"But because McGahn had repeatedly spoken to investigators and the obstruction inquiry was not complete, it was foreseeable that he would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics. If the President were focused solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter 'for our records' approximately 10 days after the stories had come out -- well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story -- indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it. (Pg 331)
"The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding -- and his displeasure -- that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. (Pg 332)
"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. Several facts support that conclusion." (Pg 332 Special Counsel Report)
CONCLUSION
The Special Counsel concluded that there was an abundance of evidence that Defendant, Donald J. Trump did, on several occasions, encourage a witness in a Federal criminal investigation to give perjurious, false and/or misleading information to investigators and/or the Grand Jury. The Special Counsel took special note of the "defense" that the Defendant did not intend to commit the crime of witness tampering because many of his attempts were made in the form of public statements:
"...many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President's power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system's integrity is equally threatened." (Pps 219, 369)
Furthermore, the Special Counsel found both intent and motive in the Defendant's attempts to tamper with witnesses and obstructions of justice:
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations...In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election." (Pg 369 Special Counsel Report)
In all of this, Donald J. Trump has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
END
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
