There is no one bit of evidence in the investigation into President Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James B. Comey and derail the Russia investigation that is conclusive. However, we are amassing a body of facts, with multiple witnesses and contemporary documentation (not to mention the president’s own statements), to establish that the president sought out multiple avenues to impede the investigation. The very persistence and multiplicity of his requests that preceded Comey’s firing give support to the conclusion that the president was aiming to halt the investigation.

AD

AD

Several points have been overlooked or mischaracterized in the unfolding tale regarding the Russian investigation and attempts to interfere with it.

First, while obstruction of justice requires “specific intent,” this does not mean Trump had to realize it was a crime to interfere with the FBI. It does not mean that if he genuinely believed “justice” (in the broadest terms) was not being served by the investigation then he gets off the hook. Obstruction in the criminal context only requires actions intended to halt or interfere with an ongoing legal investigation. Seen in that light, the pile of mounting evidence makes it hard to argue Trump didn’t have this goal in mind.

Second, the likelihood of prosecution for obstruction of justice by the president is tiny. (Those who assisted him, knowing the actions were intended to gum up the Russia investigation, may however have legal exposure and thereby become eager cooperating witnesses.) For the president, the issue is whether his pattern of conduct — in essence a repudiation of the entire notion that law enforcement cannot be subject to political meddling — would be grounds for impeachment and removal.

AD

AD

Congress does not need to find criminal activity to conclude, for example, that the president abused his authority is pressuring the FBI to drop its investigation. Congress does not need to find, for example, that Trump’s receipt of monies from foreign governments constituted an illegal bribe; it would be sufficient for Congress to conclude either that the emoluments clause was violated (repeatedly) or that the president had besmirched the office of the presidency by creating the appearance of corruption.

In other words, Mueller’s work will no doubt help Congress to decide if it should move forward to begin hearings on whether there are grounds for impeachment, but Mueller does not preempt Congress’s work. The House has a separate, independent obligation to make a decision on impeachment, which is a political and not legal matter.

Bob Bauer at Lawfare explains the distinction between the criminal prosecutor’s task and the House’s obligations:

AD

AD

We are back again to the question of whether the House, the Senate, or both, will look beyond the particulars of Russia probe into the basic question of how the Administration functions on rule of law issues. . . . Congress should not hone in only on the main show, the large issues around any connection or “collusion” with Russia. The President seems to be struggling with fundamentals of setting up and guiding a government that operates more or less reliably within reasonably well-recognized ethical and legal lines. Or it could be that he is unable to break old habits: He is wedded to the uses of law and lawyers that he believes served him well in his business. In his long career in the private sector, he pictured the law as a navigable complication that lawyers would find a way around, or as a tactical weapon to be deployed in the threat or filing of lawsuits. With election to the presidency, President Trump’s relationship to law and the legal process has changed, but there is reason to doubt that he has absorbed what his new station in life requires of him.

In other words, even if not illegal, Trump’s cavalier disregard for the restrictions imposed by constitutional government (e.g. no receipt of emoluments, no demanding “loyalty” in lieu of fulfilling obligations to uphold the law) is the very thing the House may consider — I would argue must consider — in determining whether Trump should remain in office. Sure, House members should gather more facts. Sure, the content of contemporaneous memos and the exact testimony of witnesses is key.