Mueller's biggest bombshell? Trump told the White House counsel to lie.

[Zorro]

President Trump ordered the top White House lawyer to lie to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. That is one difficult-to-escape conclusion of Mueller’s 448-page report, released to the public in redacted form Thursday. Telling another person to lie to investigators is obstruction of justice. So why isn’t the obstruction case against Trump open and shut?

The wrinkle is that the president did not order White House counsel Donald McGahn to lie merely to Mueller. Rather, Trump told McGahn to lie to the entire country — including Mueller. The only thing that distinguishes Trump’s order from a textbook case of obstruction is that Trump sought to include 330 million additional listeners in the lie.

Trump’s order to McGahn to carry out a coverup is the biggest bombshell in a report full of damning disclosures. Mueller’s analysis of that episode is the closest that the special counsel comes to concluding that the president committed obstruction of justice. It’s certainly one of the lowest points of a presidency that has stooped to many lows. And it should be the focal point of media coverage and congressional investigations in the coming days, weeks and months.

Obstruction of justice requires three elements: an obstructive act, a nexus to an official proceeding and a corrupt motive. Mueller’s report recounts the allegedly obstructive act in detail. In late January 2018, the New York Times revealed that Trump had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller the previous June. The Times report, according to the special counsel’s report released Thursday, is supported by “substantial evidence.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/19/muellers-biggest-bombshell-trump-told-white-house-counsel-lie/

[empedocles]

1. No end to this stuff. Tonite Lawrence advising that at the end of his hour

he will show how sarah sanders not only lied, but was caught lying about lying.



[Can't make this stuff up].

[appal_jack]

2. Clear-cut obstruction to me.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I like this analysis overall, with one major disagreement:

Some might ask why any of this still matters. Mueller considered himself to be bound by Justice Department policy against the indictment of sitting presidents, so the special counsel would not have charged Trump anyway. But as Mueller’s report notes, no Justice Department policy precludes the indictment of a former president after he leaves office. The federal statute of limitations on obstruction of justice is five years, so even if the current attorney general believes that Trump has been exonerated, his successor in a subsequent administration may reach a contrary conclusion.

This rationale is both specious and dangerous. For one, no Democratic AG, no matter whom among the declared candidates is our nominee, will ever go after a former President. Look at the evidence: Democrats have let the thefts of the 2000 (and very possibly 2004) elections pass without any prosecutions. They have let the false rationale for the Iraq War being disproved without any prosecutions. They have let the financial crash of 2008 pass without any prosecutions. Others besides a former President could have been charged for their roles in these crimes, but no Democratic Administration brought a single charge against any one for any of these despite two terms in the White House and some Congressional majorities also during parts of the 21st Century.

And I'm not even pointing this out to particularly criticize past Democratic political strategies. Instead, I'm saying that Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives RIGHT NOW, and this majority was elected in large part to provide oversight of and a counterbalance as well to the Trump misadministration. Any strategy that hinges upon "we'll prosecute Trump after the 2020 election is doomed to failure. Delaying impeachment investigations and hearings at this point in time invites Republican victories next November, and I DON'T want that. What we need is to use the power we have now, which means IMPEACHMENT.

In addition to the above rationales, there is the fact that prosecuting the losing candidate or Party following an election is a BANANA REPUBLIC move. Donald Trump has gotten away with a whole lot of bullshit and even more violation of political norms and sacred traditions here in 2019 America, but even so, his demands to reopen yet more investigations into Hillary Clinton have been slow-walked at best, because they are EVEN WORSE bullshit than Trump slings on a daily basis. This is America. We don't lock-up losers of elections, full stop. Again, this points to the need for Congress to perform its Cpnstitutional role of oversight and IMPEACHMENT right now.

K&R for all the rest,

-app

[Karadeniz]

3. He just has no respect for honesty. No respect for anything. He could be charged with

Breaking his oath of office.