Time For Media To Stop Dancing Around Obstruction Of Justice

After James Comey's under oath opening statement that was released today, we now have direct testimony from a virtually unimpeachable source that Donald Trump has, on multiple occasions, attempted to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. And it's time for the media to stop pussy-footing around this issue and call it exactly what it is.

According to the federal statute, obstruction of justice occurs when someone "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". (Emphasis is mine.)

Comey has outlined multiple examples of Trump's attempted obstructions. There was the simple question from Trump in a one-on-one dinner about whether he was interested in staying on as FBI Director. Since the Director serves a ten year term that is meant to be independent of Presidential power, that could easily be interpreted as a "threatening communication". That question was followed by Trump saying, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty", again more threatening communication. And Trump came back to the point a third time at the dinner saying, "I need loyalty".

On February 14, Trump asked Comey to stay on after a White House briefing to speak to him alone. Trump essentially threw Sessions and Kushner out of the room so that he could tell Comey, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.  He is a good guy.  I hope you can let this go." If that is not endeavoring to influence the due administration of justice, I'm not sure what is.

On March 30th, Trump called Comey and asked if he could "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation that Trump was complaining was impeding his ability to lead the country. Trump reiterated his desire for Comey to "lift the cloud" at the end of the conversation.

And, finally, Trump made one last call to Comey on April 11th again asking him to lift the cloud and to "get out" the fact that Trump himself was not under investigation.

These are just the instances that Comey has now documented under oath. In addition, there are many more media reports of Trump trying to use others to shut down the Russia probe. Eventually, those involved will also be forced to make statements under oath and will add to the litany of Trump's attempts to obstruct justice.

The media constantly asks the question of whether this amounts to obstruction of justice. And we constantly get mealy-mouthed answers from pundits who apparently aren't ready to apply the statute as written. I don't mean to pick on Ari Melber, but he was on MSNBC and responded to the question by saying that he couldn't answer whether this was obstruction of justice but that Comey's statement was testimony that that would not reflect well on Trump if a case was to be made. This approach essentially requires a conviction to answer the question. Indeed, the more relevant question should be, to use a phrase made famous by James Comey himself, would any reasonable prosecutor seek an obstruction of justice indictment with this evidence. The answer, of course, is yes. Let's hope a Democratic Senator asks the question as I present it tomorrow and not ask Comey to make a judgement of whether it amounts to obstruction of justice.

The Republican position is even more ridiculous. Besides harping on the fact that Comey assured Trump that he himself was not under investigation, they seem to be relying on the fact that Comey and others did not "feel pressured" to subvert the investigation. There are fallacies with both elements of the GOP argument. The fact that Trump was not individually under investigation back in January and February does not preclude the possibility he could become a target as the investigation moved forward. But the point about officials not feeling pressured has absolutely nothing to do with the statute on obstruction of justice. To make an extreme analogy, let's say a Mafia boss tries to bribe a judge by telling him that he knows the judge has two kids in college and he can help defray their education costs. The judge may not feel any overt "pressure" and he could politely decline to be bribed. That does not mean the mob boss is not guilty of obstruction of justice.

In addition, the GOP is also spouting the line that Trump may not have intended to obstruct justice with his comments to Trump and others. This relies on an interpretation of Trump's mindset and seems to offer the defense that Trump didn't realize that his word could amount to obstruction. But that is hardly a defense at this point, simply because of the number and nature of Trump's efforts to thwart the investigation.

It's time for the media to call this exactly what this is and that is obstruction of justice. Nixon was charged with obstruction of justice and impeached for trying, and failing, to get the CIA to shut down the FBI's Watergate investigation. Trump has apparently done that and more. And even with all this mountain of evidence against Trump, Republicans continue to enable the cover-up.

And one last thought based on what we have learned about Trump over the last year and without any evidence to back this up. But Trump's obsession about the "salacious" Russian dossier and whether he himself was under investigation makes me believe that the dossier is largely true and that Trump himself was involved in collusion with the Russians.