Should Republicans stop blocking the Chumph Impeachment, or the 2018 Election, whichever comes first – there appear to be at least 4 Cases, if not 5 upon which the Chumph will be prosecuted.
The easiest one of those to make as a primary cause and case for impeachment, is Obstruction of Justice. The other crimes are hidden behind requiring information which is still classified, information from grand jury testimony, and information not available to the public gathered by Robert Mueller’s prosecutors.
There appears to be evidence upon which to charge the Chumph with these crimes –
- Money Laundering,
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Obstruction of Justice
- and possibly, a number of cases of Malfeasance in Office
It is unknown at this point what evidence, or what charges (if any) Mueller will pursue. But the case for impeachment, based on obstruction of justice has been laid out just using publically available information. The guys who did this are heavyweights –
Barry H. Berke is co-chair of the litigation department at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
(Kramer Levin) and a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He has represented
public officials, professionals and other clients in matters involving all aspects of white-collar
crime, including obstruction of justice. Noah Bookbinder is the Executive Director of Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Previously, Noah has served as Chief
Counsel for Criminal Justice for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and as a
corruption prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section.
Ambassador (ret.) Norman L. Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief
White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and before that, defended obstruction and other
criminal cases for almost two decades in a D.C. law firm specializing in white-collar matters. He
is the chair and co-founder of CREW.
From their introduction of a case developed for Brookings Institute –
There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI Director James Comey. There is also a question as to whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice with senior members of his administration although the public facts regarding conspiracy are less well developed.Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the extent conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too
may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges. While those defending the president may claim that expressing a “hope” that an investigation will end is too vague to constitute obstruction, we show that such language is sufficient to do so. In that regard, it is material that former FBI Director James Comey interpreted the president’s “hope” that he would drop the investigation into Flynn as an instruction to drop the case. That Comey ignored that instruction is beside the point under applicable law. We also note that potentially misleading conduct and possible cover-up attempts could serve as further evidence of obstruction. Here, such actions may include fabricating an initial justification for firing Comey, directing Donald Trump Jr.’s inaccurate statements about the purpose of his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the president’s campaign, tweeting that Comey “better hope there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations,” despite having
“no idea” whether such tapes existed, and repeatedly denouncing the validity of the investigations…