Sometimes lying and obstructing is a crime.
Sometimes it isn’t.
It’s time for some Fun With Criminal Law.
(That means more IRAC)
---
Part I begins here:
Or here if you prefer blog posts: terikanefield-blog.com/category/muell…
IRAC stands for:
💠Issue
💠Rule
💠Analysis
💠Conclusion
Let’s start with this one:
Issue: Did Trump obstruct justice when he ordered McGahn (WH counsel) to fire Mueller, and then ordered McGahn to lie about it?
💠an obstructive act
💠a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding
💠a corrupt intent.
To get a conviction a prosecutor must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
The facts are given more fully in Vol. II, 113- 110.
(I don’t have room here to list them all)
nbcnews.com/politics/polit…
June 2017: Trump ordered McGahn 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.
Mueller did the analysis on 118-120.
Trump, in media interviews, denied that he had tried to fire Mueller.
Mueller looked at all the evidence and concluded that "the weight of the evidence" is against Trump. [Straight talk: Mueller concluded Trump was lying.]
Now let's look at Element 2, Nexus between obstructive act and official proceeding.
Mueller concludes the answer to Element 2 is yes, from this evidence:
McGahn changing his story would undercut McGahn's “credibility as a potential” witness;
Several facts support the conclusion 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.”
These include:
Thus, Mueller concludes corrupt intent. (Notice the evidence is circumstantial)
Issue: Did Trump obstruct justice when he tried to prevent the relevant emails setting up the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting from being disclosed, and when he dictated a false letter about the events?
Mueller did the analysis here: Vol.II, 98-107.
💠Was there an obstructive act? Yes.
On at least three occasions, Trump directed Hicks and others not to disclose the information, and he edited a misleading response for Trump, Jr.
💠Was t here a nexus to an official proceeding: No.
The evidence (given more fully on Vol. II, pages 98-106) shows that Trump was trying to mislead the press, not investigators. The lying was a media strategy.
💠 Was there corrupt intent? No.
Evidence established that Trump's intent was to minimize public disclosure about his campaign’s connection to Russia, but there was insufficient evidence that he intended to interfere with an investigation or proceeding.
Lying to the press isn’t a crime (and it shouldn’t be) because it would be too easy for prosecutions to be political . . .
I'll stop there and not start waxing philosophical about the nature and limits of the criminal justice system.
End Part VIII/
If you want to see all of the threads in the "Reading the Mueller Report" series, they're here: terikanefield-blog.com/category/muell…