Latest in Obstruction of justice
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on "Presidential Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power" at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday. The hearing will feature testimony from Corey Lewandowski, former Campaign Manager for Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign.
Shortly after the special counsel’s report was released, I wrote three posts on Lawfare criticizing Robert Mueller’s constitutional analysis.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler questioning the validity of the committee's investigation into, as the committee stated, "alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration." Cipollone stated that the White House "[does] not believe the investigation ...
An important debate is happening at Lawfare and elsewhere about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s application of the obstruction of justice statutes to conduct by President Trump. Jack Goldsmith argues that Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction statutes does not stand up to close scrutiny. Benjamin Wittes argues that it does.
I am far too good a lawyer—despite not being one at all—to take on Jack Goldsmith on a matter combining statutory interpretation, the presidency, and the historic positions of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) without a healthy dose of humility. So let me start by saying that I’m not saying Goldsmith’s critique of Mueller’s statutory analysis on obstruction of justice is wrong.
Someone on Twitter recently asked: “What is your most [fire emoji] take that absolutely infuriates people and you know deep down in your heart is 100% true”?
When it was finally unveiled, the structure of the Mueller report was consistent with what onlookers expected: As Attorney General William Barr promised, Special Counsel Robert Mueller put together one volume on possible conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russian government and another on obstruction.
On March 24, Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to Congress that summarized the “principal conclusions” of the report filed the previous week by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The criminality alleged in this story is—if true—unsubtle and unambiguous, directly related to the president’s conduct as president and concerning matters of great import.
Between Friday’s New York Times story and other earlier material, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation.