In the opinion of 370 former federal prosecutors, the only reason the president of United States has not been indicted for obstruction of justice is because he is the president of the United States. That is how many former Justice Department officials co-signed a statement to that effect that was published Monday at Medium. Specifically, they say that the DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel’s opinion that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime is inoculating President Trump in a way that no other American would enjoy. Based on the evidence in the Muller Report, there is enough evidence to meet the standard prosecutors use when deciding whether or not to bring charges.
“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,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . 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.”
The list of co-signers is growing quickly. When I first looked at the letter, it only had 350 signatories. Of course, this is a large and politically divided country and there are a lot of people who have worked at the Justice Department. It wouldn’t be hard to find a big pool of left-leaning folks to sign on to a letter like this, but there are plenty of Republicans who have added their names, too.
Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
It’s useful to have people step forward and tell the truth, and it’s encouraging to see some Republicans take a stand against their own president. I think this is their key point:
“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,” the former federal prosecutors wrote in their letter.
They wrote that prosecuting such cases was “critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk.”
As Mueller tried to explain in his report, it’s Nancy Pelosi’s job to do something about this.
If Pelosi stands in the way, she’ll be putting “our whole system of justice at risk.” At least, that’s what these 370 former prosecutors are saying.
When I read about Pelosi’s statement, I didn’t especially connect it with the impeachment question. I understood it as relating to the ongoing factional fight within the Democratic Party in general, and to the 2020 campaign. I realize these two issues are intertwined, but they are not identical. I didn’tconnect it with impeachment because after Barr’s incredible statements at the Senate hearing last week, I got the impression that even Pelosi realized that impeachment was probably inevitable. And so do those in the House most imediately responsible— Nadler, Schiff, Maxine Waters, J. Cummings. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are they the “radical leftists” of the party?
That said, I am very angry that Pelosi made that statement. I think I’ve been very tolerant, even sympathetic, to heri over the years compared to many on this blog, but I can’t think of anything she’s ever said or done in the past that I have reacted to so negatively. I’m open to the idea that, in the long run, she COULD be right — but I emphasize IN THE LONG RUN. The campaign is still in its early stages; she didn’t have to make such a statement at this point, certainly not in public, and for someone in her position I consider that really putting the finger on the scale. I think it’s too early to tell whether she is right or wrong, but by making that statement she contributed to factionalization, and therefore weakening, of the party (though it’s remediable). I believe Pelosi was acting as a sock puppet for big $ donors who want a “centrist” candidate. She is thinking politically in the midst of a constitutional crisis, and very conventionally in an extremely unconventional situation.
I think you impeach for one simple reason – it is the right thing to do. Full. Stop.
Hell, Mitch probably would not ever let the trial happen in the Senate, but at least lay the case out for the public and posterity.
I guess I am just a sucker for doing the right thing, no matter what.
Carlo, I do think there is a place for political calculation — but this is not it. So we agree de facto if not de jure.
Liz Warren said it best. (Not an exact quote). Everyone needs to go on record and live with their vote.
Well yes, but the right thing has to include getting Orange Julius out of office and eliminating the Republican party as an effective political force. So strategic thinking is called for. Not saying that doesn’t include impeachment at the right time and in the right way, but it’s not an end in itself as far as I’m concerned.
4
Anyone know what the RSS URL is?
https://progresspond.com/feed/ is working for me.
Now up to 650.
If he was a democrat, all it would take is 3 republicans.
I would think refusing to comply with subpoenas would in itself qualify as grounds for impeachment. If you can’t investigate the possibility of high crimes because of obstruction, that obstruction itself becomes a high crime.
Pelosi is figuring that electing a Dem president would be the best way out; winning Senate control and impeaching after the election would be second best – still not enough for 2/3, but enough to make the whole thing more public and substantial; and that a failed impeachment now would be the worst outcome, with a more likely second term for Trump and nothing left to be done about it.