Teri Kanefield @Teri_Kanefield Author, lawyer (U.C. Berkeley). My threads are here: t.co/vdLoEAoLvv My author website is here: t.co/X4y6m8tRP9 May. 19, 2019 3 min read

(Thread)

Dear @senatorromney

You say you “reached a different conclusion” than Justin Amash and the Mueller Report doesn’t establish that Trump obstructed justice.
 https://www.newsweek.com/mitt-romney-calls-rep-amashs-trump-impeachment-courageous-doesnt-support-1429775 

Perhaps we should look at the report together to determine if you are correct, or . . .

1/ . . if you you telling a politically expedient lie.

As you know, we begin with the elements of obstruction of justice, which are:

💠an obstructive act
💠a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding
💠a corrupt intent.

2/ How about if we focus just on the facts given in vol. II, p. 113-120.

To summarize:

💠According to McGahn’s memory, in June of 2017, Trump ordered him to fire Mueller;
💠McGahn refused;
💠January 2018, the media reported the story;

3/

💠Trump, through his personal lawyer and two aides, “sought to have McGahn deny” the story and create a false record;
💠McGahn refused because the story was true and he wouldn’t lie.

Trump, in media interviews, denied that he had tried to fire Mueller.

4/ Mueller looked at all the evidence and concluded that “the weight of the evidence” is against Trump.

[Straight talk: Mueller concluded Trump was lying.]

Evidence includes multiple witnesses (who testified under oath) and contemporaneous notes and records.

5/ There you have it: The facts meet Element 1.

Element 2 is a nexus.

To establish a nexus, the prosecution must show that Trump’s actions would tend to hinder, delay, or prevent communication of information to investigators.

6/ Here's the evidence Mueller examined to determine Element 2:

💠Trump knew Special Counsel was investigating obstruction-related events, and that the investigation wasn’t complete;
💠McGahn changing his story would undercut McGahn’s “credibility as a potential” witness;

7/

💠Trump specifically wanted McGahn to produce a written document: Trump wasn’t simply engaging in a media strategy or he would have given an interview denying the story.
💠Instead he specifically asked McGahn to write a letter “for our records” 10 days after the stories ran.

8/ Thus Mueller concludes the answer to Element 2 is yes.

Here's the evidence Mueller used to analyze Element 3:

💠Trump had “laid the groundwork” for “pressing McGahn to alter his story” by telling others that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he didn’t deny the story.

9/

💠Trump’s statements to witnesses reflect his understanding that the events of the past summer (when he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller) would be part of an obstruction of justice inquiry.

10/ Mueller thus concluded that Trump “acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of his “conduct toward the investigation.”

Look at that, @SenatorRomney
Mueller has evidence to establish all three elements.

11/ I’ve already done the analysis here:
On May 6th hundreds of former prosecutors signed a letter saying they would have charged a defendant with obstruction on these facts.
 https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-20190506-story.html 

12/ It would be very helpful, @SenatorRomney, if you showed your own analysis and explained which of the three elements haven't been met, and why.

Specifically, you should tell us which part of Mueller's analysis on pages 113-120 you find fault with.

13/ Otherwise, we really have no choice but to conclude that you are telling a politically expedient lie.

This particularly lie isn’t just any lie. It's a lie that endangers the Constitution and the republic because you—an elected senator—are shielding a lawbreaking president.

14/ The Report explains that obstruction doesn’t have to succeed for it to be obstruction. (v.II 11-12) This makes sense, right? If it succeeds, there won’t be any charges. Kind of like: Treason never prospers, and what is the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason.

15/ It seems you thought you could avoid a constitutional crisis by exonerating the president, as per this tweet:

In fact, you are creating a constitutional crisis by undermining the document itself.

16/ Just yesterday, I listed 7 reasons the GOP is corruptly shielding a lawbreaking president.

Which is your reason, @SenatorRomney ?

17/ Perhaps you are afraid of angering Trump’s base, knowing that without Trump's ardent supporters, it will be impossible to put together a national coalition should you run for president.

Perhaps you are afraid of Trump.

Or, perhaps, you are afraid of the truth.

end/

All of my threads are blog posts. You can view this one here:  https://terikanefield-blog.com/dear-senator-romney/ 

(You can also check out my thread archives. There's a search function and categories)


You can follow @Teri_Kanefield.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.