First, regardless of whether or not you agree with him, Foxi didn't address my latest points, but I don't want to talk about him if he has dropped the conversation. That wouldn't be fair.
As for the McGahn situation, which I want to talk about since it's one of the Big Four, Trump did criminally obstruct justice. To address your first point though, just because a person acts within one's authority doesn't mean it can't be criminal obstruction of justice. A president can pardon a person for just about any reason he/she chooses, for example, but one cannot legally use a pardon as an obstructive act. I hope that makes sense.
With that out of the way, going back to McGahn, it was an obstructive act and fills all three of the criteria:
- Obstructive act: Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel. You made some good points about whom it is or isn't okay to lie to (legally), but it's criminal obstruction if "it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said." In other words, Trump ordered McGahn to publicly contradict what he has already testified to government officials, which undermines his credibility. There is a lot of legal precedent for that being criminal obstruction of justice. Hypothetically, let's say someone testified against you to a grand jury because you're a mobster. You forcing that person to retract his or her testimony in a press conference is still obstruction of justice, even if the public retraction isn't to the grand jury itself. Criminal witness tampering on your part, for example, does not require that you have the witness perjure himself or herself. You are correct that it's generally legal to lie to the media, similar to how it's generally legal to pardon someone, but not if they obstruct justice. According to the Mueller report, the preponderance of evidence suggests this all to be the case, so we have an obstructive act.
- Nexus: From the report, "The President knew that McGahn had personal knowledge of many of the events the Special Counsel was investigating and that McGahn had already been interviewed by Special Counsel investigators. And in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel's Office about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President's awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it." In other words, Trump obstructed the criminal investigation he knew McGahn gave testimony to.
- Intent: The Muller report speaks for itself when it says, "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 further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."
Last edited by Lacius,
