by Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder, and Norman L. Eisen
***For example, if the president accepted a large bribe from a mobster to fire the F.B.I. director investigating him, the president clearly could be prosecuted for bribery. The same is true here. If the president sought protection from Mr. Sessions for wrongdoing, made similar loyalty demands on Mr. Comey, fired him when he would not comply and sought to cover up the truth about it all, that is obstruction of justice, pure and simple.
That is not, however, to say that the case has become a slam dunk, even if all the new reporting proves accurate. While the president’s legal powers are not an absolute bar to prosecution (despite the claims of his defenders), they do go to his intent. If he and his lawyers can persuade Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump was simply exercising his authority to terminate an employee with good reason and no corrupt intent, then he may well escape further proceedings.
That question cannot, of course, be finally resolved until Mr. Mueller and the president meet face to face, so that Mr. Mueller can hear his story and judge his credibility. We are presumably getting close to the point where the president himself is going to have to formally answer questions about his conduct and state of mind put directly to him by the special counsel. A refusal to do so would be damning, particularly following the new revelations.
The problem for the president is that sitting for such an interview may be equally damning. It is hard to see how he will explain away all the accumulated evidence of obstruction. Lying would expose him to possible prosecution for false statements or other offenses, so his usual expedient of bending the truth is not available. Then there is the most devastating problem of all: The president no longer seems to be able to distinguish between truth and fiction. Even if he appears to be attempting to tell the truth, how can Mr. Mueller believe a word he says?
No comments:
Post a Comment