IMPEACH: Trump committed obstruction of justice, the evidence is clear

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.