Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
THREAD: Do the revelations in today’s @nytimes article, including Trump’s order to his White House Counsel to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself, aid Mueller’s investigation of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Definitely.)
1/ Today @nytmike of @nytimes published this article discussing Trump’s efforts to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and how his decision to fire @Comey came about.
2/ The article indicates that at Trump’s orders, White House Counsel Don McGahn tried to convince Sessions not to recuse himself. This is very unusual. Lawyers recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest or an appearance that they couldn’t be fair.
3/ Why did Trump care so much about whether Sessions recused himself? According to the article, Trump said that he wanted Sessions to “safeguard” him, as he believed other Attorney Generals had done.
4/ This is really important because Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with “corrupt” intent. In other words, by acting with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation.
5/ To prove someone’s intent, prosecutors often ask jurors to make inferences from what the person said or did because we don’t have a magical telescope that can look inside their brain.
6/ Trump’s statements about Sessions’ recusal can raise an inference that Trump wanted Sessions to impede or stop the Russia investigation. Mueller could argue that this suggests that Trump had the same intent when he fired Comey.
7/ None of Trump’s conversations with McGahn are privileged, and I expect Mueller asked him tough questions about why he followed Trump’s order. Even if Trump could argue that he didn’t understand recusal, McGahn certainly did and knew that Trump’s request was unethical.
8/ McGahn’s actions are in stark contrast with another White House lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, who withheld information from Trump about whether he could fire Comey in an attempt to prevent him from doing so. As the article notes, that is highly unusual.
9/ It is unethical for a lawyer not to counsel a client regarding his legal options or to mislead a client about his options. Dhillon’s decision to do so in this instance suggests he was deeply concerned about Trump’s desire to fire Comey.
10/ Dhillon could testify about his concern, and more importantly, about the facts that prompted his concern. The article doesn’t fully discuss what Dhillon saw and heard, but Mueller could ask him. Dhillon’s testimony could be very important.
11/ It’s worth noting that if Dhillon thought Trump was obstructing justice, the proper course for him to take would have been to inform Trump that firing Comey could be a crime.
12/ Today’s article also notes that the first sentence of the original letter firing Comey, which Trump asked Stephen Miller to write, mentioned Trump’s claim that the Russia investigation was “fabricated and politically motivated.”
13/ That also suggests that the Russia investigation was Trump’s motivation for the firing, which he famously admitted to Lester Holt in an interview after initially claiming otherwise.
14/ The Times article also notes that after Comey’s firing, a Sessions aide looked for dirt on Comey, which the Justice Department now denies. That is interesting because it could show Sessions’ involvement in an attempt to discredit a witness against Trump.
15/ That would be highly improper, given that Sessions is the head of the agency conducting the investigation and recused himself from the investigation.
16/ Overall, the main conclusion to draw from this article is that the Trump’s statements to McGahn strengthen the obstruction case against Trump, and Dhillon could be an important witness for Mueller. /end