More than 450 former federal prosecutors
More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
The statement is on Medium so let’s read it:
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
Multiple felony charges.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
They give details on his efforts to fire Mueller and to get Sessions to reverse his recusal.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
And, he did some of it right in front of us, while we watched.
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
He might as well have been carrying a sign saying “I’m doing my best to obstruct justice.”
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name below, click here. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories.
Powerful stuff. Now if only there were something we could do about it.
Ophelia, for the last several years I have been following you through my news reader and haven’t accessed your site directly. I have also, shamefully, not contributed to your site’s upkeep. But I have been a faithful follower for a fair number of years!
First, I want to tell you how much I love reading your political posts! Your always insightful and interesting views mean a lot to me, and I’m grateful for the effort you put in each day. (I have to confess that the ins and outs of feminist politics are a bit beyond me -I only recently learned what cis means in that context – but I read everything you write and am happy to do so!). I’ll make an effort to be encouraging more often!
Second, I’ll belatedly pitch in to help financially support your site!
Thanks so much for your many contributions to so many topics!
People who are under investigation of any sort will always try to use whatever power they have to limit the scope of any inquiry into their activities and affairs. In New South Wales, one side of politics sought advantage over the other by setting up the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). There is now a campaign underway to set up a Federal ICAC in Australia, but strangely this is being resisted by the same side of politics (presently the majority in Federal Parliament) that set up the original NSW ICAC.
Why, thank you very much, Martin!
Let me say, though, there is NOTHING shameful about not contributing to the upkeep. I say that first thing on the Patreon: contribute ONLY if you both want to and can.