Let us gauge where we stand in the case of United States v. Donald Trump. To be of any worth, this necessitates looking at each relevant statute or provision of the Constitution, as well as the actions of the President or his agents that might constitute a crime under the statutes or the Constitution. This is just the first installment of what will be a lengthy series. We’ll start with Obstruction of Justice.
1. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. There is a gold-plated case against Donald Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has this in his back pocket to use at any time. The case can be proved right now.
You see, we have a confession.
A. The Actions.
On May 9, 2017, the Defendant fired James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Subsequently, Defendant Trump provided reasons for the termination of the Director.
B. The Statute.
There are many federal statutes dealing with Obstruction of Justice. The statute that is most likely to be used is 18 U.S.C. § 1505. The statute in relevant part:
“Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, …
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years….”
C. The Evidence.
Defendant confessed to the crime in a nationally televised interview with Lester Holt of NBC. Here is that May 11 interview:
Transcript of relevant portion:
Later in the interview, the Defendant admitted that there were pending proceedings, assisted by Director Comey, which involved multiple investigations of Defendant’s campaign:
D. What Are We Missing? Nothing. Per the terms of the statute, the Defendant obstructed and impeded the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States. Nothing else is needed to prove Obstruction of Justice.
Of course, there are boatloads of additional evidence that would be relevant to the Defendant’s motives, including this tweet from the day before the Comey firing:
2. TREASON. The Constitution provides this about Treason:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
U.S. CONST. Art. III, Sec. 3. Please note a very important “or” in that provision of the Constitution. It gives you two definitions for treason. One of the definitions applies, the other does not. The definition that applies describes treason as “giving aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States. Somebody could argue that a foreign power, which had attempted to manipulate free elections in this country, is not an enemy, but that would be a laughable argument.
Moreover, until very recently, the United States and the Russian Federation were involved in a proxy war in Syria. The Russian Federation supported Assad, while the United States supported certain rebel factions which sought to oust Assad.
A. The Actions. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., Campaign Manager Paul Manafort and advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer to obtain, from the Russian government, damaging information about his father’s opponent in the election, Hillary Clinton. Other Acts:
In April 2016, Defendant presents a speech in which he promises “an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia.” Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is in the audience.
In July 2016, Defendant and Carter Page met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican National Convention immediately before the party platform was changed from pro-Ukraine to pro-Russian Federation.
In July 2017, Defendant announced that the United States would no longer assist Syrian rebels in their efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
On July 8, 2017, Defendant Trump provided a false story to cover up for his son’s meeting with the Russian lawyer. There are many other acts that could be included here. For now, though, we will go with Accessory After the Fact. That, I believe, we can prove right now.
B. The Statute. We’ve already discussed the relevant portion of the Constitution. That leaves us with just a little more work. The Federal statute for Accessory After the Fact provides as follows:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
18 U.S.C. § 3. Note that Conspiracy and Treason are also possible future charges, but the public currently lacks the evidence that is available, no doubt, to Special Counsel Mueller.
C. The Evidence. The emails have been authenticated by Donald Trump, Jr. himself. The Defendant’s act of providing a cover-up story cannot be proved by newspaper article. At least one of the “multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations,” as reported by the Washington Post, will have to testify.
D. What We Are Missing. The only proof missing for an Accessory After the Fact of Treason charge are the names of the individuals who reported Defendant’s attempted cover-up. The Special Counsel, no doubt, has obtained a passenger list for the flight on which the cover-up discussions occurred, and each of those individuals will be questioned, under oath, about what was said, and who said what.
3. EXTORTION. The commission of extortion by a federal official is a crime under the United States Code. The norm is for politicians to offer concessions to get a vote. What the Defendant did, through his Interior Secretary, is not normal. Trump has threatened to take away things.
A. The Actions. Senator Murkowski steadfastly voted against TrumpCare. At 4:13 AM on July 26, 2017, Defendant sent a tweet that read as follows:
Within hours after the tweet was sent, “Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke reportedly called Murkowski and fellow Alaskan Sen. Dan Sullivan to say their state could run into trouble with the Trump administration.” According to Senator Sullivan, Defendant Zinke threatened Senator Murkowski and the entire State of Alaska as follows: “I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop."
B. The Statute. The statutory citation is 18 U.S.C. 41 § 872. It provides as follows:
“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
There are a number of Federal cases that provide that what Defendant Zinke did was illegal. See United States v. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (the right to make business decisions and to solicit business free from wrongful coercion). There are cases that also involve interference in the operation of unions.
Senator Murkowski wants to lawfully go about her business—to vote on legislation the way she wants to vote on legislation—but Defendant Trump is attempting to force her to give up that right (i.e. extort her) with threats that would cause damage.
Think about it this way:
Imagine if Chris Christie 's Chief of Staff called up the Mayor of that quaint little town across the Hudson River from New York and said, "Endorse the Governor, or we will shut down traffic in your town." On top of that, imagine that there were witnesses to the exchange, Christie didn’t deny the allegation, and another mayor received the same threat.
This isn’t Juarez or Mogadishu or Nicosia. People, yes, even legislators, have to be able to act freely here, without fear of coercion.
C. The Evidence. Two Senators from Alaska—Republican Senators at that—would provide the critical testimony to back up the charges. Additionally, there would be evidence of Defendant Zinke’s relationship with Defendant Trump. For example, this might be Exhibit “A,” a picture taken just two days before the Extortion:
D. What We Are Missing. We probably need phone logs or emails to tie Defendant Zinke’s actions to Defendant Trump. It is not impossible to believe that Defendant Zinke acted alone, but I see that as unlikely. Not impossibly unlikely, but very possibly unlikely.
CONCLUSION. This was meant as a short exercise to bring the statutes and some of the proof together to see where we are. Future posts will deal with the Emoluments Clause, the Hatch Act and many other crimes and misdemeanors.