Posts tagged with "Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings would have produced obstruction charges if Trump weren’t in office as president"

Over 700 former federal prosecutors sign statement asserting that Trump obstructed justice

May 10, 2019

More than 720 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against Donald Trump—if he weren’t currently president.

The DOJ Alumni Statement is the product of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit “with an urgent mission: to prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government.”

The statement—signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees—offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William Barr’s determination, written in a four-page summary to Congress, that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime, The Washington Post reported on May 6.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged—citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding, the news outlet said.

“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 former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here ….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.”

The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it—720 as of May 7—and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next, the Post noted.

Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is challenging Trump for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration; John Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Ken Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

Weld told the DC-based newspaper that, by the time he reviewed the statement, it already had more than 100 signatures, and he affixed his name because he had concluded the evidence “goes well beyond what is required to support criminal charges of obstruction of justice.”

Research contact: @protctdemocracy