Obstruction of
justice is just one of multiple avenues for establishing a legal
basis for impeaching Donald Trump. There are several state and
federal statutes which define “obstruction of justice.” The
applicable federal law in this case is Title
18 U.S.C. § 1503. This federal statute lists the requirements to
establish obstruction of justice by stating that any person who
“corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to
influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice,
shall be punished.” In other words, Trump's intent is key in
deciding whether or not his actions rise to the level of obstruction
of justice.
What did Trump do?
Trump committed
obstruction of justice when he fired then-Director of the FBI James
Comey who had been investigating the Trump presidential campaign for
potential collusion with Russia to influence the recent presidential
elections. Now, Trump supporters will argue that the President has
the legal right to fire the FBI Director at his discretion. Although
this is generally true, if Trump's intention in firing Comey
constitutes an attempt to obstruct justice it is a crime and an
impeachable offense.
Trump's corrupt intentions
As the applicable
federal statute states, if Trump “corruptly... endeavors to
influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice”
then his actions rise to obstruction of justice. The legal definition
of corruption is the act of an official to use his or her position to
evade the prohibitions of law. It is obvious Trump had intended to
conceal his corrupt attempts to influence Comey when he asked
Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Adviser Jared Kushner
to leave the Oval Office in order for Trump to talk privately with
Comey. Trump was evading the possibility of any witnesses to his
private conversation because he knew was doing something wrong.
Trump's last 'hope'
Trump
apologists may argue that Trump's own words, according to Comey's
written statement and testimony, show that he was not giving Comey a
directive,
but rather, a suggestion
because he used the word “hope.” According to Comey's written
statement
to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Trump said, “I hope
you can see your way clear to letting this go.” Trump was requesting that Comey terminate the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn.
However, it is important to understand
the context of the situation to properly determine whether or not
Comey should have reasonably interpreted Trump's statement as a
directive to a subordinate or merely a suggestion. In this case,
Trump has the legal authority to fire Comey at his discretion.
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that there is an aspect of the
Trump-Comey relationship that is similar to an employer-employee
relationship. This is also a familiar role for Trump to play,
considering Trump's background in the corporate business world.
It is more than likely that in Trump's
mind he was intentionally giving Comey a directive similar to how a
boss would speak to his employee, saying that he “hopes” the
employee would take some specific action. Despite the operative verb
being “hope,” most people would reasonably infer from the
employer's power to terminate the employee from his job that the
boss's statement was essentially an order within the
employer-employee context. Although the relationship between the
President of the United States and the FBI Director is more
complicated, the dynamic of a “superior” being able to terminate
a “subordinate” from a position of employment still exists and
was likely the context within which Trump was operating when he
requested Comey drop the Flynn investigation.
Flynn, Trump and Russia
On the other hand,
many Trump apologists may try to mitigate Trump requesting Comey drop
the Flynn investigation by arguing that this had nothing to do with
the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign
and Russia. Comey's statement says that Comey himself did not
interpret Trump's request to go beyond the Flynn investigation.
However, Comey's own interpretation of Trump's words is not a legal
basis of proving Trump's actual intent when making the request.
Trump knew he was
doing something wrong as shown by his request for Sessions and
Kushner to leave the Oval Office for Trump's private conversation
with Comey. Therefore, Trump's state of mind would be that of
deception. Hence, it is likely Trump was not being completely
forthcoming regarding his true intentions when speaking privately
with Comey. Also, this is not out of character for Trump whose
penchant for lying has been widely reported and documented by
numerous media sources as well as in a post
published by this blog. Additionally, Trump's own words, in an
interview
with Lester Holt, confirms that Trump's
reason for firing Comey was to stop the investigation into
connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Evidence is clear
The body of
publicly known evidence, as of now, already proves that Trump's
intent and actions rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In
this context, it would be considered a "high crime" which forms a legal
basis for impeaching Trump. However, the final decision whether
or not to impeach Trump lies in the hands of the House and the
Senate. Therefore, it is essential to continue to apply political
pressure on lawmakers to support impeachment proceedings.
