DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Statement from former prosecutors on the Mueller Report Findings

Hundreds of former prosecutors say if the president were not protected by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against a sitting president would have been indicted on multiple felonies. The list is at 449 and growing.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
Go to the profile of DOJ Alumni Statement
DOJ Alumni Statement
May 6
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name below, click here. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

His day for prosecution will eventually come. In the meantime we’ll just have to vote his ass out of the WH. According to the present electoral, we’ll need a min of 3mil more votes than the GOPers tho. Vote vote vote.

Have you seen the economy and the unemployment numbers? You're not going to win.

With a normal presidency, you'd be correct. But there is nothing normal about this administration.

The people I hear from are absolutely ready to send this guy packing, and the numbers aren't even close. The only- and I mean only place he seems to have any popularity at all is here at DT/PP.

He knows it, too... which is why he acts as he does. It only seems to resonate with his base, and he's done absolutely nothing to add to his support in raw numbers.

Donks could still mess this up with a wrong candidate, but nobody who plays on Team Trump should be doing any premature victory laps.


.02

Keep believing this and he'll be annihilated in the election. I'm independent and vote both sides of the aisle, and no way would he get my vote. Every single independent I've talked to in the last year or so feels the same way. Admittedly many are in the Portland area which clearly leans left, but others are Ohio, Florida. Arizona, and others that are clearly more even or right leaning.

And If I had a dollar for every Republican friend that said they don't like the guy, I'd be able to pay for a heck of a good meal. This includes my dad, who my lifelong republican uncle says scares him he's so far right. I'm not sure how many of these folks will still vote R (likely most), but some will vote Libertarian or other parties.

Economy and unemployment are both good right now, and were heading that way with the previous president. But, I don't think they'll be the top issues driving people to vote. Healthcare is number one for me - and republicans have screwed the pooch there scores of times by now. Most middle class folks I know were impacted negatively by taxes and are not happy about the corporate welfare program the tax cuts made worse. Social injustice is a big topic, immigration, the environment, I can name a lot. Economy and unemployment will only take him so far, and those that think that'll lead to another 4 years - please keep thinking that way and the rest of us will be celebrating the end of the mess.

Curious to see how Bill Weld does in the GOPer primaries.

So why didn't Mueller make a decision on obstruction? He knew there was no collusion for at least a year...that date will come out if he testifies to Congress....gonna be interesting.

At a cost to our children and grandchildren of $2.5 Trillion and growing.

Anybody could grow the economy if they are willing to sell tomorrow for today. Only an idiot would actually do it and only fools would actually applaud him for it.

Just so I have this correct, they asked a bunch of PROSECUTORS and they determined he should be charged….very shocking revelation.


Now do the defense attorney’s…

You can ignore the very obvious if you want. smh

Ok - you tell me on what basis a prosecutor would look at a case and decide whether to prosecute or not.... thanks.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. All I said was now write an article after discussing it without a one sided slant. Prosecutors prosecute, it's not that deep.

Ahhh ... so you made a comment that meant nothing? Yes I see.

Yes - prosecutors, as the sole body of people who determine whether or not cases are prosecutable would seem to be a rather one sided - but also rather relevant - source of insight.

Next week, just for some balance, we'll ask the jockey club of America their opinion shall we?

Sure bud, Prosecutors, Defense attorneys and jockeys. You're making tons of apt correlations this morning. Well done.

And you are trying to stick you head int he sand and deflect as usual. Trying to suggested that an article about a subject - that has opinions by the only people in the USA who make decisions on that subject is somehow slanted... and as usual when someone points out the deflection you .... deflect some more. If you think defense attorney's view evidence or make decisions on whether a case is prossecutable you have some issues.

If you think an article written having asked only one side of a two sided coin is somehow an accurate representation of the case, you have issues. One side throws people in jail, one side keeps them out....yet we only heard from one side.....but you're all butthurt I mentioned it.

I think you have it wrong. Nobody asked them for anything, they came forward apparently on their own.

As for asking Defense attorney's, why? The statement is, he would have felony charges pressed against him... Has nothing to do with a Defense Attorney.

That comment by you is really grasping at straws

grasping at straws, you cannot see that I literally do not care one way or the other. A bunch of prosecutors came forward to say they would want to pursue charges.....of course they would they are prosecutors. All I said was now lets hear from defense as well.

It's a one sided story. That is literally my only point.

Try not to stare.

Here's the catch. Prosecutors make their name and reputation based on the percentage of cases they win. They don't simply bring cases to court willy nilly. You seem to be suggesting they are willing to bring forth anything they can any time they can. This simply isn't correct.

They bring forth cases they see as clearly winnable.

"Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond," Mitch McConnell said. "With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship, and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?"

McConnell said, "Regrettably, I think the answer is obvious."

Oh that sounds great. But these oversight committees have always existed and are separate from normal sessions of congress.

There is a legal obligation for congress to have oversight of the executive branch. It appears McConnell is suggesting congress ignore their constitutional duty.

jc

anytime these issues are at the forefront of politics, when it comes to today's GOP, i simply ask myself one question:

if this was obama, what and how would the GOP react?

It's funny how quickly they forget That McConnell said his top priority was to make Obama a one term president.

Now he's singing a different tune.

Except just because he says it's complete, doesn't mean it is.

He's not the end all be all

-Mitch McConnell, 2019



"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch McConnell, 2010



"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
-Mitch McConnell, 2016



"Regrettably, I think the answer is obvious."
That's because precedent was already set.... 9 years ago. Set by you.
You reap what you sew, Mitch.

Capitol Hill's #1 jackass
It figures that you'd be his #1 fan.

I agree with this 100%. And it goes both ways. I was just in the tariff thread.........and I had to ask myself, "If Obama had done this, the arguments for and against it would be exactly the same. Only thing that would change is what side people are on."

Is that you, Joe Scarsborough?

The dictator said "It's over", "Case closed"... and the sheep and ostriches agreed.

Sell tomorrow for today? The government has been doing this the past 100 years.

No clue who that even is.

edit: I'm wrong, I've heard of him, but needed wikipedia to help with that. Did he say the same thing?