Skip to main content

President Trump Didn't Obstruct Justice

On Saturday, it was revealed that Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor in the probe of Team Trump-Russia communications, extensively interviewed Don McGahn, the White House counsel, on matters related to obstruction of justice. This occurred with the support of the president, who said that he "allowed [McGahn] and all others to testify" even though he "didn’t have to."

Bob Mueller

The New York Times reported that McGahn "provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer," making it clear that the Mueller is weaning off of his investigation into foreign ties and instead focusing on nailing President Trump with obstruction-of-justice charges.

The issue with this, of course, is the evidence shows that Trump didn't obstruct justice, and the arguments that form this case are easily refuted.

For example, the Times cited the ouster of FBI Director James Comey, the president's insistence that the attorney general withdraw his recusal, and the president's aborted (alleged) attempts to fire the special counsel as components in his broader effort to obstruct justice. Other sources point to the allegation that the president attempted to push Comey away from investigating decorated Lt. General Michael Flynn, a Democrat who served with valor in both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller victim

First off, James Comey was not fired because of his role in the Russia investigation: He was deposed because of his obvious mismanagement of the Clinton investigation, which yielded no charges against the former secretary of State despite 31,830 deleted emails (erased permanently with BleachBit) and perjurious statements.

The level at which Comey mismanaged the FBI has become even clearer in the past year, with Inspector General Michael Horowitz finding that by "departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, [Comey's] decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."

Therefore, it is abundantly obvious that Comey's firing doesn't play into a case against the president. Comey didn't act as an impartial investigator, and he botched the execution of the Clinton investigation along with the rollout of its findings. His firing was not only justified; it was the only option for a president who seeks to "drain the swamp."

James Comey

After being removed, Comey -- who has insisted that there was no obstruction and no presidential attempt to shutter the Russia investigation -- made the accusation that Trump encouraged him to drop his investigation of Lt. General Flynn.

In a memo, Comey said that Trump said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go." The imperative word is hope, making it clear that Trump's encouragement is not equivalent to an order, which would be a basic requirement for showing corrupt intent. Better yet, Comey hasn't make the accusation that his ouster was in response to this conversation.

Despite the fact that it wouldn't be incriminating for Trump, the conversation that Comey alleges occurred might have never happened. Comey has no recording of this alleged chat, and Trump lawyer Rudy Guiliani disputed his account, saying,

There was no conversation about Michael Flynn. The president didn't find out that Comey believed there was until about, I think, it was February when it supposedly took place. Memo came out in May. And in between, Comey testified under oath, in no way had he been obstructed at any time.

So, there is scant evidence to back up Comey's claims that Trump requested leniency for Flynn. His statements cannot be trusted blindly, especially considering that he bragged about his wife and daughters voting for Clinton and attending Women's March. In addition, Comey endorsed the Democratic Party's bid to seize Congress this November.

Better yet, even if Trump did in fact express that he didn't seek for Comey to continue investigating Flynn, it wouldn't equate to obstruction of justice.


Secondly, Trump's insistences that new individuals take up the investigation aren't obstruction; they're a response to the corruption that existed -- and persists -- in the FBI and Mueller investigations into the presidential campaign's ties with Russia.

For example, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division Peter Strzok exchanged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, in which he personally attacked Trump and said that he would make sure that he would never take office, apparently implying that he would abuse his investigatory powers to block an incoming president from taking the oath.

Comey hadn't dealt with the Strzok situation, just as he turned a blind eye to the crimes of Hillary Clinton and allowed her to walk free thanks to special treatment.

Peter Strzok

The FBI is a bias-free paradise compared to the Mueller probe, however. The special counsel's 17-member team consists of 13 Democrats, nine of whom have made a total of $57,000 in contributions to Democrats. Worse yet, six of them donated to Hillary Clinton.

Setting aside the special counsel (who is ostensibly a Republican, having registered with the party seventeen years ago), there is not one Republican on the prosecutorial team. The four non-Democrats "had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found," according to The Washington Post.

The epitome of the Mueller team bias is Andrew Weissmann, who publicly opposed Trump immigration policies and "attended Hillary Clinton’s election-night party at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York," per The Wall Street Journal.

Therefore, it is no secret that Trump would want to do without such an inherently biased investigation. Allowing the attorney general to retake the mantle of the investigation (as opposed to Rod Rosenstein, who has obstructed Congress' inquiries into the merits of the investigation) would only slightly alter the balance of the investigation, which currently leans sharply to the Democratic Party.

As a result, Trump's insistence that Sessions, who had no real reason for recusal, exercise his authority over the investigation is not wrong; it is only in the basic interest of fairness to him, his campaign, and to his administration.

Heck, if the president was actually intending to obstruct the investigation into the Russia ties, he could have done better than incumbent FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has taken a hint from Rosenstein and stonewalled Congress' request for documents pertaining to the rampant investigatorial bias.


The current state of affairs is grim, with the special counsel's investigation running amok with no end in sight. Having not identified any evidence of the alleged collusion between Team Trump and the Kremlin, Mueller is compiling a meritless report charging that the president obstructed justice.

This is right down the vein of Ken Starr, who in 1994 was tasked with investigating Bill Clinton's connection to the Whitewater scheme in Arkansas. He didn't finalize his investigation until 1998, and after the smoke cleared, he had uncovered only perjury -- a procedural crime -- and obstruction of justice, which came from the fact that Clinton misled witnesses that would be testifying before the grand jury, intending to get them to lie for him under oath.

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but he wasn't convicted by the Senate, allowing him to stay in office.

Bill Clinton

In the sense that Clinton's crimes, which didn't come from an exercise of executive powers but instead from the civilian action of lying under oath and pushing others to do the same, Ken Starr's case that the president obstructed justice is far stronger than the case currently being developed by Mueller.

The case against Trump, as I have explained, is incredibly weak and hinges on the use of legitimate executive authority: Seeking to fire a corrupt special counsel (and not even doing it), firing an FBI director who majorly botched a politically-charged investigation, and allegedly hoping for the resolution of the Flynn case represents nothing close to obstruction of justice.

As a result, it is my belief that the special counsel should briskly issue a report and disband his investigation, which has yielded no results and cost the public millions of dollars. This view is shared by wide majorities of Americans. The Hill reported on this, stating,

Majorities in both parties want special counsel Robert Mueller to conclude his investigation into Russia's attempted election interference before the midterm elections in November, according to a CNN poll.

The special counsel has carried on the charade long enough. He has less credibility than Ken Starr, who went on for four years before presenting charges that mustered 45 and 50 votes for conviction on perjury and obstruction charges, respectively, in the Senate, where 67 votes are required.