Robert Mueller Testifies Before Congress on Possible Trump Indictment
(Image by YouTube, Channel: The New Yorker) Details DMCA
This piece first appeared on Informed Comment.
Donald Trump keeps trying to hypnotize people by saying "no collusion, no obstruction," and saying that Robert Mueller exonerated him. Because so few Americans and so few in Congress will actually read the Mueller report, he thinks he can get away with the big lie.
Mueller explicitly denied yesterday that he had exonerated Trump. So that's a Trump lie.
The Mueller report contains ample evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation. In fact, we know that Trump tried as hard as he could to simply fire Mueller for the purpose of obstructing the Mueller report.
Although Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., did not in fact elicit from Mueller, as Alex Ward at Vox showed, an admission that he had decided on Trump's guilt but did not indict, Lieu carefully walked Mueller through the report to establish fairly conclusively that Trump committed what any reasonable person, knowledgeable of the law, would conclude was obstruction of justice:
Lieu demonstrated from the Mueller report that all three elements of obstruction of justice were committed by Trump when he told White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and then told McGahn to cover up the order (which was not implemented).
LIEU: Thank you, director Mueller, for your long history of service to our country including your service as a Marine where you earned a brown star with a V device.
I'd like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the president's attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requites an obstructive act, correct?
LIEU: OK. I'd like to direct you to page 97 of Volume 2 of your report, and you wrote there on page 97, quote, "Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign," unquote. That's in the report, correct?
LIEU: That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct their investigation, correct?