawyer] and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest. McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre and instead prepared to resign.
On May 23, 2017, the Department of justice announced that ethics officials had determined that the Special Counsel’s prior law firm position did not bar his service, generating media reports that Mueller had been cleared to serve. McGahn recalled that around the same time, the President complained about the asserted conflicts and prodded MeGahn to reach out to Rosenstein about the issue. McGahn said he responded that he could not make such a call and that the President should instead consult his personal lawyer because it was not a White House issue. …. [O]n June 13, 2017, the President’s personal counsel contacted the Special Counsel’s Office and raised concerns about possible conflicts. … That same day, Rosenstein had testified publicly before Congress and said he saw no evidence of good cause to terminate the Special Counsel, including for conflicts of interest.
On the evening of June 14, 2017, the Washington Post published an article stating that the Special Counsel was investigating whether the President had attempted to obstruct justice. This was the first public report that the President himself was under investigation by the Special Counsel’s Office.”
Although the investigation had no verifiable evidence that Trump, himself, was directly involved with the Russian meddling in the campaign, Trumps ego-driven actions to stop any investigations of House Trump’s Russian business and financial deals, resulted in his obstructing anything and everything that might turn over those business related “rocks”. As in previous presidential miss-deeds, the coverup and the road-blocks created the obstruction and the law breaking.
“On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.“ McGahn was at home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him to call Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded him from serving as Special Counsel.
On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like, “You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod?”4 McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he could do. McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend to act on the request. He and other advisers believed the asserted conflicts were “silly” and “not real,” and they had previously communicated that view to the President. McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White House Counsel’s Office should not be involved in any effort to press the issue ofconflicts. McGahn was concerned about having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not “Saturday Night Massacre Bork.” McGahn considered the President’s request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes.
Obstructive act. As with the President’s firing of Comey, the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.
Nexus to an official proceeding. Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.
Intent. 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—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.”
Count #4 attempt to fire the special council
Even Republicans had seen this play before and it’s plot was too close to Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre,
Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
The President’s Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
Overview
Two days after the President directed MeGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. [1]On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only. [2]One month later, the President met again with Lewandowski and followed up on the request to have Sessions limit the scope of the Russia investigation. Lewandowski told the President the message would be delivered soon. [3]Hours later, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an unplanned press interview, raising questions about Sessions’s job security.
In a June 19 meeting, with Corey Lewandowski “[t]he President then asked Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions and said “write this down.”:
“I know that recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS …. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.
Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections”
“Lewandowski wanted to pass the message to Sessions in person rather than over the phone. He did not want to meet at the Department of Justice because he did not want a public log of his Visit and did not want Sessions to have an advantage over him by meeting on what Lewandowski described as Sessions’s turf, Lewandowski called Sessions and arranged a meeting for the following evening at Lewandowski’s office, but Sessions had to cancel due to a last minute conflict.”
“On July 19, 2017, the President again met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. … Lewandowski recalled that the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired.”
Sessions realizes that he is in danger of being charged with lying to congress:
“[O]n July 21, 2017, the Washington Post reported that US. intelligence intercepts showed that Sessions had discussed campaign-related matters with the Russian ambassador, contrary to what Sessions had said publicly.”
It is obvious that Jeff Sessions saw this investigation as the equivalent of a tar pit. If he so much as touched it, his legal jeopardy was heugh and would only increase the more he had interactions with it. Apparently lying to congress was as far as he wanted to go.
July 22, 2017, on board Marine one, “the President told Priebus that he had to get Sessions to resign immediately” …. “Priebus believed that the President’s request was a problem, so he called McGahn and asked for advice, explaining that he did not want to pull the trigger on something that was “all wrong. … McGahn and Priebus discussed the possibility that they would both have to resign rather than carry out the President’s order to fire Sessions.”
“Obstructive act. The President’s effort to send Sessions a message through Lewandowski would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.
Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign with the Special Counsel being permitted to “move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.”
Nexus to an official proceeding. As described above, by the time of the President’s initial one-on- one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.
The timing and circumstances of the President’s actions support the conclusion that he sought that result.” [to limit the Special Council investigation to “future acts”.]
Count #5 pressuring Sessions to interfere with the Special Council investigations
The President’s Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Emails About the June 9, 2016 Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials
Overview
“By June 2017, the President became aware of emails setting up the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians who offered derogatory information on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” On multiple occasions in late June and early July 2017, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails, and he then dictated a statement about the meeting to be issued by Donald Trump Jr. describing the meeting as about adoption.”
“in mid June 2017--the same week that the President first asked Lewandowski to pass a message to Sessions’ senior Administration officials became aware of emails exchanged during the campaign arranging a meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and a Russian attorney. As described in Volume 1, Section 1V.A.5, supra, the emails stated that the “Crown [P]rosecutor of Russia” had offered “to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. responded, “[1]f it’s what you say I love it,” and he, Kushner, and Manafort met with the Russian attorney and several other Russian individuals at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016. At the meeting, the Russian attorney claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, and the Russian attorney then spoke about the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 US. statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials and that had resulted in a retaliatory ban in Russia on US. adoptions of Russian children.”
“According to written answers submitted by the President in response to questions from this Office, the President had no recollection of learning of the meeting or the emails setting it up at the time the meeting occurred or at any other time before the election.”
“Communications advisers Hope Hicks and Josh Raffel recalled discussing with Jared Kushner and lvanka Trump that the emails were damaging and Would inevitably be leaked. Hicks and Raffel advised that the best strategy was to proactively release the emails to the press.”
On June 28, 2017, “Hicks, Kushner, and lvanka Trump went together to talk to the President. Hicks recalled that Kushner told the President the June 9 meeting was not a big deal and was about Russian adoption.”
“In analyzing the President’s actions regarding the disclosure of information about the June 9 meeting, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
Obstructive act. On at least three occasions between June 29, 2017, and July 9, 2017, the President directed Hicks and others not to publicly disclose information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and a Russian attorney. … On July 8, the President rejected Trump Jr.’s draft statement that would have acknowledged that the meeting was with “an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. The President then dictated a statement to Hicks that said the meeting was about Russian adoption”.
“Nexus to an official proceeding. As described above, by the time of the President’s attempts to prevent the public release of the emails regarding the June 9 meeting, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge, and the President had been told that the emails were responsive to congressional inquiries.”
“Intent. The evidence establishes the President’s substantial involvement in the communications strategy related to information about his campaign’s connections to Russia and his desire to minimize public disclosures about those connections.”
Trump sharpened this point in and interview last night (6/12/19) in which he claimed that here is nothing wrong with asking for and receiving assistance from foreign powers or their representatives in order to win an election. His statement that “everyone does it” reflects his ethical standards as well as his childish rationalization. The “everyone” argument thrown at my parents was usually had the response along the lines of “if everyone was jumping off a cliff, would you?”
In this instance the man that POTUS Shield laid hands on and declared that he was God’s Anointed One, reflects on the moral bankruptcy of the lot of them.
Count #6 obstructing the release of documents to congress and the courts
The President’s Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
Overview
From summer 2017 through 2018, the President attempted to have Attorney General Sessions reverse his recusal, take control of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and order an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Evidence
“The President Again Seeks to Have Sessions Reverse his Recusal”
Between the end of May 2017 and July 19, 2017 “According to Sessions, the President asked him to reverse his recusal so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton, and the “gist” of the conversation was that the President wanted Sessions to unrecuse from “all of it,” including the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation. Sessions listened but did not respond, and he did not reverse his recusal or order an investigation of Clinton.”
“On August 1, 20l8, the President tweeted that “Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now””
August 23, 2018, “the President publicly criticized Sessions in a press interview and suggested that prosecutions at the Department of Justice were politically motivated …. The President said, “I put in an Attorney General that never took control of the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions.” That day, Sessions issued a press statement that said, “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in . . . . While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.””
“On November 7, 20i18, the day after the midterm elections, the President replaced Sessions with Sessions’s chief of staff as Acting Attorney General.”
Obstructive act. “To determine if the President’s efforts to have the Attorney General unrecuse could qualify as an obstructive act, it would be necessary to assess evidence on whether those actions would naturally impede the Russia investigation. …. The inquiry would not turn on what Attorney General Sessions would actually do if unrecused, but on whether the efforts to reverse his recusal would naturally have had the effect of impeding the Russia investigation.”
“The duration of the President’s efforts—which spanned from March 2017 to August 2018—and the fact that the President repeatedly criticized Sessions in public and in private for failing to tell the President that he would have to recuse is relevant to assessing whether the President’s efforts to have Sessions unrecuse could qualify as obstructive acts.”
“Nexus to an official proceeding. As described above, by mid-June 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
“Intent. There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.”
The question of the impact that having a different and “Unitary Executive” believing Attorney General would have n this investigation and subsequent products is plain to see in the cations of Bill Barr. It would be fitting if the derogatory term “your name is Mudd” be supplanted by “That’s a Barr thing” when describing a lawless, underhanded, nefarious act.
Count #7 Trump attempts to hinder this investigation by replacing Sessions, part 2.
The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
“In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead. After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President’s effort to have the Special Counsel removed. The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President’s direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate. In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.”
Reality check
“On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported that in June 2017, the President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire the Special Counsel. According to the article, “[a]mid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation.” The article further reported that “[a]fter receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel . . . refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead.”
“The next day, the Washington Post reported on the same event but added that McGahn had not told the President directly that he intended to resign rather than carry out the directive to have the Special Counsel terminated.”
“On February 5, 2018…. the President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. … [T]he President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file “for our records” and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate.
[O]n February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office. … McGahn recalled the President said, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire,’ This story doesn’t look good. You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel?” In response, McGahn acknowledged …. that the story was … accurate. The President asked McGahn, “Did I say the word ‘fire". McGahn responded, “What you said is, ‘Call Rod [Rosenstein], tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.” The President responded, “I never said that.”…. McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, “Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go.” The President asked McGahn whether he would “do a correction,” and McGahn said no. “
Apparently, Trump is not used to dealing with lawyers who will not break the law for him.
“The President then asked, “What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.” McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a “real lawyer” and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing,“ The President said, “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.”
QED
“Obstructive act. The President’s repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act…”
“Nexus to an official proceeding. By January 2018, the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments. The President also was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating obstruction”…
“Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation. …. The President’s statements reflect his understanding and his displeasure—that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.”
Count #8 Trump orders McGahn to lie
Conduct Involving Michael Cohen
On Apr 29, 2017, Trump read the lyrics to the song “The Snake” by Al Wilson at one of his rallies. He was using the message of the story to depict immigrants as snakes who would turn on you and destroy your society. The irony is that Michael Cohen turned out to be Trumps “Snake”.
It is also worth noting that Cohen understands Trump at his fundamental core: he too is a snake that will always do whatever it takes to survive, to the point that everyone else is expendable.
Michael Cohen was House Trump’s garbage man – he dealt with the nasty, messy stuff so that Trump and his family could keep their hands clean.
“[F]rom September 2015 until at least June 2016, the Trump Organization pursued a Trump Tower Moscow project in Russia.”
“November 20, 2018, the President submitted written responses that did not answer those questions about Trump Tower Moscow directly and did not provide any information about the timing of the candidate’s discussions with Cohen about the project or whether he participated in any discussions about the project being abandoned or no longer pursued.”
In this situation, failure to provide the true information in his written response is a tactic to uddy the water and therefore delay the investigation.
In his written response [Trump ‘]wrote[’]: “I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen and Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent” which is demonstrably a lie.
“[I]n analyzing the President’s conduct related to Cohen, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice.:
Obstructive act. We gathered evidence of the President’s conduct related to Cohen on two issues: (i) whether the President or others aided or participated in Cohen’s false statements to Congress, and (ii) whether the President took actions that would have the natural tendency to prevent Cohen from providing truthful information to the government.”
“Before Cohen began to cooperate with the government, the President publicly and privately urged Cohen to stay on message and not “flip.””
“Nexus to an official proceeding. The President’s relevant conduct towards Cohen occurred when the President knew the Special Counsel’s Office, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York were investigating Cohen’s conduct.”
“Intent. In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements.”
“Finally, the President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others.”
Count #9 Trump interferes with Cohen’s testimony before congress
Count #10 Trump seeks to influence Cohen by threatening Cohen’s family
As if we needed clearer example of the Trump organized crime family, the last two counts shines the spotlight light on the similarity of the methods used by Trump and organized crime.