The case for obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice was among the articles of impeachment drafted against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton. The parallel between Nixon and Trump is almost exact. White House tapes revealed Nixon giving instructions to pressure the acting FBI director into halting the Watergate investigation.

Two weeks after Trump told Comey privately “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty,” he had another private meeting with Comey in the Oval Office. After shooing out his advisers—all of whom had top security clearance—Trump said to Comey, according to Comey’s memo written shortly after the meeting, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

Then on May 9, Trump fired Comey. In a subsequent interview with NBC Trump said he planned to fire Comey “regardless of [the] recommendation” of the attorney and deputy attorney general, partly because of “this Russia thing.” Trump also revealed in the interview that he had had several conversations with Comey about the Russia investigation, and had asked Comey if he was under investigation.

The federal crime of obstruction of justice applies to “[w]hoever 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” in a proceeding or investigation by a government department or agency or Congress.

As in Nixon’s case, a decision to support an “inquiry of impeachment” resolution in the House—to start an impeachment investigation—doesn’t depend on sufficient evidence to convict a person of obstruction of justice, but simply probable cause to believe a president may have obstructed justice.

There’s already more than enough evidence of probable cause to begin that impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump.

This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Robert B. Reich is the chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and former secretary of labor under the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause. His film, Inequality for All, was released in 2013. Follow him on Twitter: @RBReich.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Responses to The case for obstruction of justice

  1. Joel Walbert

    You talk obstruction of justice, but fail to mention Loretta Lynch? This Reich clown has a serious, serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Get over it already. There is nothing to this distraction. Nothing he has said or done even remotely calls for impeachment. Comey is nothing but a disgruntled former employee, who has zero proof of anything he claims. And, like this pathetic author, is nothing but a crony of the Clinton Crime Syndicate.

  2. Even Killary lover Allen Dershowitz says there is no evidence to impeach Trump. Democrats in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Lorreta Lynch, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc, etc, etc all could be indicted on something. Reich and company need to stop deflecting attention from the misdeeds of their team and start attending to the needs of the poor and working masses who make up the majority of their voter base.