You say you “reached a different conclusion” than Justin Amash and the Mueller Report doesn’t establish that Trump obstructed justice.newsweek.com/mitt-romney-ca…
Perhaps we should look at the report together to determine if you are correct, or . . .
1/ . . if you you telling a politically expedient lie.
As you know, we begin with the elements of obstruction of justice, which are:
💠an obstructive act
💠a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding
💠a corrupt intent.
2/ How about if we focus just on the facts given in vol. II, p. 113-120.
💠According to McGahn’s memory, in June of 2017, Trump ordered him to fire Mueller;
💠January 2018, the media reported the story;
💠Trump, through his personal lawyer and two aides, “sought to have McGahn deny” the story and create a false record;
💠McGahn refused because the story was true and he wouldn’t lie.
Trump, in media interviews, denied that he had tried to fire Mueller.
4/ Mueller looked at all the evidence and concluded that “the weight of the evidence” is against Trump.
[Straight talk: Mueller concluded Trump was lying.]
Evidence includes multiple witnesses (who testified under oath) and contemporaneous notes and records.
5/ There you have it: The facts meet Element 1.
Element 2 is a nexus.
To establish a nexus, the prosecution must show that Trump’s actions would tend to hinder, delay, or prevent communication of information to investigators.
6/ Here's the evidence Mueller examined to determine Element 2:
💠Trump knew Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events, and that the investigation wasn’t complete;
💠McGahn changing his story would undercut McGahn’s “credibility as a potential” witness;
💠Trump specifically wanted McGahn to produce a written document: Trump wasn’t simply engaging in a media strategy or he would have given an interview denying the story.
💠Instead he specifically asked McGahn to write a letter “for our records” 10 days after the stories ran.
8/ Thus Mueller concludes the answer to Element 2 is yes.
Here's the evidence Mueller used to analyze Element 3:
💠Trump had “laid the groundwork” for “pressing McGahn to alter his story” by telling others that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he didn’t deny the story.
💠Trump’s statements to witnesses reflect his understanding that the events of the past summer (when he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller) would be part of an obstruction of justice inquiry.
10/ Mueller thus concluded that Trump “acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of his “conduct toward the investigation.”
Look at that, @SenatorRomney
Mueller has evidence to establish all three elements.
11/ I’ve already done the analysis here: twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield…
On May 6th hundreds of former prosecutors signed a letter saying they would have charged a defendant with obstruction on these facts.latimes.com/nation/la-na-p…
12/ It would be very helpful, @SenatorRomney, if you showed your own analysis and explained which of the three elements haven't been met, and why.
Specifically, you should tell us which part of Mueller's analysis on pages 113-120 you find fault with.
13/ Otherwise, we really have no choice but to conclude that you are telling a politically expedient lie.
This particularly lie isn’t just any lie. It's a lie that endangers the Constitution and the republic because you—an elected senator—are shielding a lawbreaking president.
14/ The Report explains that obstruction doesn’t have to succeed for it to be obstruction. (v.II 11-12) This makes sense, right? If it succeeds, there won’t be any charges. Kind of like: Treason never prospers, and what is the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason.
15/ It seems you thought you could avoid a constitutional crisis by exonerating the president, as per this tweet: twitter.com/SenatorRomney/…
In fact, you are creating a constitutional crisis by undermining the document itself.
16/ Just yesterday, I listed 7 reasons the GOP is corruptly shielding a lawbreaking president. twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield…
Which is your reason, @SenatorRomney ?
17/ Perhaps you are afraid of angering Trump’s base, knowing that without Trump's ardent supporters, it will be impossible to put together a national coalition should you run for president.
Perhaps you are afraid of Trump.
Or, perhaps, you are afraid of the truth.
All of my threads are blog posts. You can view this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/dear-senator-r…
(You can also check out my thread archives. There's a search function and categories)
Create an account for weekly updates and features such as bookmarks & reading history.